Not long ago, I was discussing the political situation in Europe with a small group of politically progressive people from my Zen group. We were lamenting the rise of nationalism in Britain and elsewhere, and we noted that the Euro Union project seemed doomed at this point. The dream of a “United States of Europe” had passed, and Europe is now separating into what it has been for most of the years since the end of the Roman Empire, an amalgamation of geographically small nations (with the exception of Russia, of course; but then again, the question of whether Russia should be considered part of Europe has always been confounding – in some ways it is, in a lot of ways it isn’t). One member of the group, one of the most progressive of the bunch, commented that perhaps this isn’t such a bad thing – perhaps smaller nations are better than a big empire-like state.

Smaller national boundaries arguably allow for preservation of localism and cultural uniqueness, and give citizens a greater sense of belonging and political empowerment. Supposedly more and more Europeans have been complaining about cumbersome mandates and inflexible policies issued by a distant bureaucratic elite in Brussels. And it might also be argued that smaller nations can’t do as much harm to the world economically and politically, since they would be roughly equal in terms of economic and military capacity.

Of course, throughout history this has not turned out to always be true; for many years, Germany has been a “powerhouse” in Europe despite not having any special geographic advantage, and has been able to reek havoc more than once in world history. And smaller but powerful states can form  »  continue reading …