To What Extent Has the Nature of State Sovereignty Changed in the Post-Cold War Era - Essay Example

Your Instructor’s Name Your Course Date To What Extent Has the Nature of State Sovereignty Changed in The Post-Cold War Era? Has This Change Been Positive or Negative? Russia has been an influential country since earlier time; hence studying its development also becomes essential. What we know of Russia today has been primarily separated as pre-Cold war and post-cold war era. While discussing about the cold war, it is not just Russia that gathers our attention but in fact, the war brings our attention to the change in the state sovereignty as well. The cold war marked a beginning for a new definition of state sovereignty. Through the discussion here, we will follow the change that was brought about and its previous meanings closely. We shall gather our knowledge through various sources and will try to come to a conclusion about the effect the cold war had-negative or positive. Before discussing about the change in state sovereignty let us first try to find and define the meaning of sovereignty. Sovereignty is the supreme power or authority, reads the Oxford dictionary. That definition only partially accommodates what sovereignty holds at present time. Sovereignty is same as the power to control one’s property; here we talk about a territory. “Sovereignty signifies simultaneously a right to act and a power to act.” Sovereignty is no longer limited to a government but since the end of 18th century sovereignty of people has also been given due importance. The post-cold war era refers to post-1990 and 1991. Cold war was the race for power between two giant, the US and the USSR. The end of the cold war signified the end of that race and in like any other race there was a winner too. The winner was the US though many would not like to see the war in that perspective but that is a bitter truth. The war continued for 50 years, during that time though there were not many losses (if any) in terms of life but the war was a sort of strangulation for the world with politics coming to the foreplay. The end of the war demarked a significant change in the geography as well as politics (or sovereignty) in Russia and other regions. Post-cold war the nature of state sovereignty has changed a lot and in the new scenario, it is globalisation and capitalism defining the world. The positive effect of the change will remain the change in hegemony. Pre-cold war there was an accumulation of capitalism and sources in a particular country. It was Britain earlier and then the US subsequently. Besides these two super powers, the USSR with its financial and territorial expansion plans divided the world into two forums. One that supported the communism and the rise of USSR and the other that remained loyal to the hegemony. Post-cold war things changed with not just small states acquiring a newfound power but also the world being left to freely trade as the hegemonic powers of the US and the USSR had been crushed. The powers of US as a hegemony had been crushed in the sense that it could never be trusted again as the provider and the sole superpower that should control the world in wake of its defying the laws of Westphalia sovereignty. On the other hand, USSR could not become what it wanted to as its existence vanished. Through my previous discussion, one would get the sweetest idea of post-cold war era; however, the reality is not all that sweet. However, the state sovereignty changed from its hegemonic nature but can one truly take it to be so? What I mean is that if US is no longer hegemony why do we need to suffer with the rising oil prices just because dollar has gone down? When we decide that oil should be best marked through a dollar and not through some other globally accepted value that would not allow the consumers to feel the low with the low felt by US economy, then we indirectly (or maybe directly) point to the superpower nature of the US. Maybe the US is not able to control things as it used to before but it is still capable of a lot since the main threat to its position, the USSR, was eliminated with the elimination of cold war. The other argument to the sovereignty change is that the change embarked the dawn of globalisation and capitalism. Both in turn have positive as well as negative effect. Globalisation and capitalism are two sides of the same coin. When we talk about globalisation and capitalism, we refer to the growing financial interdependency by different parts of the world. Capitalism should never be mistaken for economic and financial concerns of a state; instead, the military machine exchanges shall also form a part of it. No state cuts out its military expenses and gains when talking about its GDP. When a country decided to buy machinery from the US then it is sheer capitalist in nature. Countries with advanced machineries gain through it and in turn, others gain through their rich textile industry or agriculture. This interdependency might sound like a positive influence of post –cold war change, and to some extent it sure is, but at the same time, it has also caused a change in the meaning of sovereignty and to a certain extent the abolishment of sovereignty itself. When I say abolishment of sovereignty, what I mean is that capitalism masks the role of sovereignty in general. Consider the case of Pakistan that has been left to nowhere after it looked up to US for support. The fact is that the interdependency also causes states to be bound follow what its provider says. When India decided to follow the nuclear pact with the US it also got bound to follow US policy which came out clear when it decided to not support its long partner Iran. Thus, there is gradually a fading role of sovereignty with rise in capitalism and globalisation. The other trend to note is that this interdependency is not always very successful. Look how a US recession led to a world recession. This indicates two harms of the change in sovereignty post-cold war: The world has not completely moved on from its days of hegemony in the pre-cold war era as the US controls many changes in the world. The interdependency instead of relieving a state from burden might end up being a burden instead as is the case with the recession. Having said that the world has left hegemony to a certain extent and has adopted democracy and sovereignty, if we closely analyse the condition today we might see a reversal to the old days. It is certain that just post-cold war, there were changes that everybody looked forward to bringing a new dawn for the society but does the dawn seem to be approaching today? Maybe it was the beginning of dusk that we mistook for dawn. The whole world denounced America’s stance towards Iraq and it is interesting to see that in doing that while the rest of the world upheld the Westphalia sovereignty, the Us (which still seeks to preserve its hegemony) not just violated the rules but in a way set a precedent for the next superpower about the hypocrisy of rules and laws. The incident showed that despite our steps to come to terms with the changing meaning of state sovereignty, we are ostensibly living a lie where the US still possesses its hegemony and hence acts like the Sovereign rather than accepting other sovereignties. If we analyse the present scenario, it undoubtedly shall form a post-cold war era, then the US recession and rising of China, India suggest that in fact sovereignty has been a term and a means to be used for its own benefit. When China decides that Tibet is its internal issue, it is defending its sovereignty and when the world condemns its attitude we unwittingly (though correctly) go against the rules. Kashmir is again an issue that India does not want to discuss with other countries, so when the US President-elect, Barack Obama, decides to take a greater role in resolving the issue one should sympathize with India if it raises its eyebrows, after all its sovereignty is being attacked. Or is it? I mean if Kashmiris want a different country for themselves then is not their sovereignty being attacked by India as well. Was this the change that we wanted to see post-cold war? The problem is that the word in fact has never been clear, does it mean a supreme political authority or a state’s individual power in domestic concerns. Further we never wanted any state to be the supreme power holder but what the US is today does not seem to be justifying that either. Then the concerns of colonies has not been properly addressed either. Iraq was almost like a colony in US’s deceptive attempt to save the world from nuclear apartheid. The way things are in Africa, one should never be in the misunderstanding that sovereignty has led the world to the right path. People in Darfur are suffering just because Arabs think that they are not to be treated humanly. Does the sovereignty rule hold there? In fact, shall we distance ourselves from the concern in name of sovereignty? The last question leads us to another fault (maybe for good) that undermines the position of sovereignty today. We have already seen the effect of globalisation and capitalism on sovereignty; here we talk about the globalisation of human rights that have affected sovereignty. Post-cold war it is not just Westphalian sovereignty that people have tried to uphold but with increasing awareness, the need to address human rights has increased. “Human rights have become globalized, and no state can justify violating those rights by saying “this is our internal concern”.”1 This increasing awareness has been playing a crucial role in the changing meaning of sovereignty. The reason Tibet issue is being played around the world is because of its humanity concerns. The two-sovereignty and human rights- are going through a conflict and that has shadowed the meaning and the role of sovereignty. “To put it differently, the legitimacy of state sovereignty—both as a commanding value and as the organizing principle of international relations—is being challenged by the cluster of values we associate with human rights.”2 In the above context, what are we supposed to see the state of sovereignty as? The problem is that we never had the clear definition of sovereignty and as said earlier, the word has been used by various states for their personal benefits time and again and this leaves us with the sense of disgust and betrayal for we are never provided what the superpowers claim to provide. In a sense, even our individual state sovereigns forget their duties and accept only the power the 1sovereignty brings along with it. Our topic indulges us into discussing whether the change was positive or negative. However, does it always have to be simple black and white? There have been changes in the post-cold war era in the state sovereignty, but can we simplify them as being positive or negative? If the current status of China is taken into consideration, then is it not entering into the prestigious forum of being a superpower and whatever be the talks of sovereignty, in a way it will also seek to being a hegemony. While a part of the world is entering into being the next hegemony, a previous hegemony is seeing a tremendous change in its society with a better respect towards the Westphelian sovereignty-the UK. Can we then really conclude as the change being entirely positive or negative? In a way, the post-cold war change in state sovereignty led the path for greater acceptance of human rights, which in turn is now changing the face of sovereignty. What should one call it a positive or negative effect? The globalisation, transfer of capitals and human rights awareness have been a positive effect for world as this implies a better living conditions for us. However, they have brought a change in state sovereignty that in fact is negative to the term itself. In being negative to the rules of the term, it also complicates the situation. If Tibetans are suffering, their suffering has been globalised which in turn generates a global uproar. This in turn goes against the rules of sovereignty according to China, which in order to save its sovereignty hardens its stance, thus the situation gets more complicated as states are yet to find a common thread between the globalisation, human rights, capitalism and sovereignty. In a way, though they all are inter twined but we are yet to find a sequence to the terms to bring the change to have a complete positive effect. Through the above discussion, one can conclude that the post-cold war change on sovereignty has generally been negative with sovereignty losing its basis and its meaning. On the other hand, though sovereignty has been losing its meaning in its rigorous sense but that has only been helping the world in general in shedding the rules attached to sovereignty for good. This will help in evolution of a new and better meaning of sovereignty that will be holistic in its approach. We can conclude that the post-cold war phenomenon of change in state sovereignty is not yet over and there are many developments yet to happen that will not just help in our understanding of sovereignty but will also satisfy people in its role. Works Cited Arrighi, Giovanni (1982). "A Crisis of Hegemony." In S. Amin, G. Arrighi, A.G. Frank and I. Wallerstein, Dynamics of Global Crisis, 55-108. New York: Monthly Review Press. Halliday, Fred (1983). The Making of the Second Cold War. London: Verso. Helleiner, Eric (1997). "A Challenge to the Sovereign State? Financial Globalization and the Westphalian World Order." Paper presented at the Conference on "States and Sovereignty in the World Economy,” University of California, Irvine, Feb. 21-23. Krasner, Stephen (1997). "Sovereignty and its Discontents.” Paper presented at the Conference on "States and Sovereignty in the World Economy”, University of California, Irvine, Feb. 21-23. Sassen, Saskia (1996). Losing Control? Sovereignty in an Age of Globalization. New York: Columbia University Press. Smith, Michael J. “Sovereignty, Human Rights, and Legitimacy in the Post-Cold War World.” 28 Nov 2008. Wallerstein, Immanuel (1997). "States? Sovereignty? The Dilemma of Capitalists in an Age of Transition.” Paper presented at the Conference on "States and Sovereignty in the World Economy”, University of California, Irvine, Feb. 21-23 . Read More