Observations on the Present-Day Nation-State

In 1964 Bob Dylan released an album entitled The Times They Are a-Changin’.  I was 9 years old.  I have witnessed many changes since then.  Yet when I consider the geopolitical milieu, I borrow from a BTO album released ten years later: You Ain’t Seen Nothing Yet.  Even in the turbulent 1960’s when nearly 30 African states gained their independence from colonial rulers, it is interesting to note that almost no borders changed, nor the total number of countries. 

In most cases when one speaks of a state or a country, the concept described is a “nation-state.”  A “state” is defined as a self-governing political entity and we often use the word “country” interchangeably.  A “nation” is a tight-knit group of people that share a common culture.  The former Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, and today’s Lebanon, and Spain are examples of multi-national states.  Canada and Belgium are examples of two-nations in one state.  The Kurds, Tartars, and the Roma are examples of stateless nations.  Palestine finds itself in a gray area of not being completely stateless, but certainly not a fully recognized state, with a geographically and politically divided nation.  States require a level of cohesiveness, a common identity, for successful functioning.  This is typically achieved through shared values, norms, and expressive symbols of it nation(s) within that state.  See my posts on 11 August, 21 July, 16 July, 7 July, 28 June, and 5 June of 2009 for further discussion of these elements.  In Renan’s lecture at the Sorbonne in 1882, he explained,

 A nation is a soul, a spiritual principle. Two things that actually are one come together to build this soul or spiritual principle. One of them lies in the past, the other in the present. One is the common possession of a rich heritage...; the other is a present accord, the desire to live together, and the will to continue to accumulate and build the common heritage.

One insight expressed by Renan was the “present accord, the desire to live together, and the will to continue to accumulate and build the common heritage,” is an essential element in today’s modern nation-state.  When that accord is not present, no matter the past shared heritage, the nation-state is in jeopardy of change.  We see these dynamics in the rise of nationalism.  Seneca, George Orwell, and Charles de Gaulle all expressed the same thought when they explained that patriotism is the love of one’s country (nation-state), where as nationalism is the hatred of another country (nation-state).  That nationalism finds many forms.  Possibly the xenophobia of the Soviet Union, the frustrations in some European countries with some norms practiced by Islam, France’s expulsion of the Roma, and the Middle East’s general love-hate relationship with the decadent West, are some examples of fear of potential change of a nation or nation-state status.  In the United States, some might suggest the Tea Party Movement and the plethora of political pundits on both side of the political spectrum who spend most of their time pointing out the flaws of the other side, but not much time building a common identity among themselves.  They sure know what they are running from, but not quite sure what they are running to.  

In this interdependent world where information, products, services, and raw materials flow almost effortlessly across borders, nation-states find themselves in peril.  Back in the 1960’s and early 1970's that peril was thought to be the demise of the nation-state because the concept has run its course.  Imagine there's no countries, It isn't hard to do, Nothing to kill or die for, And no religion too, Imagine all the people, Living life in peace, John Lennon penned in 1971.  Today, however, it appears the nation-state is in peril because of this interdependent flow, but for a completely different reason.  Meaning has been lost in the present size and capacity of the nation-state to support a common identity.  Instead of an enlarged common identity, in this era of the “long-tail” and niche markets, we are beginning to see the break-up of nation-states into smaller or sometimes unidentifiable entities.  Scotland and Wales stand on the edge of leaving the United Kingdom.  Greenland moves closer every year to independence from Denmark.  China is farming in Africa and shipping the bounty home.  These farms are almost treated like they are a part of China, not the host countries.  There are only 6 million Russians living in the vast interior of Siberia, with hundreds of millions of Chinese not only on the border, but migrating to that resources rich part of northern Central Asia.  Countries up-river from the Egyptian portion of the Nile are claiming new water rights that could threaten Egypt’s future.  Some suggest a key part of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is really about the flow of water rights as much as religion, culture and heritage. 

We will continue to see inter- dependence grow between countries, but we will also see new pressures put on the present nation-states in the form of common identity fractures.  Those countries that are successful in “running to” shared values, norms, and expressive symbols by realizing they are in a non-zero sum scenario have a better chance of survival.  Those that believe in and practice the historical scenario that: in order to win, someone must lose (a zero sum scenario) may find a common identity in a smaller group, but in so doing will exacerbate the demise of the nation-state they now live in.  It is very possible to see the present number of 195 nation-states break the 200 barrier in the next decade.  Some of those transitions will be peaceful and even be applauded on the world stage (such as the probable creation of Southern Sudan).  Other changes may be accompanied by civil strife, civil war, or regional conflict.  Taken completely out of context I will close with another song, this time from the 1978 movie Grease, sung today by the nation-state: “I got chills, they're multiplying, And Im losin' control…”

 

American Immigration: Policies and Principles

Robert Wright in a Technology-Education-Design (TED) Conference suggested that non-zero sum scenarios have operated through history, despite our human penchant for zero sum games. Zero sum scenarios require a winner and a looser. That is, the outcome is an inverse correlation that equals zero. In non-zero sumness, all parties in the scenario garner the same outcome, that is, they all win, or they all lose. This creates a moral progression, motivated by charitable enlightenment on one hand and self-interest on the other, that drives humanity on cyclical, but over time a progressively upward trajectory. Cycles occur on this trajectory in part because of forgetting that one’s fortune is tied to others. As Robert Frost suggested in his poem, The Black Cottage, “Most of the change we think we see in life is due to truths being in and out of favor”. In the short-term, a scarcity mentality can glean great rewards for the successful taker. Sooner or later, however, the principles of the non-zero sum milieu that much of life’s scenarios apply to will take its toll, reminding us that we are in this life together.

The present scarcity mentality coupled with a zero sum perspective in the illegal immigration debate is disappointing. Many are willing to set principles temporarily aside for immediate issues. Possibly these are some who never learned the principle of the Law of the Harvest. It is also frustrating that the present conservative candidates simply assume that in my demographic they want to prove that they are tougher on illegal immigrants than the next person. I consider myself a conservative, but a compassionate conservative. Big government is not the best solution in most cases, and turning to the government to solve all our woes creates a weaker society. I think we need to live within our means and balance the budget. And so on. I also think it is shortsighted to replace patriotism (love of country) with nationalism (hatred of other countries and their people), and top that with a xenophobia for mostly honest, hardworking and good people. We need immigration reform, absolutely. We don’t need to denigrate what this country stands for with draconian measures that repeal the 14th Amendment to the Constitution (as Rand Paul suggest), that penalize the innocent young children of illegal immigrants (as Steve Poizner suggests), and we don’t need laws that are spring loaded to type 1 errors. I have lived in countries that would rather prosecute some innocents in order to catch all the guilty. The United States has always leaned to accepting type 2 errors—allowing that a few guilty might go free in order to ensure that no innocents are prosecuted unjustly. Arizona’s new illegal immigration statute skews the balance to type 1 errors and contrary to American principles.

We have always been a country of immigrants. For most of our history there was no such thing as an “illegal” immigrant. Most of the Irish, Italians, and other European immigrants simply showed up on our door step. Most Black Americans have roots in enforced immigration… And Native Americans may still view the rest of us as illegal immigrants… We have accepted, proportionate to our national population at the time, more immigrants in 1907 than the total legal and illegal immigrant population that crossed our borders in 2007. So what’s the difference today? Tax dollars are tight. Jobs are tight. In other words, we have a scarcity mentality and a zero sum perspective on the future. We are wrong in both regards. As a former participant and leader in the narco-terrorism efforts we have been waging in Latin America I can say with a clearer understanding than many that justifying these anti-immigration issues solely in terms of border security highlights misunderstanding on one side and a political willingness to pander to that misunderstanding by those who know better, on the other. This country has been blessed by our immigrants. They are a force multiplier in our abilities to meet the challenges of the future—not a detriment to determining lasting long-term solutions.

We fight over the definition of what the Founding Fathers meant with the 2nd Amendment, but care little for debate on the 4th, 5th, 8th, 9th, and 14th Amendments, to name a few. We create faulty dilemmas structuring arguments where we believe we have to choose between good and good so that no matter what we choose, we lose, or between two bad options where we feel justified in bad selections. In both cases we are only attempting to make a choice while escaping responsibility and accountability.
Dr. Victor E. Frankl lived three years in Nazi Germany’s concentration camps. Even under these severely inhumane and restrictive conditions, he had this to say:

The experiences of [concentration] camp life show that man does have a choice of action. . . . Man can preserve a vestige of spiritual freedom, of independence of mind, even in such terrible conditions of psychic and physical stress. . . . Everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms—to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's own way… There were always choices to make. Every day, every hour, offered the opportunity to make a decision, a decision which determined whether you would or would not submit to those powers which threatened to rob you of your very self, your inner freedom; which determined whether or not you would become the plaything of circumstance, renouncing freedom and dignity to become molded into the form of the typical inmate. . . . The last inner freedom cannot be lost.

Choice is defined as “the mental process of thinking involved with the process of judging the merits of multiple options and selecting one of them for action.” Choice then, involves input, cognition, judgment, and selection. Choice is also the result of selection, as in, “my choice is door number one.” Choice implies the ability to choose between options from all enticing corners. Choice, however, does not stand alone. Choice is a hollow currency without accountability. As Economist and Nobel Prize winner Amartya Sen suggested, “There is something deeply irresponsible about denying choice when a choice exists, for it is a denial of freedom and an abdication of accountability.” Interestingly, Victor Frankl, expert and exemplar of choice, recommended that the Statue of Liberty on the East Coast of the United States (a symbol of freedom and choice) be supplemented with a Statue of Responsibility on the West Coast. He explained,

“Freedom, however, is not the last word. Freedom is only part of the story and half of the truth. Freedom is but the negative aspect of the whole phenomenon whose positive aspect is responsibleness. In fact, freedom is in danger of degenerating into mere arbitrariness unless it is lived in terms of responsibleness.”

Accountability is sometimes negatively defined as dead weight, a millstone, blame, stress, and affliction. In response to the negative cloud of accountability I suggest it is much easier to retreat to casting blame elsewhere. It is not “choice and creativity of escaping governing principles,” that drives meaning and long-term success. As Covey explained, “values govern people’s behavior [choice], but principles ultimately determine the consequences [and accountability]”. In all fairness to accountability, it optimistically connotes concern, allegiance, duty, stewardship, loyalty, answerability, and obligation. It is the justification of judgment (choice). Choices are made with or without the understanding of governing principles, but accountability over time is a guidance mechanism that aids participants in making better choices. In this season of political debate, let’s turn back to principles, not knee-jerk reactionary laws that will, in the end cause us once again to reconsider principles, but only after painful reminders of their existence.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton meets today with her Japanese counterpart in Hawaii. As I commented on the future state of U.S. relations with Japan in an earlier note, I wanted to use this Hawaii confabulation as a revisit opportunity of my earlier comments. Media, in particular Japanese media, has built up this meeting as a crisis summit over the U.S. military basing issue in Okinawa. In my earlier post I predicted:

On the issues of common enemies, over time the U.S. can expect friction from the DPJ on the housing and support of nearly 50,000 American troops on Japanese soil. The move of U.S. Marines from Okinawa to Guam, started under the LDP will accelerate and be completed before the 2014 deadline. The brunt of the cost ($6 billion of the $10 billion price tag) presently being born by Japan will be a topic of discussion and there will probably be an adjustment made to appease the DPJ.

As the Japanese public experiences a little bit of buyers remorse in presenting the DPJ a landslide victory, Hatoyame has had to ratchet up the expected friction in the matter of the Okinawa base. My prediction that: The DPJ has an aggressive domestic agenda that will keep it preoccupied in the short-term and if anything, will support U.S. National Interests by giving the U.S. some adjustment time as it continues to mend some of its own international bridges… was not so accurate. I expected at least another six months for the base issue to become a central topic of discussion. That it is a topic of discussion at the cabinet level is no surprise, however. The Japanese warn in the proverb: Hi wa kiyurédomo tô-shin wa hiyédzu. (Though the flame be put out, the wick remains). The flame that brought Hatoyame to power was quietly extinguished with regards to the base issue, but the issue never went away. The wick was always there—it just ignited quicker than many expected.
In today's casual talks in Hawaii, Secretary Clinton will have to balance our short-term national interest concerns with world-class diplomacy. As I warned in my earlier post:

Japan and the DPJ will be looking for more respect and a leading role in the international arena. Initially they will attempt to make good on their domestic election promises, but their international interests are closely connected to many of the domestic issues challenging Japan.

All is well in the U.S. relationship with Japan. The time table to discuss the basing issue has been accelerated slightly which plays well for Hatoyame and is an issue the U.S. will handle with aplomb. U.S. national interests will not be severely tried with this change in the Japanese political landscape. I predicted in my last post on the subject. Matéba, kanrô no hiyori. The Japanese suggest, If you wait, ambrosial weather will come.

Should We Celebrate Columbus Day?

Yesterday someone whose opinion I greatly respect offered his opinion that we shouldn’t celebrate Columbus Day, due to the facts of Christopher Columbus’ brutality with the Native Americans he encountered. I found myself playing Columbus’ advocate. I am not a blind supporter of all the things he did wrong, nor am I ignorant of the explorers that landed on the shores of this continent before Columbus. Napoleon Bonaparte once famously quipped, “History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon.” It seems the agreements are changing. In deference to natives to this country, I understand the interest in that change. My concern is, we ought not throw out the baby with the bath water. As a person who has lived and worked in Latin America and Spain and presently works with a Native American tribe, let me offer a few thoughts.

Discovery Rights:

Evidence shows that Norsemen reached the American Continent probably 400 to 500 years before Columbus. They were not raiders, but Christian settlers who had been converted to Christianity about 50 years before their first probable contact with the “new world.” Some studies suggest some Irish explorers may also have stumbled upon this continent hundreds of years before 1492. Possibly 70 years before Columbus, the Chinese seafarer Zheng may not only have discovered this continent, but could possibly have circumnavigated the globe. And what of the ancient peoples who first traveled here by North Pacific land bridges or by boat from the “old world” and first populated this land? They were truly the first discoverers, weren’t they? How can someone “discover” a place if it is already populated?

My thought here is: Many may have discovered America before Christopher Columbus. But he was the first to “get published.” Ralph Waldo Emerson said it this way: “Every ship that now comes to America got its chart from Columbus.” Maybe his greatest feat was that he found this new continent at that time in history when printing was becoming ubiquitous and communications, although rudimentary, were becoming global. Historian George Santayana suggests, “Columbus found a world, and had no chart, Save one that faith deciphered in the skies. He gave the world another world.”

Columbus had an idea (which turned out to be wrong). He wasn’t looking for a new land, but a shortcut to the spices of India and East Asia. He didn’t even know where he was when he got there. But his ambition, determination, and courage changed the course of human history—for good and bad. Isn’t that the story of many great discoveries? Serendipity and good fortune don’t change the fact that Columbus was willing to sail beyond the horizon.

Columbus the Man:

Many today highlight Columbus' mistreatment of the gentle and peace-loving Arawaks he encountered in the Caribbean. But how many people are aware that one of the reasons the Arawaks welcomed the Europeans so warmly was their fear of the Carib Indians who were, as one modern historian puts it, "then expanding across the Lesser Antilles and literally eating the Arawaks up"? In interest of equal treatment, Mr Williams of the modern Carib tribe states: "Our ancestors stood up against early European conquerors and because they stood up… we were labeled savages and cannibals up to today.”

No matter the actual state of tribal relations in the 1400’s, that era and human history in general was a brutal affair. Native tribes made conquest of other tribes with battles counting thousands of deaths and at key intersections, the genocide of some groups. Europe was conquered by Goths, Gaelic’s, Gaul’s, Magyars, and Moors. In fact, the same year the Spanish Crown outfitted Columbus with his small armada, the last Moorish stronghold of Granada surrendered to the Spanish monarchy after nearly 800 years of presence on the Iberian Peninsula. Columbus was a marketer. He went to Spain, the Silicon Valley of his era, as an entrepreneur pitching to venture capitalists. He played on the Crusader frustrations that Islam had retaken Jerusalem. As Spain had just overcome the Moors, he pledged all gold he might find to the reconquest of the Holy land, a powerful vision to the Catholic monarchy of Ferdinand and Isabella. No, Columbus was certainly not perfect, but he should be judged by the motives of his age, not by our enlightened perspectives of equality and global humanity.

Near the end of his life, Columbus recorded: “I am a most noteworthy sinner, but I have cried out to the Lord for grace and mercy, and they have covered me completely. I have found the sweetest consolation since I made it my whole purpose to enjoy His marvelous Presence.”

The Impact of His Voyages:

I will forgo a discussion of the age of Exploration and the economic, cultural, and social impacts--both good and bad, of Columbus' "discovery," to keep this post shorter than it could be and focus on ethics as this seems to be the greatest issue of discontent.

European cultural arrogance and its violation of universal human and political rights lived vibrantly for centuries before and after Columbus’ voyage. Yet no other culture in the world conceived of universal respect for human persons and the embodiment of that principle in international law prior to European development of these doctrines-prodded in part by the encounter with “New World” natives.

And what of these natives? Native religion and life were, whatever their shortcomings, clearly not the creation of irrational brutes. The Spanish crown was so sensitive to these moral arguments that in 1550 it ordered all military activity to cease in the Americas and created a royal commission at Valladolid to examine Spain's behavior in the New World. No other growing empire in history has ever similarly interrupted itself to take up moral issues. Ultimately, greed and ineffective Spanish administration led to the abuses we know of and the fame of La Leyenda Negra, the Black Legend, but the commission did bring about penalties for some of the worst offenders, as well as certain reforms in administration and policy.


Of note, Bartolomea de las Casas, the widely acclaimed Dominican priest who defended the Indians, went so far as to argue that even human sacrifice and cannibalism among the natives should not be held against them because both practices showed deep reverence and a spirit of sacrifice towards the Almighty. At Valladolid, Las Casas argued against Juan Gineas de Sepualveda, another theologian, that Indians were human beings. Sepualveda rejected that argument, but to establish his case he had to try to prove that reason was so weak in the Indians that, left to themselves, they could not live according to reason. Those who knew the “New World,” could not but accept the fact that the Indians were doing just fine before the European conquerors showed up.

We now take it for granted that even nations deeply alien to us have a right to their own territory and culture, but it is largely due to the reflections begun by Francisco de Vitoria, a Dominican theologian and friend of Las Casas, that we have such principles. Vitoria was highly respected by the Spanish king, who appointed him to several royal commissions (unfortunately, he died before the great debate at Valladolid). But Vitoria did not hesitate to tell the monarch that he had no right to lands occupied by Indians, nor could he make slaves out of rational beings. Furthermore, Vitoria went so far as to call the 1494 Treaty of Tordesillas, in which the Pope ceded lands to the Spanish and Portuguese, improper because the pontiff did not have temporal sovereignty over the earth, particularly over lands already occupied by natives. Later, Pope Pius III, who in response to reports from the New World proclaimed in his 1537 encyclical Sublimis Deus:

Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by the Christians are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property, even though they be outside the faith of Jesus Christ; and they may and should, freely and legitimately, enjoy their liberty and the possession of their property; nor should they be in any way enslaved; should the contrary happen it shall be null and of no effect. . . . By virtue of our apostolic authority we declare . . . that the said Indians and other peoples should be converted to the faith of Jesus Christ by preaching the word of God and by the example of good and holy living.

In short, we should recall that ethical developments, too, are a consequence of Columbus.