Nation States vs Security Communities
 

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.

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.

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?

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.

1. Kiss my ass Jimbo. LOL

2. 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. :)

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.

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)?

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.

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.

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 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.

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?