Content uploaded by Altaf Majeed
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Altaf Majeed on Sep 17, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
197
Europe and Nationalism: Lessons for the World
Pakistan Research Journal of Social Sciences (Vol.3, Issue2, June 2024)
Europe and Nationalism: Lessons for the World
Altaf Majeed
PhD Scholar Department of International Relations
GC University Faisalabad
Email: altafgill2028@gmail.com
Nimra Zulfiqar
Visiting Lecturer, Department of Political Science
GC University Faisalabad
Email: nimradogar98@gmail.com
Sadia Naz
Lecturer, Department of Political Science
Government College University Faisalabad
Email: Sadiahussain160@yahoo.com
Abstract
The basic purpose of this Paper is to introduce the reader with a different
perspective on nationalism in relation to the Europe. It is assumed that
nationalism develops a sagacity of arrogance, hostile attitude and abhorrence
towards other nations and leads to conflicts. The study of Europe is most
imperative in this regard as it is the only region in the world which has
experienced almost all the political structures throughout its history; from
Greek city states to Roman Empire, feudal system of England to the absolute
monarchy of France. This particular region fought 30 years and 100 years
wars, and two world wars in 20th century need not to be mentioned. No two
rival nations in the world had the worst animosity than England and France
in Europe. Later, this region became the cradle of democracy and a champion
of nation state system. Currently, Europeans are witnessing highest level of
peace, security, stability and economic progress in the whole world under
the aegis of European Union. So, it is endeavored to determine that why such
perpetual changes are befalling at European level in particular and at global
level in general and what are the key propelling forces behind them. It is
proposed that other volatile regions of the world such as South Asia, Central
Asia, Middle East, and Africa should also follow the European suit to
establish peace and security, which are the pre-requisites of social welfare
and prosperity. At the end, “World Government” is found to be a crescendo
of peace, security, and stability; which is not only possible but indispensable
for the survival of mankind.
Introduction
Nationalism can be defined as ―a sentiment based on common
demographic, geographical or cultural characteristics that bind the people
together as a nation‖.
198
Europe and Nationalism: Lessons for the World
Pakistan Research Journal of Social Sciences (Vol.3, Issue2, June 2024)
There are two major schools of thoughts within nationalism regarding its
advent: primordialism and modernism (Christian 2010). A central point
emphasized by primordialists is shared history and culture including
national language and symbols. According to Herder, language is the soul
of any nation: ―in its speech resides, all its soul and heart‖ (Heart 1997).
Culture, in broader sense, includes games, heroes, festivals and more or
less similar political and social behavior; which is imperative, for
primordialists, in constituting a nation.
One most of the significant claim of the primordialists is that they ascertain
―nation came before the state‖ (Breuilly 2010). Primordialists believe that
a nation possess history reaching to pre-modern time, to a pre-political
society.
Modernists, on the other hand, hold totally opposite view except the
congruence that national sentiments do exist. Modernists argue that
nationalism emerges in Europe between the 16th to 18th centuries,
particularly, after the fall of church and feudal society. Different events in
Europe led to the creation of a nation-state; for instance, enlightenment,
treaty of Westphalia, Industrial revolution, and last but not least, French
Revolution. Modernists argue that Industrial revolution led to the dilution
of feudal system and a need of market emerged to sell the commodities.
This need of market was satisfied by creating separate sphere of influence
in the form of states. Then to stabilize and maintain this state setup, people
were united by the common market and the nationalist tendencies were
inculcated in them by centrally controlled institutions. So, Modernists
nullify the primordialists claim that nation leads to the creation of state
(Hobsbawm et al. 2012). Hence, according to modernists, a nation was
created through the ―social engineering‖ of the people. Once the state was
created to satisfy the political and economic needs of the political and
capital elite; then state advanced loyalty and common culture among her
citizens to unify them. To crown all, for modernists, nation proceeded by
the state (Hobsbawm et al. 2012).
Now, attention is turned to the establishment of European Union and to
scrutinize which nationalist theory elucidates the creation of European
Union more effectively.
In April 1951, Six European central states, Germany, France, Italy,
Luxembourg, Belgium, and the Netherlands entered into a treaty called
European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), which was nothing more
than an economic cooperation in one field. This Coal and Steel community
transformed into ―European Community‖ in 1957, which further grew with
the passage of time and became single market in 1987. This single market
ultimately transformed into ―European Union‖ in 1993 ―through treaty
of Maastricht‖. A common currency and a central European reserve bank,
then established through the ―treaty of Amsterdam in 1999‖. A common
European constitution was also promulgated in 2009 (EU, Treaty of
199
Europe and Nationalism: Lessons for the World
Pakistan Research Journal of Social Sciences (Vol.3, Issue2, June 2024)
Lisbon). Since 1951, European membership has grown from 6 to 28
members; and from cooperation in one sector to the ultimate union with
common currency, reserve bank, parliament, and constitution, although
states still retain their sovereign status.
So, it is clear from the above mentioned facts that European Union emerged
from the need of a common market, and then, it flourished into a union,
which is still in an evolutionary phase and ultimately expected to become a
European confederation in the future. The emergence of this dynamic
economic, political and social union poses serious challenges to the
phenomenon of nationalism.
Hence, through this study, flaw in nationalism and importance of
regionalism is identified, which can be best achieved through the European
Union model. This regionalism, then, is believed to be transformed into
globalism i-e ―one world confederation‖ in the far future. OWC (one
world confederation) is expected to be an ultimate stage of international
peace and security.
Hypothesis
Nationalism proffers national unity but debilitates international integration
leading to the statism, competition, wars, and other human miseries.
Research Methodology:
This study tries to elaborate on the possible conditions for the establishment of the
European union. Nationalism theory is the vital concept behind which economic
conditions work. There are two schools of thought within nationalism: pre-
modernist and modernist. This study scrutinizes which nationalist theory elucidates
the creation of the European Union more effectively. For the accomplishment of
the above objectives qualitative research techniques are used during study. This
study is also an explanatory battery connected to different ideas, concepts and its
causes. Secondary data has been collected from the literature available on the
literature.
Review of Literature
According to Tagore, nationalism is the cause of war and oppression rather
peace and solidarity. It is only an organization of politics and commerce,
emerged in the post religious laboratory of industrial-capitalism. He sees
nationalism as an institution that aims for material well-being of the people
rather than moral and spiritual health. Tagore believes that there is a need
of an enlightened human cooperation rather than a commercial and political
based unity (Qauyum 2011).
Christian von Compe (2010) determines the advent of nationalism. There
are two major schools of thoughts within nationalism regarding its advent:
primordialism and modernism. According to the primordialists, a nation
consists of the people, who share common history, heritage, descendency,
200
Europe and Nationalism: Lessons for the World
Pakistan Research Journal of Social Sciences (Vol.3, Issue2, June 2024)
and territory. On the other hand, according to modernists, a nation was
created through the ―social engineering‖ of the people. Once the state was
created to satisfy the political and economic needs of the political and
capital elite; then state advanced loyalty and common culture among her
citizens to unify them. To crown all, for modernists, nation proceeded by
the state. He concludes that there is no sense of primordial nationalism in
European Union because they do not possess a same language though is
spoken in most of the countries but still it cannot be considered as the
language of whole Europe. They do not enjoy common culture and their
history, except for one or two events, is entirely different. Though there are
some common cultural activities that unite whole Europe but they are not
enough to take EU‘s nationalism as primordial. On the other hand,
modernist nationalism is more applicable on EU. The establishment of free
market for whole European community and the reproduction of national
markets as EU market but on the supranational scale support this idea.
Where primordial believe that nations create state, modernists think the
way round. State is built on economic and political grounds and after that
the sense of nationalism and loyalty for state is injected in the hearts of
people. Compe believes that the modernist approach perfectly supports the
nationalism in EU and also believes that supranational body like EU can be
taken as a role model as the successor of nation-states today (Christian
2010).
Whereas Dr. Moonis Ahmer (2015) in his article ―The myth of Pakistani
Nationalism‖ discusses the two sides of Nationalism, it can work as a
uniting force can be a destructive agent. According to him when Pakistan
came into being, it was a specific state with a characteristic of possessing a
heterogonous society in her.
Michael (2008) examined whether nationalism generates war or war
generates nationalism. If we see the European history then we note that
there were more frequent wars in pre-nationalism period. In the modern
times wars have become less frequent but more lethal. Mann argues that
though nationalist motivations initiated World War I but it has a very little
role in the proceedings of the War. The soldiers had to do a very little with
nationalism. They were recruited to fight and they had to fight under their
respective officers‘ command no matter what. The scenario in the World
War II was different. There were two main nationalism driven forces i.e.
Germany and Japan. Their opponents were injected with nationalism once
they were attacked and they had to respond. So in the World War II, war
generated nationalism.
Harry Anastasiou (2007) gives his views about nationalism by taking the
example of European Union. EU‘s role in international peace is not usually
underestimated. Europe has evolved through the historical legacy of ethno-
centric nationalism and then nation state nationalism. They have
deconstructed their nationalism for the purpose of democracy, peace and
201
Europe and Nationalism: Lessons for the World
Pakistan Research Journal of Social Sciences (Vol.3, Issue2, June 2024)
finance etc. Now a day we can see that they have one of the strongest
political systems. People have firm believe on their governments and so if
anything goes wrong against their system people oppose it wholeheartedly
through their actions. Likewise we see that they have developed the
regionalism by limiting the role of nationalism and as result the have strong
economies of world. Especially after the world wars they realized that they
can‘t proceed further by holding the grudges against each other and
fighting. They managed to resolve their disputes by peaceful terms and
achieved the better life standards for the people of their region.
Jaguraibe (2008) gives a new insight in nationalism. According to him, the
biggest threat to nationalism is the growing hegemony of the North-
American states on the global market. MNCs have taken over the global
market and in the process of globalization the nation-states are just formal
structures with their own flags and armies but in reality they are the
provinces of American Empire, a new form of colonialism i.e. economic
colonization. Some of the countries are challenging the American
hegemony like China and India as well as European Union which have their
own tendencies. But national capital is still very important and acts as a
hurdle in the way of internationalizing the world capital. Hence the
intelligent understanding of domestic and international realities is
necessary instead of xenophobia in the international arena. Similarly,
promoting regionalism can also be an important step towards regaining lost
national pride and EU can be taken as a role model in this regard.
Dr. Oral Sander (2010) expressed the positive side of nationalism by taking
the example of Turkish nationalism. He gives credit to Kamal Ataturk for
his efforts for developing a sense of unity in the Turkish society. Turkey
was suffering enough under the European forces but Kamal Ataturk
organized his people and fought a successful Turkish war national
independence. Turkey alone fought its war and within years she was able
to negotiate on equal terms with European powers. Kamal Ataturk
developed peaceful and stable policies for external as well for internal
matters by developing a peaceful foreign policy it gave the impression of
turkey as a peaceful nations on international stage. Turkey under the
Ataturk also stabilized its internal matters and developed a sense of strong
nationalism in their people. Putting turkey on the path of modernization
was also the vital step taken by at that time which liberated them from
religious conflicts and they were able to install peace in their society
(Sander 2010).
Europe: From Extreme Nationalism to a Perfect Union
According to socio-anthropology, a nation is a community having its own
culture, following a single leader and inhabiting a same territory (Daniel
1994). In medieval ages, nation was regarded as a group of people with
202
Europe and Nationalism: Lessons for the World
Pakistan Research Journal of Social Sciences (Vol.3, Issue2, June 2024)
same linguistic background like French and German etc. The modern
concept of nation state emerged during Renaissance in Italy with the nation
states of Florentines, Milanese and Neapolitans etc. but the concept of
nation state fully emerged in its true sense in the aftermath of Treaty of
Westphalia in 1648, though before that, in 16th century Nation States of
England, France, and Portugal had formed. By 18th century Nation State
had evolved to its modern form and by the unification of nations of
Germany and Italy in the late 19th century, the evolution of Nation-
States in Europe was almost completed and it was ready to expand its wings
in other continents as well (Harry 2007).
One thing is imported to note here, throughout the history, the transition in
European society was fed by economic necessities. Modern state system
emerged after the industrial revolution in Europe, when rulers of Europe
carved their separate economic sphere of influences. This state system was
later consolidated by inculcating nationalism among the people of states.
The same happened for the European Union-when an economic community
transformed into a union encompassing all the spheres of human life. So,
behind every socio-political transformation, whether state or nationalism,
there was only one main agenda and that is economic interest.
Hence, it is crystal clear that nation-state system and nationalism is not the
ultimate fate of humanity. Human from so called different nations can be
united to form single unit just like European Union. Europe has
experienced destabilization and two great wars when it was scattered on
ethnic and nationalistic lines. Nationalism is considered very attractive by
many; as what is more good than to live and die for your own country, your
own society, and your own people (Oral 1981). But this nationalism
debilitates the global integration at the same time; for instance, if everyone
starts caring about one‘s interest, then who will care about the global
interests? It is natural when one has excessive love for one‘s nation or
country; hatred for other nations or countries becomes a common matter.
Two world wars were the ultimate results of nationalism. If we look
thoroughly the events that started World War I, we see that it was
nationalism that begun the war. A nationalist Serbian killed Austrian
Archduke that provoked Austrian nationalism and Austria put forwarded
certain demands for redemption that was felt offended by Serbia. As a
protector of Serbian national existence, Russia stepped in on which Austria
objected as she felt this as a violation of Austrian national identity and
Germany, in its pan- Germanism, joined hands with Austria. Similar to this
nationalism of other powers of Europe was offended one way or the other
and in response to this offence France, Belgium, England and Italy all
joined the war to protect their nationalism and redeem their national
identity (Helio 2008).
It is often claimed, especially by the socialists, that economic causes are
the main causes behind wars and this claim is backed if we peek into history
203
Europe and Nationalism: Lessons for the World
Pakistan Research Journal of Social Sciences (Vol.3, Issue2, June 2024)
and study great wars from the time of Alexander the Great or even before
that era. The present-day Europe can be seen divided due to economic
rivalries that emerged in the past few centuries or so. We often heard the
phrases like ―spheres of influence‖ and ―places in the sun‖ are the reasons
behind the wars but actually those were the economic causes as well like
possession of trade privileges and foreign markets. One thing is for sure
that wars are always fought for the kings and the capitalists and never for
the people who actually take part in the wars. Though the wars are fought
for the kings and the capitalists but they need to make sure that people are
properly motivated for it. In dark and middle ages, the promise for loot and
plunder, women and lands and many such promises encouraged the people
for the wars for the war creators but in the last century or so these promises
are not so urging for the people to go for the war for the capitalists so they
used another mean, a stronger one, that compelled the civilized people to
go for the war and that is Nationalism.
By the middle of 20th century most of the Europe was ethno-centric and
the war taught them the unforgiving lesson over the dead and wounded
bodies of millions that national sovereignty cannot be deemed as absolute.
So the Europeans, after realizing the illusion of absolute national
sovereignty, decided to alter their approach towards other nations in a
peaceful manner and looked towards peaceful relationships with each other.
They decided to disassociate themselves from the absolute sovereignty and
progressed towards the idea of shared sovereignty thus laying down the
bases of European integration.
Before World War II, masses used to presume nationalism a natural cause
to go for a war. They find it their duty towards their nation to go for a war
on their leaders‘ call and it was deemed as a symbol of national unity and
even democracy but in reality it was nothing more than public opinion
leading towards militant nationalism. But the post-war Europe was
different. Europeans became indifferent towards nationalism and they
stopped singing songs of the glorious past – the past that brought death for
millions. Instead they adopted a new approach in relations with each other
in which they were successful to achieve an integrated Europe which was
knitted to help each other in the fields of economy, culture, language and
society. In the post-war Europe, archrivals acknowledged the sufferings of
each other. They were not blaming each other and reconciliation took over
the hostilities. The removal of all nationalist stereotypes from the textbooks
was another step forward towards a more integrated Europe (Harry 2007).
The Europe, who experienced two world wars and lost millions of lives,
now values human life more than anything. They now firmly believe that
everyone has the right to live and that is why they launched a campaign to
abolish capital punishment universally through a campaign of European
Commission that asserted that ―this stance is rooted in the belief in the
inherent dignity of all human beings and the inviolability of the human
204
Europe and Nationalism: Lessons for the World
Pakistan Research Journal of Social Sciences (Vol.3, Issue2, June 2024)
person, regardless of the crime committed‖ (EU‘s Human Rights and
Democratization Policy, 2007).
The post-war Europe can be taken as a perfect example of how we can end
conflicts in other volatile parts of the world such as South Asia, Central
Asia, Middle East, and Africa etc. and how we can endure peace
throughout the globe. The European integration provides us with certain
steps that can be used by any regional organization if willing to contribute
towards global peace. First of all economic integration must be done which
must be institutionalized based on democratic values keeping in mind the
common national interests. Then every country should submit some part of
her sovereignty for the greater good and verve for a shared sovereignty on
the basis of trans-national democracy. They must apply rule of law across
the borders for the common interests of people and put aside their national
interests. Then they must go for enhancing socio-economic conditions,
appeasement, peace and integration. But before doing all this they must
acknowledge the value of human life. They must discourage war and realize
that war is a failure of all of us as a human being.
Peace and Security along with climate change are the major issues of 21st
century. No single country can tackle these menaces alone. Besides it,
emerging economic and cultural ties among the countries of the world due
to globalization rendered nationalism useless. Hence, the whole world
should be united for the sake of humanity; because the future will witness
global issues on a large scale such as security, global warming, energy and
non-renewable natural resources etc. These global issues need global
efforts. Ever increasing population and limited resources of the world
cannot cope up with lavish lifestyle and long standing wars. The only
option left is the union of the world ―the world confederation‖ or ―The
United States of the World‖. According to many realists, world government
is an ideal concept and cannot be manifested into reality; the same could be
said about Europe a century ago, but we see Europe united today under the
single market, currency, laws, and parliament. So, one should be
optimistic about the emergence of
―World Government‖ in future.
The Case of World Government
World government is the concept of a single political authority with
jurisdiction over all the humanity. The terms one world government, world
government, and global governance are used interchangeably for this
concept. The idea of global government is not new as it is under discussion
since classical times. Italian Poet Dante viewed ‗World Government‘ as a
kind of Utopia. While, the Dutch scholar Hugo Grotius, regarded as the
father of International Law, believed in the formation of World
Government to enforce it. However, due to ever increasing nationalism in
205
Europe and Nationalism: Lessons for the World
Pakistan Research Journal of Social Sciences (Vol.3, Issue2, June 2024)
early and cold war in late 20the century, the idea of world Government was
put into hush as neither party was willing to discuss any structure which
could erode their dominance over the international system. But, with the
advancement of war technology including nuclear weapons and growing
global issue such as climate change and terrorism, this subject has come
into life again and is being argued by many leading International Relation
theorists. Such as, Alexander Wendt, perhaps America‘s most influential
IR theorist, recently suggested that a ‗World Government’ is simply
inevitable (Craig 2008).
Last three centuries, since the advent of industrial revolution, international
system witnessed rapid changes in the socio-political ideologies and the
state structures; from Feudal State System to colonialism, colonialism to
nationalism, and recently, from nationalism to regionalism.
To envisage the future global political structure, it is mandatory to explore
the current one; nation-state system. Nationalists believe that nation state
system is based on nationalism, which entails the feelings of oneness
among the people of a particular area.
On the other hand, socialists and liberalists conceive a nation-state as a
common market and economic enterprise, and nationalism is only used to
accomplish the economic objectives. David P. Berenberg, a renowned
socialist, said: ―Nationalism is the cloak behind which economic cause
works‖. As explained earlier, there are two schools of thoughts within
nationalism: Primodialist and Modernist. Primodialists believe a nation
consists of the people having shared territory, shared heritage, descent, and
shared history. Due to these factors, they possess the spirits of oneness and
formed a nation. According to primordial concepts, nations precede states.
On the other hand, modernists conceive that states precede nations through
―social engineering‖. According to modernists, states were created due to
political and economic needs, particularly for common accessible market
after the industrial revolution. People of these common markets were then
unified through the common institutions; such as common parliament,
political structure, currency, education, social values, and so on. For
instance: in the beginning of 19th century, Germany was scattered into 39
small states, Prussia was the biggest among all of them. They all had
economic barriers; a merchant travelling from south to north or west to east
had to pay duties on goods about 11 to 15 times (about 5% on each), it used
to make the price of the goods almost double. As it was the beginning of
rapid industrialization in this area, all these states formed a custom union
(Zollverian in German) in 1834 under Prussian leadership to remove these
barriers and become a single economic unit, in other words, a single market.
There were 32 different currencies before 1834 in 39 German states, which
were reduced to 2 within few years. After becoming an economic unit, all
these German states were united through the railway lines for the quick
movement of goods. After that, a sense of oneness among the people was
206
Europe and Nationalism: Lessons for the World
Pakistan Research Journal of Social Sciences (Vol.3, Issue2, June 2024)
inculcated through common political institutions, values, Army, and
education system. Eventually, a German confederation was formed leading
to the German unification in 1871. Within few decades, this sense of
nationalism in German people became so extreme that it leads to the two
world wars. Similarly, America was not a nation historically but
amalgamation of people from different nationalities, particular Europe and
largely England. But with the passage of time, Americans were molded into
one nation through ―social engineering‖. Pakistan is also no exception in
this case, Pakistan historically, was not a nation, and probably is not a
nation in strict sense; Punjabis, Sindhi, Balochi, and Pukhtoons were
different people historically with different values and language. But, an
engineered nation has been created through common economic and
political interests. Hence, the question arises, if these sharply different
people can be united into a single unified nation for shared interests, then
why different nations cannot be united under a single unified world
government for global socio-economic and security interests?
It seems that realists undermine the power of world political and economic
institutions, when they say, that world government is an ideal concept, not
more than an illusion of insane. In the last three centuries, since the
industrial revolution, all the socio-political institutions were created to
serve the economic objectives of global bourgeoisie class. Current wave of
globalisation is no exception; as it emphasizes on free movement of goods
and capital but not humans. Man is the principal figure of not only society
but the whole planet. All the modernizations, inventions, technologies etc.
are meant to serve the humans; but when it comes to globalization, we have
the free movement of everything but people. It is, therefore, an
―incomplete globalization‖. But even it is incomplete; this wave of
globalization possesses the affinities to unite the whole world into one unit.
What we need are the same shared economic and political institutions,
which played a cardinal role in yoking people and crafting nation states.
Increasing penchant of regionalism in this century; such as European
Union, African Union, ASEAN, and NAFTA etc. is another hope for such
development of world government. Zbigniew Brzezinski rightly said:
―This regionalism is keeping with tri-lateral plan; which calls for a gradual
convergence of east and west, ultimately leading toward the goal of one
world government. National sovereignty is no longer a viable concept‖.
Global institutions such as United Nations, World Bank, International court
of Justice etc. do exist but they are not yet strong enough to enforce their
will on the so-called sovereign states in a strict way. But with the increasing
pace of globalization, increasing inter- dependence of people in all the
spheres of contemporary social live, and increasing global issues like peace
and environment; optimism is there that this surge of globalization would
ultimately unite the whole world into one unit politically and one market
economically.
207
Europe and Nationalism: Lessons for the World
Pakistan Research Journal of Social Sciences (Vol.3, Issue2, June 2024)
In the beginning of mankind, men used to live a selfish and brutish life,
according to Hobbs, in the state of nature. Later on, people congregated
together into a society, then society transformed into the nation and now
different nations are coming together to form a global state like a world
federation. So, it appears that union of all the humans into one is a natural
phenomenon and ultimate destiny of mankind. Eighteenth and nineteenth
centuries were the centuries of colonialism, twentieth century marked by
nationalism, 21st by globalization, and 22nd century would be marked by
one world government.
The tragedy of Realists is that they put too much emphasis on nationalism
and claim that World government is unnatural and impossible. The fact is,
every international political system including nation-state is unnatural and
was artificially accomplished. There was only one natural system and that
was state of nature, which proved to be enviable for peace and security. To
crown all, from the above analysis, it can be concluded that World
government is not only possible but inevitable. Albert Einstein once said:
“Our separation from each other is an optical illusion of consciousness.”
CONCLUSION
Current international system is based on nation-state, and nation-state is
based on nationalism which has been an attractive theory since many
centuries. Since the absolute sovereignty is losing its worth with an ever
increasing globalization, so does the nationalism. Besides globalization,
historical consequences of nationalism also compel the world to look
beyond it and carve regional ties for the benefit and welfare of their people.
European Union is an excellent manifestation in this regard. The need of
time is to unite the whole world to curb the enemies of peace. Besides it,
regions of continuous volatility such as South Asia, Middle East, Central
Asia and Africa etc. should be united following the example of European
Union. These are developing (mostly underdeveloped) regions, which
cannot take the burden of ethnicities and nationalism for a very long time.
However, the ultimate peace and security in the world is possible only
under the world government which is not only possible but a necessity of
mankind.
“To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of
men their individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism,
and religious dogmas.” (Brock Adam, Director UN Health Organization)
208
Europe and Nationalism: Lessons for the World
Pakistan Research Journal of Social Sciences (Vol.3, Issue2, June 2024)
References
• Alger, Chadwick (1996). The Emerging Tool Chest for Peace-builders.
International Journal of Peace Studies, 1 (2), p. 21-45. DOI.
10.1111/j.1747-7093.2008.00139.x
• Brown, Harold (1983). Thinking about national security: defense and
foreign policy in a dangerous world. U.S. national security: a reference
handbook, ABC-CLIO, p. 281, ISBN: 978-1-59884-041-4.
• Campbell Craig (2008). The Resurgent Idea of World Government.
Ethics and International Affairs, 22 (2), P. 133–142
• Chaim Gans (2003). The Limits of Nationalism. Nationalist
Ideologies, University of Cambridge Press, ISBN: 0-521-80864-2
• Christian von Campe (2010). Nationalism and the European Union, p.
1-7
• Daniel Druckman (1994). Nationalism, Patriotism, and Group Loyalty:
A Social Psychological Perspective. Mershon International Studies
Review, Vol. 38, No. 1, Publishers: Blackwell Publishing, URL:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/222610
• David P. Berenberg (1917). Nationalism — A Cause of War. The New
York Call (21 October), volume 10, p. 6
• Dr. Oral Sander (1981). Nationalism and Peace: The Significanee of
Atatürk's Mavement. The Turkish Year Book, vol. 20
• Geertz C. (2006). primordial and civic ties, p. 32
• Gifford C. (2012). The UK and the European Union: Dimensions
of Sovereignty and the Problem of Eurosceptic Britishness. p.331
• Harry Anastasiou (2007). The Europe as Peace Building System:
Deconstructing nationalism in an area of globalization, International
Journal of Peace Studies, Volume 12, No. 2
• Heart J. (2010). Rethinking nationalism. P. 20
• Helio Jaguaribe (2008). Nation and nationalism in the 21st century.
Estudos avançados 22 (62),
• p. 275
• Hobsbawm E. J. (1993). The Nation as Invented Tradition. p.76
• Hobsbawm E. J. and David J. Kertzer (1992). Ethnicity and
Nationalism in Europe Today. Anthropology Today, Vol. 8, No. 1,
Publishers: Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and
Ireland, URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3032805.
• Marco Maertens (1997). European Integration and SubState
Nationalism: Flanders, Scotland, and the EU, Department of Political
Science, McGill Universiiy, Montréal, ISBN: 0-612- 37219-7
• Mohammad A. Quayum (2011). Imagining ―One World‖:
Rabindranath Tagore‘s Critique of Nationalism. International Islamic
University Malaysia
209
Europe and Nationalism: Lessons for the World
Pakistan Research Journal of Social Sciences (Vol.3, Issue2, June 2024)
• Peter Olesen (2008). Non-State Nationalism within the European
Union. Aalborg University
• Pohl‘ad Z.A. Hranice (2009). Nationalism and International Order:
Acontemporary perspective.
• Filozofla, vol. 64, no. 9, p 861
• Ruth Elisa Roller (1999). Catalonia and European Integration: A
regionalist strategy for nationalist objective. University of London,
Published by ProQuest LLC, UMI: U142935
• Thomas Hylland (1991). Ethnicity vs Nationalism. Journal of Peace
Research. Vol. 28, no. 3, p.
• 263
• V. P. Garnon, Jr (1995). Ethnic Nationalism and International
Conflicts: the case of Serbia.
• International Security, vol. 9, Issue 3, p. 130
