Is humanity homogeneous?

Taking account of significant individualism are most of us gregarious? Do we tend to follow the herd like so many other species? As individuals we usually belong to many different communities often with little overlap – neighbourhood, religion, politics, sport, games etc. How often, however, do we act as individuals and buck the collective trend taking a different path from our fellows whether for good or evil (if we can discern the difference)? The answer is complex and varied but an examination of it is fundamental to whether we can live in harmony and peace or, like many other species, continue to kill, enslave and impoverish our own? 

Conquest as a noble art and patriotic duty whether for territory, ideas or imposition of what was seen as a superior civilisation has dominated most of human history with the unwelcome corollary of the enslavement and exploitation of those who succumbed. Is this so inbred in our psyche that we cannot change or can we truly learn from the past and chart a different course? John Buchan wrote “The task of leadership is not to put greatness into humanity but to elicit it, for the greatness is already there.” Throughout history individuals have shown great leadership and advanced civilisation – but some have also wreaked untold misery. How is it that those with capacity for great evil manage to carry on without being stopped? It is through complicity – by surrounding themselves with those so deeply steeped in the same evil that they cannot break ranks and must succeed or fall together – another example of it being easier to go with the herd than to stand against it.

Are we capable of change is a question with which those interested in global peaceful governance must wrestle. As we live once again seemingly on the brink of a major war, having survived the Cold War chillingly maintained through the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) have the lessons of the past century been learned or are we doomed to relive them. “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” as George Santayana reminds us in The Life of Reason, 1905.  One of those lessons is the capacity for groups (and demagogues) to defend and promote their own interests to find a scapegoat for supposed ills or, in a collective and strengthened collaboration of the group, to direct attention towards another group that is seen to be inimical. Throughout history the Jews have know the reality of this, culminating in the horror of the Holocaust. General Galtieri sought to divert Argentinian public opinion away from domestic economic concerns by galvanising sentiment to “regain” the Malvinas (Falklands) from the UK. Other examples are legion.

After the creation of the UN we saw mass decolonisation under great influences on nations to relinquish their overseas territories and allow their own populations to govern themselves. Roosevelt, of course, was opposed to the continuation of the British Empire (perhaps from a US perspective that had not been part of colonisation - although their treatment of the indigenous native American tribes raises another issue!). The UN General Assembly Resolution 1514 (1960) was the foundation establishing the right of all peoples to freely determine their political status and pursue economic, social, and cultural development. It declared that foreign, colonial, or alien subjugation is a violation of fundamental human rights and a violation of the UN Charter. This was always going to lead to potential conflict between this resolution and those UN member states that still held colonies or sway over other peoples or, within their own borders, had distinct ethnic, linguistic groups that felt themselves to be separate. We need to remember that throughout history the borders of states have been determined by conquest, treaty or other mechanisms that have given scant regard to the people living there - a classic example is the British legacy in Africa which left newly created states with borders drawn along lines of latitude and longitude rather than natural boundaries, often cutting through cohesive tribal and ethnic existence. This has left many peoples with common characteristics living in separate neighbouring states and wanting to see their own independence. 

We now have the modern phenomenon of mass migration (it being cheaper now to travel internationally than at any previous time coupled with modern technology enabling people to have a good understanding of life on the far side of the planet). Despite the attempts of countries to strengthen their borders and exclude migrants this trend is likely to continue driven by economic and climactic pressures as well as fleeing from persecution or war. It means that more societies are becoming internationalised and that is seen by some populations as a threat and watering down of their own culture rather than an enhancement of it. So long as we have a UN dominated by nation states you can expect that to continue but against a backdrop of human rights and self-determination instruments that run counter to that. This is the tension. For some, consanguinity and the need to preserve a particular ethnic group's "purity" will be important but this is largely a chimaera as nearly every race on earth has been subject to external influences such as mixed marriages. There are many differences that can be exploited: colour of skin is one and is labelled as racism yet there are other bases for discrimination such as gender, culture, religion, language. Such attitudes can be regarded as racist in its true meaning of the word but it is an impossible goal. The world citizen would take the view that we are all one humanity (whatever our overt differences) and that relationships are based on mutual affection and appreciation that transcend such narrow parameters. The answer to your question, I believe, is to point out the impossibility and impracticality of seeking to maintain a racial purity (already mostly heavily diluted) and to show that this is different from maintaining a culture, whatever the outside influences, while accepting that all cultures throughout history have been evolutionary and have not been fixed in stone in a time-warp but always subject to both internal and external influences of change: we are one humanity albeit with a rich diversity.

Despite our differences we must communicate with each other and the art of negotiation is to know well the person sitting opposite you (as a barrister it became second nature to me to put myself in the position of my opponent so that I could gauge what was regarded by the opposition as my strong and weak points – only then could I know what and how to exploit them). A good opening gambit is to find a subject away from the immediate negotiation in which you can share a mutual interest – whether it be sport, travel or some other matter: it breaks the ice. Frankly, if more attitudes towards those with overt differences were schooled in this way we should have a much more cohesive and sympathetic world. The purpose of this piece, however, is not to embark on a master-class of negotiation technique but to examine how we can bend universal human characteristics to achieving a better governed world.  

We are witnessing at present the most powerful person in the world bring to the table a tactic based on hard transactional dealing: you make the outrageous demand which, ostensibly, stimulates a reaction of giving more than was originally intended as the stakes have been raised. Demanding sovereignty over Greenland was never going to succeed but the bluff was sufficient to motivate a somewhat sluggish Denmark and Europe to take its defence seriously. It works if your opponent is rational – but the danger lies if that is not the case. Kruschev was prepared to remove the Soviet nuclear missiles from Cuba when it became apparent that the Americans would destroy them from the air and the reasonable assumption that if those aircraft were shot down then there might be an intercontinental exchange.  There is no current indication that Putin is as rational and, indeed, may be delusional as to how far he can go without serious response. That is why the situation in the Baltic states is so fraught. His delusion that NATO would not respond (or at least not adequately) to an invasion of Estonia may be assisted by reading a US President who seems careless about NATO and unwilling to come to the support of Europe in a crisis. That is why the stakes are so high and why there is such high alert. It could take only a miscalculation or precipitate action over a ship or aircraft trespassing into Estonian space that could spark a violent reaction. How would America respond. Putin does not know but, sadly, nor do we. The certainty of solidarity is gone. That same uncertainty can be applied to the South China Seas and the Arabian Gulf which makes the world a very dangerous place.

The military will always quote “Si vis pacem, para pactum” from the Roman General Vegetius (“If You Want Peace, Prepare For War") and, clearly, in current circumstances that is unanswerable - yet it is a sad commentary on the inability of humanity to turn swords into ploughshares and to co-exist without the need for threat of military intervention. The reason people in Britain no longer carry swords (or, the modern equivalent, sidearms) is because of the creation of the police force and effective penal remedies for wrongdoing.  The same attitude does not apply to the United States although, arguably, the Second Amendment (“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”) passed in 1791 preceded the creation of more effective police forces. The lesson is that people need laws to obey and the knowledge that sanctions will follow if they do not. The same is true of nation states which is why a reignition of the international rules based order with adequate sanctions for misbehaviour is so important. Humanity is little different when living in a small community or a wider community of nations. That is an eternal lesson that we neglect at our cost.