Globalization = Supernational Integration?

It is true that there is a economic globalization in process today and that issues that are brought to light no longer simply affect one group of people. However, despite this globalization which one may argue is homogenizing different groups, it doesn't necessarily imply the need to re-order world politics into some form of supernational integration, because of conflicting self interests of the states.

A from of supernational integration, such as EU, may seem necessary in light of the current trend of globalization, where cultural and economic boundaries are being taken down. However, despite this homogenization, the nation-states still maintain their uniqueness due to its historical and cultural heritage. Constructivist may argue that people's identity, along with state identity, can be molded and that history is "malleable," and it seems that they are right when we consider globalization. State identities have changed, such as from a debtor nation to a creditor nation, and from a rising immigrant hub to the status of a world leader. However, what these changing identities have not changed is one's loyalty to the country, other wise known as patriotism or nationalism. Therefore, as far as we can foresee, it is safe to assume that states, with its patriotic citizens, will exist until the citizens' perception of their "mother-" or "father-"land have been completed altered. At this point, a constructivist could argue that globalization is slowly homogenizing people and there will come a point when people will abandon nationalism to come under one supernationally integrated political form. However, at that point, I could argue that it is no longer a supernational integration, because it is not integrating different nations, but that it is another form of a national state. Therefore, changing identities doesn't necessarily lead to the inevitable supernational form of political order.

So, if a nation-state form is kept, then why is a form of supernational integration not the only viable political order? Because after all, nation-states are self-interested entities. Whether you follow the liberal argument or realist argument, the fundamental idea is the same; the idea of a self-interested state. Of course, there are differences, such as liberals arguing that cooperation arises accidentally while pursuing self-interest, while realists argue that because of self-interest, the world is dangerous. In a supernational entity formed of these kinds of states, decision making process is bound to be slow, whether it is due to states seeking mutual benefits, or trying to check each other's intentions. Because decision making process is slow, some of the little detailed issues that are specific to each nation may not be addressed by such supernational entity, which makes supernational entities an optional means to achieve a states ends, and not the necessary one. Therefore, not only is supernational entities an option, but it could prove to be a burdensome option that achieves some goals at the cost of some issues being ignored.