To what extent and how have states suffered from a “loss of control” as a

result of transnational relations? Analyze.

When considering a states’ suffering from “loss of control” due to transnational relations, it is
necessary to have a brief idea regarding the key concepts mentioned in the statement. Hence a
state is “compulsory political organization with a centralized government that maintains a
monopoly of the legitimate use of force within certain geographical territory”. (state.2018)
Transnational relations has been defined in oxford bibliography as “regular cross-border
interactions in which non-state actors play a significant role” (oxford bibliography 2011, P.1)
When a country starts to interact with non-state actors which are extremely powerful and
worldwide now, it is natural for a state to accept the suggested opinions of that non-state actor
because if not it will definitely bring massive repercussions regarding the states sovereignty
and economic crash.

These non-state actors initially appears as very sincere, genuine and saintly figures who are
willing to give their best effort in order to develop the host states’ economic and social
condition. But in reality they have their own intentions hidden inside. Mainly this type of
conditions can be seen in third world countries or developing countries. Because it is easier to
grab them into their web and later on they can control the state and cause many effects towards
the states’ foreign policies and economy. For an example the multinational companies like
Fonterra, Cargill’s, John Keels appears as those who are willing to make to make a developed
economy in Sri Lanka but they are also profit oriented company which is only taking the cheap
labor and other things to make more profit on their own mother country. If those multinational
companies give up Sri Lanka, Sri Lankan economy will undergo a caviar economic downfall.
Thus it is essential to accept the conditions the put on our economic and foreign policies.

The examples for this type of conditions in world community there are capable huge profit
earning companies in the world economy. The researchers have proven that “the states politics
still seems to be ruled by powerful states but the main actors are not only states anymore”
(Erden.2015). Thus the new agents mentioned here are the transnational actors.

Since the Multinational co-operations have obtained a huge amount of power within present
condition, they are pushing the governments further and further into the arms of the
multinationals.(Erdem.2015). Within such a condition if a state disagrees with those company’s
rules and regulations they have the capacity to make the state into an unstoppable downfall of
economy. Thus the state will never be able to fight as a sovereign state anymore. Therefore it is
really compulsory to keep proper distance with those non-state actors rather than letting them to
entrap the states’ economy. Because when they grab the power of economy they can attack on
the decisions of the government and as a result of this process country may loss the control
over it.

Yet within the modern world this non state actors have reached their maximum level of
economic power. For examples when the non-state actors are bigger than most sovereign
nations, they naturally obtain power over those states because the transnational actors can affect
towards the total downfall of a sovereign state. For examples Fords economy is larger than
Saudi Arabia’s and Norway’s, Phillip Morris’s annual sales exceeded New Zealand’s gross
domestic product, Microsoft, IBM, Airbus, and Boeing have the power to cause economic
effect on many different areas.

Thus their interference can be affect and force states to share some of their rights and
reorganize the structure. For an example, the Boeing corporations dependence on the Chinese
purchasing aircraft and its role in compelling the US government to take more relaxed view of
exports of sensitive technology to China. Here it can be analyzed as a visible solid example for
the triangulation of trade and loss of sovereignty which means the involvement of a third state
to pressure the second state. Thus the unstoppable rise of multinational corporations gave them
economic and political power to manipulate state actions. Thus the interference of these private
actors in state affairs had spread to interstate relations and even to the domestic issues of the
third state via other states’ foreign policies.

These non-state actors use many different strategies to achieve their success by making a state
powerless. Those strategies are mentioned in the hand book of international studies as foreign
direct investments (FDI), joint ventures and portfolio investments.(Risse.2012). When the
MNC broadens their businesses they become great political and economic tools for their home
government to intervene in domestic affairs of their neighbors. This is one way that they are
practicing to grab the power make states sovereignty naked in front of transnational actors. The
most common example to this point is the most powerful MNCs in US towards the third world
countries to interfere in the domestic politics in bilateral relations with that specific state on
economic or political sense. US’s interference in domestic political affairs of the South
American countries via US originated firms is a solid example to prove this point.

Moreover those legally authorized actors, there are some other illegal actors which affects
towards the loss of control of a state. For an example the transnational guerrilla groups who
receives the support from external nations of the same national or religious groups in other
countries. The incident which took place in 1970s is a solid example to prove how these groups
are capable of making a state suffer from “loss of control”. Some Palestinian groups like Front
for the Liberation of Palestine have engaged in plane hijackings have been a cause of much
more concern to governments, airlines, and to the general public.

Drug traffickers can be considered as another transnational actor who cases “loss of control” of
a state. For an example Medellin of Colombia, the largest cocaine organization caused social
and political proms in Latin American world.

Thus it is visible according to the examples we discussed above, that a state suffers from “loss
of control” due to transnational actors which are more powerful than states. Another fact is that
a state cannot stay away from the transnational actors because of the globalization and the
development of the communication and technology. To a certain point a state can have their
own space through intergovernmental treaties and regional organizations. But since the
transnational actors are more tactful enough to appear in a different mood at the initial stage a
state may get bluff. Yet within modern conditions it is not possible to chase away those
transnational actors, thus states have to accept the transnational actors whether they like it or
not and at the same time they have to give up a part of the states controlling power which
means the state has to pay attention and agree with those suggestions of the non-state actors.

Rashmi Lekamge

13/SL/135

EA 3848