Globalization And National Sovereignty

In most recent news, Russia has expelled some of America's embassy staff in retribution for sanctions that America has imposed on Russia for interfering in America's election.

The funniest thing about this is that for a long time Russians were identified as Reds. And here they helped a Republican candidate to get into office. In fact, Russians have more in common with Republicans than they do with Democrats. I have heard it said by Russian people that they always got along with Republicans better than they did with Democrats. Mostly it is a matter of temperament. Russians like strong leaders, they have no use for relativism, and they are socially conservative.

In 1996, Yeltsin ran in an election against Communist challenger Gennady Zuyganov. The West heavily supported the Yeltsin campaign. Does this qualify as meddling in Russia's internal affairs? Should Russia have imposed sanctions in return? Or was this simply due to the fact that, whenever any country is in a position to influence another, the other country will want to wield influence in it?

This is one of the maddening problems associated with globalization. If countries interact much with one another, they will be influencing one another, and they will be influenced back. Sometimes these influences will be for the better and sometimes they will be for the worse. For example, we have had Muslim guys come into places like Oslo and Sydney and gang-rape Western girls and teach young men in bad neighborhoods to be even worse to women than they had been previously. Like many other things, globalization looks good at the sight, but is not always for the better.

Globalization as such has lead to many good things. However it becomes necessary to set the correct parameters. What is subject to international treaties, and what is the country's internal affairs? What is up to the country and what is up to the rest of the world? What can countries do legitimately respecting other countries? Where does the international treaty law stop and the national law begin?

In America, there is the federal system. Some laws are up to the central government, and some laws are decided at the state or local level. It has been a successful arrangement. The basic rights apply to everyone. And each state has its own legislation, allowing people who want to live like they do in Texas to move to Texas and the people who want to live like they do in California to move to California.

In short, the real issue is where to draw the line between international coexistence and national sovereignty. What affairs can be challenged by other countries, and what affairs are strictly that of the country. This is a debate that every country needs to have, and this is a debate that the world needs to have. So far I have seen weighty arguments both toward international orientation and toward national sovereignty. It is important that people figure out the best way to arrange the two.