Marin Forum

People have a tendency to view nationalism as something negative and absent from American politics. Nationalism only occurs in violent and unstable nations such Yugoslavia in the 1990s or Russia under Vladamir Putin. Such notions are absurd as nationalism is the cornerstone in the formation of any nation.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines nationalism as the “advocacy of or support for the interests of one’s own nation especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations.” The flaw in this definition is that it suggests that nationalism is morally negatively. Nationalism is an excluding idea, but so is the idea of family. The nation excludes those who do not share certain characteristics just as the family excludes those who do not share blood kinship. The common factor is loyalty. Family involves loyalty to one’s blood relations, while nationalism involves loyalty to the nation.

What is the nation? The OED defines a nation as “a large aggregate of communities and individuals united by factors such as common descent, language, culture, history, or occupation of the same territory, so as to form a distinct people.” Nationalism is the loyalty, support, and advocacy of these ideas.

I will define nationalism as the the advocacy of the interests and ideals of a distinct group of communities and individuals united by factors such as common descent, language, culture, history, or territorial occupation.

The idea of nationalism is morally neutral. In fact it is vital to the development of the state. American politics took an important step towards greater autonomy when individuals saw themselves as Americans instead of British subjects. The European powers all formed distinct homogeneous entities. The United States and the European nations became stable powers because the people had a strong notion of being American, British, or French. On the flip side many countries have struggled to reach stability because they have little notion of the nation. After independence Mexico faced instability because it was unable to unite its geographically diverse people into a Mexican identity. Nigeria struggles because there is no idea of a Nigerian nation; instead individuals place their loyalty toward their clan or ethnic group. At the turn of the century Sun Yat-sen argued that the Chinese would continue to be oppressed by the Western powers as long as the Chinese lacked nationalism. Nationalism unites people and places their loyalty in the state above their family, clan, or ethnic loyalties. Without nationalism it would be hard to create and govern a state.

Nationalism has been an integral part of American development. Traditionally nationalism in the United States reflected WASP ideals. Overtime parts of the WASP ideal expanded. The United States has become more accepting of all racial groups. Protestantism has expanded to include all sects of Christianity and Judaism. The respect for democracy has always been a cornerstone of American nationalism. During times of crisis nationalism has been called upon to rally the people behind a cause. It was used during both world wars to vilify the Germans and Japanese while stressing the superiority of Anglo-Saxon society. However, nationalism has often been used to deny rights to minorities. The Chinese Exclusion Act in 1868 was an expression of American nationalism as Americans saw the Chinese immigrants as threats to American society.

In fact Americans are no less nationalistic than the Serbs in the 1990s or the various nationalist revolutions in the twentieth century. Whenever Americans have felt threatened by external or internal threats, they have turned to nationalism. Pearl Harbor galvanized the American public to go to war. September 11th created a degree of unity and devotion to the nation that hadn’t been felt for decades. In turn it gave President Bush considerable leeway to wage a global campaign against terrorism. But in the former Yugoslavia nationalism led to genocide and in the former Soviet Union nationalism has led to the suppression of human rights and violence. If Americans are no less nationalistic then why is there a difference?

The difference lies in institutions. Americans have a strong faith in democracy and its associated institutions (the courts and the bureaucracy). Also Americans have an aversion to demagoguery. Countries like Serbia or many of the African nations have weak institutions. In Yugoslavia during the 1990s Slobodan Milosevic was able to dominate the government and maintain power through nationalism.

Nationalism is easily made into a tool. A government can use it to rally support behind a righteous cause such as defeating fascism or it can use nationalism to commit ethnic cleansing. When people make judgments about whether nationalism is good or bad they too often look at the outcome of heightened nationalism. Since nationalism is easily manipulated, it can quickly be used for negative purposes in areas where institutions are weak. Nationalism is morally neutral. In conflict areas nationalism is not the problem; the institutions (or lack thereof) are the problem.

If the United States hoped to restore its credibility, it had to close its detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. So President Barack Obama is completely correct to order the facility’s closure during his first days in office. Even John McCain knew the importance of closing Guantanamo. Unfortunately, closing the detention center is no quick and easy task.

The current detainees are going to have to go somewhere. The Bush administration and supporters of the War on Terror stressed that the detainees posed significant security threats. However, some estimates suggest that many of the detainees are completely innocent. About 90% of the Abu Ghraib prisoners had no association with the insurgency or terrorist organizations. The detainees held in Guantanamo are of a slightly different character, but most probably have little value. As for the rest of the detainees, they can be put on trial and the law will finally provide a verdict. Unfortunately, the Bush administration has compromised the legal effort. Evidence obtained through torture is usually dismissed in the court of law. Thus, many actual terrorists who are dangerous to United States interests will walk free. The Bush administration had no foresight. For some reason they thought the next administration would continue the Bush administration policies and legal advise. They could have spent the last several years building up cases for each individual (but clearly there were no cases to build) so that future administrations could prosecute the individuals. Instead the Bush Administration’s short term thinking will prove detrimental to US interests.

The end result will be that many of the detainees will return to their countries of origin. Now here’s the problem. Chances are that Guantanamo further radicalized many of the detainees. Those who were more or less innocent could now be highly inclined to take up the jihadist cause. Prisons in general are radicalizing institutions. Sometimes prisoners who enter federal or state prison are more likely to commit crimes once they leave prison because of their treatment in prison and their interactions with true hardened thugs. Chances are that the same thing happens at Guantanamo. Relatively harmless individuals entered Guantanamo only to be turned into future jihadists.

United States policy will have to account for the psychological and ideological impact of Guantanamo. First, it is important that detainees are put through a comprehensive reeducation and rehabilitation program. Second and most importantly, the detainees will have to be kept under continual surveillance. Countries such as Saudi Arabia will most likely willingly carry out surveillance as they don’t want any more radicalized jihadists within their borders. But countries like Afghanistan or Yemen do not have the capability or will to properly follow “graduates” or Guantanamo. Former detainees of Guantanamo will pose a serious security risk to the United States; thus, our national security and intelligence apparatus must pay close attention to them.

Guantanamo had to be closed. As long as it is operation it acts as a rallying point for Islamic extremist groups. However, the closure must be treated extremely carefully. If the closure is not handled properly, Guantanamo could turn into one of the greatest Jihadist training camps in history.

Washington DC may have attracted two million people, but throughout the country people gathered at makeshift inauguration events to watching the swearing in of the 44th President of the United States. Here, at the University of California, Berkeley perhaps around a thousand people congregated on Sproul Plaza before classes to watch the historic event.

Some will say that the inauguration speech itself was lackluster, but Barack Obama probably was not aiming to deliver a speech that would be remembered for the ages. Its focus was more on “we’ve got a lot of problems, so lets get to work.” Still it was excellently delivered.

Now begins the first one hundred days where Obama will be held under close scruitney as some will be hoping for a period similar to the first days of FDR’s presidency. Time will tell how things play out.

With 2008 over lets take a look at some of the major events and how they will impact 2009 and the years to come. The year saw an interesting juxtaposition of events. Barack Obama was elected president emphasizing hope and change while the global economy collapsed. Russia invaded Georgia while the world came together at the Beijing Olympics. Meanwhile, there seems to be a end approaching to the US involvement in Iraq. And in one of the more feel good moments of the year Ingrid Betancourt was rescued from the FARC. Here is a look at the 5 most important events of 2008.

1. Barack Obama Elected 44th President of the United States

When the primaries began early in 2007 people knew that the 2008 election was going to be historic and wild. Barack Obama led a masterful campaign through months of primary battles that some thought would go undecided until the Democratic National Convention. The general election proved to be just as wild. Figures such as Joe the Plumber, Sarah Palin, and Bill Ayers dominated the media spotlight. But by October it was clear that Senator John McCain was outmatched. And so on November 4th Barack Obama was decisively elected the next president of the United States and the first African American to hold the highest office in the Union. Immediately he picked a strong group of intellectuals to compose his cabinet. Any election that results in the change between parties is easily one of the most important events to happen in the year. The shift between the Bush and Obama administrations should prove to be one of the more dramatic in US history. US foreign, economic, and environmental policies should see a major overhaul. Obama is entering the presidency during historic times where he has the chance to make significant changes in how the United States relates to the rest of the world and in reforming the economy. Not only will Obama’s election have an impact on the next four years and possibly the next eight, but it’s quite possible that there will fundamental policy changes comparable to the New Deal.

2. Economic Collapse

By December economists announced that we had been in a recession for a year. The year saw the collapse of the housing market, several banking institutions, and US automakers. Some reports show GM failing to survive the next few years. However, the economic crisis was felt beyond Wall Street as all aspects of the economy were impacted. The economy will be the number one issue for the next few years and it will constrain actions of political leaders. Local municipalities and government in general are facing budget problems that will result in reductions in government services. People are out of jobs. The economic situation is bleak and the fact that infusions of cash have yet to help the economy shows that reform and more regulations are badly needed before the economy is on solid footing. Obama owes the bleak economic situation for presidential victory, but it will limit the scope of his plans. All eyes are on Obama and whether his public works project and “green revolution” can end the crisis. Obama and the economy are tied together.

3. Russia Invades Georgia

On the eve of the Summer Olympics Russia invaded Georgia over supposed Georgian aggression in the semi-independent region of South Ossetia. The Georgian military was quickly routed and after a month the conflict disappeared from the media spotlight. However, Russia’s disproportionate use of force shocked world leaders. Eastern Europe countries such as Ukraine felt extremely exposed. And rightly so. If Russia wishes to expand, its first targets will be the oil rich Caucuses and Ukraine. The Georgia crisis exposed the dangerous nature of Putin and the current Russian government. Russia wants to regain its superpower status. To do so it is more than willing to flex its military muscle and use its energy monopoly over eastern Europe. At the same time Russia is in a very fragile situation and the current economic crisis could send the country into a tailspin. Russia is a rising threat; it is not an enemy, but it is a country that needs to be treated with concern. Putin will continue to make his presence felt in international politics.

4. Beijing Olympics

The 2008 Summer Olympics saw several incredible sports feats, but more importantly it had crucial political implications. The Beijing Olympics was China’s coming out party on the international stage. The international audience was dazzled by China’s grandiose displays and impressed by China’s performance in diving and gymnastics. China is quickly on the path toward superpower status rivaling the United States, and the Olympics affirmed China’s progress on that track. It was more positive media attention following their response to the devastating earthquake earlier in the year. On the flip side the Olympics focused attention on China’s dismal record on human rights. Its handling of the Tibet uprising couldn’t have come at a worse time for the Chinese government. The Olympics highlight the issues facing the Chinese government as it rises on the international stage. On one hand spectacular achievements will give it international media attention which is necessary to be recognized as a world power. On the other hand, increased media attention means more exposure of China’s uglier sides. China is going to have to accept that the price of international power is closer scrutiny and criticism.

5. US-Iraq Troop and Security Agreement

By the 2006 midterm election it was clear that the American public was tired of the war in Iraq. While the Surge saw successes, especially visible by 2008, the US was no nearer an exit strategy. Conditions on ground had improved by 2008 to the point where Iraqi troops were able to assume more responsibilities. Also Iraqis wanted the US presence out of their country. In response the Iraqi government drafted and passed a security agreement where all US troops would be allowed to remain in Iraq until 2011. The US would have to withdraw its forces by that date. On one hand it allows the US to legally remain in Iraq for another two years. On the other, it could mean that the US will be finally leaving Iraq in two years. The security agreement can be lengthened or the United States can withdraw earlier. In any event the US now has a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq and military leaders will have to plan accordingly. Finally after nearly six years the debacle in Iraq is hopefully drawing to a close.

Honorable Mention-Assassination of Benazir Bhutto

Bhutto’s assassination started 2008 off to a bad start for Pakistan. The country is in considerable turmoil and extremist groups are growing more powerful. The terrorist attacks in Mumbai only highlight the problems facing Pakistan. Unfortunately Pakistan is heading towards more turmoil and its future is closely intertwined with neighboring Afghanistan. Pakistan and Afghanistan could be the most immediate and dangerous problem facing Obama.

*****

The top five events highlight the major themes of 2008 and will continue to be extremely important in the next few years. Obama will shape US policy for the next four years (at least), and the impacts of his policies (like any president) could be felt for decades to come. The economy will be the number one domestic issue facing the United States. It will greatly shape US policy. Russia and China are the emerging powers on the international stage. Russia wants to reclaim its former glory while China wants to establish itself as a power to be reckoned with. Finally, Iraq dominated George Bush’s presidency and it will define the early years of Obama’s. Unfotunately, 2009 has a bleak outlook, but all eyes will turn toward Obama to see if he has the ability to lead the nation through domestic and international crises.