-
- From lgeoffre@umich.edu Wed Jan 21 10:15:58 1998
- Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 22:47:49 -0500 (EST)
- From: Lauren Ann Geoffrey <lgeoffre@umich.edu>
- To: Pierre-Francois Landry <libite@umich.edu>
- Subject: Lauren and Jasmine's Paper
-
-
- The Nationalism Debate
-
- Nationalism is a sense of common identity combined
with a desire
- to constitute a self-governing political group. As
Professor Jacobson has
- stated in lecture, nationalism provides "the cohesion
that makes it
- possible for states to function as political
entities." This is key to
- the study of world politics because it provides a
legal foundation by
- which states can interact in the global environment.
- However, as powerful the principles of nationalism
may
- be, historical and present-day turmoil illustrate
that the
- approach does not hold true in every circumstance.
Authors Michael Lind
- and Gidon Gottleib, in their respective articles, "In
Defense of Liberal
- Nationalism" and "Nations Without States" debate the
importance and
- effectiveness of liberal nationalism. Lind provides
much support and
- analysis concerning why many separate sovereign
states are preferible;
- Gottlieb, on the other hand, discusses the
ineffectiveness of such a
- system and suggests intermediate alternatives.
Further analysis shows that
- although both authors present valid arugments, they
provide
- unworkable solutions.
- Lind advocates the separation of multinational states
into smaller
- sovereign states for the purpose of peace and
democracy. Although
- such an approach is admirable in theory, it cannot be
effective in
- real-world situations. Lind views the division of
Russia into smaller
- sub-states as a pragmatic solution to the long-term
strife.
- Unfortunately,he does not consider how the arbitrary
drawing of boundries
- creates as many problems as it solves. First,
boundries cannot be neatly
- drawn to represent every minority group. Gottlieb
supports this notion
- when he states "the arbitrary creation of borders in
Russia has become a
- 'serious irritant' among the ex-soviet states." As a
result of boundary
- drawing, many former Russians are left out of their
respective nations and
- thus are treated like outcasted minorities.
Historical analysis
- illustrates that efforts made to protect minorities
ultimately fail as in
- the two World Wars. Furthermore Lind ignores the fact
that there is land
- that cannot be divided as in Israel. Both the
Israelis and Palestinians
- see Jerusalem as their "historical homeland." There
is no way the city
- can be peacefully divided between the two. Strong
religious ties to land
- prevent either group from being willing to give up
their claim to any
- portion.
- Gottlieb manages to cite other circumstances, in
addition to the
- above examples, concerning why the nationalism that
Lind advocates cannot
- work.
- Although Gottleib effectively reveals the problems of
- worldwide sovereign states, he fails to produce a
viable solution in his
- "states-plus-nations" approach. This model, Gottleib
says, includes
- "nations bound across borders and continents by ties
of kinship,
- sentiments, affinity, culture, and loyalty." He
provides no empirical
- examples supporting this proposal.
- In an attempt to provide a concrete example, Gottlieb
applies
- the "states-plus-nations" approach to Israel. His
homeland regime to
- solve the dispute fails to acknowledge that, as
history has shown,
- Israelis and Palestinians would most not likely
engage in a compromise for
- their claimed territory. Moreover, he never indicates
who would admister
- his proposed solution of local governance in the
area.
- The soft approach's inability to solve for scattered
minorities also
- exemplifies another problem with Gottlieb's proposal.
Gottlieb, for
- example, proposes a soft international standing for
the Kurds. The
- cohesiveness of his solution is minimal, as Gottlieb
never defines the way
- in which a soft functional space operates.
Definitions aside, the
- uncertain, "soft" nature of this international
standing makes the Kurds
- no more united, or even recognized, than in the
status quo. The group
- would again remain displaced in territory and in
legal identity.
- Nationalism has been and continues to be the major
force that governs
- the relations among states in World Poliltics.
Although Lind illustrates
- this point, he fails, as does Gottlieb, to provide
viable solutions to
- present-day problems regarding state soverignty and
state relations.
- Determining the perfect solution to the current
situation is a difficult
- task and should continue to remain under close
examination.
-
- Lauren Geoffrey and Jasmine Huda
- Section 5
-
|