Country vs. Nation: When Power and Meaning Diverge

 

I always contend that there is a difference between “country” and “nation.” Many countries are not nations per se.

A country (or state) is a political and legal entity. It is sovereign, with defined borders, a government, and recognition under international law. A nation is also political, but more than that. To me, a nation is a country whose population largely shares a sense of identity – based on language, history, ethnicity, culture, or even a shared narrative about themselves.

Some countries contain multiple nations. The United Kingdom, for example, includes the English in England, the Scottish in Scotland, the Welsh in Wales, and the Irish in Northern Ireland.

Some would also define China this way, but I do not believe the Chinese government tolerates this line of thinking, which I agree. I will return to this later.

Others define “nation” in an even narrower sense: as a group of people without sovereign rights or borders who share a sense of identity. Examples include Native Americans in the United States and the Kurdish people, who live across Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Syria. Historically, Jewish identity existed as a nation long before the modern state of Israel.

When a country and a nation roughly coincide, it is sometimes called a nation-state. Japan is considered close to this model, as its population is almost homogeneous.

In essence, a country is something you can map; a nation is something people feel.

That is why nationalism can be so powerful. It is not just about borders or governments, but about identity, belonging, and sometimes grievance. This distinction lies behind many major global tensions:

• Independence movements (when a nation wants its own country)
• Disputes over minorities
• Competing national narratives within the same state

China: Civilisation-State vs. Modern Country
China officially presents itself as a unified nation-state, but in reality, it is closer to what some scholars call a civilisation-state.

• The state (country) is the People's Republic of China.
• The “nation” is framed as Zhonghua minzu (the Chinese nation) – a constructed, broad civilisational identity.

Internally, there are 56 distinct ethnic groups (e.g., Han, Tibetan, Uyghur), which complicates the idea of a single nation. The Chinese government tries to align nation with country—to make cultural identity and political loyalty converge - engineering a nation to match its country. Despite scepticism, it is nearly succeeding.

The US: White Supremacy from the Very Beginning

The United States is almost the reverse case. The country was founded primarily on a written constitution and political principles, rather than on a pre-existing ethnic or cultural nation. Nationhood came later, built around ideals rather than ethnicity.

American “national” identity is premised on civic ideals – liberty, democracy, the “American Dream” – not on a single ethnicity or ancient culture. But in reality, this identity has long been hijacked. White people dominated from the outset; slavery was introduced; Indigenous peoples were excluded; citizenship was effectively limited to white men. From the beginning, there was a gap between ideals and practice.

White supremacy played a major role in shaping American identity – through laws like segregation, immigration restrictions favouring Europeans, and cultural narratives of a “White” America.

Structurally, the US is constitutionally secular, but Christianity has largely shaped American identity. Public life has long been influenced by Christianity (e.g., political rhetoric, social norms). There is also a strong historical presence of Judaism, particularly in intellectual, legal, and cultural spheres.

Although these civic ideals were later used to challenge white supremacy, non-Whites have never felt they are equal. The American nation is built on universal ideals, but those ideals have been selectively interpreted, restricted, and fought over – particularly by forces like racial hierarchy and religious influence. Donald Trump champions this today. The US now looks more like a broken country, let alone a nation.

The Case of Australia

Australia is especially interesting. It has three overlapping “nations”:

1. Indigenous nations – Hundreds of distinct Aboriginal nations existed long before the modern state.
2. British-derived national identity – The original political and cultural foundation of the country.
3. Modern multicultural nation – Built through immigration, especially post-WWII and recent Asian migration.

The “country” exists clearly (borders, institutions), but the nation is still a work in progress, especially regarding what “Australian values” really mean. Fortunately, Australia remains a stable country.

The Case of Israel

The Jewish “nation” existed for millennia without a state. Modern Israel was created to realise that nation, but the country was originally Palestine’s. Thus, two nations compete within the same territory. In essence, the country of Israel is still contested.

Three Paradoxes

1. Taiwan
Taiwan is part of China; the majority of its population is Han Chinese. But separatists there see Taiwan as a separate country; some even see themselves as a distinct nation – a Taiwanese identity rather than a Chinese one.

2. Ukraine
Ukraine versus Russia is another clear example. Russians and Ukrainians are “one people.” Yet Ukraine asserts a distinct national identity - language, history, political orientation. After the breakup of the Soviet Union, the issue was politically and geographically settled. Unfortunately, with NATO’s instigation, Ukraine chose to abandon neutrality and pursue NATO membership – hence the war.

3. Palestine
The conflict involving Israel and the Palestinian territories is perhaps the most emotionally and historically layered. Jews have realised their nation-statehood but deny Palestinians the right to seek their own. Essentially, two nations claim the same territory as their country. This conflict is intractable. It is not just a border dispute but a collision of national narratives, histories, and identities.

Conclusion
A country is a structure of power; a nation is a structure of meaning. When both align, the result is stability. When they diverge, tensions arise and conflicts prevail. Unfortunately, the US is always undermining things! 

End

Trump’s April 6 Deadline

 

On February 28, Donald Trump, conned by Benjamin Netanyahu, started a war against Iran. The world knows that he has dug himself into a quagmire from which he is finding it difficult to exit. (He could, if he were a statesman, but he is too narcissistic to do so.)

The deadline by which he wants Iran to completely surrender – after two earlier extensions – is April 6.

Two days ago, Trump addressed a high-level White House gathering focused on the Iran situation. Essentially, he said that if the Iranians do not come to the table, the U.S. “would hit them very hard over the next two to three weeks,” threatening to destroy Iran’s critical infrastructure, including energy and oil facilities. He even used the phrase about sending Iran “back to the Stone Age.” In the same meeting, he also gave the impression that he was prepared to leave the Strait of Hormuz blockade to the importers of oil to solve. The latter did offer some hope that he was easing up on Iran.

The most tangible and market-visible prize that Iran has scored over the U.S. is that it has effectively restricted shipping. The U.S. does not seem able to do anything unless its troops go in to “liberate” the Strait – which, if undertaken, would mean a large number of body bags returning to the U.S.

We know Trump needs a trophy to extricate himself, even if only a symbolic one.

He has already claimed he has effected a “regime change” in Iran, and that Iran’s navy, air force, and missile programs are crippled. He repeatedly boasts that Iran is begging for a deal.

But the truth is, Iran is still raining deadly missiles on Israel and U.S. bases in the Gulf states. These cannot be excuses again; he needs a new one.

A new trophy is psychologically important for Trump’s style. The optics of Iran yielding—not just negotiating—are key.

Domestic political stabilization

This is a must-achieve “trophy.” His approval rating has dropped and economic concerns are rising. In reality, this may be the primary driver behind the timing of this mad pursuit of his.

Nonetheless, he still can claim many superficial “deliveries” – for example, a unilateral declaration that Iran has agreed to ensure freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, and that talks are underway – but I suspect most Americans no longer believe them.

I am more inclined to think that he will launch a last-minute strike targeting Iran’s missile facilities, possibly a symbolic infrastructure installation, in addition to the remaining military bases. He will then declare objectives achieved and announce a willingness to negotiate. This potential trophy is visual – something he can point to and say: “We finished the job.”

Another possible trophy could come through the mediation efforts of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Türkiye. He could claim that Iran has agreed to a framework agreement – even if thin – on nuclear limits and vague commitments on shipping or inspections. We know Trump can frame even a weak deal as historic. His rhetoric that “We’re giving diplomacy a chance” would continue.

External audiences

Below is a chart tracking China and the U.S.’s “favourability” in a survey of 42 countries. Suffice it to say, nothing Trump does will change the opinion the world at large holds of him.

But will Iran come to the table?

My guess is that Iran will not.

It has just been reported that Kamal Kharrazi, Iran's former foreign minister and a senior foreign policy adviser, was severely wounded, and his wife killed, in an Israeli airstrike on their home in Tehran. Kharrazi was recently involved in backchannel diplomatic efforts, engaging with Pakistani officials to help arrange a potential meeting between senior Iranian officials and U.S. Vice President JD Vance aimed at ending the conflict. This has led to speculation that the strike was intended to derail those peace talks.

And the U.S. has just bombed the B1 bridge linking Tehran and Karaj, a major satellite city. The bridge is a key piece of infrastructure. Some reports say it was hit twice. It causes disruption but will not paralyze the country.

These actions signal escalation and will toughen Iran’s resolve to fight on. Zeal and hatred will override any economic or rational thinking.

This time Iran is not unprepared…

Internally, the U.S. was shocked to learn that Iranian missiles can now penetrate its defences and hit targets with great precision. After suffering severe damage to its nuclear sites during the U.S.’s “Operation Midnight Hammer” in June 2025, Iran has wised up and decided to fully adopt China’s BeiDou-3 satellite navigation system, the more advanced version of which can provide centimetre-level kinematic accuracy. It is believed that Iran has also acquired 500 ballistic missiles from North Korea.

And in the U.S., the house is on fire…
Yes, some 5,000 boots are ready to land on Iranian soil. They will certainly be able to inflict severe damage on Iran’s oil and gas infrastructure if they do attack.

But at the same time, Pete Hegseth has just sacked Randy George, the U.S. Army Chief of Staff. Earlier, he removed Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Charles Q. Brown Jr. and the head of the Navy, Lisa Franchetti. Others include David Hodne (senior Army commander), William Green Jr. (head of chaplains), and several more. They were either appointed under Joe Biden and linked to earlier leadership like Mark Milley, or because they are Black or female. The U.S. system is supposed to rely on a politically neutral professional military, but what is happening is the blatant politicisation of the armed forces and the suppression of internal dissent.

This is lethal to command stability during a conflict.

(Trump has also sacked Attorney General Pam Bondi, and Kash Patel, the FBI director, is likely to go soon.)

Conclusion

I wish TACO failure, but perversely, I also wish him success in controlling the Oval Office – for this is truly a heaven-sent situation for China to continue scaling new heights in the “favourability” chart shown above.

Unfortunately, a prolonged war will not serve any country any good in the long run, China included.

End