Memorandum to Woodrow Wilson

(2 of 2)
What to do? We now frequently resort to United Nations peacekeeping forces, quite an astonishing innovation, which you yourself visualized. But even if the U.N. had more manpower (a kind of international Foreign Legion might be a good idea) and more unified decision-making power, it would be hard to impose peace from the outside. Looking toward long-term solutions, a whole intellectual cottage industry has sprung up that should delight your academic heart. One of the more intriguing proposals involves divorcing nationality from territory. For example, Russians living outside Russia in the former Soviet republics might retain their Russian citizenship, with its rights and privileges, without being repatriated. There also have been suggestions for "national home regimes." Practical or not, such schemes are worth looking at, for they indicate the almost desperate need to develop a more flexible conception of sovereignty.

The European Union is struggling with just such issues: how to balance national sovereignty against the demands of a larger federal structure. Despite recent setbacks, the Union remains the most promising model for the future.

Mr. President, America has an obligation to make up for the dubious legacy of self-determination. We should stand for a less simplistic ideal. Such an ideal does exist -- community, more broadly defined than it is in the tribalism now rampant. We should champion this not in the name of Wilsonian altruism (if you will pardon me ) but for very pragmatic reasons. The nation- state, the tribe writ large, today is often too big to cope with local problems and yet too small to function adequately in the global marketplace. The values of blood and soil are retrograde. They are also powerful, and they will not recede easily. But the U.S. should not give in to them, even if that sometimes means standing against the tide. The desire to belong -- to family, clan, nation -- may be part of human nature, but it need not take an exclusive and aggressive form. The U.S. should not automatically give its blessing to almost any movement under the banner of self-determination. We should perhaps go back to the Enlightenment's understanding of self-determination, namely, the autonomy of the individual. For such ideas to make a dent in peoples' minds will take long, slow and patient effort. But America should begin. Mr. President, if you have any astral influence on the powers in Washington, I hope you will guide them in that direction.