France can also be seen as an example of this because of their geographical position they have had strong links with other European countries such as Spain and the Benelux countries, France is also a good example of a country who geographically is vulnerable to invasion that this has been seen from its history and so it has realised that it can’t stand alone and so it has had to develop good relations with neighbours in order to defend itself which is possibly why just like the Benelux countries it is a driving force behind integration. Now along with Britain there is another good example of how geographically a country has developed a strong sense of nationalism and that is the USA, who probably even more so than Britain has a strong sense of national identity. It is argued and believed by many that this is because the USA shares its borders with very few countries and has always had an isolationist approach. So from these examples I think that it is fair to say that the geographical location of a country does and has influenced the national identity that a country feels to some extent as countries with borders are generally more willing to accept closer ties with one another and therefore this reliance almost brings a decline in national identity whereas countries such as the US and UK who in a sense are “on their own” have a strong sense of identity.
Along with the geographical reasons as to why nationalism has come about in modern political geography there are also historical reasons that have led to nationalist conflicts today and also historical reasons as to why National identity is what it is in the modern world. Again using the example of European countries we can see that throughout history there have been certain countries that have been dominant in Europe through military strength and also through strong trade links. For example France and Spain have both been dominant forces in Europe throughout history, each battling for supremacy and this is reflected in their national identity which is one of pride. However in current political geography debates these countries are not as “isolationist” as a country such as Britain, and there is potentially a very good reason for this. It is argued by Sukumar Periwal that although France especially has had a very strong national identity over time this has diminished. He argues that through the French revolution which brought about a huge overhaul and change, there was a need to redefine and find a new national identity as the one that had served for so long was relatively useless. He also offers that nationalism in France was hit due to the Second World War when France was invaded as it was at this point that the French possibly realised their vulnerability of invasion and their relative military weakness. This in turn led to the realisation that they needed strong links with its neighbours in order to protect itself and that this is why the French are so pro European integration in current debates. However I am inclined to argue this point to an extent because I think it possible that one can go even further back to the Napoleonic wars to see a decline in nationalism in France. Again making a comparison here to British nationalism, the British isles have never been invaded and there has not been such a great overhaul as there has been in France that has effected all of its people, so its political stability has remained roughly the same and that it is these facts that have brought about such a strong sense of British identity.
Nationalism is a very central aspect of current debates in the EU especially at the moment with the prospect of more countries joining the European Union. In 2004 nine more countries are going to join the EU and amongst them are a number of ex-soviet controlled states including the likes of Romania and Poland. Now a number of countries are worried about the implications and consequences surrounding this issue especially in Britain. It is expected that a large number of migrants will attempt to immigrate to Britain due to the prosperity of the nation and some argue the benefits that one can expect as a resident that you may not be able to benefit from in some other European countries. Now this has caused great debate across Europe because joining the EU means “lowering your borders” as this is really what Europe was designed for, to allow the free movement between countries. However because of the strong sense of nationalism in the UK many see the arrival of immigrants from the continent as a possible and hindrance and drain on the British economy However because the UK is part of the EU many argue that it must allow all those Europeans who wish to move freely from one area to another and so the UK must allow the influx of migrants to enter unchallenged. Now it must be stressed here that this is a central debate in political geography due to the fact that Europe really stands for the breaking down of borders and if Britain want to be part of the EU then they must accept all that comes with it. However nationalism comes into play as many British believe it unfair that workers who may be unskilled and unable to support themselves should be supported by the state. Again this sense of nationalism I think stems from Britain’s isolationist approach and its almost apprehensive approach to the EU. The ex Tory leader William Hague summed up the British nationalist approach to this new dilemma in a recent interview when he suggested “First we must learn to look after our own people, then we can look at helping others.” This is an argument that has resounded up and down the country in many ways and is symbolic in many of British nationalistic tendencies, where many people believe that they should not have to support other people, when there are still British people that need helping. This is an argument that goes to show to some extent how nationalism brings with it a sense of arrogance. Tony Benn ( retired labour backbencher) made a good parallel concerning this matter when he said that if during World War two the Americans had of “continued their nationalistic approach of non committal then we may never of won the war at all.” This is a good parallel in the sense that without the help of the US in WW2 the allies may never have won the war in the same way that if Britain keeps up their arrogant nationalistic attitude towards Europe in supporting others then they are in danger of being alienated from the EU for good. It is also worth noting here that nationalistic tendencies do bring with them a sense of arrogance and it is probably this that causes the most tension and conflict between nations in matters of political geography.
On a similar line to this there is also a debate in which nationalism really comes to the foreground and that is one of race and asylum, now this can be seen in almost every country across the world and also all through history has been a big debate in the context of political geography. The movement of people across borders from one place to another has always caused conflict and an air of resentment, and this is the reason why groups have formed in democracies in order to challenge these movements and the inhabiting of certain areas by certain peoples. A prime example of this is Germany during and before the Second World War, where Hitler preyed on people’s nationalistic ideals and tendencies in order to rise to power. He did this at a time when economically Germany was in a poor state and he showed how Jewish people were not as badly affected as Germans, he also engineered anti Semitism through the use of propaganda. The example of Nazi Germany is probably one of the best in the context of political geography as Hitler’s argument and aim was that Germany needed more space “lebensraum” (living space), due to the large number of “non- Germans” living in Germany at the time. Hitler’s engineering of the situation at the time was in many peoples eyes masterfully done through the use of nationalism through the use of German rallies and meetings which brought about a strong sense of national identity which up until then was arguably at the back of peoples minds or even arguably non existent to some. In fact when people talk about the word nationalism it is usually associated with extremist movement, usually from the right of the political spectrum. Along with the example of the Nazis in the modern world there are also movements such as the National Front and Force 12 in Britain, and the National party in France, proving beyond doubt that nationalism is still a force in the modern political climate.
Nationalism and identity also comes into play in a relatively modern debate when we consider decolonisation of empires especially by both the French and British after the Second World War. There are a number of critics who advocate that decolonisation was brought about through resurgence in national identity on the part of the colonial countries. On of the best examples of this is in India and one man in particular Gandhi who advocated that India should be independent from the British Empire as it was this empire that was suppressing the Indian people from realising their full potential. It was also argued at the time that the British had no right to govern India and that it should be governed by Indian people for Indian people and that not external interference should be aloud. This in a sense was Indian nationalism at its best, arguing with the country that had controlled it for so long that it had no right to do so. However this rise in nationalist thought was echoed all over the empire and unlike in India where there were relatively peaceful demonstrations, there were a number of violent uprisings of nationalist movements such as in Kenya and to an extent in Rhodesia, where British control and rule was no longer thought to be the status quo as it was thought that it was repressing the nationals of the particular countries. The British were let off relatively unscathed during the decolonisation process, as opposed to the French who chose to try and suppress and nationalist movements aspiring to make there country theirs once again, this led to a great deal of fighting and money on the part of the French and it was soon realised that they could not either afford or continue with an empire. There is also a case to be put forward that it was due to nationalism, especially in Britain that decolonisation had to take place as it was evident that Britain was spending too much money on financing the empire in the forms of policing and maintenance when it could not really afford to. It also came about largely after the war at a time when the economy was in a very poor state and so in the eyes of nationalists it was ludicrous to keep on financing something which was for a start not providing any great return, secondly there was a lot of outcry from the nationalists of the states within the empire, and thirdly because after the war there was a huge change in thought of British nationalists in the way that Britain should be run, it moved very much away from a strong capitalist state in the form of government policy to a more welfarist train of thought, with the introduction of the welfare state. This made nationalists realise that it had to look after itself primarily and that the empire was distracting the government from doing this. However it must also be noted that decolonization was heavily pushed by the US and this was also a key determinant as to why it came about.
Environmental issues also play a key part in current political geography debates, especially over matters such as global warming and destruction of rainforests. Here the argument in the context of political geography is whether countries who add a great deal more than others to cause global warming should be forced to do so because of the affect that they are having both on the world as a whole but also on other states that are not within their borders. For example air pollution occurs in the UK and is then carried in the air to countries in Scandinavia where it forms acid rain and causes pollution. The argument is here that the UK is causing the pollution within its own boundaries of its own state and so is doing nothing wrong, but the counter argument is that it is doing wrong as it is proven to be causing pollution in Scandinavia. Here the nationalist interest plays its role in the UK as it is concerned more for the economic welfare of the UK than it is for the environmental welfare of Scandinavia, who in turn are looking out for their nationalist interests as they do not see why they should have to deal with the waste of the UK. The same can be said for the US at the Kyoto treaty where the US were again looking out for their national interests and refused to lower emissions or work to solve the problems of global warming, instead there was more of a concern about the US economy and how it would be burdened with extra costs if it signed up to Kyoto. A further example of environmental issues in political geography is the destruction of the rainforests in South America, here poverty is rife and one of the biggest ways of making money is farming, in order to do this fertile land must be cultivated and so rainforests are chopped down. Here the nationalist view once again is that jobs are created and the economy is boosted so it helps the nation and that the forests are within its states borders, but the argument is that this is killing off wildlife and also adding to global warming and the greenhouse effect to the large scale destruction. “It is obvious”, writes Gerald Delanty, “that there is no clear solution to these problems, but the result of nationalism in this sense, on the world could be disastrous.”
One final example of where nationalism causes a great gap and debate is over the world economy and more specifically on the subject of poverty. Countries national interest dominate thought above all else as we have already seen. Countries especially in the Western world know that they exploit third world countries and their people for their own advantage, and this is how sweat shops for example are formed, or the reason why so many rain forests have to be cut in order to earn a small wage in order to survive. In these examples nationalism is evident as less is paid for labour and manufacturing, which leads to profit maximisation, but in turn this leads to increasing third world debt and poverty on the part of the poorer countries. The debate here obviously is that there are two standards, one for the developed world where a minimum wage is now standard, and one for the undeveloped world who it can be said are being exploited in order to make more money. Now this is arguably the reason that there is so much disparity in the world, and it can be argued that nationalism and serving the national interest is to blame. Again the nationalism in this example is nothing really to do with race or religion but instead economic factors causing disparity in the world of political geography.
In conclusion it must be said that Nationalism is in deed at the centre of a number of debates in modern political geography, whether it be in debates over the environment, conflict in the Middle East or even debate over European integration. So it must be drawn from this that national identity and nationalism are central to debate, and it is arguably from these factors that many debates begin because each state in itself has nationalistic tendencies and are always likely to do so.
Word Count- 3,823
Bibliography
A Companion to Political Geography- Agnew, Mitchell and Toal
-Blackwell Publishers 2003
Nationalism and Social Theory- Gerald Delanty and Patrick O’Mahony
- Sage publications Ltd. 2002
The Political geography of Contemporary Britain- John Mohan
- Macmillan Education Ltd. 1989
Notions of Nationalism- Sukumar Periwal
- Oxford University Press 1995
Using Political Ideas- Barbara Goodwin
- John Wiley & Sons Ltd 2003
Concise Dictionary of Politics- Iain McLean and Alistair McMillan
- Oxford University Press 2003
Concise Dictionary of Political Quotation
- Oxford University Press 2003