Essay Prompt: Since WW II the world has continuously become more connected through trade, investment, global supply chain, movement of people, information, ideas, values etc. Why is nationalism on the rise worldwide from the U.S. to EU to China to Russia and other countries?
It is well established that the most effective way to reduce one’s prejudices and biases about other people is to meet plenty of strangers with diverse backgrounds. Over time, interactions with people who differ in their race, gender, socioeconomic status, culture, beliefs, or nearly any other characteristics essentially force someone to change their preconceptions. It would seem intuitive that this would apply on a broader scale as well; the recent trend towards globalization might lead one to suspect that this would limit notions about one’s country being “superior” to another. Yet, the opposite effect seems to be occurring. Counterintuitively, globalization is believed to be a significant factor in the rise of nationalism.
One common line of reasoning to explain this is the outsourcing of jobs. With advances in communication and transportation technology, large firms find it more cost efficient to move production to foreign countries where labor is cheaper, and laws are less strict. Unfortunately, this directly leads to domestic industrial workers losing their jobs, and they are hardly comforted by the notion that their suffering will lead to lower prices for everyone. Michael Ignatieff, a professor at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, was interviewed by the New York Times about this topic. “They [the workers] feel the global, mobile, cosmopolitan world is simply out of reach,” he explains, “Not only out of reach, but malign, in the sense that the global cosmopolitan elite are the people who are shipping the jobs out….They’re the people who have shut down the coal mines and shut down the steel mills, and keep telling you that global free trade raises all boats” (Taub). Dr. Ignatieff also points out that the people losing their jobs often have limited mobility and education, but high allegiance to their community. As a result, they are the ones who are the most likely to be hurt by policies and decisions that involve the relocation of production. Not surprisingly, this has led to a lot of negative sentiments and xenophobia. As a professor of history and International Affairs, Harold James, from Princeton University puts it, “Fear and suspicion thrive when the processes of globalization erode core values, sources of meaning (such as traditional occupations), and ways of life. In advanced industrial countries, the backlash against migration and trade is often framed as a matter of either ‘saving’ job or compensating globalization’s ‘losers’. But in both cases, the response ignores the fact that there are no new decent jobs to provide sources of meaning and identity” (James). It can be easy to forget that jobs, at least for many people, are not only a way to make money, but also provide a sense of purpose. While unemployment can reduce one’s happiness by worsening their material conditions, this pales in comparison to living an existence that feels meaningless. No wonder “fear and suspicion thrive” because of globalization.
National sovereignty is another big concern. While global trade leaves some domestic workers without a way to provide for themselves, the overall effect is a net positive on the economy. However, any trade relations between countries make them more interdependent, meaning they are more heavily impacted by each other. When Russia invaded Ukraine earlier this year, the rest of the world installed sanctions against them despite the economic costs. Adam Posen, the President of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, wrote an article stating that “The democratic world’s response to Moscow’s aggression and war crimes is right, both ethically and on national security grounds. This is more important than economic efficiency. But these actions do have negative economic consequences that will go far beyond Russia’s financial collapse, that will persist, and that are not pretty” (Posen). He then goes on to say that Russia’s invasion and the sanctions will empower two trends already underway that are “corroding globalization”. One is the institution of barriers to free trade, investment, immigration, and the spread of ideas. The second is China’s, particularly Beijing’s, challenge to the rules of the international economic system and Asia’s security arrangements. While trade between countries has positive economic effects, trade is not purely an economic decision. Rather, it reflects the level of trust between nations, a sign of mutual respect and collaboration. Russia and China have broken that trust with the rest of the world; it will always be economically beneficial to allow for trade, but the costs in other areas make it reasonable to add at least some obstacles to that endeavor.
Sometimes, it is not everyday citizens who are angry with foreign powers, but the top officials in the government. This is the case with China, which has limited the influence of the Internet on its citizens. According to Richard Haass, President of the Council on Foreign Relations, “The free flow of ideas might seem to be a good thing, but it turns out that authoritarian governments regard it as a threat to their political control. The Internet is being balkanized into a ‘splinternet.’ China’s ‘Great Firewall’ led the way, blocking access to online news and other suspect websites and ensuring that Chinese users cannot access content deemed politically sensitive” (Haass). In the free world, censorship is generally frowned upon for reducing creativity, stopping progress, and revealing corruption within the government, among other things. However, China is so concerned with promoting “nonthreatening” attitudes and ideas in its citizens that it is worth reducing the amount of information they can receive. Nationalism is not isolated to the immobile and uneducated workers concerned about jobs and national sovereignty; sometimes elite officials are responsible for the trend towards “deglobalization”.
The connections between people and countries with diverse backgrounds, histories, and cultures can be exciting, but it also leads to concerns about jobs, national sovereignty, and “politically sensitive” information. This makes it imperative to them to differentiate themselves as much as possible. Practically speaking, the most effective way to do this is to somewhat reverse the trend towards globalization by reducing free flows to information, creating barriers to trade, and strengthening borders to limit immigration. Ironically, the trend towards a more global world has contributed towards desires for countries to become more independent.
Works Cited
Haass, Richard. Deglobalization and Its Discontents. Project Syndicate , 12 May 2020.
James, Harold. Deconstructing Deglobalization. Project Syndicate , 12 September 2017.
Posen, Adam S. The End of Globalization? Foreign Affairs, 17 March 2022.
Taub, Amanda. A Central Conflict of 21st-Century Politics: Who Belongs? The New York Times, 8 July 2016.