In days past nationalism was the standard by which all else was judged - people who stood up against or protested the course their country was taking were portrayed as 'unpatriotic' and 'traitors to their flag'. But in this day and age where human rights are discussed far more loudly than any other kind of rights, where do human rights end and national rights supercede them?
- If some of a nation's spies are found to have sold secrets to outside parties, are they 'national traitors' or simply traitors to their brothers in arms? Examples include Aldrich Ames, Kim Philby, David Shayler and Alexander Litvinenko.
- If some of a nation's citizens take up arms against that nation's government and their interests, are they 'traitors to their country' or simply exercising their universal human rights? Examples include Berthe Fraser, Claus von Stauffenberg, David Hicks and Joseph Stalin.
- If another nation is unhappy with what our government is doing within our borders, does that country have the right to intervene - with force if their original protests are ignored? As an example, if certain Islamic nations are unhappy with the way Muslims are being treated in the UK and USA, do they have the right to intervene if their protests are ignored? If a certain West-European country is unhappy with the way their neighbour is treating certain of their citizens, and their protests are ignored (on grounds that 'you can't tell us what to do!'), should they have the right to intervene?
- And on the flipside, if our nation is unhappy with what another government is doing within their borders, do we have the right to intervene - with force if our protescts and sanctions are ignored. As a few examples, human rights abuses in China? The situation in Zimbabwe? The '92-'95 Bosnian War?
Where do we draw the line - or should we? Should there even be independent sovereign powers, or is the age of the nation-state over?
Contributor - khryseus
NB The author does have fairly strong views on each of these questions, and isn't necessarily saying that all the names cited are 'the same'.
Trackback(0)
TrackBack URI for this entry
Comments (1)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Write comment
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
Here is one. Nationalism or national identity is really only a relatively recent phenomenon, dating back only a few centuries, though I am sure there were many precursors. This sense of loyalty to one's country and of it being of higher moment than allegiance to one's local concerns and area grew in part from increased information flows and economic activity that allowed (or demanded) people to be in touch and aware of people beyond their immediate neighborhood.
Thematic and other non-geographical group identities and causes now seem to be replacing national allegiances. Many feel stronger loyalties to causes and interest groups than to their country. (Not before time in my view.) And this would seem to be largely based on globalization and a continuation of the earlier trend of even further increased information flows and awareness beyond national boundaries.
Of course the rise of nationalism led to (or was fed by) some significant periods of national conflicts. Should we expect similar periods of international conflict between these new groupings and loyalty points? Is this what we are now seeing with the manifestations of terrorism and the rise of international interest groups such as GreenPeace with their agendas? How will the peoples of the earth govern themselves in a way that reflects this pluralism of groups and causes to which people give loyalty. What will the future government look like? And will there be a peaceful transition - probably not...