Should the world be organized into sovereign territorial nation states?

From the amount of education I have received, my understanding has come to be that the modern states we see today have evolved from the world's prior experiences. Following these experiences humanity has learned what has worked and what has not. States did not suddenly appear from thin air, they were mustered up from collectives. The modern state's origins lay with feudalism, absolutism, and constitutionalism. Under these three organizations people have banded together for a common value- protection. Over the centuries this protection has gone from simply territorial protection to the protection of rights (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness). The problem with this purpose of protection is that it hammers in the concept of fear to each generation, the idea that outside states or cultures might encroach upon the coveted rights of a nation. This fear in turn is a self-fulfilling prophecy. States begin to fear intrusion and therefore go and intrude upon others to ensure self-protection. Which shows a somewhat ridiculous ideal in the modern day; to ensure one's safety one must relieve another state of their safety.

Some may consider me an idealist, but I don't believe the continual fear that leads contemporary states to military force is necessary or justified. The solution to the problem that is safety is not simply statehood nor by extension force. Instead the world's solution relies on past practice, a realization of prior mistakes and the willingness to not repeat them. In this case we should expel the fear and realize we are of one people, of one nation- mankind. Under this one “state” there is no bound territory for sovereignty, we are all here and must realize that violence truly serves no purpose. If we are to reach deep within ourselves and pull out our best features; kindness, compassion, empathy, and general consideration we can stop the unnecessary division into states. The solution ultimately nullifies the problem. The world would begin to reconcile the idea that we must accept each other as people which would in theory expel racism, antisemitism, stereotyping, and the majority of vices in contemporary society.

If we are to truly consider our modern world as one of liberation then our contemporary practices are outdated. States should by now be deemed useless. Why must one person/state make global politics into an issue of “us” and “them” rather then humanity? Humans are an interesting species, we are the only creature that will go out of its way (even in danger) to help another of our species. If we are evolutionarily programmed to do this, why must we divide ourselves? We have the intellectual capacity to figure out what will provide for peace within a territory, so why wouldn't humanity be able to do so if the territory was expanded to include the whole world? Humans have it within themselves to construct a government that works for all, but this can only happen when individuals begin to realize the true meaning of community in regards to globalism instead of the localism the world currently seems to believe in.

“First comes thought; then organization of that thought, into ideas and plans; then transformation of those plans into reality. The beginning, as you will observe, is in your imagination.” -Napoleon Hill

Should the world be organized into sovereign territorial nation-states?

To answer this week's question, I would like to highlight a comment made by the writers of The Nation-State and Global Order in the introduction; essentially, it is the thesis that elaborates on the book's succinct title. On page 2 it states: "...nation-states, having eclipsed all other types of politico-military rule that have existed on the planet, are, and will continue to be for the foreseeable future, the basic building blocks of the global order." The authors of this text articulate the supremacy and prevalence of nation-states in the modern day, and I must agree with their sentiments. The nation-state is the most logical form of rule for today's world; yet I am not entirely sure that it truly correlates with citizens' intentions. For example, according to the book's criteria for a proper nation-state, this type of rule must "[have] sovereignty over its territory, which means that its jurisdiction is theoretically exclusive of outside interference by other nation-states or entities." (3) I think the definition of "jurisdiction" in this context is worth discussing; does jurisdiction simply mean the creation and enforcement of laws? Or is it a broader term that encompasses not only legislation, but also cultural, ethnic, and political expectations that the government has for its citizens? If jurisdiction does in fact include the latter, then nation-states have become almost a laughable concept in today's globalized, interdependent world, where other countries have claims in their neighbors' fates based upon war, trade, etc. Just as countries looked to one another for a widely accepted standard of rule (sovereign territorial nation-states), they continue to look to one another as they evolve technologically, socially, and culturally as nation-states, as if nation-states are frightened of becoming too different from one another. 

Yet in this way, the nation-state is a perplexing contradiction. It is inevitably bound to other nation-states' actions and identities because of globalization and interdependence, but it fiercely protects its own sovereignty, independence, and distinction when compared to its fellow nation-states. This unique characteristic directly meets another criterion that the book mentions: “its population manifests, to a greater or lesser degree, a sense of national identity.” It is this nationalism that inspires nation-states to protect their borders, language, culture, and inhabitants from outside sources. This intense pride can also encourage a more serious reaction: the need to force that nationalism onto “lesser” nation-states, those that are radically different and therefore lacking in an “acceptable” identity. In this way, the basic fundamentals of a nation-state can prey upon one another depending upon the collective mindset of its citizens; are these people content to respect boundaries and varying identities, or are they easily frightened by the unfamiliar and “threatening”?

To reiterate, I do believe that nation-states are an essential part of global order. However, once we establish that perspective, the next question to consider is what does global order entail: order in terms of peaceful coexistence, or order in terms of a hierarchical, unequal structure? In today’s global society, our form of order seems to guarantee the latter interpretation, which suggests that global citizens are not part of nation-states at all, but something much more flawed and at times, even sinister. 

Should the world be organized into sovereign territorial nation states?

Along with the question of sovereignty comes the question of territoriality and how borders create a sense of individuality and separation of different political and economic systems. The way the world has been partitioned into separate, sovereign states forces other neighboring states to question whether or not it is, in essence, worthy of recognition. The Nation-State and Global Order by Walter Opello and Stephen Rosow notes that there are several characteristics that can be “recognized as the common currency of nation-states in the current global order” (Opello and Rosow 3). The fourth of those characteristics revolves specifically around the creation of borders, and how it is a fundamental property of nation-states to have “fixed boundaries marked on the ground by entry and exit points” (Opello and Rosow 3).

Because it is inherent to nation-states to partition themselves, it begs the question of necessity: the only way a nation-state can truly be recognized as self-sufficient and individual is if there is an actual society to maintain. Recognizing a nation-state as sovereign encompasses all the things discussed in class: autonomy, capacity, power, and authority. The only way societies can exist as independent entities is by creating separate spaces for them to function within; the Peace of Westphalia created a way that different nation-states could function alongside each other. Politically and economically, boundaries create a truly established system that allows for international coexistence, and without them- a globalized system with no boundaries would not provide nation-states with any opportunity to govern themselves as independent entities.

Should the world be organized into sovereign territorial nation-states?

Many people talk about the “good old days,” mythical periods in history where everything seemed to be better for everyone. Usually, the people making these statements overlook an infinite amount of bad things about the past. No matter how bad things are in the present, it was probably worse earlier in history. This holds true for the existence of nation-states. The division of the world into sovereign territorial nation-states is a very good thing for the global community.

The territorial nation-states allow for a peaceable coexistence among the different communities all over the world – or as peaceable as one can expect. There are still many conflicts consisting all over the world. But generally, countries now no longer fear being invaded by more powerful countries. Since the Peace of Westphalia established the idea of sovereign territorial nation-states with non-intervention, countries can exist beside each other in more harmony than the past. Of course, there are still many, many conflicts between countries near and far from each other, but territorial sovereignty helps to quell more conflicts than it causes. Countries are now officially “recognized,” which is not a perfect system but is one that is better than in the past. Nation-state boundaries help enforce authority and autonomy because now jurisdiction has a beginning and an end.

Territorial sovereignty also helps keep culture alive in many parts of the world. Instead of one major power taking over land and making the inhabitants assimilate into their way of life, cultures are preserved. On the flip side, nationalism is fostered by the nation-states.

Reflection

The in-class discussion of Franklin Foer’s book, “How Soccer Explains the World,” certainly prompted vigorous debate in class. Is the book actually about globalization or is the work a portrait of the effects of soccer (or, as it is known to the rest of the world, football)? What is Foer actually advocating when he notes the lack of nationalism for all-American teams? Can Foer actually be trusted to be an unbiased reporter, or does his intense fanaticism for the sport override any argument about globalization he could make?

To be perfectly honest, these questions stump me more often than not. None of these questions have easy answers. One of the questions posed toward the end of class was whether or not Foer advocated hooliganism as a form of nationalism for the US. On this point, I do not necessarily believe that this is what Foer is recommending. I think it is unfair to compare the structure of soccer leagues around the world with the structure of most American sports leagues. American leagues are decidedly that – American. European, South American, or Asian leagues encompass many different countries and frequently engage other these other countries. Just as someone may have fanatical support for the Boston Red Sox, another person may have equal support for the Spanish soccer team. Regular Americans will probably not show much support for American national teams because these teams rarely play anyplace other than the Olympics. America also has an incredibly amount of diversity among its population, which may account for a lack of national support behind just one team.

Because of so many opinions and perspectives in the “melting pot” of America, it may be difficult to find one element to unite behind. Is the reason that there is so little support for the national American soccer team because there are so many countries represented in America? These people may choose to support a country where they or their parents grew up, a country that might appreciate soccer more. Perhaps a lack of tolerance toward some members of society lead them to feel alienated, which may not lead them to support a national team. Or, the answer could just be that Americans just do not care about soccer the way the rest of the world does. It’s truly a complex question with many different possible answers.

Reflection

If the nation’s capital cannot be a model of change and acceptance, no other city can expect to see acceptance plant itself as a foundation for growth. Every issue that is brought to light by various agencies and advertisements face the criticism of those who not only blame the victim(s) for the tragedy itself, but may indeed choose to simply ignore the issue altogether. The pursuit of globalization from all corners of the nation, from the small business owner in the Midwestern United States to the booming Wal-Mart that impacts political and economic decisions alike, is inevitable.
There is no question that the world is moving to a more “global order”. The question arises, however, of how long the elephant in the room will continue to stand ignored. Are we, thought to be the most progressive nation as a whole, still cowering behind prejudice as a legitimate excuse to ignore the rising trend of HIV/AIDS victims in the United States? Are there still people using extreme nationalism as an excuse to shield America from the evils of globalization, fearing that we will “lose a piece of ourselves” by embracing a multinational modus operandi? PEPFAR exists as a representative branch of an organization that will not only work to understand, but try to correct an issue. A globalized organization dedicated to helping those who need it most is where change and acceptance begin. Foundations like House of Ruth work to help understand an issue like domestic violence that is often swept under the rug, ignored tactfully to maintain social grace...but these all have one thing in common. Their main goal is to raise awareness for issues that are already widely regarded as more than just a little problematic, and millions of dollars are designated for the sole purpose of spreading more and more information about specific issues- bringing to light the need for issues to be recognized to their fullest extent, and refusing to allow important factors to go unnoticed because it makes the unfortunate few a little uncomfortable.
The discussion on globalization that stemmed from How Soccer Explains the World brought to life the fear that Americans have of expanding their cultural mindset- surely a rational fear for a nation who prides itself on “the American way”. The upcoming discussions on internationalism and realism can be aided by a foundational understanding that will come from the Nation State and Global Order, and the very first sets of ruling systems modeled in the 1600’s by the feudal system. I look forward to relating the very closed atmosphere of the feudal system that essentially mimicked a vacuum, to an international and very global world that embraces the very same multinational culture that Foer lauded throughout his book.

Reflection

Within our class discussion the United States, nationalism, and globalization were repeatedly brought up- sometimes even in the same sentence. The United States, as countless people in the past have pointed out, is unlike any other nation in the world today. The U.S. is a sample of everything humanity has to offer; a mix of all races, ethnicities, religions, and political ideals. It is this mix that makes it so hard to simply define nationalism in America. Some have even argued that nationalism doesn't truly exist in America. This is mainly because our nation originated from an imperialist state (England) pushing out the natives, only for the former to then be pushed out by colonists that had roots in England (in principle, an attack on nationalism). Fast forward to the present day and one will see a nation that has countless individuals that were not born here but came for the opportunities, citizens who have close elders that were not born here but have grown to love the democracy that is the U.S.

Other nations have deep rooted ancestry on the territory their state claims. Traditions, morals, values, and for the most part a sense homogeneity have been established after hundreds of years of history. For example, one can walk down a street in China and see the Imperialist Palace or sweep across Europe and find a large number of greek orthodox churches.

The question is then raised, how can America define its nationalism? Can this country have nationalism without having deep rooted ancestry to the soil we live on or a greater sense of homogeneity? Is our nationalism simply defined by the people's love for the life and opportunity this nation brings? I would like to think of America as an example for the future world, a place where people of all backgrounds and lifestyles can come together, untied under basic fundamental rights regardless of ideologies. A future world where citizens can speak out and participate, change the face of their nation/government whenever they please. A new nation where each individual has love for their peers regardless of differences. I understand that America has a long list of vices, but the beautiful thing about this nation is that the vices are eventually realized and worked on. But my greatest point is that I don't believe America is simply the future, I believe something greater is to come- a new nation. But this new nation can only come about when our world redefines nationalism to be the love of humanity as a nation rather then a territory or ancestral background.