Transnational Activism in Asia

Nicola Piper, Anders Uhlin

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2004
• ISBN:
  9781134377404
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

This book provides new perspectives on transnational activism with a specific regional focus on Asia. By offering an innovative approach, its theoretical chapters and empirical case studies examine macro as well as micro aspects of power and how cross-border activities of civil society groups are related to problems of democracy.

1 New perspectives on transnational activism

Nicola Piper and Anders Uhlin

Introduction

This book attempts to contribute to the growing literature on social movements and other civil society groups operating across state borders. Building on recent research in this field, our aim is to fill a significant gap by contextualizing transnational activism within broader power structures between state and civil society organizations as well as between non-state organizations, and by providing an analysis of how this is related to problems of democracy. By including a balanced selection of theoretical chapters as well as theoretically informed empirical case studies based on recent data, this book provides new insights into the problematic of political activism in a transnational context. The specific regional focus in the case studies is East and Southeast Asia, which constitutes an understudied geographical area in the transnational social movement/civil society literature (as opposed to Europe, North America and Latin America).

The chapters in this volume address various questions: What kind of actors are involved in transnational activism? What types of activism do they employ? Whom do the networks/activists target? What kinds of obstacles and/or opportunities do state power and other power structures constitute for transnational activism? How can we understand the power of transnational activist networks in terms of discursive or communicative power? To what extent is democratization an enabling condition and/or a consequence of transnational activism? How can we differentiate between different levels and aspects of democracy in this respect? To what extent can transnational activism promote transnational democracy? What about internal democracy and problems of inequality within transnational activist networks?

We start this introductory chapter by providing a brief overview of the existing literature and then move on to elaborate the concept of ‘activism’ in a transnational context. We define our understanding of the ‘transnational’ in its multiple forms and argue in favour of using the concept of ‘transnational’ instead of ‘global’. We also clarify the different types of actors involved in transnational activism. Drawing on the chapters in the present book and previous research, we offer an elaboration of what a power perspective and a focus on problems of democracy can contribute to our understanding of transnational activism. Finally, we contextualize the conceptual discussion with the situation in East and Southeast Asia.

Recent approaches to the study of transnational activism

The emerging research area of transnational activism has generated important studies within several different scholarly disciplines. First, International Relations (IR) scholars, opposing the state-centred paradigm of an anarchical international political system, have analysed non-state actors in international politics. RisseKappen (1995), drawing on Keohane and Nye’s writings in the 1970s, has helped to reintroduce this perspective. Other scholars following this tradition have made use of social movement theory and focused explicitly on transnational activism. Keck and Sikkink (1998) provided a path-breaking study in this respect, which was followed by others (e.g. Risse, Ropp and Sikkink 1999; Scholte 1999; O’Brien et al. 2000; Khagram, Riker and Sikkink 2002b). Second, studies of transnational activism from an International Political Economy (IPE) perspective have stressed issues of power and authority in the international system (Higgott et al. 2000) and tend to treat transnational activism mainly as resistance to neo-liberal globalization (Mittel-man 1999; Gills 2000).

Third, writing from a different perspective, sociologists and political scientists interested in social movements have analysed the extension of social movements to a transnational or global level (Markoff 1996; Smith et al. 1997; Smith and Johnston 2002: Rucht 1999; Rucht 2001; Forschungsjournal Neue Soziale Bewegungen 2002; Tarrow 1998; 2001; 2002; della Porta et al. 1999; Cohen and Rai 2000; Guidry, Kennedy and Zald 2000b; Hamel et al. 2001). Fourth, within the fields of politics and development studies there are also a number of studies on transnational nongovernmental organization (NGO) activities, which seldom draw explicitly on the social movement literature (e.g. Princen and Finger 1994; Hulme and Edwards 1997; Boli and Thomas 1999; Jordan and van Tuijl 2000; Uvin 2000).¹ This category of research is based mainly on empirical case studies of NGOs operating within different issue areas. This is also the character of recent publications on transnational or global civil society (Florini 2000b; Warkentin 2001) and ‘global citizen action’ (Edwards and Gaventa 2001). Parts of the ‘Global Civil Society Yearbook’ (Anheier et al. 2001) also have this empirical aim to map ‘global civil society’ activities. Fifth, several anthropological micro-studies of transnational activism offer interesting and viable insights from the grass-roots level (Braman and Sreberny-Mohammadi 1996; Smith and Guranizo 1998; Riles 2000; Fortun 2001; Burawoy et al. 2000).

Sixth, within the field of political theory, there have been a number of attempts to theorize the empirical patterns uncovered in other studies in a more elaborate way. Theories of transnational/global/international civil society have been put forward in both liberal (Kaldor 1999) and neo-Marxist (Colás 2002) versions. This area of inquiry is also related to the notion of ‘cosmopolitan democracy’ (Held 1995) and transnational/global citizenship (Delanty 2000). Seventh, there is research on transnational activism from the perspective of international law (Cullen and Morrow 2001). Finally, there are texts written from an explicit activist perspective and meant as a contribution to the self-understanding of the emerging global social movement against ‘globalization from above’ (Brecher, Costello and Smith 2002).

While there is certainly some overlapping between these categories of research on transnational activism, and fruitful cross-fertilization has taken place (particularly between IR studies of non-state actors and social movement theory), we argue that transnational activism has yet to emerge as a coherent multidisciplinary field of research. An overall aim of this volume is to make a modest contribution to the integration of these diverse perspectives. Furthermore, while breaking new ground in this emerging field of research, none of these existing studies offer a clear and coherent contextualization of transnational activism within broader structures of power or the micro-politics of communicative power. By underestimating the continued significance of state power and other national and international power structures, much research has been too optimistic about what transnational activists can achieve. In addition, many studies tend to depict the ‘state-versus-civil society’ dynamics in a dichotomous, oppositional manner, whereas our view is complementary. We would argue for a ‘synergy’ between state and civil society (along with Grugel and Keck, this volume). Also lacking in previous research is an elaborate analysis of problems of democracy, both in relation to political opportunities for transnational activism and activists being part of a broader struggle for democracy, as well as problems of democracy and inequality within transnational networks and prospects for some form of transnational democracy. The best way to further the research field of transnational activism, we argue, is therefore to offer a more comprehensive analysis of transnational activism in the context of power and in relation to problems of democracy. First of all, however, we have to define the concept of ‘transnational activism’–we feel this offers the best point of departure for research on social movements, NGOs and other civil society actors operating across state borders.

Transnational activism: identifying actors and defining the topic

Processes of globalization do not only involve purely economic aspects and elite politics. Cross-border interaction between civil society actors–‘globalization from below’ (Falk 1999; Appadurai 2000)–is another feature of contemporary world politics to receive increasing attention by the media and academics. When NGOs and social movements not only focus on the domestic or local arena but also act beyond state borders, transnational activist networks emerge. Transnational political activism challenges conventional understandings of civil society and social movements as well as international relations.

Transnational activism as such is historically not a new phenomenon. Civil society actors concerned with a broad range of issues have been involved in activities reaching across state borders at least since the nineteenth century (Keck and Sikkink 1998). However, the patterns and scale of today’s transnational activism have changed. The ideological tendencies of contemporary transnational activist networks include radical anti-systemic left-wing movements, xenophobic and fascist movements on the extreme right, various religious activist networks, and more or less moderate issue-specific NGOs working partly within the limits of the existing system and often in close interaction and even cooperation with states and international institutions.

Instead of dealing exclusively with one kind of transnational group (like transnational advocacy networks, transnational social movements, international non-governmental organizations, etc.), as much of the previous research in this field has done, we focus on transnational activism, including many different types of actors. By ‘activism’ we mean political activities that are: (1) based on a conflict of interests and thus are of a contentious nature; (2) challenging or supporting certain power structures; (3) involving non-state actors; and (4) taking place (at least partly) outside formal political arenas. These criteria require some elaboration.

We see a conflict of interests as a basic defining characteristic of activism. It is hard to imagine any form of activism without an underlying conflict. There would simply be no reason for activism if there were complete agreement between all actors involved. This, however, does not imply that there is always a conflict between activists and state actors. Many cases of transnational activism may involve cooperation between certain activists and certain state actors, but there is always a conflict with another actor, for instance a transnational corporation or another state authority. Concerning the second criterion, we maintain that activism is not only about challenging the status quo, as is sometimes assumed. Much activism has been carried out in support of ruling elites and structures of power that are perceived as being under threat from other activists. It is important to note that activism is concerned with power structures, which also implies a focus on public (as opposed to private) goals. Activity that only aims at promoting one’s own private interests is not activism (cf. Colás 2002: 66). On the third criterion we have to admit that what constitutes a non-state actor is not always obvious. Few (if any) NGOs can truthfully claim to be completely autonomous in relation to the state. Autonomy is a relative concept and hence we do not see non-state actors as completely free of state interference or control. The final criterion points to the significance of extra-parliamentary political activities for the phenomenon of activism. This, however, is not to claim that all activism has this character. In fact, much political activism (on national as well as transnational levels) aims at targeting formal political institutions, and activists do enter formal political arenas, though they typically complement this with protest activities outside the sphere of formal politics.

An advantage of this conceptualization of activism is that it covers many different activities carried out by NGOs as well as social movement actors. Tarrow (1998: 207–8) has pointed out that the form of activism has changed over time. Social movement organizations in North America and Western Europe generally declined in both number and militancy after the early 1970s. To a large extent they were replaced by public interest groups and parties with a movement vocation. During recent decades so-called ‘new social movements’ have emerged in most parts of the world. What is new about them, according to Tarrow, is neither their less formalized organization nor their focus on ‘identity politics’, nor the use of unconventional forms of action (they mainly use conventional petitions and peaceful demonstrations), but their greater access to the media, mobility and cultural interaction, as well as the increasing use of IT. The important point for this book, however, is that the term ‘activism’ covers the activities of all these different actors.

By applying the concept of activism we hope to bridge the unfortunate divide between research on social movements and studies of NGOs. We hope the studies in this volume will demonstrate the many similarities between what is usually referred to as transnational social movement organizations and transnationally active NGOs. Both types of actors are involved in transnational activism and the distinction between them is often blurred. Research on social movements and NGOs in a comprehensive, holistic manner could certainly enrich existing studies, which tend to treat the two forms of ‘collective’ activism as different phenomena. At the same time, we acknowledge the vast array of NGOs, realizing that many ‘development’-oriented or service-providing NGOs might not be as politically active as, for example, NGOs focusing on human rights, women’s rights or the environment.

The focus on activism also draws attention to the actual activists involved in the daily business of social movement organizations or NGOs. Activists are people who care enough about an issue to take action to achieve their goals despite the sometimes significant costs involved (material resources, time, personal risks). They have been described as the ‘political entrepreneurs’ who create transnational networks (Keck and Sikkink 1998: 14). Comparatively little has been written about these individuals and their motivations. Meredith Weiss (in this volume) provides an intriguing account of Malaysian activists and their reasoning concerning tradeoffs between domestically oriented and transnational activism. This focus on people and their motivations is a useful contribution to the growing research on transnational activism.

By ‘transnational’ we refer to interactions across state borders involving at least one non-state actor (Risse-Kappen 1995). In the literature, one often sees the concepts of ‘global civil society’ (e.g. Anheier, Glasius and Kaldor 2001) and ‘global social movements’ (e.g. Cohen and Rai 2000). We prefer the term ‘transnational’, as many cross-border interactions do not extend across the world but are much more geographically limited (cf. Hannerz 1996: 6; Anderson 2002: 15–16). Influenced by discourses on globalization, many scholars have neglected the regional–not global–scope of much transnational activism. There has also been a conceptual confusion between the actors’ framing of an activity as global and the actual empirical scope of the activity (Tarrow 2001: 10). The term ‘transnational’ is broader and includes truly global interactions (involving several continents) as well as cross-border networks limited to one particular region of the world.

Activism can be transnational in several respects. First, it may focus on transnational issues, related, for instance, to the environment or health problems. Second, the actors themselves may be transnational, either in the strong sense of having an organizational structure that is not territorially bounded and including citizens of more than one state (like transnational advocacy networks), or in the weaker sense of being concerned with issues in a country other than where the activists are citizens (such as solidarity groups supporting an independence movement in a foreign country). Third, transnational methods and strategies may be applied (e.g. e-mobilization and other net-based activities). Fourth, the targets of activism may be based in one or several countries other than where the activists themselves are located, thus requiring cross-border interaction. Finally, the activists may hold transnational world views and consider themselves as ‘global citizens’ (see He, this volume). We refer to activism as transnational when it has a transnational character in at least one of these respects. Most of the activism analysed in our case studies, however, is transnational in several (if not all) of the respects outlined above.

The intensity and velocity of transnational links among activists vary. It is possible to distinguish between groups with (1) no formal transnational ties; (2) diffuse transnational ties; (3) routine transnational ties; and (4) formal transnational organizations (Smith 2001: 7–8). Khagram et al. (2002a: 7–9) identify three forms of transnational collective action: a transnational advocacy network (which only exchanges information between participants), a transnational coalition (which applies coordinated tactics) and a transnational social movement (which is involved in joint mobilization).

A transnational social movement (TSM) can be defined as ‘socially mobilized groups with constituents in at least two states, engaged in sustained contentious interaction with powerholders in at least one state other than their own, or against an international institution, or a multinational economic actor’ (Tarrow 2001: 11). International non-governmental organizations (INGOs) should not be confused with TSMs (although they might be part of a TSM). INGOs are involved in ‘routine transactions with states, private actors, and international institutions’ (Tarrow 2001: 12). The social movement concept has been used to cover ‘activities that would be more recognizable as lobbying, communication, and educational and service activity if they were observed at home’ (Tarrow 2001: 10). Hence, we should take care to differentiate between TSMs and NGOs operating in a transnational context. Both types of actors may be involved in transnational activism, but they typically use different forms of activism. The distinction, however, is not clear-cut and, as pointed out by O’Brien et al. (2000: 16), NGOs may be seen as key organizational nodes within global social movements. Such groups might be labelled transnational social movement organizations (TSMOs) (Smith et al. 1997).

Following Keck and Sikkink’s seminal work (1998), much attention has been paid to transnational advocacy networks (TANs), i.e. networks of activists motivated by principled ideas and values. Such networks are characterized by a sha...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contributors
• Acknowledgements
• Abbreviations
• 1 New perspectives on transnational activism
• 2 State power and transnational activism
• 3 Governance regimes and the politics of discursive representation
• 4 Transnational activism, institutions and global democratization
• 5 World citizenship and transnational activism
• 6 Transnational activism and electronic communication: Cyber-rainbow warriors in action
• 7 Putting transnational activism in its place: HIV/AIDS in the Indonesia–Malaysia–Singapore growth triangle and beyond
• 8 Transnational activism by Malaysians: Foci, tradeoffs and implications
• 9 Transnational activism and the pursuit of democratization in Indonesia: National, regional and global networks
• 10 ‘Democratization’ in Taiwan and its discontents: Transnational activism as a critique