Why is it impossible to overcome nationalism?

The idea that people form individual tribes based on a common language, culture, ethnic affiliation and consciousness, and that such groups should be able to govern themselves, has dictated the history of the last 500 years, in ways that many people still do not fully understand.

It was nationalism that prompted Britain's decision to get out of the European Union, even though movement leaders are not understanding it, that exiting the union is likely to make the majority of Britons poor, and this could lead to the possible dissolution of the entire United Kingdom.

American President Donald Trump, used nationalist imagination for a imagined past (“to re-enter the White House in 2016, and nationalism still forms the basis for its protectionist and anti-imgrarian policies, which guarantee the loyalty of his supporters.

Nationalism is also essential for the ambitious efforts of Chinese President Xi Jinping to make China a world leader, and it is the common term uniting right-wing European politicians in France, Austria, Italy, Hungary and Poland. In fact, nationalism is seen in action today.

But why is nationalism so powerful, and why is its influence so important? First, people are social beings. From the moment we are born, we belong to a certain kind of community... a family, tribe, village, province, and today a designated place.

Because we depend on those around us from the beginning, people have evolved to be very sensitive to the differences between the group and those outside the group. Being able to identify your friends and enemies at one time was vital to survival, and it's almost easier to rely on simple indicators (“he speaks my language”, “he looks different from my group”, than to make a deep assessment of the other person's character or dispositions.

In view of these evolutionary efforts, it is not surprising why we humans are more sensitive to such differences than we should actually be. That means we can't see beyond our tribes, or create a powerful bond with others, or that we can't redefine over time who's “inside” or “outside” group.

Simply put: we have a strong tendency to identify more strongly, with what we consider to be “s in”.

So far, “the nation” has been the largest cultural grouping with this kind of sustainable attraction for its members. The determining features that make up a nation can change, but usually include a common language and culture, a territorial origin and a common narrator of the collective past.

More important, one nation is a group of people who view themselves as a unique community with a special identity. As Benedict Anderson put it, the nations are <x0).

Moreover, as John Mearsheimer points out in his last book “The great disappointment”, the power of nationalism partly relies on his symbiotic relationship with the state. In view of the substantial competitive pressures in a world without a central authority, states have powerful incentives to promote national unity within their borders so that citizens can be loyal and more willing to sacrifice for the State when necessary.

So in the modern world, nations want their countries to ensure their survival and autonomy, as states promote nationalism to strengthen themselves, and preserve their independence. Nationalist movements hope to boost the ranks of UN member states as states do what they can to suppress independence movements within their borders, and create a homogenous body of faithful citizens.

In extreme cases, minorities are expelled, massacred, or “ri-educated” (as they are trying to make China with the water population in Xinjiang). These two cores, nation and state, help explain why nationalism remains such a powerful and constant force. And be not deceived: his influence is very profound.

Even highly educated and generally skeptical individuals (as I am) are by no means immune to its effects. But why should we be concerned about this powerful and lasting phenomenon? First, because national feelings are easily exploited by political leaders, including most of the demagogues whose activities are currently detecting politics worldwide.

Possible authors as Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, or cynical opportunists like British Boris Johnson, can convince their supporters that they are the only defenders against national fall or even extinction.

Second, nationalist narravities encourage double standards. Americans denounced President Vladimir Putin's Russia for his actions in Ukraine, but we forget that we have done many similar things in the past. For example, the same people who insisted that the U.S. should invade Iraq in 2003 (on the basis of suspicious arguments, and “produced”) were the first to rush Russia for its intervention in Ukraine.

Third, nationalism can lead to potential political compromise, especially when supposed national sacred territory is involved. Serbia, there was no rational reason to try to keep Kosovo in 1999 (the local population consisted of the overwhelming majority of Kosovo Albanians who are hostile to Belgrade, and the region itself had no great strategic or economic value), but Belgrade could not allow the secession, as Kosovo was the cradle of Serbian national identity.

Fourth, nationalism has long been a potential source of overconfidence because most (not all) national myths include claims of superiority to others. So we are often told that our nation is not only different from all others but is also the best.

Nationalism, it is difficult to separate from national pride, and pride makes it harder to believe that foreigners can beat us in a fair race. Of course, nationalism is not without virtue. The obedience of individuals to make sacrifices for the common good is not a bad thing, and a healthy degree of political unity and pride in the true achievements of a country is certainly more desirable to the wild and open wars that have divided many democracies today.

Nevertheless, nationalism will never disappear. So the challenge is to recognize his values, and limit his negative side. This, of course, is easier said than done. At least, his power and insistence should be recognized and respected.

Among other things, a healthy respect for the power of nationalism would discourage powerful states from thinking that they can reform the world according to their particular designs, and help us avoid hysterical fantasies that have caused so much damage in recent years. We live in a world of furious nationalism, which will not soon change, and accepting this fact is a good basis for building a more realistic foreign policy.

Note: Stephen M. Walt, is a professor of international relations at Harvard University, U.S.A.

“Foreign Policy” World.al