Nations, States, and Violence
In this provocative little book, a Stanford political scientist presents an intriguing account of nationalism and its implications for conflict and cooperation. Laitin takes aim at the popular view that nationalism is dangerous, fueling a global surge in ethnic and civilizational conflict. The evidence actually reveals the opposite: most ethnic and nationalist groups live in peace with their neighbors. Drawing on a decade of work with his colleague James Fearon, Laitin details the more specific and circumstantial causes of ethnic and nationalist violence, ultimately pointing to the failure of states to enforce agreements between parties in fragmented societies. His more interesting claim is that nationalism, along with culture and language, can best be understood as a functional mechanism for social coordination rather than as a matter of primordial identity or ancient attachment. The virtue of this functionalist vision is that it helps explain the complex ways in which different national and linguistic groupings peacefully coexist within states. Laitin sees the European Union as the great showcase of how national identities can adapt to and exist alongside more encompassing multicultural identities that evolve to facilitate social cooperation. How useful this perspective is for the rest of the world is less clear.
Related
There is always something new out of Africa," said the ancient Greeks, as recorded by Pliny the Elder. The contemporary Africa-watcher, however, might be forgiven for wondering whether it is not all more of the same. In 1984, as in 1983, events in southern Africa and the devastating drought and famine which cost the lives of countless tens of thousands again dominated the year. For Nigerians, the new year began with yet another military government, which had ousted the elected civilian administration on the last day of 1983. In Chad, civil war ground on with no solution in sight. Libya's unpredictable leader, Colonel Muammar al-Qaddafi, continued to make headlines with stories ranging from the killing of a British policewoman in London to his dabbling in the affairs of Chad and other countries. At the United Nations, the controversy over Namibia continued to set records as the longest running debate in that organization's history. And U.S. suggestions that its policy of "constructive engagement" with South Africa was succeeding continued to be greeted with skepticism in many quarters.
The beginning of the end of Yassir Arafat? The Palestine Liberation Front on the point of irrevocable disintegration? The twilight of the Palestinian movement? No sooner had a mutiny been declared in a Fatah barracks in Lebanon's Bekaa Valley last May than the international press was full of such questions -- legitimate, to be sure, but premature to say the least. And the political analysts who hastened to reply in the affirmative often did so without sufficiently taking into account the complexity of the crisis or the roles of the various protagonists -- behind the scenes as well as center stage -- their stated objectives, ulterior motives and miscalculations.
If one looks long enough at recent events in Lebanon, one can see emerging the new face of Israel's Begin government, a face markedly different from the first government of Menachem Begin. That first Begin government, which toppled a decaying and increasingly ineffectual Labor Party, had its moderate and restraining elements whose crowning achievement was the Camp David Accords. The then Defense Minister Ezer Weizman, along with Foreign Minister Moshe Dayan, were the reins on Begin's often frightening rhetoric, steering Begin away from the effects of his worst instincts.
