That is what I have been asking myself this evening. As often happens, I was getting dishpan hands this evening while listening to the radio. Tonight, C-SPAN Radio was featuring speakers at yesterday’s Republican Straw Poll in Ames, Iowa. I happened to tune into a speech given by candidate and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee. He was winning kudos from the friendly crowd by speaking of the virtues of energy independence. He proposed a plan that within ten years would make our country energy independent. He also warned of an even bigger national security issue: food independence. A nation that cannot grow the crops to sustain itself could be blackmailed, he warned. He warned the crowd that we could not let this happen. He received warm rounds of applause for these points.
I too have made similar points in the past. When discussing illegal immigration, I pointed out the consequences to our nation if much of our agriculture disappeared because we could not find sufficient migrant labor to pick our crops. When discussing global warming, I pointed out that conservation and renewable fuels could help us become energy independent. Once we were energy independent, the consequences of another war in the Middle East would trouble us a lot less.
While I still think that both goals are laudable it occurred to me that there is a downside to all this independence. What we are really saying when we talk about energy or food independence is we want our nation to be completely self-reliant. If we can take care of ourselves, then, if necessary, we can seal our borders and live in relatively happy isolation from the world’s chaos.
In our interconnected world, we will never be isolated from the world’s problems again, if we ever were. It is still said that when Wall Street sneezes, the rest of the world catches a cold. This seems to be borne out by the turmoil the last few weeks in our risky sub-prime mortgage market. Now it is also true that when stock markets tank in South Korea or in China, Wall Street catches a cold. These effects of course simply reinforce my point that we are increasingly interdependent. There is no way to go back to our isolationist past. We need to accept this reality. That our economy is growing at all is largely a result of our interdependence. Imagine how you would feel as a shareholder of Microsoft if it could only sell inside the United States.
So what does this mean? It means, as I have suggested before, that nation-states are moving toward obsolescence. I see this in small ways in my own life. I earn a few bucks on the side installing software for clients. I have yet to meet any of my clients in person. There is one client twenty miles or so away, but even in his case, all of our interaction was accomplished through email. Most of my clients live in the United States, but I have had clients in Israel and Great Britain too. It is not hard to transact business. They send me money via PayPal. I do the work over the Internet. At least in my case I can state that the Internet has made such things that used to matter, like the country where someone lives, irrelevant. Their money may be in a different color when they go buy groceries, but it is green when it arrives in my PayPal account.
It looks like before we ingloriously leave our debacle in Iraq will cost us at least a trillion dollars. Why did we do it? President Bush was quite candid about his rationalization before we invaded: because he perceived a real threat from Iraq to our national security. We thought that given more time Iraq could create atomic weapons that it might lob at us. Apparently, that was unacceptable to the cost of about one trillion dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives. Our ability to remain an independent nation apparently trumps all other needs including the need for all nations to peacefully coexist.
Most economists tout the virtues of free trade. They see it as a cure to the world’s economic ailments. Free trade, they intone, raises all boats. If it is cheaper to import vegetables from Mexico because the labor is cheaper there, this is ultimately good. Consumers benefit. Our farmers may be a bit put out but overall both the United States and Mexico would benefit. Our agriculture would change to be more efficient, or we would develop new industries to replace it. However, what free trade also does is that it promotes our world’s mutual interdependence.
From listening to politicians running for office, I am left to conclude that the world’s mutual interdependence is a bad thing. Is it? Maybe what we really need is to encourage our interdependence. Maybe nation-states are entities that are on their way out. Maybe what the world needs is world federalism instead. If this is where we need to go, from a world of autonomous states, to a world of federated nation-states then we need more interdependence, not less.
My firm conviction is that these dynamics are already well underway. Those who adapt to this new reality, like Europe, are likelier to prosper. The longer that the United States of America deludes itself into thinking that we will always be completely sovereign the more painful and costly our adjustment will be. Arguably, the debacle in Iraq is a one trillion dollar consequence of our delusion.
Imagine a different world where this is no my country vs. your country competition except in sports. I am not naïve enough to think that such a world will happen overnight. However, I do think that since the process is already well underway, the longer we delude ourselves then the more painful our transition will be. We need to discard ourselves of foolish notions like we can provide entirely for our country’s needs. While energy independence may help us find cleaner means of generating energy to reduce global warming, its ultimate goal is to find ways for the world to also do this. For global warming, like much of what ails us, can only be solved globally.
The more we rely on other countries, and other countries rely upon us, the more natural incentive there is for all of us to get along together in peace and harmony. These ties truly bind us together as a planet. We need to listen to the message. China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, India and many other countries need to listen too. The European Union has already heard the message and is prospering.
We cannot solve our national problems by being independent in all things, or even in areas that we consider critical to our sovereignty. This is delusion. However, the world can solve its problems by engaging in them together. Economic interdependence is the means by which a newer and saner world order could emerge. It is likely to be messy, as are most things in human affairs, but it offers a hopeful vision, and seems more viable than our current tactics.
Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace…
You may say I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope someday you’ll join us
And the world will be as one
- John Lennon, “Imagine”
Sphere: Related Content
August 12th, 2007 at 09:35pm
Posted by
Mark |
Politics 2007 |
no comments
The nation-state is dying. What is emerging to replace it is a state of states. It is a newer and smarter federated model of governance for the 21st century and beyond. It is a good model that I believe will work better to serve the needs of our increasingly complex and overpopulated world.
I saw plenty of evidence of this new world order during my family’s recent trip to France. It is not that France, as a country, no longer exists. It certainly does. However, it is no longer quite the sovereign country it once was. Their former currency, the franc is gone. It has been replaced, as have most of the currencies in Europe, by the euro. Since the formation of the European Union, a French citizen no longer needs a passport to move around the E.U. countries. French citizens now travel internationally using a generic European Union passport. (Your country’s seal is embossed on the cover.) These are just some of the privileges of federation. Citizens of the European Union can now travel freely within the E.U. without even the hassle of a border check. There is no need to convert currency inside the E.U. either. All E.U. member countries use the euro. In addition, E.U. residents can compete for jobs elsewhere within the E.U. This has expanded the job possibilities for millions of Europeans.
Bully for Europe. The European Union is the first example of a new kind of federalist uber-state. Europeans have discovered that collectively they can wield much more clout, as well as live richer lives, by federating. For those countries that choose to federate, this tide raises all boats. Europe, which throughout its history was scarred by seemingly incessant wars, can likely look forward toward a more peaceful future. A Frenchman today is as likely to think of himself as a citizen of the E.U.
It is not that countries in Europe have ceded all of their rights. Each country still has its legislature and controls most affairs inside the country. Some members, like Great Britain, have only gone up to their knees into E.U. waters. The British cannot seem to give up their pounds in favor of euros. Nor can they quite adjust to the metric system when their English system of measures remains hardwired into their brains. Other countries like Turkey and Macedonia want to be part of the European Union, but the E.U. is holding them at arm’s length. In addition, countries like Iceland, which are not official members of the E.U., seem to have some of the privileges of federation. Iceland participates in the European Free Trade Association and subscribes to the Schengen Agreement, which lets it share immigration and border policies with the E.U.
If the forces of chaos can be kept at bay, in time what is happening in Europe is likely to happen over much of the civilized world. Our grandchildren may live in a world that is more like George Orwell’s vision of Eurasia and Oceania (just hopefully not as hopeless). Europe is first out the gate, but internationalism in general is emerging all over. Africa is already looking northward for an example. Right now, its African Union is more like a United Nations of Africa than the federated E.U., but it certainly has the potential to morph in time into an E.U.-like state of states.
The mere idea of federating nations here in North America is anathema to America’s leaders. Nonetheless, cooperation is expanding with our neighbors in many areas in the Americas. The Organization of American States has been around since 1948, but is largely toothless. More meaningful are lower levels of federating through trade agreements such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the nascent Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). We have seen the impact of NAFTA for many years now, both for good and ill, but its effect is to make Canada, Mexico and the United States more economically dependent on each other. In the grand scheme of things, this is likely a good thing.
As you probably know, there are many other regional organizations, most of which are only loosely federated at best. The Arab League allows Arab countries to come together periodically and vent, but it does not accomplish much of note. Southeast Asian Countries have formed ASEAN to work on common economic and political issues. ASEAN has enough mojo that our president usually flies out to attend their annual summit.
Of course, there are many other international institutions serving a variety of purposes. The United Nations goes without saying. Many question its value, but at least it provides a forum for aggrieved nations to scream at each other instead of firing volleys. Considering that it was formed in the 1940s, it is not surprising that it is largely toothless. Less toothless are powerful international institutions like the World Trade Organization and the World Bank. Less interesting, but just as vital are organizations that do our international plumbing, like the International Standards Organizations and the International Telecommunications Union.
All these organizations of course are responding to needs of a changing and growing world. The United States is one of a small number of countries that still harbors the illusion that it is not that connected by an umbilical cord to the rest of the world. We figure, wrongly, that if things outside our borders went too much not to our liking, we could simply lift the drawbridges and dwell in happy isolationism. The reality would be a national depression that would make the 1920s and 30s look like the good old days. Lord, Wal-Mart would even have to buy American!
Looking at the E.U. example, you can almost see the light bulbs going off over the heads of the smarter countries out there. There is strength to be found in joining with likeminded compadre states. The European Union is leading the way with a regional federation of countries with similar values. This new federalism is not that much different from the model we have here in the United States. Our states maintain a lot of independence from the federal government. Only limited control is ceded to the federal government. This gives a lot of flexibility to find solutions acceptable at the regional level while allowing for common needs to be addressed at the federal level. The E.U. now demonstrates a way that this can work with countries, and other countries are taking note.
Except, of course, here in the United States. We tend to look down our noses at other countries. We just cannot help it. We think of ourselves as the epitome of a successful country, and figure all those other countries just need to emulate us in order to succeed. Goodness knows we need not waste our time emulating them. We will cooperate with other countries if they act servile toward us (preferred approach), or do not say too many nasty things about us (acceptable approach). The reality, of course, is this attitude works to our long-term detriment. The global sandbox is getting more crowded. Countries that work well and play well with other countries are going to get less sand thrown in their faces. Right now, the United States is sitting in one corner of the sandbox in a huff, but the sandbox is getting more crowded. When will we learn to play nicer? When will we start sharing pails more often with our sandbox neighbors?
I expect that this new form of federalism will continue to expand. I expect that 100 years from now tourists like me will look forward to going to visit the E.U., not France, Spain or Great Britain. I expect by sharing a common governmental infrastructure that federated states like the E.U. will have a competitive advantage. Witness it emerging in endeavors like Airbus S.A.S., an airplane manufacturer that competes well with Boeing and spreads its jobs across E.U. member states.
Call me nuts but I think there will be a time, perhaps fifty years hence, when the United States will be petitioning to be in the European Union too. We will kick ourselves for not having done it sooner. I expect that Russia will get there long before us, once they too emerge from their nationalist huff. The E.U. may well be the 21st manifestation of George Orwell’s Eurasia, encompassing perhaps the entire Anglo-Saxon world.
I would prefer, however, to look toward an ultimate solution: world government. The very term sends shivers up the spines of most Americans. However, this new federated model should give us hope that it can be done in a way that will work for everyone. Perhaps world government would look like a federation of federated states. This is, in fact, some of the thinking behind the World Federalist Movement, to which I have alluded before. It is a model for how to live together on this increasing small planet in relative harmony. I encourage you to spend some time checking out their site.
Allied against federalism of course is the usual anarchy and forces that want to pull us back into our tribal past. There will be more on this in a future entry.
Sphere: Related Content
July 28th, 2006 at 09:37pm
Posted by
Mark |
Politics 2006 |
one comment
