I believe that as we see a push to regionalism, such as the European Union, in the same area there will be an increase in localism so that what is happening is the displacement of the national identity up to the European identity which increases the psychological need for association with a local area as the higher level association is fragmented to a more amorphous attachment and role model.

Very very interesting topic to bring up! :)

It is bedtime here, though, so I go for a synthetic (but I hope not too cryptic) answer for now.

The answer to your question greatly depends from the answer to this other question: "what are going to be the rules governing the relationships between countries in the future"?

A forest is a forest, but it is made of many trees and even more scrubs for the undergrowth... If the ecosystem is solid, there is a lot of variety in size, kind and age of each plant/tree and they live happily. If the ecosystem is unbalanced, then plants called "opportunistic" get - for a while - the upper hand, and the population is very uniform and - hence - fragile.

So, if the world (as a community of countries) is going to be healthy, I suppose we will see a variety of solutions coming up, all living together happily.

If the community of countries is going to be unfair in its rules, then only one or two models will emerge as predominant.

An underlying topic is also that most of the examples of present "separatism" are based on the idea of "ethnic uniformity" in a country and this is simply an illusion (as a fact) and an unachievable goal (as a vision), especially in an increasingly globalised world.

It would be different if "separatism" would be grounded in the subsidiarity principle: to keep governance as close as possible to the citizens of a community.

I think these unions will be strong while they last, but ultimately ephemeral like the European colonial empires. What to Poles and Portuguese really have in common anyway, let alone Cairo and Cape Town?

IMO it depends on ultimately unforeseeable shifts in public opinion. If the current trend continues I believe that we will see more super-groups form while at the same time countries attempting to both prove and utilize their independence. Especially when the smaller countries feel unrepresented by the larger unions.

Its also worth noting that the EU in particular has been generally quite successful. People aren't going to just scrap an organization that has been working effectively for half a century. Unless France, Germany or Britain move to leave the EU it will still be a very effective global force that people won't want to lose.

To Invictus' last comment though, I think its more about what a continental union is able to do compared to a single nation. Within the EU for example Poland and Portugal share seats within the European Parliament, the 'single market', a Common Agricultural Policy, a singular currency as well as multiple other agreements. Most European countries greatly benefit from these agreements and don't want the treaties and the ability to form them simply vanish.

Also, Countries on the same continent do feel a certain level of unity as well even if not to the same degree as nationalism. Egyptians and South Africans will still define themselves as African (Even if after defining themselves as their respective nationality) and feel that they owe each other more than they owe Italy for example. This is extended even more when there are continental governments which supercede the national ones, free trade and freedom of movement agreements in place.

I disagree that people feel some sort of continental unity, particularly in Africa. There was nearly a civil war in Kenya just a year or so ago based on ethnic tensions, and the same sort of thing is going on in the Congo now.

I actually have a friend from Egypt. He defines himself as Egyptian (or when he's feeling funny, "brown"), not African. Egyptians and other North Africans are Arab, and the South is black. Even there there are thousands of ethnic groups who feel no loyalty to their post colonial countries, let alone some Pan-African pipe dream. There's also Anglophone and Francophone African countries, Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, and Animist countries, and leaders unwilling to surrender power.

I'm talking about people's feelings, not arcane macroeconomic benefits. It's important for people to identify with a country of their own, and a supernational union doesn't satisfy that.

Im hoping the human race can move beyond all this nation centric tribalism. it may take 20-30 years for some nations and 100 plus for others but i think we will get there.

invictus "It's important for people to identify with a country of their own" i would disagree with this on one level., people might feel it is important now but while this importance stay constant with increasing globalism and interaction between people from different backgrounds? (btw, is your name latin for "in/for victory?")
maybe my background removes me somewhat from this nationalistic feelings. my family is spread over 3 countries now and i havent lived in my land of birth for about...10 years.

i think regionalism in a peaceful setting might be good for us but. Im fine with a world of a thousand different cultural entities but with a large uni macro structure of the world court,UN etc placed over the top.

sorry, i meant " will this importance stay constant...."

My name's a victory title. It means something like "invincible" or "unconquered."

I disagree with your assertion that national pride is not important. You are an exception to most people, living outside your home culture and all, but people always need to feel like they belong to something and belonging to a nation is the most primal of these feelings, second only to the family.

These unions are being imposed from above. Eurocrats keep pressing for a constitution after it was rejected, the African Union is by and large a dictator's club, the one in South America (the exact name escapes me) just kinda popped up from merging the two trade blocs, and the North American Union is being planned in secret against the people's will.

Maybe I'm missing the feeling of typical people being that I've never actually lived in countries where I am a citizen for more than a few months but I still think that people want more effective super-governments.

The fact is that people still are part of an individual nation even within the continental systems. I don't see why nationalistic impulses should make global governance irrelevant.

I believe that the anarchaic view of how international politics should be run is much more prevailant in America as well. My American textbook on International politics stressed the ideological point of view much more than my British one. Maybe its because the US is not part of a powerful continental governance system. Maybe its just a larger country with a much more isolationist culture.

I think you're missing the acheivements of the EU and the AU. The European Union's singular market, single currency and the common agricultural policy have all been very effective. With the general instability of much of Africa its often been used to raise peace-keeping forces, and in the future it intends to have multiple free trade areas and a single currency. The people of both continents both want the systems and the benefits that will come from them.

Interesting thread. A few things are not correct though:

* Portugal and Poland do not share the same currency. They even do not have a fix rate exchange. The so-called Eurozone is a sub-set of countries from the EU. Poland currency is the Złoty. Portugal currency is Euro.

* To find an Egyptian who will describe him/herself as "African" you will have to search for a long, long time... Most Egyptian will define themselves as Middle-eastern (when talking to you in English they will normally define themselves and their culture as "oriental"), many as "Arabs" and - if they happen to be so - "Muslim" (I am not sure, but I think the amount of Muslims in Egypt is past 90% of the population). Africa is systematically referred to as of a foreign entity.

* Although media have talked extensively in Europe and Abroad of a "European Constitution", that definition is wrong, both literally and semantically. The treaty that was signed but never ratified was essentially a consolidation of a number of pre-existing treaties, regulations and practices established along the years within the EU. There were some interesting innovation points (namely a strategy to move towards the integration of the EU foreign policy and possibly, at a second stage, military) but the main reason for which in France and the Netherlands it was opposed by the population is that that treaty would have formalised a lot of powers to the European Commission which is formed by members appointed by governments without accounting for things like country population or political colour or... In EU, the parliament has very limited powers, and it is mostly a consultative body.

Again: not that this changes the sense of what peple wrote in the previous replies... and with which I largely agree. Yet I think it is important to give facts straight... :)

@mac - Ethnically most Egyptians are Arabs but I believe that they consider themselves part of Africa. I believe that an Egyptian would say they were as African as a French or British person would consider themselves European. In the same way that British people often set themselves aside from the continent. It simply misses the point. Arab is an ethnicity and is identified by some as a past nation where the middle east was united (IMO an oversimplification ignoring the reality of its diversity pre-muslim-empire). Muslim defines a religion - completely separate from the point. The Middle East as a region is also rarely defined as a separate continent, although many Egyptians probably do identify better with the middle east I doubt the same is of Sudan and Libya which are also primarily Arab countries.

Also the European Parliament is part of the EU legislative process which defines EU laws. Because laws that are past through the EU take precedence over the laws of individual nations when they clash I think its fair to say that the European Parliament is more than just a consultative body.

To the common currency - my mistake.

Poland will be in the Euro by 2011 and Croatia will be in the EU by then too.

Nations do what is best for their security. Croatia felt it was better off outside of a Serbian dominated Yugoslavia but that it's needs will be met as part of the EU. Quebec and Scotland continue to make the judgement that their interests are served as constituent parts of larger states, 1 of which also derives benefits from it's supra national membership of the EU.

Supra national organisations or agreements only derive authority from the pooling of sovereignty. There are loads of them as well. EU, G8, Nafta, OPEC etc are all about states gathering together with a common cause.

If 1 million Irish voted no to the last EU referendum then understand that there were 1million and 1 reasons why they did and none of them were to do with streamlining the EU bureaucracy!

While as a final point it is interesting to see that lots of countries still want to join the EU (12 more at least), no territory of any kind has applied to join the US as a state since the 1950s, which suggests that countries prefer to pool and keep independence rather than truly subsume themselves into the federal system of another country entirely, so the answer to the question is ultimately No.

Joining the EU and becoming a US state are entirely different processes. Except for Texas and perhaps Vermont, every state was a territory already controlled by the US government before it joined the Union. A major reason no new states have been added is that there are not territories that could be economically viable as states left. Puerto Rico is the exception, and only narrowly have rejected statehood in past referenda..

Comparing the two is apples and oranges. Brazil hasn't added any new states in awhile either, and neither has Australia. It's a silly argument to say that federations not expanding has anything substantive to do with the trend of countries joining continental unions or splitting along other lines.

The general trend today seems to indicate movement toward a world government. With the UN, and continental unions, and the lowering of trade tariffs etc., unless something radical changes, we'll have a world government in time.

I would say nations don't join because they feel they have something in common, though that certainly helps. I would say it's more to reap the pragmatic benefits of co-operation. It's the same reason we have societies, and multicellularity. Both started with kin-based tribes and co-operative colonies, just as the world government starts with nations becoming more and more dependant on each other and more economic and cultural mixing.

My only worry is that a world government will result in a sort of homogeneity that I'm not sure is a good thing. Also, much progress has been made because of international competition, and I wonder if perhaps we are stunting human growth by forming a world government, or if another source of competition will arise to compensate. But perhaps progress and homogeneity are fair prices for global co-operation and peace?

@Tarablus. A bit of confusion that might need clarification:

There is a difference between supra-national organisations and inter-national ones. Supra-national organisations (like EU) can enforce a decision from the Organisation onto national governments. Inter-national organisations (like NATO) can't. Also, there is a difference between institutions (like EU, the Council of Europe, the USA federal government) and fora, trade agreements and economical cartels (like G8, NAFTA and OPEC respectively).

My remark is not for nothing: the EU experiment is pretty unique in the world. Just think that EU has been created *voluntarily* between *peer countries* that basically erased each other during the WWII and that ultimately decided to give up part of their sovereignty (this is technically imprecise, but the idea is clear) for a higher common good... This can't be said for any other supra-national institution, neither for the UN, in which countries are anything but peers among them.

@Invictus. I agree with you that comparing EU and USA is a bit like comparing apples and oranges... yet the process of enlarging the EU does not work by "picking the good countries", but rather by supporting willing countries in their efforts to raise to the EU standards: for a country to join, they have to achieve sustainable quantitative and qualitative standards in the field of economy, justice, human rights, finance, welfare, etc... Theoretically, I do not see any reason for which the USA could not do the same (in practice I can see why this could not and should not happen).

I think the way the EU Constitution (or whatever name it goes by) was tried to be passed as a simple treaty was despicable. Every country should have had a referendum like Ireland. The Eurocrats in Brussels tried to pass it through the backdoor after France and the Netherlands said no and that's wrong. What happened to democracy?

I think the trend is towards smaller nation states with increasing multi-lateral cooperation and integration.

We are seeing its death. The the Internet is killing it, and I mean that.

The death of whom?

@ Invictus. I agree with the fact that the EU tried to pass the treaty in a sneaky way. This is essentially because EU main concern is economy, not people. Of the three basic freedoms (circulation of capitals, goods and people) only the latter is the one that still presents lots of problems, for example.

Additionally constitutions are traditionally developed by members of the civil society from a strong people's mandate (classic example: after a war or revolution or collapse of the previous system of governance) and not imposed by government.

Why can we not be proud of our country-planet Earth? After all, we are all Earthlings. We should form a united country to rival the aliens!

The Westphalian State.

But what will replace it? These unions certainly don't seem too democratic.

I hear there's an Asian Union in the works through the so called "Asian Cooperation Dialogue." Tell me there's any kind of truly pan-asian identity.

It's not about identity! It's about reaping the pragmatic benefits of co-operation!

If it were just about cooperation they wouldn't need to surrender sovereignty. That can be done with standard treaties. At least a portion of the people for continental unions want to create a homogenized superstate to keep power.

It's like we had this experiment with democracy for 300 years or so and now it's time to put the professionals back in charge. God, I'm starting to sound like Sicarius.

I hope there is never a North American Union. There is no common goal between Canada, USA and Mexico. what is the European Union going to do when the member states begin to piss each other off? And dont tell me it couldnt or wouldnt happen, this is europe we're talking about.

The united states is made up of people who share a common culture, law, language and so forth (at least the majority). What do the nations of europe have in common with each other that they should give up part of their sovereignty to people they have little in common with?

The way this question is posed implies that world governments and regionalism are mutually exclusive. why can't regional identities coexist with supranational governments?

The answer, i think, is because political entrepreneurs realize that they stand to gain power / remain in power if they play off this sentiment that a particular nationality/ethnicity has nothing in common with the rest of the world, and therefore should be governed separately from the rest of the world. why can't there be regional autonomy within a federal structure? not because the people don't want it, but because those in power tell the people that they don't want it. This whole idea of ethnic / national / religious (above all) is a fabricated, superficial idea created by those in power so that they can remain in power

But why should those regional structures have a real power over the people in the member nations when it is imposed undemocratically and run by an unelected bureaucracy?

Are you serious in saying all ethnic, national, and religious identities are fabrications? People are different all over. Not better or worse, necessarily, but different. We don't have a base human culture that's obscured by people in power and their greed to remain there. That's just silly.

People are physically different. People eat different food and wear different clothes and practice different traditions, no doubt. But to use that as a basis for governing (or as a reason against the presence of a supranational government) is what's really silly. A all-inclusive, base human culture isn't required for a supergovernment.

I never said that anything should be implemented or given power over others in an undemocratic fashion. the imposition of a supergovernment is a decision that should be left up to a referendum. I'm saying that these referendums fail because those in power, above all else, fear losing power, and convince their subjects that they would be worse off under a new, cross-national system, which may or may not be true. To say that different cultures can't exist within the same structure is fabricated division.

i'm not denying the differences between people...i'm just denying the relevance of it

sorry...the cultural differences between people

@ Invictus: The reasons for which normal treaties are not enough when you want to manage a union is that treaties have easy ways out. Look at the USA under the Bush Jr. administration: they had a problem with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty? They dropped it. They had a problem with Geneva conventions? They dropped them. Etc... Try to drop the EU once your currency is common, your market is common, citizens of all countries are all over the place and on top of that you would also have to pay HUGE amount of fees...

Chrispminis is right: the EU is not about common identity, it's about reaping the pragmatic benefits of co-operation: within the EU, Greece, Cyprus, Italy and Spain had much more "cultural identity" in common with Morocco, Tunisia and Lebanon than with Sweden and Denmark. Finland and the Baltic Republics much more with Russia that with France. UK much more with USA than with Portugal or Czech Republic....

Europeans are building their "cultural identity" as Europeans only recently (although of course all of the EU countries have interacted for centuries and have exchanged knowledge, foods, traditions and habits along the millennia).

As samazing said, it is not about denying the differences in ethnic and religious identity, but acknowledging that they cannot be the basis for the constitution of national states... The idea of "ethnic pureness" in a country is an aberration boosted by the nazis, and then - sadly - followed up by former Yugoslavian republics, Rwanda, Burundi and a few others. The simple fact that in order to achieve said "ethnic pureness" one has to embark in a "ethnic clearance" should be a demonstration of how this idea has nothing to do with the reality of the planet.

As for why the EU referenda failed, the reasons are many: 1) propaganda from people in power in individual states 2) people opposition for the undemocratic structure of the EU 3) fear of a country's specificities not being considered at the union level 4) difficulties in agreeing on the share of powers between 27 countries with very different populations, GDP's, solidity of institutions, etc... 5) Etc...

I personally believe that in many countries the EU "constitutional treaty" was presented to people as "ineluctable", pretty much as the nomination of Hillary Clinton was presented as "ineluctable" to the Democrats... The fact is: people is less dumb than their governments believe, so French and Dutch people sank the treaty, and Democrats nominated Barak Obama.

To Invictus' statement about an Asian league I also can't see it happening quite the same way as the EU and the AU.

I think its worth remembering that in a NAU the US would have the majority of members within the parliament/congress/whatever. Not much could really be 'forced' onto it.

Also, you should remember that all countries involved do retain the right to leave the organizations. If something is pushed forward through the EU that pushes the UK into a bad position the UK can always just pick up its stuff and leave. Joining the organizations just pushes some rules and regulations onto a country in return for access to massive economic benefits and inclusion in plans. The European agriculture industry would be almost non-existant now if it wasn't for the CAP.

Also, I think that this nullifies your point that there is no 'European' identity. Tarablus said that the EU beat the US in Olympic medal count. He even presented it in a nationalistic fashion. Doesn't this suggest that there is some pride and unity within the continental government?

The fact is that has been the only point that seems to repeatedly come up against the continental governments even after being quashed.

I think we will basically see the trends of the past reversed in the near future (the next couple of centuries). Areas that have multiple cultures united over a vast distance with a single "national government" (effectively only the United States now, since the Chinese have "Han"-ized themselves and don't really recognize their many diverse cultural traditions anymore) will see themselves fractured over the next few centuries as political ideologies and cultural forces pull their people apart. Likewise, large areas of cooperative nation states will start to form international governments or other forums or such things in an effort to strengthen themselves against the rest of the world.

Basically this boils down to countries in different regions of the world trying to create joint hegemony, though there may be some large elephants in the room (say France or Germany or China or Japan) while areas that have already grown to the greatest extent they can (like the US, though it may grow to the continental stage first) will see themselves devolve into smaller, independent governments or - at the very least - what are effectively regional governments as their people grow apart (look at just how different people are in the South, New England, and California). And yes, I do say this about American despite the linguistic forces pulling Americans who speak English closing together. While most Americans are tending toward the Standard English dialect (Midwestern English), this is not having a profound effect on their culture, although were that to change drastically this would obviously change my predictions.

I myself think that China, Japan and Russia would find it very hard to work on a continental stage. I can see India looking at a continental government though in the future. Especially considering its neutralist philosophy in the cold war. So a South Asian Union is feesible within 30-50 years especially if the EU continues to expand and the AU manages to define itself as more than the 'Africa Police'.

I think that we can't really determine the fate of supra-national governments until we see the fate of the AU though. If Africa stabilizes and we see the single currency goals move forward a world government may not be far off. Two successful examples of continental unity would be a strong argument to expand the process to South America and South-East Asia.

I wouldn't hold my breath on Africa working very well.

Just to prove how these unions are at least a little esoteric and conspiratorial by nature, do you remember any media reports on the Union of South American Nations being formed this year? That should have been a big deal, at least the story of the day if not the week.