Contrary to the impression given by all of Mel Gibson’s faux-historical movies, the narrative of nationalism is a late 18th-century creation that was then developed during the 19th by the bourgeoisie, eager to forge a narrative that would turn kingdoms (owned by kings) into countries which they would then govern in their own interest.

Since its invention, nationalism has brought two world wars, widespread colonialism, countless genocides, and the holocaust. But perhaps the longest lasting damage it has brought upon humanity has been the ‘forgetfulness’ that we are all human beings regardless of nationality and, as such, we belong to the world rather than within the confines of national borders.

Although nationalism presents itself as a powerful and empowering narrative, in reality it has limited our perspective, reduced our concern from the human to the national, diminished our potential, and constricted our creativity and freedom.

By the end of the 20th century, after the fall of communism and the triumph of liberal democracy, social scientists were predicting a diminishing State that in the wake of aggressive globalisation would recede to a mere regulatory role and in the process shed its nationalistic ambitions. They were mistaken.

True, from an economic perspective, the market did become more globalised and the advancement in technology consolidated that illusion. But on a political level, nationalism was thriving more than ever, filling the gaps left vacant by Cold War ideologies, vehemently rejecting a truly globalising vision.

The globalising forces of the economy and technology became tools in the hands of a reinvigorated nation-state for the purpose of pursuing a new sort of imperialism. The world is not more free, on the contrary: the constant message coming across is that not all humans are equally human, that some deserve to be killed, that not all holocausts deserve to be denounced, it all depends on the power play of national interests.

The direct result is that while so much effort and resources are constantly directed towards relatively minor issues of petty national interest, oftentimes undeserving of such an effort, more pressing global issues are simply ignored.

And because nationalism isn’t just state ideology but permeates down to populations and becomes as natural to them as the air they breathe, states that ignore the global human dimension for narrow nationalistic interests garner favour with those whom they govern.

No wonder that all the supposed commitments taken by the community of states, said to be acting in unison for the common good of humanity, for example to tackle climate change, have constantly come to naught. That is why the United Nations is a failed institution.

Nationalism is based on the idea that everyone and everything are expendable if it will advance the so-called ‘national interest’. This includes a nation’s own ‘flower of youth’ (how many young people have died pointless deaths, sent to the front simply ‘to do and die’ – dulce et decorum est pro  patria mori, Wilfred Owen reminds us).

But even more expendable are the lives of other human beings, outsiders that are gladly sacrificed on the altar of someone else’s nation.

Take Israel as an example: how many blind eyes are turned as it pursues its murderous purge of Palestinians with utmost impunity, even if it’s a refugee camp – like the one in Jenin – that’s attacked without any shame or remorse.

Israel can afford to be cocky, to ignore human rights, to murder journalists and children, because Israel knows that it will always be in the interest of Americans to have Israel’s support in the Middle East and that support would only hold if it’s mutual.

There are still those who blindly want to drive us towards someone else’s sphere of influence- Aleks Farrugia

The United States will be sending cluster bombs to Ukraine. There is international concern about the use of such weapons. Cluster bombs target a very wide concentration area and consequently end up indiscriminately killing civilians by the numbers.

Human rights organisations condemned the decision taken by Biden, but did the US care? Why would it? They will do whatever it takes to keep the Ukranian war going. After all, who is dying? Expendable Ukrainians and detested Russians.

That’s what American national interest dictates: the Russian hegemony in Eastern Europe must be broken once and for all.

For those who haven’t yet noticed, this war has long ceased to be about Ukraine, if it ever was. Ukraine is just a playground where the last battle of the Cold War is being fought.

The war in Ukraine has already had a global impact on the supply of food and development aid to the poorest countries in the world, and has set back all the climate targets and sustainable development goals. But then, who cares when at stake is the national interest of two of the most powerful nations in the world; two, which – incidentally – are among the most vocal about their nationalism?

It’s a pity that within such a context, here in this country – rather than learning from the lessons history imparted to us, where we always paid a high price when we were dragged behind someone else’s cart – there are still those who blindly want to drive us towards someone else’s sphere of influence mistakenly believing that, when it matters, their national interests won’t prevail over ours and over supposedly collective principles of peace and democracy.

They mistakenly believe that when push comes to shove, we will have our say, forgetting those immortal words written by Thucydides over 2,500 years ago: “The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.” We don’t need to have any ties with NATO.

Our neutral status and our history should make us agents of peace, not on the terms of hegemonies of imperialist states and their ambitions, but on global terms, human terms, that build peaceful bridges.

Joining NATO’s Partnership for Peace is a mistake and parliament should discard the idea. Instead, they should invest their time in drawing up a strategy that would make us credible and trustworthy as mediators for peace. That should be our noble vocation.