Open Forum
New Delhi, 8 July, 2016
Impact Of BREXIT
NATION Vs REGION Vs GLOBAL
By Dr.S.Saraswathi
(Former Director, ICSSR, New Delhi)
The exit of Britain from
the European Union by a referendum, Brexit is doubtlessly the biggest
development in international relations this decade. Whereby, it is expected to
produce multifold effects within and beyond EU countries. Pertinently, the impact will not be restricted
to economic ties.
Undeniably, globalization,
regionalism and nationalism are three driving forces which underlie
international ties today. The first treats
the world as one economic unit; the second represents union of contiguous
and/or common interest groups of countries having some common needs.
And the third signifies the anxiety
of individual countries to safeguard its sovereignty and independence against
encroachments from regional and global forces.
Notably, the three co-exist, sometimes as cooperating friendly forces
and other times as incongruent and even hostile military.
Among these, regionalism is the
intermediate form of community between the Nation State and the potential
global community of independent States.
It has grown as a post-War development in international relations.
Starting with security as the prime
concern, regionalism has added many other reasons for its growth of which
economic prosperity has become foremost under globalization.
Indeed, Britain’s big decision to leave the
EU, some believe, will give a jolt to the very concept and practice of
regionalism. However, the fact remains that the EU is a very advanced form of
regional organization far different and far ahead of many other regional
groupings. Hence, EU’s failure to hold together need not discourage other
moderate forms of regionalism in developing nations.
Remember, the EU traces its origin
to 1951 when five members – Belgium,
Germany, France, Luxembourg and the Netherlands joined together to
cooperate economically and developed the European Common Market.
The EU in the present form was born
in 1993 as a result of Maastricht Treaty by merging three European Communities
– European Economic Community (EEC), Economic and Social Committee (ECSC) and
the EURATOM (European Atomic Energy Community) to facilitate partial
integration of foreign and security policy and internal security aspects along-with
immigration policy. Then it had 15 members, now 28.
Undoubtedly, the experiment of
European integration is not a lone example of Nation States coming together institutionally
for common benefit. Asia-Pacific
Economic Cooperation (APEC), African
Union (AU), Union of South American Nations (USAN), Caribbean Community
(CARICOM), the Central American Integration System (CAIS), Arab League (AL) and
the European Free Trade Association (EFTA).
The Eurasian Economic Community (EAEC),
Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN), Central European Free Trade
Agreement (CEFTA), North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), South Asian
Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) and
Indian Ocean Rim Association (IORA) are all motivated by a common desire of
member countries to jointly promote their common interests.
Certainly, the EU’s decline is not a
sudden development. It is partly
economic and partially political. It might
be perceived as resurrection of strong nationalism against weakening of
autonomy that is embedded in economic and territorial integration of sovereign
States.
Whereby, even strong welfare States
like the Netherlands
feel the pinch of financial crisis in other EU States and struggle to cope with
the demands of global economy.
Additionally, internal frictions
among member countries have intensified due to the massive refugee problem
reminiscent of War time exodus.
Perhaps, Brexit is an outcome of the
inevitable conflict between the requirements of State sovereignty and the terms
governing regional integration. It is a democratic decision.
As history teaches us an
international region comprises a number of States linked by geographical
relationship and by a degree of mutual inter-dependence. For each State,
activities and happenings in other States have some significance due to
proximity and historic relationship.
In this way, European Union, African
Union, ASEAN are all natural formations in the context of globalization.
However, there are some vital differences between the EU consisting of member
countries having different political background and the other two having
members with somewhat similar political experiences.
The concept of “regional
organization” has also acquired broader connotation cutting across geographical
contiguity. Wherein, it is sometimes used to refer to any non-universal
associations from the Commonwealth to the Arab League.
Interestingly, NATO (North Atlantic
Treaty Organization) has members from both sides of the Atlantic and in the
Scandinavian and Mediterranean areas. This has
led to a modified definition of regionalism as a “voluntary association of
sovereign States within certain areas or having common interests in that area
for a joint purpose, which should not be of offensive nature, in relation to
that area”.
Importantly, the UN Charter deals
with regional pacts in a separate chapter and allows States to “resort to
regional agencies and arrangements” for pacific settlement of local
disputes. Co-existence of world bodies
and regional organizations has been considered possible and in a way helpful to
promote UN endeavours to maintain peace.
Started primarily for common defence
purpose in the aftermath of World War II, regional organizations have now
become mainly economic interest groups under globalization.
What has caused Britain’s exit
from the EU is mainly the growing economic influence of this regional
organization contravening its domestic opinion and interests. Fear of jobs loss,
increasing migration of employment seekers from European countries into this
small island nation and a sort of compulsion to change its legal structures and
welfare measures to align with European standards are some of the problems
pointed out by Brexit supporters.
On the other hand, smaller EU
countries are afraid of “EU elephants” like Britain.
In Asia,
the ASEAN – the Association of South-East Asian Nations is a successful
regional organization which has completed 50 years. Starting with five, it now has ten members and
six dialogue partners. It is even said
that the West is jealous of the rise of Asian regionalism wherein trade across Pacific
is over shadowed by trade across Asia promoted
by regional unions.
On the contrary, South
Asia is not only a late starter in regionalization but is also a
reluctant performer. The performance of SAARC (South Asian Association for
Regional Cooperation) consisting of Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal,
Pakistan, and Sri Lanka is in no sense admirable as the region is
fraught with bilateral problems obstructing unity of purpose and action. It has neither grand vision nor strong
political will for cooperation. Still, it promotes trade agreements.
SAARC is a specimen of nationalism
dominating regionalism. The member countries are more inclined to seek
solutions to their problems through their associations with countries beyond South Asia than through their neighbouring
countries.
Consequently, such unions of nations
are not necessarily bound by geographical proximity but by certain common
economic interests. These include BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and
South Africa), and BIMSTEC ( Bangladesh,
India, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Thailand
Economic Cooperation) which are actively engaged in presenting a united
front of some sovereign countries
against the dictates of globalization foisted on the unprepared
developing nations.
In this scenario, Brexit has no
particular lessons for other regional blocs.
Its decline is EU’s problem. The
economic impact of Brexit is part of the economic risks involved in
globalization. --- INFA
(Copyright,
India News and Feature Alliance)
|