There's plenty to be said for international cooperation. But if you really want to change the world, first be a good American.
Are we citizens of the world?
In recent years, an unlikely collection of lefty environmentalists, Internet libertarians, multicultural educators, and voracious capitalists has coalesced around the idea that nations don't really matter anymore - that all we need is state-free citizenship of the globe. It's a powerful vision. It has in its favor much evidence and many trends. And it is a mirage.
To be sure, technology and economic globalization have made nations weaker and borders less meaningful. Mega-problems like climate change and financial panics know no boundaries. More than ever, we need to understand the deep interconnectedness of economic, political, and cultural life on the planet. And as Tim O'Reilly notes, the Internet is indeed birthing something like a global brain.
But what we call "global citizenship" is usually one of three things, none of which is quite global citizenship. The first is an ethic of consciousness about the worldwide impact of our actions, and the worldwide forces shaping our actions. This is what educators and environmental activists mean when they talk about being good global citizens. Reduce your carbon footprint. Recognize your shared responsibility for conditions in other countries. Learn about the cultures and histories of those countries.
This version of global citizenship, baked into the mission statements of many colleges and philanthropies, is worthy and necessary. It is certainly global. But it is not citizenship, at least not in the sense of participation in a sovereign political community. It's more a general template for mutuality and pro-social behavior, using citizenship as a metaphor.
A second notion of global citizenship, heard among the tech-minded and among fans of multilateral diplomacy, does indeed contemplate creating or bolstering institutions that can help govern the people of Earth. Whether the issue is regulation of the Internet or adjudication of territorial disputes, we see more cooperative efforts arising to address sticky issues of transnational governance.
This, too, can be a useful thing. At the same time, it has practical limits. When even the most avid self-described global citizen realizes he can't get or afford health care, he will not turn to the United Nations or the World Health Organization. He will turn to his local or national government to enact and enforce laws that provide that care - that is, if he's lucky enough to live in a part of the planet where the government is stable and effective enough to respond.
The third notion of global citizenship, championed by Fortune 500 CEOs and other winners in the global economy, holds that capital has globalized the economy and corporations have transcended their countries of origin, thus freeing capitalists from the nation-state. As Thomas Friedman puts it, corporate leaders don't think any more about being from "here" or outsourcing to "there." The world is their game board, and they deploy pieces wherever cost-effective.
This version of global citizenship is mainly a form of self-justification. It allows economic elites to forget that their corporations were made possible by the investments and institutions of actual nations - and to shed responsibility for the health of those nations. It permits them to treat as God-given and fixed, rather than man-made and malleable, an arrangement in which everything is subservient to capital. This isn't citizenship of any kind; it's an excuse to opt out.