Abstract
Among the versions of cosmopolitanism, one common feeling that echo’s is the feeling of being the citizen of the world and as the citizen of the world, we have the mutual responsibility to assist each other. It allows one individual to move beyond the idea of nationalism and see himself in a much more universal manner. The post-World War II scene of the world was one of mutual help and assistance to reel the nations out of what was a culturally draining and economically crippling war.
With this idea, global institutions such as the IMF, UNO, WTO etc. were formed. The main agenda of these organisations was to reduce poverty and maintain stability in an increasingly decolonising world. Many critics have observed that the above-mentioned organisations have served as a conduit to the developed nations interests. They believe that these nations have pushed for policies and rules in international trade which would give greater returns for their own domestic producers. But even then, organisations like such have at least helped reduce trade barriers and encouraged economic liberalisation which saw an increase in international trade.
But among the obvious increase in trade since the genesis of global institutional framework, there is a return of the protectionist behaviour by many global leaders. Countries such as Great Britain which decided to withdraw from the EU is an example. Similarly, since the election of Donald Trump even US has threatened to withdraw from their regional trade partnerships and have simultaneously been increasing trade tariffs. Even India joined the bandwagon with a few protectionist measures.
It is such pattern of behaviour by nations which is worrisome. Now more than ever is a need for nations to come together for global economic prosperity since such actions breed retaliation by the global community.
Keywords: – Cosmopolitanism, Protectionism, Retaliation
- Introduction
Our understanding of the term ‘globalised’ is broadly divided into many theories which cover the manner in which humans generally interact with each other, morality and values on which societies & communities are built. One such theory, Cosmopolitanism, states that rather than being a nation state, we are a universal state and are bound together with one very similar string of moral values. In this paper the researcher would like to explore how many versions of the theory have been perceived by the global community. Along with that, I would like to explore the old age phenomenon of protectionism and how countries are now in the recent few years are beginning to use it to meet their self-interest.
Derived from the Greek word ‘Kosmopolites’[1], which in English translates to ‘citizen of the world’,this word was first used by Diogenes the Cynic and later by the Stoics who stated that the cosmos is of one polis of which the order was logos or right reason. They identified people into two broad communities, the local and the wider common.[2] But using this definition in the modern sense is a difficult task as there are too many variables which have to incorporated. In other terms, the definition is too wide to be incapsulated in one definition.
Among the simplest definitions of the theory, cosmopolitanism can be understood as the perspective of global justice and as a concept within which the discourse of human rights & theory of justice takes place.[3] Along with this, it can be considered to be an ethical stance, where individuals engage with others in dialogue and understanding to move beyond parochialism. It is also said to be a normative viewpoint from which one experiences, understands and judges the world.[4]
One aspect of this theory which is important to understand is that this theory is not a western universal. The cosmopolitan desire does not emanate from one epistemic location found in traditions globally.[5]
“My humanity is caught up and inextricably bound up in yours.”
-Desmond Tutu
The above-mentioned statement in my opinion sums up the theory of cosmopolitanism in the best possible way. This view promotes a reflective sum of interdependence which stresses that over identity and potential for being is realised through our engagement with others.[6] Therefore, such a theory states that an ethical foundation of a just society are not found in the material gain of an individual but through a mutual development of ethical relations based on reciprocity, hospitality and recognizing our interconnectedness.[7] The definitions saw many interpretations made over the years by the Christians (Augustine’s interpretation), and was also widely used in the European renaissance by Erasmus and Grotius who advocated world peace through religious tolerance and a society of states.[8] The theory went on through the era of the American and the French revolution as well. Moving into the 18th century and authors such as Bentham (Utilitarianism) and Kant (Universal reason)[9] developed the theory and gave it a new meaning. The 19th century saw transnational ideas being taken to a new level by Marx who critiqued capitalism on behalf of an international working class.[10]
But even with the growth of the theory and different versions of it, there will simultaneous critics as well. The criticisms began pervading in the 19th Century. In terms of national identities, the theory was condemned for being anti-national and denounced as the love of no country.[11] The word cosmopolitan was no being used in the same breath as to describe people who were inadequate in national commitment or loyalty to the community in which they resided.[12] One of the strongest criticism was that such people were opportunists and went where any prospect beckoned them. They were generally thought of people who showed little or no association to their own people and ethnicities and were more concerned about foreign cultures.[13]
Today cosmopolitanism is widely used in political science[14], international relations[15], sociology[16], cultural studies[17], history[18], political philosophy[19] and global ethics[20].
- The Unkept Promises
In modern times, the proponents of globalisation have been overshadowed by the critics and they have a reason to be. Since the agenda of a globalised world being the key to solve the issues of the world has been put on the table, there are many instances which point to the opposite direction. Repeated promises of poverty reduction are unkept, at a time when the average world income is on the rise.[21]
African nations had such great aspirations when the Resolution of 1514[22] was passed under which all the colonised nations were meant to be made into independent nations. This raised the aspirations of many nations, especially African nations but such aspirations have been largely kept unfulfilled. The continent is plunging into deeper crises with falling incomes and standards of living declining.[23]
Globalisation has not only failed to keep it promises of poverty reduction but has also failed at ensuring any form of stability in nations. Since the economic depression in 2008, the world has been living in fear of another financial contagion spreading worldwide.[24] Structural global inequalities are reflected and perpetuated by the actions at an institutional level as well. This form of inequality is not pervading in an abstract form, but at a concrete level in the form of policies and modus operandi of many established institutional bodies.[25]
IMF, World Bank, G-8 & WTO have been repeatedly criticised of such behaviour. Their pattern of behaviour over the years of making structural policy changes, conditionality’s on loans, emphasis on economic liberalisation and open trade and their autocratic decision making is the cause.[26] Now, the problem is that such measures and policies are done in the garb of assisting the developing countries, which is the argument made by the proponents to support such actions, but it is well documented that this is not the case. They largely tend to cause detriment to the interests of the developing nations while serving the interests of the big businesses and affluent countries.[27]
III. The Era of Protectionism
Now, in this part I would like to show how cosmopolitanism is not widely accepted in today’s world. To put in simple words, we have gone back to the post-World War I period when U.S.A decided to restrict its trade with other countries and serve its own interest with the Smoot-Hawley Act[28]. This caused a ripple effect and many nations around the world followed similar patterns of behaviour in international trade which eventually caused the Great Depression of 1929-30.
Similar behaviour of many countries in the recent past have the same connotation of protectionism attached to it.
BREXIT
In the middle of the year in 2016, the world got a shock in the form of Britain voting to leave the European Union. Even with the vote tally being almost evenly poised (52% for leaving and 48% for remaining)[29], it was still more than enough to set the wheels in motion for Britain to now leave EU. Many economists dubbed the move as one which would spin Britain into an economic turmoil, but at the same time the ones voting to leave believed that since the recession of 2008-09 and the austerity policies[30] of the EU had caused Britain to remain at near recession levels of economic growth[31].
The proponents of the move also criticised EU of being a dysfunctional economic entity. There was mass unemployment in the region of southern Europe (20%). There was a large gap in that factor as compared to countries like Germany which enjoy only 4.2% of unemployment. This can be attributed to the mass de-industrialisation which took place in the 1980s. This was regarded as the perverse ambition of the government in the years of Margaret Thatcher rather than any economic misfortune.[32] It was considered that Britain remaining in EU to solve its socio-economic problems was short sighted.[33]
The voices and the reasons of the proponents were strong but the growing anxiety and uncertainty over the fallout and the resultant new policy that Britain will have with the EU is bleeding the nation. Senior politicians during the rallies for leaving EU cited the Vienna Convention[34] for protection of its citizens in the event of treaty change. This was a flawed assurance because the convention protects the state rather than the individuals of a nation[35]. Most recently a report by the House of Lords[36] stated that the new legislation would provide little, if any protection.
This move has not only put a shadow of doubt over the future of Britain but at the same is affecting the rights of the people of Britain. Being members of EU, the citizens of Britain have built up certain rights at a European level[37]. The most obvious right which is being affected is to travel, live and work anywhere in Europe.
This move, if seen in light of cosmopolitanism, is a direct contradiction of the concept itself. Britain has chosen to revert back to a nation state, to serve the interests of its own population first and not worry about the partnership it had created with other European nations for mutual socio-economic benefit. This move not only put Britain in bad light in the international community but at the same time set a bad precedent in the EU that any nation can just get up and the leave the union if its interests are not met. This move has not only put a shadow of doubt over Britain’s future, but also the future of Europe, which has been the beacon of economic development worldwide.
Trump Regime
U.S.A has always maintained its stance of support towards free trade, but it has always layered itself with a layer of protectionism.[38] Since the end of World War II, it has been playing the role of the guardian of liberal economic development, but as the world has seen, at an international level, their efforts and policies have always been quite unilateral. Like for example, when world economies were reeling under the after effects of World War II, they along with UK began an era of new liberalised economy and trade. For this, they planned to establish the ITO (International Trade Organisation). After taking the initiative of forming such a body, they rescinded from ratifying it as the US Congress was against it. Since the US backed out from it, similarly did other nations and the ITO never saw the light of the day.
Even so, when GATT was formed in 1947 the first few rounds of the negotiations were dominated mainly by the developed countries from 1947 till 1961. Their main agenda was to reduce import barriers so that the interests of the exporters in their countries would be served. Later on, as even more countries started adopting GATT, a formulaic approach began to be used by countries to reduce any other forms of trade barriers, if any were still existing.[39]
Trump’s actions have been an extension of what can be said to be a republican lineage of such measures. Previously other Republican presidents of U.S.A have taken measures to restrict free trade.[40] Ronald Reagan imposed unilateral limit on the number of automobiles that could be imported into U.S.A by Japan. Similarly, George Bush imposed significant trade barriers in the steel industry.[41]
Trump’s policies are enshrined in his slogan “America first policies”. What this entails is the rejection of the give and take idea of international trade, foreign aid and the belief that what is good for our friends is good for America. It replaces these ideas with a narrow self-interest.[42]
First protectionist action of Trump was to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership. This formally ended U.S’s chance to enter into the Asian market. If this would have been successful, it would have allowed US to operate in a free trade zone in the pacific along with 11 countries.[43]
Second, Trump administration threatened to slap a 20% tariff[44] on Mexico and other countries who ran a trade surplus in US. Not only this, he has also raised his voice about re-negotiating the NAFTA deal with Mexico and Canada, most probably pulling out of it.[45] Trump had announced that he would increase the import tariffs on aluminium and steel products.[46] This has caused a lot of rumble, especially in the EU who have threatened to retaliate in their own way.
Many analysts have viewed such measures of Trump to be in retaliation of China’s exchange rate policy and other policies.[47] The Trump administration had imposed three rounds of tariffs on China in 2018 and one last year in November. In retaliation, China has imposed tariffs on American goods ranging between 5% to 25%. Even though the two nations have signed an initial agreement of truce, the uncertainty over the future can be damaging to the world economy. But during this fragile period in world economics, America is viewed to lead with ideas of development and prosperity. This self-interest which has been shown by Trump would serve short term goals of the nation, but would mark the failure of an international structure which was created to bring free trade to the mass. Little realising that the first country to face damage from this would be U.S.A itself.
India’s Duality
Honourable Prime Minister Narendra Modi in the World Economic Forum in Davos criticised the approach taken by the US administration stating that “globalisation is shrinking in the world”[48]. Citing the threat that protectionism causes to the economic prosperity of the world, he called for greater economic cooperation among nations to counter the unstableness of the global economy.[49]
But since returning from the WEF in 2018, the government has itself in its annual budget increased some of the same tariffs. The finance ministry announced that they are raising import tariffs for products such as smartphones, solar products etc.[50] This has raised fears that many investors which were interested in investing in our nation will now turn their backs to the nation.
With the new policies in place, one questions the future intentions of the nation. Does it want to create a market friendly economy or want to encourage its domestic producers. There is a clear paradox among the sort of measures taken by India. On one hand they are going through a very aggressive campaign of encouraging domestic production through skill initiative programs, but at the same time the country in 2014 altered its FDI policy and raised the amount of investment which foreign investors could make in various sectors such as education, healthcare and defence. Such measures as repeatedly stated by the government is an effort of increase the number of job opportunities in the nation and are heavily tied with the Make in India scheme.[51] The same protectionist mentality flowed into the stock exchange as well when NSE (National Stock Exchange) refused to share its data with international markets such as Singapore in order to increase the flow of trade through India.[52]
India has come under heavy criticism by U.S.A and the EU who have threatened retaliatory measures against India. This move is said to be one of a very mercantilist mindset, that one can cut back on imports and increase exports.[53] This is built on a very erroneous understanding of how import and exports work. The moment imports are reduced, there is a Significant simultaneous decrease in exports as well, as mentioned in the Lerner’s Symmetry Theorem.[54]
- Conclusion
John Rawls put the idea of how global justice should work by saying that “the primary subject of (social) justice is the basicstructure of society, or more exactly, the way in which the major socialinstitutions distribute fundamental rights and duties and determine thedivision of advantages from social cooperation”[55]
We saw as to how cosmopolitanism does not exist in today’s time. Countries are concentrating more on their brand of economics. What they fail to understand is that in the latter half of the 20th century, countries decided to mutually assist each other in improving their socio-economic conditions. As established earlier, countries such as U.S.A have always played the part of being the guardian of the new economic world order but have always hid behind that to fulfil their own unilateral interests. Similarly, such conservative pattern of trade has spilled onto other nations as such. Great Britain decided to take a strong action to regain its power and control within its boundaries.
Among such actions being taken, countries are not only creating a situation where retaliatory measures are the order of the day but also that there is greater level of instability in the world economy. Add to that countries like Germany, China & Japan taking counter measures for such protectionist mechanisms, the uncertainty over the economic future of the world is large.
Even with cosmopolitanism slowly and steadily fizzling out in the new world, countries have to ensure greater levels of partnership to tackle the issues of tomorrow. Already U.S.A has withdrawn from the Paris convention as well stating that the amount of liability being placed on them is unjust. When the world is failing to cometo a mutual consensus over such grave dangers to humanity, it is only understandable that governments put self-interests over the world so as to give their citizens the best in terms of economic benefit. But what these nations must not forget that similar pattern of behaviour prevailed during the pre-Great Depression era of 1929-30 and that crippled the world economy to a point where it took us almost 50-60 years, another World War to reach the preferable if not desirable level of international commitment.
[1] Diogenes Laertius. 1925. Lives of the Eminent Philosophers, trans. Robert Drew Hicks. Vols. 2, VI 63. Harvard: Harvard University Press.
[2]Delanty, Gerard and Močnik, Špela (2015) Cosmopolitanism. Oxford Bibliographies.
[3]Mills, Charles W. The Racial Contract. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1997. Learn more about these citation styles: APA (6th ed.).
[4]Močnik, Špela (2015) Cosmopolitanism as critical theory: an analysis of the ethics, methodology and practice of critical cosmopolitanism. Doctoral thesis (PhD), University of Sussex.
[5] BROWN, G. W., & HELD, D. (2010). The cosmopolitanism reader. Cambridge, UK, Polity. Harvard (18th ed.).
[6]Ngcoya, M. Ubuntu: Toward an Emancipatory Cosmopolitanism? International Political Sociology, 9, 248–262, 2015.
[7]Mignolo, W. The Many Faces of Cosmo-Polis: Border Thinking and Critical Cosmopolitanism. Public Culture, 12(3), 721-748, 2000.
[8] Andrew Vincent, Nationalism and Particularity Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2002.
[9] Immanuel Kant, “Perpetual Peace,” in Kant’s Political Writings, ed. and trans. Hans Reiss, 2nd edn (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1991 [1795].
[10] Ian Shapiro and L. Brilmayer (eds.) Global Justice, New York University Press, New York, 1999.
[11] Gillian Brock, Needs and Global Justice. In The Philosophy of Need, ed. Soran Reader,51–72. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
[12] Barber, Benjamin R, Constitutional Faith. In For Love of Country? Ed. Joshua Cohen for Boston Review, 30–37. Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1996.
[13] Peter Singer, Famine, affluence and morality, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1/3:229–243, 1972.
[14] At Home in the World: Cosmopolitanism Now (Convergences: Inventories of the Present). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
[15] Charles R.Beitz, Justice and International Relations. Philosophy & Public Affairs 4/4: 360–389,1975
[16] Beck, Ulrich. 2004. Cosmopolitical Realism: On the Distinction Between Cosmopolitanism in Philosophy and the Social Sciences. Global Networks 4/2: 131–146.
[17] Sheldon Pollock, Homi K. Bhabha, Carol A. Breckenridge, and Dipesh Chakrabarty, Cosmopolitanisms. Public Culture 12/3: 577-590, 2000.
[18]Thomas J. Schlereth, The Cosmopolitan Ideal in Enlightenment Thought: Its Form and Function in the Ideas of Franklin, Hume, and Voltaire, 1694–1790. Notre Dame, Indiana: Notre Dame University Press, 1977.
[19]ThomasPogge, World Poverty and Human Rights: Cosmopolitan Responsibilities and
Reforms. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2002.
[20] Appiah, Kwame Anthony, Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers. New York: Norton, 2006.
[21] J. E. STIGLITZ, Globalization and its discontents, New York, W.W. Norton. Harvard (18th ed.), Pg. no: – 5, 2002.
[22] Adopted by General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples.
[23] Michael Bruno and W Easterly, “Inflation Crises and Long-run Growth:’ Journal of Monetary Economics 41 (February 1998), pp.3-26.
[24] Supra Note 7, Pg. no: – 6.
[25] Tan, Kok-Chor, Justice without Borders: Cosmopolitanism, Nationalism, and Patriotism (Contemporary Political Theory). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
[26] Kiely, Ray, “The Crisis of Global Development,” in Kiely and Marfleet, 1998.
[27] Sachs, Jeffrey D. “The IMF and The Asian Flu,” American Prospect 9/37: 16–21, 1998.
[28] The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, known formally as the United States Tariff Act of 1930, was a piece of U.S. legislation raising import duties to protect American businesses and farmers. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, enacted in June 1930, increased in import duties by as much as 50%. It was the last legislation under which the U.S. Congress set tariff rates, Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/smoot-hawley-tariff-act.asp#ixzz58hyabw1V (March3rd, 2018, 23:05 Hrs).
[29] EU Referendum, http://www.bbc.com/news/politics/eu_referendum/results, (Mar. 3rd 2018, 23:00 Hrs).
[30] In UK’s case it was raising taxes in 2010 while cutting government spending in any attempt tp pay down debt incurred during the recession period of 2008-09.
[31] Harlan Green, why did BREXIT happen? Huffpost (March 3rd, 2018, 23:35 Hrs), https://www.huffingtonpost.com/harlan-green/why-did-brexit-happen_b_10716064.html.
[32] Ian Jack, who do I blame? 8 reasons we ended up in the BREXIT mess. The Guardian (Mar 3rd, 2018, 23:45 Hrs), https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/03/brexit-immigration-jobs-eton-europe.
[33] John Mauldin & George Freiedman, 3 Reason Britain voted for BREXIT, Forbes (Mar 3rd, 2018, 22:09 Hrs), https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnmauldin/2016/07/05/3-reasons-brits-voted-for-brexit/#2ba7f5641f9d.
[34] Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961, http://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_1_1961.pdf. (Mar 4th, 2018, 08:42 Hrs)
[35]Article 3 ofVienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961.
[36] European Union Committee BREXIT: Acquired Rights, 10th Report of Session 2016-17 (Dec14th, 2016), https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201617/ldselect/ldeucom/82/8202.htm. (Mar 4th, 2018, 08:30 Hrs)
[37] Anushka Asthana, The Brexit fallout for EU citizens in the UK, and Britons in the EU – Q&A, The Guardian (Dec 16th, 2016), https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/16/the-brexit-fallout-for-eu-citizens-in-the-uk-and-brits-in-the-eu-qa. (Mar 4th, 2018, 08:41 Hrs).
[38] Giulio Gallarotti, Trump’s protectionism continues long history of US rejection of free trade (February 21, 2018), http://theconversation.com/trumps-protectionism-continues-long-history-of-us-rejection-of-free-trade-91190. (Mar 4th, 2018, 09:23 Hrs)
[39] The GATT and WTO: A principled history, Brookings Institutions, https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/selfenforcingtrade_chapter.pdf. (18/2/2018, 10:34 Hrs).
[40] Robert W. Crandall, The Effects of U.S. Trade Protection for Autos and Steel, Brookings Institution.
[41]Supra Note 31.
[42]Charles Hankla, What does ‘America first’ mean for American economic interests? (February 1, 2017), https://theconversation.com/what-does-america-first-mean-for-american-economic-interests-71931, (Mar 4th, 2018, 10:40 Hrs).
[43] Peter Barker, Trump Abandons Trans-Pacific Partnership, Obama’s Signature Trade Deal, New York Times (Jan 23rd, 2017), https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/23/us/politics/tpp-trump-trade-nafta.html?_r=0, (Mar 4th, 2018, 12:55 Hrs).
[44] Ben Jacobs, Dominic Rushe, David Agren, Trump-Mexico relations hit new low after 20% border wall tax mooted (Jan 27, 2017), https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/26/trump-calls-for-20-tax-on-mexican-imports-to-pay-for-border-wall, (Mar 4th, 2018, 13:03 Hrs).
[45] Eric Bradner, Trump to begin renegotiating NAFTA with leaders of Mexico, Canada (Jan 23rd, 2017), https://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/22/politics/trump-renegotiate-nafta/, (Mar 4th, 2018, 13:07 Hrs).
[46] Simon Denyer& Rick Naorch, China grumbles at Trump’s tariff move, but Europe takes aim at Harleys and bourbon, Washington Post (Mar 2, 2018), https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/china-steel-slams-trumps-stupid-protectionism-but-trade-war-is-unlikely/2018/03/02/33ec5274-1d94-11e8-98f5-ceecfa8741b6_story.html?utm_term=.39ee8bbacc64, (Mar 4th, 2018, 13:10 Hrs)
[47]Supra Note 35.
[48]NikarikaMandhana, India’s Modi Says Protectionism Is Hurting Global Trade (Jan 23, 2018), https://www.wsj.com/articles/indias-modi-claims-economic-protectionism-is-hurting-global-trade-1516709732, (Mar 4th, 2018, 13:29 Hrs).
[49] Rishi Iyengar , Is India really open for business? (Feb 14th, 2018), http://money.cnn.com/2018/02/14/news/economy/india-modi-tariffs-protectionism/index.html, (Mar 4th, 2018, 13:14 Hrs).
[50]Ibid.
[51] Vivek Dehejia, India’s protectionist folly, (Feb 12, 2018), http://www.livemint.com/Opinion/TjhwiyIuWRAjVma8IsneKI/Indias-protectionist-folly.html, (Mar 4th, 2018, 14:08 Hrs).
[52] Protectionism Charge Against Modi As India Hikes Import Duties to Its Highest In 3 Decades, Outlook India, (Feb 15th, 2018), https://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/protectionism-charge-against-modi-as-india-hikes-import-duties-to-its-highest-in/308335, (Mar 4th, 2018, 13:56 Hrs).
[53]Supra Note 44.
[54] The Lerner Symmetry Theorem establishes the equivalence between import tariffs and export taxes in a simple neoclassical economy with two countries, two final goods, and no trade costs.
[55] Rawls, John, 1921-2002. Theory of justice. Cambridge, Mass., Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1971.
