The Return of Nationalism

Asia Views, Vol. IV, No. 4, August-September 2009

I.Wibowo

Lecturer at the Department of International Relations,
Faculty of Social and Political Science, University of Indonesia

As Indonesia, Singapore and Malaysia celebrate their national days in August, our minds turn to what it means to be an Indonesian, a Singaporean, a Malaysian, a citizen of a nation-state. Are nation-states and nationalism still relevant as borders are demolished by the juggernaut of globalization?

Looking back to the turn of the 20th century, nationalism caused nothing but misery around the world. In the name of nationalism, one country attacked another, disregarding sovereignty. Indeed, nationalism was even directed internally to destroy those who did not belong to the “pure nation.” And so like the mythic god Janus, nationalism is two-faced.

Then came World War II and when it ended in 1945, with the culprits of war heavily penalized, nationalism still prevailed. Despite the casualties, nationalism did not disappear. On the contrary, it became a source of energy for numerous peoples around the world who wanted to liberate themselves from the yoke of colonialism. Soekarno was one of those nationalists, as was Nasser (Egypt), Nehru (India), Nyerere (Tanzania) and also Mao (China). Without turning to the spirit of nationalism, it would have been difficult for them to stir up emotional sentiment and mobilize their peoples to stand up and take arms. Independence had to be fought and died for and was not something that came easily. It was achieved with a heavy price.

Yet around the world, one country after another, learnt the harsh lesson that even after fighting for their independence, the former colonialist countries did not want to treat them as equals. The world was, and still is, governed by an organization where a select country has the final say on all issues arising in the world. The rest can only hope that this organization, known as the “United Nations”, really is doing its best to promote their interests.

Trade was supposed to be free, but in reality the “Third World” of former colonies was disadvantaged. The industrialization process they wanted to pursue was impossible to achieve without the falling terms of trade being corrected more in their favor. Increasingly, the Third World countries became convinced that they were dependent on their former masters, economically as well as politically, like the periphery to the center. No wonder that many of them joined the “Second World,” the alternate world which adopted the communist model.

It was the promise of globalization in the 1990s that raised the hopes of developing countries. In the late 1980s, Japanese management expert, Kenichi Ohmae, bravely and persuasively argued in his book The End of the Nation-States that as national borders crumble, trade would become easier and, following the free-trade theory of Adam Smith, prosperity would dawn upon the developing countries. In other words, globalization was the panacea. According to this scenario, countries, corporations, and individuals will together hand-in-hand contribute their abilities to the common development of humankind. There will no longer be differences among peoples and countries. There will no longer be a need for nationalism. Any mention of nationalism in the golden age of globalization would be considered anachronistic.

This optimism was suddenly shattered in September 2008. One by one all global actors went to the nation states asking for help. Both multinational and national corporations were on their knees as they lost billions of dollars due to – in the words of Susan Strange - “casino capitalism.” First in the US, then like a virus it spread quickly to the UK, the EU, Japan, and China. No country was spared from this global calamity. For the first time since Keynesian economic theory was shelved in the 1980s, one government after another talked about how to rescue their own economies. The state which had been considered redundant by Milton Friedman and his supporters of neo-liberal economics, was now being called back to rescue the corporations which otherwise would have dragged down the whole economy to collapse. The state became a l¬ender of the last resort.

After being marginalized for about two decades, the state has returned with a vengeance. Now countries talk less about globalization and more about saving their own country instead. “Buy American First” would have been unacceptable in 1990s. Now it sounds like music to the ears of the Americans. Similar words and expressions are heard in other countries. Indonesians say “Aku Cinta Produk Indonesia” – I love Indonesian products.

Even though delegates at the latest G-8 meeting in Italy in July this year promised not to promote protectionism, no one can guarantee that this will promise will be honored. The Economist magazine, well-known for its strong neo-liberal position, had to admit that the economy of the world is indeed looking inwardly, showing a tendency of “economic nationalism.” (Feb 5, 2009)

But nationalism had already returned a few years earlier when terrorists attacked the World Trade Centre in New York in 2001. The US reacted swiftly by adopting the Patriot Act to stop terrorism in its soil, giving rise to nationalism. Houses in the US put up flags and people began wearing the pin of the star-spangled banner. Other countries who were also feeling the brunt of terrorism slowly adopted nationalism as their platform to unite their citizens against terrorists. India in the face of a terrorist attack in Mumbay and China with the demonstrators in Tibet and Xinjiang, both found refuge in nationalism. Indonesia, after the bomb attack by terrorists in Jakarta, appealed to a “United Indonesia” prompting an emotional response by the people .

Globalization at its peak managed to downplay nationalism, leading some to conclude that there is the “flattening of the world.” But nationalism, however, has resurfaced and the neo-liberal discourse has fallen to the wayside. People are no longer ashamed to talk about the nation and the nation-state.

From now on, national days and independence days will be celebrated around the world with a fervor rarely seen before. Perhaps people will now reflect with more nuance on the meaning of nation-state and the promise it holds for its citizens.