The promotion of institutions such as the United Nations and its various agencies and conventions as guardians of a higher law than that of mere states is neverending. Wars are somehow illegitimate if not approved by the United Nations Security Council; social legislation must conform to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; environmental law must be framed around the Kyoto accords, etc., etc.
The claims of mere national loyalties, to those such as Dion, are irrelevancies or annoyances at best, dangerous obstacles at worst, to the ultimate goal of a single world government.
But in the meantime, national citizenship can be used as a convenient method to get the benefits and protections of one state while avoiding the pains and penalties of another.
Understand that, and you'll understand why Stephane Dion has reacted as he has to the suggestion that he renounce his French citizenship:
"I'm born like that. It's part of me. It's my mother who gave that to me. And like all sons, I love my mother and I love what she gave to me. And so to remove that from me, I'd be sad,” Mr. Dion said.
“This being said, if I see that it's a liability for our winnability, I will do it.”
The idea of a single national loyalty and identity seems quaint to cosmopolitans such as Dion. He and his ideological cohort consider themselves citizens of the world; why should they be tied down to being citizens of one nation?
But if the plebes on whose votes he unfortunately depends insist, Dion will bow to their prejudices, for the moment. Once he and his cohort rule the world, citizenship will hardly matter anyway.
Source: Globe and Mail