Nation State: Reshaping the World: From “Empire” to “Nation-State”Nation State: Reshaping the World: From “Empire” to “Nation-State”
December 2019
Author Prof. Liu Debin is the vice president of the China Society of International Relations; director of the Institute of International Relations at Jilin University
Source: Diplomatic Review (Journal of China Foreign Affairs University
Abstract:
From 1919 to 2019, the whole world has undergone a process of reshaping, that is, the transformation from “empires” or imperial colonies to “nation-states”. “Nation-states” have replaced empires and become the most important form of organization in the world today.
Due to different historical backgrounds, there are great differences among various “nation-states”. From the perspective of state construction, and by following the three clues of “constructed nation/states”, “re-constructed nation/states” and “nation/states which are under construction”, and by analyzing the origins and development of three different type of countries in the world today we can understand the “background color” of the world and can show readers a different picture of international relations.
The challenges faced by “nation-states”, especially those which are under construction not only show that most “nation-states” are in name only; but also show that the process of world’s reshaping that began a hundred years ago is still not complete. Historically speaking, both empires and nation-states are organizational forms of human communities, and human history is actually a history of the evolution of “communities” of different types and sizes. If we examine “empires” and “nation-states” in the sequence of the evolution of human communities, we will not hesitate between one or the other, instead we will open up new and more development space and opportunities for the realization of “human communities”. In this regard, China’s historical experience and practical considerations are of great significance.
Today’s world is a world of “nation-states”, and “nationality” has become a basic symbol to distinguish people. But a hundred years ago, most parts of the world were still covered by large and small new and old empires and imperial colonies. The significance of the First World War lies in the opening of a new era of the world’s transformation from “empire” to “nation-state”. Around the establishment of emerging countries after World War I and World War II, that is, the so-called “decolonization” process, mankind has staged a series of joys and sorrows. Although today the world a hundred years later has been reorganized in the form of “nation-states”, the historical backgrounds of countries vary greatly, and the construction process is even less likely to be uniform. The disputes among major powers during the Cold War and the in-depth expansion of economic globalization after the Cold War have caused the “nation-state” system to constantly encounter new challenges. The transformation from “empire” to “nation-state” may be an inevitable trend of historical development, but the “nation-state” system is difficult to cope with the various new challenges facing the world today. In the face of such a situation, whether to re-pick up the governance experience of the empire and make up for the shortcomings of the nation-state system, or to break free from the shackles of reality and explore new organizational methods and governance space, requires new thinking and judgment of the academic community.
Part 1 From “Empire” to “Nation-State”
Empire is one of the most important organizational forms in the history of human civilization for thousands of years, and it is also the “origin” of the world today, because almost all countries in the world have had direct or indirect relations with new and old empires, and have all been “born” from empires. In the late 19th century and early 20th century, except for the Latin American countries that gained independence from the rule of the Spanish and Portuguese colonial empires in the early days, the world was covered by empires of all sizes. The traditional view is that since the signing of the “Peace of Westphalia” in 1648, nation-states have gradually replaced empires and become the most important actors in the international community. But in fact, until the end of the 19th century, except for North and South America, most parts of the world were still dominated by empires, including old empires such as the Ottoman Empire, Tsarist Russia and the Austro-Hungarian Empire that had been competing for supremacy in the Middle East, Eastern Europe and Central Asia for hundreds of years, as well as emerging empires such as Britain and France that were frantically dividing the world, and the United States and Japan that were gradually gaining strength and had just started to compete for overseas colonies. When the League of Nations was established after World War I, there were only 44 member states. When the United Nations was first established after World War II, there were only 51 member states. Today, the United Nations has 193 member states. It can be said that till the mid-20th century, empires and nation-states had coexisted in the world for a long time, and the history of most “nation-states” in the world today is less than a hundred years.
From empire to nation-state has gone through four stages
The world’s transformation from empire to nation-state began in the 19th century and has gone through four stages. The first was the Latin American Revolution in the 19th century, when revolutions demanding independence broke out in the American colonies under the control of Spain, Portugal and other powers. Against this background, the Latin American countries were the first to break free from the shackles of the empire and become nation-states. Haiti (1804), Gran Colombia (1810), Paraguay (1811), Venezuela (1811), Argentina (1816), Chile (1818) and other countries successively gained independence. By the mid-19th century, all Spanish Americas except Cuba had gained independence, and nation-states became popular in the Americas. However, starting from the mid-19th century, colonial powers such as Britain and France set off a wave of dividing the world, turning almost the entire Asia, Africa and the Pacific region into their own colonies or semi-colonies. Therefore, the Latin American Revolution was relatively “ahead of its time” and did not have much impact on the reshaping of the organizational form of Eurasia and Africa.
The second stage of the transformation of the empire into a nation-state began with the First World War.
The First World War played a crucial role in promoting the transformation of the empire into a nation-state. During the First World War, Russia successively experienced the “February Revolution” and the “October Revolution”, and Tsarist Russia collapsed. However, after some twists and turns, the emerging Soviet regime not only successfully consolidated the territory of Tsarist Russia, but also expanded it. In 1922, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics consisting of the Russian Federation, Ukraine, Belarus, and the South Caucasus Federation was established. Later, the number of member republics increased to 15.
With the end of the First World War, the Second German Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and the Ottoman Empire came to an end. Germany lost all its overseas colonies, and Austria recognized Hungary, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Serbia-Croatia-Slovenia, etc. as independent countries. The Kemal Revolution took place in the Ottoman Empire, and the Republic of Turkey won independence in the war, but the Ottoman Empire, which had been out of control, completely got rid of the control of the Turks and became a mandate, protectorate or semi-colony of the victorious countries such as Britain and France. The sphere of influence controlled by Britain included Cyprus, Afghanistan, Egypt, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Jordan, Palestine, Iraq and some emirates along the Persian Gulf.
The sphere of influence controlled by France included Syria, Lebanon, Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia. Italy controlled Libya, and Spain controlled parts of Morocco. The strategy of “divide and rule” adopted by Britain and France in their spheres of control objectively laid the foundation for the boundaries of modern Middle Eastern countries, which were born on the basis of the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire. However, although Britain, France and other countries still maintained their huge colonial empires after World War I, under the influence of Wilson’s “Fourteen Points” and the October Revolution in Russia, the concepts of national independence and national self-determination began to take root in the hearts of the people, and the national liberation movements in colonies and semi-colonies flourished. Therefore, it can be said that World War I kicked off the transition of the world from the empire era to the world of nation-states in the 20th century.
The third stage of the transformation from empire to nation-state was mainly the process of Asian and African countries gaining independence from the colonial rule of Britain, France and Japan after World War II.
In 1941, Roosevelt and Churchill clearly stated in the Atlantic Charter that after the war, the people of all countries would have the right to choose their form of government, so that nations deprived of sovereignty and autonomy by force would regain sovereignty and autonomy. The Charter of the United Nations promulgated in 1945 clearly stipulated that the sovereignty of all countries was equal, which greatly promoted the rise of the post-war decolonization wave.
At the same time, Britain, France and other countries suffered heavy losses in World War II and were unable to continue to maintain their huge colonial empires. They were forced to begin to shrink their fronts and allow the colonies under their control to gain independence. In the early post-war period, the countries that gained independence were mostly concentrated in Asia and North Africa, such as Indonesia, the Philippines, India, Pakistan, Tunisia and Libya, which directly declared independence and established their own countries after the withdrawal of the former colonial powers.
The “fission of the Middle East” continued after World War II. From World War I to World War II, the original Ottoman Empire gave rise to more than a dozen countries, which ultimately shattered the ideal of the Arab people with a common language, religion and region to build a unified nation-state. The national independence movement reached its climax in the 1960s.
1960 was called the “Year of Africa”, and a total of 17 African countries gained independence that year. In 1990, Namibia, the last colony in Africa, gained independence, marking the complete collapse of the European colonial empire system. The US-Soviet Cold War had a profound impact on the political and social development of third world countries. Wen Anli made the following summary in the preface to the Chinese version of his book “Global Cold War: US-Soviet Interference in the Third World and the Formation of the Contemporary World”: First, the interventionism of the United States and the Soviet Union has largely shaped the international and domestic framework of political, social and cultural changes in third world countries. Without the Cold War, Africa, Asia, and perhaps Latin America would be completely different from today’s situation. Second, the political programs formed among the elites of the Third World were often a conscious response to the development model provided by the two major opponents of the Cold War – the United States and the Soviet Union. Of course, due to the completely different historical background and actual national conditions, it was difficult for third world countries to succeed in copying the American or Soviet model, and it often brought disastrous consequences.
The fourth and final stage began with the end of the Cold War. In 1991, the Soviet Union disintegrated into 15 countries. In 1992, Yugoslavia disintegrated into 5 countries. At the same time, the post-Cold War nationalist trend re-emerged, and some ethnic groups that originally belonged to a country also began to demand independence, such as the division of Czechoslovakia into the Czech Republic and Slovakia, the independence of East Timor and South Sudan, etc. The number of nation-states in the world has also continued to increase.
By 2013, the number of UN member states had reached 193. It should be pointed out that although there has been controversy in the academic community about the nature of the Soviet Union, after the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the Russian historical community has seen an “imperial turn” and formed a new school of imperial history. The emergence of this situation is related to the influence of Western academic circles, and it also adapts to the needs of Russia’s domestic and foreign affairs after the disintegration of the Soviet Union. This is to “rectify the name” of the empire and the Russian Empire: the empire not only has the function of repression, but also has the potential for construction; Russia was not a “national prison”, but a multi-ethnic super-nation state. The “imperial turn” was in line with Russia’s growing patriotism and nationalism ideology. This “imperial turn” can not only satisfy Russia’s national self-esteem and pride, but also serve the needs of international diplomacy and resist nationalist attacks from countries in the former Soviet Union. Dmitriy Telenin and other well-known scholars in the field of Russian international relations have also explained the origins and development of today’s Russia from the perspective of empire.
With the transition from the “Era of Empire” to the “nation-state”, the whole world was reorganized according to the “Westphalian System” invented by Europeans. In theory, every country is a “similar unit” and a “nation-state” in the modern sense, but in reality, due to different historical backgrounds, ethnic composition, religious beliefs and development levels, there are great differences between countries. According to the different historical backgrounds between countries, we can roughly divide them into “constructed established countries”, “re- constructed countries” and “nations which are still under construction”.
“Established countries” refer to those European countries that were first organized according to the Westphalian principles. “Re-established countries” refer to countries with a long historical tradition that have transformed into modern nation-states under the pressure of the West. “Nations which are still under construction” refer to countries that did not have a long and stable national/state tradition before becoming colonies and won the status of nation-states in the decolonization movement. Within the “Established countries”, the situation is not the same and can be further subdivided. Undoubtedly, in today’s world, “Nations which are still under construction” account for the majority. Some have achieved world-renowned achievements in state construction, such as Singapore, but the progress of state construction in most of the “Nations which are still under construction” is slow, and they are the hotspots of contradictions and conflicts in today’s world.
Part 2. The fate of the “nation-state”
In less than a hundred years, the world has been reorganized in the form of “nation-states”. It can be said that the world today is a world composed of “nation-states”. However, in the process of transitioning from the empire era to the nation-state, both the emerging nation-states, that is, the reconstructed and “Nations which are still under construction”, and the old capitalist countries, that is, the constructed countries, have encountered severe challenges. In the process of responding to these challenges, some countries succeeded and some failed. Some countries have gotten rid of the appearance of poverty and backwardness and gradually joined the ranks of developed countries, while some countries are still struggling with civil wars, poverty and conflicts. From a formal point of view, every corner of the world has been reshaped by the “nation-state”, but behind the appearance of the “nation-state”, the “connotation” and experience of each country are different. These different experiences remind people to pay more attention to the reality of diversity and pluralism in the exploration of state theory and international relations theory, rather than rigidly sticking to a “stereotype”.
The established countries have experienced the test of “life and death” in this century. The First World War ended the “hundred years of peace” in European history after the Napoleonic Wars. Millions of young people shed their blood on the battlefield. Britain and France experienced the challenge of Germany, a new empire, subverting the balance of power in Europe and impacting the world hegemony.
Only with the help of the United States did Britain, France and other countries win the victory in World War I and rebuild the European order. Twenty years later, Hitler’s Germany made a comeback, and almost the whole world was involved in the Second World War. Thanks to the help of the United States and the bloody battles of the Soviet Red Army, the European continent was able to escape the clutches of Hitler’s Germany and rebuild its own country on the ruins of the war. However, with the end of World War II, the dominant position of the European “national empire”, as the birthplace of modern nation-states and the ruler of most of the world’s territory, also ended.
European countries became “supporting roles” on the world stage, and the two superpowers outside the core area of Europe began to dominate the world. European countries were divided into two parts, east and west, and became the front line of the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union.
With the rapid development of its economic and military power and the support of non-European socialist countries such as China, the Soviet Union posed a challenge to these established countries in terms of economy, politics, security and ideology. The challenge of the Soviet Union promoted the unity of the established countries and also prompted the United States to change its understanding of the old continent and its own identity, forming the West in the modern sense. It was also during the Cold War that European countries improved their social welfare systems and formed the European Economic Community, maintaining their economic and technological advantages over the Soviet Union until the end of the Cold War and the disintegration of the Soviet Union. However, with the deepening of economic globalization after the Cold War, more and more reconstructing and “Nations which are still under construction” have integrated into the world economic system, and more and more manufacturing and service industries have been transferred to developing countries. The social divisions in European and American countries have intensified, the mobility between classes and strata has decreased, the social characteristics of inequality have become increasingly prominent, social conflicts have intensified, populism has risen, and the development model and social system of the established countries have encountered new challenges. The British referendum “Brexit” and Trump’s election as US president were both responses of the established countries to this challenge.
Reconstructed countries, especially the big countries among them, have regained their spirits in the process of reshaping the world, and are challenging the West’s dominance in the world in a “non-Western” form. Through the transformation to “nation-states”, reconstructed countries have reshaped their national identity, reversed their decline since the 19th century, gradually achieved “rise” or “rejuvenation”, and even regained the ability to shape the world, becoming an important symbol of the world’s changes in the past century.
Turkey and Iran
Turkey and Iran are prominent representatives of the reconstruction of the Middle East. After World War I, the Turkish Revolution led by Kemal opened a new chapter in the history of the Middle East, building a republic on the ruins of the Ottoman Empire, a new type of country that separated religion from politics and imitated the system of Western countries.
Turkey became part of the Western camp during the Cold War, joined the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and has been working hard to join the European Union, hoping to become part of Europe. After the end of the Cold War, especially since Erdogan became the Prime Minister and President of Turkey, Turkey’s economy has developed rapidly, and it has begun to pursue a foreign policy different from that of the United States and the West, becoming an important force influencing the situation in the Middle East.
After World War II, Iran once “ran fast” on the road of the “White Revolution”, and became another important symbol of the “modernization revolution” in the Islamic world after Turkey. However, the autocracy and corruption of the Pahlavi regime led to the intensification of social contradictions and was finally overthrown by the Islamic Revolution in 1979, and religious forces returned to Iranian politics.
However, the “unity of religion and politics” political system established by the Iranian Revolution has stood firm despite the isolation and sanctions imposed by the United States and the West for many years, and has been able to call the shots in the Middle East changes. This is indeed a miracle!
After the terrorist attack by al-Qaeda in 2001, the strategic mistake of “expanding” the US anti-terrorist war not only plunged the United States into the quagmire of the Middle East but also destroyed the relatively balanced power structure in the Middle East. Iran was considered the biggest “winner” of the Middle East changes. It is undeniable that Iran’s economic and social development is facing many difficulties, and institutional reform seems inevitable, but as a reconstructed country, Iran has long gotten rid of the fate of being manipulated by Western powers, and has the ability to bargain with major powers, becoming an important force in the Middle East and on the world stage.
Russia
Russia and Japan are also re-constructing their countries. Russia is a European country, but it has always been excluded from Europe as a “country poisoned by the despotic East”. Since the reforms of Peter the Great, Russia has been learning from “advanced” Europe, but it has refused to accept the new order opened up by the French Revolution and became a “gendarme” to suppress the European bourgeois revolution.
During World War I, Tsarist Russia was in deep trouble. The “February Revolution” in 1917 overthrew the Tsarist system, and the “October Revolution” turned Russia to the socialist path. At the end of World War II, it became a superpower and played games with the United States and the West for nearly half a century. After the disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991, Russia re-established its national identity during the Tsarist Russia period and wanted to “return to the European family” and even become a part of the West.
But the “honeymoon” between Russia and the West soon passed, and Russia is still regarded as a “stranger wandering at the gate of Europe.” After the Cold War, the “contempt” of the United States and the West for Russia in turn “stimulated” Russia’s ambition to regroup. Under Putin’s leadership, Russia relied on energy exports to build partnerships, military strength to counter US pressure, and diplomatic “surprise victory”, making Russia once again the main opponent of the United States and returned to the ranks of world powers.
American strategist Brzezinski once planned to build a larger “West” from Vladivostok to Lisbon, including Russia and Turkey, but the “strategic mistakes” of American and European leaders have created a new maverick opponent. At the same time, another Asian reconstruction country, Japan, has become an indispensable part of the “West”. Of course, as early as the Meiji Restoration in the 1870s, Japan took the lead in East Asia to start the process of national reconstruction, and defeated the Qing Empire and Tsarist Russia through the Sino-Japanese War and the Russo-Japanese War, joining the ranks of “great powers” and becoming a “civilized” country. However, Japan, under the guise of saving Asians, claimed to liberate Asia from the rule of white people in the “Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere”, but in fact it was a plot to turn East Asia into a Japanese exclusive colony. Japan’s actions further stimulated the awakening of other nations in East Asia, and the Japanese Empire was destroyed in World War II. After the war, Japan reconstructed its country under the guidance of the US occupation forces, eliminated the militarist forces and mechanisms that launched the war, and re-emerged as a “democratic” economic power and was accepted as a “qualified” member of the “Western world.”
China
China is a typical example of a reconstructed nation. The reforms in the late Qing Dynasty were actually a transition to a modern nation-state. The Anti-Japanese War further promoted the awakening of the Chinese nation. The warlords’ melee and national division after the Xinhai Revolution (1911), the corruption and incompetence of the Kuomintang and the Communist Party’s diligent governance finally led China, which was unified in 1949, to embark on the socialist road.
Through the reform and opening up that began in 1978, China achieved leapfrog development, surpassing many Western developed countries and becoming the world’s second largest country in terms of GDP. China has become a “threat” to challenge the dominance of the United States and the Western world. Even China’s “rise” is regarded as the reason for the “decline” of the West. In fact, what is “China”? Was China in history also an “empire” or a precocious modern country? If it was an “empire”, when did China’s transformation into a “nation-state” begin? What kind of “nation-state” is China? These have become hot issues in the academic community in recent years. The Qing Dynasty was once regarded as a “stagnant empire” by Perefitte, and was regarded as a “restless empire” by Wen Anli, especially after 1750. Stephen Halsey argues that the Qing Dynasty has opened a new era of modern state construction since the mid-19th century. The discussion of these issues has challenged the traditional theories of “empire” and “nation-state” and also provided new inspiration for the innovation of international relations theory in the Chinese academic community.
Compared with the reconstruction of the state, the construction of the state in the reshaping of the world presents a different picture: on the one hand, the national liberation movement is surging, and on the other hand, the bloody storm in the state construction. In this process, different regions show different characteristics. In sub-Saharan Africa, the borders between countries have very obvious artificial characteristics. More than 2,000 tribes of all sizes living in sub-Saharan Africa were first divided into more than 50 colonies or protectorates of European powers, and Africa’s decolonization could only be carried out on the basis of such artificially created “units” by European powers.
In this way, a tribe was scattered in different countries, and a country contained many different tribes. Therefore, both state building and nation building started almost from scratch. From the independence of South Africa in 1910 to the independence of South Sudan in 2011, the decolonization process in sub-Saharan Africa lasted almost a century. During this period, especially during the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union, the construction of emerging countries in sub-Saharan Africa became a battlefield for the East-West game, causing some countries to fall into chaos and civil war for a long time. Compared with African countries, the construction of countries in the Middle East has distinct ethnic and religious characteristics. Except for Turkey and Iran, which can be included in the ranks of “re-constructing countries”, other countries are mostly Arab-dominated and are still in the difficult process of building national identity. From North Africa on the Mediterranean coast to the “Fertile Crescent” and then to the Arabian Peninsula, although the political systems vary greatly, they can basically be summarized into two types. One is a republic called for by “Arab nationalism”, represented by Iraq, Syria and other countries. They once advocated the establishment of a unified Arab country, but due to leadership disputes and external intervention, they retreated to their respective local positions and fell into civil strife and invasion by major powers after the Cold War. The other is a monarchy or tribal alliance country, such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and the United Arab Emirates. They established a “nation-state” on the basis of Bedouin (Bedewi) society, and Saudi Arabia gave legitimacy to the state through fundamentalist Islamic ideology.
In Southeast Asia, known as the “Museum of Ethnic Groups”, there are more than 400 ethnic groups in a narrow and fragmented living space, including 24 ethnic groups with a population of more than 1 million. The difficulty of maintaining a multi-ethnic country led Myanmar, Indonesia, the Philippines and other countries to establish authoritarian governments soon after independence, using strong means to prevent the emergence of centrifugal forces, and even to divert social dissatisfaction by suppressing foreign immigrants such as the Chinese. Countries in the Indochina Peninsula, such as Vietnam, joined the communist camp after independence. Vietnam not only completed its unification in the Vietnam War, but also once attempted to establish a composite Indochina Federation. After the end of the Cold War, Southeast Asian countries have successively carried out market-oriented and democratic reforms, and through regional cooperation within ASEAN, they have suppressed conflicts among countries in the fields of ethnicity, system and religion, and national construction has entered a relatively stable stage.
The establishment of modern South Asian countries generally inherited the mantle of British India, and the colonists cultivated a group of local administrative, scientific and military elites for it. On the other hand, the policy of “divide and rule” has contributed to the religious divisions in South Asian society. Unlike the Congress Party, which regards Indians as “one nation”, the Muslim League regards Muslims and Hindus as “two nations”, while the real situation in South Asia is the coexistence of multiple nations.
In August 1947, Pakistan was established separately from India as a “refuge for Muslims from the oppression of the majority of Hindus”. It can be said that India and Pakistan were established in the process of “tearing”, and Pakistan faced internal conflicts between West Pakistan and East Pakistan, and was eventually dismembered into two countries. In 1971, East Pakistan became independent Bangladesh with the support of India. In India, other ethnic groups except Hindustani also have different degrees of centrifugal tendencies, especially in the northeast region. The founders of South Asian countries once regarded secularism as the norm of the state, but when hostility between countries overcame reason, emphasizing the religious attributes of the state became a trend, which in turn promoted Islamization and Hindu nationalism on both sides of the border.
The difference between Latin American countries and the aforementioned regions is that their nation-building process had already begun in the 19th century, and the majority of the citizens in most countries are localized whites, with fewer ethnic factors that challenge national unity. Only in Paraguay and some inland hinterlands of the Andean countries are there Indian groups outside the country, and their concerns are mainly about land distribution and economic growth.
In the Caribbean region, the widespread intermarriage of blacks and Indians has made the concept of ethnicity in various countries vague. After the founding of most Latin American countries, the main problems they faced were the “trinity” rule of the Caudillo system in politics, the large land system in economy, and the Catholic Church in culture, while the control of Latin American resources by foreign capital has reduced the working class of the country to purely exploitation. In the process of building a nation-state, the tug-of-war between the three forces of reform, revolution and conservatism has become a different driving force for the development of Latin America.
Looking at the historical process of the evolution from the empire era to the nation-state, we will find that the challenges faced by the countries in the process of construction are more severe and lasting, and the most important of these is the issue of national construction as a nation-state. In fact, for many countries in the process of construction, this issue cannot be said to have been resolved until now. This shows that for most countries in the world today, “nation-state” is a title that does not live up to its name, and there is still a long way to go. In addition, the end of the Cold War also constituted a strong impact on the countries in the process of construction. A number of countries fell into the crisis of civil strife or even disintegration caused by the “democratization” transition, and became the so-called failed state, weak state or fragile state. Reconstruction once became a major issue of concern to international organizations, and the focus of reconstruction was actually considered to be “security reconstruction, efficiency reconstruction and legitimacy reconstruction”, which was almost equivalent to starting the construction of the country all over again. At the same time, it also shows that the process of reshaping the world in the past century has been completed on the surface, but in fact there is still a long way to go.
Part 3. “Empire”, “Nation-State” and the Evolution of Human Community
The process of transformation from “empire” to “nation-state” is also a process of reshaping the organizational form of the world. However, the “nation-state” system must not only withstand the “drag of history” and tolerate the continued existence of “pre-modern” international relations actors, but also respond to the challenges of the new era. Under the conditions of economic globalization and social informatization (IT technologies), it must adapt to the development of interdependence between countries and the innovation of the forms of interaction between people, accept the division and sharing of national sovereignty, and until the boundaries between domestic and international issues disappear. In short, in the process of transformation from “empire” to “nation-state”, the old problems have not been digested, and new challenges are already at hand. As soon as the dominant position of the “nation-state” system was established, more and more “time limitations” were discovered.
The “empire” seems to have gone far away, but it seems to have heard people’s call again.
The notoriety and shadow of the “empire” still linger in people’s hearts, but it is probably difficult to let it resume its old business. A hundred years have passed, and the world has completed the transformation from “empire” to “nation-state”, but it is still full of doubts about the future. Looking at the transition from the “empire” era to the “nation-state” world, we will find many disconnections between “theory” and “practice”. And this disconnection may be the starting point for us to get out of the predicament.
First of all, in terms of the “theory” and “practice” of the “nation-state”, we will find that there are numerous academic works on the “nation-state”, and opinions vary, but basically they all take the European nation-state (or nation-state) as the “prototype” or starting point. In the real world, there are only a few countries that truly meet the European “nation-state” standards, and such countries constitute the majority of the “nation-states” in the world today.
Therefore, it is necessary for us to “jump out of the discourse of the Western ‘nation-state'” in order to “go steady and far” in the theoretical and practical research of the “nation-state”.
Secondly, the premise of the construction of the “nation-state” is the rise of the “nationalism” movement. For the reconstruction of the country, nationalism is the most appealing banner to unite people, reshape identity and rejuvenate the spirit. Through the construction of “nation-states”, these reconstructed countries have regained vitality, got rid of their colonial and semi-colonial status, and once again “stood tall among the nations of the world”. However, for many countries in the process of construction, the banner of nationalism is not so attractive. In these countries, people’s identification with religion (or sect), tribe, and ethnic group has lasted for thousands of years, while the “nation-state” is a new thing that has only appeared in recent decades.
Therefore, deep-rooted tribal politics still plays an important role in many countries in the Middle East and Africa, forcing many international relations scholars to shift their research focus to ethnic politics or tribal politics and invite experts in fields such as history, anthropology and sociology. In such places, the traditional state theory and international relations theory have lost their “use”.
Thirdly, “nation-state” and “empire” are not binary opposites, and the transition from the “empire” era to the “nation-state” world is not a linear process. In fact, even in today’s world which is mainly composed of “nation-states”, empires are still not far away. As the earliest nation-states, colonial empires such as Britain and France did not die until after World War II.
Wang Gungwu called this kind of country, which is a “nation-state” in Europe and a huge colonial empire outside Europe, a “national empire”.
During the Cold War, the two superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union, were often described as imperialist countries. After the end of the Cold War, the United States enjoyed a “unipolar moment” and was described as “modern Rome”. Katzenstein argues that the United States’ super strength gives it the characteristics of an empire. When studying the relationship between the United States and Europe and Asia, Katzenstein used the concept of “American Empire”. In fact, the United States’ naked interference in the internal affairs of other countries, even military invasions, the support of puppets, and the “imperialism” of putting its own will above the will of the international community have been condemned by other countries and even the United States’ allies for many years.
“We live in a century of nearly 200 nations, each displaying symbols of sovereignty (flags, seats in the United Nations) and each claiming to represent its own people. Regardless of size, these nations are in principle equal members of the international community, united by international law. But the world of nation-states that we take for granted is only 60 years old. “
This is the first paragraph of the first chapter of Jane Burbank and Frederick Cooper’s “A Global History of Empires.” This is undoubtedly a true portrayal of the world today. But soon after this paragraph, they immediately reminded readers: “The persistence of empires challenges the view that nation-states are natural, necessary, and inevitable.” This sentence is obviously more important for us to understand the world today. In this book, they also argue that “empires have not yet given way to a stable, functioning world composed of nation-states. “
Faced with such a world that has achieved the transition from “empire” to “nation-state” but is still full of confusion, some Chinese scholars argue that looking at the evolution of world history since modern times, nation-states and empires show a clue of cyclical replacement. When the nation-state system is weak, empires will come back unexpectedly. When the nation-state operates strongly, the empire retreats. The empire obtains the opportunity of periodic reconstruction in the gap of the international system of the nation-state. The world today has just entered an active period of decline of the nation-state and reconstruction of the empire. The revival of the old empire and the construction of the new empire have become the two basic modes of imperial reconstruction. Between the periodic transformation of the nation-state and the empire, mankind seeks progress in order to find a way out of this vicious cycle.
Of course, when it comes to China, some scholars have expressed a more cautious attitude, believing that the traditional concepts of “empire” and “nation-state” are not enough to describe the complexity of the state form, and may even obscure the understanding of the diversity of human political forms and the imagination of human development. Theoretical research by Chinese scholars urgently needs to start from history and reality and develop a research perspective with subjectivity to locate China’s own development direction.
Part 4. Conclusion
Throughout the development and changes of human history, whether tribes or city-states, kingdoms or empires, multi-ethnic empires or “nation-states” composed of a single nation, they are actually different forms of the evolution of human “communities”. This kind of community can be either single or complex. The world is so big that the form and time of the evolution of human communities in different regions cannot be uniform. When all regions of the world are organized in the way of “nation-states”, problems, contradictions and conflicts caused by such differences arise. With the development and progress of history, the scope of various forms of communities in human society is getting larger and larger, and there are more and more opportunities for compounding. Therefore, on the one hand, we see that tribal politics in some regions seems to be solidified there, making it difficult for emerging “nation-states” to move forward; on the other hand, we also see that with the continuous deepening of economic globalization and social informatization, capital, technology, knowledge, talents and commodities are flowing more freely, and the world is reorganizing according to the supply chain of market demand, forming a new “super map” beyond national boundaries. In other words, the economic, political, social and geographical conditions that support nation-states are changing, which may pave the way for resolving the “historical burden” of nation-states and even building a larger community of interests beyond the country.
“Community” is a very broad concept, covering everything from villages to the virtual world on the Internet. Communities include clans and tribes formed by blood ties, families formed by marriage and blood ties, and ethnic or national communities formed by common economic life, residential areas, languages, and cultural and psychological qualities. Communities beyond national boundaries, such as regional communities, transnational cooperation initiatives, and international organizations, are increasingly attracting academic attention. Akira Irie regards “international organizations” as an attempt to transcend nation-states and establish a “global community.” In fact, communities are no longer “present communities” that must be linked to a shared territory. “De-territorialized communities” and cross-cultural “virtual communities” are constantly emerging and have an increasing impact on the world. Some scholars even argue that the Internet has promoted the evolution of communities and the evolution of human order, from the family community providing identity and “natural order” to the ethnic community promising consensus and “creative order,” and then to the Internet establishing the principle of recognition and building a diverse and symbiotic ecological order with its technical logic, core values, and multi-context reconstruction functions.
Historically, whether we view China as an empire or a civilization, whether we view China as a precocious modern country or as a superpower that has risen rapidly in recent decades, Chinese history is a history of a community that constantly seeks mutual recognition and integration between “self” and “others”, which is the uniqueness of Chinese history. It can be said that China’s historical experience can provide useful thinking for the confusion between “empire” and “nation-state”.
In fact, if we examine “empire” and “nation-state” in the sequence of the evolution of human community, we will not hesitate between one or the other, and we will not be bound by form and name, but will open up new and more development space for the realization of “human community”. It is worth noting that although China’s historical experience is very different from that of the major empires in Europe and the Middle East, China is still recognized as an “empire” by most Western scholars, and it is the only “empire” that has successfully returned to the ranks of great powers after being eliminated and can challenge the United States’ world dominance.
This adds unimaginable difficulty to China’s role as a great power. As far as relevant academic research is concerned, if the core issue of mainstream American international relations theory is the maintenance of hegemony, and the core issue of the British school of international relations theory is the formation and development of the international community, the core issue of China’s international relations theory should be how to peacefully integrate into the international community as a rising power.
Then this peaceful integration is not just passively accepting the existing norms of the international community, but also actively participating in shaping a new world order. One important aspect of this is to actively promote and shape new communities of interests, build more common interests with more countries and regions, and let the world that is turning from “empire” to “nation-state” be enriched by more communities of interests. This is a challenge, but also a way out.