Political Science 160 Introduction to World Politics

Section 5, Paper 2-2

 
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