|
Horray for Nationalism
Nationalism is once again getting a makeover. Associated with
all manner of ills - Nazism, genocide, unsavory dictatorships -
nationalism is being rebranded by the same political science
community that largely ignored the phenomenon for so many years.
The latest issues of both
Foreign Affairs and
Foreign Policy feature articles that proclaim the
virtues of nationalism. In both cases, the claims are
overstated.
Take, for example, Gustavo de las Casas' argument in
Foreign Policy that
nationalism reduces crime and corruption. "When citizens are
nationalistic, those who might cheat will face an unpleasant
trade-off: to help themselves at the expense of their brethren,"
he writes in
Is Nationalism Good for You? "Surely, nationalism will never
stop all cheating. But in countries with a mature sense of
nationalism, this trade-off will significantly discourage
cheating and promote economic growth."
The argument begins to falls apart when we look more closely at
the word "brethren." Who exactly belongs to this brethren?
Nationalistic citizens might very well feel no pain about
cheating immigrants. Or their fellow citizens with a different
skin color. Or people with a slightly different accent. It all
depends on how "brethren" is defined. Even in virtually
homogenous South Korea, discrimination against people from South
Cholla province has been an enduring part of the ethno-political
landscape. This prejudice facilitated those from rival North
Kyongsang province to help themselves at the expense of their
putative Korean brethren. And North Korean defectors are
routinely ripped off in South Korea, again by their ethnic
compatriots.
Ah, but perhaps South Korea does not have a "mature sense of
nationalism." But then, who does?
Jerry Muller offers a more sophisticated and yet equally
sophistic set of arguments in
Us and Them. Europe, he argues in
Foreign Affairs, represents the triumph of
ethnonationalism: "One could argue that Europe has been so
harmonious since World War II not because of the failure of
ethnic nationalism but because of its success, which removed
some of the greatest sources of conflict both within and between
countries."
One
could argue that. But I think it would be a mistake.
After all, there has been plenty of post-World War II conflict
within Europe based on ethnic nationalism - in Spain, Belgium,
the United Kingdom, Italy, Romania, Bulgaria, and so on. The
major reason that European affairs were more-or-less harmonious
was because the external threat of Soviet invasion - exaggerated
by the West but a very real concern to the countries of Eastern
Europe - provided a larger cohesive force that tamped down but
did not eliminate internal ethnic conflict.
Such a misreading of European history leads to poor policy
recommendations. If the creation of nation-states where borders
correspond to presumed ethnic dividing lines creates greater
harmony, then let the partitions begin! Muller recommends the
partitioning of states and the inevitable population transfers
that follow as "the most humane lasting solution" to intense
communal conflict. But did partition really solve any of India's
communal conflicts? In addition to causing countless deaths,
partition simply elevated an internal Muslim-Hindu conflict to
an inter-state rivalry between India and Pakistan, a contest
that now involves nuclear weapons.
Today, Europe faces a similar dilemma in its southeast corner.
Nationalists in Kosovo have declared independence. Nationalists
in Serbia continue to oppose any redrawing of the map. So,
Gustavo de las Casas, which of the contending nationalisms is
"good for us" in this standoff? And should we follow Jerry
Muller's advice and partition the new state of Kosovo, giving
over the area with a large ethnic Serb population to Serbia? As
with India, this would be a solution without a resolution.
This week, in a continuation of our strategic dialogue on
Kosovo, FPIF contributor Tomaz Mastnak argues that Kosovo's
declaration of independence was a violation of international
law. Moreover, both the United States and Slovenia worked behind
the scenes to circumvent the European political process to
facilitate that declaration. I've known Tomaz Mastnak for many
years, and he contributed an essay to a
book I co-edited on European nationalism. He is no
anti-nationalist, and he was consistently critical of U.S.
policy for not more resolutely backing the new states of
Slovenia, Croatia, and Bosnia in the 1990s.
But in
Kosovo: A New Versailles, Mastnak describes how the Kosovo
question has been woefully (and illegally) mismanaged. "The UN
was conspicuously pushed aside and ignored," he writes. "Also
ignored were the interests of the neighbors and the countries of
the broader Balkan region, most of whom oppose the independence
of Kosovo. Ignored as well, and in a rather insulting way, was
Russia, which for better or worse has played a role in the
region for a considerable time. Finally, ignored were the Serbs.
The unilateral decision to declare the independence of Kosovo
was carried through in a way to ensure that Serbia will for the
time being experience no catharsis, no facing and overcoming of
the legacy of the criminal wars of the 1990s. Instead, this
decision does the opposite by inflaming the very same pathology
that drove Serbia and Serbs into those wars in the first place."
Whether in Kosovo, Serbia, or the United States, the point is
not that ethnonationalism is evil, though it has certainly been
used to justify and support evil policies. Rather, in assessing
the considerable role that nationalism has played in the
construction of modern states, analysts like Muller and de las
Casas exaggerate the virtues of their oft-maligned client. It
not only makes for bad history but for bad policy as well.
The Elections
The U.S. election campaign is like an interminable movie that
has a few good laughs, one or two interesting scenes, a handful
of good lines, several credible actors, and way too much filler.
Call in the editor, please. Our electoral directors could
condense the production, cut down on the operating budget, and
provide us with a punchier version for release in the fall.
A longer election season in theory provides the candidates an
opportunity to go deeper into the issues. But in reality, it
just allows them to go deeper into our pockets.
So, for instance, there has been very little talk in the
campaigns about Darfur. FPIF contributors Steve Fake and Kevin
Funk find this odd. "Despite the sheer size of the 'Save Darfur'
movement - which claims to be carrying out the 'biggest such
activism' since the struggle against the war on Vietnam - as
well as the candidates' previous attempts to gain its support,
the conflict in Sudan has warranted little airtime in recent
Democratic debates," they write in
Candidates on Darfur. "The word 'Darfur' has been mentioned
in just three, and even these references were made only in
passing. Notwithstanding this relative silence, the presidential
contenders have indeed gone on the record with their proposals
for Darfur. Their policies, however, would exacerbate rather
than improve the humanitarian crisis in the region."
Russia has come up a little bit more often in the campaign. "The
presidential candidates have all been tempted to embrace a new
cold war with Russia," FPIF contributors Erik Christensen and
William Partlett write. Both John McCain and Hillary Clinton
have looked into the eyes of Russian leaders and seen future
conflict. In contrast, as Christensen and Partlett write in
The Candidates and Russia, Barack Obama has pointed out
"that Bush's failure was not in looking into Mr. Putin's soul
but in refusing to do the diplomatic legwork to establish a
meaningful dialogue."
What about China?
The quadrennial China-bashing that takes place in U.S.
presidential elections usually doesn't show up until the
Democrats and Republicans square off against one another after
the party conventions. But that hasn't prevented the "China
threat" from cropping up elsewhere.
The Pentagon, for instance, has just released its annual review
of China's military power. Combine that with President's
elevated military budget request and U.S. foreign policy comes
into focus. As FPIF columnist Michael Klare argues in
The China Syndrome, "a close examination of the FY 2009
request indicates that the principal sources of future budget
growth are not the Global War on Terror or other such
low-intensity contingencies but rather preparation for all-out
combat with a future superpower. Probe a little deeper into
Pentagon thinking, and only
one potential superpower emerges to justify all this
vast spending: the People's Republic of China."
Meanwhile, sentiment against U.S. bases is rising in Latin
America, as FPIF contributor John Lindsay-Poland describes in a
new essay in our strategic focus on the U.S. global military
footprint. "While visiting Italy last October, Ecuadorean
President Rafael Correa made a modest proposal," he writes in
Yankees Head Home. "If the United States allows his country
to set up a military base in Miami, his government would renew
the lease for a U.S. base in the coast city of Manta. Otherwise,
U.S. troops and operations will have to leave the when the base
lease ends next year." By the way, one country is definitely
interested in
taking over the lease in Manta: China.
Iraq Quagmire
The fifth anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq approaches.
Since 2004, we've been tracking the mounting costs of the war.
This week, in
The Iraq Quagmire, FPIF's Erik Leaver and Jenny Shin run the
numbers again: the dead, the wounded, the displaced, the
unemployment, and the bill so far: $526 billion. That's $4,100
per household. Compare that to tax refund you get this year from
Uncle Sam.
This week, Iraq War vets will come together in Washington, DC to
give testimony about their experiences. "The event is inspired
by the Winter Solider tribunal held in 1971 by Vietnam War vets,
including John Kerry," writes FPIF contributor Aaron Glantz in
Winter Soldier Hearings. "The name comes from a quote from
Thomas Paine, the revolutionary who rallied George Washington's
troops at Valley Forge, saying: 'These are the times that try
men's souls. The summer soldier and sunshine patriot will, in
this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that
stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.'
Paine was trying to keep Washington's army from deserting in the
face of a bitter winter and mounting defeats at the hands of the
British. Members of Iraq Veterans Against the War say the same
type of courage is needed to confront the evils unleashed by the
U.S. occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan."
Also timed to coincide with the anniversary is the
Split This Rock poetry festival. Here's another poem from
one of the featured poets, Christi Kramer. In
Sublime, Kramer compares the lives of one who leaves and one
who stays behind.
What Next for Cuba?
Fidel has stepped down. His brother Raul is stepping in. And,
according to FPIF contributor James Early, the pace of change is
stepping up. "Changes among political representatives elected by
local communities," he writes in
Cuba's Post-Castro Revolutionary Transition, "open verbal
and written criticisms about past errors in governance,
over-reliance on the Soviet Communist experience, criticism of
transportation woes, food shortages, low salaries, racial
discrimination, homophobia, and even criticism of aspects of the
vaunted health care system are easily found among the 60-plus
on-line magazines, parastatal publications, and official
speeches from leading government and Communist Party officials
inside Cuba."
So, Cuba is changing. U.S. policy toward Cuba, however, is not
(yet). U.S. hardliners want to continue to embargo the country
despite all evidence that such a tactic does little to push Cuba
anywhere but downhill.
"These hardliners know U.S. ultimatums will never work to bring
change to Cuba; they don't expect them to," writes FPIF
contributor Lissa Weinmann in
Getting Smart about Cuba. "The hardliners' goal is to punish
the perpetrators of the Cuban revolution and create the chaos
and institutional breakdown in Cuba that might allow them to
regain a foothold on the lost island of their fantasies."
Links
Gustavo de las Casas, "Is Nationalism Good for You?"
Foreign Policy, March/April 2008;
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4170
Jerry Muller, "Us and Them,"
Foreign Affairs, March/April 2008;
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080301faessay87203/jerry-z-muller/us-and-them.html
Richard Caplan and John Feffer,
Europe's New Nationalism (Oxford University Press,
1996);
http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/HistoryWorld/European/?view=usa&ci=9780195091496
Tomaz Mastnak, "Kosovo: A New Versailles?" Foreign Policy In
Focus (http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5046);
Kosovo's declaration of independence is a violation of
international law and an example of behind-the-scenes U.S.
manipulation.
Steve Fake and Kevin Funk, "Candidates on Darfur," Foreign
Policy In Focus (http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5047);
As the Democratic presidential primary campaign limps on, and
the cacophony of focus-grouped sound bites strikes a fevered
pitch, the candidates are making surprisingly little noise about
Darfur.
Erik Christensen and William Partlett, "The Candidates and
Russia," Foreign Policy In Focus (http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5043);
The presidential candidates have all been tempted to embrace a
new cold war with Russia.
Michael Klare, "The China Syndrome, "Foreign Policy In Focus (http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5041);
The bulk of the enormous U.S. military budget is earmarked not
for fighting terrorism but for the next cold war.
John Lindsay-Poland, "Yankees Head Home," Foreign Policy In
Focus (http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5042);
The U.S. Military reconfigures its unpopular presence in Latin
America.
"China, Ecuador: Beijing's Latin American Opportunity,"
Stratfor, November 27, 2007;
http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/china_ecuador_beijings_latin_american_opportunity
Erik Leaver and Jenny Shin, "The Iraq Quagmire," Foreign Policy
In Focus (http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5036);
Facts and figures on the human and fiscal costs of the Iraq War
to the United States and Iraq.
Aaron Glantz, "Winter Soldier Hearings," Foreign Policy In Focus
(http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5044);
U.S. veterans who served in Iraq and Afghanistan change the
conversation.
Split This Rock:
http://www.splitthisrock.org/
Christi Kramer, "Sublime," Foreign Policy In Focus (http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5031);
Kramer compares the lives of one who leaves and one who stays
behind.
James Early, "Cuba's Post-Castro Revolutionary Transition,"
Foreign Policy In Focus (http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5050);
It's time to honestly step forth and engage Cubans and their
government on the terms they negotiate inside their own country.
Lisa Weinmann, "Getting Smart about Cuba," Foreign Policy In
Focus (http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5045);
Now that Fidel Castro has stepped down, it's time to derail the
embargo gravy train.
. . .
Published by
Foreign Policy In Focus (FPIF), a project of the
Institute for Policy Studies (IPS)
fpif.org: a think tank without walls
To cancel your IPS' World Beat e-mail subscription, please
click here.
To customize l your IPS' World Beat e-mail subscription, please
click here.
We won't share your info with third parties and we respect your
preferences.
On content: John Feffer
| Other questions,
202.234.9382
©2008 IPS
|