The Reason for the Nations Part 2: The Example of Broken Nations

The Reason for Nations

Gerd Altmann/Pixabay/License

In the recent United Nations meeting, President Trump declared, “The future doesn’t belong to globalists. The future belongs to patriots.”

Leaders of European countries seethed when they heard those words as did half of the American people. China and Russia, which have their own vision of globalism, didn’t much care for his proclamation either. Even the many countries those two dictatorships now support financially saw Mr. Trump’s advocacy for national sovereignty and standing as independent countries as threatening their possibility of gaining future aid.

Globalists have corrupt intentions. They want to dumb down the masses, make them conform and then rule them with an elite and wealthy network of oligarchs and government puppets. They do this through modern education of diversity and multiculturalism using identity politics to trash white people and victimize the rest. They want graduating classes not to excel but reduce themselves to the lowest common denominator. They pursue immigration schemes that pad the wallets of cartels and complicit politicians. They encourage the younger generations to flee their countries, stripping those countries of potential future talent and putting them at serious risk of survival. [Related: The Reason for the Nations: The EU Experiment and the Transformation of Europe]

What the president said was all true, but those in the grand assembly didn’t want to hear it. Quite fittingly, he made those comments on the heels of his remarks on religious freedom the day before. Even the Bible backs his stance:

“He shall judge between the nations, and shall decide disputes for many peoples; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.” Isaiah 2:4

Since the beginning of time, the world has been divided into nations for lingual and cultural purposes. One’s nation refers to place of birth, where one comes from, and provides that individual with a sense of belonging. Why do the caravans seeking refuge in the United States bear signs of “Honduras” and “Guatemala,” places from which they are supposedly fleeing but to which they belong?

Social globalists, most of whom are white and come from Western civilization, demean their own history, claiming that for all men and women to be equal and live in peace, they need to achieve a borderless global society. Economic globalists – capitalist companies, eager to get the cheapest possible labor to minimize their costs – have jumped on the socialist bandwagon, calling for open borders. They will even sell their souls to maintain trade with a commercially corrupt China. And both types weaponize the environment to scare emerging generations into believing a false narrative and making predictions that never materialize. In actuality globalists want monopolistic corporations and just enough earning power worldwide to maximize global sales and keep the elite rich.

Globalism is about obtaining power by creating and controlling a global underclass. To test this proposition, let’s consider three examples that show the ugliness of power and the reason for nations.

The Koreas

From the seventh to the 20th century, Korea existed as one country, sharing customs, ethnicity, religion, culture and language. That all ended in 1910 when the Japanese Empire annexed the nation and held it firmly in its grasp until 1945. To control the Koreans, Japan tried to destroy the country’s culture. Students could not speak their native language in school and the Japanese destroyed countless historical Korean documents. They even usurped Korean art, calling it their own, bolstering Imperial Japan and denigrating the Koreans. Thousands of Japanese families relocated to the Korean peninsula where they chopped down millions of trees and replaced them with their native species. Korean men were forced to toil in Japan and their women were used as sex slaves for Japanese men.

The occupation government tried to strip Koreans of their unique identity through religion, education and language. Koreans viewed this process as “cultural genocide,” while their captors saw it as evidence that Koreans and Japanese were a single, unified people. The Japanese even made their new subjects bear Japanese names. [See How Japan Took Control of Korea]

After the defeat of Japan during World War II, Japanese forces in the north surrendered to the Russians and those in the south to the Americans. The Korean people were hopeful of reuniting into one country again. But without ever consulting them, the powers that be sliced the country into two, with America and democracy taking hold in the south and Russian Communism in the north.

When the North Korea leader, Kim Il-sung, invaded the south to try and unite the country under Soviet rule, a three-year war broke out which left over three million Korean, Chinese, American and UN personnel dead. To this day the fractured nation is divided by a heavily-armed de-militarized zone.

Through no fault of their own and the imperialist finagling of intruding countries, this well-functioning nation of 1,500 years was tossed into political chaos. Not only was their sovereignty robbed, but the situation today constitutes a global threat. Worse, it shows how fractured a country can become when two superpowers with contrasting ideologies try to intercede to solve a national problem.

India, Pakistan and Bangladesh

From 1900 to 1947, the British controlled India. During that time Indian nationals were denied a voice in the government and the bitterness boiled until they won their independence nearly five decades later. When the British finally scurried out, they owed India $3 billion and left the country fraught with revolutions. The major one involved Muslims versus other Indians – Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Buddhists, etc. The Muslim League argued that Muslims could not co-exist with members of other religions. Ultimately this divide led to the creation of Pakistan. But the Muslims in Pakistan were at odds from the beginning. Islam was to be the force that unified the people, but the religion was interpreted in different ways by the two separate wings of the new populace, those living in the west and those in the east. The Islam in “West Pakistan” and East Bengal clashed. [See India 1900 to 1947]

Although they were in the minority, the Muslims in the west controlled the Pakistan capital where they soon exploited those in the east. Although East Pakistan contributed most of Pakistan’s export revenue and held most of the country’s population, the government spent far more on West Pakistan. [See Robert J. Muscat’s book, Investing in Peace: How Development Aid Can Prevent or Promote Conflict.

Since the West dominated the government and military service, the East grew even weaker. Bengali literature and music in state media were banned. The central government began to reduce funding to the East and launched the Pakistani army to kill and rape the people there. Ultimately martial law had to be imposed. Because of these atrocities, a new cultural identity took shape in East Pakistan. Increasingly the populace saw themselves as Bengalis more than Muslims, that a Muslim Bengali had more affinity to a Hindu Bengali, rather than a Muslim Pashtun or a Muslim Punjabi.

In 1970 civil disobedience broke out across East Pakistan, with calls for independence. [See India’s Foreign Relations, 1947-2007] This triggered a new migration. Bengalis streamed into India as refugees, but the onslaught was so great. India went to war with Pakistan in 1971. It was a brief scuffle and the new state surrendered in December of that same year. East Pakistan quickly declared independence and the new nation of Bangladesh, with a secular Bengali identity and a Muslim majority, was born.

During the Bangladesh Liberation War, though, Bengali nationalists declared independence and formed the Bangladeshi National Liberation Army. By April the following year they formed the Constituent Assembly of Bangladesh with the elected Eastern members of the Pakistani national assembly and East Pakistani provincial assembly. Much to the chagrin of West Pakistan, the new unofficial government then issued an interim constitution based on “equality, human dignity and social justice.”

Convinced it had a common identity and would work well once freed from India, the new nation of Pakistan demonstrated clearly that it couldn’t work after all. Even a common religion and relatively common culture couldn’t bind the people. Because they wanted the power to control the entire country, West Pakistan failed to secure the country they strove to have. In the end further division was required and it took West Pakistan (Pakistan) more than two years – and hounding by several Muslim nations – to recognize Bangladesh as a separate nation.

Bosnia-Herzegovina

After World War II, the Communists rolled a number of Balkan states – Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro, Croatia, Slovenia, Macedonia and Serbia – into the People’s Republic of Yugoslavia, headed by Josip Broz Tito. Though closely aligned geographically, these states were rife with ethnic conflict. Following the fall of Communism and death of Tito, these six states demanded their independence, not just from Yugoslavia and years of Communist rule, but from each other. [See: The Borgen Project’s What Was the Cause of the Bosnian War?]

Although ethnically diverse with Muslims, Orthodox Serbs and Catholic Croats, Bosnia-Herzegovina passed a resolution to become independent in 1992. But the Serbian leader, Slobodan Milosevic, saw this as his chance finally to erase the ethnic divisions of the region. He called for a “Greater Serbia.” By dominating the fractured country of Yugoslavia, he would institute a purified country of Serbs. His army stormed the tiny country wedged between Serbia and Croatia and set out to cleanse the land. [See Mount Holyoke’s Documents on Bosnia.]

In April 1992, the siege of Sarajevo began. Anyone who opposed the Greater Serbia concept was denied food and utilities. In the end over 2.2 million people were displaced, nearly 20,000 women raped and over 100,000 killed.

After the vain attempt to combine them all through ethnic cleansing, most of these republics became independent nations, ranging in size from Vermont to West Virginia. [See: What Countries Make up the Former Yugoslavia?]

In the Bosnia case, Islam again raised its head but ethnicity was the major issue. This was not a case of huge variations of ethnicity, like trying to meld Asians with Africans and Arabs with Americans. These people originally came from the same geographic area – the Balkans – and before they were divided into provinces under Communist rule, they lived in neighboring countries. Unfortunately it took a six-year war to confirm that neighboring countries was the only way to go.

Aggregation Doesn’t Work

These cases prove President Trump’s point. They didn’t work politically, ethnically or even religiously. Ask the 55 Muslim countries if they want to consolidate, starting with Iran and Saudi Arabia. What these cases do show, however, is the importance of identity, personal identity. Man naturally needs a sense of belonging and throughout the ages belonging has needed some type of structure or framework, like culture, religion, customs, ethnicity, geography or something that gives people a feeling of community. The more diluted or compromised one’s identity becomes, the more that person will resist. Take the Olympics or even sports teams: Soccer and baseball. People are passionate about their national teams because they identify with them, they want to be a part of them. But where would the passion be, the excitement, if we were all the same – universal clones? If we were denied our identity, where would our individual worth come from? How much would each of us lose?

In closing, though, assume for a moment that globalists were successful and tried global governance. Who would lead? The top developed and developing leaders, say from China, Russia, the European Union and the United States? Would they agree on similar terms by which to lead? Would there be agreement even between the Muslim countries, much less Western and Anti-West countries?

I, for one, have to doubt this proposition just remembering how poorly Russia and the United States handled Korea.

[Editor’s Note: These three stories of broken nations illustrate several key points: In Korea — a nation overtaken and subsequently divided by outsiders — a well-functioning nation was tossed into political chaos that still threatens international security. In India — another nation overtaken by outsiders — subsequently devolved into revolution and divisions. While a common religion and culture was thought to be enough to bind the Muslim people together in Pakistan, it was not, whereas the lesson of Bangladesh was that sharing a common experience was in fact enough to forge a common cultural identity across religions. In Bosnia, where neighboring countries were artificially combined into provinces under communism, ethnic divisions persisted and were ultimately resolved by fracturing back into separate nations.

Those who now decry national sovereignty and espouse a future of “global citizens” ignore these stark lessons of success in self-governance for regions that share a common identity, and great difficulty in regions that have been temporarily overtaken and artificially split or combined. The Bangladesh example proves that cultural identity in a given region can and does exist across religious and ethnic distinctions, yet this commonality arrived from a shared trauma of atrocities committed against them, and was not the result of simple decision to value diversity. 

What this means for the United States: The United States functions with relative stability and prosperity despite its religious and ethnic diversity precisely because there is a shared cultural identity, an American identity. To the extent that this identity is emphasized, through the embrace of the country’s founding and pride in the nation, for example, it can bind the people of America in the common cause of self-government and avoid fracture on racial, ethnic and regional grounds. To the extent that this common identity is undermined, however, the country risks instability and weakness.

What this means for the world: Forging a new cultural identity of global citizenry beyond ethnic, religious and geographic distinctions does not happen by decree; a professed value of mulitculturalism alone will not produce that common bond, The prospect of breaking down borders and trusting the good will of men to rule successfully across the entire planet is a fool’s errand likely to result in global civil war unless that rule is secured technologically with a iron fist.]

×

Send this to a friend