[Calliope]: 216.Essays.National Self Interest

National Self-Interest
Are nations justified in pursuing interests outside of their national borders?
 
  Yes. I believe nations are justified in pursuing national interests beyond their territorial borders for a variety of reasons. I can't deny that throughout history there has been some poor examples of human nature when territorial issues arise. This should not lead to a bias for all the times it has succeeded though for even when failure arose, national self-interest has formed the world to into what we know it as today. Whether that is for the best or worst has yet to be determined. I don't believe it is justified in all instances however. Nationalism is to be respected for it can go so far ary in such a short amount of time as to leave us baffled and playing catch up. It must be approached responsably and with the right intentions. As Oscar S. Straus (1850-1926 US Ambassador to Turkey 1909-1910 First Jewish US Cabinet minister) said, "There is a higher form of patriotism than nationalism, and that higher form is not limited by the boundaries of one's country; but by a duty to mankind to safeguard the trust of civilization." We must recognize this duty for the better of us all, for what affects one country, will affect us in some way at some point in time.
  There can be no greater example of the destruction of national self-interest than the period of 1930-1945 and that of Hitler and his rise and fall. I'm not opposed to the idea of lebensraum (Living space) but he took it way past nationalism. Genocide is not internationalism. It is a selfish plight that in no way helps out our race. The Holocaust has shown the worst side of human nature, we need to now show our better side. In no way can isolationism and nationalism get us to the next level now. In order to progress idealogically, economically, technically and socially we have to recognize each other. We have to learn from our mistakes. World War II was a period of global history that didn't just end with the war, it was the launching pad for the Cold War. With this we entered an era of atomic warfare that has pushed us over an edge of innocence in which we can never go back. The reprecussions are still filing in for radiation and the number of nuclear powers is continuously growing. Nationalism is going to be a forced memory if only so we can continue on in a somewhat healthy lifestyle.
  It is only a subtle bit of irony that our first sincere attempt at internationalism was the main motivator for World War II. The Treaty of Versailles and all its limitations imposed on Germany, which the Weimar government accepted with little protest, caused a lot of unrest among German's eventually leading to the formation of the National Socialist German Workers' Party. This was the party which eventually carried Hitler on to be Chancellor of Germany in 1933. Hitler's rise was the pebble in the pond so to speak. It had ripple effects that reached all areas of the world. The passing of the Nuremburg laws (Resulting with Nuremburg Race Trials - 1945-1949), the creation of the extermination and concentration camps, anschluss, they all proved that Hitler was out for more than just national self-interest. He also gave other countries the openings they needed to pursue their own goals.
  Italy was already a facist state but it was nowhere near as powerful as Germany, even considering the reparations the Germans were forced to pay after World War I. Mussonlini had his own agenda though and accordingly took advantage of Hitler's position. Soon enough, Italy was waging its own battles in the pursuit of nationalism. Luckily for the allies, Italy never gained serious influence and was the weaker of the two European axis powers. Mussonlini's follies were the foothold we needed to gain an advantage on continental soil. It also provided the Soviet's a chance on their front against Germany as Hitler had to send support down to Italy against Albania and Greece.
  Another state actively opposing internationalism at this time was Japan. Their invasion of Manchuria was an flaunt in the face of the League of Nations (1920 - 1946), just like Italy's attack on Abyssinia (1935), and contributed to the dissolving of the organization. Japan used island hopping to get from place to place, conquering much of Indonesia and parts of mainland China, reaching as far south as Australia. Their national self-interest lead to the harsh treatment and deaths of millions (An estimated 20 million Chinese deaths) and eventually lead to the bombing of Pearl Harbour on December 7, 1941, a "...Date that will live in infamy..." (Franklin D. Roosevelt). This attack was a major motivator in ending America's isolationism.
  Up to this point America had remained isolationist. They refused to get involved in any way other than the lend/lease policies to show their support for Britain. In a sense, America was anti-nationalism and anti-internationalism although there were remaining isolationist in the best interests of their nation. With the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour, America became more than just defensive, and entered the war in 1941. In a way, America's actions were exactly the same as the League of Nations. They put off fighting until the last possible moment and then were forced into the war through the oppositions actions. The same had occured to France and Britain with their continual useage of appeasement so that they were completely unprepared for battle when war did happen upon them. The result was sitzkrieg or phoney war although many Danish and Norwegian's feel that it wasn't a fake war at all considering they were under German occupation the whole time.
  I believe using World War II as an example adequately proves my placement on whether or not nations are justified in pursuing national interests beyond their territorial borders. It shows both sides of the same coin suffenciently in the ways that; through isolationism and appeasement the allies provided extreme nationalism the grasp it desired to boost itself up above internationalism. I firmly believe that nations are justified in seeking progress outside their borders, as long as it isn't for selfish means and is a benefit to the international body. This doesn't mean I expect to see such an occurrence happen in my lifetime though.

© Angie O'Connor