1jstor project article.pdf

8/14/2019 1jstor project article.pdf

1/40

Professors World Peace Academy

CLARIFYING NATIONALISM, CHAUVINISM, AND ETHNIC IMPERIALISM [with COMMENT andREJOINDER]Author(s): Geert Van Cleemput and Russell NieliSource: International Journal on World Peace, Vol. 12, No. 1 (MARCH 1995), pp. 59-97Published by: Professors World Peace AcademyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20752018.

Accessed: 09/11/2013 13:11

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Professors World Peace Academyis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

International Journal on World Peace.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 150.210.226.99 on Sat, 9 Nov 2013 13:11:04 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=pwpahttp://www.jstor.org/stable/20752018?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/20752018?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=pwpa


2/40

CLARIFYING NATIONALISM,CHAUVINISM, AND ETHNICIMPERIALISMGeert Van Cleemput 5621 S. University Ave.Chicago, Illinois 60637-1523USAAfter studies inClassics, Philosophy, and Byzantine Studies at theUniversities ofAntwerpand Leuven in Flanders, Belgium, and at Georgetown, the author is completing his Ph.D.inAncient Greek Philosophy at theUniversity ofChicago with a dissertationon Aristode'sconception of eudaimonia in his moral and politicalwritings.His next project is a defenseof thewidest possible application of the principle of self-determinationas a necessarycondition for world peace.This paper presents a critiqueof the definitions of 'people','nation3, 'nation-state5, 'nationalism3, 'ethnic chauvinism3, and'ethnic imperialism3 and arguesfor a broad application of theprinciple of self-determination.The definition of nationalism isopposed to ethnic chauvinismand imperialism, which areperversions of it.The principle of self-determination is defended as thefoundation of internationalrelations against the principleof sovereignty of existingstates. The latter principleworks against weaker ethnicgroups that are victims of ethnocide or genocide. Only theimplementation of the principleof self-determination offersguarantees for every people onearth.

Ethnicity in international relations is a verydelicate subject. Many in the so-called international relations community35 would rather have ethnicity isappear altogether.Atleast, ethnicity should not be stressed toomuch. We had better keep a lid on thistricky business or, at best, should channelthe irrationality and emotions55 associatedwith it into a vision of a supra-ethnic orsupra-national world order.Ethnicity, however, and its politicalexpressions, nationalism, chauvinism, andethnic imperialism, will not disappear. Doesethnicity necessarily unleash the furies ofnationalism55?1 The war in the former Yugoslavia is ascribed to ancient nationalistic55hatreds between the participants. The Naziinvasion of Europe is blamed on their 'nationalism5. Although the Catalans, theFlemings, the Lithuanians, etc., who are strivingfor independence or have achieved it arecalled nationalists, they seem to have little in

INTERNATIONAL JOURNALON WORLD PEACE 59VOL. XII NO. 1 MARCH 1995

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/40

CLARIFYINGNATIONALISMcommonwith theNazis. There seems then tobe a lotof confusion in theuse of the term 'nationalism5.

In thispaper I argue for a strict se of the term 'nationalism5. shalloffera definition of it thatdistinguishes it from chauvinism and ethnicimperialism, ithwhich nationalism is often confused.Indeed, the terriblewars which Imentioned above were not caused by nationalism, but byethnicchauvinism,which furtherdegenerated intoethnic imperialism. incenationalism is closely linkedtonation, a strict efinitionof that termandof related terms is also needed.2My efforts

ooffer leardefinitionstakeup the bulk of thispaper.Theseclarifications nviteus todefend theprincipleof self-determination s thefoundationof international elationsagainst theprincipleof sovereignty fexisting states. The latter principle offers excuses not to help weaker ethnicgroups that are the victims of ethnocide or even genocide.3 Only theimplementation f theprincipleof self-determinationffersguarantees foreverypeople on earth.Finally, I shall saya fewwords aboutwhat Europe'srole could be in this new world order.

ISocrates urges us to have clear definitions at the beginning of every

inquiry. That will be my main task here. If there is one term that arousesso much passions in so many different people, often for opposite reasons,itmust be 'nationalism5. ften it is used without having been clearlydefined; and, often it isdefined ina particular ay but thenused inamuchbroader way. I propose to offer a more rigorous definition of nationalismand of related concepts like 'people5, 'nation5, and 'nation-state5. It isessential tohave these concepts reasonablydefined to avoid the confusionwhich vitiates debates about nationalism.A people is group of ersons avingthe ame orsimilar ustomsnd culture,

usually speaking the same language, having the same or a very similar history,and living in a contiguous or almost contiguous territory.I allow for thepossibilitythatnot allmembers of the samepeople speakthe same language in order to include the Irish, theWelsh, and theFlemings in

France to fit into thiscategory. Under

social and economicpressuremanymembers of thosepeoples and theirdescendants adopted adifferentlanguage, the languageof thedominant neighboringpeoples, the

60 INTERNATIONAL JOURNALON WORLD PEACEVOL. XII NO. 1 MARCH 1995



4/40

CLARIFYINGNATIONALISMFrench and the English. In varying degrees those persons considerthemselves Irish,Welsh, or Flemish. This qualification isnot intended toinclude justanygroup of speakersof a differentlanguage.There has to besome important historical and/or cultural connection between the peopleinquestion. English-speaking Irish are Irish.French-speakingFlemish inNorthern-France and in Brussels, are Flemish. This does not mean thateventually any identification with the mother-people,55 so to speak, maydisappear under pressureof a competing neighbor.

Having the same or a similarhistoryisan important riteriontobelongto thesamepeople. It is themain distinctionbetween theAmerican and theEnglish peoples.4Obviously, territorialseparationcontributed importantlyto this distinct history and thereforealso to the distinctiveness of thecultures in question.I allow for thepossibilityof non-contiguous territories o contain thesamepeople inorder to includethedescendants ofmigrantpopulations, thelatterbeing eitherpeacefulmigrants intoempty territories, ometimes atthe invitation of the rulers of those territories, or violent invaders. TheGermans, Hungarians, Turks, etc., live in non-contiguous territories.Sometimes the lack of contact with the mother-country makes some ofthese populations drift apart culturally, e.g. many Germans inRussia.A 'nation5 sa people,as defined bove,which isfullyaware ofthecommoncultureof tsmembers ndwhichas agroup strivesfor thepolitical expressionfitsseparateness,ither n theformof olitical independencer ina more limitedform of elf etermination.This definitiongoes againstwidely used definitions of 'nation5. hosedefinitions refer to the population of any given country, includingmulti-ethnic countries, which make up the citizenry of those countries. Toinclude the peoples ofmulti-ethnic countries is to open the door forenormous confusion. Unfortunately this confusing use of the term 'nation5inEnglish and also in French (nation) is verywidespread.5 In commonparlance 'nation5 inEnglish is a synonym for 'country5. Itmakes, however,notmuch sense to speak of a 'Belgiannation5.There are threepeoples inBelgium, Flemings,Walloons, andGermans. Each of themmay be called'nations5 or part of larger nations (the Dutch, French, and Germans,although I know from experience that the latter statement would not meetwith unanimous approval in Belgium). Similarlymany Corsicans andINTERNATIONAL JOURNALON WORLD PEACEVOL. XII NO. 1 MARCH 1995 61



5/40

CLARIFYINGNATIONALISMmembers of other (minority)peoples inFrance don't feelparticularly ikemembers of the Trench nation5. They are, of course, often without muchexcitement, French citizens and, as such, subjects of the French state.

Nationality ismembership f people ornation (as defined above). It isoftenused, inaccurately nmy opinion, todenotemembership of citizenryof a certain country or citizenship. 'Nationality5 can also be used as asynonymfornation, as I define it.6I define stateverygenerally as thepoliticalassociationof group of eoplewho recognize or are deemed to recognize theultimate authority of thatassociation.A nation-state isa state, .e.,political rganization f group of eople,whosemembers see themselves as a nation. According tomy definition, nation-statesconsist atmost of one people or nation. A state consisting ofmore than onenation is not a nation-state. 'Nation-state5 is a term that has been abused adnauseam. It is commonlyused todescribe theprevailing stateform in theworld. Sloppy use of the termin factequates itwith the term 'country5.tis a travesty of accuracy to call France, Spain, and Great-Britain na

tion-states. Those states are built around one nation with peripheral, weakernations forced to livewithin the same political arrangement. n fact,onlya few states on our globe qualify as nation-states.7The onlypure example that can come upwith is Iceland. Some otherisland-nations may qualify. Germany comes very close. Of course, there areGerman minorities in all its neighboring countries, except for in theNetherlands,which gladly took a piece of thepie after theGerman defeatsin the twoWorld Wars. There are some other countries that approach thisdescription: Poland, Czechia, Slovenia, and Greece. All these countries,however, have ethnicminorities that identify ith other nations.I am now in a position to presentmy own definition of nationalism.Nationalism is the tateofmind of personwhopromotes hewell-beingofhis orherpeople or nation as such and otherpeoples or nations as such throughpreserving nd promotingthe ethnicidentity fhis orherpeople and ofotherpeoples. hiswell-being isusuallybest served,butnot necessarilybypoliticalindependence. It is always best served by self-determination. The preferredpolitical arrangement, therefore, is the nation-state.This definition assumes a strict use of the term 'nation-state5. I haveofferedsuch a definition above. I have indicatedalready thata sloppyuse62 INTERNATIONAL JOURNALON WORLD PEACEVOL. XII NO. 1 MARCH 1995



6/40

CLARIFYINGNATIONALISMof the term 'nation-state5 invites most current political arrangements intothiscategoryand therefore osesanyclarifyingower. Similarly, definitionof nationalism which presupposes this sloppyuse of 'nation5 nd 'nation-state5may generate a classification of nationalism which invites prettymuch everyexample of stateformationof thepast and present topass fornationalism atwork. This is, of course, absurd.It isthisweakness thatdogsA.D. Smith'sdefinition fnationalism inhisbookNational Identity?Outwardly, his definition looks very similar tomine: Nationalism [is] an ideological movement for attaining andmaintaining autonomy, unity, and identityon behalf of a populationdeemed by some of itsmembers to constitute an actual or a potential'nation5.55his definition isparasiticon his definition f'nation5: a namedhuman population sharing an historic territory, ommon myths andhistorical memories, a mass public culture, a common economy andcommon legal rights nd duties forallmembers.559Smithdistinguishesnation froman atfirstsightclosely relatedconcept,ethnic community or ethnie.Roughly, an ethnie is a nation without aterritory nwhich it exercises its political unity. Smith allows for thepossibility of nation-formation irrespective f therebeing one or moreethnies involved in the process. This means that he allows formulti-ethnicnation-formation, a contradiction in terms, according to my stricterdefinition fnation. In thisway France, Spain, etc.,are all formedfromonenation, despite there being differentethnieswithin their boundaries.Similarly, the newest states on the globe, the post-colonial ones, eachcomprise one nation, according to Smith,despite theirlack of respectforthedifferent thnies ithin theirhighly artificial oundaries.Having thrownhis classifyingnet toowidely, Smith is forced to startdistinguishingbetween severalforms fnationalism,which, unsurprisingly,turn out to be mutually contradictory phenomena. He distinguishesbetween territorial nationalism and ethnic nationalism. Territorialnationalism, for Smith,10 is amovement which seeks to create a 'territorialnation5 out of disparate ethnic communities.Anti-colonial integrationnationalism is a version of such nationalism.Smith11 contrasts territorialnationalism with ethnic nationalism, amovement that seeks to forman independent statefor a particular ethnicgroup froma dominant group throughsecession andwhich may lead toINTERNATIONAL JOURNALON WORLD PEACEVOL. XII NO. 1 MARCH 1995 63



7/40

CLARIFYINGNATIONALISMirredentist nationalism in order to 'redeem5 the parts of that ethnic groupthat have not yet been freed.This classification results inhaving different ormsof nationalism thatmay competewith each other. In fact, itnecessarilyfollows thatone formof nationalism so definedwill certainly lashwith anotherform.So-calledethnicnationalismwill alwaysfind a territorialationalism,which is tryingto stifle t, in itsway.It isbetterto cleanup thesemessy paradigms.To thisend I proposemydefinition of nationalism,which is close to Smith's definition of ethnicnationalism. Instead of

acceptingSmith's territorial nationalism as a

varietyof nationalism at all, I unmask itas ethnicchauvinismby a dominant groupwhich forcesweaker peopleswithin itssphereof influence ntoa process ofstateformationwhich is largely ontrolledby it.It is essential todistinguishbetween ethnicchauvinism12 nd nationalism.Ethnic chauvinism is the tateofmind of personwho considersis orherpeople or nation to be of superiorworth comparedto otherpeoples. Ethnicchauvinists thinkthatbecause of thealleged superiorworth of theirpeopletheirpeople are entitledtoprivileges at theexpense of other peoples,whoare deemed to be inferior. Often ethnic chauvinism degenerates into ethnicimperialism, about which more in a second. The Nazi-doctrine of theGermans as Uebermenschen is an ethnic chauvinist doctrine. When aFrenchman thinks that because, in his opinion, French culture is superiorto other cultures and that, as a result, he is entitled to privileged treatmentof anykind,he isbeing an ethnic chauvinist.To think f him as a proudnationalist is to fall into the confusion mentioned above. To call Nazism aform of nationalism is to fall into the same trap.13Ethnic chauvinism often degenerates into ethnic imperialism. The latteroccurswhen a people, stirredby chauvinistpassions, actually imposes itsimperium, r authority, pon aweaker people. Examples of thisbehaviorare legion both in history and current times. Most countries, erroneouslycalled nation-states,14 came into existence as a result of one ethnic groupimposing its imperium pon itsneighbors.Obvious examples are France,theUnited Kingdom, Belgium, Spain, Russia, China. Ironically, current

Germany is not such an example. After itsdefeat all the neighbors got theirpiece of it.Obviously, at various times of itshistoryGermany has beenblatantlyethnically imperialist.64 INTERNATIONAL JOURNALON WORLD PEACEVOL. XII NO. 1 MARCH 1995



8/40

CLARIFYINGNATIONALISMThis section on definitionsmay appear tedious and pedantic. But, as

ErnestGellner15says,sometimes thepack of cards has tobe re-designed inorder to shed light on an issue. The importance of accurate definitionscannot be underestimated. Often interlocutors in a debate about nationalismhave differentconceptionsofwhat they re talking bout.Usually whatI call ethnic chauvinism is included in the idea of nationalism of one,16creating in a sense a mixture of so-called good and bad nationalism.17Sometimes one isreallytalking bout ethnicchauvinism,denyingeven thatthereitsuch a thingas (good) nationalism.18 nd thenthereare variationson the themewhich shift etween theabove positions.One of thefirst tudentsof nationalism in thiscentury, arltonHayes,did his share to confusematters. For him, nationalism is a condition ofmind among members of a nationality,perhaps already possessed of a national state,a condition ofmind inwhich loyalty o theideal or to thefact of one's national state issuperior (italicsmine) to all other loyaltiesand ofwhich pride inone's nationalityandbelief in its intrinsicexcellence and in itsmission are integral parts.19 Similarly HansKohn, the other doyen of the study ofnationalism: ccNationalism is a state ofmind,inwhich supreme italicsmine) loyalty f theindividual is felt to be due to the nation

state. 20Supreme loyalty to one's statemay entail that respect for the fundamentalrights f individuals ndgroups are subordinateto it.When those rightsare perceived to be an obstacle to thegreatergloryof the state, theyaresuperseded by thefirstprincipleof loyalty.Nationalism, as I have defined it,does not require superioror supreme

loyalty to one's own nation-state21 in existence or in the making. In fact,this supreme loyalty to one's own nation-state or to one's own peoplewhich dominates a polyethnic state is a characteristicof the chauvinistmind, the archenemyof thenationalistmind.22In this connection Iwant to return to an essential part of my definitionofnationalism. I said that thenationalist is somebody who promotes the

Supreme loyalty oone's ownnation-state or toone's own peoplewhich dominates apolyethnic state isacharacteristic of thechauvinist mind, thearchenemy of thenationalist mind.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNALON WORLD PEACEVOL. XII NO. 1 MARCH 1995 65



9/40

CLARIFYING NATIONALISMwell-being of his or her people or nation as such and of other peoples ornations as such through reserving nd promoting the ethnic identityfhisor her people and of other peoples.23 There are some24 who claim that onecan only be a particular nationalist. One is either a Kurdish, a Croatian, oraWelsh nationalist, it is claimed. One cannot be a universal nationalist. Iagree that one cannot be a universal nationalist in some of the senses thatI have criticizedabove.25 Itwould indeed be a contradiction foran ethnicchauvinist to be genuinelyuniversal. If I thinkthatmy people is better,then that is that. I cannothavemuch sympathy oranybodywho has thesame

opinionabout his or her

people.But for a nationalist inmy sense it is verynatural to be a universalnationalist. For such a one, each people deserves itsown state or at least itsown autonomy.Emotionally, a universal nationalistwill have closer ties tohis own people and be especially interested n itspolitical development.Intellectually nd also emotionally, a genuine nationalistwill be interestedin seeing thenationalistprinciple being applied to everypeople on earth.That iswhy it is a doctrinewith suchpossible pervasive results. his makesnationalism an eminently logical doctrine. It is not the case that onenationalism necessarily comes in conflict with another nationalism. Withthedefinitions propose, itbecomes obvious thatnationalismsconflict ithethnic chauvinisms. And ethnic chauvinisms and imperialisms, of course,come into conflict with each other. When it appears that nationalismsquarrelwith each other,normally the competing claims can be settledbytaking hard look at thehistoricalevidence to support the claims.Usuallyone nationalism turns out to be reallynot going by the book and istherefore o

longernationalism,but ethnic imperialism, ither inwordor

in deed.My insistenceon definitional precision is not a mere quibble aboutwords. Obviously, a discussionwill bemore fruitfulfthediscussantsknowwhat they themselves and the interlocutors are talking about. But discussions about nationalism in certain quarters have practical consequences formany. The legitimatepolitical aspirationsofmany peoples do not receivea fair hearing because of misconceptions about nationalism, preciselybecause of

perceived implicationsof nationalism.26Ifwe use the definitionsof nationalism which I criticize, itbecomes

impossible to understand Corsican, Catalan, Basque, Flemish, Tibetan,




10/40

CLARIFYINGNATIONALISMvarious African, and so many other nationalisms, which seek independencewith varyingdegrees ofvervefromstateswhich oppress themor limitthemintheiraspirationsandwhich are runby leaderswho belong to a dominant,imperialist eople. Ifwe lump thesemovements togetherwith theSerbianaggressionagainst landswhere Serbsmoved to in thepast, butwhere theyfailed to adapt to the culture already in place, with Hitler's search forLcbcnsraum in areas where Germany had no claim whatsoever, withFrance's culturaloppression of itsmany minorities, then theworld wherewe livemust seem likea completely incomprehensibleplace.Nationalism and ethnicchauvinismresembleeach otheronly in so farasthey ive importanceto theethnicfactor.But theirdifferences regreaterthan their resemblances.The essentialdifferencebetween the two setsofideologiesormovements is thefollowing.Chauvinist, imperialist tates,runby a dominant people, abuse theethnic factortooppress the ethnic identityofminorities that livewithin their orders.All thesestateswere createdbythe forceofweapons or by compromisesguaranteed by thatkind of force.Nationalism and ethnicchauvinism findeach other at theopposite side oftheaxis of ethnicity.Genuine nationalistmovements use theethnic factor na healthyway intrying ogain independencefromthose same imperialist tructures nordertopreserve theirethnicity, hich they onsider a very important alue (butnot a supremevalue on the altar ofwhich all the other values have to besacrificed). gain, a nationalist is somebodywho strives or thepromotionof therights nd thedevelopment of his/herpeople. He/she resistseffortsfrom imperialists,who tryto impose their imperium r authorityuponhis/herpeople bydiscriminatingagainst individualsand peoples solelyonthebasis of the language spoken by theirvictimsor on the basis of othercharacteristics that separate them as a people. To repeat myself, ethnicchauvinism is theexactopposite of nationalism, it is itsbiggest enemy.Most countries in theworld are littleempires,where one dominantethnic group imposes its imperium (authority) in varying degrees ofharshness upon the unfortunateweaker neighbors thathappen to livewithin the same political boundaries. Imperialism, then, isnot limitedtoaggressive behavior towards peoples that live outside the borders of aparticularstate.No, it is a verycommon phenomenonwithin thebordersof statesthataredominated byone ethnicgroup at theexpense of anotherINTERNATIONAL JOURNALON WORLD PEACEVOL. XII NO. 1 MARCH 1995 67



11/40

CLARIFYINGNATIONALISMgroup or othergroups. Imperialism isnot limitedtowhat are traditionallycalled

empires, large political entities,but can be found in everycountrywhere one dominant group oppresses others on the basis of ethnicdivisions.

IIThe politicalprinciplethatsumsup nationalistaspirations is theprincipleof self-determination f peoples. This principle states that everyeople ornationhas therighttodecide itsownpoliticaldestiny ithout interferenceromoutside. tfinds itsculmination in actual sovereignty orparticular peoples.But this does not mean that nationalist movements who seek some sort of

autonomywithin the largerframework f a polyethnic sovereign statedonot deserve the appellation nationalist. I believe however that self-determination is achievedmost completely inpolitical independence and not justautonomy.A lotof hp-servicehas been paid to theprincipleof self-determination,among others byPresidentWoodrow Wilson, whose effortshelpedmakeita respectableprinciple in international elations. twas even enshrined intheCovenant of theLeague ofNations27 and in International ovenant onCivil and PoliticalRights by theUnited Nations in 1966.28Ehe Kedourie, whose work Nationalism, is an indictment of nationalismwithout distinguishing the subtletieswhich I tried to indicate above, notsurprisingly umesagainst theprincipleof self-determinations one of thesources of all nationalist35 evil. The efforts of some people to implementthisprinciple for themselvesattacks the stability n internationalrelations,Kedourie finds,29 and whatever equilibrium that has been reached betweendifferentgroups so thatsettledquestionswere and are being reopened.Kedourie ratherbluntly ignores that the original fault lieswith thegroupswho aredominatingweaker ones oftenwith ethnocidal results. necan onlyhave understandingand sympathy orthosepeoples resistingthatonslaught.They arenot interested n so-called stability nd equilibrium55thatbasicallywipes themoffthemap. Kedourie ispatentlybarkingup thewrong tree.The real culprit s, f course, theopposing principle. It isa principle thathas had a particularly pernicious effect on international relations: theprincipleof sovereignty f existing tatesand itscorollary,theprincipleof




12/40

CLARIFYINGNATIONALISMinviolabilityf existingboundaries between countries.The principleof theinviolabilityof existing borders is used again and again to justifythestatus-quo, even when that status-quo perpetuates the violation of the rightsofweaker ethnicgroups.This principlewas and isconstantly sed to justifythefailureto intervene ncountrieswhere a dominant people discriminatesagainst and, in theworst cases, simply slaughtersa dominated people. Itwas this principle thatwas used by Secretary of State Baker and hisassociatesEagleburger and Scowcroft,by the utch ForeignMinister Hansvan den Broek30during the utch leadership f theEuropean Community,and by otherswho joined the ostrich in exploringwhat might be underneath thesurface n thebeginningof theSerbianhostilities inSlovenia andCroatia. Indeed, in thename of stability nd equilibrium in internationalrelations the preservation of Yugoslavia's territorial integrity as a sovereignstate was much more important than therightsof the Slovenes, Croats, and otherpeoples that had been forced into theYugoslav/Serbian straitjacket.It is this principle of sovereigntyofexistingstatesthat s invokedto ignore thestrangulationof theTibetans by theChinese, and of the Chechens by the Russians.It is thisprinciple that is invokedfornotgiving theKurds theirindependentKurdistan,which would require the dismembering of Western-created Iraq and otherNear-Eastern ethnic oddities like Turkeyand Syria,whereas those regimes take a particularpleasure inkilling andotherwisemolesting theKurds. Itwill no doubt be thisprinciple thatwillbe invokedwhen theHungarian minorities'5(actuallyoftenmajorities inthe regions theypopulate) in Serb-ruledVojvodina, inRumanian-ruledTransylvania, and inSlovakia,who are being putunder increasing ressureto give up their cultural identity, sk for internationalhelp to guaranteetheir survival as Hungarians. It is this principle thatwill prevent theredrawing of the Albanian borders in a more natural way, i.e., in accordance with the ethnicpopulations thatlive in those areas:Northern-EpirusjoinsGreece and Kosovo andAlbanian Macedonia joinAlbania. Itwill

The principleof theinviolabilityfexistingborders is used againand again to justifythe status-quo, evenwhen that status-quoperpetuates theviolationof the rightsof weaker ethnicgroups.




13/40

CLARIFYINGNATIONALISMbe thisprinciple thatwill be invoked to fail to solve the ethnicproblemsthat

partiallyarise from the arbitrary hopping-up

of lands in theformerSoviet CentralAsian republics. Itwill be thisprinciple thatwill be invokedto fail to solve any ethnicproblem around theglobe. One justdoes nottouch the borders thatwere put inplace as a result f thepower balance ofcompeting governments over the course of history.Europe and theEuropean countriesbear a heavy responsibility or theongoing ethnic strife nmany places in theworld. Both inside and outsideEurope boundarieswere setupwhere thespheresofEuropean powersmetto balance each other. These boundaries cut across

peoples completelyignoring their ethnic make-up.The leading* uropean states and theUS, the only remainingglobalempire, are afraid thatgenuine nationalismwill create 'instability3roundtheglobe since itwill challenge the existing structures fmost countries.The UK under England, France,Russia, andChina, have a lot to fear ifnatonalism defeats imperialism. hey would loose themany peoples thatlivewithin theirborders and consequently theywould loose a lotof theirpower.This is themain reason, I believe,why theyhave not intervened ntheSerbian slaughter. iding under thecloak of the inviolabilityf existingborders, they initially id notwant to recognize Slovenia and Croatia.Indeed, ifthey ould have supportedthosepeoples from thebeginning andiftheynow stop Serbia thatwould mean thatother peoples around theworld may interpret that as a signal to start working on their ownindependence. This would signal that perhaps the principle of selfdeterminationisnot yetdead. This would mean that those countrieswouldsupport their own break-up. Surely,

their leaders are notready

for such aradical turn-around. (This, incidentally, explains also why Germany was atthe forefront f supportingCroatia and Slovenia; it has nothing to fearfroman application of thatprincipleon itsown territory.he Sorbians, asmall non-German minority inGermany, do not represent amajor treat toGerman unity.) Indeed, in thatprincipleGerman populations, annexedfromGermany by itsneighbors, could findhope of rejoining themotherland.

The Western intervention inKuwait and the subsequent lack of supportto create an independent Kurdistan, already touched upon above, can beexplained by means of the factors mentioned. Kuwait was aWestern




14/40

CLARIFYINGNATIONALISMcreation designed toweaken theArabs. Iraq's invasion threatened the'stability3

senvisaged byWestern governments.

The lossof theKuwaitisheikh, ho has no sympathy orwhatwe intheWest would liketoprofessas our values, would mean the loss of privileged access to an importantresource of energy. The creation of an independent Kurdistan wouldredraw theWestern-imposed map of the Near-East. The Western governments do notwant toupset theirgood friendTurkey (at leastwith respectto certain geo-political goals), whose importance as the gate toWesternAsia after the shrivelingup of the Soviet empire into a sicklyRussianempire is still ntact. s long

as theWestern and othergovernments livebythe classicdivide et impera,theKurds, and peoples similarly fflicted, illonly be able todream of theirindependenthomeland.If theWestern governmentsshoulddecide someday to stopSerbia, theywill do so against theirmost primary inclinations.No immediate geopolitical reason, likethe desire to keep or seize control of energy sources,might induce them to act. Only the fear for an inordinatenumber ofrefugees, nly theoutrage of their itizensat their nactionwill force themtodo something.My defense of nationalism as aweapon against imperialismwill not bepopular with some. Those opponents would like to abolish the ethnicelement from politics completely on the grounds that it is irrational,folkloric, ased onmythical aspirationsof certainpeoples. Every dayworldevents teach us otherwise. People and peoples are being oppressed becausetheir ethnicity is thewrong one.Ethnicity isnot (necessarily) thebelief in some gloriousmyths aboutdeeds of forefatherslonggone. Ethnicity isa particularway of being in theworld: it is the languageand thecustoms inwhich one growsup andwhichcolor theway one looks at things.This language is themain tool fordeveloping oneself. It is the language in which one's talentswill bedeveloped, inwhich literature sborn, inwhich policies are discussed, inwhich laws aremade, inwhich one can defend oneselfwhen attacked,especially so in a court of law. The promotion of the mother-tongueobviously is a verypowerful tool for social liberation.Nobody, therefore,should be forced to abandon thatprecious giftbecause, in the politicalgames of some, that language and the culture surrounding it are of novalue. Ignoring the ethnicfactoramounts to tolerating hosewho abuse it.




15/40

CLARIFYINGNATIONALISMBoth communitarian and liberal arguments support nationalism.Communitarians will be pleased that the nation offers the best guaranteesfora truly ommunalwell-being. A people thatdoes not have to listento

foreign masters will have much more success in setting a course thatwillbenefit all itsmembers socially, economically, and culturally.Liberals will be pleased to realize thatmono-ethnic states inprincipleprovide the best foundation for the individual rightsof itsmembers.Everyone starts, at least, at this level from the same spot. Nobody's freedomwill be curtailed for the simple reason thathe or she does not speak theright language. Nobody will have to bracket his or her ethnicity,anessentialpart ofhis or her being, toget a piece of thepie.Instead of tryingto downplay ethnicityand ethnic differences,theyshould be translated into political structures.The solution isnot tohave peoples

bury theirconcernwith their ethnic identity r have them learn the languageof thedominant group and keep their own language forprivateaffairs. he solution is togive every people independence fromothers. If that would create many morecountries than exist now, so be it.Who arewe to say that some of the smaller peoplesin Africa and Asia would not be able tocope on theirown? Are theycoping nowin the artificial post-colonial states whichWestern powers created and which subsequently were high-jacked by dictatorsloyallyservedmostly bymembers of theirown dominant peoples (not 'tribes' or'clans')? Their independence does notexclude them fromformingfederations ith neighboring peoples in orderto integrate their economies.It is here thatEurope could take the lead. In almost everycountry in

Europe there are movements for autonomy or independence. The newEurope should grant thewishes of those peoples.Why are theLuxembourgersentided to independenceandnot theCatalans?Why are the anes

Communitarians willbe pleased that thenation offers the bestguarantees for a trulycommunal well-being.A people that does nothave to listen toforeign masters willhave much moresuccess insetting acourse that willbenefit all itsmembers socially,economically, andculturally.




16/40

CLARIFYINGNATIONALISMentitledto independenceandnot theCorsicans? In theseand otherpartsofEurope there isno desire forwar at all. Europe has unique opportunitiesto show to theworld that the legitimate ishes of peoples can be fulfilledwithout bloodshed.

Unfortunately, theEuropean Union isnot moving in a direction ofmorerespect for ethnic minorities. The governments of the states continue toswear by the artificial oundaries. They honor these relicsof imperialismas sacred.No European legislation is in place to help emancipate theweaker ethnicgroups.This touchysubject remainscompletely the domainof the member states. In fact, the leading European states show more andmore signsof steppingalso on the littleguyswho are lucky obe independent.Political decisions are compromises between thebig three:Germany,France, and theUK. The views of the smaller countries do not carrymuchweight. In addition,more andmore there spressure to limit theuse of thesmaller languagesunder thepretextthat ll thattranslating osts toomuchmoney. This is the surest sign of the fact that the speakers of thoselanguages are not taken seriously by the dominating countries. In thiswaytheunificationofEurope becomes a facade of a jointhegemonism by anyother name. Needless to say that non-sovereign peoples do not have muchto expect from this.All this does not sound too optimistic. The vision of a genuinelynationalist Europe, where every people, great and small, can live eachdeterminingits wn destiny inconsultationwith itsneighbors, rather thanbeing forced by them requires too radical a breakwith past and currentforeignpolicyof themajor world powers. Economic and political interestsare so much entrenched in the status-quo of the power game.This is,of course, not justdepending on what theEuropean powerswant. If theU.S. government would realize that stability35 isnot necessarilythreatenedby granting independence to hundreds of peoples that areoppressed byotherpeoples, then there shope. It remainsamystery tomethat .S. foreignpolicymakers have not yet realized thattheirsystematicignoring f ethnic struggles as not resulted n theirdisappearing from theglobe. Only when all strugglingpeoples have gained their independenceandwhen imperialist eoples arekept in checkbymilitarypower,we shallhave stability55 in international relations.




17/40

CLARIFYINGNATIONALISMWhile theU.S. obviouslyplays a key role indetermininghow theworld

map looks, Europe has within its borders many opportunities to accommodate the legitimate spirationsof peoples. Ithad betterprepare towelcometheCatalans, theBasques, theCorsicans, and others into its familyofnations. It had better prepare to appreciate the wealth of nationalism.NOTES

^rom the subtitle ofWilliam PfafPs recent book, TheWrath of ations, NewYork: Simon & Schuster, 1993. Pfaff makes the common mistake aboutnationalism which I am criticizing in this paper.2WalkerConnor, inhismany essays on nationalism, many of which have beencollected in his Ethnonationalism: TheQuest for Understanding, Princeton: PrincetonUniversity Press, 1994, is one of the few scholars who does genuine efforts toescape from the terminological morass. He, however, does not appear to connecthis desire for terminological clarity with a defense of the principle of selfdetermination, which he calls pernicious and perhaps unrealistic, p. 25.3The Chechen people is themost recent victim of this cynicism. Russian55territorial integrity, however immorally acquired, appears to be as sacred toWestern governments as it is tomany Russians.4In 1926 Carlton Hayes, Essays onNationalism, New York: Columbia UniversityPress, p. 32, still could ask the question whether the American and Englishnationalities were true and distinct nationalities55 .

5This reflects, I think,French and English conceptions of nation and state, andtheir relationship. C. Hayes, op. cit., p. 4, is aware of this corruption of sense55from the original Latin natio, birth,55 group of people related to each other bybirth55 nd prefers to use the term 'nationality5 forwhat I call the nation. I brieflysay something on 'nationality5 a bit later. A.D. Smith (see note 7), p. 40 andpassim, also allows for amulti-ethnic make-up of a nation. This will lead him to theacceptance of something which he calls 'territorial nationalism5 under the categoryof nationalism (p. 82, 106-122), thereby allowing that any state that has beenformed in history was formed in accordance with nationalist principles. Mydefinitions prevent us from lumping everything on a non-explanatory general pile(p. 62-67).6C.Hayes, op. cit., p. 4-5, prefers to use 'nationality5 in this latter sense to avoidconfusion with nation. He also recognizes the corruption of the termwhen it isused to denote citizenship.7A.D. Smith, Nation-state,55 inV. Bogdanor, ed., The Blackwell Encyclopaediaof olitical Institutions,Oxford: Blackwell, 1987, p. 381, isvery generous infinding




18/40

CLARIFYINGNATIONALISMthat ten percent of the existing states could be granted the status of strictnation-state. He prefers to call themajority of the so-called nation-states 'statenations5 (p. 380), thereby adding evenmore confusion to the discouragingly sloppyterminology in this field. Those states should, of course, be called polyethnic states,since they aremade up of different ethnic groups.

My definition of 'nation-state5may suggest how vacuous sweeping historicaldescriptions, like ctheera of the formation of national states5, are.

8Op.Cit., p. 73.9Op. cit.,p. 14. Also Ernest Gellner, Nations andNationalism, Ithaca, New York:Cornell University Press, 1983, p. 1, gives a definition of nationalism that at firstsight looks a lot likemine:Nationalism is [. . . ] a political principle which holds that the political andnational unit should be congruent.55His initial definition of nation (p. 7), avoluntary union of people who share the same culture, looks pretty good also. Butthen he gives Nazi-Germany as an example of nationalism (p. 56). At one point hestates that nationalism is relativelyweak, because there are so many actual andpotential nationalisms which have not reached theirgoal, political independence fortheir nation (p. 47-8), yet. But then he sayswe are living in an era of nation-states.These last two statements, combined with Gellner's definition of nation, do not gotogether. Indeed, Gellner regularly slips into vague use of the term 'nation5 anddoes not stick to his definition. Gellner's confusion, is, I think, closely linked to thedubiousness of his main thesis: economic circumstances (i.e., industrialization)create nations. He understates the ethnic element in the people that are supposedto be made a nation under this economic influence.

l0Op. cit., 1991, p. 82.nIbid.12Chauvinism, as iswell-known, is a term coined after the attitude ofNicholas

Chauvin, a minister in the government of Napoleon, noted for his hotheadedFrench chauvinist55 views.13Similar confusion is displayed by calling Slobodan Milosevic a Serbiannationalist and Vojislav Seselj of the Radical Party an ultra nationalist or anextreme nationalist. So e.g., John F. Burns and Stephen Kinzer in theNew TorkTimes, 22 December, 1992, A7, and Misha Glenny, New Tork Review ofBooks, 28January, 1993, p. 5. Unless we take ultra in 'ultra-nationalist5 tomean 'beyond5,which isone of itsmeanings inLatin, as opposed to 'to a greater degree5, the aboveappellationso notapplytothegentiemen?)who bearprincipal esponsibilityorleading he erbs into heslaughteringfotherSlavpeoples and,very ossibly ftheAlbanians inKosovo. They are ethnic chauvinists who actually have degenerated into ethnic imperialists. Vladimir Zhirinovsky, the leader of the LiberalDemocratic Party in Russia, also is routinely called an 'extreme nationalist5.INTERNATIONAL JOURNALON WORLD PEACE 75VOL. XII NO. 1 MARCH 1995



19/40

CLARIFYING NATIONALISMWhereas the press takes great pains to deny that he is liberal and democratic, nosuch zeal is applied to describe his ethnic views more correctly. The man is anethnic chauvinist and produces the rhetoric of ethnic imperialism. Nationalistsdetest his views.

14See above, p. 61.15Gellner,op. cit.,p.l37. Gellner himself isguilty of confusing nationalism, as Idefine it, and ethnic chauvinism.16A.D. Smith,National Identity, see above p. 9.17This leads Peter Alter, Nationalism, London: Arnold, 1989, p. 5, to say thatnationalism [...] conceals within itselfextreme opposites and contradictions, [e.g.]

emancipation [and] oppression. In my definition, nationalism strives foremancipation and is opposed by ethnic imperialism, which is responsible for theoppression.18E.Kedourie, Nationalism, 4th, expanded ed., Oxford: Blackwell, 1993.

19op. it., p. 6.^Nationalism: ItsMeaning andHistory, Princeton: Van Nostrand, 1955, p. 9.Brian Barry, Nationalism inD. Miller, etal., eds., The Blackwell Encyclopaedia ofPolitical Thought, Oxford: Blackwell, 1987, p. 352-3, and Isaiah Berlin, Nationalism: Past Neglect and Present Power, inAgainst theCurrent, Harmondsworth:Penguin, 1980, p. 338 and 342, also stress the absoluteness of the loyalty aso-called nationalist has towards his nation. Berlin, in his essay and in another essaycalled The Bent Twig. On the Rise ofNationalism, in The Crooked Timber of

Humanity, New York: Vintage, 1992, talks often about chauvinism, but fails toclearly distinguish between his conceptions of chauvinism and nationalism. In hisConversations with Isaiah Berlin, with Ramin Jahanbegloo, New York: Scribner,1992, p. 99, Berlin comes close to recognizing the distinction when he states thatHerder rejected aggressive nationalism, ethnic imperialism, inmy terminology.A few pages later,Berlin says that nationalism means that we say that nobody isas good aswe are. I take it that Berlin intends to referwith patriotism (p. 103)towhat I call nationalism. In my definition, only chauvinism demands, or maydemand, supreme or absolute loyalty to a given nation or state.21BothHayes and Kohn use a loose definition of nation-state, which, for them,does not necessarily have to be made up out of one ethnic group. As will beremembered, the mono-ethnicity of the nation-state is essential for a cleardiscussion about nationalism. See above, p. 61.

22Hayes seems to allow for something as my good nationalism when hepraises patriotism. His patriotism

issomething

likegood

old-fashioned emotionalattachment to one's native ground (p. 23-25). Patriotism, pace D. Miller,Patriotism, inD. Miller, etal., eds., Encyclopaedia of olitical Thought, p. 369, inmodern parlance presupposes the existence of a state forwhich one has this or




20/40

CLARIFYINGNATIONALISMrelated feelings.We speak of American and French patriots, not of Kurdish orCatalan patriots. Since barely amono-ethnic state exists forwhich one could havethose feelings, I think the term 'patriotism' is a bad one. What about themembersof a people which has not (yet) been able to have itsown state. They couldn't be'patriotic5 because there is no state to have this loyalty to. Since what is called'patriotism' often ishysteria for one's country (irrespective of its ethnicmake-up)to a higher or lesserdegree, I prefer to use the termwithout any good connotationat all. In addition, the term 'patriotism5may suggest male chauvinism. Patriotismis (supreme) loyalty to thepatria, the 'fatherMand.23See above, p. 61.

24E.g.W. Pfaff,^. cit., 14.25See above, p. 62-64.26E.Kedourie's failure, in op. cit., to grasp that there is something likewhat Idefine as nationalism and his failure to really understand what the principle ofself-determination is all about, calls for policies that are disastrous for theunfortunate peoples that have not succeeded to gain independence. Similarly, theacceptance by theWest to tolerate Serbian and Russian aggression under the cloakof preserving Yugoslav and Russian territorial integrityrespectively, helped seal thefate of thousands of Croats, Bosnian Muslims, and Chechens.

27See e.g. E. Kedourie, op. cit., p. 130.28PartI, art. 1.1.29op. cit., 110-111. Also E. Gellner, op. cit., p. 118, sees this principle as a

problem in international relations.30He is currendy theEuropean Union Commissioner forExternal Relations.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNALON WORLD PEACE 77VOL. XII NO. 1 MARCH 1995



21/40

CLARIFYINGNATIONALISM

COMMENT_ Russell Nieli Instructor inPoliticsPrinceton UniversityPrinceton, New Jersey08544USA

Geert Van Cleemput makes two important oints in his article,one ofwhich is of a conceptual nature, the other normative and policy-oriented.His conceptualpointdealswith thedistinctionbetween a liberal, luralistic,and humanisticvariety f nationalism?which is theonly kind of nationalismMr. Van Cleemput believesworthy of the name?and an illiberal,chauvinisticvariety that is often associated with policies of imperialisticexpansion and the oppression of minorities. The normative point concernsthe rightof ethnically, linguistically,religiously,or territorially istinctgroups of people to form an independent nation-state of their owncontingent pon theirwillingness to accord all similarly-situatedeoples anidenticalright.

ConcerningMr. Van Cleemput's conceptual distinction I have littletosay. The distinction he wants tomake, it seems tome, is both elementaryand important, and it is a distinction well worth keeping in mind as weview the current horrors of the Bosnian civil war, lest we confuse thechauvinisticvarietiesof ethnicnationalism, of which we have become alltoo familiar n thiscentury, ith themore benevolentformsof nationalismthat have more genuine claims upon our allegiance and support. Thenormativeandpolicy prescriptions ontained inMr. Van Cleempufs article,however, are another matter, and Iwish tomake two criticisms of what hesays in this regard, one of a practical and commonsensical nature, the otherhistorical and philosophical.

IThe Wilsonian principle that all peoples of theworld should selfdetermine55 heirultimate political allegiances and collectivedestinies has

proved powerfully ttractive omany liberal-minded ntellectuals ince thetimePresidentWilson first nunciated theprinciple towards theend of theFirstWorld War. A similar remarkcan be made of Jefferson's ingingpronouncement enshrined in the very first sentence of theAmerican78 INTERNATIONAL JOURNALON WORLD PEACEVOL. XII NO. 1 MARCH 1995



22/40

CLARIFYINGNATIONALISMDeclaration of Independence (1776) that all people of the earthhave aGod-given natural right to a separate and equal station55 among thepolitical communities of theworld. The self-determinationprinciple,however, while seductively attractive, encounters myriad problems whenattempts are made to implement it in the real world. These problems areinmany cases so severe that theprinciple can only be implementedwithgreatdifficultynd often at an enormous cost in terms fhuman suffering.Foremost among such problems, of course, are those posed by thesimple fact thatracial, ethnic, linguistic, nd religiousgroups around theworld are rarely lusteredtogether eographically in such

away thatwouldpermit the easy creation of demographically homogeneous nationsaccording to the principle of to every existing group a contiguousterritorial state.55Groups are more oftenthannot spatially intertwined ith oneormore othergroups inmost regionsofthe globe?particularly in those areasexperiencing racial, ethnic,or religiousconflicts?and no way other than forcedpopulation transfers has ever been devised thathas anyhope of changing thissituation. his is simply factof historical and geographic reality and wouldpersisteven if llmovements fornationalindependence and national autonomywere led by nationalists of a distinctlypluralistic and anti-chauvinistic stripe.The Hindu/Muslim clash in India inthe late1940s,which occurred as partofthe firstmajor independencemovementof thepost-colonial era,might be takenas paradigmatic of the problem here. Before independence, the IndianCongress Party,under themoral and spiritual influence fMohandas K.Gandhi, made every effortto enlistMuslim support for some kind ofindependent ll-India federation, hichwould followupon thecessation ofBritish rule, thatwould include all the diverse peoples of the Indiansubcontinent. he Muslim League, however, under the strongnationalist

Racial, ethnic,linguistic, and religiousgroups around theworld are rarelyclustered togethergeographically insuch away thatwould permitthe easy creation ofdemographicallyhomogeneous nationsaccording to theprinciple of to everyexisting group acontiguous territorialstate.




23/40

CLARIFYING NATIONALISMleadership ofMohammed Ali Jinnah,rejected the very idea ofHindu/Muslim cooperation in a unified Indian nation and insisted on the creationof a separate Muslim state. Given the popularity of Jinnah's views amonga significant ortionof India'sMuslims, theBritish colonial representativeLord Mountbatten was forced in 1947 to announce British support foradivision of India into two independentstates,thedominions of India andPakistan. Indiawas to be partitioned along religious linesdespite the factthat in such regions as Bengal, Kashmir and thePunjab, theMuslim andHindu populationswere so inextricablyntermeshed hat itwas impossibleto draw clear-cut

religiousboundaries. Not

surprisinglyhe resultof the

partition plan was panic, massacre, and mass migration that resulted in theforced flightof an estimated 10 million Hindus and Sikhs into Indianterritory from East and West Pakistan, and of an estimated 7.5 millionMuslims from Pakistani territory nto India. In all, over half amillionpeople are thought to have been killed in the communal violence thatoccurredduring thisperiodwith some estimatesgoing as high as amillion.

Population transfers can, of course, occur through more orderly and lessviolentmeans (thoughtobe effectivethey lmost always require some levelof coercion even if it is coercion supportedby some kind ofmajoritarianpolitical process). But thepoint Iwant tomake here is that the costs of

implementing the separate territorial-state for every group principle,which is adhered to bymany people who consider themselves liberalhumanists, can be enormouslyhigh in termsof human dislocations andhumanmisery. One can hardly imagine thatthebulk of theMuslims andHindus forced in the late 1940s to leave theirnative villagesfor alienterritoryxperienced the Indian partition inglowingly positive terms.Tothisdaymany Indians and Pakistanisharborverybittermemories over theevents of thepartition period, and themutual enmitybetween the twopeoples continues to sustaina threatening rms race,with one side alreadypossessing an unknown number of nuclear weapons. And since the originalethnic cleansing55 was never complete?particularly in border areas likeKashmir?Mushm/Hindu violence continues to plague communal relationsto thepresentday evenwithin India's national borders. Itwould seem clearto anyone not blinded by nationalist fanaticism that theHindu and Muslim




24/40

CLARIFYINGNATIONALISMpopulations of pre-partition India would have done better had theyfollowed themore conciliatory lead of Gandhi and not the nationalistJinnah, nd had reached some kind of federatedor condomiiiial arrangement (at least as an interim measure), rather than the partition arrangementthey ctuallydid reach.Similarly ne could say today thattheJains,Sikhs,Parsees, Buddhists, andChristians currently iving in Indiawould do wellnot to go theway of theirMuslim brethren andmake non-negotiabledemands for their own separate territorial-state, but would probably bewell-advised tomaintain their own communal identitywithin a territoriallyunifiedbut culturallypluralistic India.I am not suggestinghere that thedesireof a people toforman independentpolitical entity nd sovereigntyvera territory is necessarily an evil aspiration. do, however, rejecttheview thatsuch a desire should be lookedupon asan inalienablenatural right hich automatically trumps all other rights andconsiderations. Just as a respect for freespeech does not entail the right ofsomeone to drive through my residential neighborhood at 3 o'clock in themorningwith a loud sound truck lastinga politicalmessage at 130 decibels,so respectfor theprincipleof politicalself-determination does not mean that that principle cannot be modified orrestricted when other weighty rights and considerations are at stake. Mr.Van Cleemput, it seems tome, puts himself in a position on this matterparallel to that of some of our more extreme First Amendment absolutistsinsofaras he does not see the need in inter-grouprelations (as inmanyother areas of human life) for the judicious balancing of countervailingclaims and interests. His self-determinationist absolutism appears tome tobe as one-sided and unbalanced as the absolutism of thediplomats andforeign policy professionals that he rightlycriticizes for denying thelegitimacy f all independencemovements in thename of the inviolabilityof existing state borders.

His self-determinationistabsolutism appears tome to be as one-sidedand unbalanced as theabsolutism of thediplomats and foreignpolicy professionals thathe rightly criticizes fordenying the legitimacy fall independencemovements inthe nameof the inviolabilityfexisting state borders.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNALON WORLD PEACEVOL. XII NO. 1 MARCH 199581



25/40

CLARIFYINGNATIONALISMIIMr. Van Cleemput goes to great lengths

todistinguish

a liberalnationalism froma chauvinistic ne, and he accuses foreignpolicy scholarsof sometimesneglecting thisdistinction.As I have said, this is a legitimatecriticism. Nevertheless, there is sound historical reason why the diplomaticand foreignpolicy community sometimes fails tomake as sharp a distinctionon this issue as he does. For the regrettable actof thematter is thatsince themiddle of the 19th centurythegeneral tendencyamong nationalindependence movements, whether in Europe or elsewhere, has been tomove away from the liberal-cosmopolitan tyle fnationalism that typifiedthe thinking fmany 18th and early19th century ationalist thinkers(e.g.Herder, Rousseau, Jefferson,azzini, Michelet, etc.) in the direction of adistinctly illiberal and often imperialisticstyleof national self-assertion.Saying that the latterphenomenon is a perversionof theformer,asMr.Van Cleemput in essence does, does nothing to change the fact thatnationalistmovements over thepast centuryand a half have displayed adistressingly ommon susceptibility o suchperversions. ne has to looknofurther han thecareersof suchmen as JohanGottlieb Fichte in the earlypart of the 19th century,Benito Mussolini in the earlyyears of theFirstWorld War, and theBosnian Serb leaderRadovan Karadzic inmore recenttimes, to see how liberal-pluralistic deals can easily give way to thepowerfulappeal of ethnicchauvinismeven in theminds of thosewho at anearlier stage in theirpersonal developmentwould have found such idealsunattractive or even vicious.

Hans Kohn, one of our most perceptive scholars of nationalism, hasdescribed inmost lucid termsthishistorical transformationf nationalismfrom generallypluralisticmovement to a generallychauvinistic ne,whichhe believes occurred as a direct resultof thepopulist uprisings of 1848.Before 1848,Kohn explains, thinkers ho spokeout foroppressed peopleswere mostly liberty-lovingemocrats profoundly influencedby the liberalprinciples of theAge of Enlightenment and by the ideals of universalhuman rights such as those contained in the American Declaration ofIndependence and theFrenchDeclaration of theRights ofMan. Dramaticchanges, however, took place in the second half of the 19th century asmovements for national liberationtook a decidedly particularistturn.OnthisKohn writes:




26/40

CLARIFYINGNATIONALISMBut the new age which emerged on theEuropean continent as the result ofthe nationalist revolutions of 1848 was not a world of harmony andfraternitybut of conflict and violence. ...None of thenew nationalities couldresist, as soon as the opportunity offered itself, the temptation to assert itsrule over ethnically disputed territory nd populations. Nationalism changedin the middle of the nineteenth century from liberal humanitarianism toaggressive exclusivism, from the emphasis on the dignity of the individualto that on the power of the nation, from limitation and distrust of govern

ment to its exaltation. ...Thus itwas that the revolutions of 1848 all over Central Europe failedtostrengthen the

cause of liberty, in spite of the sincere idealism ofmany ofits participants. Poles and Prussians, Danes and Germans, Czechs andGermans, Croats and Italians, Slavs and Magyars, Poles and Ukrainians,opposed each other bitterly.These nationalist struggles helped the absolutistpowers of theMetternichian period to reassert themselves. ...This change of the character of nationalism in the middle of thenineteenth century occurred not only among theGermans but among all thepeoples of Central and Eastern Europe. The new spirit of violence, ofglorification of heroic deeds, of the revival of a dim past and of itsuse as aninspirational source?phenomena which came to darken the horizon of thetwentieth century?was first noticeable in 1848. ...A growing popularimpatience made violence and revolt in the service of the nation appear ashighest moral values; nationalist self-sacrifice replaced themartyrdom ofsaints. ...

By 1918 theRussian, Austrian, Prussian and Ottoman dynasties had losttheirpower. But everywhere throughout this territory,except in the case ofthe Baltic peoples, the creation of independent and satisfied nation-statesafter theWestern model encountered almost insuperable difficulties. Inmostcases itwas impossible to draw clear-cut ethnic frontiers.Yet itwas not onlythe intermingling of racial, linguistic, and religious groups which presentedobstacles to solutions acceptable to all the elements involved. Even moredangerous to peace than the conflicting natural rights of the nationalitieswere their historical rights. Each nationality claimed the frontiers as theyexisted at the time of its greatest historical expansion, frontiers whichdisregarded the ethnic and historical development of intervening centuries.

Many territories had formed at different times part of different nationalspheres and were now claimed by each of thenationalities. Thus nationalismdid not lead asMazzini and Young Europe had expected to a fraternalassociation of neighboring peoples and to international peace. The awaken




27/40

CLARIFYINGNATIONALISMing of the peoples released collective passions which became in the centuryafter 1848 themost potent factor in arousing hatreds and fomenting wars.

{Nationalism: ItsMeaning andHistory, Revised Edition, D. Van NostrandCompany, New York 1965, 50-53.)I have quoted Kohn at some lengthbecause I feel that thegrim trackrecordofmany of thepost-1848 and post-1917 independencemovementswhich he alludes toheremust always be kept inmind when assessing themerits of a force so explosive?and so potentially destructive?as nationalism. Indeed, nationalist self-assertion has been the greatest source oforganizedmurder andmayhem inthepast century nd a half,exceedingbyfar the destructive effects fMarxist-Leninism (the one other plausiblecandidate for such a dubious title), and while certain typesof nationalistself-assertionmay bemorally legitimate, t is importantto recognize thatin the realworld of power politics themorally legitimate nd themorallyillegitimate are usually intertwined. don't think it is too much of adistortion of his views to say thatMr. Van Cleemput tends to see thecontemporaryworld in termsof a simple bifurcatedmodel of oppressive

imperial states and suppressed national minorities?minorities which seeknothingmore than theirrightful lace in the sun.Butwhile such a simplemodel may fit some situations reasonablywell (thepitiable plight of thegendeTibetans isa good currentexample), it tendstoobscure the fact thatin theirstrugglefor independencesuppressedminorities can do (and oftendo do) as much evil to one another, to their erstwhile oppressors, and toinnocent third parties as was ever done to them.I think hat iscalled forhere isa discussion of those forceswhich tendtomitigate thechauvinistictendencies in the nationalistmind-set and hereI'll justmention thecountervailingeffect hat residualChristian and Stoicuniversalismhad on thedeistic thinkers f the 18th centurytowhom weowe our more benign doctrines of self-determination and universal humanrights (I am thinkinghere particularlyof the teachings of Rousseau,Jefferson,aine, andKant). Mr. Van Cleemput says thatnationalismof thekind he supportsdoes not entail supreme loyalty o one's own people ornation-state, though he does not tell us to what other object or entitysupreme loyalty is owed. To the 18th centurychampions of oppressedminorities the answer to this question was straight forward?we owe oursupreme loyalty not to any one racial, ethnic, or religious group and its84 INTERNATIONAL JOURNALON WORLD PEACEVOL. XII NO. 1 MARCH 1995



28/40

CLARIFYINGNATIONALISMinterests,55ut as Jeffersonnd Painewould have said,our highest loyaltymust always be to themoral order of nature and of nature's God.The destructiveturn hich European nationalism took in the latter alfof the 19th centuryand thefirsthalfof thiscenturycan be seen in large

part as a result of the atrophy of this older theocentric natural law traditionas ithad been developed fromancientRoman times.The sense of beingpart of a higher cosmic-divineReality that is infinitelyreater thanone'sself or one's people, and of being obligated, both individually andcollectively, o conformone's lifeto theorder of thisReality, has providedthe great motivating and restrainingforce for those champions of auniversal concept of humanityfrom the time ofCicero and Saint Paul tothe present.1 Itwas only by the loss of this older vision thatmodern

1Cf. There isneither Jew nor Greek, there isneither slave nor free, there isneither male nor female, for you are all one inChrist Jesus. (Galatians 3:28)Truly I perceive thatGod shows no partiality, but in everynation any one whofears him and does what is right is acceptable to him. (Acts 10:34-35)There is in fact a true law?namely, right reason?which is in accordance withnature, applies to allmen, and isunchangeable and eternal. By its commands thislaw summons men to the performance of their duties; by its prohibitions itrestrains them from doing wrong. Its commands and prohibitions always influence

good men, but arewithout effectupon the bad. To invalidate this law by humanlegislation isnever morally right,nor is itpermissible ever to restrict itsoperation,and to annul itwholly is impossible. Neither the senate nor the people can absolveus from our obligation to obey this law ... Itwill not laydown one rule atRomeand another atAthens, nor will itbe one rule today and another tomorrow. Buttherewill be one law, eternal and unchangeable, binding at all times upon allpeoples; and therewill be, as itwere, one common master and ruler ofmen,namely God, who is the author of this law, its interpreter, and its sponsor. Theman who will not obey itwill abandon his better self, and, in denying the truenature of aman, will thereby suffer the severest penalties, though he has escapedall the other consequences which men call punishments. (Cicero, Republic, IH, 22)

Everyman's interest consists in following the lead of his own constitution andnature. Now my nature is a rational and civic nature; my city and my country, sofar as I am Antoninus, isRome; but so far as I am aman, it is the universe.Whatever therefore is to the advantage of these two cities, and that only, is goodforme. (Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, Book vi, paragraph 44)When in the course of human events itbecomes necessary for one people toINTERNATIONAL JOURNALON WORLD PEACE 85VOL. XII NO. 1 MARCH 1995



29/40


30/40

CLARIFYINGNATIONALISMit important in the present context to stress the fact that people of differentethnic,religious,or linguistic ackgrounds can live togetherharmoniouslyanddecently inthe sameunifiedpolitical state,though itrequiresa genuinedesire on the part of all parties concerned to reachmutually acceptableaccommodations. It is, I think, amuch too narrow vision to suggest thatdemographically homogeneous states are the only reallydesirable ones.Does anyone really ant to see SouthAfrica breakup into aXhosha state,a Zulu state, anAfrikaner state,a British South African state, an IndianSouthAfrican state,a JewishSouthAfrican state,etc. ? his iswhat selfdeterminationwould entail according to theVan Cleemput ideal, but itseems tome to be thoroughlynutty.Through chance and historypeopleof diverse racial, ethnic, religious, and linguisticbackgrounds often findthemselves thrown together in situations thatwere none of theirmaking.Itmay be the case that, like someone locked into an abusivemarriage,separationor divorce becomes theonly reasonable option. But even shakymarriages aswe know can sometimes be mended, and all parties are oftenthe better for it. The phenomenal success of Switzerland over thepastcenturyand a half in integrating nto a single,decent, and highly civicminded society three ethnic/linguistic roups (German, French, Italian)which outside its national borders had a longhistoryofmutual enmityshould tellus somethingabout thepossibilitiesof successfulmulti-culturalsocieties. We should notminimize thedifficulties fmaintaining suchsocieties, but neither shouldwe say that they are unworthy of beingmaintained because of the imperativesof the principle of national selfdetermination.




31/40

CLARIFYING NATIONALISM

REJOINDER_Geert Van CleemputRussell Nieli welcomes my conceptualdistinctionbetweennationalism andchauvinism,but rejectsthenormativeprescriptionswhich I offer.Before Ireplytohis criticisms, want to remark thatapparentlyMr. Nieli, despitea few statements hatseem to supportmy conceptualdistinctions, lipsbackinto theconceptual confusion that is so common in the studyof nationalism. e actuallymakes themistake that criticize. e divides nationalisminto two varieties, a 'chauvinistic5 and a 'benevolent5 one. My point isexactly that there is only one version of nationalism, i.e., the benevolentone. Chauvinism isnot a bad or illiberalversion of nationalism,1 it is itsexact opposite. Whereas a nationalist has a healthy conception of the roleof ethnicity in politics, an ethnic chauvinist and, a fortiori, an ethnicimperialist,operate with a distinctlyunhealthy conception of ethnicity.Even those critics of nationalism who seem tomake a distinction betweena good55 version and a bad55 version, all too often forget that distinctionand criticize some vague generic version which turns out to be ethnicchauvinismor imperialism. r. Nieli and otherswill no doubt replythatnationalismappeared and appearsoften in itschauvinistversion. (Mr.Nieliactually says thison p. 81.) My point is that those phenomena are notnationalisms, but chauvinisms and/or ethnic imperialisms. As Imentionedinmy article, this isnot just amatter of terminology. f one allows theexistence of a 'bad5 version of nationalism, the 'good5 versions of nationalismhave amuch harder timefinding sympathetic ars. It ismuch betterthen tomake these clear definitional distinctions.2As tomy normative prescriptions,Mr. Nieli accepts thg (theoretical)attractiveness of the principle of self-determination, ut finds that itencountersmyriad problemswhen attemptsaremade to implement it inthe real world55 (p. 78). These problems cause enormous human suffering.One suchproblem, according toNieli, is the simple fact thatracial,ethnic,linguistic,and religiousgroups ... are rarelyclustered together in such away thatwould permit theeasy creationofdemographicallyhomogeneousnations.551 am afraid that this fact is not so simple and straightforward asNieli claims it is. First, inmany cases of ethnic strife or animosity, the




32/40

CLARIFYINGNATIONALISMterritoriesreprettymuch established.The Kurds, Turks, and Iraqis knowexactlywhere Kurdistan begins, despite efforts f the leadersof the lattertwo peoples to change the demographic make-up of Kurdistan. In the caseswhere there is ethnic intermingling, he historical claims to thedisputedterritory hould be investigated.Despite widespread rhetoric that it isimpossible to adjudicate between those claims, inmost cases it isrelatively simple to establish historical title to territories. n the case ofCroatian Krajina, it isvery clear thattheSerbswho were livingtherearethe descendants of the Serbswho moved there at the invitationof the

Austrian emperor to set up a military frontier against the OttomanEmpire and of later Serbian immigrants. However painful the currentflightf theKrajina Serbs is,theyneverwere entitled to political rights quaSerbs inCroatia. The presenceofCroatsamong them should have remindedthemthatthey ctuallywere inCroatia.They and theirforefathers houldhaveadapted to Croatian culture, i.e., theyshould have behaved as immigrants(should) do, i.e., immerse themselvesin the existing society.To thepossibleobjection that thisviolates therights fKrajina Serbs or of others in thatposition, Iwant to replythefollowing.I do not consider it a violation of

my human rightsthat , as a Fleming/Dutchman,do not have the righttoreceive education inDutch, that I cannot vote in theUS, that I have noDutch member ofCongress who speaksmy language inCongress, etc.31am a visitor ere. If I express thedesire to livehere permanentlyand haveshown some commitment to do that seriously, I should be given theopportunity to become a citizen, but never does that entitleme to anypolitical rights n theUS connectedwithmy beingDutch. Similarly, iftheKrajina Serbs and theRussians in theBaltic states and in other Sovietsuccessor states want to become loyal citizens of those countries, theyshould be given the opportunity to do so only if they show a serious

However painful thecurrentflight f theKrajina Serbs is,theynever were entitled topolitical rights ua SerbsinCroatia. The presenceof Croats among themshould have remindedthem thatthey ctuallywere inCroatia. Theyand their forefathersshould have adapted toCroatian culture.




33/40

CLARIFYINGNATIONALISMcommitment to the cultural and political situation of their host country.Those Russians who want to learntheBaltic languages should be entitledto become citizens. Those who do not want to, can remain perhaps as legalaliens or may be sent home to Russia because they constitute a threat tothose countries. It is pathetic that the liberal55media support the Russiansin theBaltic and PresidentClinton showed a complete lack of historicalunderstanding of theproblem by preaching about a lukewarmversion ofAmerican multiculturalism for the Baltic during his visit there lastyear.Liberalism uninformedby history ispositivelydangerous.Indeed, historyhas to be brought into thepicture tohave itshed lighton the claims thatethnicminorities ormajorities incertain regionshave.The ethnic group that has been inhabiting a certain area before itscompetitorshas therightto (thepolitical ruleof) thatterritory.I am notsaying that this right is absolute and that certain benefits, e.g., naturalresources,which happen to be attached to that territory, hould not beshared in a justway with others. But this is the general problem ofdistribution of natural resources,which already existswith the existingsovereign states.) I deny the rightto self-determination o ethnicgroupswithin territories nhabitedby other groupswho have a prior historicalclaim to those territories. The former groups aremade up of representativesof a colonizing/invadingpeople, e.g., theRussians in theBaltic countriesand elsewhere, or of descendants of colonizers/invaders, e.g., the Turks in(Western)Thrace andCyprus. To give thosegroups self-determination sto reward theiraggression. They should not, inmy opinion, receive anypolitical rights insofar s theyhave a differentethnicity4 or should theirlanguages receiveanyofficialrecognition. f course, theyshould enjoy thebasic human rightsand also be able to speak their language in privateaffairs. o do otherwise, is to equip a fifth olumnwhich will continue toundermine the original55 people. The Russians in the near abroad,55 theCastilians inCatalonia and elsewhere,theFrench inCorsica and elsewhere,and so many other visitors55 who overtook their hosts, should do one oftwo things. hey should either learn the languageof theirhosts and adaptpoliticallyto thecultureof theirhosts and so truly ntegrate nto theirhostsociety.Or theyshould go back

towhere they (or theirancestors) camefrom,toRussia, Castile, and France proper. If theydo want to live in thehost region or country, theyare to live in accordance with thegeneral90 INTERNATIONAL JOURNALON WORLD PEACEVOL. XII NO. 1 MARCH 1995



34/40

CLARIFYINGNATIONALISM(political) culture inplace. Only in thisway should theybe able to liveasfull citizens. Certain courtesy measures are acceptable for pragmatic reasonsto ease the transition ntothenew political arrangement, .e., the transitionfromdomination by the visitors55o the independenceof thehosts in theabove examples. This may sound veryharsh andmay bemisunderstood.Especially inthecase of an ethnicgroup thathas lived ina certainterritoryfor a long time, like theKrajina Serbs, thismay be hard to swallow.However, it isexacdyour unwillingness to recognize thesebasic historicalfacts that create these problems.5While Mr. Nieli does notwant to dismiss self-determination ut ofhand, he rejectsthat it is an inalienable natural right hich automaticallytrumpsall other rights nd considerations.55(p. 0) He comparesme withsomeFirstAmendment advocate who fails tounderstand the subtletiesoftheright ofreespeech.My definition fnationalism contains the stipulation that a nationalist i^HH?^MHHManot just promote thewell-being of his or her Nigeria was onlypeople or nation as such but also of other entitled to itspeoples or nations as such.55 his means that independence ifnationalistspromoting the self-determinationr peoples withinindependence of theirpeople must recognize Nigeria whichthatneighboring peoples have that same right, wanted theirFor example, Nigeria was

1jstor project article.pdf

Documents