The Role of Nationalism in Intensifying Global Conflict and Instability

Running head: POLITICAL SCIENCE
POLITICAL SCIENCE
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author note:

1POLITICAL SCIENCE
Introduction
Nationalism is often accused of intensifying devastating conflicts of modern period.
Popular nationalism is seemingly elevating in the domain of world politics. Across the globe,
nationalistic individuals occupy streets and polling places. Hegre (2014) has noted that in
international relations, nationalism has been long perceived as a driving force for international
conflict. Former comprehensive studies on war and peace have incessantly positioned
nationalism as a cause of interstate violence. In recent years, authors have alleged that the
intensification of popular nationalism in China has the tendency to act as a potent source of
conflict between the United States and China in the prospective years (Jones, 2014). The purpose
of the paper is to evaluate the role of nationalism in intensifying global conflict and instability.
Additionally, it will assess whether nationalism still serves a decisive role in global politics
Discussion
Hegre (2014) has noted that nationalistic public comprises of two distinct foreign policy
references. These two preferences have exhibited greater degree of inclination towards preferring
military option in order to resolve a conflict or negotiation and want to assess it country’s
complete achievements in conflict specifically related to constructive outcomes. Bonikowski and
DiMaggio (2016) have noted that these two foreign policy preferences have the propensity to
generate two important countervailing inducements for leaders in relation to the use of
supremacy and force. Such countervailing incentives can compel leaders to resort to military
resources but concurrently can motivate leaders to circumvent any forms of critical risk taking
actions. However, Goode and Stroup (2015) have noted that the net impact of nationalism on the
initiation of international conflict thus triggers the relative credence of these two varied effects.

2POLITICAL SCIENCE
Thus, Bonikowski and DiMaggio (2016) have claimed that the influence of popular nationalism
is determined by nation’s chance of comprehensive success in conflict.
Moreover, the ideology of nationalism is itself a significant of war. Goode and Stroup
(2015) have noted that nationalism refers to a secular religion which essentially proclaims that
the world constitutes of distinct and ancient nations which comprise of exclusive homelands and
that the revered duty of individuals is to efficiently secure the province, independence and
identity of the nation. Moreover, nationalists further disagree of the fact that all existing
agreements that incorporates treaties between states which do not have its dependence on the free
willingness of citizens (Ball, Dagger & O’Neill, 2016). Nationalism thus resulting to global war
by making modern states system is an unconstructive impact of wars. Goode and Stroup (2015)
has asserted that leaders in democratizing nations have the tendency to sustain nationalism to
produce established advocacy without taking into considerations the full expenses of democratic
responsibility and liability and this nationalist myth-making makes democratizing countries to be
highly war-prone. Similarly, Baylis, Smith and Owens (2017) have claimed that inadequately
institutionalized democracies show greater tendency to permit nationalist protests to occur and
adopt a highly aggressive foreign policy. Furthermore, considering ethnic nationalism,
Bonikowski and DiMaggio (2016) have noted that leaders engaged to ethnically heterogeneous
society typically repel domestic challenges by strategically exploiting nationalist myth making
decisions which prohibit ethnic groups thus intensifying the chance of conflict with other ethnic
groups outside of the nation.
On the other hand, like air, nationalism is considered to be highly omnipresent and subtle.
It primarily pervades the universal system, states, behaviour of citizens and thus can be viewed
as conservative and a ground-breaking force, threatening the status quo. However, Ball, Dagger