‽istis
reclaims the state of nations, or reclaims nations in a state (weekending February
1st 2020)
‽istis trod more carefully than a fearful angel among the minefields of relations between nations…
‽
perhaps a plan that does not embrace a principle of ‘nothing about us without
us’[i] let alone the reaffirmed resolution that
self-determination is a right[ii],
inevitably might have limited success and unintended consequences;
‽
possibly all 193 state heads, governments and subject people might do well to
think again about what powers an international body needs to practically 'take
action on the issues confronting humanity in the twenty-first century’[iii]
when ‘this nation insert as appropriate first’ policies prevail;
‽ maybe
if we remember that words like ‘nation’, ‘state’, ‘nation-state’,
‘confederation’, ‘multi-national state’, ‘union state’, ‘countries within a
country’ seem to be contested terms; are tested (sometimes to breaking point) by
other words such as irredentism, revanchism and by actions taken ‘not in all
our names’; and are perhaps constructs that require continuing consensus - then how
different the discourse might be.
And ‽istis wondered what on earth the state of things would possibly, perhaps, may be like if the vision formed in 1945 (in the wake of a world at war, the most appalling crimes of genocide, so that ‘never again’ may mean exactly that[iv]) of how nations could speak to nations, or how issues causing peace, prosperity and friendship to fail could sometimes be resolved - fades altogether*.
© Pistis
(*and how any disagreement about the use of an ‘ordinary’, ‘Oxford’ and, even ‘Cambridge’ comma could be concluded!)
