Nationalism, Globalisation and Humanitarian Crisis-The paradox of our

times
-by Karn Satyarthi
The extraordinary depravity that man is capable of subjecting fellow
human beings remains one of the central problems staring us in the face.
The amount of suffering we as human beings are capable of ignoring is
also remarkable. The world these past few years has been torn by
humanitarian crises in various parts of the world. In the three years alone
we have faced human security concerns of Himalayan proportions in West
Asia, South East Asia, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka and North Africa to name
just a few. To further compound the impact of security related
emergencies, long standing issues like hunger, human trafficking, abject
poverty and natural disasters are hollowing out our claims to progress in
the 21st century.
Our objective in the current essay is to analyse the relationship between
Globalisation, Nationalism and Humanitarian Crises in the times we
inhabit. In the metaphysical world of the mind, paradoxes can exist as
mathematical or linguistic contradictions. In the physical world however
paradoxes are either resolved or, they lead to a collapse of the very
system they describe. The world today is undergoing constant flux. Times
they are a changing in the words of Bob Dylan. The right time to resolve
the tensions between Globalisation, Nationalism and Human Rights is
right now.
Globalisation, Nationalism and Human Rights are all what political
scientists would call essentially contested concepts. While proponents, of
all three, hail them as revolutionary concepts indispensable for mans
development, detractors accuse all three of being damaging to values we
must hold dear. Of Globalisation, Nationalism and Humanitarian Crisis the
third is an event that can most easily be described. The Humanitarian
Coalition describes a Humanitarian emergency as an event or series of

events that represents a critical threat to the health, safety,

security or wellbeing of a community or other large group of
people, usually over a wide area. In other words Humanitarian crises
can also be defined as a sustained period where respect for human rights
are at a trough and violations of human rights are at a crest in the
metaphorical wave.
To clearly analyse the conflicts, complementarities and tensions between
Globalisation, Nationalism and Human Rights we first need to understand
the context in which these terms are often used. One essential feature of
any contested concept is that actors often use them to justify their
actions, in many cases these actions might be opposed to each other. So,
for example a nation-state rallies the citizenry behind its fight against
insurgency by invoking national interest. At the same time insurgents
motivate their supporters by claiming to fight for nationalism. The two
parties both claim to fight for nationalism and are yet opposed to each
other. In this essay we will try and deconstruct all the three concepts to
the bare essential. Our purpose is then to test whether the essential
elements of nationalism, globalisation and human rights create a paradox.
The Article 1 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, claims All
humans are born free and equal in dignity and rights. The concept of
human rights flows through this assertion. At the heart of it human rights
are nothing but a set of universal, indivisible and absolute rights that
belong to the individual solely by virtue of being born. Human rights are
not a function of the state, nationality, gender or community. We can use
the concept of human rights as a proxy for denoting the severity of the
humanitarian crises.
Nationalism is a concept that is much more difficult to describe or define.
One of the most cited scholars on the concept of nationalism Benedict
Anderson qualifies the nation as an imagined community. Ernest Gellner
is of the opinion that the nation is not a primordial concept and

nationalism begets nation. Noted Marxist historian Hobsbawm is of the

opinion that nationalism is a stage of industrialization. If we look carefully
the descriptions of nationalism and nation differ merely in nuance.
Functionally there is a broad agreement over what a nation is.
Nationalism is based upon a feeling of oneness, shared history, culture,
language or heritage by a group of people. Quite simply the basis of
nationalism is an acknowledgement by a group of people that they belong
to the same nation.
While there can be a meeting ground on what a nation means, the
application of two different types of nationalisms yield vastly dissimilar
results. The tensions, insurmountable, some would allege between Human
Rights and Nationalism have primarily to do with a competition of
interests. While Human Rights are built around the individual interests,
Nationalism places the interests of the Nation-State at the highest of
pedestals. However this argument papers over the differences between
civic and ethnic nationalism. Ethnic nationalism tends to emphasise the
differences between various in-groups and out-groups and therefore leads
to friction at the margins of those groups. The consequences of such
Nationalism can be devastating for human rights. In fact many modern
day humanitarian crises have ethnic nationalisms as their prime movers.
Examples include Sinhalese/Tamil Nationalism in Sri Lanka, an Aggressive
form of Buddhist Nationalism in Myanmar, religious nationalism in the
Central African Republic. If we go a little further back in history Hitlers
ideology was based on an extreme obscurantist view of German
Nationalism. A lot of the current crises in West Asia and Afghanistan can
also be considered as offshoots of destructive ethnic nationalism and so
can the violence during the partition of the Indian Subcontinent or the
conflicts between the Turks and the Arabs.
However the above argument suffers from what we might call a selection
bias. The evidence presented is no doubt correct and topical but ignores
the advantages of the civic form of nationalism. A kind of nationalism

built around the idea of shared values and not primordial identities, much
like the one envisaged by the makers of modern India or the founding
fathers of the United States of America. The concept of civic nationalism
based on a few common ideas like a deliberative democracy or rule of law
is by no means antithetical to the concept of Human Rights. If anything
civic nationalism is only conducive to the promotion of human rights and
by corollary prevention of large scale human emergencies. If we examine
the causality of humanitarian crises we will find that most crises take
place in states that fail to enforce the rule of law or are not functioning
democracies. Examples include most nations in West Asia as well as
regions like Pakistan and Afghanistan. Closer home in the decades just
after our independence the Mizo National Fronts use of ethnic nationalism
was threatening to create a major humanitarian problem however it was
resolved within the framework of civic nationalism provided by the
constitution of India.
The human rights record of China is shrouded in a veil of mystery, some
educated commentators are of the opinion that China is sitting on a
humanitarian time bomb. The Chinese state executes as many people in a
week as the Indian state has since its independence. While to some this
represents a conflict between the interests of the nation and the individual
at a much deeper level it highlights the deficiencies in the Chinese version
of Nationalism. Civic Nationalism unlike the ethnic version involves no
coercion and is much more inclusive. It helps not only in dealing with
security related humanitarian crises but also crises related to natural
disaster and poverty. It is only civic nationalism that allows people from
one state of India to care so deeply about people from other states in the
event of a natural disaster. The Orissa cyclone, Chennai floods, Bhuj
earthquake or the Cloudburst in Uttarakhand all demonstrated the
tremendous speed and warmth with which fellow countrymen react to
relieve victims of at least some of the misery.

The relationship between globalisation and human rights has also been
buried under a cloud of doubt and suspicion. Detractors often say that
Globalisation is a development that has caused a backlash from some
traditional societies. Some arguments usually forwarded by people who
consider Globalisation to be detrimental to human rights or guilty of
aggravating humanitarian crises include first, social, political and
economic institutions within traditional societies have been unable to
resist the corrosive effects of Globalisation; this has led to a backlash in
some societies including some Islamic societies. As a result the
millenarian appeal of bodies like ISIS and Al Qaeda has found currency in
some parts of the world. These organizations are self professedly antidemocratic and abhor international law as well as human rights; they
have contributed heavily to the degradation in human rights in many
parts of the world.
Second globalisation is by definition a phenomenon that governments
cant control this has given opportunity to organisations like the Al Qaeda
to fill the gap create due to the hollowing out of the state.
Third the phenomenon of humanitarian intervention has been
enthusiastically supported by some western powers like the United States
of America, it has also been noticed that in a lot of cases intervention only
worsens the existing problem. The impact of economic globalisation on
human rights is another bone of contention. Some critics have portrayed
Globalisation as a zero sum game of losers and winners. Their claim often
is that Globalisation has been deepening inequality and security in
developing economies and thus worsening human security within the
lesser developed economies. Globalisation has also led to a hollowing out
of the state where national governments have very little control over
economic policies and hence can do very little to protect weak markets
against the onslaught of international finance organizations like IMF and
World Bank. Moreover these organizations have led to a weakening of
democratic institutions in developing countries and clearly democracy is a

human right. Critics also allege that Globalisation evangelists have scant
regard for environmental rights and concerns such as climate change.
These problems are a part of the human rights matrix and are bound to
worsen the humanitarian crisis due to degradation in the environment.
Our approach in examining the relationship between Globalisation and
human rights will be the same as before. Our interest is not solely in
evidence but also in the fundamentals of the concept. We will also go on
and show that much historical evidence suggests that the consequence of
Globalisation has overall been conducive to the establishment of a global
human rights regime.
Globalisation has variously been described as increasing interdependence
between nation-states, homogenisation, liberalization, westernization,
Americanization by stealth (or Coca Colonization if one were to use more
colourful terminology) and universalization. However the essence of
Globalisation remains the development of technology resulting into time
and space compression. Globalisation has made the world much more
close knit or in the words of Marshall McLuhan a Global village. The pace
or intensity with which the world is coming together is decided not by the
agency or design of any powerful nation or actor. They are decided by
mans genius for invention and his/her curiosity to find out more about
the wider world. The first steps towards Globalisation were taken not in
the 20th century by some self-interested multinational company. The first
steps were taken by human beings, far back in history with the invention
of the wheel. Globalisation thus has not been thrusted by the strong over
the weak. It is a much more organic idea with mans ingenuity being its
fountainhead. It is neither economic liberalization nor cultural hegemony;
it is instead an expression of communitarianism inherent in man.
If we look at the historical development in the way humanitarian crises
were handled we find that there is a definite causal relationship between
the nature and speed of response by the international community and the

extent of Globalisation. In the year 1948 the United Nations had 11,000
peacekeepers while today it has upwards of 1,20,000 peacekeepers. While
some attribute this increase to an increase in conflicts, this hypothesis can
be debunked by the fact that the increase is secular. The number of
Humanitarian agencies working in conflict areas as well as in areas
severely affected by poverty has also grown exponentially. Organizations
like Mdecins Sans Frontires, Amnesty International, Oxfam
International and United Nations Relief and Work Agency have been able
to leverage the power of connectivity that Globalisation has given them to
a considerable effect and to good results. It is only because of the might
of information that Amnesty International has stood its ground in its
confrontation with major world powers.
Another level at which Globalisation has helped dilute the negative effects
of humanitarian crises is by information dissemination. If we compare the
humanitarian emergencies in Vietnam and Iraq we find that it was
considerably more difficult for human rights activists to enlist support
against the My Lai massacre than it was in case of Abu Ghraib prison
abuse. Globalisation has made it much more difficult for authoritarian
states to commit human rights violations with impunity. Similarly millions
died in the Bengal famine of 1943 with the world taking very little notice,
today even a few starvation deaths are subject of global news reports.
The West Asian refugee crisis is by any means a major humanitarian crisis
however if we look at the response that it generated and compare it with
the worlds response when it was much less globalised we see some
interesting results. Many nations of the West albeit reluctantly have
pledged support in terms of money and material. Some like Germany
have also taken on thousands of Syrian immigrants and are actively
running programs to ensure their smooth integration into the German
society. This is happening in spite of the fact that many European nations
are seeing the rise of extreme right and Islamophobic organizations. If we
compare this with the decidedly cold response of the West during the

massacres in Srebrenica (1995) and Rwanda (1994), Globalisation seems

to the only difference. Globalisation has also helped spread liberal values
to the extent that the right to development, human rights and modern
liberal values are now considered a sine qua non for any peaceful and
progressive society.
Globalisation has also created interdependence which means that it is
much more difficult for a country to violate another countrys integrity
because the aggressor might have been dependent economically on the
other country. As an example we can cite the current tensions between
China and the US. In another era a major war between the status quo
power and the revisionist power would have been imminent. Examples
include the many wars between Great Britain and France, between Japan
and the US, and the two world wars themselves. All the aforementioned
wars brought untold misery to humankind and some of the worst human
rights violations were a consequence of these bloody wars. However in
todays day and age even the most hawkish scholars agree that a full
blown war between the US and China is highly unlikely. This is mainly
because Globalisation has created huge interdependence between the two
Economies. China is one of the largest buyers of US debt and the US is
one of the major markets for Chinese manufactured goods. Imagine the
amount of death, destruction and misery this war would have brought to
mankind.
Modern Economic theory and research done by stalwarts like Jagadish
Bhagwati have also shown that international trade has the capacity to
improve the national incomes of all countries if the comparative
advantages are utilised well. What we need to do is to promote not
merely free but fair trade through global organizations like the World
Trade Organization. Successful economies like China and to some extent
India have shown the world how comparative advantage can be leveraged
for overall growth. The proliferation in technical knowledge that has

resulted from Globalisation has also facilitated the inter country

movement of personnel as well as aid.
Globalisation also has the capacity to put a check on the regressive
elements of ethnic or chauvinistic nationalism. While it is true that
international Human Rights agencies are heavily constrained in acting
against the interests of powerful nation-states we have also seen
instances where Global Non-Governmental Organizations like the Amnesty
International and Wikileaks have exposed human rights violations by
powerful nations of the West. While conclusive action against such
violations is still not the norm, the progressive development of
organizations like the International Court of Justice and the International
Criminal Court are a step in the right direction. Convictions or censure by
international bodies has no effect on the hard power calculus in big power
politics but we must also remember that Globalisation and consequent
information dissemination has made soft power almost as important as
hard power. A clean human rights record is what every nation-state willing
to remain in the comity of nations desires.
Our analysis at a conceptual level shows that there is nothing elemental
within the ideas of globalisation, nationalism and human rights that would
make them fatally incompatible with each other. The evidence of
contradictions between ethnic nationalism and human rights are not
sustainable in the long run because of the moderating influence of
globalisation. The tension between globalisation and ethnic nationalism
can best be resolved in the spirit of this memorable Hindi song:
Mera joota hai japani, Ye patloon Englistaani
Sar pe laal topi Roosi fir bhi dil hai Hindustani
(My shoes are Japanese, my trousers are English
The red cap on my head is Russian but my Heart is Indian)

If we consider both Globalisation and nationalism as a means to an end,

the end being the fulfilment of individual human rights we will see all the
differences between them dissolving. In the words of Rabindranath
Tagore, that would be a world not broken up into fragments by narrow
domestic walls.