Nationalism
The word “Nationalism” is stated to be “a diverse and complex phenomenon,” by the Oxford Dictionary of Politics, adding that “this complexity derives from the difficulty in distinguishing nation from state, and from ethnic groups.” This complexity is the difference between American patriotism and Hitlerian fascism. Political Analysts Jack C. Plano and Milton Greenberg define “nationalism” as both “[s]ocial and psychological forces that spring from unique cultural and historical factors to provide unity and inspiration to a given people through a sense of belonging together and of sharing values,” (Plano, J.C., p. 500). According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the word “nationalism’s” first known use was in 1798, defining “nationalism” to be “loyalty and devotion to a nation.” Biblical scholars and Christian doctrine attribute the origin of “nationalism” to God’s promise to Abram in Genesis 12:2 (NASB) whereby the Lord proclaims, “[a]nd I will make you a great nation, [a]nd I will bless you.” By this Biblical declaration, nationalism can be depicted as Kingdom. Merriam-Webster Dictionary adds that the term can also be used to describe “exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups.”
Historian J. Tyler Dickovick, et al., writing of nationalism, considers [t]he major distinction” to be just soli and jus sanguinis; this means the term nationalism must consider a differentiation “between those who grant citizenship to anyone born in the country’s territory (jus soli) and those that grant citizenship based on descent (jus sanguinis),” adding that “Scholars often see jus sanguinis as linked to ethnic conceptions of the nation. Indeed, if proponents of ethnic nationalism believe that citizenship should reflect national membership, they almost certainly support jus sanguinis since they believe that the nation is ultimately a biological community rather than cultural or political one…[i]ndeed, in some cases, such as Ireland, simply having grandparents who were citizens is sufficient. Other prominent examples of polities in which jus sanguinis is strongly operative include Italy and Hungary,” (Dickovick, J.T., et al., p. 316).
It is clear from these sources of literature that the term “nationalism” functions as an umbrella term that encompasses unification and consensus, however, it also can house detrimental forces entwined with other ideologies, namely socialist-communist; specifically Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist, that is inducing a societal change by any means necessary including extreme violent force; in the case of Stalinism that includes the iterations nationalism featuring labor-reform and inhumane torture to those who dissent found in China and North Korea, whereby these nations are offshoots of Soviet nationalism. The Soviet Union forcibly coerced its citizens that they were patriots, pioneers, and nationalists; when in reality the U.S.S.R. was a total state. It was the authoritarian total state that led to Russia, China, and North Korea’s industrial revolution, bringing the isolationist nationalist nations into the modern age, thereby allowing these evolving nations to engage in international trade. This extreme version of nationalism is referred to as a dictatorship, whereby the citizens are forced to hold extreme favor for their ruler, existing within the limitation of their meagerly rationed liberties.
Nationalism evidently has many forms, yet its proper use in context remains disputed by contemporary scholars. These different variations can be summed down to two basic principles; the first, an originalist definition; the second, an interpretive one. The originalist nationalist supports the idea of liberty, proclaiming sovereignty from government through the unification of the people. The interpretive nationalist strives to depose the sovereignty of the people, exchanging it for national government power. To place the definition of nationalism in context and perspective, in the early 1960’s President John F. Kennedy sought to unite Americans, and facilitate the national promotion of global peace, establishing the Peace Corps in 1961 through Congress, not by executive order. In contrast, the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis was a direct result of nationalist revision under Fidel Castro, who sought to communize the Cuban nation by working in tandem with foreign accomplices such as the U.S.S.R. These two opposing forces of intended good and evil, were sourced from nationalist thought. As referenced by the Oxford Dictionary of Politics, the word “nationalist” is largely contingent on its context.
Federalist Founding Father John Jay wrote his position on comparative geopolitics and the need for national foreign policy, highlighting the benefits of nationalism in the Federalist Paper No. 4, “whatever may be our situation, whether firmly united under one national government, or split into a number of confederacies, certain it is, that foreign nations will know and view it exactly as it is, and they will act towards us accordingly.” John Jay added that “[i]f they see that our national government is efficient and well administered . . . our trade prudently regulated . . . our militia properly organized and disciplined . . . our resources and finances discreetly managed . . . our credit re-established . . . our people free, contented and united, they will be much more disposed to cultivate our friendship, than to provoke our resentment.”
Anti-Federalist Founding Father Thomas Jefferson stated his views on international relations, writing that “I have equal confidence, that all moved by the sacred principles of liberty and patriotism will prepare themselves for any crisis we may be able to meet, and will be ready to co-operate with each other, and with the constituted authorities, in resisting and repelling the aggressions of foreign nations.” It was the unification of diverse ideas of the Philadelphia Convention that inherently defined American nationalism upon its resolve on September 17th, 1787. Contemporary legislators and political pundits have revised the word to appropriate their positions on various interests, however, this remains an erroneous approach to ensure literary specificity in policy; instead, an originalist approach must be used, resulting in its definition meaning “Union;” should any other destructive regime ascribe to be defined under this term, their state of union includes other ideologies creating a conglomeration of nefarious polity.
Similarly, in the US, many activist special interest groups dwell on the term “nationalism’s” origin as holding some form of allegiance to antebellum America; rejecting the revolutionary intent of the Colonists’ declaration of union, a pursuit apropos of contemporary culture.
Nationalism in Yugoslavia
Nationalism led to the breakup of Yugoslavia by Serbians and Croatians, “the country’s two largest nationalist groups,” according to the United States Institute of Peace (USIP). An analysis from USIP in 1996 claims that “[i]f a resolution of the national question in Yugoslavia appeared to tilt in favor of any one particular group, the federation's internal balance would be upset. Thus, Yugoslavia was not only a mosaic of different ethnic nations, but also a system that was developed to accommodate these differences.” Yugoslavia was a delicate balance of nationalist power and differences in culture, thereby the nation was inevitably bound to collapse, as there existed no defined separation between rivaling ethnic groups.
In March 1999 the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, infamously known as the North Atlantic Terrorist Organization by its critics, launched a self-described “air campaign” over Kosovo; this act produced a 78-day airstrike in the deaths of hundreds of civilians. The United Nations (UN) deplored the firebombing NATO campaign as “an act of the most brutal and unprovoked aggression,” while Russia and China condemned the attacks. The Russian Federation’s Sergey Lavrov cited that “[t]he members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) must remember that they were members of the United Nations and therefore obliged to be guided by the Charter, including Article 103, which emphasized that Charter obligations took precedence over all others,” alluding to the nearly three-month firebombing rampage. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) knowing firsthand of internal human rights abuses, stated that NATO had used “power politics of the ‘strong bullying the weak;’” much like their own ethnic targeting and persecution of Uyghur Muslims in China under the reign of Xi Jinping, similar to NATO’s treatment of non-NATO nations.
According to a report conducted by Human Rights Watch, the “[a]ttacks in Kosovo overall were more deadly for civilians than those elsewhere in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia–a third of the incidents (thirty-two out of ninety) account for more than half of the civilian deaths in the country.” The 78-day bombing campaign is a direct violation of the jus in bello doctrine, also known as Just War Theory. Violence is a prerequisite for dollar diplomacy, for merchants of death hold no forbearance over their designated plebeians.
Human Rights Watch found that “there were ninety separate incidents involving civilian deaths throughout the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia during the seventy-eight day bombing campaign. Some 500 Yugoslav civilians are known to have died in these incidents.”
As encouraged by the Human Rights Watch, it can be speculated that the nationalists in Korisa implemented human shields to maximize carnage, leading to the deaths of an excess of 80 or more citizens killed by the firebombing. Despite the attempts to shift the blame to nationalist forces, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is responsible for the bombings, not those implementing civilian human shields. International law does not support any aspect of the implementation of offensive warfare, dismissing civilian deaths as collateral damage; this practice is deifned as terrorism, and remains universally unsupported.
North Atlantic Treaty Organization declared that the breakup of Yugoslavia had to be violent; had it not occurred the bombing campaigns may have been far more extensive. The Breakup of the Soviet Union, under its own demise, was a peaceful dissolve of nationalist forces, disguised as a communist utopia. It is often the very individuals who propagate positions of influence who defy their own standards, in the case of NATO, enacting violence; in the case of communism, leaders are often radical capitalists; and those advocating independence demand ceding to government. The Latin legal maxim nemo potest plus juris ad alium transferre quam ipse habet, means that ‘no one can transfer a greater right to another than he himself has.’ The U.S. federal government cannot usurp the Constitution and undermine civil democracy under the guise of a global conglomerate.
Nationalism is best defined as the union of pride for one’s nation, without regard to each other’s differences. Foreign nations implement totalitarian tactics and other strategic implementations into their nationalist regimes, leading to depraved iterations, smearing the image of the term. Nationalism without a nation is an authoritarian offshoot of the initial principle of nationalism, thereby defining the passion a citizen holds for their country. Nationalism is not a position of malice, international hegemony, nor a force of destruction. Maleficent forces within government hijack the union of civilians, weaponizing them under the object of nationalism, encouraging public appeal for the waging [government backed] party. Nationalism must be considered for what it exists alongside, as the result of contrasting nationalist views can have dire consequences when its ideology is implemented through multiple waging factions, ethnic groups, or rivaling principled individuals; therefore nationalism at its core must be considered to be defined as the love and passion for one’s government, not the corrupt officials who exploit its polity
–August 31st, 2023
Bibliography
Dickovick, J. T., Eastwood, J. (20180716). Comparative Politics: Integrating Theories, Methods, and Cases, 3rd Edition. [VitalSource Bookshelf 10.3.1]. Retrieved from vbk://9780190086305
Garner, B.A. (2021). Black's Law Dictionary, Eleventh Edition. St. Paul, MN: Thomson Reuters.
Hamilton, Alexander; Madison, James; Jay, John. The Federalist. Liberty Fund, Inc.. Kindle Edition.
HRW. (n.d.). UNDER ORDERS: War Crimes in Kosovo - 16. The NATO Air Campaign. https://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/kosovo/undword2b.html.
Jefferson, Thomas. Complete Works of Thomas Jefferson (Illustrated) (Delphi Series Ten Book 4) (p. 867). Delphi Classics. Kindle Edition.
Nationalism. (2023). In Merriam-Webster.com. Retrieved August 24th, 2023, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nationalism
Plano, J.C. et al. (1962, 1985). The American Political Dictionary, Seventh Edition. CBS College Publishing; Holt, Rinehart and Winston; The Dryden Press; Saunders College Publishing; New York, NY, 10017
UN. (1999). NATO Action Against Serbian Military Targets Prompts Divergent Views As Security Council Holds Urgent Meeting On Situation In Kosovo | UN Press. https://press.un.org/en/1999/19990324.sc6657.html.
USIP. (n.d.). Serbian Nationalism and the Origins of the Yugoslav Crisis | United States Institute of Peace. https://www.usip.org/publications/1996/04/serbian-nationalism-and-origins-yugoslav-crisis.