Exchanging Independence for Capital

Today and throughout history we have seen instances where countries give up their full sovereignty to remain economically stable. Initially after reading “Beyond the sovereign dilemma: quasi-states as social construct”, I disagreed with Dr. Jackson’s view that third world nations would allow international paternalism in exchange for better living conditions. However, after considering it more thoughtfully it seems that Jackson’s view holds true for many places across the globe. While it may not appear logical for third world countries to enter into international economic agreements that would constrain their sovereignty, nations like Egypt during Ismail’s reign prove that autonomous actors do, in order to prevent placing a huge burden on their population. A more recent example of this has been Greenland’s consistent decision to remain apart of Denmark in order to continue receiving subsidies. Thus, Dr. Jackson’s view that negative sovereignties trade in their independence for wealth creation and improved living conditions thereby returning to dependent states does in fact hold true.
In the article, Inayatullah talks about the conflict Egypt experiences to gain both sovereignty and wealth. Egypt’s attempt to quickly modernize the state depended heavily on foreign investment. However, this modernization also required foreign technology and expertise which many of the Egyptians could not perform due to their low levels of literacy and education. Moreover, the European financiers did not want Egypt to be able to compete with them in a global market. Thus, Egypt became a source of raw materials for European industry- a dependent, quasi-colony.  Nevertheless, Ismail’s decision to finance projects through foreign investments prevented him from placing an enormous burden on its countrymen. Egypt accepted this paternalism in order to achieve improved living conditions for the people.
Similarly, Greenland, a former colony of Denmark who gained autonomy in 1979 and was granted self-rule in 2009, have consistently voted to remain apart of Denmark since 2009. In return for subsidies, Denmark controls foreign affairs and defences, and monetary policy. “Denmark provides some 3.6 billion kroner (483 million euros, $591million) in subsidies each year, equivalent to 60 percent of the budget and which would be cut if Greenland opted for full independence. (Big Parties Lose)” Greenland has a brittle economy and if it were to leave Denmark it would be the poorest country in the European Union. According to various sources, many Greenlanders do want their full independence but currently do not feel like they are economically prepared to be on their own. Like Ismail, Greenland demonstrates how nation states will give up their full autonomy to have better living conditions.



References
Inayatullah, Naeem. "Beyond the Sovereignty Dilemma: Quasi-states as Social Construct." State Sovereignty as Social Construct: 50-80. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511598685.003.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Anarchy in the USA

           While discussing realist motives and intentions, it seems that the United States is headed down a curious path worth looking at. Clearly a powerful nation, the United States should be in a unique position to latch onto globalization in order to secure a stable future. Calm, cool, collected domination is a much better look than ramping up rhetoric and perceived might, because your neighbor's interest to attack is seemingly when they are most threatened by show of force.             The United States has long taken advantage of its allies, while using economic bargaining to secure peaceful existence. The European Union is a clear ally in the spread of Democracy and Capitalism, two tenants central to the existence of the United States. It is this point that makes recent events troubling with regards to a peaceful future.             In an effort to bolster nationalism, our country has tur...
Read more

Waltz's Neorealism

The reading by Waltz points out some key points that Neorealists believe in. Neorealists view power as a possibly useful means. Neorealism contends that international politics can be understood only if the effects of structure are added to the unit-level explanations of traditional realism. It rejects the assumption that man’s innate lust for power constitutes a sufficient cause of war in the absence of of any other. Specifically, we need to look at the causal link interacting units and international outcomes. We’ve established before with Hobbes that the system we live in is anarchy. States are rational actors that at their basest level want to survive. Neorealism states that within an anarchy, states need to provide their own security to protect themselves from threats. This security dilemma is a problem, war occurs. This depends on situations and characteristics of states, not because states want to have war. The more important question then becomes what started th...
Read more

Corporations Will Run Amuck

Corporations help create domestic and global economic prosperity. However, when they grow extremely rich they can become powerful which may threaten sovereign actors’ authority, both on a national and international level. Additionally, through hefty donations their lobbying capability allows them to manipulate politicians and the political process undermining democratic processes and devaluing the voice of the people.  In order to prevent corporations from interfering with the democratic processes there needs to be an overarching system that monitors what corporations do and how they do it. To a certain extent room and flexibility may help corporations better compete against one another. Capitalist societies like the United States believe that less regulations on corporations means more incentive to be innovative. And while that may be true to some extent, there are also many abuses these companies commit in order to maximize their profits. Without strict gui...
Read more