State & Internationalist Ideology
This article takes as premise the well known argument that the constitution and formation of a State by a people, that is a historically formed political community, implies that all the other existing states beyond its territory are, generally speaking, potential enemy States. Some may appear as less (unfriendly! in particular contexts) and some more or totally unfriendly in a particular contexts, but irrelevant with regard to the necessity of constituing into a state by a people. In diplomatic language, like in the head of States summit, we use to find terms such as ‘friendly state’; they are either rhetoric for persuasive speech or embodies foreign policy element to ally with other states against the present common enemy.
Constitution of the state is also the transformation of people into ‘citizens’ with refernce to the constitution they adopt as the foundation of the State. In the process State commits to protect the interest, general or national, against any foreign threat and thereby declare other politically constituted people as their enemy. In other words, Citizens entrust State to protect their interest against any threat that is external or internal, that is why State can act as sovereign entity, taking decsions on behalf of the people as a collective unit and can apply in times of exception or ; otherwise, it is not a State at all.
Block Concept
During the whole era of Cold war, at least up to late 90’s, the development of critical idea of State was seriously undermined by Cold War discourses. The dominant discourse was either we have to be in Soviet Block or in American Block. The ‘block’ concept is directly opposite to the political premise of the idea of State, i.e. sovereignty. The ideological root of this idea can be traced in abstract internationalism. “Workers of the whole world must unite together”. Despite the radical and futuristic determination in global worker’s unity and worker’s internationalism against the global capitalist class, the slogan had been reduced into the debate of whether a country should be in Soviet Block or in American? Internationalism as a concept has mostly misunderstood and abused to serve Soviet foreign relations, rather than promoting unity of the working class of the world and the practical questions of addressing the imagining of a political community as ‘nation’ and expressed through sovereign states.
So, block concepy has disastrously blurred what Marx had to say on State or how Lenin practically resolved some of the most daunting task of political revolution led by Bolshevik Party, such as demolishing the idea that a workers can use the existing state of the capitalist class without smashing it, the brilliant methodological focus on State Power and State Apparatus as separate category and his proposition that dicatatorship of a class against its enemy class, are at the same time democracy within the class; smashing of the conventional opposition between dictatorship and democracy is the single most revolutionary concept for politics. Block concept not only suppressed these revolutionary ideas that Lenin had already put successfully into practice but also silenced extremely relevant debates such as the idea and the necessity of the State — i.e., historical necessity of the dictatorship of the proletariat (democracy within working class but dictatorship against the enemy) in a country in order to take the class struggle from the level of individual state to the global system of states to realise working class internatonalism. As a result actually existing socialism as we saw in Soviet Union soon became a caricature of ideas developed and practiced by Marx and Lenin.
As an an actually existing state the capitalist states were indeed enemy of Soviet Union and the block concept developed to mobilise other weak states agaist Western powers as an integral component of Soviet foreign policy. The weak states had to succumb either to the pressure of American Block or Soviet’s. Nevertheless within this Block there were contradiction between the states, as well.
Soviet Block and weakness of state concept of local Communist
Very few people remember the fact that in 1917 Bolshevik revolution happened in Russia, not in Soviet Union. Soviet Union, a federation of 15 neighboring States, formed five years later in 1922. (Though 1922 was the beginning of forming federation and it ends until 1956. Then it took stable shape of a federation of 15 States as USSR.) There was a vibrant ideological debate after the Russian revolution took place, how to protect the new Russia State, especially Trotsky’s “Socialism in one country” debate. The debate never resolved in theory but by practical reality. It was a fact that the first Marxist-Leninist revolution influenced a lot generally all over Europe, which was on War at that time, the First World War. Among them, the neighbors of new Russian State naturally influenced the most. Either local Communist Party formed a new or the existing one boosted up by the influential campaign, both militarily and ideologically, of Russian revolution, managed to capture state power in respective State and become a member of the confederation. In the same fashion, all the East European communist Countries appeared as state until the end of WWII.
Practically what does it mean in terms of social change to those newly confederation members? In terms of advancement from the suffering of pre-capitalist stage of the society, it is true, they gained a lot, but ensuring, in exchange, security to the Russian State by becoming buffer States encircling the new Russian State. This new development and ground reality silenced the “Socialism in one country” debate in practical terms without resolving the question theoretically.
We can argue that the newly formed confederation member States compromised in there respective State formation in classical sense, State exists since the people constituted as a state views other states as potential threat to their existence. As a result, a crisis become pertinent to this process, carried as a innate-mark they continue to bear and still bearing even after the break down of USSR. The military offense of Czechoslovakia, Hungary and other East European countries state formation may be seen in this light. On the other hand, by being practical or pragmatic in the context of unresolved theoretical debate security of the new Russian State became the cornerstone of Soviet Union’s foreign policy. Thus, Concept of Block took its place in world history and pretended so far that it is a substitute to the classic idea of sovereign State. Why states exist at all, is still a puzzling question.
Other states are potential enemy of a state is therefore an important proposition that we can not bypass. Block concept has blurred this question and the debate derailed to the security of the state. When a people constituite themselves as a new state without joining others it implies that they do not consider other politically constiututed people as friends. With the dominance of the block concept it appeared as false, as if ‘friendship’ can be constituted at the level of the alliance of the states permanently suppressing the potential animosity. Consequency, it mplies, the new state does not require to think about its sovereignty and security independently”; for example, becoming the foreign policy executor of the United States of America or Soviet Union will automatically gurantee the sovereignty and the security.
There was another element in communist movement. The level of seriousness they possess in breaking down an imperialist bourgeois state the more they are less serious in shaping it to a democratic state. Historically they lack concept of the categoriacl division of power and apparatus developed by Lenin as a revolutionary practitioner. So the cumulative effect of all these is communists, whether sitting in communist party in power or the Communist parties in different countries, resulted as a passionate executor of Soviet foreign policy in the name of “workers of the whole world must unite together”. Whereas, they forgot or suppressed the fact that after all, USSR is a separate State, it has its own interest which may or may not fit all the time on all foreign policy issues with other communist or non-communist states. USSR might find something favorable in some or whole in the foreign policy of a new or existing States, even then, that should not be considered a permanently favorable one; at times, it might appear as opposite.
Chinese Experiences
The second Communist revolution that shook the world was China. They are the first who realize from practical experience the problem, the contradiction of the slogan “workers of the whole world must unite together” and a State’s interest as reflected in Soviet foreign policy. If there were any practical meaning of the Chinese idea of “Social Imperialism”, as a complain against Soviet Union then it had only in this context. Unfortunately, the Chinese view was a practical stance and an outcome resolving theoretical problems we were suggesting. We may express our premise differently: if other states are potential enemy, despite the historical necessity to ally with any one in a definite historical context, a State must have its own interest that contradicts the the slogan “Workers of the whole world must unit”. We have seen opposing Soviet Block concept Chinese State reaffirmed the thesis. I order to sefegurd Chinese interest it developed its own Block and to carry out its foreign policy objective. At one point we have seen Albanian State also raise the same complain, “Social Imperialism” against China.
Let us start this paragraph with a forgotten but sensitize fact. Can we imagine Taiwan as one of the five Permanent members with veto power of United Nations Security Council? The answer is yes, affirmative. In 1971, when we were undergoing military crack down by Pakistani State ruler, Taiwan was one of the permanent members of five; and Mao’s China State, PRC, since its inception in 1949 was not even a simple member of UN. Peoples Republic of China got its membership of UN and accepted as permanent members of five in the Security Council of United Nations replacing Taiwan. UN General Assembly on 25 October 1971, by a vote of 76 to 35 with 17 abstentions, adopted an Albanian resolution, thereby making Peking a UN member and expelling Taiwan.
Fact is People’s Republic of China State could not support the would be Bangladesh State in 1971. Why? To examine this question I raise the previous paragraph. Its simple answer is, even being a Communist People’s Republic, China’s national interest reflected in State’s foreign policy could not match with our national interest with which we were in birth pang to be Bangladesh State. If we want to go beyond the then Awami-Indian-Soviet campaign against China then we will find Chinese State engaged in securing its own very important interest, general membership and to be one of the permanent member of five in UN Security Council which, was so far held up because of US veto. There was no diplomatic tie between US and China but both were full with eagerness to conclude a negotiation phase at that moment. Moreover undivided Pakistan was in between who has very close relation with both the Countries. These two points, gave a unique opportunity to Yahia Khan to act providing his office as a mediator, as a starter meal of the negotiation. In exchange, he gained a lot. He got support in favor of his brutal military action to the east. The biggest service Yahia provided was arranging a secret visit of Henry A. Kissinger, President Nixon’s adviser on national security affairs to Peking. Kissinger was on a visit formally to Islamabad but while in Islamabad, for two days he disappeared from public, visited Peking in disguise on 9-11 July 1971. Why this visit was so important to both China and US? I hope the reader’s will allow me here to go a bit detail. It was so important because it was time to conclude the first part of the important negotiation going on since 1969. The target was to confer at length with Chou En-lai to arrange for his President Nixon’s trip. It was a deal for China with USA so that (among others) it can fill up the important Permanent Seat in the UN Security Council replacing Taiwan. As a positive follow up of Kissinger’s visit, on 14 July, President Nixon responded to the Chinese gesture by announcing in public further relaxation of restrictions on trade and travel with China. On 15 July, Nixon declared he would visit China by May 1972, next year. Less than three weeks after Nixon’s announcement, Secretary of State William P. Rogers declared that the United States would support the seating of the People’s Republic of China in the General Assembly and support the transfer of the China seat in the Security Council from Taipei to Peking.
So we see clearly, Chinese State interest was not in a position to consider its best friend’s cruel activity rather it had supported the position of Pakistan.
In the same fashion, we see now the latest Chinese State position. In Sudan Darfur case, the UN fact-finding team submitted its report to Security Council where they recommended it as a case of genocide acted by the Sudanese State. China objected to the language and using its veto power, the language reduced to ‘nearer to genocide’ and thereby saved the Sudanese Government from prosecution in UN Crime Against Humanity Court. As Chinese State has particular material (oil and others) interest with present Sudanese Government, it has helped saving the ruler. From here, we can see again, a State has its own interest, which it might think supreme above any other interest or consideration.
Possibilities and Task to do
Given that world capitalism threatening the sovereignty of State, reconfiguring the sytem of states to serve the self expansion and accumulation of Capital, the slogan “workers of the whole world must unite” is more logical than before. It is definitely not running out. However, the question is what would be the way to realize this slogan into action? It has not realised so far and the and demand a new approach in a new historical context.
Since 9/11 the appearance of Islamist idea are also also nurturing internationalist ideology like the Communist. By Internationalist I mean to say, there ideology is not confined within national boundary, but aspiring to establish Islam globally, similar as communist’s international aspiration. Given Trotsky’s unresolved debate, the more they are internationalist the less they think about State — and their similarity with communists is precisely on this point.
How it would be the common feature? To have some idea let us see if there is anything to learn in the following examples.
The first one is European Union. Though the driving force behind the unity of States here is World Capitalism in the broader context which, does not mean competition is not prevailing here as under current. Having some common feature in foreign policy here, the common target is what best they can achieve for World Capitalism forming with a ‘Union of States’ gradually. However, still we can find here the long created States are not abolished or dissolved, rather we see separate interest of every State is active, functioning, vibrant even have taken 180 degree against one another opposite position in 2003 on Iraq issue. Still they are trying to work together keeping the differences.
Second example: The case of Iran. As a State, at present we see Iran devised its interest centering on Iraq policy and Nuclear Policy. The first one is a rare convergence with American policy on Iraq; where the second one is not. In doing so, Iran as a State, utilized the opportunity of using having Shiite population in, the members of another State, Iraq. I am not judging Iran as a State whether its foreign policy is right or wrong (actually that will depend on the context, whether it is of the view of Iranian State or Iraqi State), rather showing what a State mean to be, what is its true reflection. Right or wrong, it is a true reflection of a State behavior of Iran. There does not exist any general interest as such of Shiite of both Iraq and Iran as a whole, rather Iranian State interest rules over the Iraqi Shiite interest. In this juncture of history, success of Iranian State Policy means dissolution of the State Iraq. On the other hand, Iraqi Shiite’s option in forming a State Iraq together with other nationalities or race of Iraq cannot realize as long as they raise their identity as Shiite. Identity of State is a crucial factor here in forming a State Iraq. As long as Iraqi Shiite opts there identity to be Shiite, State Iraq will not exist. Continuously, this polity of Iraqi Shiite will bring nothing for them; rather help Iran to appropriate for their own State interest.
By this time, we might find some cruel expression of State, creation of a State actually means as cruel as that. We might find and choose some less cruel option but State is inherently cruel in itself. It does not mean to say, we must realize our State with all possible cruelty.
Our liberal Friends
In the context of materializing in concrete form of the idea, “Workers of the whole world must unite together” is not an easy task, especially when it contains some sense inherently of the idea of dissolution of State. Secondly, being surrounded mostly by India, it is very problematic to raise any genuine concern of Bangladesh State; Islamist has tendency to do it with communal religious tone. On the other hand, liberal secularist is forgetful and liberal everywhere. Therefore, any real issue relating to strengthening the State Bangladesh or any serious discussion regarding State in Bangladesh context readily traps or sounds like old communal cheap campaign in the ear of our Liberal thinkers consist of communist, left leaning idea holder (interestingly they are the ‘modern’ strong middle class voice) of Bangladesh. As a net result, they undermine the requisite of developing a State as State.
Security of a State from any external State territory is an integral part of the concept of State. If a State cannot secure or defends its existence, then talking about State is meaningless. Defends means State defense, army and thereby the picture of army comes to our mind. By army obviously I do not mean standing army, I meant mass-defense, which involves the constituent member in the protection of State. In Bangladesh, 5+9 years of the army rule helped foreign states deep penetration in and relation with the army under the disguise of Technical assistance, support, training, joint-exercise and Peace Mission, as well underestimated the concept of State defense. As a net result, developing a State defense becomes a negative and trivial issue to our ‘Liberal’ friends. They campaign in favor of a idea like, India is a big powerful State and we can’t subdue its strength so thinking of State defense is not a issue to them.