Global Citizenship; the key to societal progression
Alexei Orlov
Citizenship is part of our identities, every single person on Earth has one, so redefining our perception of citizenship means redefining the world. While some might argue that a national citizenship would result in prosperity by preserving culture and targeting local issues, I would argue that global citizenship, in opposition to national citizenship, would result in true prosperity because it is more plausible, and has greater potential for innovation and the resolution of current issues.
Most people have been considered as national citizens for the past few centuries, which got us to this point in society where we feel a country belongs to a certain racial group. Things like police brutality and Asian hate crimes, that have been major issues across the country recently are the direct result of national citizenship. National citizenship spawned ethnonationalism and all the problems that have resulted from it. It’s because of ethnonationalism that people are yelling at others to get out of the country and it’s because of ethnonationalism that people say that this pandemic is because of a “ Chinese Virus” or the “ Kung Flu”. National identity hasn’t resolved local issues, it started them.
Police brutality and Asian hate crimes are major issues across the country which are direct results of national citizenship and ethnonationalism. Due to ethnoationalsim, people are resorting to hateful language, such as calling the Covid 19 pandemic the “Chinese virus” or “Kung Flu”. National identity has not resolved local issues, in fact, the root cause of them.
Global citizenship is the true key to resolving said problems. If we all identified as global citizens, ethnonationalism and the ideas of racial superiority that are connected to it, would be less prevalent if present at all. People would see themselves as part of the world, and not a specific country. If that was the case then countries wouldn’t be seen as belonging to a single group, which stops people from feeling like foreigners are invading their home or doing something wrong by being in the same country. A global pandemic would be treated as such, rather than blaming one country that doesn’t even have the greatest number of Covid cases. As a result, we would see a decline in anti-Asian hate crimes. Global citizenship also makes it possible to resolve problems that one country might be incapable of resolving by themselves. If there is food insecurity, there would be a greater collection of resources that would allow other countries to share food or help stop the cause of the insecurity, like how Brazil grows soybeans for China. Another example would be a local economy crashing. Outside intervention would be possible, meaning that the economy’s recovery can be aided, such as when the US aided Germany after WW1, this means a shorter amount of poverty, job loss and conflict. This would therefore, allow the world to exist with greater stability.
In addition to local and smaller scale issues being resolved, global citizenship is capable of resolving international issues as well. If we all identified as global citizens we could form a single collective, where we have things like a united military. If that were to happen then, with a shared military, less funds would be spent on weapons because there would be fewer conflicts and therefore, less of a need for them. Then the trillions of dollars spent on militaries, could be distributed across other departments, allowing for greater assistance for those in need and improvements to areas like education, which is notoriously underfunded. With a global military, things like wars and genocides would be less likely to happen as well. Aside from the fact that they would be less likely to occur in the more heterogeneous society, we would also feel more obligated to get involved and end these conflicts because it would be viewed as a personal issue for everyone, which means greater empathy and a greater sense of urgency to save our people.
One main government would help balance power as well. Since it would be composed of individuals of many different backgrounds it is unlikely that one country would be allowed to become too powerful, and they would be prevented from invading smaller countries or exploiting their resources.
Global citizenship doesn’t just prevent the exploitation of resources either, it makes it possible to share more resources with others due to the greater sense of collaboration and interconnectivity that it promotes. There would be less competition for resources, and it would be easier to share ideas and work with one another. That could be in the form of technological innovation where we can build off of each other without worrying about secrecy, power struggles. It could also be in the form of the shared ideas and information. Research in medicine or social behavior can be shared. That can result in the development of new laws or policies that are more fair and mutually beneficial for all. If some policy or law works well in Switzerland it can easily be adopted in another country. Collaboration allows for fast and efficient development across the world, and it helps make rules fair for all.
You might say that global citizenship is a bad thing because you lose individual cultures, and it hinders us more than it helps us, but that’s a baseless claim. I don’t believe that there would be a loss in cultural diversity. Look at how the American North and South have different cultures, or how in Quebec they speak French and have their own culture. Being a global citizen doesn’t mean that you’re not part of any other group; people have multiple identities. All of us in college identify as both students and teens or young adults. Nothing prevents local governments from existing either, so local issues can be handled even with global citizenship.
