The Bizarre Idea of Nationhood

Yesterday I was thinking about something closely related to what Daniel talked about in "...liberty and justice for all." Most notions about foreign policy depend on the concept of the sovereignty of independent nations. To an extent, the United States has pushed the boundaries of what is acceptable under such a view. First, we did so through fairly covert means such as installing friendly dictators during the Cold War. More recently, the actions have become more overt (Afghanistan and Iraq), but they are now pursued under the cover of rhetoric about fighting terrorism and spreading democracy. Whether or not this rhetoric is true and these wars are just is not my concern here. The point is that in spite of what our actions might indicate, we still claim that we believe in national sovereignty. This was the primary justification for the first war with Iraq. Iraq invaded another sovereign nation, Kuwait, and the U.S.-led coalition rushed to Kuwait's aid. This idea of sovereignty is also behind much of what our beloved Ron Paul says about foreign policy.

The idea is generally that every nation, regardless of its form of government or military strength, has the right to rule itself and control everything that happens inside its own borders. We attacked Iraq because it invaded Kuwaiti territory. If instead Kuwaiti military forces moved into Iraqi territory, and Iraq then obliterated them, we probably would have left Iraq alone. Clearly, territorial boundaries are terribly important to the idea of a nation and national sovereignty. It seems that the United Nations wants nations to get along and stay out of each other's territory. Starting a war to gain more land is considered unacceptable behavior.

The problem with all of this is that throughout history, national boundaries have been in constant flux. One empire after another conquered and ruled the Middle East. Since the fall of the Roman Empire, European borders have shifted many times, and parts of Europe such as Italy and Germany had no central government for much of their history. (I am sure that Daniel can provide details and corrections as necessary concerning the history of national territories.) The current national boundaries that the UN tries to preserve are relatively new and completely artificial.

Just because one nation now controls a particular piece of land, there is no objective reason to believe that it has an absolute right to that land. The ethic group(s) that live there and the government ruling there probably gained their current position by force. If military might determines who gets to live in and rule a particular place, then any nation that can conquer a territory should be allowed to. The conquering nation has as much right to be there as the conquered. Often when people set out to draw up new national boundaries (after major wars, for example), they do so based on where ethnic groups live, but no people group is truly indigenous. Any definition of a people group and any determination of what groups deserve their own nations are also artificial.

It seems that the UN has decided that peace is better than war so the best thing to do in most cases is to maintain the status quo. This may be the best policy, since one of the most radical attempts to change ownership of territory in modern times, Zionism, has led to Israel being in almost constant conflict since it was established. (I am not making any value judgement concerning Israel's statehood. I am only pointing out the result of drastic changes in territorial lines.) If war is sometimes just, then there could be situations in which a war to gain territory could also be justified, if the existing allotment of territory is sufficiently unjust. Therefore, there are times in which the status quo should be changed.

All this is really to say that the idea of a government having sovereignty over a particular piece of land is a rather strange idea. The relationship between a government and a nation is also a strange thing. The same nation can have a series of radically different governments, but it is still viewed as the same nation. However, a government is the thing that binds a group of people and an area of land together to make a nation. Without a government, there is no one to determine who is a citizen or legal resident and where the borders lie.

It seems that the only ways to rationally explain nationhood is that either it is a totally artificial construct held together by force or it was instituted by God. The first possibility is one in which might makes right and there can be no moral judgements about the actions of any state. This may be an accurate model of history, but it is not one that many people would like. The United States could police the world as we saw fit, but we would be in the same moral position as Nazi Germany as they sought to conquer the world. It would also mean that states are no different from any other organization. Al Qaeda, Microsoft, the United States, the UN, the NRA, Enron, and the Boy Scouts of America would only differ in degree and style of influence. Two warring nations would be the same as two feuding families murdering each other.

If nations and governments do fit into unique categories, those categories have to be created by God. If God did not establish nations and governments, then there can be no moral obligation for a citizen to obey the government, even if that government is a democracy because even a democracy is artificial and coerces the minority by force. Of course, God does legitimize governments. He commands us to obey (and pray for) those in authority and to pay our taxes. He says he has established all authority. The Bible does not say much about territorial issues or what makes a nation, however. The general idea is how to live in whatever situation one finds oneself, and there is not much about how to behave in a situation where one has a voice in government, or what the role of government ought to be. I have tried to develop a Biblical political philosophy, but I have not completed it. If I ever finish it, it will be included in To Attempt. Of course the Bible does directly discuss certain issues of government in the Old Testament as they relate to the theocratic monarchy, but it is unwise to use such examples as guides for any government that does not have God directly speaking to guide it. This is not a definite implication of Romans 13:1; but it seems if God has established authorities, and those under them are to obey them, then other authorities should not interfere with their ability to govern by attacking them or invading their territory. Perhaps the Bible does endorse a general policy of noninterventionism and maintaining the status quo.

I suppose the application of all of this is to keep God's commands to obey authority in mind, to remember that He is the source of government, and to realize the foolishness of all the humanist rhetoric that is spouted concerning nationhood. Without God's establishment of government, there would be no earthly authority, only anarchy. In a materialistic world, nationhood is bizarre; with God, it's really pretty simple.