GOOD.is
GOOD is a collaboration of individuals, businesses, and nonprofits pushing the world forward. Get involved.
  • Home
  • |
  • Columns ▶
    • BoingBoing on GOOD
    • Joe Ippolito on Business
    • Carol Coletta on Cities
    • Alissa Walker on Design
    • Ben Jervey on the Environment
    • Peter Smith on Food
    • Truman National Security Project on Foreign Policy
    • Picture Show
    • Mark Peters on Language
    • Anne Trubek on Literature
    • See All Columns
  • |
  • Video
  • |
  • Infographics
  • |
  • Community
  • |
  • Events
  • Follow GOOD:
  • twitter
  • flickr
  • facebook
  • youtube
  • rss feed
  • Business
  • |
  • Cities
  • |
  • Culture
  • |
  • Design
  • |
  • Education
  • |
  • Environment
  • |
  • Food
  • |
  • Health
  • |
  • Media
  • |
  • People
  • |
  • Politics
  • |
  • Technology
  • |
  • Transportation
  • 7
  • 3

Neo-medieval Times

  • Posted by: Parag Khanna
  • on December 11, 2008 at 7:22 pm

Nation-states aren’t the only forces in the world anymore. Parag Khanna says the new realities of international relations look a lot like old realities—really old realities.

The 21st century looks more like the 14th century than it does like the 19th or the 20th. As in the 14th century, we now have empires, religious groups and fanatics, fears of the plague and superstition, multinational corporations, and city-states—Dubai is the new Venice. That is really what the world looks like today. It doesn’t look the 19th century, with clean-cut territorial empires.

The nation-state has just about passed away in terms of exclusivity. Now, when people talk about countries and international relations, they have to acknowledge that what they’re talking about is, at best, a particular slice of what’s going on in the world, and is not at all representative of the entirety of what’s happening. But there are some exceptions. When you look at China, you don’t exactly say that it is disappearing as a state. When you look at the financial crisis, all of a sudden, the United States is more of a state than ever. It has decided to take over practically the entire financial-services industry.

On the other hand, there are some states that will never really be states. People are saying, “Let’s take Afghanistan and let’s build this state, and one day it will look like Switzerland.” But the truth is, all of these failed states—of which there are dozens and dozens around the world—are coming into being, and the U.N. and other agencies are trying to do “nation building” at a time when all of these new actors are coming in and taking control of public services. I don’t believe, after going to Afghanistan a few times, that Afghanistan is ever really going to be a functioning sovereign state—ever. You’re going to find, in a lot more places in the world, this hybrid reality that isn’t as simple as “this is a country and you operate at the mercy of the government.” You’re going to find areas and zones controlled by different entities.

What comes next is companies and NGOs teaming up to do basically whatever they want. But it is also a new age, where a lot of new actors—because of cyberspace and the internet—aren’t interested in territory at all. They’re just interested in making money or controlling “mindshare.” Niall Ferguson calls it “apolarity.” There isn’t just one pole; it’s a confusing mix of things. And I think it’s going to be that way for a very, very long time. It’s a function of globalization, because globalization resists centralization. You can’t really have a centralized empire calling all the shots.

Is this a sustainable world order? If I offered that suggestion to a conservative American realist who believes that America should control the world, then they say it’s not sustainable. They tend to believe only unipolar hegemony is sustainable. That is, one power on top, everyone else underneath them, and that power calls the shots. On paper, that makes tons of sense. If you want to make it happen, just ask George Bush how feasible it was. Neo-medievalism might be extremely messy; it might be so complicated that you can’t even wrap your mind around it. But guess what? That’s reality, and we shouldn’t be making projections on the world that bear no resemblance to reality.

We shouldn’t be making projections on the world that bear no resemblance to reality.

Look at global problems, and look at how weak and pathetic global diplomacy is at confronting them. Neo-medievalism is a good thing compared to that, because you unleash the potential of all these other actors. Bill Gates gets a seat at the table. There is recognition of the power and responsibility of NGOs and corporations in a way that the U.N.-centric and state-centric order doesn’t allow for. In the U.N.’s General Assembly, Mali has as much of a vote as the United States, but the fact is that Mali’s health budget comes from a guy named Bill Gates. In some years, a large percentage of the budget of the World Health Organization comes from the Gates Foundation. So you’ve got an NGO providing the money for an international organization of governments to function.

The key principle is overlap. Many people think that because a company isn’t a country, it falls beneath some jurisdiction. But more and more companies fall into all jurisdictions and under none at the same time, because all they do is regulatory arbitrage. They just move around wherever is best for them. Why did Halliburton go to Dubai? Changing this would never work because globalization is more powerful than any one country. Globalization creates perpetual, universal opportunities for nonstate actors to exploit. And governments can’t control globalization. No one can.


  • Filed under: Magazine : State of the Planet
  • Categories: Politics
  • Share
  • Discuss
  • Mark it good!
  • Facebook
  •   Twitter
  • Digg
  • Stumble
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
Direct link to this post:
Send as an Email:
Your email address:
Recipient's email address:
Message:

X
DISCUSSION: 3 Comments
    • Posted by: Anonymous
    • on December 12, 2008 at 1:48 pm

    Your point about the size, number, and intentions of actors or stakeholders who shape our world is well taken. Rather than question the sustainability of the situation, I would tend to question the overall standard of living in a state, region, continent, etc. Given that there are these varied interests and actors, the question becomes how should land, labor, and capital be best allocated to create the greatest benefit to all of those various stakeholders. So in the situation you describe, who decides how to make these allocations? 

    • Posted by: maninthebox62
    • on December 14, 2008 at 11:54 am

    Both the question posed by the article about sustainability and by Anonymous about standard of living are two sides of the same coin.   It just depends on where you are living.  Americans should focus on the sustainability of their economy, standard of living, geopolitical viewpoints, etc.  Other countries might have other aspects to focus on such as the sustainability of a national government, food supply, an effective police force, etc.

    • Posted by: Anonymous
    • on March 30, 2009 at 6:40 pm

    A bone to pick – city states were characteristic of the Italian renaissance, not the period known conventionally as the medieval era.

Login or Sign up to discuss this article

About The Contributors

  • Parag Khanna

    Parag Khanna

     

Recent Readers

  • admin
  • Price
See all

Related Content

  • Blog : GOOD Blog

    Treason Times

    Here is a funny little piece on the latest vilification of the New York Times for publishing super-secret government programs ...
    Read & Discuss

  • Blog : GOOD Blog

    Hot And Bothered

    In New York, it's 90 degrees in mid-October. In Chicago, stifling heat shut down the marathon and ...
    Read & Discuss

  • Blog : GOOD Blog

    Reality Union

    Reality TV has writers. Who knew? How could you write something that's real? So confusing. Those writers, they're ...
    Read & Discuss

  • Blog : GOOD Blog

    Why the New York Coup Matters to You

    Have you heard a little about what's happening in the New York Senate, which has suddenly ...
    Read & Discuss

  • Magazine : Q & As

    Digital World Explorer

    The digital ethnographer Michael Wesch on the dark side of ...
    Read & Discuss

This Week In Magazine

  • Most Discussed
  • Most GOODMarked
  1. Transparency: The Effects of Bike Commuting on Obesity
  2. The GOOD 100: Cowpooling
  3. The GOOD Guide to COP15: An Introduction
  4. The Kids Are All Right
  5. Picture Show: Four Days in Dubai
  6. Picture Show: Breach
  7. LOOK: On the Road with Ethos Alliance
  8. Transparency: How Education Spending Affects Graduation Rates
  9. Action, In Words and Pictures
  10. The GOOD Guide to COP15: The Treaty
  1. The GOOD Guide to COP15: The Fire this Time: Copenhagen and the War for the Future
  2. Picture Show: Breach
  3. Picture Show: Four Days in Dubai
  4. The GOOD Guide to COP15: An Introduction
  5. The Kids Are All Right
  6. The GOOD 100: Cowpooling
  7. Transparency: The Change in Carbon Emissions
  8. The GOOD Guide to COP15: The Treaty
  9. The GOOD Guide to COP15: The Players
  10. Action, In Words and Pictures

GOOD Magazine
About
|
Join
|
Sign In

Categories

  • Business
  • Cities
  • Culture
  • Design
  • Education
  • Environment
  • Food
  • Health
  • Media
  • People
  • Politics
  • Technology
  • Transportation

Special Features

  • Blogs
  • Events
  • Infographics
  • Look
  • Picture Show
  • Q&A
  • Video

Community

  • Community Board
  • Member directory
  • Join the Community

Social

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • YouTube
  • Flickr

Magazine

  • Current issue
  • Back issues
  • Subscribe
  • Gift a gift
  • Renew/Service

GOOD

  • What is GOOD?
  • Make GOOD better
© GOOD Worldwide LLC. - all rights reserved
  • Company details
  • Contact
  • Advertise
  • Careers
  • RSS
  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Powered by Verkata