The battles in Georgia have ended. What will it take to create a lasting secure peace?
As in the Balkans, the feuds in Georgia are long-standing between differing groups of people over many generations. Since the break-up of the Soviet Union, the feuds have frequently risen to small wars supplied and encouraged by the larger antagonists, especially from the USA.
After large scale intervention by NATO, Serbian Bosnia was split in two on religious lines resulting in de facto "ethnic cleansing" so abhorrent to the NATO partners on entering the fray. By the time a few killings had occurred based solely on ethnicity, there was little hope of any other settlement.
Obviously, pluralism is no more valued in Georgia then in Serbian Bosnia. There is no acceptable outcome other then division along ethnic lines. At least to the extent that such division occurs in Canada with Quebec.
If anyone has the knowledge and understanding to build a lasting peace in Georgia, it is those individuals who have managed to keep Quebec in Canada.
I suggest we send a team to Georgia as part of the UN mission to write a report on how Georgia might survive as an ethnically differentiated state without bloodshed and dominance.
I would recommend Jean Chretien lead the team with a selection of politicians and civil servants of his choice with a mission to create a stable, peaceful, plural Georgian state.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Nationhood.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/nationhood
na·tion (n
sh
n)n.
na·tion (n
shn)n.1.a. A relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government; a country.b. The territory occupied by such a group of people: All across the nation, people are voting their representatives out.
2. The government of a sovereign state.
3. A people who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently language; a nationality: "Historically the Ukrainians are an ancient nation which has persisted and survived through terrible calamity" Robert Conquest.
4.a. A federation or tribe, especially one composed of Native Americans.b. The territory occupied by such a federation or tribe.
The UN charter speaks of member states and occasionally uses 'nation' as a congruent term. States can sign treaties, are sovereign and independent in UN parlance. But, in spite of common usage, it is clear that nations do not have the same powers as do states .It is not clear what nations can do. It isn't even clear what nations are.
Lately, it seems that states are territories that are ruled by a government that makes the laws that cover a particular piece of real estate. But it seems that nations are groups of people that share a common bond from history of language and culture. So it appears that 'nation' means something more similar to 'tribe' then to 'state'. Nations are groups of people that share culture, language, religion, based on a common history and perhaps a common geography. Nations do not necessarily control a piece of real estate.
Historically, tribes became nations as the population sharing a culture grew large. The nation group lived in close proximity enabling establishment a state. Developing from tribes, these states predictably governed by a noble family , protected by lesser nobility arising from the tribal milieu by strength of arms. The largest of these Nation states became conquerors of smaller states and imposed their own statutes and customs creating empires. And those empires inevitably led to the decline of nations as minor tribal usages were absorbed or subdued under the impositions of the tribal custom and institution of the empire.
As tribes/nations were marginalized, political theory was developing to make possible the creation of states based on needs of individuals. The will of the majority replaced the authority of cultural history and traditions personified by the nobility. The rule of law became the paramount instrument of governance, individual rights replaced cultural practises and ideological plurality replaced nation,tradition, state religion, to make the rule of law possible.
Paradoxically, the change from rule by tradition to rule of law has had the most success in Western Europe where it began and where the most violent consequences through wars and revolutions have been suffered. Once the composed of countries typical of nation states, United Europe is multi-cultural, multi-ethnic and broadly representative of the whole world in ethnicity and cultural history.
Europe is now a partial test ground for the idea of a plurality of cultures under the rule of law, equitable jurisprudence, and political egalitarianism. If it will manage to accomadate Turkey, it will be a more comprehensive test.
The UN charter speaks of member states and occasionally uses 'nation' as a congruent term. States can sign treaties, are sovereign and independent in UN parlance. But, in spite of common usage, it is clear that nations do not have the same powers as do states .It is not clear what nations can do. It isn't even clear what nations are.
Lately, it seems that states are territories that are ruled by a government that makes the laws that cover a particular piece of real estate. But it seems that nations are groups of people that share a common bond from history of language and culture. So it appears that 'nation' means something more similar to 'tribe' then to 'state'. Nations are groups of people that share culture, language, religion, based on a common history and perhaps a common geography. Nations do not necessarily control a piece of real estate.
Historically, tribes became nations as the population sharing a culture grew large. The nation group lived in close proximity enabling establishment a state. Developing from tribes, these states predictably governed by a noble family , protected by lesser nobility arising from the tribal milieu by strength of arms. The largest of these Nation states became conquerors of smaller states and imposed their own statutes and customs creating empires. And those empires inevitably led to the decline of nations as minor tribal usages were absorbed or subdued under the impositions of the tribal custom and institution of the empire.
As tribes/nations were marginalized, political theory was developing to make possible the creation of states based on needs of individuals. The will of the majority replaced the authority of cultural history and traditions personified by the nobility. The rule of law became the paramount instrument of governance, individual rights replaced cultural practises and ideological plurality replaced nation,tradition, state religion, to make the rule of law possible.
Paradoxically, the change from rule by tradition to rule of law has had the most success in Western Europe where it began and where the most violent consequences through wars and revolutions have been suffered. Once the composed of countries typical of nation states, United Europe is multi-cultural, multi-ethnic and broadly representative of the whole world in ethnicity and cultural history.
Europe is now a partial test ground for the idea of a plurality of cultures under the rule of law, equitable jurisprudence, and political egalitarianism. If it will manage to accomadate Turkey, it will be a more comprehensive test.
Friday, August 8, 2008
Raison 'detre: Another blog
Simply: I want to force myself to think through serious problems and issues that affect existence; political, social, personal. I want to do it without silly arguments and name-calling from people for whom thought, evidence and logic is simply shit on the road.
I admit to arrogance without pride. I just have very little experience meeting or discussing issues with people who are able to follow the evidence, the work of the intellectual giants, and the consequences of those two pinnacles to the application of logic and reason.
I often make some leaps by postulating 'IF" and "THEN" to reach for probabilities and possibilities when describing solutions and I hate having to defend each posited variable as if they were stated values.
I love to admit that I am wrong because it means I have learnt something new. Sadly, discourse rarely leads to such confessions though reading often does.
I want to have my say. I want to record my ideas. I want to think freely and freely express my thoughts.
I admit to arrogance without pride. I just have very little experience meeting or discussing issues with people who are able to follow the evidence, the work of the intellectual giants, and the consequences of those two pinnacles to the application of logic and reason.
I often make some leaps by postulating 'IF" and "THEN" to reach for probabilities and possibilities when describing solutions and I hate having to defend each posited variable as if they were stated values.
I love to admit that I am wrong because it means I have learnt something new. Sadly, discourse rarely leads to such confessions though reading often does.
I want to have my say. I want to record my ideas. I want to think freely and freely express my thoughts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
