Global Security Concerns - Project Gutenberg Consortia Center

success over two centuries is partly attributable to the range of needs that it satisfies. But
equally important is the manner in which nationalists can adapt the vision, the culture, the
solidarity and the programme to diverse situations and interests. It is this flexibility that
has allowed nationalism continually to reemerge and spread, at the cost of its ideological
rivals. 4
From this latter perspective, nationalism enjoys a broad-based foundation. Its roots
are diverse, having substance in ideology, culture, human relations, and political
organizations. However, of these four elements, “culture” represents the entity most
closely associated with the identity of a people. Consequently, it tends to overshadow the
remaining factors. This determining characteristic of nationalism is closely related to, and
sometimes used as a synonym for, the concept of ethnicity.
Ethnicity
Not unlike the concept of nationalism, conceptions of ethnicity have taken many
forms throughout history. Yet, most have remained a variation of Max Weber’s original
idea that “an ethnic group is a human collectivity based on an assumption of common
origin, real or imaginary.” 5 Andrew H. Greeley expands this definition to include the
notion that these groups function as conduits to carry forward the cultural traits of a
people, and further, they serve as a metric for evaluating the “self-definition” of a person.
6 These cultural traits include language, physical appearance, religious affiliation, and
those “other” individual attributes that apply to a section of society’s population as an
entity. This statement is not meant to suggest that these “other” traits cannot be shared by
neighboring populations, only that they apply universally to the group ‘claiming to
separate themselves from those people who do not exhibit the particular trait in question.
Problems arise when the members of these ethnic groups feel threatened by external
forces. These external forces pressure ethnic groups into adopting changes with which
they may not agree. Recognize that these external forces take the form of three major
actors, each with independent goals. The first actor may represent such international
organizations as the United Nations and its subordinate agencies. They intend no harm to
the people. Here, their goals usually seek short-term stability and long-term peace and
prosperity for the region. Closely related to this positive end, the second group of actors
is comprised of nongovernmental or private voluntary organizations. These groups also
wish to promote the humanitarian well-being of the people, regardless of their political
affiliation. No governmental agency controls them, and usually they do not have a
strategic vision for the long-term welfare of the people. Finally, the third actor that
pressures an ethnic group is the government that controls that ethnic group as part of its
authority. This may include a desire to conquer a weaker nation to expand the aggressor’s
realm of influence and thus its own culture, or efforts to prevent a smaller nation from
breaking away from the motherland. Since nations have a dominant say in the movements
of the first two actors, indigenous populations usually allow those two actors to intrude
on their sovereignty (if only temporarily). With the third actor, however, we must be
concerned.
Whether trying to override the autonomy of an ethnic group or prevent it from
seceding, government actions are likely to spark conflict and bring international attention
to the region. The first situation—attempting to override the sovereignty of an ethnic
group—was commonly observed during the periods of imperialism and national
34