| Now, we're all familiar, I think, with the United Nations organization, |
| and we're very accustomed to a world divided into nations |
| but many of you may not realize how recent the idea of the 'nation-state' really is. |
| Most of the history of civilization's been a history of much smaller units |
| from primitive tribes to Greek city-states |
| and later much of the larger units usually called 'empires'. |
| The concept of a political and cultural 'nation', as we know it today, |
| didn't appear until near the end of the 18th century, |
| at the time of the French and American revolutions. |
| Let's look at a couple of terms first, just to make them clear. |
| Strictly speaking, a 'nation' is a cultural concept: |
| a group of people in a particular area who are usually defined as sharing a common history, |
| common traditions, the same language or ethnic origin, et cetera. |
| A 'state', on the other hand, is a political concept: |
| it's a political unit, an administrative unit, a territory controlled by a government. |
| So, what we're talking about here, 'nation-states', what we often call 'countries', |
| are those areas where these two concepts, 'nation' and 'state', |
| are roughly congruent, where they coincide in time and space. |
| And this's the basic structure, the infrastructure of civilization, of the world we see today, |
| the basis upon which treaties are signed, on which wars are fought, and for which people often die. |
| One historian has said that a nation-state is an 'imaginary community', |
| because the citizens of even the smallest nation-state will never meet all their fellow citizens, |
| or even hear about them |
| yet in each citizen's mind is some image of 'oneness', of unity with his fellows. |
| Some think that this image is the direct result of the development of printing |
| and the popular press which likewise expanded in the 18th century |
| and which, in its language and its audience, has helped define these national communities. |
| Well, imagined or not, nation-states are very real to us today. |
| In fact, they seem like the only natural form for society |
| in spite of their very recent origins don't they? |
| But at that same time, they seem to be the cause of somewhat turmoil in our world: |
| wars, nuclear standoffs, ideological conflicts, |
| conflicts over resources and markets... the list seems endless! |
| So maybe we'd better take a more careful look at the factors that seem to contribute to the idea of 'nation-statehood'. |
| First, geography is an obvious factor. |
| Countries like Japan and New Zealand have very clear boundaries, |
| and their physical isolation makes these nations very homogeneous. |
| However, geography is often irrelevant. |
| Ireland and Cyprus are certainly very strongly divided islands. |
| And many countries, notably African countries, |
| have boundaries that have nothing to do with natural features or ethnicity or anything else. |
| They are simply straight lines drawn in the last century by former colonial powers. |
| And then there's language, which is also used as a rationale for nationhood. |
| The United States and Germany and France are all large, successful states that're defined mostly by language. |
| But on one hand, many international boundaries cut directly across language lines, as with Belgium and The Netherlands |
| while on the other hand, countries like South Africa and India include speakers of many different languages. |
| And a common ethnicity that is, a common genetic background and a common cultural heritage |
| have certainly helped determine the identity of many nation-states. |
| Nevertheless, many larger countries, like China, are composed of many ethnicities |
| while other ethnic groups, like the Kurds, for instance, are conspicuously stateless. |
| Finally one more major determinant is religion. |
| Religion has also played a big part in defining nations: |
| Catholic Ireland. Buddhist Nepal. And of course, Jewish Israel. |
| But again, many states suffer internal strife, violent conflict, |
| on account of religious differences, Iraq being the most obvious current example. |
| So it should be clear to you that none of these factors are foolproof definers of the nation-state. |
| In fact, they often complicate the situation. |
| Would it then be reasonable, therefore, if we divided Iraq, for instance, into three nations, |
| into Sunni and Shi'ite and Kurdish nations? |
| Would that solve many of their problems? |
| Probably not. |
| Drawing lines usually just creates new problems. |
| Minorities become smaller minorities. |
| Surrounding states endure altered confrontations. |
| The fracturing of other states is encouraged. |
| And re-drawing a state's boundaries wrongly suggests that conflicts, |
| ethnic and religious and linguistic conflicts can be decided by dividing peoples, |
| when the real solution probably lies in trying to unite them, |
| lies in recognizing individual rights, in devolving power to the local level, |
| and in a sort of 'pan-nationalism' that focuses on maximizing cooperation among nation-states |
| and in that way minimizing the impact of hard boundaries poorly defined by any factor. |
| This is what is happening so successfully with the European Union, |
| the organization which we'll be taking a closer look at now. |