Background: In this age of globalization all people of the world tend to share common opportunities and challenges. But, why do numerous groups, particularly those in the developing countries, including Ethiopia, resort to tribal and ethnic isolation? Do tribalism and ethnicism offer real solution to problems human beings are faced with such as hunger, illiteracy, ill-health, poverty, epidemics, ecological disasters, nuclear war, technological challenges, etc.
These problems are so immense to be handled by a narrow circle of tribal, ethnic or social groups. Why do people resort to their narrow groups to solve the impossible? The simple answer is lack of global outlook in the developing countries. Y.N. Harari, in his famous book “21 Lessons for the 21st Century,” wrote that “humans easily develop loyalty to small intimate groups such as a tribe or family; but, it is hardly natural for humans to be loyal to millions of utter strangers. Such mass loyalties have appeared only in the last few thousand years,” and these require huge efforts in social construction. People have taken the trouble of constructing social groups to confront challenges that could not be solved by any single tribe or ethnic group.
To demonstrate this, Hariri referred to people living along the Nile River. These people depended on the Nile for their survival. Too little rain meant starvation or death; too much rain led to over-flooding and destruction of entire villages. “No tribe could solve this problem by itself,” because it could not mobilize enough people and resource to face the challenge. “Only a common effort,” to build dams and canals could help restrain and harness the river.
This was a cause for tribes and ethnic groups to gradually come together and form a nation that had the power to regulate the flow of the mighty river, build grain stores, and develop a system of countrywide transportation and communication, which tribes and ethnic groups could not achieve by themselves. Despite the advantages of common effort, Hariri observed, transforming clans, tribes and ethnic groups into nations was the Task of Tantalus, a difficult undertaking.
Though difficult, there is no alternative to nation building to face huge natural and human challenges. However, a nation cannot function without mass loyalties. Believing that one’s nation is unique, that it deserves ones allegiance, and that one has special obligations towards its members, inspires one to make sacrifice for his/her nation. “Without nationalism people would be living in tribal/ ethnic chaos: incessant, relentless and persistent tribal and ethnic conflicts.”
Hariri stressed. According to him, liberal, peaceful and prosperous countries all enjoy a strong sense of conflict-free nationalism. Countries that lack strong national bond are known as “failed states.” Hariri believes that the problem arises when “benign patriotism morphs into chauvinistic ultra nationalism.” When one believes that his nation is supreme that he owes it his loyalty, and that he has no obligation to others, then one creates a fertile ground for conflicts. The basic criticism of nationalism was that it led to Nazism and Fascism.
The lesson to learn from Nazism and Fascism is to avoid ultra-nationalism that causes human destruction. Positive nationalism that enhances political empowerment, living standards, and social capital of citizens is the goal towards which people aspire. “As long as the nation provided most of its citizens with unprecedented levels of security and prosperity, they were willing to pay the price in blood.”
Modern national states built systems of healthcare, education, and welfare for their people. Just as the Nile Basin redirected the loyalty of the ancient villagers from the local clans to a much bigger nation that was able to restrain the river, so in the nuclear age a global community gradually developed a mechanism to restrain the nuclear evil. Globalization seems to be the irresistible wave of change.
It was believed that people would leave nationalistic politics behind as a remnant or a statue of primitive times that might appeal to people of the underdeveloped countries. However, recent events proved that nationalism still has a powerful grasp even on the citizens of advanced counties of Europe, America and Asia. Disaffected by the forces of globalism, people all over the world seek guarantee and meaning in their nation. Would leaders save the world by fanning nationalist sentiments against intractable global problems?
Global Challenges: Three major global challenges are identified and these are nuclear, ecological and technological challenges. A national front may not solve these immense problems alone. Why? First, Nuclear Challenge: A global regime could prevent nuclear war and safeguard peace. But, abandoning this regime and revert to nationalist power politics would be an irresponsible gamble. Since WW II, nuclear weapons have changed the fundamental of war and politics. Yet, without a system of international cooperation, each individual country cannot protect itself from nuclear destruction. Second, Ecological Challenge: Human kind faces the threat of ecological collapse. Humans are destabilizing global environment by taking more resources out of it and pumping back into it poison and waste.
This changes the composition of soil, water and the atmosphere. Habitats are degraded, animals and plants are becoming extinct and ecosystems destroyed. The threat of climate change is obvious. These would lead to the challenge of human civilization. “Unlike nuclear war, climate change is a present reality,” says Hariri.
This global challenge required global solution. A nationstate, or a tribe/ethnic or social group does not and cannot provide a solution to ecological problem. These groups are part of the problem as contributors of their share in the form of deforestation, water depletion, soil erosion, and air pollution through burning oil, gas and coal, fuel wood. One would enquire if there is a nationalist solution to this ecological problem? Could tribes, ethnic groups, or social groups contribute to the solution of such problems to which they had continuously contributed? Let us observe simple economic activities that immensely contribute to environmental destruction. Take, for example, meat production. What is the role of the meat industry in pollution? Does meat production pollute at all? The meat industry inflicts untold miseries and it is one of the causes of global warming, and one of the users of antibiotics and poisons; it is one of the polluters of air, water and land. According to a study identified by Hariri, it takes “four thousand gallons of fresh water to produce about two pounds of beef compared to the seventy five gallons needed to produce the same weight of potatoes.”
With rising prosperity of countries, millions of people could switch from consuming potatoes to consuming meat thereby adding to environmental degradation. Can tribes, ethnic groups or nations solve such pollution caused by meat production, particularly in Ethiopia, where people consume raw meat as a matter of culture. This solution to meat-pollution calls for the cooperation of neighboring countries and international organizations as well.
We can easily identify other industries that could pollute air, water and land as countries prosper. Industrially produced clean meat is expected to be cheaper than slaughtered meat. This could save billions of cattle and it could feed billions of malnourished people and at the same time prevent ecological disaster. Can we really say thanks to technology? Governments can contribute a lot to avoid climate change. But, doing it alone is not as effective as it could be done at global level.
When it comes to climate change, countries cannot do it alone, but they depend on what other people do in other parts of the world. It is, therefore, strongly believed that nationalist isolation as related to climate change is probably more dangerous than nuclear war. Nations, leave alone clans, tribes and ethnic groups, cannot reverse ecological collapse without global coordination and support. Replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy is likely to appeal to some countries than to others. Oil exporting countries may lose revenues as renewable energy is widely used, while oil importers would enjoy alternative energy sources.
The economies of the oil exporters will collapse if oil and gas are replaced with solar and wind. As a result, oil importing countries are eager to push for reducing global carbon emissions, while oil exporting countries might be reluctant. Other countries might not appreciate the danger and are slow to switch to renewable energy.
The problem is global warming, unlike atomic bomb, is vague and, therefore, it does not seem an obvious and an immediate threat. Whenever long-term environmental factors demand painful sacrifice, nationalist politicians put their national interest first and leave the issue to the rest of the world. Nationalists tend to deny even the existence of environmental problem.
Since there is no national answer to the problem of global warming, nationalist leaders prefer to deny the existence of the problem. Another reason for such denial is shunning the burden of cost sharing for environmental protection. Third, Technological Challenge: Hariri points out that the merger of information technology and biotechnology leads to technological disruptions: end of the world scenarios, ranging from digital dictatorships to global useless class. Just as there is no “nationalist” answer to climate change, there is not national solution to technological disruptions.
As research and development is not the domain of one country, a nation cannot restrict these disruptions by itself. Yet, if a single country prefers a high-risk technology, other countries would be forced to do the same because “no one can afford to remain behind.”
To avoid such a dangerous race, mankind might need some kind of “global identity and loyalty.” Since the challenges of nuclear war and climate change intimidate the physical “survival” of humankind, disruptive technology might change the “nature” of humanity.
The latter involves the ethical and religious beliefs of mankind. While people agree on the prevention of nuclear war and ecological collapse, they have differences of opinion regarding technological challenge: using bioengineering and artificial intelligence (AI) to upgrade humans and create new life-forms. “Science is ushering in the era of inorganic life shaped by intelligent design,” which is beyond the control of any nationalist government, including superpowers. In the process mankind may disappear.
The development of AI might result in the domination of the world by “super-intelligent but completely nonconscious entities.” This is beyond the nationalist’s viewpoint of the world. Even nationalists uper-powers could not reverse this scientific reality.
III. Lessons to Learn: We in the third world, particularly in Africa, fail to appreciate the advancement of technology that threatens our existence. Artificial Intelligence would very soon replace human labor, making it virtually irrelevant in the 21st century. We now see that electronic cars are being tested in the West that would make human drivers irrelevant. Even medical doctors would be replaced with AI that treats humans for any disease, illness, weakness, infirmity, disorder, infection, disability, etc. Beware that the AI is watching your behavior too. In such a world of technology, we the people of the developing countries, unconscious of the scientific developments taking place around us, are still one or two centuries back, “forgetful of the world by whom we are forgotten.”
Let us wake up from the long slumber and race forward to join the scientific world, where there are no shamans, or fortunetellers, witch-doctors, sorcerers, magicians, who call for human blood after slaughter. Why do Ethiopians, with their right mind, kill a person and then hang him up-side-down? Are we living in the 21st century? What would Hariri, the Author of “21 Lessons for the 21st Century,” propose for the Ethiopian people? Sorry to say it, but I don’t think we Ethiopians technically live in the 21st century.
With our beastly behavior, we are at least one century behind the rest of the world, particularly the technologically advanced countries. We have to jumpstart, beginning with what we had: the ancient Ethiopian Civilization. We have to rediscover ourselves, study why our civilization was discontinued or derailed or arrested. Was there a clash of civilization to which Ethiopia succumbed or lost?
The creeping Western civilization, equipped with modern technology might have eroded the civilization which we claimed to have defendedas an independent nationfor at least the last three thousand years. Had we offended the Western countries, or the powers to be that incurred tragic fatalities on our civilization? I believe that the powers that controlled the world at different epochs/centuries, must have targeted this nation of great civilization to come to its end, dividing its people by tribes, ethnic groups or social groups. This is a very tragic stance because a nation cannot divide itself without external push.
This is a reminder to the great Ethiopians to rediscover themselves and realize their immense potentials. It is not difficult to recreate the Great Ethiopia again. What we strongly need is avoidance of “foreign influence,” at any cost. Of course, foreign influences require fertile ground, stooges and local agents, within the country. Such agents have no country but their private interests, conducted in the name of the people. Ethiopian history is replete with stories of such agents known deserters or traitors. With such caution, it is not impossible to make Ethiopia Great Again, but this requires a guarantee of democracy, equality, and fraternity as well as a rediscovery of a nation that comprises of its clans, tribes, ethnic groups with their rightful identity with the nation. We say, in this age of globalization, “United we stand,” but, divided we fall to the benefit of local traitors and their external godfathers.
Herald January 13/2019
BY GETACHEW MINAS (Economist)
