The association of the two concepts statehood and smallness contains a fundamental absurdity. Where there is smallness—literal and physical—there can be no true statehood. Some human phenomena are viable or durable only in so far as they are large. As soon as they shrink in size their existence becomes unjustifiable, and inevitably ridiculous and tragic.

The famous Russian fabler, Krilov, tells of a frog who wanted to be as big as an ox. So it inhaled air and swelled itself up and swelled and swelled until—it burst. Like every other creature on earth, this frog had a full right to existence—but only within the limits of its natural capacity. As soon as it made the mistake of thinking that it could equal the ox and become “big,” it lost its right to existence.

When I first heard of the shidduch, or marriage match, that had been arranged between Great Britain and the “state” of Transjordan, I remembered a parable from the Second Book of Kings: “The thistle that was in Lebanon sent to the cedar that was in Lebanon saying: Give thy daughter to my son to wife, and there passed by a wild beast that was in Lebanon, and trod down the thistle.”

It is quite possible that in this case it was the “cedar” that sent marriage brokers to the “thistle”; but even so, the “thistle” will not escape being trod down, sooner or later, by some “beast.” (One recalls that the Hebrew equivalent of “thistle” also means fishing-hook.)

_____________

 

This caricature, the establishment of Transjordan as a “state,” would never have seen the light of sun had it not been for an evil and contagious disease contracted by humanity in the 8th century—a disease that turned the healthy and vital desire for “national self-determination” into a morbid and fatal longing for “political self-determination,” for independent statehood. The Treaty of Versailles gave vigor to this disease and helped it infect the world. That Treaty tore small pieces from the body of Great Russia and endowed them with independent statehood, thereby accomplishing two things: it planted “castor trees [or gourds], which came up in a night, and perished in a night,” and it planted fear and suspicion in the hearts of the Russians. That Treaty also split and shattered a centuries-old creation of history, the state of Austria-Hungary, the federation of the peoples of the Danube, thereby pouring fresh oil on the Balkan fires. Last but not least, it gave abortive birth to a creature dubbed “The League of Nations.” But this was only its theoretical designation; actually, it was a league of states, trying to hitch “a swan, a lobster, and a fish” to one and the same cart.

And the great nations have continued in their mistaken course—even after a second world war—by replacing the defunct “League of Nations” with a “United Nations” organization. For again we have states, really, and not nations. Thus it perpetuates an absurdity shocking to the brain and shocking to the heart. The nation that gave the world the “Book of Books,” the nation that produced the Prophets and that, even after its latest and most horrible decimation, still numbers twelve million souls—that nation is not eligible for membership in the United Nations organization, whereas a “state” like Lebanon, numbering some three-quarters of a million souls, enjoys this privilege as of yore, because it can supply passports to its subjects. And tomorrow the same right is to be enjoyed by the “statelette” of the Transjordan.

The passport outweighs the Holy Bible. Instead of curing the disease of statehood, the United Nations have but injected more virus into the veins of its victims, and we go on “progressing.” We seem to be on the way to the “state” of Azerbaijan and to the “state” of Kurdistan. Whenever one of the Big Ones wants additional votes at the meetings of the UN, it will try to proclaim some new “states.” Nor is it impossible that in the course of time circumstances might arise in which the British would proclaim a “Jewish State” in a comer of puny Palestine while the Russians proclaim a “Jewish State” in Birobijan. It is thus not excluded, to judge from the course world events are taking, that we shall have a “Kingdom of Judea” arising on the one hand and a “Kingdom of Israel” on the other-and some Jehoash will go to “look in the face” of some Amaziah in compliance with a wink from some new Assyria. And why should not India, China, Indonesia, and Malaya, whose populations constitute half of humanity, form some fifty-one additional “states”?

There are some human phenomena whose inner significance, while still in the embryonic stage, even the most enlightened and wise are not capable of penetrating. It is only when the harm, mischief, or absurdity they entail reaches a height that eyes first begin to see what was really there from the beginning. Unless the world is cured as soon as possible of the disease of “political” self-determination, and returns to independent national determination, it will relapse into the chaos that ruled before the spirit of God moved upon the waters.

_____________

 

Two grave dangers are involved in “political” self-determination. First, there is the danger to small states themselves, which increase and multiply like mushrooms in a damp place; and then, there is the danger to the world at large.

A small state cannot support the burden of the numerous duties and obligations loaded upon it by its statehood. A state means an army—although the army of a small state is but a broken reed in actual war, and a leech that sucks the nation’s life-blood and vitality in time of peace. Haven’t we already learned enough from bitter experience? Which is preferable: that the manpower of a small nation be devoted to creative effort in field and factory, or delivered up to a life of idleness, corruption, and moral degeneration in barracks? Which is preferable: that the limited means of a small people be devoted to education, health, the creation or improvement of economic conditions, and so forth—or expended in the maintenance of an “army” of wasteful idlers and in the constant piling up of new arms sure to be obsolete tomorrow? Moreover, in a small state, the army generally turns into a hotbed of intrigue, ambition, and adventurism.

Nor is the army the only thing that voraciously devours both the physical and spiritual substance of the small state. The trough is also shared by the entire machinery of the “state,” with its “ministers” and “ambassadors” who are under the constant necessity of playing the game of falsehood, of deceitful plotting, of abominations. For the smaller the “state,” the greater must be the wiles of its “diplomacy.” Granted, big states do not avoid these evils, but they can at least endure them without breaking, whereas small states are foredoomed to crumble to pieces like broken pottery under such burdens.

Nor do small states constitute a danger to themselves alone; the whole world is troubled by them. These “small fry” which the “whales” chase and swallow provoke struggles and collisions between the “whales” themselves. The chase after small states brought ruin and desolation upon our world during the last century, and it stands to reason that the more pygmy states multiply, the more the “chase” increases and the greater the ruin that follows.

The result already confronts us in all its horror in the ruination of the younger generation upon whom the future of the world rests. Nothing laid our youth low, nothing has ruined it, as has morbid nationalism turned into chauvinism. And even chauvinism in our age is distorted into a cheap political, “state-minded” doctrine. Every boy and girl, hardly adolescent, is taught to look upon himself or herself as a “soldier” or “soldier-girl,” not as a citizen who works or creates. And they are also being taught to justify bloodshed, cheating and deceit, treason and spying, and every abomination, so long as it has a “sacred” political end. “What is the greatest evil in the world?” it was once asked. The answer was: “The evil that corrupts youth.”

_____________

 

The upholders of the small state—a medinale (a little land) even if it be but the size of a cazayith (olive)—proclaim as its advantages the liberty of action, the liberty to fling their country’s gates open to admit whomever they want, the freedom to levy taxes, erect tariff-walls, and obtain large loans for economic projects.

Liberty is quite an elastic term. There is substance and blessing in liberty—when liberty is capable of being achieved. But “liberty” that dwells only in the imagination is worse at times than slavery.

Immigrants are not drawn to a country, even when its attractions are great, by the mere opening of its gates. If behind those wide-open gates lurks the constant danger of insecurity, if that country is surrounded by enemies, as small states unsuitably are, it does not attract immigrants unceasingly and permanently. Large-scale immigration cannot thrive on momentary, passing enthusiasm.

The power of levying taxes has in it indeed a good deal of charm—but only if the tax-payers can pay the taxes levied without jeopardizing their economic condition. Nor does the mere levying of taxes and protective tariffs necessarily ensure national blessings—not even in the case of big and wealthy-countries, which possess and produce greatly of their own. Protective tariffs are like a stick, half of which protects the holder while the other half beats him on the head. And this is all the more true for small countries, which as a rule have to import an appreciable part, sometimes a very important or even the most essential part, of their indispensable necessities from abroad. Small countries tend to depend on imports from abroad more than the exporting countries concerned depend on their exports to them. And small countries generally benefit most when they integrate their tariff systems with the import and export system of a big state with large markets.

As for loans—such transactions take two parties to make. Nor does fate happen to be exclusively at the disposal of the borrower’s free will. The lender is interested, quite aside from the borrower’s wishes, in the latter’s security and solvency—two factors that are closely related. For my part, I doubt if the “independence” or sovereignty of a tiny country influences positively the weight of these factors in the lender’s mind. It strikes me that a small country whose political situation does not require it to squeeze out its very life-blood in order to maintain an army and buy arms, and over whom the danger of war does not constantly hang, might be considered a better risk by lenders—even when the lenders themselves happen to be of the same nationality as the borrowing “state,” but live outside the reach of its pressure.

_____________

 

It is my deep conviction that the political Independence of a small state constitutes no asset, only a disadvantage. It is high time that we shook ourselves loose from the sad “heritage” of the 8th century, with its erroneous notion of political self-determination, and returned to the much sounder concept of national self-determination.

The concepts of nationalism and national self-determination are sacred. Liberty and equality for every nation constitutes a sublime and exalted human precept. But no human aggregation can have liberty or equality without individual freedom and equality. Nor can humanity have freedom unless every one of its component nations enjoys it. Public or general liberty derives from individual liberty and must be founded upon it. The moment an individual begins to consider only himself, and not the general interest, tyrannical yearnings come into the world. And the moment that a nation starts to segregate itself from the general interests of its surrounding nations, chauvinism descends upon the world.

A fatal error, however, has been committed in formulating the ideas of nationalism. National liberty is made to rest upon three factors: cultural independence, economic independence, and political independence. Yet these three factors in no wise constitute a single chain that is nowhere to be broken. They are not by any means inevitably interdependent.

National liberty is unimaginable in any way or form without freedom of conscience and education, and without absolute freedom of opinion and speech. These are inalienable rights, and whoever touches them or diminishes them robs national independence of its very soul. Just as man degenerates and is stifled physically by lack of air, so does he degenerate and stifle spiritually without absolute liberty of conscience. And like individual—like nation.

Every people must have a living space of its own within the limits of which it can be its own master, arbiter of its own activities, free to examine and choose its own methods of work, its products, its commerce, and its economic policies. It must be master of its own land and of its natural resources, with free choice in their exploitation.

Political independence, however, is another matter. Political independence is not indispensable to a people’s existence and development. What is the essence of the concept of independence or self-government? That which is accomplished and preserved and furthered by a people’s own efforts. Cultural independence, too, can be realized by a people’s own efforts, regardless of the size or physical powers of that people. Economic independence, likewise, may be achieved, essentially, by the sole efforts of the nation concerned. To be sure, neither the culture nor the economy of a people can attain the peak of its development without some international cooperation, without some mutual assistance—particularly from great nations that happen to be enlightened. Even here, however, the essential independence of a small people and its own particular spiritual tendencies or economic character may remain safe and secure, preserved for its own benefit by its own efforts.

But the political independence of a small people can in no way be realized by that people’s own exclusive efforts. Such “independence” comes inevitably as a gift or favor made possible by a diplomatic “combination” or the intervention of a great, powerful nation. Where then is real independence in such cases? “Independence” as a gift of charity—what a cruel joke!

_____________

 

What a tragic and yet ridiculous sight of the “states” of central and eastern Europe made when they began to eat of the unripe and sour grapes of “political” self-determination. As “states” they were Lilliputian, yet they sped Europe toward the abyss with colossal strides. They made Europe look like a chessboard. In a day’s journey you crossed many borders, passed many customs stations, police and military frontier-posts, all with their special national insignia; your bags were examined anew at every mounting of the guards. Everything looked so ephemeral, so Lilliputian, so tragicomical. But the political passions and military ambitions all this entailed were very earnest and not at all small. The craft, intrigue, and friction, the political wiles and the chase after new loans with which to cover the interest on the old ones—all this was on a large scale indeed, not inferior to that of the big powers.

And in any case, the splitting up of territories into “states” by the Versailles Treaty fell far short of satisfying the universal passion for political self-determination. Czechoslovakia alone had two separatist movements. The Slovaks insisted on a “state” of their own, and so did the Sudeten Germans. Poland had three separatist movements; Bulgaria, three; and Yugoslavia—six! And in one part of the former Ottoman Empire five new “states” were created.

_____________

 

I have never visited Latin America, although I have read a good deal about it. And I saw the United States only during a brief tour. Nevertheless, permit me to compare the internal situation and general standing and value of the twenty “states” of South America with those of the one large state in North America. Just look at what those twenty have contributed to culture, economics, and statesmanship, and then look at what that one has contributed. Now don’t tell me that there exist greater national differences between the twenty sovereign “states” of South America than between the states in North America that were merged into a single sovereign unit. It seems to me that the difference between New England and California is greater than that between Uruguay and Paraguay. And don’t tell me that the population of North America was, generally speaking, more enlightened in Lincoln’s time than that of South America is now. North America, with the exception of a thin cultivated layer, was made up of an equally motley crowd. Lincoln merged two worlds together—the one free, or aspiring to freedom; the other slave, or cherishing slavery—and the two slowly and gradually grew into a single great, free state. And don’t tell me that the natural resources of North America were crucial in the matter. Those of South America are also plentiful.

The one respect in which the two Americas have always been different is that North America has aspired to union, while South America has sought atomization and segregation. This is the main reason why North America has become a great bulwark of democracy, a guiding star for seekers of freedom, while South America has become in part a theater for dictatorships and fascist manifestations, and a stamping ground for political adventures.

In many parts of South America, jungle areas are still to be found where no human feet have penetrated to this day, areas over which only beasts hold sway. And one also finds not a little of the jungle in the cultural and economic life and civil order of the settled parts of South America. The twenty “states” of South America guard their political “liberty” jealously. They maintain “armies” for this purpose that devour the fruits of the toil of farmers and laborers, and exist as hotbeds of abomination and all kinds of internal and external intrigue. These “states” are all extremely jealous of the “prestige” of their diplomatic representatives—and yet for all that, a good many of their diplomats function as no more than the “bond-maids” of rich foreign trusts.

How miserable and pitiful a spectacle is furnished by those small “states” of Central and South America that number only between half a million and three million souls. Would it not have been better for them and for the whole world if all of them had merged within a single Union?

_____________

 

Even now the ghosts raised from the tomb by the Versailles Treaty continue to walk the earth, puppet states wrapped in shrouds of “political” self-determination—even now, after the end of World War II, after a disaster that overwhelmed the world principally because of the tragic partition of Europe into innumerable states.

But what is even worse is that human eyes remain blind to facts that cry to heaven: had Hitler encountered not a united British commonwealth of nations, but an aggregation of atomized small “states”; had he found, not a great and united Russia, but one split into many “sovereign” nations; had he found, not a United States of North America, but forty-eight states with so many separate military establishments—then the world would indeed have sunk into the abasement and defilement of slavery for a thousand years to come, just as Hitler had prophesied. But eyes are too blinded to see and minds too dull to comprehend, and men continue to clamor for new “states” every morning!

Had the small peoples understood, could they have learned from history and the past, they would have guarded their national liberty—that is, their cultural and economic independence—like the apples of their eyes; but they would have had to relinquish morbid desires for political sovereignty along with the desire for “regal crowns.”

Small peoples must unite and merge politically into federations that will be able to hold their own against big states. Nor should such federations be dominated by any one of the members, but by the union of all. Small peoples may combine on political or racial lines, or on the basis of geographical location, or according to the aims of their respective economies—that is, their community of interest in sources of irrigation or in waterways, etc., etc., or in new materials or common markets. And every one of these small peoples should jealously preserve, within its own borders, its own language, tradition, and culture, and its own specific economic methods in accordance with its own character and that of its country.

And, for the purpose of political security, every such federation of small peoples should also maintain strong bonds with one of the Big Three—again, according to racial relationships or geographic proximity, or common interest in world routes, or—equally important—according to psychological affinities or inclinations. It is only thus that peace can be established and safety maintained for a long time, or, perhaps—who knows?—forever.

From the days of Alexander the Great down to Napoleon and again down to worthless and abominable Hitler, conquerors have striven to unite the world by the sword—and in the end they have always met with utter failure. For the sword always destroys; it can never build. The world shall be united by the force of the spirit and not by the power of the sword. “Not by might, nor by power but by my spirit” said the Most High, and his word stands forever.

+ A A -
You may also like
Share via
Copy link