A Reply To Nationalism
by Jorge Vargas
The events of 11 September 2001 were atrocious violations against the sanctimony of human life.
The events that unfolded in the United States shortly thereafter offered observers a wonderfully clear example of the development of nationalism. Those events led to an equally atrocious violation against the sanctimony of human life: The illegal U.S. invasion of Iraq.
Because the cause and effect were so glaringly obvious in this relationship, the observer learned quite a bit about nationalism and the threats it contains within it.
Let's be precise: The U.S. became an ultra-patriotic nation following the 11 September attacks. This led to a nationalistic fervor that, in keeping with nationalistic fervors, made it so that U.S. citizens suddenly stopped questioning their government. This lack of questioning gave the U.S. government full support from the citizens when the lies regarding Iraq were published in newspapers and announced on evening news shows.
Some will say that it was fear that created this, which is also true. Fear pushed them into nationalism, pushed them into embracing that which they thought to be sacred: God and country.
But nationalism brings with it, in countries with strong State institutions, the belief that the government does not lie (look at the nationalist Nazis for an unquestioned example of this). They never questioned the reasons for their fear.
Foreign nationals living in the United States, by and large, saw through the lies and the manipulation as clearly as those living in the great capitals of Europe, the Middle East, and Iberian America.
Nationalism is a dangerous force and it is the reason why one must always criticize and oppose those consumed by nationalism, for that is the only way that one can curtail the imminent threat they bring with their words and their fire.
But enough about the United States. No one really cares about decadent powers.
Let us speak of something much more personal, something closer to home.
Let us focus on those individuals who are openly supporting nationalism in the nation that matters most to this writer: Peru.
Let us focus on the nationalist party that once controlled Congress and which would control it still were it not for that party's constant segmentation. Let us speak of men like Ollanta Humala, who ran for the president of Peru in 2006 on the platform of cutting off relations with Chile - Peru's ancient rival - and with the United States - Peru's ancient tormentor.
These nationalists also brought with them the fervor of another ultra-nationalist: President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. They brought with them his petro-dollars and his anti-US ideology of hate, with which they sought to consume all of Peru and turn our Republic into a nation of vendettas like Venezuela and, more recently still, the United States.
How did these nationalists become so popular in the Republic? And where were they during the war that plagued our great Republic two decades ago?
Preparing a platform?
Having a beer?
Some, it is true, were fighting the terrorists, but did they fight with honor? Did they protect the Peruvian way of life, or did they fight merely to seek revenge against those terrorists? Did they fight merely to kill?
This is a question that must be considered quite seriously for if someone fights merely to kill, they will govern merely to gain revenge for wrongs received and wrongs perceived alike.
It is true that our Republic has been wronged before. One can make a very long list of how many times we have been abused by the United States, often times for mere U.S. pettiness. One familiar with the history and the traditions of the Republic, such as this writer, can recite the history of Peru's wars with an invasive and manipulative Ecuador and can sing great, majestic songs about the glorious Peruvian war effort against the Chilean onslaught of greed and corruption.
To use these things in order to express patriotism is to do a great service for the Republic. Remembrance must always be the focal point of the Republic's history and culture. It is the only way that Peru can attain the position that history and the Eternal Father have wanted her to attain.
But to utilize this knowledge of our troubled history is to utilize those sorrows for mere political gain. That is the business of nationalism. That is what the U.S. Government did when it made such a fuss about 11 September that it earned them a blank check to invade Iraq, a blank check that still exists with some segments of the U.S. citizenry.
More importantly - for this writer is not in the business of holding vendettas against decadent powers but rather in guiding the direction of a rising star – the utilization of sorrows for political gain is precisely what Peru's nationalists are engaging in as they sponsor uprisings in the Andean territories that hold within them the eternally powerful 'anti-Yankee' vendetta and as they attempt to push Peru toward conflict with Chile, a nation that must never be fully trusted but which is our closest sister in terms of history, culture, traditions, and blood relations.
Is this a message against patriotism in the Peruvian Republic? Of course not.
If anything, we Peruvians are not patriotic enough. Too often we embrace that which is foreign and forsake that which is Peruvian. Too often we assume that no good will come of our Republic's struggles for wealth and independence.
But we must not embrace the revanchist allure of nationalism and the nationalist ideology that would seek to confuse us and utilize the greatness of our Republic to follow a vendetta-holding agenda more fitting to lesser nations such as Venezuela and the United States, nations that seem to require conflict to exist.
We are not such a nation. Perhaps because we have fought more wars than any other two nations in the Western Hemisphere combined, or perhaps because we have recently fought a scathing conflict against one another, or perhaps because of history as the center of an abusive colonial power, we are not a nation that embraces war. We disdain it, and we always have.
Let us continue with that disdain, and let us continue embracing peace and supporting Peru through the spirit of national brotherhood rather than by simply comforting ourselves with the notion that Peruvian means better and hoping that the rest of the world will agree by merely using force. The latter is what the United States does, and it is what the vast number of the nationalist politicians in our Republic would want Peru to do. Don’t believe their lies.
So, do we really want our Peru to turn into another version of that nation which the nationalists claim to hate? Do we really want to become that which our Republic disdains? Do we really want to become just one more egotistical, egocentric, racist, abusive nation?
Let it be clear to the nationalist politicians: Soon, the fires of nationalism will die down for the economy continues to grow and the desperation of the Andean provinces will subside. When that moment comes, the nationalist party will have to answer to history and to the Peruvian electorate for blatant lies told and dangerous plans held.
At that moment, when Peru is once more completely Peruvian, your fire will die and the fire of those who have always supported peace, democracy, economic stability, and independence, whose fire never died, will gladly unmask your 'nationalism' for what it is.
And let it be clear to those members of the nationalist party who believe not in the egotistical and egocentric designs of those who would seek to turn Peru into that which we disdain but rather who believe that through nationalism and through cutting off relations with our Chilean sister and with the great tormentor our Republic will stand to gain.
Chile is no longer our enemy. She is our sister, and she may one day be our friend and ally, but she is not our enemy and she has not been for over a century.
The United States, our great tormentor, is a power whose flame is waning and will be extinguished soon. Already, she has been relegated to taking verbal lashings from Argentina and Brazil, and even Venezuela, without being able to offer a response. Already, her US Dollar is weaker - in terms of consistency - than our currency, which has built up its reserves in Dollars and Euros. Already, her military is stretched thin and of no threat to our sovereignty. Why waste our time and efforts closing off relations with her? Such an action would be interpreted as an act of immaturity.
In twenty years, her opinions will matter not, and already she is not even remotely able to dictate to us what we should do. She is broken. We must not contribute to that process for we will incur the risk of her being able to rally her citizenry into another nationalistic fervor. This must be avoided. A divided U.S. is a weak one, and the only ones guilty of dividing the Americans have been the Americans, so let them deal with their own problems. Why must we interfere?
We must continue with the economic policies that have been maintained and remain certain that the Government can protect 90% of the cash that is held in Peruvian banks, and we must continue investing in Peru's stock market and in Peru's companies so that our economy is no longer susceptible to the fluctuations of the European markets.
We must spend on weaponry, yes, but we must not do so with the idea of imminent threat and invasion. We have no reason to fear such an abomination at present. We are safe, and that weaponry must be bought simply for maintenance purposes and for preparation if an enemy does arise in the future.
Although democracy is not effective for us, it is the most effective method of government that exists thus far, given our current realities. But we must also not accept that sort of democracy that would seek to decentralize on paper but not in reality. Those newly formed regional governments and presidents must be discontinued for they have an agenda that seeks to divide our Republic.
Thus, this should not be construed as a message against those who voted for the nationalist party for they did not make a mistake. The ideas that they voted in favor of are not necessarily wrong; they are simply not practical.
But those politicians who voice those ideas hold a dream of tyranny, oppression, and revenge within their actions and their words, and it is to them that one must make a stand against, for they are corrupt and dangerous.
Our Republic must be loved. What we must never love is our Government. which we must always watch carefully and merely tolerate.
