NATIONALISM AND INTERDEPENDENCE

Nations, like individuals, have a dual social agenda. They all desire to be independent, but at the same time they also want to depend. This is another major line of thought, which has been crippled and caricatured in the American freedom drive of the twenty-first century. (To be fair, its historical roots penetrate deep into the twentieth century, and, perhaps, into the later part of the nineteenth century, its mentality characterized by one single word: imperialism.) The American master recognizes such duality in his own interpretation: freedom and independence mean a compete political dependence on the United States!

The nations of the world, however, think otherwise, although many of them have been tempted to produce an impression of conformity to the American standard, in order to be able to milk the American cow for as long as they can. But the true reality of this reality does not, of course, conform.

In a certain sense, nationalism and the desire for interdependence are the reflection of the dual nature of a nation, by exactly the same token as the individual’s dual nature is revealed in his own desire for personal freedom, on the one hand, which essentially means being alone, versus, on the other hand, his need of company, meaning both social interaction and protection from all sorts of harm befalling a loner, thus exposing his innate contrariety as both an individualist and a herd animal at the same time.

The desire for national independence is an expression of nationalism, which increases, and may even take very unpleasant forms, when the nation, seeking interdependence, feels its independence threatened. This attitude was graphically evident in the nations of Eastern Europe toward the USSR, and that intense, bitter animosity toward the Russians is still sustained in these nations’ historical memory, by the force of inertia, nearly a quarter of a century after the collapse of the Soviet Empire. It was this lingering animosity, which allowed the United States to acquire an amazing clout among these nations of the New Europe, but, lo and behold, Washington seems to have overplayed its hand so dramatically over these last twenty years that the pendulum may very soon start heading back in the opposite direction.

Considering how much the centrifugal effect of the world nations’ resistance to the centripetal drive of the American Empire-thirsty machine---which insists on unipolarity---creates disparity, as opposed to unity, we may ask ourselves whether the idea of an effective United Nations is all but dead. The unleashed forces of extremist nationalism that have already changed the map of the world in a dramatic fashion, and have the potential of doing even more damage through the virtually unstoppable chain reaction of splintering once wholesome communities into mutually-resentful ethnic groups bent on further redrawing of the international borders beyond recognition and beyond all common sense, represent one of the two utterly incompatible extremes, the other being the Globalist push for a new world-wide Pax Americana, and there appears to be no such thing as a reconciliation anywhere in sight.

Still, there is a hope that international unity may yet be restored through the enlightened idea of an organic and sacred intercultural connectedness, the world as one creation under God, with the nations’ right to be distinct and different, with the right to retain the full scale of their respective individual ways of life, but all philosophically, morally, and politically compatible to the point of the possibility of a peaceful coexistence between the rich and the poor, the strong and the weak, the differently-cultured and differently-religious. I hope that this thought is not an expression of the quintessential wishful thinking, but has enough space in front of it to take at least one step beyond it. After all, not by nationalism alone! The centripetal tendencies of even the most nationalistic and closed nations, like North Korea, testify in behalf of such a hope.

But even if my hope is hopelessly utopian, at least, I can enjoy the company of my fellow utopians, most of whom, I understand, were pretty decent fellows.

Here is a wonderful passage from Marcus Aurelius’ Thoughts, which eloquently addresses this subject:

From Marcus Aurelius’ Book VII: “All things are implicated with one another, and the bond is holy. For, there is one universe made up of all things and one God who pervades all things, and one substance, and one law, one common reason, and one truth.” This is exactly what I am trying to prove, in developing the concept of International Justice. This is my point when I talk of the need to rise above Religion to the God of Philosophy, too. Marcus Aurelius, in this passage, rings an awfully consonant bell...