Fate of Third World Countries

The Inayatullah reading this week focused on the sovereignty dilemma and how the modern international system has purposefully been constructed in a way to keep some states down. Inayatullah traces the fate of many of today's quasi-states back to colonization. He connects Adam Smith's division of labor to colonization in order to illustrate to the reader how "difficult it is to overcome a functional, specialized, dependent, colonial structure" (p. 62). Furthermore, Inayatullah derives the conclusion that "adequate wealth is a necessary condition for the realization of sovereignty" (p. 55). When you combine the social historical context with the division of labor metaphor and the requirement of wealth for sovereignty, the fate of Third World countries seems predetermined. Of course the sovereignty dilemma will exist among these quasi-states!

I drew a comparison of this fate of Third World countries the fate of underprivileged youth who grow up in the inner city. The system has been constructed to keep these kids down. They don't have the same opportunities or access that kids from suburban neighborhoods do. This context is important as it leaves much of their future, in a sense, predetermined.

I then recalled  a question posed early on in the chapter: "Does the weakness of Third World states remind us that they are only formally equal and only formally sovereign?" (p 59.) Inayatullah continues with this question asking if we should ask these Third World states to just face reality and accept a diminished status in the international realm.

At first pass, having developed somewhat realist leanings over the course of the semester, my answer was "yes". These Third World states, especially those that have been in the same state for generations, are not actually sovereign like the United States or Mexico is. They are not even sovereign like we would consider small states like Fiji. They should face the reality that the only thing protecting their sovereignty at the end of the day is power politics, which, for one reason or another, at the current point in time, favors them enough to allow them to retain their sovereignty.

I then revisited my underprivileged youth comparison and had a change of heart. Just like those kids deserve a shot (and all the help they can get along the way), so do Third World Countries. They are starting out behind the eight ball at no fault of their own and have a system stacked against them. This doesn't mean they should be resolved to being a quasi-state forever. Good news is there is precedent for states developing past this point already. India is a prime example. What once was a colony is now the world's 6th largest economy.

Additionally, while the international system has not seemingly changed, the norms of the system have. International organizations and NGOs have been formed with the sole purpose of helping Third World countries develop. Powerful states may not be quick to acknowledge or rectify the economic and societal pains their imperialist behaviors caused these states, but many actors across the international do. This has spurred a large effort to develop these Third World countries and bring them up to a certain acceptable standard. This development, in turn, is helping these Third World countries rid themselves of the sovereignty dilemma.

If you were to just look at the Inayatullah reading, the fate of Third World countries would seem predetermined and inevitable from a realist perspective - without the ability to generate adequate wealth, they would remain as a quasi-state with social and economic issues for the foreseeable future. However, if you embrace a more Liberal Institutionalist or even constructivist view and account for the impact of of IOs and a change in norms, your conclusion would be the opposite - Third World countries have the opportunity and support to develop past the sovereignty dilemma and become truly equal and truly sovereign states.

Sources:

1. Inayatullah, Naeem, "Beyond the Sovereignty Dilemma: Quasi-States as Social Construct," in State Sovereignty as Social Construct, ed. Thomas J. Biersteker and Cynthia Weber (Cambridge, 1996)