In the post-Cold War era an absolute majority of states are nation-states. In the Cold War period, the Western empires collapsed and reverted to their old nation-state status. Their colonies gained independence also to become nation-states. In the case of the Soviet Union, it consolidated its old empire and even expanded into Eastern Europe during the Cold War period but later disintegrated into 15 separate nation-states.

Why do modern states want to become nation-states even if most are not well qualified to do so? The answer to this question can help us find the answers to other questions as well, including: 

― Why are Western European and Anglo-Saxon nation-states stable, while non-Western states, including most of the former Soviet Republics, are conflict-ridden?

― Why do inter-state conflicts occur more often between and among neighboring non-Western states than between and among Western states or between Western states and non-Western states?

― Why are the U.N. and other international organizations helpless in solving intra- and inter-state conflicts?

The nation-state is a state founded around a group called a “nation.” The nation is the largest group consisting of people who belong to the same race or ethnic group, share the same culture, speak the same language and live in a fixed territory. The raison d’etre of the nation-state is to protect such a people and territory. For that purpose all nation-states enjoy internal and external sovereignty under international law.

In reality, nation-states are not identical with this ideal type of nation-state. They can be classified into five types. The first type includes states which consist of a majority of one ethnic, religious, sectarian or regional group and one or more minority groups. Russia, China, most of the former Soviet republics and Latin American countries belong to this type. States which are composed of many large, powerful groups belong to the second type. Most of the countries in which religious or sectarian antagonism is strong can be included in this category. Many Arab states are nation-states of the second type. The third type includes the countries in which a single group, which can be racial, religious, ethnic or national, is predominant. Most Western European states and Korea and Japan are homogeneous nations of this type. But they are becoming states of the fourth type as globalization accelerates. States comprised of a predominant national group and different immigrant groups from various countries are becoming “multicultural” states belonging to the fourth type.

Countries of the fifth type generally became independent from their imperial masters during the Cold War era. Most are Southeast Asian or Sub-Saharan countries where two or more states existed in the precolonial times. In other words, the colonial powers allowed their colonial administrative units, created arbitrarily, to become separate independent states according to the Western principle of national self-determination. Actually, colonial leaders demanded this instead of seeking the restoration of the old tribal states or pan-national states. Consequently, they are premature nation-states because they became sovereign independent states before they formed a nation. Therefore, some scholars call them “state-nations.”

Most intra- and inter-states conflicts occur in the second and fifth types of nation-states. According to the Fund for Peace’s Failed States Index, most failed states are newly independent, mostly multiethnic, suffering from religious or sectarian conflicts or extremely poor. These four factors singularly or jointly destabilize states internally or cause territorial disputes with their neighboring states. In the second and fifth types of nation-states nationalism and national unity are weaker, and severe tensions between the ruling groups and other groups occur more frequently than in the third and fourth types of nation-states.

For nation-states of the first type, there can be separatist movements, depending on how the majority deals with minorities. China and Russia have such a problem. Since all nation-states seek a single unified state, they have to uphold national identity as the sole foundation of legitimacy. Consequently, all rulers of states are bound to defend their national identity and interests internally and externally. It is not surprising that racial, ethnic, religious, sectarian and regional conflicts are so brutal and that the national leaders treat all secessionist movements as treason, opposing foreign intervention in domestic conflicts and rejecting humanitarian intervention of any kind by outside bodies, private or international.

Even those Western countries that are safe from domestic conflicts and support human rights interventions by the U.N. and other international organizations would resort to the traditional principle of nonintervention if they faced civil wars. In World War II the allied powers defined the principle of national self-determination very vaguely and applied it to Europe only. Consequently, state authorities and rebel groups define the principle to justify their own purposes.

Some former empires such as Russia, China and France suffer from their imperial legacies. Russia seems to be attempting to revive its Cold War empire, at least as a sphere of influence. China may follow suite in the long-run. Russia’s policies toward Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine can be understood from this perspective. Many non-Western leaders suspect that the U.S. is an invisible empire.

As long as the nation-state system prevails, it is almost futile to expect peaceful coexistence within and among states, because power politics is inevitable in such a system. The Syrian and Ukraine crises vividly demonstrate that nationalism prevails over internationalism and power struggles are the rule of the game in both the internal and international arenas. The Korean people are truly unique. How can one of the most homogeneous nations live in two separate states in the age of the nation-state?

By Park Sang-seek 

Park Sang-seek is a former rector of the Graduate Institute of Peace Studies, Kyung Hee University, and the author of “Globalized Korea and Localized Globe.” ― Ed.