Nationalism can inspire conservation through eco-nationalism, but it often weakens international cooperation needed to tackle ecological decline.
Key Takeaways:
The ecosystem has been degrading rapidly in recent years, posing threats to sustainable development, and multilateralism is required to address these issues.
The development is defined by the society that politics has shaped, while nationalism is on the rise, which prioritises national sovereignty over global cooperation, and can hinder multilateral efforts to preserve the ecosystem.
Nationalism has led to mixed approaches, such as “eco-nationalism” to promote conservation as national pride, while others exploit resources for political and economic power.
The downgrade of the ecosystem and its services can be seen as a whole, which is evidence of the universal process of state failure. Our ecosystem has been degraded since the very first society. It has lost a significant amount of forest area, nonhuman lives, driven into the sixth mass extinction, sea level is rising, acidification is occurring, wetlands are shrinking, and there is an increase in natural disasters, global warming, and CO2 emissions. These crises cause severe impacts on ecosystem balance and challenge the vision of sustainable development. However, the term ”development” has been understood mistakenly, focusing only on economic growth. This understanding promotes resource extraction, utilisation, optimisation, and advancement, and sees the ecosystem as an asset.
Additionally, development is also influenced by the political system, which thus significantly impacts the ecosystem. Viewing the ecosystem through the lens of politics shapes our concept, missions, and vision of the ecosystem. At the same time, the attitude toward the ecosystem is in multilateral cooperation, not limited to one nation or one political ideology, under sustainability diplomacy.
The term ecology became popular in the 19th century and brought a movement to consider the ecosystem in mainstream development. But the consideration of the ecosystem is still bound by the body politic, which is the government bodies responsible for a specific geographical area. Still, the body politics approach the ecosystem in an anthropocentric way. Rawl, a liberal politician, defines “The environment as a territorial asset that the institution of property must protect from deterioration only because of its capacity to support them in perpetuity.”
In politics, right-wing populism has become popular worldwide, and there are strong reasons behind it. After the 2016 U.S election, the republican Party won against liberal Democrats, followed by the elected right-wing parties and the emergence of nationalists around the world from diverse countries, reflecting the global trend of right-wing populism. The situation became bold after the 2020 COVID pandemic, as many European countries see the pandemic as the result of globalisation and immigration. The supply chain was disrupted during the global outbreak, and demand for self-sufficiency for national security was disrupted. Moreover, nationalism can convince the public about poverty, job losses, and resource management in a much simpler way than others, as they prioritise only the nation, and each identity is subsumed within the state.
Nationalism is highly considered a right-oriented political ideology, which is, in most cases, generally interpreted as the opposite of environmental protection. Most of the green ideology is brought by left-wing groups, and they support coordination rather than isolation to hold sovereignty. But in the 21st-century trend of right-wing populism, when the global ecosystem and services are in crisis, nationalists show some bargaining in interpreting or handling environmental issues. At some point, nationalism does not stick to the right-wing in green concepts but can adopt some left-wing ecological ideas. Indeed, nationalism contains an embedded environmental spirit, considering the ecosystem as the nation’s pride, resources, and symbol of sovereignty.
And nationalism brings new approaches to the current ecosystem situation. At this point, their approach to the ecosystem is “eco-nationalism”. This approach ensures resource availability for future generations, maintaining the ecosystem as a national asset. However, the nationalist approach to the environment is not that simple; it tries to manipulate and shape the ecosystem to align with its mission and vision of superiority. Some named them as eco-fascism for their usage of environmentalism as a tool to exclude marginalised people, threatening the three foundational pillars: social, environmental, and economic of sustainable development. Nationalism emphasises sovereignty and admires self-sufficiency; in that case, its ground would be opposite to environmentalism. Still, in some cases, they hold environmental conservation as an oppressive tool to show off their ecosystem as a source of pride. In contrast, there is no clear ground for the environment held by nationalism.
Although nationalism is on the rise, there are many differences in background depending on the nation’s development status, and it affects the ecosystem differently. The nationalists from developed nations emphasise self-sufficiency, technology-driven economic development, and keeping a distance from global ecosystem issues relief efforts. In contrast, developing countries focus on the right to use resources and freedom from international adjudication. The common ground between the two types is that they consider the environment within their boundary to be separate from others and would like to gain complete control over it.
As society developed and nations race for resources, resource security became part of nation-building. Resource nationalism resides in a country with many critical mineral reserves. The host country tries to manipulate the market and build superiority within the state. Thus, resource nationalism is driven by “politico-economic” interaction, and prioritising conservation or sustainability is sent to the back. As nationalism is the selling point of populism, they try to convince the public about folk medicine related to the development. At some points, they may lead to severe degradation of the environment. Moreover, the most obvious threat to nationalism is its nation-centric approach, whereas the ecosystem must be considered as a whole; the dismissal of this perspective is the primary threat to nationalism from the environment. For example, the Trump administration’s installation of the wall on the Mexico border significantly impacts the ecosystem, prohibiting wildlife from crossing by 86%. Nationalism’s isolation from the international community is also a considerable factor. The nationalist groups view climate change and ecosystem problem efforts as a threat to their sovereignty, because of international intervention and guidance of countries’ development plans. In a demanding environment, coordination is vital, and thus, regardless of the political landscape, sustainable development diplomacy is essential to foster cooperation between nations. This nationalist narrative on the international effort has led to a hindrance to meeting the goal. The withdrawal of the US from the Paris Climate Agreement will increase the chance of global warming escalating. China, the most significant greenhouse gas emitter, participates in international agreements like COP26. Still, its Belt & Road project is the largest financier of fossil fuel infrastructure, reflecting the complex nature of the nation-first concept on the environment.
Handling environmental issues within the territory, nationalist acts differ; they see the environment as the nation's pride, something to protect along with their culture and identity. They also try to stand out in environmental pros like energy security, green transition, and pride. And thus, they are less opposed to energy transition policies than climate change policies, but the intention is for the national interest, not the ecosystem. China set its own goals, and it is gradually meeting them. Green nationalists attempt to bring environmental development along with national security and the economy, and they still consider international agreements beneficial if they can help the country’s development. The fact is that these environmental values are emphasised based on a nation-first policy, while the global ecosystem degradation demands a fully committed global effort.
In contrast, the perspective of development is primarily influenced by the political ideology of that time, and it affects the ecosystem. The rise of right-wing populism greatly impacted the ongoing global ecosystem crisis. Their highly right-oriented, populist ideology threatens the continuing international effort to relieve the ecosystem. Whatever the political system is, understanding the global ecosystem problem has no borders and demands cooperation to address it, which is becoming vital for the upcoming society.
Thuta Aung is a Research Assistant at the Sustainability Lab of the Shwetaungthagathu Reform Initiative Centre (SRIc), holds a B.Sc. in Geology, and is currently pursuing Environmental Science at Chiang Mai University, Thailand.
“Advocating Sustainability, Shaping Our Future”
Help Sustain The Sabai Times - Myanmar’s Voice for Sustainable Development Support to The Sabai Times