Transnationalism

World politics in the later twentieth century is mainly characterized by an immense degree of transnationalism. Transnationalism recognizes a trend in world politics. Transnationalism thrives in the modern world in which transport and communication have begun to play a qualitatively different role in world politics than in the past. Transnationalism in itself does not constitute a theory. It is not just a phenomenon of non-state action that accompanies international relations, but is also a pervasive and politically salient phenomenon most likely to develop rapidly under conditions created by modern communications. Transnationalism, says Huntingon, is the American mode of expansion. It is nearly impossible to avoid the question of whether transnationalism is more important in world politics than ever before. Transnational relationships do play an increasing role, and is higher than at any point since World War I. Transnationalism is the "engine of the merging social structure of the world." (Clarke 151)

Samuel P. Huntington was the most important foreign policy intellectual in the United States during the 1990's. Huntington saw that despite the economic and cultural globalization, forceful resistance remained. Divisions among people tend to be predominantly cultural. Principal conflicts of global politics occur between nations and groups of different civilizations. According to Huntington, the clash of civilizations will dominate global politics, where civilizations will inevitably clashÐ'--mainly due to cultural differences. I tend to disagree with Huntington due to the following characteristics of transnationalism. First, the role and function of the nation-state in international politics has changed dramatically over the years. New groups have emerged, such as terrorist groups, multinational corporations or hijackers. Even non-military and non-security issues have emergedÐ'--population, dependency of Third World countries on the developed, pollution and depletion of certain natural resources.

Huntington also failed to acknowledge the increase in interdependence adequately. Recently, there has been an increase in trade between countries, technology transfer, investment, student exchanges, migration, travel and other various transactions. Huntington also placed little or no emphasis on the fact that war is no longer a major option for foreign policy decision-makers. The more powerful the nation, the less feasible war becomes. The number of wars has decreased recently due to weapons of mass destruction that have succeeded in changing the nature of warfare. War has become an anachronism in the contemporary international system, an option that has become increasingly less viable for many foreign policy decision-makers. People must be aware of the declining capacity of governments, the emergence of new groups/actors, and the rise in interdependence in an increasingly disjointed world.

There is certainly a great deal of evidence that interdependence is high and in some instances increasing. Peter. J. Katzenstein explained that from 1954-1961, "world trade flow increased 63%. Likewise, the flow of world capital during the 1950's increased 83.3% "(Sullivan 204). The same pattern occurred with international communicationÐ'--mail, telegrams, phone calls etc.Ð'--where there was an increase by 19.7% in the 1961-1969 period (Sullivan 205). On the other hand, Konrad Kressley argues that the increase in interdependence is merely and impression that does not reflect reality. Kressley's precise words were, "...The dominant forces in today's nation states continue to predispose societal closure despite availability of integrative technology" (Sullivan 206). I find that Kressley does raise an important issue since I am certain that although interdependence does exist, current levels of interdependence are not necessarily higher than those of earlier eras.

Huntington described that the conflicts of the western world were mainly among emperors, absolute monarchs and constitutional monarchs attempting to expand their bureaucracies, mercantilist economic strength, their armies and territory they ruled. After creating nation states and beginning the French Revolution, conflicts occurred between nations instead of emperorsÐ'--"The wars of kings were over; the wars of peoples had begun" (R. R. Palmer, 1793). This pattern continued until the end of World War I. Once the Russian Revolution ended, the conflict of nations was transformed into the conflict of ideologiesÐ'--communism, fascism and liberal democracy. The world became divided into the First, Second and Third Worlds during the cold war. Recently, countries are grouped in terms of their cultures and civilizationÐ'--a cultural identity. The culture of a village in southern Germany may be different from that of a village in another region in Germany, but both share a general common German culture that distinguishes them from villages in other countries. European communities will share general cultural features that will also distinguish them from Asian communities. Europeans, Asians, Arabs and other cultural entities constitute civilizations. Civilizations are the broadest level of cultural identity that distinguishes humans from other