POSC 2200 – Nationalism, Nation States and Foreign Policy

1. POSC 2200 – Nationalism, Nation States and Foreign Policy Russell Alan Williams Department of Political Science

2. Unit Three: Nationalism, Nation States and Foreign Policy “Nationalism and States in the International System” Required Reading: • Globalization of World Politics, Chapter 24. • Strobe Talbott, “Self-Determination in an Interdependent World,”Foreign Policy, No. 118 (Spring, 2000), pp. 152-163. (Available through e-journals, or from the instructor.) Outline: • Introduction • Nationalism • Civic • Ethnic • Self Determination and Sovereignty in the 20th Century • For Next Time . . . .

3. 1) Introduction: Unit goal: Explore “nationalism”, “nation-states” and the challenges of “self determination” for modern politics Problem: Concepts and their implications poorly understood, and yet . . . development of “nation-states” is the largest cause of modern warfare • Terminology Problem: “Nation” and “State” used interchangeably, but they are not the same thing . . . . • Conceptual problem: “Sovereignty” versus “self-determination” . . . . • Foreign policy problem . . . .

4. 2) Nationalism – a brief history: “Conventional account”: • Modern states grew from “nations” which fought for “sovereignty” and “self determination” =“nation-states” became basis of all political organization • Globalization now challenges “nations-states” Question: What’s wrong with this story?

5. 2) Nationalism – a brief history: • What’s wrong with this story? • Nationalism is a modern ideology? • Nationalism has spread at the same time as globalization? • Most states are not “nation-states” in this sense – they often have multiple “nations”? • This story has had dangerous implication  War!

6. Key Concepts: • “State”: The institutions of government and sovereign authority over a “country” or territory. • “Nation”: A group of people who recognize each other as having a shared identity and normally a defined territory, or “homeland”. • “Nationalism”: The belief that the world is organized into “nations” based on ethnic and cultural identities – forms the basis of political identity. • Generates demands for national “self determination” and statehood • Strong sense of “primordialism” and “founding myths” • “Nation-state”: A state which claims legitimacy based on representing the sovereign authority of a particular nation – from a “nationalism” perspective • However, most “nation-states” do not really fit the definition

7. In practical terms nationalism comes in different forms – reflects the modern invention of nationalism a) “Civic Nationalism”: A form of nationalism in which identity is based on belonging to an existing state – national identity is indistinguishable from citizenship. • E.g. United States Canada France (!)

8. France: Often used as an illustration of a modern “nation-state”, but . . . . France was not always the “nation” it is today. Until the existence of the modern “French” state and the promotion of French nationhood as a civic culture – France was a multi-ethnic, multi-linguistic and multi-religious monarchy

9. In practical terms nationalism comes in different forms – reflects the modern invention of nationalism b) “Ethnic Nationalism”: A form of nationalism in which people articulate a national identity separate from, or prior to, their citizenship in a particular state – often the key aspect of ethnic nationalism is the demand for statehood. • E.g. Eastern Europe and the Balkans

10. Eastern Europe, before and after WWI: New states were created in accordance with “ethnic nationalism” and “self determination”

11. Meanwhile . . . in the middle east: New states were not created in accordance with “ethnic nationalism” and “self determination”

12. Meanwhile . . . in the middle east: Uh oh . . . What about the “Kurds”? • An ethnic “nation”, but no state? • Continuing “nationalism” and demand for “self determination” = conflict with sovereign states created after WWI which claim the territory of “Kurdistan” • E.g. Iraq and Turkey’s “sovereignty” is in direct contradiction with the Kurd’s “self determination”

13. Meanwhile . . . in Africa: Uh oh . . . What about Sudan? • Again "sovereignty” is in direct contradiction with “self determination” and Sudan has an interest in the status quo . . . .

14. Key point: • “Ethnic nationalism” is often seen as the basis of “self determination”, but there are more “ethnic nations” than states . . . . • Source of longstanding, and irreconcilable civil wars E.g. UN system protects the rights of existing sovereign states, not those seeking self determination

15. 3) Self Determination & Sovereignty in the 20th Century System of statehood created after World War I has created many of the problems that dominate international headlines 1) Failed states 2) Humanitarian crises 3) Non-state actors – terrorism, crime, cross border violence facilitated by ungovernable regions

16. 1) “Failed states”: A state where the government has ceased to effectively govern its territory – it can no longer provide services or basic order – normally as a result of persistent internal conflict. • Somalia • Sudan • Afghanistan • Rwanda • Yugoslavia

17. Yugoslavia:

18. Yugoslavia: Ethnic nationalists claimed same territory as part of their state: System of “self determination” & “sovereignty”: • Creates incentives for: • “Ethnic cleansing” • “Genocide” • Creates unclear rules for international institutions and foreign policy – pressure is to respect the sovereign status of the existing state

19. Yugoslavia: Argument: part of the problem with state failure is that international initiations and foreign powers insist on keeping unworkable states together . . . . However: Kosovo War 1998-1999: =Erosion of “Westphalian sovereignty”?

20. 3) Self Determination & Sovereignty in the 20th Century 2) Humanitarian crises: Many “failed” or weak states suffer humanitarian problems. • E.g. Somalia (UNOSOM II – 1993-1995) - UN mission was not accepted by local “authorities” – did not go well . . . . Emerging principle of “humanitarian intervention”: Sovereignty of a state incapable of dealing with a humanitarian crisis need not be respected.

21. 3) Self Determination & Sovereignty in the 20th Century 3) Non-state actors in contested border regions . . . . • Ethnic nationalist secessionist movements often create ungovernable regions, generating cross border crime, trafficking, terrorism . . . • E.g. Pushstun Region Kashmir Chechnya

22. Strobe Talbott and the Challenges of “Self Determination”: • Former U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Argument: Solution to ethnic nationalism and secessionism is not to create new states – it is too difficult – reflects official policy of all major states and the U.N. Solution: More democracy and globalization(!) • Removes reasons for ethnic nationalism . . . . • Increases ability of states to accommodate national minorities

23. 5) For Next Time . . . Unit Three: Nationalism, Nation States and Foreign Policy “States as Actors – Foreign Policy” Required Reading: • Robert Jervis, “Hypotheses on Misperception,”World Politics, 20 (3), (April 1968), Pp. 454-479. (Available through e-journals, or as an excerpt from the instructor.)