States keep on multiplying

This year's Olympics is different in many aspects from previous ones for the global audience and for the Arab world, in particular. No doubt the most important aspect is it being held in Beijing, the capital of an emerging world power as many around the world like to say. The Chinese used the opening ceremony to impress the world. The magnificent show made some - especially those who are not happy with a US-dominated world - comment that this is the beginning of a "Chinese era" on the international stage. That might be far-fetched as a superpower is not born from a big show, regardless of how great it is. But are we not living in a "show" world where international politics and power-brokering are shaped by live media coverage of wars, elections, summits and similar events?

Look at the leading media coverage of the games and results: China is leading in gold medals and second overall in medals tally, pushing the US to second position, but CNN and BBC and others would devote more coverage to an American or British winner here and there. Al Jazeera sports is actually playing the role Al Jazeera news did a decade ago, when it produced global and regional news in a different way than the biased international media.

Unfortunately, the Arab audience watching Al Jazeera did not have a lot to cheer, except the gold medal won by a Tunisian swimmer. In a global competition where a new power (China) is trying to prove itself against traditional Olympic champions such as the US or Russia, the Arabs are almost out of the big picture.

Back to the show nature of the whole event, one remembers the example of a news satellite channel, Al Jazeera, launched more than a decade ago to gain a global fame and make Doha, the capital of Qatar, synonymous with major capitals where powerful international broadcasters are based. Since then, satellite channels started to multiply to the extent that even a media observer finds it difficult to follow. Not only countries, but groups - political or business - and individuals, are launching new media outlets; mainly satellite channels.

Opening ceremony

Watching the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics, I tried to grasp the number of participating countries - 204 compared with 201 countries in 2004 Olympics. Some of these countries are small entities of a few thousand citizens. To my knowledge, only two entities became independent recently: East Timor and Kosovo. Not necessarily these countries are member states of the UN, even if they are independent or semi-independent, but they are "states" in our new world. Yet, the rate of creating new states is far less than the rate of launching new satellite channels, but the analogy stands as both are ways of representation of identity and interest.

The number of independent states that became members of the UN General Assembly increased almost four-folds in a little than more half a century. Traditional colonialism grouped many nations and countries under few flags of imperial powers. Then, few people had the privilege of watching "recorded" news and shows in fewer cinema houses which were located in a limited number of capitals around the world.

Around the middle of the last century the independence movement led to many countries getting rid of colonialism and the number of countries started to increase. Towards the end of the century, some of those independent states started to suffer from internal strives leading to breakaway entities. The end result is an increase in number of "states".

Though occupation is not over, and invasion of countries by military means is still ongoing - Iraq is an example - the rate of deconstruction of traditional states is increasing and sometimes even catalysed by occupation and invasion. No wonder in the 2012 London Olympics, we might see two Palestinian delegations - one from Ramallah and one from "breakaway" Gaza - and three Sudanese delegations representing Khartoum, South Sudan and Tribal Darfur and probably more than one Iraqi delegation, at least one of them Kurdish.

There is no direct relationship between the revolution of media communication, live shows widespread dissemination and the increase of the number of the states in the world. What I meant by the analogy is the underlying cultural paradigm shift the world is going through. It is the ultimate individualism representation we are heading to, that is being modelled on the American example which is no longer a dream but now a realty sweeping the world. Unfortunately, it is propagated by sound-byte intellectuals who pushed traditional reference groups of thinkers and philosophers to isolation.

Looking at the current state of development as a cycle in human civilisation, continuous progression might sooth the impact on those traditionalists who fear this sweeping wave. But for that cycle to bottom out, a complete deconstruction of the world we know could be the tip of that bottom before the curve of human development turns around. Will there be any foundations to build on for another civilisation, or will there be the end of it is an open question for generations to answer.

Dr Ahmad Mustafa is a London-based Arab writer.