national vs. regional vs. global levels of action

With reference to recent debates on wsn, it appears to me that it would be
beneficial for those interested in world-system change if a clearer
distinction was made concerning the level of action which a speaker has in
mind and that recipes for action were clearly distinguished with reference
to the level of action. The three major levels of action I have in mind are
national, regional (group of countries) and global. For example, when U.S.
political scientist Huntington talks about "the West versus the rest" or
when Mao talked about "the world's villages against the world's cities" (or
similar formulation),  they are referring to a global level of action,
viewing the world as subdivided into two camps. When wsn'ers talk about
strategy in Canada 1999 or Russia 1917 or Mexico 1999, they/we are referring
to a national level of action. One of the main points of world(-)system(s)
analysis is that the world level and the national level of analysis are two
different things. I submit that the same is true for levels of action.
Praxeological recipes which make sense in country A at time a do not
necessarily make sense in country B at time a or b, and, especially, do not
necessarily make sense at the world level W at time a or b. The same for
regions. Praxeological recipes for world region X (South, or Africa, or
other definition) do not necessarily make sense if pronounced, without
modification, for world region Y . This differentiation of levels of action
could be extended even more to allow for subnational "units of analysis and
action", e.g., small ethnic groups within a larger country. If such
differentiation of the levels of action is paid attention to, then the whole
debate about the use of violence has to be made much more differentiated as
well. For example, Canadian aboriginal groups (about 2% of the Canadian
population) have opted for strategies on behalf of their interests which are
mostly non-violent -- e.g., court battles to enforce land claims under
ancient treaties with the white man; or, circumventing the Canadian national
political process and taking their case straight to the UN, and other. Or,
when you think of the world level of 160 less-than rich countries versus 24
rich countries, a totally different set of opportunities and restraints must
be taken into consideration than those effective for subnational minorities.
Or, when you think of Europe (or Asia or other) as a region, still other
sets of opportunities and restraints must be taken into consideration when
the goal is to bring about a socially and ecologically responsible system.

Gert Kohler
Oakville, Ontario