PDA

View Full Version : Nation States vs Security Communities


NousDefionsDoc
04-06-2004, 13:45
What I think we are seeing is the beginning of the waning of the nation state as the principle structure in the world. I don't think it will end for the next 100 years or so and I think the US will probably be the last, along with China, but I see it changing, slowly and surely.

The borders drawn by the victors of the WWs are being erased. Due in no small part to immigration, legal and illegal, concepts such as the EU, NAFTA, MERCOSUR, etc., economics, globalization, technology, and lastly security requirements.

My opinion is that we are turning to the era of the security community, smaller geographic areas and segregation.

NousDefionsDoc
04-06-2004, 14:04
Ok RL, first of all, welcome back. We were getting ready to send out a one man ambush to look for you.

I will expound and discuss, if you are willing. All of this is just my opinion.

What I think we are seeing is the beginning of a revolution in geopolitical affairs. If you look, most of the conflicts today, both military and economic, are what I consider to be tribal. National identity does not hold nearly the sway it once did, even in the US and England.

The people on this board are fast becoming the exception, rather than the rule. Let's take the US for example. There are numerous complaints, including here, of such things as :
Teaching other than English in schools
New citizens no longer know as much about US history (including native born).
Ethnic groups tend to congregate together and maintain as much of the concepts of their original heritage as possible.
English is no longer a requirement to be successful in the US (survive).
Immigration increases daily.
etc.
We have discussed the solution to the Mexican immigration issue - so goes Mexico, so goes the southern US.

Canada appears to owe more allegiance to the UK and Phrance than the US and Mexico, yet they share almost nothing in common with europe other than a historical tie through the royalty.

Now, look at Iraq - the country is basically divided up into three areas as far as I can tell. I don't hear anybody but us talking about Iraqis (nation state). I hear them talking about Kurds, Shi'ites, Sunnis, etc. (security communities - albeit religious orientation in the latter two cases).

Palestinians are mostly Jordanian and Syrian by nationality. Jordan is over half Palestinian. Yet there is no Palestinian nation state. There is however, a Palestinian security community.

Kurds - Iraq, Iran, Turkey that I know of. Not one nation state, but generally one security community. I realize the Iraqi Kurds don't have much in common with the others.

Israelis - more Jewish people live in the US nation state than in the Jewsih nation state - yet they feel part of the Jewish security community and suffer the same persecution when traveling.

EU - I think they are launching an economic war against us to take us down from being the world's only superpower. Not as Phrench or Germans, but as members of the European security community.

LATAM - they are banding together, with Brazil wanting to be the leader, to offset the US power and influence in the region. IMO, following the EU model.

I don't know that much about Asia, so I don't know if it is happening there or not.

I admit it will take years and may never happen. National allegiance is still very strong in many places, including the US. Another reason it may not happen is in fighting.

But it is also happening as we speak in some places. If you go to the Ecuador-Colombia border or the Venezuela-Colombia border, you will see it. The people there have inter-married, they or more commonly their children hold dual citizenships and they cross the borders like it isn't even there. Even their accents are inter-mingled. I imagine the same is happening in Argentina-Chile, etc.

Many of the nation state boundaries are artificial and drawn up as giving out pieces of the pies to the victors from various wars. The security community boundaries appear to me to be much more logical and workable, as the people tend to share much more in common that simply national identity.

Of course I could be wrong.

Jimbo
04-06-2004, 14:13
I seem to recall having to write something on this very topic in order to graduate. Are you sure you're not a college boy?

Roguish Lawyer
04-06-2004, 14:25
It is good to be back, although I had a very pleasant vacation.

Nice one, Jimbo.

NDD:

Haven't security communities been around for a long time? I am not yet sure that this is a new development.

NousDefionsDoc
04-06-2004, 14:51
1. Kiss my ass Jimbo. LOL

2. Yes they have, but not as the dominant geopolitical entity in the world I don't think.

Roguish Lawyer
04-06-2004, 14:57
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Yes they have, but not as the dominant geopolitical entity in the world I don't think.

Interesting theory, but the "dominant geopolitical entity"? Sure, we see evidence of this in countries with insurgencies. But elsewhere?

I think you may have a case of SF myopia. :)

NousDefionsDoc
04-06-2004, 15:07
Insurgencies in Europe? Where, other than Spain. Argentina-Chile?

Roguish Lawyer
04-06-2004, 15:12
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Insurgencies in Europe? Where, other than Spain. Argentina-Chile?

No, I'm saying the opposite. You see this stuff in places like Iraq, but not really elsewhere. I don't think you can say that there are dominant "security communities" here or in Europe or China. Even in a place like Canada where you have the Quebec issue, the state is completely dominant and the "security community" is just something to observe.

Interesting theory, but I just don't see it.

lrd
04-06-2004, 16:22
I was trying to find "official" definitions of nation and state, and came across this definition of nation:A group or race of people that share history, traditions and culture. The United Kingdom is comprised of four nations or national groups: the English, Scots, Irish and Welsh. Canada includes French-Canadians, English-Canadians and a number of aboriginal nations. Thus, states may be comprised of one or several nations. It is common English to use the word "nation" when referring to what is known in law as "states."
lawyers.mosaicfx.com/glossary.php

How are we defining nation and state (at least for this discussion)?

NousDefionsDoc
04-06-2004, 16:34
Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
No, I'm saying the opposite. You see this stuff in places like Iraq, but not really elsewhere. I don't think you can say that there are dominant "security communities" here or in Europe or China. Even in a place like Canada where you have the Quebec issue, the state is completely dominant and the "security community" is just something to observe.

Interesting theory, but I just don't see it.

Not elsewhere? What do you think the EU is?

The Mercosur nations don't really have any ongoing insurgencies, yet I consider Mercosur to be a security community.

Roguish Lawyer
04-06-2004, 16:37
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
What do you think the EU is?

A loose federation.

NousDefionsDoc
04-06-2004, 16:40
Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
A loose federation.

LOL - COME ON! Most of them want one currency, they use common passports, borders are non-existant to members, most of them want a common intelligence agency, they're trying to form a EU Army. The only reason its not "The Empire Strikes Back" is because they can't decide who's going to be in charge and the Brits won't play.

Roguish Lawyer
04-06-2004, 16:41
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
The Mercosur nations don't really have any ongoing insurgencies, yet I consider Mercosur to be a security community.

OK, but the Mercosur member states are more important right now than Mercosur. It's just a fledgling trade union, not much more at this point.

Roguish Lawyer
04-06-2004, 16:44
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
LOL - COME ON! Most of them want one currency, they use common passports, borders are non-existant to members, most of them want a common intelligence agency, they're trying to form a EU Army. The only reason its not "The Empire Strikes Back" is because they can't decide who's going to be in charge and the Brits won't play.

I don't pay a whole lot of attention to the EU or developments there, but I don't see how the EU could become anything more than what the United States is to the several states. How does that advance your theory that "security communities" will replace nation-states as the dominant entity in international relations (if I understand your theory correctly)? All you have with the EU is a possible merger or federation of states that have a lot in common.

NousDefionsDoc
04-06-2004, 16:53
The more they integrate, the less national identity there will be. If they go to a common currency, how long will it be before they go to a common language? they're already cutting religion out of everything.

Which is dominant in the US, the US or the states? Which was dominant before 1900?

Jimbo
04-06-2004, 17:05
MERCOSUR is not a security community (last I checked -1997 when I did an analysis of whether Chile should join MERCOSUR or NAFTA). The OAS charter allows for more of a secrity community than MERCOSUR does, IIRC.

Roguish Lawyer
04-06-2004, 17:10
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
The more they integrate, the less national identity there will be. If they go to a common currency, how long will it be before they go to a common language? they're already cutting religion out of everything.

OK, aren't they just transitioning to a larger nation-state if this all happens?

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Which is dominant in the US, the US or the states? Which was dominant before 1900?

Before 1900, clearly the states. Today, I don't know. I think the states have a greater influence on people's everyday lives, but people don't realize that and focus their political attention on the federal government. The communications revolution has a lot to do with that.

I think you are getting away from your thesis, which needs a defense. ;)

NousDefionsDoc
04-06-2004, 17:18
OK, but the Mercosur member states are more important right now than Mercosur. It's just a fledgling trade union, not much more at this point.

I didn't say it was going to happen tomorrow.

Before 1900, clearly the states. Today, I don't know. I think the states have a greater influence on people's everyday lives, but people don't realize that and focus their political attention on the federal government. The communications revolution has a lot to do with that.
I look at it as the same. The US was made of up states, then a loose federation, then the states gave up more and more autonomy. We're not there yet, but "Today, I don't know" tells me we are moving down the path.

EU,

OK, aren't they just transitioning to a larger nation-state if this all happens?
Not to me, because they only have one thing in common and the only reason they are doing it is to combat the US dominance. Let's say the Basques get a homeland. The Spanish and phrench have already shown they won't fight for long if it gets really bad. Will the EU let them in? Will the EU let everybody with contiguous borders with EU states in? or will they only let in those that share their common economic, political and military goals? What if we had left Texas out of the Union because they don't share the rest of the US' security concerns?

Wanna bet Canada ends up in the EU?

NousDefionsDoc
04-06-2004, 17:26
Originally posted by lrd
I was trying to find "official" definitions of nation and state, and came across this definition of nation:
How are we defining nation and state (at least for this discussion)?

Sorry, I just saw it.

Nation-states = countries

Security communities = groups with common interests, especially security (both economic and military) that transcend traditional or established boundaries.

Agreed?

ktek01
04-06-2004, 17:31
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Not elsewhere? What do you think the EU is?


The new Warsaw Pact, could call them the "Paris Pact" or "Socialist Block" states.

:munchin

NousDefionsDoc
04-06-2004, 17:34
The European Union of Socialist Republics

EUSR

ktek01
04-06-2004, 17:35
That works too. :D

brownapple
04-07-2004, 06:30
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
The more they integrate, the less national identity there will be. If they go to a common currency, how long will it be before they go to a common language? they're already cutting religion out of everything.

Which is dominant in the US, the US or the states? Which was dominant before 1900?

You'd be better off using 1865 or 1870. Before the Civil War, the US was truly a "United States" with citizens thinking of themselves as New Yorkers, Virginians, Yankees, Georgians etc.

So, are you suggesting a regression?

CommoGeek
04-07-2004, 08:41
Originally posted by Greenhat
You'd be better off using 1865 or 1870. Before the Civil War, the US was truly a "United States" with citizens thinking of themselves as New Yorkers, Virginians, Yankees, Georgians etc.

So, are you suggesting a regression?

I don't see us regressing to States, but along ethnic or social lines(race or money). MAYBE politics, but I'd bet on the first two.

Would I want that to happen? No, but I see that it is possible which is why I started the thread awhile back about a civil war in America.

Solid
04-07-2004, 10:59
It seems to me that at least in the most-developed nations, the common goal is economic. Would it follow that as the other nations develop, their goals will be economic too, thereby leading to the "economic-bloc as nation" circumstance predicted by certain Globalists?

Solid