The Rise of Nationalism and Its Effect on Global Diplomacy

In the grand theater of international relations, where countries play the roles of powerful protagonists and cautious bystanders, there has been a startling shift. The curtains have been drawn back to reveal a rising star on the global stage: Nationalism. Once considered a relic of the past, nationalism has staged a bold comeback in many countries, influencing global diplomacy in ways that are both complex and, at times, paradoxical. This article will explore how nationalism’s rise has reshaped diplomatic landscapes, while offering a balanced look at its benefits and drawbacks, all while keeping things light-hearted for your reading pleasure.

Nationalism: A Brief History Lesson with a Modern Twist

Before diving into the effects of nationalism on global diplomacy, let’s first understand what nationalism is. At its core, nationalism is the belief that a nation, defined by its culture, language, history, and sometimes geography, should be governed by its own people. It’s an ideology that places the interests of the nation-state above all else. Now, before you start imagining 19th-century European revolutions or World War I, let’s zoom in on how nationalism has evolved in the modern world.

Historically, nationalism emerged as a force of liberation, particularly in the 19th and early 20th centuries, when countries like Italy and Germany unified. But in the 21st century, nationalism has morphed into something more contentious, often characterized by a desire to protect national identity, culture, and economic interests from what are perceived as external threats.

In the modern era, nationalism isn't just about waving the flag during sporting events or parading through town with oversized, overzealous pride. It’s about political movements that promise to put “America First,” “Brexit Means Brexit,” or even “Make France Great Again.” Nationalism has transformed from a fringe idea into a mainstream force that actively shapes political discourse in countries around the world.

But how exactly does this translate to global diplomacy? Let’s dig deeper.

The Global Rise of Nationalism: A New Era of Us vs. Them?

One of the most significant ways nationalism has impacted global diplomacy is through its emphasis on "us" versus "them" thinking. Nationalism can easily give rise to an “us” mentality, where a nation’s identity is defined by its exclusion of others. Countries become more focused on protecting their own interests, often at the expense of global cooperation.

Take, for instance, the United States under former President Donald Trump, who famously ran on the slogan “America First.” This idea of prioritizing national interests led to the withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement, the contentious renegotiation of NAFTA into the USMCA, and the global trade wars that disrupted decades of diplomatic norms. Trump’s America was more interested in "winning" individual trade deals than in maintaining long-standing international partnerships.

Similarly, the United Kingdom’s Brexit saga, a quintessential example of modern nationalism, saw the country leave the European Union in 2016. Nationalists in the UK believed that by exiting the EU, Britain could reclaim sovereignty, control its borders, and restore national pride. While Brexit supporters argued that it would make the UK more self-sufficient and allow it to strike trade deals with countries outside of the EU, the move created divisions not just within the UK but across Europe, demonstrating the complex diplomatic consequences of nationalism in action.

In both cases, the rise of nationalism led to a retreat from multilateralism—a shift away from international cooperation in favor of focusing on national interests. Global alliances, like the EU, were seen as obstacles rather than opportunities for national self-determination.

However, nationalism doesn't always create a simple dichotomy of “us versus them.” The results can be more nuanced and complex. In many cases, nations that embrace nationalist policies may still maintain diplomatic relations, but the nature of those relationships shifts. Countries may work together in bilateral trade agreements or security partnerships but be less inclined to engage in broader, multilateral frameworks.

Economic Nationalism: Not Just About Border Walls

One of the most visible expressions of modern nationalism is economic protectionism, which often takes the form of tariffs, import restrictions, and trade barriers. Economic nationalism, often promoted as a way to protect local industries and jobs, has seen a resurgence in recent years.

Consider the aforementioned trade wars sparked by the U.S. under Trump’s administration. The tariffs imposed on China, along with the broader push for "de-coupling" from Chinese manufacturing and trade, are examples of economic nationalism in practice. Countries like India, Brazil, and even parts of Europe have also adopted similar policies, seeking to protect their own industries from foreign competition.

While economic nationalism may sound appealing on paper—after all, who wouldn’t want to protect their local jobs and industries?—it can have serious diplomatic consequences. Tariffs and trade barriers can lead to retaliatory actions from other countries, which in turn can escalate tensions and hurt the global economy. Take the U.S.-China trade war as a prime example. What started as a tariff on steel imports quickly spiraled into a full-fledged economic conflict, with both countries slapping tariffs on a wide range of goods, leading to higher prices for consumers and disruption in global supply chains.

At the diplomatic level, economic nationalism has prompted countries to reassess their trade alliances. Instead of fostering cooperation, countries are increasingly looking to secure "better deals" for themselves. As trade relationships become more transactional, the spirit of collaboration that once characterized global diplomacy seems to be evaporating, replaced by a more individualistic approach.

Nationalism and Global Institutions: The Decline of Multilateralism?

Another area where nationalism has left its mark is on global institutions. These multilateral bodies, such as the United Nations (UN), World Trade Organization (WTO), and the World Health Organization (WHO), were founded on the principle of cooperation between sovereign states to solve common problems. However, with the rise of nationalism, there has been a noticeable shift away from these cooperative efforts.

Countries that embrace nationalism are often less willing to participate in the collective decision-making processes of these organizations. Take the United States’ withdrawal from the UN Human Rights Council in 2018 under the Trump administration, citing the Council’s perceived bias against Israel and the unbalanced approach to human rights issues. Similarly, the rise of nationalism in countries like Hungary, Poland, and Brazil has led to contentious relationships with the European Union, particularly over issues like immigration and judicial independence.

In many cases, nationalist governments prioritize sovereignty over international collaboration, leading to a more fragmented world order. Global institutions that once served as platforms for dialogue and compromise are now seen as bureaucratic obstacles to national ambitions.

Diplomacy in the Age of Nationalism: A Balancing Act

So, how does one navigate the tricky waters of global diplomacy in an era of rising nationalism? It’s not all doom and gloom. Nationalism can provide opportunities for stronger bilateral ties and even foster a more direct and pragmatic approach to diplomacy. However, it requires skilled diplomats who can find common ground amidst the nationalistic fervor.

Countries that embrace nationalism will need to strike a delicate balance between pursuing their own interests and maintaining relationships with their international counterparts. Cooperation will not be about idealism or lofty multilateral agreements but rather about finding areas where mutual interests align. This may mean fewer grand global accords and more tactical, issue-specific negotiations.

The role of international organizations will also need to adapt. Global institutions like the UN and WTO will need to rethink their approaches, becoming more flexible and responsive to the realities of nationalism. Rather than forcing countries to conform to rigid frameworks, these organizations will need to accommodate nationalist sentiments while promoting cooperation on specific, pragmatic issues like climate change, global health, and security.

Nationalism and Global Diplomacy: The End of the World as We Know It?

In conclusion, the rise of nationalism has undeniably had a profound effect on global diplomacy. It has brought about a retreat from multilateralism, spurred economic protectionism, and shifted the focus of international relations to the national level. While this may sound like a recipe for global discord, there’s hope that nationalism can coexist with international cooperation, albeit in a more pragmatic and cautious form.

Nationalism, after all, is not inherently evil. It’s a natural force driven by the desire to protect national identity, culture, and economic well-being. The challenge for global diplomacy in the 21st century is to adapt to this new reality, finding ways to promote cooperation without forcing countries to abandon their nationalist instincts.

As the world continues to navigate this new era of nationalism, one thing is clear: Global diplomacy will never be the same. Whether that’s a good thing or a bad thing is still up for debate. One thing’s for sure, though: it will be an interesting ride.

So, buckle up, folks. Nationalism is here to stay, and global diplomacy just got a whole lot more complicated.