Sovereign Statehood Is A Modern Fiction That Has Been Universalized Through Imperialism And Decolonization. Critically Analyze This Statement Using Examples From More Than One Part Of The World
Introduction
Sovereignty in international relations is a concept that indicates that a state is constitutionally independent. In politics, a state is considered sovereign if it exists in a legal, absolute, and unitary condition where the state is equal to other states in international law and is not answerable to any other foreign state (Biersteker and Weber, 1996). A sovereign state has clearly defined borders within which people reside and the government of this sovereign state formulates laws that govern the people. It is upon the people to follow these laws to the latter. A sovereign state has the ability of talking to other states so that they can develop partnerships that involved trade and other matters such as security. A sovereign state is internationally recognized as an independent state. When we look at African states especially those located in the sub-Saharan Africa, we will realize that they did not become free from the European Empires as a rule. Instead, the European Empires that had established their rule over them granted them independence. A sovereign state is made up of a territory with clearly defined borders and a settled population that is ruled by an effective government. During the colonial era in Africa, the Native Africans failed to demonstrate their ability to challenge foreign empires such as the Europeans thereby, allowing the African continent to be divided and colonized. International order contains the concept of recognition, which aligns with the Treaty of Westphalia, which was signed in 1648 to signal the end of thirty years war (Guthrie, 2003). One misconception today concerning modern sovereignty is the fact that it is derived from Westphalia Treaty that developed the international order of autonomous states. Many centuries have passed since the Westphalia Treaty and it is highly likely that the constructs upon which sovereignty was based on have changed as well.
In the creation of a relationship between European powers and other non-European states and communities, the underlying principles were either denial or suppression of the sovereignty claims for these non-European communities. Through the Agency of European Empires and decolonization, the morality of states sovereignty that turns into the basis for establishment of international order had been conducted. As competition for vital resources in the political economy of the world heated up in the 19th century, the European powers came into an agreement on the establishment of global governance institutions together with the practice of state sovereignty, which signified that the European continent was not similar to other parts of the world. The end of European colonization signaled the establishment of a new era where international order was established. The establishment of international order led to creation of sovereignty regime even though it was largely unsuitable. The European powers had to create something that would ensure that they do not entirely lose the control they had over these states. According to Robert Jackson, the Third World states are viewed as ‘quasi-states’ that do not have empirical sovereignty and security state structures (Jackson, 1993). The colonization of these states had been facilitated by their lack of efficiency administration and clearly defined rules that would have aided in governing social institutions such as social norms, personal rights, and family relations. Instead, the Asian and African states were stuck in cultural divisions and sub-divided kingdoms that could not allow the establishment of clear boundaries for the state and a single government that runs the country through the rule of law.
This essay is an analysis of the assertion that sovereign statehood is a modern fiction that has been universalized through imperialism and decolonization. This statement will be analyzed by looking at two examples that will aid in supporting the arguments. These examples will be taken from Africa and Middle East, as they are the two regions that were mainly colonized by European powers prior to the establishment of state sovereignty in these regions after decolonization. This essay will be made up of four main sections. The first part is the introduction that will contain the general overview of the essay with particular emphasis being placed on sovereign statehood, decolonization, and imperialism. The second part of the essay will be an analysis of the relations between these three concepts. The third part will be a discussion of the two examples that show how the three concepts are related. The last section of the essay is the conclusion part that summarizes the whole discussion.
The Relations Between Sovereign Statehood, Imperialism, and Decolonization
Imperialism is a concept where the power and influence of a country is extended using either diplomatic means or military forces. Imperialism advocates for ruling of larger empires and therefore, a certain empire following the policy of imperialism will keep trying to extending their influence by annexing other empress through various means. Imperialism has contributed in shaping the modern world as it led to the spread of ideas and technology as territories expanded fir instance through colonization where European powers started taking over control of African and Asian communities. This idea of expanding foreign empires by dominating non-western territories is known as colonial imperialism and it was rampant in the 19th century. Colonial imperialism involved annexing of non-western territories so that western countries possessed and controlled them (Strang, 1996). Annexation of non-western territories was possible through arrangement of unequal, treaties where these territories were divided into sections and their public finances were managed through international directorates. One main factor that contributed to the increase in colonial imperialism is the dynamics of industrialization in Europe where there is a high demand for raw materials and an economic hub for selling products (Magdoff,1978). Acquiring a new territory means that these European powers had a new source of raw materials as well as a fresh market for their industrial products. The Western people believe that non-westerners failed in understanding of the Western International Law requirements and therefore, were unable to challenge it constitutionally. For instance, a fellow European power, following the Western International Law, could legally contest for an African or Asian state.
The sovereignty concept was developed by various contestations of dominant states whose creation was based on a combination of two types of philosophies. On one side, hierarchy and privilege were the basis while on the other side, mechanism of subordination and discrimination were the reasons for the development of the sovereignty concept. Robert Jackson argues that the sovereignty status granted to the postcolonial states by the Western powers was not the positive sovereignty and can therefore, be classified as a mechanism of subordination and discrimination (Jackson, 1993). The sovereignty regime has historically shown dynamics of conflict and negotiation as various agents across different geographic locations negotiate over the sovereignty of their territories. For one to develop a clear understanding of the conditions of sovereignty, they must look further than the collective decisions made by the dominant powers in their attempt to introduce an acceptable set of rules and norms. One must look at the mechanism of resolution for competing interests that led to formation of organizations and associations including the Peace of Augsburg in 1555, The Westphalia Treaty in 1648, and the Treaty of Vienna signed in 1815 (Croxton, 1999). These treaties and agreements were a result of the collective aim of overcoming the problems brought by competing interests so that mutual recognition can be established while building economic partnerships. In the establishment of sovereignty among European states, the states do not merely depend on their capability to prevent external intrusion and domestic legitimacy. The system has been developed in such a way that European countries have formal equal rights so that even if there are variations in capacity and size of the state, they can still operate at the same level as other European states. The European political economy, in which a sovereign European state participates, supports them. The implication of this situation is that, small and weak European states can defend themselves against their enemies while still possessing the ability to accelerate their military power. In reference to the Berlin Conference of 1884, the European States introduced a sovereignty regime in Africa (Grovogui, 2002). The main problem of this sovereignty regime is that it was different from the one set up in Europe. Initially, the European states and their economic agents were supposed to offer extra-territorial jurisdiction so that they offered protection to the foreign lands. However, later on the European states were granted the freedom of controlling these territories so that they ruled them and determined the way people led their lives in these territories. The foreign territories could not protect themselves from external intrusion and any form of governance by the natives was dissolved or annexed into the system of government that was introduced by the European states. Therefore, the Europeans were not legitimate when it came to dealing with African territories. The fact that African territories were lagging behind in terms of civilization may have contributed to this treatment of the African territories by the Europeans.
According to the Western people, civilization standards involve the acceptance of international law, maintenance of diplomatic relations with other states, allowing freedom of trade, guaranteeing foreign citizens’ life and liberty, and application of the law in the egalitarian method. Colonial states had positions of power in the international order and therefore, they used these positions to gain civilization legitimacy and sovereignty. For instance, as they colonized foreign states, they argued that they were spreading civilization in terms of education and religion. While spreading civilization, they established their rule over these foreign territories as they acquired raw materials and exported them to their home country. The gained civilization legitimacy and sovereignty by colonial powers is attributed to the classification of third world countries and their citizens as weak and less sovereign as they lack positions of power in the hierarchical structures of the international society. Furthermore, the colonized non-western countries were not members of any Western community hence; they could not seek support from the Western states. The inability of the non-Western states to challenge the assumption of European nation states as status markers, implies that imperialism could not be stopped, and therefore all the valuable resources of the non-western countries moved to the colonial masters hands (Strang, 1996).
The Western states ultimately established their rule in the non-western states as they introduced standard provisions on behavior in their colonies. They used these provisions and power differentials to organize how strategic resources including raw materials, labor, product markets, and investment capital was accessed. After sometime, the Non-Western states started revolting against the colonial rule. The revolt continued for many tears with the colonial maters bringing a large number of their army forces to maintain order in these states. Ultimately, the colonial maters realized they were losing more than they were gaining from their rule over these colonies. Therefore, they developed a better strategy that would see them continue ruling over these colonies in a strategic manner. They granted these colonies sovereignty so that independent nation states were established with their own form of government and clearly defined boundaries. However, they established international governance systems that ensured that they continued to exercise their rule over these countries, however in a different way. Therefore, through Imperialism, the western countries were able to expand their territories to the non-western territories. After continued resistance, the colonial masters through decolonization left these territories after they had introduced sovereignty.
Sovereign Statehood In Africa and Middle East
This part of the essay will look into Imperialism and decolonization of states in the African and Middle East regions in terms of independence achievement for sovereignty.
Africa
The postcolonial states in Africa were largely determined by the Western powers that colonized them. According to social analysts including Pierre Englebert, Robert Jackson, and Christopher Clapham, the failed political system in African states is attributed to the inability of the African states to understand and conform to the sovereignty requirements that had been determined by the Western states model (Jackson and Rosberg, 1982). Therefore, the political failure of the post-colonial African states has led to the presence of states that exhibit poor governance, poor economic management, and lack of democracy. Apart from depriving Africans their ideal sovereign rights, the European colonial masters also devolved theses rights to European citizens and citizens that operate in various geographical locations. A common agreement between the European states and analysts was that indigenous Africans did not have the standard social habits and social institutions, had an inferior religion, and their political structures were inferior (Grovogui, 2002). Using religious affiliations, racial, and different ethnic groups European states tried to disseminate their ideologies, economic interests, and politics. These western nations were able to exert their ideologies and powers over the African territories as they had superior military and skilled negotiation abilities (Mann, 2012). After the dominant European powers succeeded in the establishment of their rule in African territories, they promised the African nations protection by signing various treaties and went on to develop political recognition for them. After sometime, the Africans were tired of the European rule and they started a revolt. Continued revolts forced the European colonial powers to give up their rule for the safety of their people who were dying in the battle against the Africans. However, they introduced contemporary form of sovereignty that allowed them to control African states without directly ruling over them. This happened through granting of independence to African nation states. These nation states are even today controlled by various international bodies that were been developed by the European powers as a way of ensuring their continued rule over Africans.
Middle East
In the Middle East, the main point of view does not revolve around defending of territorial boundaries but between the residents of the region as they struggle to put off Western Intervention so that they can defend the independence of the Muslim world. The United States in particular has been very concerned with the activities of Middle East countries and has been intervening in their issues for many years now. The people in Middle East are more concerned with regional solidarity over single state sovereignty as they struggle to maintain their Muslim culture and reduce any form of influence from the Western countries. Security experts argue that in terms of regional development and state formation, the Middle East is lagging behind and will take years before they can reach the level of contemporary European states (Niva, 1999). The security of the Middle East states is filled with constant cases of conflict as the people in the region argue over whether security in the area should be perceived in terms of sovereign states or based on collectivities originating from the pre-colonial activities. For the people in Middle East, decolonization and sovereign recognition have been nothing short of vague occurrences, as they have done no good for the marginalized communities from the colonized territories. Sovereignty has not changed the circumstances of the Western dominant powers in the international order. Due to lack of any significant benefits from decolonization and sovereignty, opposition movements have been arising in the Middle East that call for regional unity and authentic cultural heritage as the only ways to the achievement of sovereign independence. These movements are adversaries to the existing nation states in Middle East but they challenge these states because they believe that the present states were installed by colonial powers and are therefore, not authentically sovereign. The security situation of the Middle East where cases of insecurity are rampant is attributed to the encounters between the Arab territorial states and the Western Colonial powers (Niva, 1999).
The encounters between the western countries and the Arabs in Middle East started back in 15th century when European diplomats and commercial agents came to the region through Ottoman Empire, which was one of the most influential empires in the region. European powers tried to compete so that they can instill their influence and determine the eventual fate of the Ottoman Empire. They had a clear definition of their identity as civilized and advanced states. They viewed the Middle East people as less civilized and people who did not deserve to receive sovereign recognition under the European standards. Failure of the Ottoman Empire to uphold civilized laws allowed the European powers to develop unequal treaty arrangements and ultimately continue with imperialism while imposing capitulation. When the British agreed to the idea of decolonization, they allowed the Arabs to form the Arab League of States based on the respect principle for the sovereignty of Arab countries. However, the League was still opposed by opposition movements as they felt that the intention of Western countries was to perpetuate colonial domination.
Conclusion
Sovereignty is truly a modern fiction that has been universalized through imperialism and decolonization. European nations introduced sovereignty in their continent and managed to ensure that every member state was fairly treated in accordance to the sovereignty requirements. Through imperialism, the Western nations started expanding their territories by occupying other territories such as those in Middle East and Africa. They took over these states with the view that these states were poor in terms of civilization, culture, and political structures. As they dominated over these states, they knew that the territories were sources of raw materials as well as market for their goods. With time, the Western powers started facing resistance from the territories they were colonizing. Therefore, the devised a modern form of sovereignty where they allowed independence to these states but remained secretly in control of these states through higher political structures that were formed. These higher structures have been secretly promoting Western agendas by controlling the sovereign states, thereby proving that these sovereign states created by the Western nations are just fictional and not the actual sovereign states as expected.
References
Biersteker, T.J. and Weber, C., 1996. State sovereignty as social construct (Vol. 46). Cambridge University Press.
Niva, S., 1999. Contested sovereignties and postcolonial insecurities in the Middle East. Cultures of Insecurity: States, Communities, and the Production of Danger, 14, p.147.
Guthrie, W.P., 2003. The Later Thirty Years War: From the Battle of Wittstock to the Treaty of Westphalia (No. 222). Greenwood Publishing Group.
Jackson, R.H., 1993. Quasi-states: sovereignty, international relations and the Third World (Vol. 12). Cambridge University Press.
Magdoff, H., 1978. Imperialism: From the colonial age to the present. NYU Press.
Croxton, D., 1999. The Peace of Westphalia of 1648 and the Origins of Sovereignty. The International History Review, 21(3), pp.569-591.
Grovogui, S.N., 2002. Regimes of sovereignty: International morality and the African condition. European Journal of International Relations, 8(3), pp.315-338.
Jackson, R.H. and Rosberg, C.G., 1982. Why Africa's weak states persist: the empirical and the juridical in statehood. World politics, 35(01), pp.1-24.
Mann, M., 2012. The sources of social power: Volume 3, global empires and revolution, 1890-1945 (Vol. 3). Cambridge University Press.
Strang, D., 1996. Contested sovereignty: the social construction of colonial imperialism. CAMBRIDGE STUDIES IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, 46, pp.22-49.
