George Friedman, CEO of Stratfor (one of the best publishers of geo-political info around), has written that, for all the forecast glories of one worldwide government and the rise of internationalism and international institutions, the nation-state is not about to go quietly into the night.
The reason for this? International institutions are paper tigers. One may laud the glories of the UN, but if it cannot enforce its will (as parodied so well in Team America), it is nothing more than a global debate club. The same can be said for NATO.
I agree with Friedman that the Russian invasion of Georgia exposed the old, weak, non-magical wizard of NATO. Georgia was an ally of the Western powers, and yet NATO sat back with a cup of tea while Russia proceeded to anally violate Georgia. Germany standing with Russia, in contrast to the Americans and other NATO members, is just an extra proverbial kick in the groin.
As for the UN, we have a UN Human Rights commission headed by Ghaddafi's Libya. At the same time, imagine the Penguin in charge of Arkham Asylum and try to see if that is a good idea. Furthermore, when a UN member state is invaded, what UN army will assemble to defend that state? Those blue helmets will shoot at nothing more threatening than stray dogs, as made painfully evident in Rwanda during the genocide. All those fancy guns and nary a set of balls to fire them. (I suspect that the 11 year old girl who can field-strip an M-4 on YouTube would scare more genocidal maniacs than your average blue helmet.)
No wonder the "freedom fighters" in Mindanao want international intervention. A blue helmet (or whatever "peacekeeper" is in fashion for the day) will probably only give you a menacing glower while you happily rape and pillage your way to your objectives.
Which all leads back to the resurgence of the nation-state. (My apologies to the internationalists in the IPE of UA&P, but, come on...) In the end, wasn't NATO who made decisions during the invasion of Georgia, but individual nation-states. There was no common interest, only individual ones. Internationalists make the mistake of forgetting fundamental aspects of human nature. There are no collective interests, only individual ones. It will take an overpowering principle, belief, or even myth for man to be able to see the world beyond his own little bubble. Man seeing the common good is actually a transcendent act, not something rooted in his personal nature (or fallen nature, if you will). Unfortunately for the West, its peoples felt that they are too grown up for such principles, beliefs, and myths. Ask any EU bureaucrat about EU values and all you get is a bunch of vapid, committeed-to-death drivel.
There were only two institutions that managed to unite the West beyond the natural impulse caused by an immediate collective threat: the Roman Empire (and its descendants) and the Catholic Church. Guess which one's still around.
The nation state is not going to die out. The nation state will be here to stay, for as long as those advocating internationalism and international institutions come up with a better reason for internationalism and multilateralism other than internationalism and multilateralism just for the heck of it. Unless the UN flag can override the emotional, instinctive appeal of the British, US, French, or whatever flag, the UN will remain a bureaucratic debate club for old and over-paid codgers. No over-arching belief, principle or myth, no common action.
No cult, no culture. (Good luck with that Mother Gaia crap, Kyoto Protocol.)
Personally, watching the UN die will be just as pleasurable (in a schadenfreude kind of way) as watching the EU collapse. While there is hope that the leaders will get a clue, the history of modern politics gives no indication that such a thing is bound to happen any time in the forseeable future. The last people who had that clue within the EU were its founding architects, now all dead. One is being considered for sainthood. I wonder what they knew that their dimwit successors didn't? Hmmm....
So what happens then to crippling nation-states, will be just crumble in the dead of night looking toward the Western heavens 'till our population extinguishes from tiny plastic balloons?
ReplyDeleteKawawa naman talaga tayo...
Funny you didn't mention ASEAN. It's a much better example and it is closer to home.
ReplyDeleteASEAN is also a paper tiger. The reason it "works" is because it demands so little from its member nations. Low expectations mean little chance for disappointment. Its kinda like being in a special interest club for free. Nothing really substantial gets done, but you still don't mind being a member. After all, you have friends there.
ReplyDelete