This week, Russia invades Georgia. The President of Georgia calls out to the United States for help. Once again the US, defender of democracy, is forced to leap into the breach of incomplete intelligence and intervene. But does anyone even understand what happened in Georgia? Our minds numbed by all our own economic problems, we see this as just "the latest" war. How many wars are going on now? It’s hard to keep track of who’s at war, who is operating under a cease-fire, who has actually signed a peace treaty. In the past couple of decades, after the end of the "peace dividend" years, it’s been one skirmish after another.
From what I can glean from watching and reading all sorts of news sites (both here and abroad) with all sorts of biases, two small parts of Georgia, South Ossetia and Abkazhia wiere separatists for years and ethnically similar to Russia. Russian peacekeepers were already in the area, and their contention was that the separatists became out of control. Somebody fired at somebody else (not sure which side to believe on this). The long and short of it, war.
The Georgian President, very pro-democracy, educated at Columbia Law School, argues that Russia wants to take over all of Georgia, then Europe and the US. He has dominated the cable news for the last few days, begging for help. Finally today Russia gives the US an ultimatum: choose.
We choose Georgia. We send humanitarian aid, we send Condoleeza Rice.
Where do we belong in this conflict? Only God knows. On the one hand, the American people don’t have the energy for another war. On the other hand, if we don’t intervene now, will we be like Neville Chamberlain, incubating World War III by doing nothing?
Quite frankly, I can’t tell it we’re going backwards or forwards. Looked at historically, the rise of the nation state is a pretty recent phenomenon. Before nations, we all lived as tribes. Nations are an artificial construct, and don’t necessarily coincide with the old tribal loyalties.
Layer on that the Internet and instant communication. What use are physical borders or artificial governments? Isn’t the world one large connected trade area? Such an interesting question: can we have it both ways? NAFTA, CAFTA, the EU and still the nation state? Is there much difference between the EU and a Russian federation? The US and a federation of middle eastern powers?
Do you see where I’m going with this? I think the nation state may well be a failed concept in the 21st century. What do you think?
{ 9 comments… read them below or add one }
Interesting post. It’s thought-provoking, but unfortunately I don’t have any conclusions.
It makes me think of how the concept of the nation-state negatively impacted natural migration/grazing practices in Africa (can’t recall which groups of people were affected), the long and the short being artificial boundaries being put on practical activities.
Does instant communication and (potentially) instant global commerce deteriorate the nation-state construct? Are we becoming more tribal in our communities, whether we are close in proximity or not? Where does ethnicity fit into this? And how does that keep us from falling into more war, more conflict, more hardship?
Fascinating. I have no answers…
Yup! Me neither.
“Looked at historically, the rise of the nation state is a pretty recent phenomenon. Before nations, we all lived as tribes.”
Francine, you’re skipping over a couple of steps here, especially city-states and feudalism.
“Do you see where I’m going with this? I think the nation state may well be a failed concept in the 21st century. What do you think?”
Not yet failed, but certainly failing.
“Does instant communication and (potentially) instant global commerce deteriorate the nation-state construct?”
Not exactly, John. But the falling cost of large scale violence, in part because smaller groups can self-organize more efficiently without centralization (such that nation-states no longer have a monopoly on such violence) does.
“Are we becoming more tribal in our communities, whether we are close in proximity or not?”
Yes.
“Where does ethnicity fit into this?”
Hmm. That’s a question with a complex and contingent answer, but basically, if you find that *others* are classifying you according to your ethnicity (usually not to your benefit, but regardless), you will tend to fall back on that as your primary loyalty.
Thus we saw mixed-ethnicity neighborhoods in Baghdad self-sorting into ethnic ones because of insurgent violence. Note that it doesn’t matter in the least whether the ones who are doing the ethnic classification are your next-door neighbors or outsiders, the pressure is the same.
“And how does that keep us from falling into more war, more conflict, more hardship?”
Well, it basically doesn’t. I suspect that eventually, our civilization will grow new institutions for the monopolization of violence that aren’t dependent on the kind of centralization that typifies the nation-state, and these will create a new era of relative stability, but until then it’s going to be a very rocky ride (especially toward the end when the nation states start fighting back).
I see that my wonderful intelligent commenters are also in a quandary. This is a really complicated and serious issue, and thank you, Michael for taking the time to think about it.
Wow…What do I think? I think I really like you!
Am I allowed to post a comment with a post? Hope so, because my answer to how we should proceed is sincerely expressed here: http://petersantilli.com/?p=50 .
Not to sensationalize the event, but I am deeply saddened when I try to predict how this will evolve. Politically & militarily, I think we’re being outwitted by a very shrewd opponent.
I don’t think the nation-state will go away in the short term. For every move to federation and unification, you have some form of nationalism or localism to counter it. Even in our own country, the concept of states’ rights is alive and well for issues such as gay marriage.
But perhaps we’ll go back to smaller political entities. Maybe Ossetia will unite and tell Russia and Georgia to both go away.
Well, OE, I don’t think they ill, either, so that’s why we have territorial feuds.
And Peter, thanks! It would be fun for both Ossetia and the other state to be independent.
Of course Francine, we can have it both ways and we will!
The 19th-century definition of a nation-state has evolved. Except in large countries like the US, Russia, and China, the attributes of nationalism have changed. Borders, armies and flags are giving more importance to language and culture and countries become part of economico-political groups, like the EU, sharing the same values and integrating their economies. But it does not mean the end of the tribes.
Human beings are social animals who need to identify themselves with a tribe, a group. We need to mingle with like-others. We need to feel secure even if there is no war on the horizon. The old national borders that delimited communities have loosened up because we can freely travel and because we can communicate using the phone or the internet.
Federations are by definition groups of communities that recognize common interests and differences in their member states.
However I find it shocking that you (or anyone else!) could write: “Is there much difference between the EU and a Russian federation?” Ask the Poles, the Latvians, the Estonians, the Lettons, the Czechs, the Slovaks, the Romanians or the Bulgars, why did they all choose to join the EU and not the Russian Federation? They did not make that choice at gunpoint!
Ask the Georgians today what federation they would like to join?
So sorry to be so flippant, Yves, and I bow to your knowledge, because I’m guessing at these things, and you have lived them…I’m sure you are right. There are federations and federations.