What is the nation in the 21st century?

HONDRA The recent refugees for independence in Iraqi Kurdistan and Catalonia, and the hand-to-hand response, as expected by central governments in Baghdad and Madrid, have raised many questions about a catessism without answer to the meaning of nationality in the 21st century. What's the nation? What is nation-state? Is it the same as the place? Are humans, or tribes, the same as the nation? In a globalized economy, what does national sovereignty mean?

I bet most Americans don't think about these questions. They live in “A inseparable nation,” even if their country doesn't feel that way these days. But, “what is the nation? ” is a question that has been urgently posed in many parts of the world, tell the last three decades since the end of the Cold War.

Fifteen new and old nations came out only from the Soviet Union. Even its European satellites redefined themselves. Within five years of the fall of the Berlin Wall, East Germany agreed to effectively join West Germany. Czechoslovakia was divided into two nations. Yugoslavia was disbanded into seven different states.

Not all groups have succeeded in creating their own nation-state. The Kurds, despite terrible oppression, have never stopped to establish their own nation.

In order to understand this incentive that involves revising the world map, it must be seen in modern imperial history. The borders of Kurdistan and Yugoslavia were established when the Emperor was defeated, that Ottoman and the Austro-Hungarian border was lifted at the end of World War I. These few border lines involved national aspirations because it was the Convenience of triumphant empires Britain and France.

The challenge for the existing idea of nationality began with the fall of communism. It spread even more when Western nations faced the 2008 financial crisis.

Brexit came from internal argument between the British after this crisis, about what their nation was, and what it should be like.

The crisis increased support for the Nationalist Scocze Party, which won the majority in the Scotland Parliament in 2011. In 2014, Scottish voters were asked this question in the referendum, “Should Scotland become independent? No, he won. But this did not stop because English nationalism rose.

In 2016, British Prime Minister David Cameron, after winning the referendum in Scotland, decided to try fate once again by making the British choose regarding its membership in the European Union: “Should the United Kingdom remain part of the European Union, or should it leave?

The argument against being part of the union was based on the concept of national sovereignty. It wasn't a whole new argument. When the European Union launched its slow march towards a federal future in the late 1980s, Britain withdrew from the process of joining. According to Margaret Thatcher, joining a federal Europe meant ending Britain's national independence.

Britain, due to the size and importance within the European Union, was able to choose to leave the founding agreements of this federal Europe: the Schengen deal, which allows people to move freely across national borders, and the creation of a common currency -- the euro.

Fear of sovereignty usually made English pragmatic minds what fear does to most minds - it made them irrational. During the Scotland referendum, the European Union made it clear to the Scottishs that if they voted for independence it would not be given any convenience for EU entry and the use of the euro as currency would not be allowed. One could not imagine a more complete sovereignty for the British.

When the votes were counted, it turned out that 53 per cent of the English wanted out of the EU, while 62 per cent of the Scottishs sought to remain in the EU. Two very different expressions of national will, yet only one would be put into effect.

How influenced is Catalonia's decision to hold referendum by Scottish votes? Did Charles Puigdemont, the leader of the Catalan Parliament, make a mistake in judging that the precedent of a peaceful vote in Britain for Scotland's independence would occur in the same atmosphere in Spain?

Did he not know that the European Bahschem vows to respect the sovereignty of the existing member states and that it would not intervene with the Spanish government to prevent the police from doing what it did?

The crisis in Catalonia leads to a recent question about nationality: Can Western European nations hope to preserve their wealth and high living standards in a globalized economy without unifying their nationality to something greater?

The beginning of the answer to this container question comes from the past. Some 500 years ago, at another time of economic and political flows, a Polish nobles, whose name has been lost from the course of history, had been asked about his national identity. He had responded, “I have Polish nationality, Lithuanian citizenship of the people of the Rutians (rus), and Jewish origin. ”

The answer sets out the view of Albert Riveras, who leads a centre-right anti-independence party in Catalonia, who has said: “Catalonia is my homeland, Spain is my country and Europe is my future. ”

Can Europe Become a Nation? This is one of the greatest questions of the 21st century. Nytimes. He's not here. Periscope