Nationalism Case

achieve success." (Nelson Mandela 1994) This statement is very true. However, to what extent must we come together? Should we stay at a national level or transcend to the higher anarchy of internationalism? To answer this question I will evaluate both sides. Firstly, national interest then internationalism. I will do this by looking at key areas such as security, conflict, education, organisations, globalisation and ethical issues. Secondly, I will compare and contrast the two vital areas. I will prove that while each has benefits, inevitably both need to be present to create a thriving world at peace.

Everyday states all over the world are striving for a flourishing economy and a peaceful environment. National interest would seem to be the state's main priority. Yet, in an interdependent world can any state turn its back on internationalism? Internationalism is constantly intertwined with the nation. A main national interest would be security. It is up to each state alone to decide this core domestic issue. For example, Ireland retains its right to be neutral. This decision certainly lessens the chances of this country going to war. While Crotty suggests the idea of sovereignty makes us feel like we have power to make a choice. (Crotty and Schmitt 2002) Therefore there is no need to go to war to exert power.

Yet, Internationalism offers abundance of security and alleviates reconciliation. The United Nations have part taken in over twenty five peacekeeping operations, most recently in Chad. Furthermore Ireland stands as the sixth largest contributor of troops to the UN. (United Nations 2002) While Ireland gains satisfaction of helping out less fortunate countries, the UN has provided Irish soldiers with numerous posts. Employment is clearly a state interest. Is it possible that internationalism could aid national interest? It seems this is true.

Furthermore, the idea of conflict can be seen from both sides. For example, the Northern Ireland conflict might look as if it could be handled well nationally rather than having interstate interference. Yet, Crotty points out Britain contributed a major role to resolving it by the peace process. While through the Anglo-Irish settlement Britain gave up control of Ireland's involvement of military rights so Ireland could retain its neutrality (Crotty and Schmitt 2002 chapter9.) Indeed, the UN also imposes sanctions on states in conflict. Keohane evaluates this concept. He precludes that

"Rules and regulations let states know what is right and wrong."

He gives the example of how in 1999 the Afghan Taliban responded to a threat of sanctions from the UN by proposing to present the Bin Laden case to an Islamic tribunal. It seems this was a major step in proving how third parties away from states can benefit peace and inter relations. Again Keohane agrees with this argument believing. "The intervention of diverse third parties remains an important aspect of any international system." ( Keohane 1998)

Indeed, the European Union strengthens the case that internationalism may outweigh state interest in terms of peace. Take the European treaties as a case study. On one side the Lisbon treaty will has us contributing more money to military and collective security which endangers our neutrality. (Europa 2009) This clearly disinclines internationalism. Yet,

"neo liberals point out international institutions and regimes can play a meaningful role in migrating nations security concerns."

(Miroslav Nincic 1999) For example, the treaty of Amsterdam on collective security sent a moral aspect to other states showing co operation and compromise. Since the EU was founded there has not been an occurrence of the Second World War or a war on such a scale. Indeed, there has not been a major conflict between member states of the European Union. Also Paul Schroeder affixes the concept of "association-exclusion" to the euro Atlantic community. He believes that "in the creative use of association to reward those who abide by agreed-upon standards of behaviour, while excluding those who do not" leads to prosperous secure nations. (Paul Schroeder 1994)

Due to the E.U. having enormous power this can be done in two ways. Firstly, member states that do not comply with security regulations can be brought before the court of justice and be strongly penalised. Secondly, States that have been the root of conflict can be threatened not to be considered as a candidate for becoming a member state. (Europa 2009) The whole concept of the European union supports interstate reliance as Obama put it perfectly in a recent speech "In a world that is more interconnected we all have responsibility to work together to solve common challenges" ( Obama 2009 )

Certainly, ICR is linked to international institutions and furthers internationalism being a key player in promoting peace. ICR or interactive conflict resolution is an idea created by John Bruton. It acts as an add on or complement to diplomacy. It supports the thought of "peace making between unofficials of states." (Pamela Aall et al 2007) Indeed this concept has led to the brainwave of peacemaking through education. It is apparent a lack of understanding leads to animosity. The new approach of teaching conflict and conflict resolution in schools and also as part of college courses. This can lead to "conflict prevention, management and resolution in their lives, work or at least an important part in their world view." (Pamela et Aall 2007) Again, we see the integration off internationalism with state interest. Clearly, a more educated country of people is a state benefit. This leads to a profitable and successful state. Key issues like the above show how both concepts complement and flourish together.

While peace is one aspect of a successful world we must also take into consideration the economic side of things. In today's society for a state to be considered successful it must be lucrative. Before the economic downturn this was aided by globalisation. Trading blocs such as the North American trading block and the E.U. have led to free movement of goods, labour and overall economic interdependence with other states. Whilst, The WTO has helped with the removal of tariff barriers. (Crotty and Schmitt 2002) This has allowed for more exports to take place thus increasing monetary value in countries.