Francophonie and Zionism: A Comparative Study in Transnationalism and Trans-statism

Diaspora 7:2 1998 Francophonie and Zionism: A Comparative Study in Transnationalism and Trans-statism1 William F.S. Miles Northeastern University Gabriel Sheffer The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Introduction For about four decades now, practitioners and scholars have been examining transnational organizations, the networks that they create, their varied activities, and the economic and political ramifications of these activities. Initially these observers mainly focused on the multinational corporations (MNCs) that gained considerable visibility and, one may say, disrepute in the 1950s and 1960s. Then, as these MNCs and inter-governmental organizations (IGOs)2 proliferated, investigators widened the scope oftheir examination to analyze such organizations' growing variety (see, for example , Keohane and Nye; Said and Simmons; Jenkins). Later observers studied the emergence and rapid growth of non-governmental organizations (NGOs)—such as Greenpeace, Amnesty International, and various religious cults, including the admirers ofthe Maharishi, the Moonies, and Scientology—that have been active on the international level in such diverse spheres as ecology, human rights, and religion (Galtung; Mansbach, Ferguson, and Lampert; Modelski). Transnational organizations have often been viewed as interest groups active in the international arena, but directing their activities primarily at nation-states as the primary actors in this sphere. There also prevailed a notion that in order to promote their interests, these organizations were required to operate through states, or at least to collaborate with state organizations. From a wider theoretical perspective, the discussion of transnational organizations was part of the debate over patterns of influence in international politics.3 Clinging to an emphasis on the state as the most prominent active participant in international politics, the neorealists—namely, those practitioners and analysts who argue that in the current chaotic global situation the nationstate is still a pivotal actor; that such states are motivated by explicit security, political, and economic interests; and that, in the 119 Diaspora 7:2 1998 pursuit ofthese interests, states' governments act as single decision makers and use their various military, political, and diplomatic resources to attain their goals—were reluctant to acknowledge the significance of such organizations as contributors to crucial developments, and especially to policy making. On the other hand, neoliberals were readier to consider the greater complexity of the MNCs and IGOs and to accept the significant role ofthese organizations in the emerging new global order (Waltz). Eventually, scholars and practitioners realized that, in fact, transnational organizations in world politics were ever more numerous, their interests and concerns more diverse, and the domains in which they were actively involved multiple and heterogeneous. They recognized, too, that certain NGOs were not only autonomous actors, but also intensely competitive and willing to clash with states. Hence the focus shifted to the capability of transnational organizations to sway specific policies that states, regional organizations, and other IGOs adopt (Rosenau; Walker). More recently, attention has been given to the positions and roles of these groups in international and domestic affairs; these positions have been enhanced by globalization and by the leap forward in transportation and communication. Moreover, as a result ofthe growing interdependence and interaction between local, state, and global actors and of the emergence of large regional unions, NGOs have become not just more influential, but almost indispensable in both intra-state and trans-state politics. Because of their growing autonomy, the inclination now is to view transnational organizations within the context of the emerging "global civil society" (J. Cohen and Arato; Falk). According to this approach, transnational actors do not affect global politics just through their influence over states' policies and actions, or by creating a more agreeable atmosphere for the achievement oftheir specific goals as international interest groups. Rather, these entities have enough power, knowledge, and capability to act as equal participants on the global level of politics. The other side of the same coin is that although states still exercise great power in global politics, the increasingly empowered NGOs have become less controlled by rules that are determined by states or by states' inter-governmental organizations. In short, analysts have rightly come to regard these entities as significant actors in that emerging global civil society in their own right, and as capable ofcontributing to its structure and behavior.4 This latter observation...