Migration, Identity and Sovereignty
A selection of answers to the essays previously set by Edexcel.
Evaluate this statement:
‘In a globalizing world, national sovereignty becomes less important’. (20)
Sovereignty is defined as the ability of a place and its people to self-govern without any outside interference. Some would argue that as globalisation has increased, especially economic globalisation, then the degree to which individual countries can totally control their own governance has reduced, and so sovereignty is indeed less important.
Globalisation has reduced the decision-making power of national governments, especially in terms of their economic policies. This is because nation states are bound by international agreements over trade and capital flows. In North America, the North American Free Trade Association (NAFTA) has made the country of Mexico much more dependent on manufacturing goods and selling them to the USA and Canada. Mexico’s economic sovereignty is now closely aligned to that of the USA and Canada. When President Trump was in power, he changed this treaty as he felt it actually disadvantaged the USA, as jobs had been transferred to Mexico where wages were much lower. He argued that the USA’s own sovereignty had diminished under the agreement and he renegotiated it, and it is now called the USMCA. One of his political mantras was ‘America First’ – an indication of a perceived loss of sovereignty due to globalization and a desire to increase it.
For the European Union countries, many people in southern and western Europe have argued that increased labour migration, especially that of refugees and asylum seekers from Syria and north Africa have impacted negatively on national sovereignty. This caused a lot of political disagreement during the Brexit debate here in Britain, largely over perceived loss of sovereignty, but a similar debate has taken place in southern Italy where many of the migrants first landed on their journey across the Mediterranean.
There has been a significant growth of tax-haven states as a direct result of globalization. These countries and places may see an increasing level of importance of their ‘sovereignty’ with secrecy over their banking and legal arrangements. Even with the British Isles, the islands of Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man are very protective of their special status. The latter operates almost as a separate country, with its own tax and civil laws.
From the point of view of TNCs, national sovereignty is certainly less important – they may regard it as an obstacle when national governments intrude on their operations. TNCs, such as Nissan, like to operate within Global Production Networks where the strategic management of their just-in-time systems is far more important that individual national rules. Similarly, the entertainment giant TNC Netflix now operates across the world making available a huge range of programmes made in a large variety of countries. Many of these are in English, the language of globalization, and even those which are not, are dubbed into English as well as many other languages. Subscribers can choose whether to be ‘global’ or not, but the fact that they can access these programmes perhaps reduces their concept of a national identity?
In conclusion, it is the case that globalization as a process does reduce the importance of national sovereignty. However, individual countries and perhaps moreso their leaders, for example Presidents Putin of Russia and Erdogan of Turkey do perceive this to be a threat to their national identity and seek to counteract it.
Evaluate the view that national identity is easier to define for some countries than for others. (20)
It can be suggested that national identity is easily defined for some countries in comparison to others. This can be viewed when comparing countries such as France, Nigeria, China and North Korea with countries such as the UK, Singapore and the USA.
In France under local content law, it is required that over 40% of all media output must be in French. The French government is extremely protective of both the French culture and the French language. They subsidise French filmmakers when their productions are in the French language and the French language is also heavily promoted on the radio stations.
China is also extremely protective of its national identity. This can be seen by how China limit contact with the rest of the world. China has a quota allowing only 34 foreign films into the country per year whilst ‘the Great Firewall of China’ prevents much outside internet influence such as the fact that there is no BBC World television channel, which is seen in most other countries around the world, or access to Facebook here. As such outside influence is limited in China, whilst the French culture is heavily promoted and protected, it can also be viewed that it is easier for these countries to define their national identity.
However, in Britain, many global TNCs are present. Many companies which are viewed as stereotypically ‘British’ which help to define Britain’s national identity are in fact foreign-owned. For example, ASDA is owned by the American corporate giant Wal-Mart, Cadburys is owned by the US Kraft and even the National Lottery is owned by a Canadian firm. Many of the football teams in the Premier League have foreign owners: Manchester City is owned by a family in Abu Dhabi, and both Liverpool and Manchester United are owned by wealthy Americans. In this way, it can be viewed that in Britain, it is much more difficult to define national identity owing to these factors.
North Korea is totally against any form of globalisation and prevents any emigration. This state has been ruled as an autocracy, by one family, for 70 years, there is no access to the internet for ordinary citizens and no-one is usually allowed to leave the country without special military permission. In this way, the people of North Korea could quite easily define their national identity.
Singapore has extremely liberal migration policies which have led to much international migration both in and out of their state. Singapore is one of the world’s most ethnically diverse countries and can be described as multicultural (much like the UK). In this sense, it can be viewed that it may be quite hard for the people of Singapore to define their national identity due to such diversity. However, its strict legal framework for all its inhabitants does provide some form of ‘identity’.
The USA is another example of a place that is extremely diverse with a long history of immigration and emigration (much like the UK and Singapore) which makes it extremely diverse. Therefore, it can be viewed that it would be extremely difficult for the USA to define its national identity. President Trump tried to create such an identity with his America First philosophy, but many criticized this for being largely a White America First policy.
Overall, given how difficult it is for the UK, Singapore and the USA to define national identity compared to how it is much easier for China, North Korea and France to define theirs, it is indeed true that it can be much easier for some countries to define their national identity compared to others.
Evaluate the view that international global organisations (IGOs) have been largely ineffective in managing environmental challenges. (20)
IGOs exist for a variety of reasons. Some are political such as the United Nations, others are based around military matters such as NATO, some are economic such as the World Bank, and finally some exist to manage environmental concerns such as those associated with climate change and Antarctica.
Regarding climate change, the most powerful is the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). It was first established in 1988, and since then has held regular meetings and produced several Assessment Reports (AR1-5) to address the issue of climate change. One of its major and most significant interventions to mitigate climate change has been international agreements. In the 1997 Kyoto Protocol many developed countries agreed to legally binding reductions in their CO2 emissions. The aim was to bring about a 5% cut in global GHG emissions from the 1990 levels by 2008–2012. However, the USA refused to sign the treaty because President Bush believed it would be harmful to the USA economy. Another flaw in the treaty was that when it was signed, China wasn’t seen as a global industrialised nation and therefore wasn’t required to reduce its carbon emissions even though now it is at the forefront of greenhouse gas output.
The IPCCs Paris Climate Convention (COP21) ended with an agreement to reduce global CO2 emissions to below 60% of 2010 levels and to restrict global warming to a 2°C increase with efforts made to limit the increase to 1.5°C. It was agreed that developed countries will transfer substantial funds and technologies to assist developing countries to achieve their targets. However, many of the outcomes are set in the future. GHG emissions will be allowed to rise for now, with sequestration aimed for later this century to keep within scientifically determined GHG limits. Critics of the COP21 process argued that countries were allowed to set their own targets, rather than making them agree to targets that might achieve the reductions needed to avoid climate change.
A number of IGOs exist to protect the environment around Antarctica, and most are linked to the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS). All the fisheries here are now regulated through the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) which came into existence in 1982. Much work is being undertaken here seems to be effective so far especially that based on the place of krill in the ecology of the area. A Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty (known as the Madrid Protocol) was also signed in 1991. The Madrid Protocol bans all mineral resource activities in Antarctica (other than for scientific research). The ban can be revisited in 2048, although some countries (e.g. USA, Russia and China) have stated that they want to revisit the ban sooner.
Other ATS objectives are simple yet unique in international relations. They are to demilitarise Antarctica, to establish it as a zone free of nuclear tests and the disposal of radioactive waste, and to ensure that it is used for peaceful purposes only. By and large, the ATS seems to be working quite well as no major disputes have taken place in the last 50 years.
In conclusion, it can be seen that some environmentally based IGOs are more effective, such as the Antarctica based ones, than others. The key factor is the degree to which all members see the end goal as important, and therefore are prepared to cooperate. As pressures for resources increases, and as climate change becomes more obvious, it will be interesting how far these IGOs can continue to be effective.
Evaluate the extent to which the rise of nationalism can prevent globalisation. (20)
Nationalism refers to the belief held by people belonging to a particular nation that their own interests are much more important than those of people belonging to other nations. The concept is not new and owes its origins in western Europe to colonial expansion. Whether it can stop the spread of globalization is debatable, and also possibly requires a judgement that one of both of these trends is not a good thing to have.
In the 19th century nationalism was important in the development of empires. European states (including the UK, France, Spain, Portugal and Belgium) had all established colonies overseas to create an empire. For example, France acquired huge areas across north Africa such as Algeria and Mali; similarly Spain and Portugal in South America with Argentina and Brazil respectively. Such nationalism was in fact a forerunner of globalization as the cultural and economic links back to the ‘home’ countries became strong. Trade flows of raw materials became an integral link between the colonial power and the colonies.
Today, nationalism is reinforced by education (such as in interpretations of history, say of British explorers), sporting identity (e.g. support for national football teams in the UK) and some political parties (e.g. UKIP). In many places it is on the rise, and is seen by some as an attempt to retreat from the perceived threats of globalization. Such people believe that nationalism is a matter of retaining sovereignty, they see the EU and UN as organisations that make unfair rules and have unacceptable standards. This has led to fringe, and then mainstream, political parties refer to ‘taking back control’ – regarding flows of people, information and ideas. International migration, a form of cultural globalization, is a particular bug-bear with them. They stress loyalty to the institutions and ideals of nation states. This is evidenced in the ever-increasing displays of the Union Jack flag behind government ministers when they appear on television for interviews. Some say these politicians are seeking to build on a nationalistic feeling, and in principle one which is against many global values.
However, nationalism in many European countries is complicated by the fact that most countries are multi-cultural with many contrasting ethnicities, for example the ethnic mix that is London. Questions of ‘loyalty’ have become complex – many people have mixed loyalties, to their place of birth, where they live, and their cultural heritage, and globalisation has brought such complexities more to the surface.
A related trend in recent years has been the rise of Nationalist movements in Europe, wanting some form of separatism. Examples include Catalonia in Spain, and Scotland in the UK. Separatism is the desire to have autonomy within, or independence from, a country. The causes may be due to different languages and culture, a geographically peripheral location, an alienation with the central government, or a combination of these. Although based on nationalism, it is interesting that some European separatist groups actually seek to remain within the regional political union that is the EU. This is not a movement away from globalization, but towards it.
In conclusion, it may be that many supporters of nationalism see their activities as a rejection of a globalized world, seeking to ‘take back control’. In reality, however, it is often the case that their actions are still dependent on the processes of globalization, whether economic, social, political or cultural. These people still buy products from Amazon or watch Netflix. Perhaps it is more a case of seeking to protect their identity?