Since singular analysis is deemed unacceptable in objective scientific research, we find ourselves compelled to assert that the national dimension represents the most influential factor in international relations. It serves as the primary impetus or driving force that governs the formulation of international foreign policies and their interactions across time. Were it not for the singular nature of causation, we would claim it to be the only factor. It is well-known that international relations or policies are founded on behaviors adopted among states in their mutual interactions, whether in times of war or peace. As is known, the actions of any state can only stem from its national understanding, identified under various names such as national interest, national security, or national goals. From this perspective, we see that international relations fundamentally depend on the interplay of national interests among the parties in the international equation. Hence, elucidating this matter becomes essential for students of international relations.
In this relatively brief research paper, given the significance of the topic, the researcher seeks to clarify the central and essential role that nationalism plays in international foreign policies and its various interactions, including practical examples that illustrate this role. Subsequently, a comprehensive evaluation of this role will be provided, highlighting its positive and negative impacts on international relations.
As for the purpose and goal of this research, it fulfills requirements for a course on theories of international relations, which is part of obtaining a master’s degree in the Department of Political Science. The core dilemma of this research lies in revealing the depth and extent of the influence that the national dimension exerts on the foreign policies of the parties in the international equation.
Regarding the methodology, the study primarily relies on a historical approach to clarify the causal relationships between the national incentive or motivation and international political relations and their historical development up to the present time. This is based on the assumption that the national factor is the primary driver contributing to shaping the foreign political relations of any party involved in the international equation.
Concerning previous studies, the researcher noted that most studies addressing this subject have tackled it partially within their frameworks concerning nationalism in general or international relations in general. For example, one party discusses the direct role of nationalism in numerous international changes throughout history, such as the French and American revolutions and the unification of Germany and Italy, without delving into the indirect effects of nationalism on international relations that resulted from these changes. Conversely, international relations themselves address the national dimension as one of the influential factors in international relations without thoroughly elucidating these effects. Among the studies that have given this topic some of its due attention, in the researcher’s opinion, is Dr. Ismail Sabry Maqlid’s study in his book on international political relations, where he dedicated the fourth chapter to discussing the effects of nationalism on international relations. We have relied on this book as one of the main references in this research.
This research is structured into three main chapters. The first chapter discusses the concept of nationalism and its emergence. The second chapter examines the national effects in some key changes that the world witnessed in various eras that consequently altered many concepts and dimensions of the international game. The third chapter provides an evaluation of the role of the national dimension in international relations and the repercussions arising from this role.
Finally, I hope we have had success in preparing this research and that we have offered some benefit to ourselves first and to our colleagues second.
The Concept of Nationalism
When discussing nationalism—or rather the term “national” or “nationalism”—or when describing someone as having a national orientation, or stating that a country has acted from a national impetus, the impact of this term on our ears is quite acceptable and well understood, needing no clarification. However, if we were to define this concept precisely, we would find ourselves entering a complicated methodological maze, resulting in an inability to arrive at a specific and comprehensive concept that encapsulates the idea and meaning of this term. It may indeed be impossible to arrive at a short, accurate scientific definition composed of a sentence or two that encompasses all that nationalism entails while excluding everything beyond it.
This difficulty, in our opinion, stems from the fact that the nationalism of each nation has expressed itself in ways that differ from others and that it has changed and adapted over time. For instance, American nationalities do not resemble European nationalities, and Asian nationalities do not share a complete similarity due to the lack of deep historical roots and the differing material, political, economic, social, and geographical conditions, in addition to the varying historical factors that have shaped each nation and its national concept. The delayed unification of Germany and Italy, in terms of time and the differences in their histories, has caused their national characters to somewhat differ from those of British and French nationalities, which preceded them. We observe that the national sentiment that emerged in revolutionary France between 1789 and 1790, influenced by Enlightenment thinking, was more humanitarian than the national sentiment during the Reign of Terror (1793). German nationalism during Bismarck’s era (1871) is considered moderate compared to nationalism during Hitler’s Reich (1939).
Researchers worldwide have attempted to find a specific definition of nationalism that can assist, however minimally, in providing an academically acceptable definition for political studies. Ultimately, they had to formulate their personal definitions, influenced by their political philosophies. Since the overwhelming majority of researchers in nationalism are also advocates of a particular nationalism directly or indirectly, each has inevitably been influenced by the nature of the cause they championed, leading to a focus in their definitions that aligns with the objective circumstances surrounding that cause. Consequently, necessary clarity has rarely been achieved due to numerous obstacles that hinder the progress of scientific research.
Among the definitions that have attempted to refine the concept of nationalism are those agreed upon by Renan, Treitschke, Barrès, and Zanguill, viewing the nation as a Hegelian organic entity. This definition suggests a purely symbolic value that is subjectively rejected; however, the modern historical significance of this symbol cannot be overlooked. Nationalists everywhere view the nation as a sublime entity above nature or a being that transcends the individuals and institutions it comprises.
Huxley and Haddon define the nation as “a community united by a shared belief in its origins and common hostilities toward its neighbors.” The Italian Mancini defines nationalism as “a natural community of humans connected by unity of land, origin, customs, and language due to shared life and social feeling.” This definition is one of the most important and well-known descriptions of nationalism as it outlines the main characteristics and elements of nationalism.
As for Arab thinkers, many, particularly advocates of Arab nationalism, have attempted to formulate a specific definition of nationalism that fits the Arab situation and its context. Among these definitions is that of Dr. George Hanna, who defines nationalism as “a social contract among people who share a common language, geography, history, shared fate, common material economic interests, and a common psychological culture, and this contract must contain all these components together.” Dr. Munif Al-Razzaz defines nationalism as “the bond that links the members of a single nation within a unified homeland.”
Through the diversity of these definitions, we observe a significant problem in establishing a specific concept that can be relied upon as a basis for studying any nationalism, as each definition exhibits a subjective tendency or national specificity. This is particularly evident when examining the so-called German and French concepts of nationalism, with the German concept focusing on the importance of language in national identity construction, while the French philosophy views the desire for communal living as the core of nationalism and its criterion.
This divergence illustrates the objectives pursued by advocates of each of these nationalities: the German nationalists seek to include all German-speaking individuals in Europe, such as the inhabitants of Alsace, within the German state. In contrast, the French nationalism, having developed a century earlier, completed its political unity by acquiring lands where the inhabitants did not speak French, including Alsace.
In conclusion, nationalism appears in the manner desired by nationalists and may not be a pure, fixed idea but rather diverse aggregates of beliefs and circumstances. Therefore, the only way to grasp the essence of nationalism is to define its beliefs, regardless of their veracity, and the conditions surrounding them. Hertz states in his definition of nationalism that “nationalism is an idea that perceives the existence of a collective character state that varies in its suggestion and self-awareness compared to the state’s density and size. It may represent an extinct united state or an existing united state and may be directed towards establishing a unified state in the future, relying on the original natural traits that constitute its identity and justify its claims.”
Emergence of Nationalist Thought
Researchers do not only differ in defining nationalism, but they also have varying views on its early beginnings and the interpretation of nation emergence. In this regard, there are two groups of opinions: the first group believes that national feeling is a natural phenomenon inherent to humanity since the advent of human society, where some aspects of nationalism are as old as humanity itself. Kon, for example, posits that history has witnessed seeds of national sentiment through people’s deep attachment to their land, traditions, and the authority in their regions. Ernest Barker argues that there were nations in Europe before the advent of written history.
On the other hand, the second group contends that nationalism is a relatively recent phenomenon unknown to ancient human societies. Bernard Russell, for instance, suggests that most people in the modern era accept nationalism as natural without realizing how recent it is, arguing that it may have first emerged with Joan of Arc (during the Hundred Years’ War) then faded during the religious wars, before being reborn during the French Revolution. This group denies that the Romans, for instance, recognized nationalism or that the Greeks were a single nation. Among this opinion group, there are differences regarding the true beginnings of nationalism in Europe. Some believe the sentiments that emerged in the late Middle Ages in the kingdoms that united in Europe or were on their way to unity within strategically defined borders involving peoples that shared a common major language represent the true initial emergence of nationalism.
Others argue that nationalism began to take form even earlier; Auguste Thierry claims that the French national spirit had awakened by the ninth century, while Longton traces this awakening to the early twelfth century, and Ranke asserts that it commenced a full century later, around the thirteenth century. Meanwhile, Gizot, Michelet, and many others affirm the importance of the Hundred Years’ War in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.
It is difficult to assert that one of these views is closer to objectivity than the other, as both define the beginning of nationalism according to differing understandings of the concept itself. If we claim it is impossible for an ancient state like Pharaoh’s Egypt, Babylon, or the Canaanites to have founded their state on national bases, how then can we explain the collective spirit that led these peoples to defend their land and sovereignty against invading groups from other nations? Likewise, how can we explain the ancient conflicts among various empires, and what motivation drove them in those struggles? Nevertheless, we cannot claim that these nations possessed a well-formed political vision of nationalism.
From here, we can conclude that the idea of nationalism is an ancient and modern concept. Ancient civilizations demonstrated a sense of nationalism—perhaps from the perspective of that time period—taking various forms such as loyalty to a ruler, attachment to land, a collective sense of superiority over other peoples, shared belief in a single religion, or a specific doctrine within that religion. What has been previously discussed can be seen as the initial crystallization of a nationalist concept, or more precisely, “nascent nationalism.”
As historical development enveloped all forms of life, it is not an exaggeration to suggest that the concept of nationalism has accompanied historical evolution until it reached its current form. We can assert that what modern nationalist thinkers have added is the crystallization of existing concepts and practical applications, transforming them into theoretical ideas and advocating for their application in reality. In our very personal belief, they have not introduced anything new.
If we examine any modern nationalist study, we would find it advocating an old idea as a model to emulate or reflecting foreign national concepts. For instance, Machiavelli was inspired to advocate for Italian unity from the great history of the Roman Empire and the glories of Rome. Meanwhile, the French derived their nationalist ideas from the ancient Kingdom of Gaul and the glories of Charles Martel. Germans and English drew their thoughts from the ancient Germanic tribes, while Arab nationalists focused on the glorious history of the Arab identity beginning with the first Arab unity in the Battle of Dhi Qar and culminating in the construction of the great Arab empire from China in the east to France in the west. Similarly, modern Jewish nationalism concentrated on the ancient glories of the Jewish state and the accomplishments of Kings David and Solomon. Persian nationalism, on the other hand, was built upon ancient Persian glories and attempted to revive its longstanding conflicts with the Arab Empire in its war with Iraq. Additionally, modern Turkey drew its national dimension from the glories of the Ottoman Empire and its attempts to recolonize Arab states. We also observe that some newly formed nationalities have had to mimic other nationalities as a model for their national unity, due to lacking a historical national dimension. A prime example of this is modern American nationalism, which adopted the national ideas of the French Revolution as a foundation for its emergence.
These elements can be considered an introduction to the second chapter of this research, which discusses the impact of the national dimension on shaping international relations throughout history.
Based on the above, no one can deny the antiquity of the concept of nationalism, regardless of its understanding during those historical periods. However, the crystallization of certain modern concepts such as the principle of sovereignty, political entities, citizenship, and popular sovereignty has contributed to imposing modern definitions of nationalism—essentially modernizing this concept and the resulting international behaviors to align with the requirements of current global divisions. The notion of state emerged based primarily on the existence of a group of individuals living on a specific land governed by a set of principles such as freedom, democracy, political institutions, the rule of law, and popular participation. Consequently, most ancient national identities transitioned into national states striving to organize their relationships with each other within a framework of international interaction that ultimately serves the national goals of those states.
Regardless of the differences in defining the antiquity or modernity of the concept of nationalism, this research does not aim to pinpoint a specific date for the inception of this concept. Instead, we are concerned with determining the role of this concept and its implications for the evolution of international relations. This can simply be achieved by observing the nature of international behavior at any given time and assessing whether it can be described as stemming from a national dimension. Thus, we believe that this necessarily helps in determining the temporal aspect of this concept.
The Impact of Nationalism on International Relations
To begin addressing this topic, we must remind ourselves that international relations are merely a system of behaviors pursued by the parties in the international equation in their political orientations toward one another. Here, we find that understanding these international behaviors is capable of explaining all the outcomes that arise from them in real-world scenarios. To comprehend any international behavior, we must recognize the nature of the forces that govern the formation of this behavior and identify how these forces influence it.
In this regard, we discuss nationalism as one of the most critical forces shaping the foreign policies of the parties in the international system. We believe that understanding the concept of nationalism is a fundamental prerequisite for understanding the phenomenon of international behavior as a whole. The distinctive subjective characteristics of each state—whether human, geographical, civilizational, or regional—determine the state’s interests and the goals behind its foreign policy, ultimately defining its role in the international community.
Nationalism serves as one of the primary sources of political conflicts at the international level. The sensitivities arising from differences in national identities and interests create a sentiment within each state that it is primarily responsible for defending its identity and interests against contrary national challenges. In other words, loyalty to these nationalities overshadows states’ obligations toward global peace or the international community with which they engage.
The growth and spread of nationalism have led to the emergence of many new states in the international community. Among the categories of states created by these developing nationalist movements are:
First: States that were parts of overseas colonial possessions, which share cultural bonds with imperial states, much like the United States and the British Commonwealth in their relationships with the United Kingdom or Latin American states in their relations with Spain and Portugal. These countries became independent to assert their national identity without regard for these cultural connections with the imperial powers that once dominated them.
Second: States that were fragmented into several limited regional entities despite belonging to one nation, such as Germany and Italy in the nineteenth century.
Third: States that emerged as a result of national movements against colonial control, starting with the peoples of the Balkans rebelling against Ottoman Empire authority and their independence in the early twentieth century, culminating in the numerous states that gained independence in Asia and Africa following World War II.
In all the aforementioned cases, the demand for independence by these states was based on the premise that each held a self-identifying national entity granting them the right to determine their destiny according to what they deemed appropriate in accordance with their specific circumstances and situations. This drive led to a significant number of international conflicts due to states’ pursuit of territorial expansion to encompass peoples sharing their nationality. The political borders of states do not always align with the national divisions of populations, highlighting the fundamental difference between the concepts of state and nation; while a state is a political entity delineated within a specific geographical region, a nation signifies a national identity that exists outside the geographic or regional framework constituting one of the primary elements of a state.
Numerous examples of these national border conflicts are characteristic of international relations, such as the persistent disputes between Germany and France over Alsace-Lorraine and the Saar Basin, the conflict between Italy and Yugoslavia over Trieste, the dispute between Poland and Czechoslovakia over Teschen, the conflict between Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, and Greece over Macedonia, and the dispute between the United States and Mexico over Texas, which ultimately led to the American-Mexican War of 1846. Additionally, the conflict between China and India over the Himalayas led to war in 1962, while the dispute between India and Pakistan over Kashmir continues to be contentious.
These border issues amplify nationalist sentiments and increase the intensity of international conflicts. Of course, we do not imply that all border disputes arise from nationalist conflicts; many are based on strategic or economic objectives. Nevertheless, in the final analysis, they ultimately serve the national interests of any state.
In addition to the above, it is essential to highlight the role of the national dimension in facilitating significant shifts that continuously alter the landscape of international political relations. The importance of these great changes lies not only in their emergence but also in the many international variables and circumstances that accompanied this emergence and played a crucial role in shaping the foreign policies of all international stakeholders without exception. Notably, both World Wars were among the variables and circumstances that emerged as a result of the changes brought about by nationalism in international relations.
Among the most significant changes nationalism instigated in the history of international relations is the French Revolution, which is regarded as one of the three major revolutions that formed modern European civilization alongside the Protestant Reformation and the Bolshevik Revolution.
The French Revolution is described as a movement where nationalist sentiment played a consciously decisive role, where for the first time in history, national will expressed itself through specific measures aimed at enforcing national language and establishing national education. Moreover, it was here that we first encountered what we might term “nationalist ideology.” This revolution represented the final phase in the construction of French consciousness—the maturation of the French nation and the crystallization of its will—marking the birth of modern nationalism.
Some believe the French Revolution was merely a spontaneous popular reaction to the tragic conditions endured by the populace, coining it a “mob revolution.” However, the truth is that the French Revolution was propelled by the educated middle class, which embraced the national concept of the French nation, viewing themselves as representatives of that nation.
The national dimension emerged in the French Revolution through the actions taken during the revolution, which were a genuine expression of national will, rather than the imposition of a class onto the entire community. The French Revolution contributed many clear and defined elements that have since become hallmarks of expressing national will globally. It strengthened the new national state at the expense of the church, allowed individuals considerable freedom in choosing their religious loyalties, yet instilled in them the principle that all citizens were obliged to show primary loyalty solely to the national state. It introduced new symbols that became integral to nationalist movements worldwide, such as the national flag, national anthem, and national holidays, in addition to the insistence on using a single language—the national language—while prohibiting the use of any other language within France. The French revolutionaries recognized the linguistic foundation of citizenship and deemed it essential to ensure that national allegiance superseded all other forms of loyalty.
In this context, the French Revolution established the first comprehensive national system of compulsory education funded and directed by the state, encompassing the teaching of national duties and responsibilities alongside other subjects. Importantly, it abolished local provinces that perceived themselves as relatively independent entities from the state, eliminating local sentiment—a transformation that could not have occurred without dominant nationalist feelings.
A significant number of researchers in this domain largely agree that the French Revolution represents a pivotal moment for the clear expression of national will in practice. Kon, in his book “The Idea of Nationalism,” argues that the first significant expression of nationalism is the French Revolution, noting that nationalism was born from the French Revolution. He asserts that only since this time have civilized peoples understood national loyalty as the most sacred source of inspiration in life, emphasizing that the French Revolution was the first major expression of nationalist doctrine and one of the strongest factors in intensifying national consciousness, linking democracy to nationalism (which one cannot conceive of without prior notions of popular sovereignty).
One immediate consequence of the triumph of national will in the French Revolution was the emergence of a completely new concept: the idea of a referendum as a means of determining national affiliation, fundamentally dependent on the will of the individuals concerned, seen as equals in rights within the community they belong to. For instance, the plebiscite conducted in Avignon under French oversight, which determined its annexation to France in 1791, heralded the birth of a new policy that revolutionized international relations.
The revolution’s leaders soon proclaimed the principle of national self-determination and encouraged all nations to liberate themselves from their oppressors based on this principle. Carnot — dubbed “the organizer of victory” during the revolution — stated that every nation has the right to live independently if it chooses or to unite with others for the common good. The French viewed efforts to fulfill this call as their national mission that they carried to many parts of Europe during the lengthy conflicts affecting the continent. As Heus put it, the most significant lesson Europe learned during the Napoleonic Wars was nationalism, where Napoleon’s soldiers became messengers of this new gospel of nationalism, advocating the idea of an indivisible nation—a nation above all classes and all religious differences, a mission-bearing nation.
From what has been previously articulated, it becomes clear that nationalism was the greatest driving force of the French Revolution, which we have noted as one of the significant transformations that shaped modern European civilization and, consequently, the modern world, influencing the majority of foreign political relations among parties in the international equation from that time to the present.
In addition to the French Revolution, in the context of discussing changes brought about by nationalism in the history of international relations, both past and contemporary, we must also consider the unifications of Germany and Italy as outcomes of nationalist movements in both cases. No one can deny that both German and Italian unifications are direct results of nationalist ideology, nor can anyone overlook their role in shaping international relations over a century, culminating in the two world wars.
Due to the similarities in the objective circumstances surrounding both unifications, we will focus solely on the German unification, given that the German nationalist movement was heavily influenced by the French Revolution and its nationalist ideals, prompting calls for peoples to practice their right to self-rule. This movement sought to establish a unified German state instead of the multitude of German principalities, which numbered nearly 360 during the Treaty of Westphalia, reduced to 38 during Napoleon’s rule, and at the time of German unification, the number decreased to 25 principalities.
The French Revolution inspired the Germans, as it did other peoples, to contemplate the minority controlling those nations and discern its composition. This inquiry led to examining the nationality of this minority, questioning whether its members belonged to the same nation being ruled or were foreign. This question inherently prompts considerations about definitions of the foreigner and nation.
The theorization of the idea of German nationalism was initiated by thinkers Goethe and Schiller, who urged that each people possesses a unique genius in understanding freedom and equality, and that the German people, due to their distinct culture and genius, should formulate their opinions in that regard. These views nearly materialized, practically manifesting the German nationalist movement following the overwhelming victories of Austria and Prussia over France at the end of Napoleon’s era. Germans experienced a sense of national glory upon their triumph in the Battle of Leipzig in 1813, anticipating it would lead to the resurrection of a unified Germany after Napoleon’s defeat.
However, Austria’s rejection of the idea of a unified Germany caused the notion to retract. Nonetheless, the ideas promoted by thinkers such as Fichte, Hegel, and Savigny continued advocating for the unification of territories comprising the Germanic element, positing that Germans represented the highest among humanity and asserting that they should inherit from the Holy Roman Empire. It is noteworthy that these ideas were closely aligned with those embraced by the Nazi movement, which incited World War II. Fichte’s ideas, introduced in the form of speeches to the German nation, exemplified early nineteenth-century nationalism in Europe, appealing to the German spirit and embedding a specific concept of national dimensions emphasizing the nation as the primary element in defining national character, underscoring the necessity for state borders to align with areas where the national language is spoken.
Our intention is not to provide a historical account of the steps undertaken by Prussia in adopting the German nationalist movement and achieving actual unification in 1871. What is critical for us is to clarify the role of nationalism in this unity and the implications of German national ideas—particularly the notion of the superiority of the Germanic element— which cast a long shadow over Germany’s foreign political relations, ultimately leading to both world wars, all without dismissing the roles played by other nationalities in these conflicts.
In addition to the unification of Germany and Italy, a wave of nationalist movements has engaged the world over the past three centuries and continues to play a significant role in international relations to this day. One can assert that most events of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries revolved around nationalism, not only in Europe but globally. Numerous Asian nationalities, many of which predate European nations, including the Arab, Chinese, Indian, Japanese, and Persian nations in Iran, have shaped the overall framework of international relations in Asia and exerted influence across all continents.
While all of the above underscores the deep and significant role the national dimension plays in international relations, some may question whether this role will persist amid the developments unfolding globally and in light of new terminologies and concepts such as the new international order, globalization, economic alliances, transnational corporations, and European political unity.
To answer this question, I believe an entire book would be required, rather than a brief research paper like this one. Nevertheless, it can be largely confined to exploring the most significant, perilous, and impactful factor concerning nationalism and the nation-state, which has begun preoccupying the minds of most political, economic, and social thinkers, among other disciplines: that factor or development is globalization, which represents one of the paramount challenges confronting the idea of nationalism, alongside the dynamics of economic alliances, community collectives, and the European Union. While globalization has not yet settled into its final form, inhibiting our ability to determine the effects it might yield, we can still extrapolate some potential impacts on nationalism and the nation-state based on the emerging trends across various sectors—economic, political, or cultural. It is reasonable to conclude that no nation can isolate itself from globalization or its effects, regardless of its size or economic strength.
In discussing this issue, it is essential to distinguish between the nation-state in the developed world and the nation-state in the developing world. Although both are directly influenced by globalization as well as accompanying economic and political forces, the extent of their impact is certainly varied and relative.
The capitalist nation-state primarily fundamentally relies on nationalism, with capital depending on it, thus leading nation-states to establish frameworks and institutions that ensure the development and expansion of capitalist production relationships. Paul Sweezy explains, “Companies rely entirely on the state for their existence, while the state thrives on the surplus produced by these companies. Therefore, they exist in a reciprocal relationship, each relying on the other.” This relationship persists and results in an ongoing process of expansion, as capital accumulation constitutes a fundamental characteristic of capitalist production, with halting production inevitably leading to crises for both society and the state.
Historically, the spread and expansion of companies have coincided with the support and protection provided by their governments, leading to the observation that the development of nation-states in the West has been intertwined with capital growth, mutually reinforcing each other—one cannot stand without the other. This implies that the dissolution of the nation-state in the West, even theoretically, remains unlikely.
According to Paul Kennedy, global challenges spark debate regarding the nation-state’s viability; the independent, primary role the state has played in political and international affairs over previous decades appears to be waning. He posits that the conventional model of a powerful entity capable of handling emerging circumstances is flawed; thus, he calls for a transferring of authority both upwards and downwards to create structures more apt to respond to current and future forces of change.
Regarding the upward transfer of authority—indicating forces transcending national borders—this refers to the rise of transnational powers, global communication systems, and the increasing role of institutions and international agreements, based on the notion that international problems must be addressed on a global scale to succeed. Conversely, the downward transfer of authority to smaller units than the nation-state results from economic and technological developments; for instance, the dissolution of borders in Europe has permitted the emergence of regional trade zones—previously obstructed by customs regulations—where Slovenia integrates with Austria more than with Serbia, and Alsace and Lorraine align closer with Germany than with Paris. There are even U.S. states opening offices abroad to engage in investment diplomacy on an individual scale. This trend is supported by economists, who argue that trade does not adhere to restrictions but follows its natural course, even if the downward transfer of authority results in a national disintegration issue faced by many countries, notably Yugoslavia, Africa, and the Kurds in Turkey.
Additionally, globalization is accompanied by phenomena such as unions like the European Union, with some scholars claiming the emergence of a supra-national state. However, this view is not entirely accurate as the unity in Europe is grounded in the importance of capital, not in homogeneous states like the nation-state; notable social and economic disparities remain that may lead to the attraction of other parties. Furthermore, what might be the future of such a union should interests conflict?
As for the developing world, which is more affected by these factors, Dr. Mohammed Abed Al-Jabri states: “Since globalization is a system that bypasses the state, nation, and homeland, it inevitably leads to fragmentation and disintegration. The weakening of state power and reduced presence in favor of globalization will inevitably awaken previous frameworks of belonging to replace the nation, such as tribes, sects, regions, and sectarian affiliations, resulting in societal fragmentation and disintegration.”
Numerous examples exist showing how societies and nations have fragmented and where loyalties have shifted away from traditional state structures. Ultimately, the nation-state remains the primary source of identity for most people; individuals still pay taxes to the state, abide by its laws, serve in its military, and cannot travel without a passport issued by their nation. When societal problems arise, such as illegal immigration, people invariably turn to their governments for solutions.
With all the previously discussed information, the future remains uncertain, potentially bringing about many new variables and transformations that could exert even more profound impacts than previously mentioned. However, based on the current reality, we observe that the nation-state continues to play a fundamental and central role in international relations. Until now, no evidence has surfaced to support the notion of sidelining nationalism in favor of new political, economic, or social ideas. It may be prudent to await the developments of new circumstances and the changes they will engender on all fronts.
Evaluation of the Role of Nationalism in International Relations
The role of nationalism in international relations has been a subject of continuous and intense debate between those who defend it as an important positive force in the international community—pushing states towards social and economic construction—and those who criticize it as a dangerous source of wars and international conflicts.
In general, we can summarize the perspectives of both camps as follows:
First: Opinions denouncing nationalism as a negative force in international relations: Those who hold this viewpoint argue that:
Nationalism poses a perpetual threat to conditions of international peace, acting as a catalyst for war, regardless of the nature or objectives of the conflict. Some of these wars have aggressive, expansionist characteristics that arise from extreme assertions of national identities at the expense of other nationalities. Other conflicts are national liberation wars, or wars aimed at achieving national unity. This group of analysts considers that irrespective of the motivations and circumstances surrounding these forms of warfare—fuelled by national considerations—they all pose a threat to global peace.
Nationalism exacerbates racial conflicts in the international community, leading to increased international divisions, and the resultant tensions in inter-state relations. At its core, nationalism is a sentiment of racial belonging, asserting narrow nationalist interests above other ideals and international ethical values.
Nationalism leads to extreme politicization—consciously or unconsciously—of issues that might not inherently fall within the political realm. This means that nationalism intensifies the sensitivities present in international relations, tending to interpret everything through a narrow national perspective, where unrestrained exaggeration sometimes amplifies international friction and narrows opportunities for cooperation among states across various domains that pertain to their interests.
Nationalism undermines the certainty and stability of international relations. National conflicts sometimes prompt states to renege on agreements and treaties they have entered, frequently justified under the guise of national interests. Such behavior shakes international trust in the value of these obligations as long as national considerations overshadow any sense of international accountability.
Second: Perspectives viewing nationalism as a positive force in international relations: The other camp perceives nationalism as one of the positive forces within international relations, grounding their arguments in the following rationale:
Nationalism aids in mobilizing national powers when necessities arise, and since power is an indispensable requirement under the current international system, it can therefore be considered among the positive and effective elements of state strength.
Nationalism constitutes a fundamental pillar for cultivating a sense of social solidarity. By leading individuals to integrate into society and affirm their belonging to a specific group, this feeling fosters a sense of security stemming from the power of that community to which they belong. Such nationalist feelings can be harnessed in ways that bolster public welfare conditions, which are achievable only through individual sacrifices and contributions spurred by feelings of national affiliation and the eagerness to present this national group in the best possible light. Thus, nationalism acts as a constructive positive force in nurturing state entities and providing them with the energy and motivation to continually evolve towards improvement, which benefits the entire international community.
Nationalism serves as a driving force for states striving to free themselves from external intervention or foreign control, thereby asserting their self-respect within the international community. Foreign control fosters a feeling of weakness and humiliation among individuals affected by such domination. Additionally, this national humiliation is exacerbated by the foreign state’s disinterest in the feelings or interests of the controlled state, often adjusting its policies primarily to safeguard its own interests. In turn, nationalism stresses these aspects, removing a significant psychological barrier to dealings between different national states, thus eliminating an important source of international tension and friction.
National differences are a source of richness and cultural fertility in the international community, as every nation possesses its unique culture. This diversity—a cross-interaction of cultures and accumulated experiences—enhances the overall evolution of human civilization. This scenario would not have materialized if a singular cultural nationality had prevailed worldwide. Some argue that this is evidenced by the cultural history of the Roman Empire, which culminated in cultural stagnation amid what was referred to as the Roman Peace, characterized by imposing a homogeneous culture over regions subjugated by Rome, which ultimately stripped these cultures of their diversity, distinctiveness, and authenticity. The implications of cultural diversity on international relations rest on the fact that interconnections and interactions between national cultures foster convergence in values and thought models among states, unlike scenarios dominated by a singular cultural identity, which incite rejection, resistance, and rebellion against all that it embodies in terms of meanings and values—situations that certainly do not align with the interests of global peace.
Regardless of the nature of the role nationalism plays in international relations, be it positive or negative, what is salient here is the depth of this role and its impactful influence on the behaviors of the parties in the international equation as they relate to one another. We can affirm through the elements reviewed in previous pages that nationalism stands as the foundational axis around which international political relations revolve. Each party involved in the international equation endeavors to exploit its international relations in a manner that serves its national objectives while simultaneously being willing to engage in numerous conflicts and disputes to maintain these goals. In essence, international relations originally exist to serve the national interests of the stakeholders involved in those relations.
