Padrão de Resposta

Nationalism and internationalism may seem a contradiction in terms. As former Secretary-General Dag Hammarsjköld highlighted, nationalism appears to be the tendency to act single-handedly, without taking into account other countries' opinions or thoughts. As for internationalism, most people think of it as downplaying the importance of states in the international community. Reality, however, is less clear-cut, as one can believe in the weight of nations and still have a tendency towards international cooperation.
Take the case of environmental degradation. Some of the problems nations have to address can be dealt with locally, for example, deforestation and non-productivity of soil caused by unsustainable agriculture. Other major issues, such as global warming and the hole in the ozone-layer, must be discussed globally, for unilateral measures would be of no use. Therefore, without underestimating the significance of nations as centers of political action, international cooperation is, at times, of absolute importance.
When it comes to security issues, the usual distinction between nationalism and internationalism seems even more exaggerated. Many argue that sovereignty and international military operations do not match. It is interesting to note that Dag Hammarsjköld made his speech at Stanford University in 1955, exactly one year before the first official peacekeeping operation under the UN flag. Since that first mission, there has been a profusion of other mandates in almost every continent of the world. These operations illustrate how multilateral actions can be fully compatible with national sovereignty. In fact, the former president of Egypt, Nasser, was known for his nationalist tendencies, yet he agreed to have blue helmet troops in his territory. He was aware that international peace was also in his best interest. When he decided to withdraw the UN troops, it resulted in a large loss of territory in favor of Israel.
International politics is, by definition, a two-level game. Even when considering only its own national interest, one cannot discard international cooperation. Sometimes domestic and global interests meet. However, even when this is not the case, in an interdependent world there can be no such thing as absolute isolationism. The same can be said about internationalists who believe that states have lost their primacy. The international community still is – and will probably always be – dominated by power-maximizing states.