THE DISADVANTAGES OF POLITICAL BOUNDARIES

Much of what I have been describing during the last several days is attributsable to the principle known as "balance of power"--which is an effect of, and companion to, the division of the world into a group of numerous nation-states of various sizes and degrees of political, economic and military might.  Its purpose has been to achieve stability for particular nations, and equilibrium within the international community.  In the past, the maintenance of balance of power was characterized by flexible maneuvering regarding the formation and termination of alliances, together with what has been referred to as "amoral diplomacy" among the various participants therein.  Combinations were intricate, and alliances were said to have been readily made and unmade as necessitated by emerging situations.  Smaller, less powerful countries of old, such as Hungary, Savoy, Spain, and Venice, among many others, would often ally themselves, now with one--now with another--more powerful nation or nations in order to maintain their independence and security.  However, this practice of multifarious treaty-making took place between and among the larger, more powerful, nation-states as well.

 In 1890, Germany cancelled its earlier treaty with Russia in favor of a similar agreement with Austria-Hungary.  This abandonment by Germany enabled Russia, in 1894, to enter a similar treaty with France.  Ten years later (i.e., in 1904), France and Britain made a like agreement joining them together as allies.  During this same period, Russia and Germany had begun discussions once more.  However, attributable to a gesture of seemingly childish behavior, the talks broke down (i.e., when Russia insisted on consulting with its current ally, France, in regard thereto).  A couple of years later, Germany continued in the cultivation and pursuit of its belligerent plsans, in response to Britain's announcement that it would support France, should France be attacked by Germany.  A few years after that, in 1914, the famous assassination in Saravejo brought about war between Austria and Serbia.  And, as a result of the aforedescribed web of alliances that existed throughout Europe, this conflict between two nations shortly transformed into a vast war involving most of the European continent. 

This same sort of mindset again affected Europe shortly prior to the Second great War.  In 1939, Britain sensed reason to fear that its alliance with France might be abandoned in favor of France making terms with Germany.  And in 1944, while the War was still in progress, a comical episode  
was witnessed by the world when Romania, till then an ally of Germany, "changed sides," and declared war on her former partner. 

More lately, modern times in general, and the Cold War era in particular, were said to have brought about a progression of traditions regarding balance of power to one of greater rigidity in international affairs.  This was marked by a polarization of memberships into the camp of one or the other of the two superpowers of the day, America and Russia.  But the underlying purpose was described as nevertheless continuing to be "held back by no ideologies or sympathies...[the principals] aiming only to protect their own independence or enlarge their own interests."  (Alfred DeGrazia, Political Organization) 

We see the same concepts illustrated in other parts of the world over the years as well.  Treaty-making and alliance-formation is not an exclusive prerogative of European nations or regions,  Such would be the case when, in 1956, France resorted to secret diplomacy with Britain and Israel in an effort to promote a war with Egypt.  In keeping with the atmosphere of childish "plotting" that surrounded these secret plans, Israel proposed to attack Egypt, on condition that Britain and France intervene on Israel's behalf, in the role of "impartial policemen."  Ten years later, in the Middle East, we observe another example of utilitarian alliance-makingt, when Egypt's Gamel Abdel Nasser concluded a surprise alliance with King Hussein of Jordan.  Prior thereto, they had been bitter enemies.  But increased hostility with Israel during that period was instrumental in turning former rivals into "bedfellows."  Subsequently, Jordan broke ties with Egypt, when the latter entered an accord with Israel.  Yet later (in 1984), Egypt and Jordan became friends once more, despite the aforesaid.  All of this once again resembles a group of schoolchildren, squabbling and "making friends," over and over, in the schoolyard that is our world

But if there were no nations, there would have been no need for nations to ally with one another for the purpose of protection and/or maintenance of a balance of power.  Sovereignty and national pride would be put aside in favor of the dignity of all mankind, and pride in resultant human accomplishment--much more worthy goals!

                                                                  * * * * *