Once citizenship loses all meaning, there won’t be any rights any more, for anybody. Is that clear or do I need to explain this again? This is very, very important. Nothing is probably quite as important, so let’s stay with it for a moment.
There are no abstract “human rights” floating in the air. That’s a myth, a rhetorical device. The only real rights are the ones your nation-state is willing to guarantee to you as a citizen. Once the distinctions between citizen and non-citizen are eroded, it doesn’t mean everybody gets more rights. It means everybody gets fewer. The form of statehood that perceives every citizen as endowed with rights just for existing is very recent. It’s a historical anomaly. It’s not a naturally occurring phenomenon, just like good roads and clean streets aren’t. It can go away very easily.
Now is a very good time to get our emotions under control and concentrate on how we preserve this unique and fragile state form. Talking about “human rights” at this point is almost as embarrassing as using the phrase “global citizen.” The nation-state is wounded. We have turned away from it and put it on the brink of going out of existence. It might still be not too late to undo the damage. We should concentrate on that, on asking ourselves what do we give in exchange for unprecedented rights and unprecedented standard of living to this form of statehood. What do we give to our nation-state that a different form of statehood couldn’t easily coerce out of us while offering nothing in return?
Clarissa's Blog 
Well said.
LikeLike
This is one reason why China is popular in many parts of the world, since they are willing to do business with anyone regardless if how they conduct their internal affairs.
This is rather different from the US, which had a habit of seeing its values as universal and imposing sanctions or attempting to overthrow governments whose policies it disagreed with.
LikeLike
Definitely. The greatest mistake of the US was to assume that everybody on the planet was as capable of evolving out of a primitive state. But most people aren’t, unfortunately.
Human rights died under the weight of reality.
LikeLike
The British abolitionists were able to impose their values as universal due to the strength of the British Empire, and similarly with the American empire.
The decline of the American Empire does allow for more self-determination or at least the return of the spheres of influence.
LikeLike
Let’s not mince words. “Spheres of influence” means war, destruction, and a descent to barbarity. Once we decided that peeing on the floor is as valid and respectable as not peeing on the floor, let’s at least find the courage to say that this is what we’ve done.
LikeLike
It’s already happening though, so what can you do?
https://www.iol.co.za/news/politics/there-is-no-border-mozambican-mayor-says-millions-will-flock-into-south-africa-if-situation-worsens-in-mozambique-dd36e7bc-cd03-408f-817d-d2f8b0590f76
LikeLike
““Spheres of influence” means war”
“Multipolarity” (new name for ‘spheres of influence’) as promoted by some idiots is basically the world described in 1984 – three big powers dividing up the world and competing for resources in the areas under not under their control (Africa, the Middle East, the Indian Subcontinent and parts of the pacific among them).
Why anyone thinks that could be a good idea escapes me.
The biggest difference between 1984 and the ‘multipolar’ dream is that in the book China became a death cult and in this reality russia has.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yeah, but having autonomous states automatically leads to spheres of influence because the bigger states will dominate their weaker neighbors.
The only way to avoid this is for there to be some higher authority for the small states to appeal to, either a global hegemon or some larger institution such as the EU or UN.
LikeLike