This is my blog. It's been going for a couple of years now. I'll keep writing in it from time to time, often for no particular reason.

Saturday, January 28, 2006

Nationalism = Racism

I was thinking to myself - 'Why do people always want the best for their country? ie. Why do they prefer government policies that benefit their own country as the expense of other countries?'. It is a concept that often goes completely unchallenged - of course Australians want the best for the Australia - we're Australian!! But what makes us Australian? The fact that we are born or raised (or both) on a certain piece of land and issued with an Australian passport, and possibly also growing up with Australian 'culture'. That is pretty much it. For other countries around the world there is a stronger case for ethnicity representing the nation, which only further supports my argument that desiring the best for your country, your people, your race, is racism.

I don't think there is valid argument (I would love someone to present me with one) why we should give priority to people who hold the same passport as us when it comes to foreign policy decisions. The problem is that it is virtually impossible for a unilateral move to this kind of utopian 'foreign' policy where governments are working together to better the world, not their country. It would take something more like a global government (my utopia) to ensure that 'nations' don't take advantage of the generous or the weak (as they do now).

Can you imagine a world where all production and distribution is coordinated in an ecologically sustainable and equitable way? The capacity of currently Third and Fourth world nations (generally in terms of their arable land) to feed themselves and the rest of the world goes untapped as they struggle with urbanisation, civil war, and population expansion (which is a result, not a cause of the poverty). It would be the ultimately efficient world, no-one would starve, the worlds ecosystems would be saved and restored somewhat, and.....it wouldn't be Brave New World if that's what is creeping into the minds of the visionless sceptics.

But for the foreseeable future (or maybe forever) we are caught in the globally destructive cycle of nations competing against each other - for the good of 'their' people.

Happy Birthday Mum and Christian!!

15 Comments:

Blogger Ingrid and Tom said...

Thanks Nick, for writing what I know so many of us believe, but are not sure how to overcome. The sad point that I have discovered since leaving our cherished land, is that Australia is one of the worst of the countries... could go on for hours, but hardly know you!
:)

Sunday, January 29, 2006 8:05:00 pm

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Democracy is your answer. Local interests, which are most often goegraphically defined, drive most peoples interests. Therefore the need for local government to represent these interests. Interests clash, governments compete. You'll find that it is the poor and disadvanted who are most keen for there own state and who are the most nationalist - Palestinians, Kosovans e.t.c - and the powerful who want to build 'global governments' - e.g the USSR, British Empire, Romans.
My two cents....
ps - thanks for the birthday wishes

Monday, January 30, 2006 9:03:00 am

 
Blogger Nick said...

I agree that the powerful are the ones pushing towards a global government - but the empires you mention seek expansion for their own benefit, not the good of humanity. I think an EU style government which allows local democracies but has specific law making power is an option - either way, it is a far fetched plan and the subtleties of a system could take forever to debate. Plus I have don't have an ultimate faith in democracies that can elect people like George W.

Thanks for the comments guys - and I&T - you've seen me dance - there isn't much more to know about me...

Monday, January 30, 2006 7:22:00 pm

 
Blogger futureshock101 said...

I don't think wanting the best for those around you need to come at the expense of others, same goes for countries, just different levels of differentiation between those in "our circle" and those outside of it. If you took your argument to the extreme one would not be able to what the best for their own family... Face it we love our own kind more than others... Do you love my mother as much as your own mother? Of course not...

But yeah Nationalism bites when it's taken too far.... Like the US's Bush Snr at the Rio Environment Summit in 1992, when the "American Way of Life" was not negotiable even at the cost of the worlds environmental sustainability.... That is bad nationalism....

Monday, January 30, 2006 11:06:00 pm

 
Blogger Nick said...

Lucas - I won't go into the details of the relationship between your mother and I, you wouldn't approve.

Sure we love our mums but would you give $1m to your mum or to a developing economy? (assuming the money is used effectively)

Monday, January 30, 2006 11:57:00 pm

 
Blogger Nick said...

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article341967.ece

Steps in the right direction....

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 2:08:00 am

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'd give my $1 million to my mum. I'm sure Wizza would put plenty of it into charity, ultimatley she'd spend it better than Robert Mugabe. Developing countries need better governance not more money. On the democracy question...if the you don't have ultimate faith government chosen by the people, who do you think should choose who governs?
btw - the EU is not a government until it has its own armed forces governed by an EU strategy, and thus far no European country is willing to give up its righ to defend itself - soverignty always wind out...At the moment the EU is at best a polity and at worst a pipe dream.
I think that's four cents now?

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 4:50:00 pm

 
Blogger Nick said...

Here's two more....

I don't think there was ever a doubt that a global government is anything but a pipe dream. And I didn't mean that the EU was a government, but that a government as a similar body to the EU would be an option ie. has specific law making powers, although my fantasy government would have a lot more power than that. And there would be no need for a military (unless aliens attack, omg!). But no military = no govt? therefore there would be no governments anywhere in the world, except a central co-ordinating body, not really my plan.

But as I am well aware, I am only fantasising about a world of perfect people. No one will give up power, people are too afraid and selfish (the selfishness is driven by their fear and vice versa).

RE: Democracy, I still think the people should choose who governs them, but I think a) the remit of governments should change (again - fantasy global govt structure) and b) the democratic process should change, which ensures the electorate is given full information about the consequences of the various policies, especially the long term and cannot be influenced by fear or 'local' issues. But again that would assume that people would choose to help people on the other side of the world at a minor cost to their own cushy lives, and it saddens me that they wouldn't.

RE: the $1m. I did say 'assuming the money is spent effectivly', governance is a seperate issue. I wouldn't give it to anyone who would spend 1 cent of it on something other than improving quality of life for those in need.

Don't forget all my arguments have a list of impossible assumptions. I'm an economist, not a politician.

Wednesday, February 01, 2006 1:54:00 am

 
Blogger futureshock101 said...

Hmmm As for the Military = Government statement I wonder if that can be taken the other way also? Does this mean that any rebel force in a country, eg Sierra Leone or Colombia, is also a government? I fail to see the connect between military and democratic government. I would have thought the ability to tax would have be a more apt litmus test of the existence of Government.

And Nick... as we discussed last night... It is only with the move away from vertical to horizontal power structures within the democratic process will the world govt ever exist as there is no way that one centre of power can make policy decisions for seven billion people... it just wouldn’t be fair or workable. Unless of course I was in charge ;-)…. hehehe

Wednesday, February 01, 2006 8:01:00 pm

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

just a quick explanation on military=government.

1. Every government has one grave responsibility, the protection of its citizens from external attack. Hence governments, by definition require militaries. There is not one government on this planet that does not have a military. Even Narau has one...although they're also the police force!

2. Sierra Leonne's Revolutionary United Front and other such Rebel groups are militias, not militaries. By definition, militaries are the legitimate and accepted armed forces of a nation state. Otherwise, you get a gun, you too can be a one-man military.

3. If the ability to tax was a litmus test for government then most of sub-saharan Africa would be government-less, which is probably not a far cry from the truth.

I am not talking about what 'should' be, but what is.

Sorry to be pedantic...but I am bored and its good to get into a good old fashioned debate.

Thursday, February 02, 2006 4:28:00 pm

 
Blogger Nick said...

Not at all. We are all for good old fashioned debates, thankfully I haven't been hung drawn and quartered like last time for my less than balanced views.

Surely the one grave responsibility of government is not to protect it's citizens from attack (that sounds very medieval). Although I hate to admit it, domestic law and order should probably take precedence before other priorities can be realised (almost a military required, but not quite). If there is only one faith that I have in global humanity is that there won't be any more shots at military conquest (economic for sure). For instance New Zealand - nobody is going to attack New Zealand, ever. They don't require military protection of their own, so surely their government is wasting every cent that it spends on its military.

For a 'military' to be the accepted armed forces of a nation state, who accepts them? The people? So it might be arguable that the Colombian militia that controls vast portions of Colombia and has the support of many of its citizens (I would be guessing at %'s, but say it was over 50%), could that be called the Colombian military? And possibly even the Government? Despite not having the resources to overthrow the official govt.

Thursday, February 02, 2006 7:22:00 pm

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You make a good point, ensuring security doesn't necessarily mean you need a military.

But every state still chooses to have one. Why? Two reasons.
One, no one knows the future. Remember, World War I was the war to end all wars. The League of Nations was going to end the need for armed force and everyone as going to hold hands and sing Koom Bai Ah...then along came Adolf and the Japanese Imperial Army.

Two, while states no longer seek to conquer territory, they may in the future seek to control key natural resources, sea lanes of communication and even maybe even outer space. With so many unkowns, no government will relinquish its right to use force to defend its interests.

On Colombia. Legitimacy is derived partially from capability. If the recognised government controls the institutions of the state, its armed forces are the military and the rebels, a militia. This is not the case when there is a civil war, when you have no militaries, just armed factions.

Lastly, New Zealand. The NZ government, one of the world' most progressive, chose during its last budget to increase defence spending. Not because it felt an external attack was likely, but because it felt, as a privileged nation, that it should make a fair contribution to global security. E.g help rebuild Afghanistan, prevent militias from killing IDPs in Sudan and be capable of contributing to an intervention if another Rwanda ever occured (see Canada here as well).

This was not an entirely selfless act though. By pulling its weight in global security terms, the world policeman (US), is more likley to look favourably upon NZ in future trade/security negotiations.

Again, the military is used as an expression of sovereignty...certianly not an ideal world, but in the real world might is still right.

Friday, February 03, 2006 11:06:00 am

 
Blogger Nick said...

Firstly and most importantly, I want to dispute the spelling of Kumbayah (Koom Bai Ah).

I agree, in the real world, might is right. But I think it would be an oversight and we would be quite contrite not to fight for what's right in light of the plight of those who can't requite.

My attention span has waned - a focus on reality will do that.

Friday, February 03, 2006 8:15:00 pm

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There's something deliciously ironic about a middle-class white boy preaching about global justice between European ski trips.

Keep fighting the power Che.

Saturday, February 04, 2006 11:52:00 pm

 
Blogger Nick said...

Thanks for stating the glaringly obvious 'Snarkman'.

So you think my background and pursuits preclude me from having a view that governments should be more humanitarian as that would be somehow hypocritical.

Maybe I should:

a) stop enjoying life, give everything I own to charity and devote myself to building water pumps in Africa for the rest of my life in order to justify my beliefs, or
b) Give up and become a cynical jerk who ignores the worlds problems and escapes their guilt by belittling people who do want to make a difference.

Something touched a nerve (or you wouldn't have felt the need to comment impose your negativity on this conversation), so I'm guessing deep down you probably feel guilty in a similar way to me. Just keep ignoring it mate, you clearly don't understand what I've been talking about (a reference to Che Guevara???).

Sunday, February 05, 2006 7:50:00 pm

 

Post a Comment

<< Home