|
i dont see the nation-state as a coherent socio-economic unit at this point...capital flows are transnational and outside the control of states; production flows, armament flows...what the nation-state remains is a military unit. since world war 2, the americans have developed the national-security state as a model---it is the preferred patronage system of the american right. from the reagan period, the national-security state, which never really made sense in any kind of democratic way (quite the contrary) during the cold war somehow managed to persist (conservative political patronage, etc.)...and the kinds of realpolitik that were of a piece with the national-security state (support for "friendly" tyrants whose friendliness was reflected in purchase of american weapons systems for example) managed to persist.
but that's coming apart. the revolutions across north africa and the middle east seem to me against neo-liberalism, against the national-security state model, against the kind of oligarchy that the united states seemed willing to present to itself and the world as if it were not a problem that is of a piece with neo-liberal/national-security states. it's against the old american empire---but not necessarily against american presence in the world as an important player.
the international community has instituted no mechanism for addressing humanitarian crises since rwanda. the reactionary politics of nationalisms, of nation-states, are a central obstacle.
nation-states are historically a creation of the 20th century. hopefully they'll soon be relics of an unfortunate past.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|