The nation-state is a failing concept. Thus, I opined in my 2006 monograph, The Changing Nature of War. Also noted was that borders, once thought to be absolute, were in reality arbitrary. Importantly, ideology, not materialism, motivates many people and therefore sources of conflict and terrorism cannot be eliminated solely by reducing poverty. Further, it indicated personal allegiance(s) based on origin would no longer be assured. As evidenced by terrorist attacks in the U.S. this proved to be accurate. And finally, my analysis predicted that violence, while it will remain prominent, will be optional in future conflicts. It appears that both economic and cyber warfare have become a norm and without shots being fired prove that point as well.
Increasingly rapid devolution of boundaries has been occurring for the last several decades. Now, it seems that the United States is being tested to determine whether or not established continuity will be maintained. This piece argues America, as we have known it, is likely to subdivide in ways that are hard to forecast.
Throughout history national borders have changed. The outcome of wars and colonization were predominant reasons for realignments, and key factors were often based on the availability of natural resources such as water, oil, and other minerals. Sociology and ethnological demographics, most often were not seriously considered by dominant powers. That was especially true for the developing world. In 1494, the “Spanish Pope,” Alexander VI, with the Treaty of Tordesillas, was instrumental in the division of South America. As a result, today Brazilians speak Portuguese, while citizens of most other Latin American countries speak Spanish as a primary language. Under the auspices of Otto von Bismarck, the Berlin Conference of 1884-1885, also known as the Congo Conference, divided Africa, albeit based on European interests. Similarly, the Middle East was carved up at the conclusion of World War I, following the end of the Ottoman Empire. So too were many of Asian country’s boundaries set by European interests.
The results of these arbitrary decisions and demarcations have led to near continuous strife; while the geographic happenstance at one’s time of birth, emerged as the determinant factor in both citizenship and identity. Even within post-WWII Europe, you no longer can visit Yugoslavia or Czechoslovakia. Similarly, Zaire and British Honduras changed names. During the past 75 years we have seen decolonization throughout most of the world. Witnessed have been the dissolution of French West and Equatorial Africa, French Indochina, the partitioning of former British territories of Pakistan, India and Bangladesh, the subdivision of southern Africa, and many other disseverances. The most dramatic of those was the dismantling of the former Soviet Union. Absorptions occurred when Tibet was invaded and incorporated into China, and more recently when Crimea was detached from Ukraine and annexed by Russia.
There are several serious disbanding efforts now under consideration. In 2014 there was a referendum regarding whether or not Scotland would remain as part of the United Kingdom. Then, in 2017, a vote on an issue known as “Brexit” by the UK, was made to leave the European Union. Currently Spain is embroiled in separatist actions in Catalonia resulting in the parliament of that autonomous region being dissolved. In fact, there are dozens of separatist movements active on nearly every continent. While the Spratly Islands of the South China Sea have been disputed for decades, the Chinese government introduced an innovative approach by creating new islands and claiming them as their own territory.
In addition to those cited above, Russia has issues with Chechnya, Kashmir is a continually contested area, and there is a seemingly insoluble civil war in Syria. The Kurds, who were left out of agreements at the end of the Ottoman Empire, voted on an unsuccessful bid for independence in Iraq. Contentiously, they also are ethnically dispersed in territories of Turkey, Iran, and Syria. Concurrently, the Rohingya Muslims of Burma (Myanmar) are being eliminated or forced to flee into Bangladesh creating yet another humanitarian crisis in that region.
Throughout the world indigenous people are expressing demands for recognition. Some of those are appeals in places generally unnoticed by Western-oriented societies. As examples, there are the Mapuche in Chile and Argentina, and the Guarani that span from northern and southern Brazil, through Paraguay and northern Argentina. The government of Australia just rejected efforts for a constitutional change for recognition of their Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. And, we should not forget our own numerous Native-American peoples who still struggle for the rights taken away from them.
The reality is that no nation is entirely homogeneous. While the racial component is significant, not all of those oppressed are brown-skinned people. Consider the Sami (previously known to some as Laplanders) with their plight in Norway and across their ancestral lands of Sweden, Finland and the Kola Peninsula of Russia. China is decidedly multicultural and experiences provocation from the Uighur in the western provinces. Throughout Asia, including India, there are an estimated 260 million indigenous peoples who are marginalized and often discriminated against. Based on either religion or ethnicity, there are hundreds of groups not listed that struggle for recognition by, or independence from, the governments established for their imposed geographic boundaries. Nomadic people, a common lifestyle for millennia, have been particularly constrained by borders established across their traditional habitats. Recent history suggests that some of these groups will be successful, yet others will fall prey to continued oppression and even possible extermination.
It is a mistake to assume that subdivision of the United States is unlikely, or even impossible. Currently, there are momentous dynamic forces that are molding the nature of future civilizations. There are those who erroneously believe the U.S. can withstand the tide seeking homeostasis. It is sweeping the world in the form of migration, demographics of birth, and a renaissance of socially progressive thinking predicated on equality for all individuals. Most unfortunate is that one of those people is now the President of the United States. Not alone, he is supported by a cadre of the like-minded, and buoyed by supporters who pine for a world that never was. As stated by Thomas Freidman in an interview with Michael Smerconish, they believe that Trump “can stop the wind.”
Noteworthy is an observation of former CIA director, General Michael Hayden. In a recorded interview Hayden stated, "I have seen how thin the veneer of civilization is.” Others too have comments on the fragility of governance and stability, comments usually reserved for third world countries with populist, autocratic governments. Lest one thinks such unruly behavior is limited to inhabitants of foreign countries, the actions of American citizens following natural disasters, such as hurricanes Andrew and Katerina, proved how quickly civility can disintegrate.
Among the determining factors at play is the notion that democracy, in the form of majority rule, is the only appropriate form of governance. American democracy, however, was predicated on the paramount concept of a literate and informed citizenry. As information technology now assists groups seeking independence, so too has it been employed to psychologically encapsulate, or intentionally confuse millions, if not billions, of people globally. As exercised, today’s version of democracy can also be considered the tyranny of the ignorant, enabled by endemic apathy personified by abstinent voters. Ill-informed via carefully crafted communications, and dispersed exponentially through social media, voters are swayed easily by messages appealing to their preconceived ideas, even when they may be both devoid of fact and counterintuitive. Recent elections repeatedly proved that emotions have dominated over facts and reality.
There are perilous factors that are facilitating the collapse of established societies. One is deficiencies in educational systems that fail to adequately engender critical thinking skills. That is impacted by decreasingly short attention spans fostered by the belief that multi-tasking is both a norm and efficient. Another, even more pernicious element, includes our inability to accurately attribute originating agencies of information. This conundrum was institutionalized by the U.S. Supreme Court with their 2010 decision, Citizens United, providing unfettered access and influence to those with unlimited dark money. The decision tipped the scales inexorably in favor of both individuals and organizations with deep pockets. In addition, we now have the advent of the post-truth era, one that espouses “alternate facts.” It is prevalent to the point that information from the highest levels of government often is not credible.
The single most important ingredient necessary for stability is confidence. Without public trust and confidence in institutions of governance, instability is inevitable. Most unfortunately, President Trump has made a conscientious effort to undermine that trust and confidence by consistently presenting false information as fact, and vociferously denigrating the media and others responsible for accurately informing the public. His efforts appear to be congruent with those of Vladimir Putin who has been working to undermine and destabilizes Western-style governments in several countries including the U.S.
Exacerbating American potential for instability are the outlandish right-wing media proclamations that civil war is imminent. As this article is being finalized, there were predictions that on this Saturday wide-spread riots and murders by nonwhite supersoldiers were to take place. The blame was attached was to ANTIFA, a near-mythical organization to which they ascribe all manner of “leftist” motivations. Though there were a few anti-administration demonstrations, there was nothing like the Antifa Apocalypse predicted by Fox News. While a major non-event, the hyperbole of those media outlets does reflect serious thinking of millions of our citizens. A very scary proposition.
In addition to political discontinuity, there are transnational economic factors that likely will influence future macro-social organizational structures. These include legitimate transnational organizations that currently exist and conduct business in many areas of the world. But, there is also an illegitimate sector with transnational criminal organizations that dominate and interrelate the trade in drugs, illegal arms, and human trafficking. Both sets of organizations could be significant in providing the ways and means for independence-minded groups to self-establish and declare new boundaries, or lack thereof. The embryonic actions of individuality have already emerged. Consider the reactions to the announcement that the U.S. would leave the Paris Accords regarding environmental climate change. Immediately states and cities proclaimed they would respond separately and abide by the international agreements.
A significant factor in international relations has been trade and the acceptance of currency backed by governments. In many areas of the world the U.S. dollar had been the bellwether and established standard. So too have the British Pound and the European Euro been commonly recognized. The same was true, at least internally, for the currencies of each country. All were ostensibly supported by their respective government. With the introduction of the Bitcoin, and other electronic forms of currency exchange, that has now changed. Bitcoin is described as “a worldwide cryptocurrency and digital payment system called the first decentralized digital currency, as the system works without a central repository or single administrator.” Without governmental backing or control, and based only on mutual trust in the system, these forms of currency are now exchanged across the internet. They are intentionally designed to make tracing transactions extremely difficult, and possibly impossible. Bottom line is that independence movements now can function economically without fiscal support from established governments.
Rightfully, I have been challenged to describe the social structures that would replace existing nation-states. That is not clear, and I will undertake a rudimentary response in a later article. Past may not be prologue, and I suspect there will be a number of variants that emerge. What structures survive will be the ones that work. They will continue to morph and new boundaries will evolve. What seems clear is that current internal and external pressures will force significant change in America. It is understood that change is a frightening proposition for most people. But, despite the wishes of many, we will not stop the wind.