Nationalism and Borders

Is there a problem with nationalism and borders? (1)  If it is put as a question or a statement, it is not a subject that can be easily exposed to a clear view for it may depend on the time frame in when the question or statement is put.  It may become a little clearer if the meaning of the two terms used are concisely framed and maybe then put into some form of context. There is no guarantee that this would offer a conclusive answer because it will come up against the harsh realities of human functional practicalities however it may help establish a starting point.

Perhaps first it will be of use to state the obvious uses, so at first one might limit the scope to just the meaning of the two words, nationalism and borders.

Nationalism; relative to a nation state, a known territory in which there is a defined character, or sort of similar people, held within a discrete territory and may have a common language, custom and practices; this can give rise to patriotism, a pride in what the country overall stands for.

If we can agree on this, then just on this description alone there is nothing to raise any objection too at this point. It does become more problematical when one moves to looking to inject a historical perspective as to how the word nationalism has been tainted and in this it is when nationalism and those that believe in it, use it as a means of gaining a degree of superiority over others within or outside the nation. There are others who are not too concerned with being identified as a supporter of nationalism or a patriot for a number of reasons, it is not that these others make a big play of avoiding the terms; it is just that they may have a much broader or liberal interpretation of their own secure standing within the nation state. There is nothing, in ones opinion, inherently wrong with holding to the idea of being a patriot or nationalist, if one chooses to do so; it gives one a sense of belonging, a place that one considers home compiled from its everyday familiarity. Many people do not think of themselves as being nationalist or patriotic, they just exist quite naturally within the environs, it is just an expected way of life for them; this I would suggest is the ‘normal’ aspect of most people, hardly thinking about it at all.

The problem may arise when the use of the terms nationalism or patriot is carried to the level that attempts to being a state of jingoism, xenophobia, independence for the nationalist, that is meant to create a degree of separation and override others with some idealist nationalism in a verbal and visceral way (nationalistic) and begin to take exception at any slight that may be aimed to malign the ideal of the nation – nationalism – patriot, however slight. For example burning a flag, it is just a piece of fancy cloth but it is seen as a symbol of a the nation state, or criticise military spending (on all those dead  heroes) or denigrating any element that is obviously an identifier of difference, such as language, dress, colour etc. And this is where patriotism becomes unpleasant, being a patriot has becomes a beacon light for those that have defended their nation and identify with a fight not necessarily derived from an actual fight but from the use of words, deeds or actions seen and as applied onto opposing those against nationalism, unpatriotic etc.

From this one can see that the slide from just being proud of being of one’s nation and maybe loosely identified as being softly nationalist, to warily being a patriot, to falling into the trap of chauvinist projection of obvious nationalism over all others, can be an unwise move. If you ask most people whether they were a patriot or support nationalism, there may well be a moment of discomfort / uncertainty for it becomes a label upon which many attributes can be placed, not initially with any good overtones, they may respond back with the question, what do you mean?

This takes one to the issues of borders; this of course comes from the constructed identity of a nation state, a nation state that has a defined agreed or historical boundary, in which the nation resides. Over historic time borders have, can and do change, it is uncomfortable to think this and where there are a people that are cosseted within a defined border, it is not one that is willingly changed.

Borders have been formed by nature; mountains, seas, lakes etc. and with the advent of humans seeking survival resources, natural boundaries limited them to these natural ‘borders’. Once the species expanded and infested the world the demand to protect survival resources became, after conflicts, lines on the ground. As humans have a propensity to herd together, for compatible assimilation, this produced the tribe / nation states with borders. Such borders are now ones that are often surrounded or contained by abutting other borders. Given the history of the changes in borders it is probably a good thing that there are agreed boundaries to give statute to borders and it is little wonder that a people feel strongly about the integrity of them. In this setting it is inevitable that particular attributes of the country comes about reinforced with the overall style of cultures created over a long period of influenced time.

From this so far one may assume that nations and borders were not invented by a deliberate thoughtful creating hand, it was the force of the preservation of what one held over another and as humans are intrinsically selfish, emotionally unstable, primitively immature and disposed to be tribal; these zoned factors could not come about other than by the forces of nature acting on their survival psychology.   

The question, as above,(1) arises from the view of the President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Junker who holds to the idea that national borders are a terrible human invention. One can only assume in what context he has placed this idea, perhaps based on the historical evidence of border interactions or occurrences now and the natural rise in outbreaks of nationalism, all of which makes his probable ‘vision’ of aspects of the ‘great project’ more difficult to implement. ‘The Great Project’ is still open for debate, due of course to the expansion of the EU through its various states of growth via the ECSC, EEC, to the EU; driven by a desire to unite Europeans and forestall the slide into another war of consequences. It is very difficult now for most people under that age of say 56 to have any idea of the damaged that the last war caused, they absolutely have no experience of suffering the residue and the harsh memories left in the minds of those that were directly involved in it. Even the angst of the Cuban missile crises and the cold war offers no indication to the post baby boomer's just how things have changed. With this in mind it is no wonder that with the ‘great project’ the architects of it were to a wo/man the holders of memories that stemmed from the two wars and were driven to challenge the misapplication of nationalism, power abuse and the need to have economic stability, above all to negate any move to another European war.

The idea of the Great Project was to eventually have a united continental Europe however as ones might guess the unexpected fart in the room of the architect at the time was events. In some way the idea of a union has had limited success, at least in the early stages but this is probably outweighed now by the festering problems which are as a result of the failure to adhere to the prime principle of its creation – that was, it was always intended, that the betterment of the people in all things came first. Others may have a different view of the failings and underplay the successes on the basis that familiarity breeds contempt; good news does not sell as fast as bad and history is no longer seen as guide to a future.

To take one back to the question re nationalism and borders, one might offer that there are 6 issues which the EU as a body overlooked and these are at the forefront of why there are growing problems; not just for Junker et al but for all developed countries as well.

Issues such as:-

1)     The EU gave up the protecting of its population.

2)     The EU got too big too soon and the problems that expansion entailed.

3)     The EU gave way to predatory multinational capital.

4)     The EU humans, under unanswered existential pressure, form tribes.

5)     The EU derided progressive cultural inculcation in preference to multiculturalism.

6)     The EU adopted and projected “human rights” onto the whole world.

It is now an expectation of developing / undeveloped countries to be given European rights.

It may be agreed that for the Europeans the invisibility / porosity of internal ‘borders’ and the free movement of its people has been a good unifying act. Unfortunately this flexibility should have remained solely for indigenous EU residents and stringently enforced upon external EU member borders. This is not to say that immigration or migration will be stopped, it will be though a matter of choosing those people that the recipient country can absorb and those that are allowed to relocate really appreciate the value of being allowed to relocate and will desire to assimilate into the adopting culture. One may think that this is not the case just now, probably too many immigrant / migrants seize their chances as a way of having a better existence from off wealthier countries but do not attempt to leave their own mores, cultural ‘tensions’ behind; this one assumes was part of the reasons to want to relocate in the first instance, a new start. With the laxity displayed in resisting the influx of immigrants / migrants and the “human rights” expectation, assumes that the EU will welcome them all. This has created the irresistible ‘pull’ for unknown enumerated humans that do not necessarily observe, or conform or contribute to similar EU cultural expectations.

Of underlying importance to the introduced question, there are 4 irreducible factors that are of a long term persistence nature. They do not now really have any influencing benefit and are in absolute essence interlinked but the ability to affect them is severely limited, at least in so far as they could be affected to alleviate the 6 EU issues one has suggested above. The first factor is the historic and current mechanisms of the global economy. One need not go into the overall complex issues but enough to say that it has benefited about a third of the world population immensely at the expense of the other two thirds. It is difficult to deny that this is true if one considers the wealth of ‘west’ and how it is disseminated (or not) albeit that this wealth is slowing changing (and moving) as the west reaches the maturity block. This imbalance and the corruption behind it can be influenced if there is a desire – it is not likely to happen voluntarily.

The other three factors are, to a greater extent largely uncontrollable as yet; the impact of environment changes, population growth and resource depletion.

All these are interlinked and the impact of which one can see now to the nascent effect on the push / pull impetus movement of people. In some areas it is wo/manmade conflicts that seems to be a driver but also one can point to the effect of the environment. Within this there is the basic underpinning; it is that there is not the availability of global natural resources to accommodate a burgeoning unstoppable population growth no matter how smart technology becomes, even with some abundant new energy sources, individual countries, nor the world, could not peacefully sustain a 50% increase of people in less than 80 years time; this from around a population of 1bn in 1800, to 7.6bn at 2018, to an estimate of 11bn by 2100. 

Now one might be able to state that at a simple level nationalism and borders are not of themselves problems. It is what is done within them and the impact on them that creates difficulties. Not recognising the open infringement of borders and the unrequited issue of resource availability, use or depletion due to injected population expansion, does inevitable give rise to the worry of undermined self interest and the hardening of nationalist tendencies and so far as one can see with the current scenarios the question behind the subject matter will become more of a serious problem. Countries under borders pressure will have some unpleasant and objectionable acts forced upon them.  

It is extremely foolish for anyone to think that the rising of nationalism and the erosion of borders can be ignored; both are mutually self sustaining and have an inevitability to increase with the slow incremental rise in the underlying factors. The proof of this if any is needed is the current pressure on Europe from the conflicts fall-out from the Middle East and Africa; match this with the South America tensions impinging now onto the USA and one may state that this is all from the combined effects of economic corruption, environmental stresses with unsustainable population expansion.

I know I have painted a bleak picture and there are many that will want to hold to a more liberal and upbeat view on a relaxation of borders i.e. humans can solve all the above, given time. How much time? Perhaps solutions will be adopted, the main one suggested, which will have a relatively immediate generational impact would be a voluntary population control (which country is going to adopt controls?) or some (un)natural biological culling (there is now a natural population reduction on the basis of affluence retention and fertility but only in mature western countries) what I fear will happen will be the eventually killing of those forcing upon the borders to open, to compel back the invasions.            

So there is no getting away from the fact that borders are important and have to be maintained, in this Junker has no choice as much as he may decry the “invention” of them and as one is just a visitor it is a final conclusion one may offer; that until humans are advanced or become homogeneous in psychology or physiology there will always be borders, even if the borders are those just built in the mind with prejudices.

© Renot

3110181524