A Force Powerful And Terrible

The most powerful force abroad in the world today is not that of atoms splitting. Nor is the result of atoms joining. It has nothing to do with matters nuclear. Rather it comes solely from human nature, the fears of humans, their deep-in-the-back-of-the-brain need for membership in the herd.

The name of the force is nationalism. Its power is great; well neigh unbeatable. Its effects can be magnificent. Or terrible.

Years ago the outstanding American diplomat and historian, George Kennan, warned that the hypergolic spread of nationalism during the great wave of decolonization was producing any number of pseudo-states ill equipped in all respects for effective use of their new, unlimited sovereignty. How right he was. And is.

The collapse of empires is always messy. Whether far back in the deepest mist of antiquity, as with the empire of Rome, or closer in time, yet still distant enough to provide a full view of the consequences as with the ending of the Ottoman Empire or that of the Dual Monarchy, the results were both tumultuous and long lived. Indeed, the world is still dealing with the echo effects of the fall of the Ottomans ninety years ago.

It is small wonder that the implosion of the British, French, Portuguese, and, most recently, the Soviet Russian empires have spread so much bloody chaos in their wake. Beyond the immediate chaos, the prompt bloodshed, the result has been the creation of states without a nation at their core or nations transformed into states not by organic forces but by the legerdemain performed by desperate politicians seeking to quickly end unpleasant sorts of status quo.

To put it bluntly and in terms with which Mr Kennan would not disagree: Most of the nearly two hundred states currently represented in the UN are not equipped to exercise sovereignty responsibly. They are not equipped by experience, by social cohesion, by political stability, by economic security, by inherent tradition to act in ways which promote a stable global political order, or to join in collective efforts to creatively address regional or global problems. The nature of the problems--economic, environmental, human rights, security, stability--does not matter, there are simply too many pseudo-states cluttering the global landscape to do other than impede the securing of mutually beneficial solutions to problems great and small.

Further complicating the establishment and maintenance of a global political system competent to address effectively the great and growing problems confronting all of us with a belly button is the phenomenon of regression which has afflicted many once flourishing and effective states. The rise to power--by election or by violence--of governments driven by ideological True Belief has forced once competent international actors to regress to pseudo-states.

While never described as "failed" or "failing" states, countries such as Iran, Venezuela, Ecuador, and Bolivia have become international juvenile delinquents. If these were individuals rather than "states," their conduct would brand them as people in need of care, custody, and supervision.

Other countries, Pakistan comes to mind, have behaved and continue to behave in ways which are not conducive to regional stability. On occasion at least, Pakistan has been characterized as a "failed" or "failing" state. This designation is not fair. Nor is it accurate.

Like many other nations transformed overnight into "states," Pakistan was and is long, very long in basic national identifiers, most importantly the Islamic religion. It has been and is short, very short on the structures and attitudes which provide for effective international conduct as a sovereign state.

The nationalism which forced the splitting of the British Raj into the sovereign states of Pakistan and India had immediate and profound effects which impaired the capacity of both to function as effective and responsible actors in international affairs. The bloody border between the two which was not made any less bloody by the several wars between them had the effect of stunting the growth of both, but particularly Pakistan, as states ready and able to play constructive roles in international politics.

Events of the past several years indicate India has gone a long way to overcoming the extremes of nationalism which colored its earlier existence. Its actions on the international scene show India to be both a cunning and able pursuer of national interest and an effective, responsible international actor.

The same cannot be said of Pakistan. However, Pakistan is not alone in the category of being a nation in search of statedom. There are many, many others. There are, for example, the tribal, semi-feudal, Islam hagridden oil "states" of the Persian Gulf. There are as well any number of African countries which are so tribal as to not be nations let alone states.

The colonization of Africa by assorted European Powers aborted any indigenous process of forming nations and from them states. The natural propensity of people to assume the status quo would never change went a very long way to assuring that the African properties would be denied the chance to form the national identity and institutions which are the sine qua non of statehood. That historical reality can neither be denied nor speedily rectified.

This admission of reality does not give license for the preposterous notion that tribal assemblages kitted out as "states" should have a sovereign equality with the genuine article as is the current case in all international fora including but not limited to the UN. The UN and all similar entities were founded on a pair of unsupportable notions.

The very well meaning representatives of genuine nation-states who came together in San Francisco at the end of WW II confounded the idea "nation" with that of "state." That notion, specious as it was, paled into insignificance with the second wrong idea: Groups of tribes surrounded by discrete lines on a map, constituted self-conscious "nations" bound together by common language, culture, history, and defining mythology.

A similar distortion of reality came with the assumption that feudal societies founded on religious identity and ruled by autocrats more or less hereditary in nature were also competent nation-states capable and willing to act on a basis of equality with the complexly organized states of Europe, Asia, and the Americas. The specious nature of this tender-hearted assumption has been demonstrated amply by the conduct of the Arab sheikdoms over the past sixty plus years with regard to Israel and the Palestinians.

The only justification--and it is a powerful one--is the recognition back in the glory days of the UN's founding of the potency and prevalence of nationalism. Nationalism was and remains a force, the force which is not to be denied.

The truth of that contention as well as the inevitable centripetal effects of nationalism rises to high visibility in much of the world today. Russia is seeking--so far without demonstrable success--to reconquer ethnic and religious groups on its margins. Religiously reinforced tribal antipathies threaten more than one African country. The same dynamic works is bloody way in China and a few other Asian mainland states. And, the emergence to power of Los Indios or the quest for such has ripped across the South American landscape.

Offshoots or products of nationalism have popped up across both Europe and the US. The use of derogatory terms--xenophobia, nativism, Islamophobia--conceal but do not alter the reality that nationalism is not a force confined to distant, lesser developed or politically challenged countries.

Humans evolved as herd animals. That is a cliche of evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology. There was--and is--safety in the midst of the herd. It is the outriders and outliers who run the risk of losing in the race for survival.

And, what is the "herd?"

Simple, bucko, the preferred herd is a group of people who are closest to us and most like us. It is not simply the group closest to us in geography. It is also those who are most alike in color and shape, most alike in beliefs and values, most alike in the back of the brain: the shared mythology which is the potent but typically uncredited source of collective identity.

Mere geographic propinquity is reinforced by the epoxy of language, the glue of religion, the cement of a shared sense of having been victimized, exploited, marginalized, denied a full sense and reality of losing control of one's personhood to the will of an external "Other." The necessary result is the demand to gain full, unfettered control of a given territory and the people who live there. Usually this demand is accompanied by a shrill cry that all who are not-like-us leave our territory instantly if not sooner.

So comes "ethnic cleansing" in all its manifold expressions.

It is, of course, far easier to diagnose and describe nationalism and its consequences than it is to creatively and effectively deal with them--particularly the consequences. However, unless the reality of nationalism and the universality of the phenomenon are acknowledged, there is no possibility of coming to grips with the ills that come in its wake.

Many within the American hoi oligoi sincerely believe that we live in a post-national world, that the world is or should be seen not as a hodgepodge of entities but a single globe holding a single race. They hold an authentic and strong belief in multi-culturalism, cultural relativism, and the legitimacy as well as the necessity of international institutions.

The unpleasant ground truth is that these folk live alone in the post-national environment. The rest of the people, the assorted non-elites of the world live elsewhere. They live in a world where nationalism is the ultimate force.

And, that, bucko, is the other truth on which we must all get a grip. Only then can we have any hope of getting out of the mess created by our well-intended, well-meaning but out-to-lunch progenitors in San Francisco and so many other places.