The end of the Nation State
Josh Trevino argues that Russia's incursion to Georgia represents the end of the Western order (ie, NATO), and that the blame may be layed squarely at the feet of the Kosovo issue as precedent. Daniel Larison argues the opposite, that Russia's action is inherently limited and far from representing a Soviet resurgence, is really a natural reaction to the provocation of the Western order (ie, NATO). Neither of their analyses are without their own bias, but despite being polar opposites they still labor under the same inherent assumption that the natural order of things is for sovereignity to be defined as the nation-state level, a concept that some historians argue dates to the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. The concept of Westphalian sovereignty itself seems to be fundamentally flawed, however.
Except in truly immigrant-majority societies like the US (the "melting pot" or "salad bowl" analogy), the tendency (especially in Europe) seems to be towards self-rule by ethnic canton rather than artificial boundaries drawn by ancient powers based on old lines in the sand or mere geographic boundaries (the latter having once been significant in civilizations' infancy but are rendered irrelevant in the modern era of highways and planes and Internets). Why not let Kosovars and Abkhazians and Ossettians and Flemish people have their own cantons of self-rule, and adopt a more federal form of loose government to tie them together into "states" for organizational and logistical purposes only? Why shouldn't these cantons choose which umbrella government to join? Speaking specifically of Europe, doesn't the existence of the supra-national EU now render the individual nation-state a relic of a bygone era? Why have more layers to the hierarchy than necessary? Why not remove the middleman?
Civilizations are perhaps a more useful concept now - America, Europe, China, India, Arabia, Oceania, etc. Within such, there can be lesser units (states, provinces, etc) with varying degrees of autonomy. There should be freedom of movement and currency and labor within the civilizational boundaries, to reduce friction and internal tension. Somehow I think that by century's end, the pragmatic reality will be towards this type of organization rather than the post-colonial, post-imperial artificiality we have now.
Except in truly immigrant-majority societies like the US (the "melting pot" or "salad bowl" analogy), the tendency (especially in Europe) seems to be towards self-rule by ethnic canton rather than artificial boundaries drawn by ancient powers based on old lines in the sand or mere geographic boundaries (the latter having once been significant in civilizations' infancy but are rendered irrelevant in the modern era of highways and planes and Internets). Why not let Kosovars and Abkhazians and Ossettians and Flemish people have their own cantons of self-rule, and adopt a more federal form of loose government to tie them together into "states" for organizational and logistical purposes only? Why shouldn't these cantons choose which umbrella government to join? Speaking specifically of Europe, doesn't the existence of the supra-national EU now render the individual nation-state a relic of a bygone era? Why have more layers to the hierarchy than necessary? Why not remove the middleman?
Civilizations are perhaps a more useful concept now - America, Europe, China, India, Arabia, Oceania, etc. Within such, there can be lesser units (states, provinces, etc) with varying degrees of autonomy. There should be freedom of movement and currency and labor within the civilizational boundaries, to reduce friction and internal tension. Somehow I think that by century's end, the pragmatic reality will be towards this type of organization rather than the post-colonial, post-imperial artificiality we have now.
Comments