Now that we are confronted with a problem over our claim in the South China Sea, our politicians all of a sudden invoke the abstract political elixir of nationalism to unite our people. They see the value of nationalism as essential to advance a specific policy they equate as in pursuit of our national interest. This is often the case because many could hardly distinguish nationalism from patriotism or much more about the rudiments of what constitute our national interest.
To begin with, nationalism came about after the signing of the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 which gave rise to the formation of nation-states. That historic treaty formalized the conduct of international relations among nations. From thereon, the concept of territoriality, sovereignty and independence became a prerequisite to the recognition of states. This means that states must possess the essential characteristics of having their own people, a defined territory, and must be sovereign and independent. Having the same racial, cultural identify and even religious beliefs was often used to galvanize people to form their own nation-state.
The significance of the Treaty of Westphalia was only superseded after 307 years when the leaders of the then Non-Aligned countries, namely: China, Indonesia, India, then Yugoslavia and Egypt, meet in Bandung, Indonesia in 1955 to enunciate the now famous five principles in the conduct of international relations. Being at the height of the Cold War, nationalism became the ideological cornerstone of the members to disassociate themselves from the so-called Free World and from the Socialist bloc. The Five principles are: 1) Mutual respect for each other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty; 2) Non-aggression; 3) Non-interference in each other’s internal affairs; 4) Equality and mutual benefit; and 5) Peaceful co-existence.
Much that the primordial concern of every state is to secure its own survival, vis-à-vis independence, nationalism became the most convenient mode to unite the people. The problem, however, is that the concept of nationalism has evolved not only to the idea of safeguarding their territory, independence and sovereignty, but to one of economic survival. The old practice of closing one’s door to economic intercourse called autarky only goaded other states to embark on a much aggressive economic policy called imperialism until it was tamed by the costly bruise of war that lead to globalization focusing on the elimination of tariff barriers. Some observed that globalization has already reached its peak, with many now reverting to the old practice of bilateral rather than multilateral trade agreements where the principle of “most favored-nation clause” causing much debilitation to the economies of the rich countries.
When Adolf Hitler became the Chancellor, he not only sought to unite the remaining German nations by annexing territories from East Prussia to Ukraine where there were sizeable German minorities, but sought to purify the race by the deportation, internment and even extermination of Jews in Europe. Nationalism was at its worst because Hitler sought not only to emphasize on the superiority of the Aryan race, but used it as an instrument to wage war.
Nationalism that makes war as an instrument of national policy is called jingoism. Many countries today try to tone down nationalism fearing that blind nationalism could trigger social unrest. It tends to generate of national hysteria for often it is used by demagogues to justify the suppression of political opposition, often branding them as traitors, or to wage war against countries that annexed a portion of their territory or an excuse to commit aggression in defense of protecting their own people in countries where they are being discriminated. In other words, nationalism has become the easiest way to confuse people on their ability to comprehend the necessity of going to war.
Whether the country is waging as defensive or just war or has chosen to commit aggression in pursuit of its national interest, many believe that once that condition has been set into motion, people have little or no choice but to support that cause. It is the condition of war that heightens one to be patriotic. This is why patriotism is not just confined to the soldiers, but to the entire population. The Soviets during World War II called their defense of the Motherland against the invading German army “a Great Patriotic War,” as so with the Chinese in their campaign to drive out the Japanese imperial army.
Nationalism is defined as love of what the country stands. The state need not necessarily at war, but citizens nonetheless must exhibit a degree of identification with its culture, history, language and aspirations that galvanized them as one nation. In patriotism, there is less room for the citizens to deny or even denounce it. To abnegate on his duty could make him a traitor. On the other hand, nationalism have a much wider room for interpretation. It is in those gray areas where demagogues take advantage to realign their concept of nationalism to pursue their own selfish interest or of the interest of other states that props up their government.
Imminent American author on international relations Hans J. Morgenthau, defined national interest as “the interest of a nation as a whole held to be an independent entity separate from the interest of subordinate areas or groups and also of other nations or supranational groups.” It is to the French, d’ etat or reason of the state. This has to be emphasized because our concept of nationalism is totally different from what others understood as in pursuit of their national interest. Because of our misguided exhortation of nationalism, unconsciously we incorporated as our own the interest of other states. It is for this why those who might disagree with the path chosen by the lackluster Noynoy Aquino administration cannot be branded as unpatriotic or less nationalistic.
What the Noynoy administration did to unilaterally file a case before the Permanent Court of Arbitration cannot be said as in pursuit of our national interest because he has consistently treated US policy in the Philippines and in wider perspective as integral in securing our own interest. For instance, when the Noynoy administration insisted in negotiating with China on a multilateral basis, China’s objection was clear that it would not allow any party to speak on our behalf or for us to speak in their behalf. Second, to allow third parties to participate in the negotiations, like the US, would give it the status of having a preference to secure its unauthorized right to regularly patrol the South China Sea invoking the freedom of navigation which China consider as out of the issue.
Taken together the two items cannot be considered in pursuit of our national interest because China could sense they we are in fact defending US interest now embedded as part of our national interest. The pronouncement that the US will not come to our defense in case war erupts between China and the Philippines is indicative that its policy is wholly circumscribe to its national interest, and to none others.
