Young Diplomats

A single world government is the notion of a common political authority for all, it is a political entity that is supposed to develop, interpret and apply international law. However, no country has yet submitted a formal plan to create the global government, although some see international institutions and bodies such as the International Criminal Court, United Nations, African Union, European Union, Arab League and the World Bank as the seeds or beginnings of a single global government system. However, in today’s world; there is no global institution that extends its absolute influence over the rest of the world, whether as a military, executive, legislative, judicial, financial or constitutional power or an independent global institution to monitor war and corruption. The world is now divided geographically and demographically into independent political structures called “nations” or “states”.

Even though there are a great number of bodies, institutions, unions, alliances, treaties and contracts between these authorities, but unfortunately  nothing ensures that the parties abide by any of these treaties except the consensus and mutual acceptance of the parties to implement them. And thus, the use of violence between States is not taboo and will only be prevented by fear of retaliation, and if this is not possible, any State can use violence against another State.

The emergence of a “new world order”

It is obvious that an imperial era is on the wane – a new world is dawning, and the United States is no longer a single global power. The emergence of global economic forces capable of spearheading American leadership is on the rise, especially China and Russia. Strong regional economy that has established itself as a partner in leading the new world order, such as the major economic tigers of Southeast Asia, as well as countries such as India, Brazil and South Africa, which have established with China and Russia the giant beast economic bloc, such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which is a Eurasian political, economic, and security alliance, which is also imposed itself strongly on the global decision.

Through this inter-groups dynamic world; it seems to be obvious that the result was the early disintegration of the American era and strong global tendency to establish a global order that transcended the current “state of polarization.” Therefore, I think the creation of such global government may be necessary, because our planet is threatened by great dangers such as global warming, terrorism, nuclear weapons and biological wars, and other great dangers such as the aggressive nature of humans that affect in one way or another the evolution on the planet’s surface.

To avoid such dangers and to make it more realistic, all young policymakers need to understand that all nations should surrender their armies, their arms, to a single World Government. Certainly if there is only one government, neither armies are needed nor arms – with whom are we going to fight or have a war?

Let’s just have a look at the European Union for example – a “global government” has to engage more than just cooperation between nations. The EU had already established a continental government for 27 countries, which could serve as an example. The EU has a supreme court, a single currency, thousands of pages of laws, a huge civilian service apparatus and the ability to deploy military force. So, can’t the European model be applied universally? There is no doubt that the international political reality proves that there are too many commonalities among societies in general, which stimulates the emergence of a single planetary civilization. The global government is not a globalized formula, that is, not a political application of current globalization that is seeking interaction and integration among people, companies, and governments worldwide

Young leaders and the power of change

Although the existence of a single world government may seem a very futuristic idea, however, it dates back thousands of years, adopted by ancient Egyptians, Chinese and Greeks, so the best opportunities for the establishment of a global government now are the UN, EU, AL and AU, but all of these organizations have opponents and serious issues, Britain’s exit from the EU is highly resented by “a bureaucratic union that does not achieve equality”. Therefore, young leaders of this planet should find an alternative way to establish the Global Government, as long as an alternative does not have to be a close substitute for the first choice.

It seems to be obvious that the concept of a one global government was tried by the League of Nations before the Second World War; however, it could not work. It simply remained a debating club by the time. The Second World War destroyed the very credibility of the League of Nations. But we should bear in mind that the necessity was still there; therefore they had to create the United Nations. But the U.N. is as much a failure as the League of Nations was. Again, it is still a debating club in our modern world – because it has no power to bring justice. It cannot implement anything; it is just a formal discussion club.

To make it a success, young leaders today are the true forces of change as long as there are countless young leaders are making enormous contributions in tackling the world’s most complex challenges. They have a lot of energy, motivation, and innovative ideas about how the future and present of this planet should look. We need to bring those young people together from all over the world, and pave the way for them to work strategically to develop policies which shape governments, leaders and the world. A global government is unfeasible; no matter how desirable it is, as long as the right to self-determination exists.

Reasons to believe that one world government is possible

If we look at our world today; global governance is increasingly being pursued not by erecting multinational institutions empowered to govern issue areas directly, but by transforming states’ internal governance to enact international disciplines domestically. So, the idea of global governance thus occurs not just at the global level, but at the domestic level too. And as an outcome of globalization; young policymakers and scholars should discuss not just the theoretical question of whether a single global government is a solution to humanity’s problems, but the practical question.

In my own view, there are four reasons to believe that the idea of one world government is possible. First, it is increasingly clear that most difficult issues facing local governments are international in nature: global warming, global financial crisis and “global war on terror”. Second, such single world government can be formed easily, as long as transportation and communications revolutions have shrunk the world. The third reason – with the rise of nationalist sentiments in the west; a change in the political climate suggests that a “global governance” should be achieved faster in order to save this world. The fourth reason is that the financial crisis and climate change are driving local governments towards global solutions, even in countries like China and the United States, the two pillars of national sovereignty.

In global context, the world’s most pressing geopolitical problems may be international in nature, but the political identity of average citizen remains very local. Until one side resolves this problem, that plan to form a global government can remain locked in the United Nations coffin. However, if Thomas Hobbes prescribed powerful government as the only means of avoiding a perpetual state of civil war; so I am just wondering why we can’t apply this to the international realm as well, especially since nuclear weapons have risen the stakes of conflict.

Of course, there are a lot of reasons for young leaders to be optimistic even if full world government is never realized; a rights-based approach to integration gives us reason to be optimistic. If the ultimate purpose of governing institutions is to promote rights protections, and higher-level institutions can be made to serve this purpose through political and social struggle, then the more world government that emerges, the better.

By Idriss Zackaria

Idriss is a prominent member of YoungDiplomats. He occupies a seat in the committee and is the Director of YoungDiplomats Africa. Here’s another article from him http://www.young-diplomats.com/interview-on-sport-and-diplomacy-in-africa/.

Both India and Pakistan have put efforts to manage crisis through Confidence Building Measures (CBMs) over the last seven decades. However, from the contemporary events and soared relations between the two vividly delineate that these two arch rivals have a long way to go. From ceasefire agreements to joint statements and from pacts to composite dialogue, both countries have maturely tried to mitigate the risk of getting into direct confrontation especially after becoming nuclear powers. The relations, however, between the two still remain sour. India openly claims to isolate Pakistan in the international arena and accuses Pakistan of cross-border terrorism. However, India itself is involved in cross-border terrorism inside Pakistan and capture of an Indian Naval commander Kulbashan Jadav from Balochistan – Pakistan is a case in point.

India claims that Kashmir is its integral part and Pakistan is behind the domestically grown resistance within Indian occupied Kashmir. Arundhati Roy in her recent interview said, “Kashmir is not an integral part of India. It has never been an integral part of India. Even the government of India has accepted that in the United Nations.” She is most probably referring to the UN resolution in 1948 which declared that the future of Kashmir would be decided by the people of Kashmir through free and fair plebiscite (The Telegraph, 2001). The plebiscite has not taken place in last seven decades.

Since its inception, Pakistan also claims Kashmir based on its Muslim majority population. Moreover, Tim Marshall (2016) in his book,’ Prisoners of Geography’ writes that in case, Kashmir becomes part of Pakistan, it would deny India opportunities and strengthen foreign policy options for Pakistan. Pakistan’s water insecurity issues would also be resolved. Originating from Himalayan Tibet, Indus River passes through Indian-controlled Jammu and Kashmir before entering Pakistan from where it runs the length of the country and empties in the Arabian Sea in Karachi.

In recent times, Pakistan has maturely shown restraint to India’s aggressiveness and deescalated the situation especially after the Pulwama Attack in February, 2019. India accused Pakistan of infiltration of extremists even though the attacker was Adil Ahmad Dar a local from Pulwama district of Indian occupied Kashmir. Indian Air Force crossed Line of Control and dropped bombs inside Pakistan’s territory in Balakot on February 26th. Initially, India claimed that the attack was

on a training camp of Jaish-Mohammad and three hundred terrorists were killed in the attack. Pakistan claimed to respond promptly and chased back the IAF jets which in a hurry dropped payloads on trees in which no human life was lost. Pakistan’s claim has also been validated by Indian External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj who recently said, “No Pakistani soldier, civilian killed in Balakot Air Strike,” (Reported by The Hindu & Dawn News, 2019). Moreover, on the following day, Pakistan shot Indian MiG-21 and captured Indian Air Force pilot Abhinandan Varthaman who was returned to India as a goodwill gesture for peace by Pakistan. India also claimed to have shot down F-16 but after the US count of Pakistan’s F-16s, none was found missing which spilt water over India’s claim of downing Pakistan’s F-16.

This shows Pakistan’s inclination for peace and establishment of Confidence Building measures. Pakistan also took steps to establish CBMs with India last year. In November 2018, the foundation stone of the Kartarpur corridor was laid. Even after these peaceful gestures, the normalization of ties remains a distant dream. However, some analysists and South Asian experts believe that we must wait for the results of current general elections taking place in India.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s warmongering against Pakistan is a hatred card to win the ongoing elections in India. However, Pakistan’s Prime Minister Imran Khan recently said in an interview, “Perhaps of the BJP – a right-wing party – wins, some kind of settlement in Kashmir could be reached,” (Mahmood, 2019). Therefore, the events in coming few months would be interesting to observe as they would unfold many political arenas for India and Pakistan on confidence building measures as well as on diplomatic grounds.

The creation of regional organization intersects with the understanding of the states that since they are geographically closer to each other, thereby they have shared problems and due to this similarity of context the problems can be better dealt together by forming an organization and a proper framework rather than working alone by themselves. In addition several factors such as internal or external threats and domestic politics also forced the adjoining countries to form regional organizations.

The purpose of regional organizations from the onset of Cold War until present times stems from the need of the states to create setups that would favor them according to the given context. The formation of regional organizations. In the cold war security was the ultimate objective and organizations were formed taking in view of this aspect .In the present time organizations are formed taking into considerations many different issues ranging from environmental to economic issues. Economic interdependence has been one of the major driving force to form regional organizations due to the tremendous advantages it brings along with it.

After the World War 2, the world gradually realized the importance of regionalism and efforts were made for the integration of the states in the respective regions first in the 1960s and then late in 1980s. Europe developed a number of regional organizations, one after the other such as NATO, Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe and European Union.

After the Cold War the whole dimension of regional organizations have changed for instance NATO (a highly organized security organization), which was formed with the purpose to counter the Soviet Union didn’t collapse after the disintegration of the U.S.S.R but rather it expanded with new objectives. Moreover collective security was also given huge emphasis considering an attack on one as an attack on all. Hence it greatly increased the cost of attacking any member state and to a great extent it has been successful.

Other European organizations such as Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe have also been playing their part in conflict resolution and conflict prevention by stating principles which should govern interstate relations.

The success of any organization doesn’t depend upon whether it has a proper framework or how many members it has rather it depends upon whether it has been successful in achieving those objective for which it was formed. Taking this into consideration the European Union is an excellent example of the benefits and the positive impacts of the regional organization. Initially European Union started off with only 6 members and later expanded to 27 members and  integration in one area expanded into other area and thereby the spillover effect proved very advantageous and it was due to this spillover effect that led to the success of the organization.

After analyzing the regional organizations of Americas, Asia and Africa, I hold the view that regional organizations are a very rational way to secure national objectives along with security assurance. The level of integration also has huge impact on the results of the organizations. The more integrated the framework and working of the organization is, the more positive impacts it will produce leading to more stability for that  region.

In addition the willingness of the states to work together and collaborate on the issues has its own impact. Moreover it is necessary for all the states to keep the organization integrated to such a level that whenever there is a need to punish or take action against any state then the aggressor should not get an easy hand and rather should be dealt in an appropriate manner.

It can be concluded that strong level of integration in areas of security, economy, politics and legal proceedings is essential for the success of any regional organization. In addition the successful regional organizations are very effective in order to achieve peace and stability

India presented US$ 60.9 billion for the interim Union Budget 2019-20, $42.7 billion is earmarked for what is conventionally termed as the defense budget. However, India is facing real challenges in other sectors as compare to security. Illiteracy, for instance, the percentage of illiteracy in India is alarming. Every five persons among ten in India are illiterate. The condition in villages is worse than in cities. Secondly, the most widely spread endemic in India is corruption, which must be handled quickly and wisely. Thirdly, there are about 700 million people who have no access to toilets at home. Slum areas do not have toilets. People are thus forced to defecate in open, which causes numerous diseases like diarrhea, cholera, dehydration etc. Additionally, a third of the world’s poor live in India, and 37% of the total population in India lives below the international poverty line; 42% of children who are under the age of five years, are underweight.

India has been sponsoring terrorism, for decades, in Afghanistan and Pakistan, in order to, destabilize Pakistan.  Pakistan’s intelligence agency gathered solid intelligence of India’s Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) and Afghanistan’s National Directorate of Security (NDS) nexus. India’s Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) and Afghanistan’s National Directorate of Security (NDS) are patronizing terrorists groups to attack soft targets in Pakistan.

Apparently, these acts of terrorism in Pakistan have link with Indian plan to destabilize Pakistan through internal turmoil, along with diplomatic isolation of Pakistan, internationally. However, the deep down look into the matter reveals some astonishing facts which are linked directly to India, the United States of America and Israel alliance. Firstly, India along with other major regional powers, has been trying to carve a niche for herself in the future of Afghanistan. The presence of American troops in Afghanistan will help India play a vital role in the regional politics. Withdrawal of American troops will also restrict the role of Indian agencies in Afghanistan and Baluchistan; Pakistan and China role will be enhanced. On the other hand, Pakistan seeks peaceful resolution of Afghanistan, which would ultimately, Afghan led- Afghan owned. Secondly, Americans see China, Iran and Pakistan as a future threat to her hegemony in the region; American sees India as potential contender to challenge new powers in the region. Thirdly, Israel seeks role beyond Middle East and wishes to engage other powers in South Asia in order to pursue their interest in the region. Israel- Iran animosity is no more a secret to world, Iranian support for Taliban peace talk raised concerns in Tel Aviv; turmoil in the region is in the best interest of the Israel. On contrary, the peaceful resolution of the Afghanistan is in the best interest of the Pakistan, China and Iran while it is opposite for the America, India and Israel. America and India are never a part of China’s vision of one belt one road; both are seeking ways to disturb and delay the investment of China in the region.

India and Pakistan remained involved in wars over seventy years and the looming threats of nuclear war between two neighbours can never be discarded at any time. It is clear to all that, both countries have nuclear capabilities and both countries are among the top countries which are spending high budgeted amount on defense on account of deterrence policy. Instead of resolving conflicts through peaceful dialogue both countries heavily spending on weapons and other war related equipment. Recently, tensions between two countries, after Pulwama attack, went to high level, and both countries violated airspace of each other countries in order to prove supremacy of air force over each other. The point to be noted here; super powers instead of resolving the conflicts between two countries; remained busy in selling weapons to these countries.  Many intellectuals are posing questions to the stakeholders; is war only solution to the conflict? Media of India remained busy in war mongering and media promoted and marketed the narratives of the weapons industry. The poor of both countries want to ask question to both countries what they have done for them to extricate poor from the poverty; they are spending on weapons and remained fully involved in cold war doctrine to destabilize each other. It is time for all and sundry to put question to politicians; they are disguising nation and spending national resources in heinous activities in the name of national interest.

The most disappointing thing in this matter refers to the priorities of both countries; firstly India is involved in the hegemonic plans to subdue rest of South Asia to dictate the governments. The smaller countries of the region are happy to take dictation from India while only challenge that, India is facing, is the resistance from Pakistan. Pakistan is nuclear country and maintains certain level of deterrence in order to keep her sovereignty. Moreover, Pakistan is a Muslim country and Muslims never happy to surrender in front of any power which is not Muslim. Instead of working for the improvement of the people who living in misery, India is actively involved in subduing the Pakistan. Secondly, the Kashmir issue has very much intensity to take both countries into war. Pakistan supports the Kashmiris on human right basis and on the grounds of right to self-determination according to the resolutions of the UNSC. However, India is pursing the policy of violence against the fighters and the situation in the Kashmir is very volatile. India, instead of resolving the issue of Kashmir, peacefully; trying to create insurgency in Baluchistan through intelligence agencies; wishes to divert the attention of world toward the Indian made Baluchistan issue. Now, there is serious question about conflict resolution, is India wants to resolve issues peacefully through negotiation or remain in aloof situation and continue to create violent situation in different parts of the region. The main point to remember here; no country can remain in stable condition and continue to grow economically while having instability and insurgency in the neighboring country. Pakistan is the best example which can be extracted in the recent situation from geopolitics. The dream of India to become 2nd economic power by 2030, will remain a dream if there will be no peace in Afghanistan, Kashmir and Baluchistan. The misery of the poor people will continue to prolong if some serious efforts could not be diverted toward the welfare of the masses.

To conclude the above mention facts, both countries are wasting the prestigious resources for an unappreciated activity which would ultimately end up squeezing the resources of the both nations. Pakistan is the worst affected nation between the two in their undeclared cold war. India got nukes from Russia in order only to threaten its neighbors, especially Pakistan that in turn forced Pakistan also to have the nuclear facility at a very high cost, affecting normal life of Pakistan as scarce resources were diverted from social sectors to create a nuclear regime to take on India, to defend itself from any mischievous attacks. What would be the end result of this cold war? A war or a peaceful resolution of the conflicts?

Idriss Zackaria, the Director of YoungDiplomats Africa has been interviewed on the topic of sport and diplomacy. Idriss is one of the founder and prominent members of YoungDiplomats !

1- Do young Africans play sports?

Without doubt; football (soccer) is the most popular sport in the African continent. Indeed, football is the most popular sport in every single African country, football has historically been particularly popular amongst persons of African descent, it was introduced into Africa more than 100 years ago. Football is accessible in Africa because it can be played almost anywhere and by anyone in Africa, and by almost any healthy young person.

2- Do you think that sport can help in violent conflicts such as the one in CAR?

Perhaps there are no enough studies to explain that sport can play a huge role in peace building, however, from our experiences on the ground; I absolutely believe that sport and music both have the power to support important work in the field of conflict resolution and peace building in Central African Republic or anywhere around the globe. Sport has proven itself to be a useful tool in supporting conflict resolvers and peace builders. Because the task of building on past and current successes in the field is something that politicians, academics and practitioners in CAR are supposed to work on.

3- Do you have historical examples to show that sport can lead to peace?

Yes my friend! Sports have long been idealized as a way to heal wounds around the globe and rise above differences among cultures and nations. If we look back to the Olympics games for example and the World Cup games; perhaps we should ask: are we fools to think that sports can not only transcend politics but pave a path to peace?

Our real problem in Africa is that; nobody knows how to sell the sports-as-diplomacy like the Olympics do around the globe – which aims “to build a peaceful and better world. We should symbolize the coming together of the five continents.

World leaders have used sports as a means by which to make conciliatory international gestures. The Chinese government famously invited American ping-pong players to exhibition matches in China, Turkish and Armenians, Japanese, Chinese and let’s not forgets the Koreans. Also, let’s not forget Soccer’s World Cup, too, is often viewed as an event so transcendent of politics and prejudice. Sport seems to have worked for Côte d’Ivoire too, where the African star Didier Drogba spoke publicly before, during, and after the 2006 World Cup about the tournament’s ability to turn his country’s attention away from civil war – I think his message helped a lot and touched many hearts in the African continent.

4- As an expert on sport and politics what kind of sport events should be organized to ensure peace?

There is no something special about this; it depends on the geographic locations. Football (soccer) is probably the most popular sport in every African and European country, although rugby, basketball, tennis and cricket are also very popular in South Africa and many locations around the globe. However, I simply believe that we need to give additional opportunity for children to participate in an organized sports program.

5- If leaders on sport and politics from the entire world could hear you: what do you want to tell them?

The importance of sports has not been sufficiently appreciated by some international organizations in Africa and African governments for it to be integrated into their development plans. There is no doubt that sports could play a critical role in attaining peace, development and stability. Even though Sports stands for good governance, respect for the rule and a healthy lifestyle, but when we usually organize a sport program in Africa; we rarely get sponsorships or any kinds of supports.

It is ironic that the Africa continent has emerging economic powers that are able to perform very well on an international sporting stage but is lacking organizations and businesses to manufacture or produce sports equipment, modern football schools and sports construction materials. If sports are really going to save the world, let’s invest in sports that can make everybody love each other – that basketball and soccer can bring peace and conciliation to this world; that sports’ power to heal is stronger than hatred’s power to destroy.

Together; let’s please do more!

Russian President Vladimir Putin said that North Korean leader Kim Jong Un wants to denuclearize but needs “security guarantees” to do so.

Speaking after a high-profile summit with Kim, Putin said Russia favored denuclearization on the Korean Peninsula and Kim agreed, but said bilateral security guarantees were not enough.

Putin said he didn’t know if it was time to resume six-way talks with North Korea to end a standoff over its nuclear weapons program. The  “six-party talks” had taken place between North and South Korea, the U.S., Japan, Russia and China in the early 2000s, but collapsed in 2009 when North Korea pulled out, saying it would resume its nuclear enrichment program in order to boost its nuclear deterrent.

Putin said Thursday that a resumption of such talks “will help provide international security guarantees,” Reuters reported.

Earlier Thursday, Putin had said he had a “substantial discussion” with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un about the Korean Peninsula Thursday, but gave little detail.

He said he and Kim exchanged views on how to improve the situation in the region, Reuters reported. Kim, meanwhile, reportedly said both leaders discussed how to “strategically improve regional stability.”

“We just had a thorough face-to-face conversation,” Putin said, according to Russian news agency Tass.

“We talked about the history of our insterstate relations, the current situation and the prospects for the development of our bilateral ties,” he noted. “We discussed the situation on the Korean Peninsula and shared our positions on the measures to be taken for the situation to have good prospects for improvement.”

Kim met Putin on an island off the Pacific port city of Vladivostok on Thursday. It is the first time the leaders have met face to face.

The meeting comes two months after denuclearization talks between Washington and Pyongyang collapsed in Hanoi. For Russia, the meeting was seen as a way to show the world that Russia can be a global power broker. For North Korea, the meeting has helped to show the U.S. that it has “options.”

In a sign that direct communication with the U.S. could be strained, Putin said Kim had asked Russia to inform the U.S. of its position.

Is this meeting another step for the NK towards reintegration into the international community?

This article was found on https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/25/putin-has-substantial-talks-with-kim-at-summit.html

Diplomacy says the words of our own interest. But we should think beyond boundaries. If the countries think about the people, the world will be the happiest place for living. We say the importance and advantages of the term, “Globalisation”. Now we think globally. I think we just use it for the benefits of us, not for helping the others. We can think globally for the helpless people, but we do not do it. Americans and European people practice globalisation for profiting more and more. If Bangladesh faces any problems, they will not help but if Bangladesh needs any help and which can give them profit, they are ready to help. World is now in the give and take policy. Noone is selfless at all.

Australia and the Tasmanian islands were the inhabitations of barbarous people. They killed men and did barbarous works at their place. In Christchurch, we saw the reflection of their ancestors. But we also saw the great example of humanity. Jacinda Ardern did a great job. Humanity wins, cruelty loses.

We always say that we are going to create a progressive world and we are working hard to eradicate inequality and discriminations from our world. But what we see? Fundamentalism rises in the world day by day. From east to west, fundamentalism is the key to win elections. India is a symbol of secularism in the world. Now we see that hindu extremists rise there and control the government also. Like that, we can see the practice of white fundamentalism in America, though America is a multiracial country. But we claim that we are civilised. It is said that a civilization is generally defined as an advanced state of human society containing highly developed forms of government, culture, industry, and common social norms. So, as a member of civil society, what we do? We are practicing fundamentalism and spreading hatred in our mind against the oppositions. It will be better, if we say that we are civilised with fundamentalism in our heart. Modern society does not express this but when it is essential for them, they start to express their extremist ideology and keep people in their side.

Our ideology and thoughts are not an issue of our mind at all. They are the controller of the situation of our world. As a result, we can see that one boy is running to attend the class in France whereas another one is running to flee from the attack of wars in Syria and Palestine. That is the reality of present world. We do not think about it. We celebrate whereas many people survive to save their life. This is so much cruel but true. So, truth is not beautiful always.

It is the time we should think about the whole world’s situation. We should remember that globalisation is not just for profiting globally, it is also for thinking globally. We are not the citizens of a particular country, we are global citizen. Everyone is responsible for keeping peace in the world and tolerating different ideas and thoughts. We should spread love around this small dot of the vast cosmic arena. So Mother Teresa said, “Love begins at home.”

I’ve always thought that political opinions are determined by our personal experiences. In my case, the way I think and behave are strongly marked by the fact that my mother is from Switzerland, my father from Alicante and I was born in Barcelona.

When I was a child living in Switzerland, some Swiss took good care of reminding me that I was just ‘a fucking Spanish migrant’. Shortly after that, when I returned to Spain and moved next to Alicante, some people just stayed focused on my Catalan origins, and I was sometimes called ‘the fucking ‘catalufo’.

The worst is that, when I came back to Barcelona, some Catalans insulted me because I used to live outside of Catalonia.

Of course, in the three cases, this verbal violence was more the exception than the rule, but what is sure is that you will always meet someone who is willing to emphasize his or her difference from the rest of the group.

At the end, since the childhood my experiences have taught me to seek a refugee in the independent Republic that my home is. I also refused to participate in any kind of nationalism. I think nationalism is by definition excluding, and highlights differences that are supposed to make a certain group better than another.

On another hand, with the passing of the years, I’ve overcome all this. I reconciled with these different origins that are integral parts of my personality. What happened to me has reinforced my trans-nationality. I know that this concept of ‘citizen of the world’ would disgust many separatists, but they should know that their concept of ‘nation’ has the same effect on me.

As Josep Pla (a famous Catalan writer and journalist in the XXth century) said:  ‘Nationalism is particularly devastator, selfish and solvent and a factor of democratic weakening, even if it defends the existence of some collective rights, it prones populism, and almost every time it is incompatible with individual rights.’

If a stranger asked me how we got into such a situation, that is to say a fracture between the separatists and the pro-union, I could tell him or her the following answer.

I grew up during the democratic transition (1975-1978). I remember perfectly the day Franco died, and the two weeks of vacation they gave us in high school.

During the 40 years of Franco’s dictatorship, Spain suffered a lack of liberties, and any divergent thought could put you in jail. The basque and Catalan separatisms were silenced. Culturally, some Catalan associations intended to secretly preserve their language and their customs. The school system used to teach the point of view of the regime, glorifying the Nation and the Caudillo.

After Franco’s death in 1975, there was a general amnesty. In 1978 a constitution was redacted by jurists and by the different new political parties in Spain.

It was agreed that the new administrative system of Spain would be decentralized. Seventeen regions were created, each of them with their own political institutions. In 1979, Catalonia decided to precise its relationship with Spain with an ‘Estatut de autonomía’.

This affected my education, because when I was in high school, the classes were delivered in Spanish, and Catalan was a subject like every others. When the ‘Departament d’Ensenyament de la Generalitat de Catalunya’ began its reforms, it was decided that all the subjects would be taught in Catalan, and Spanish would become a language-class.  Without any doubt, this was a tremendous change that affected all the generations from 1980.

This language immersion would become every time more important: Spanish classes were reduced from 5 hours to 3 hours, then 2. Regarding the History-Geography program, this one was also adapted. I remember the first thing I learnt was to draw the regions of Spain. My daughters started geography with the Catalonia’s map and their counties.

Unfortunately, I wasn’t taught the History of Catalonia when I was at school, just Spain’s one, from the Iberians to contemporary history. It is now the reverse for my children, who are learning mainly Catalonian history, and from time to time Spanish one. These are just examples highlighting that we need to find a balance for our school system.

Regarding the inhabitants of Catalonia, what we have now is a multi-faced Catalan society:

–      In the countryside, the majority of the families have really ancient Catalan roots, and the nationalistic sentiment is strong

–      In the cities (above all Barcelona and Tarragona), we have a multicultural population, Spanish people from other regions who came for work, or their children, and migrants (the majority from South America).

All of them have a different vision of the concept ‘integration’.

And that’s how we arrive to the current events: we have a divided society, and a group of politicians playing with people’s feelings, promising a paradise of wealth and happiness if independence is proclaimed. Meanwhile, specialists warn us about the potential negative effects of such a political change.