Social Studies 20-1 · Related Issue 2
National interest and ultranationalism
Every state claims to act in the national interest. The question is who gets to define it, whose interests are counted, and what happens when pursuing it stops having limits.
- 1. The words, first
- 2. Who defines the national interest?
- 3. When nationalism becomes ultranationalism
- 4. Genocide and crimes against humanity
- 5. What costs marks
The words, first
The idea: Ultranationalism is a matter of degree, but the line has a definition, and it is worth being able to state it.
| Word | What it means |
|---|---|
| National interest | What a state's leaders judge to be best for the country as a whole — usually security, economic prosperity and the promotion of national values. |
| Ultranationalism | Extreme nationalism that holds one's own nation superior, is hostile to outsiders, and subordinates individual rights to the nation. |
| Propaganda | Information shaped deliberately to promote a cause. It can be true or false; the intent is what makes it propaganda. |
| Scapegoat | An internal group blamed for a nation's problems, used to create unity and deflect blame. |
| Conscription | Compulsory military service. |
| Genocide | Acts committed with intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group in whole or in part. Intent is the defining element. |
| Crimes against humanity | Widespread or systematic attacks on a civilian population — in war or in peacetime. |
| War crime | A violation of the laws of armed conflict. Requires an armed conflict; crimes against humanity do not. |
| Realism | The view that states must rely on their own power, because the international system has no enforcer. |
Who defines the national interest?
The idea: The phrase sounds neutral and never is. Someone decides what counts, and someone's interests get left out.
The three usual components. Security (borders, alliances, defence), economic prosperity (trade, resources, investment), and the promotion of national values (human rights, language, culture). They routinely conflict — trading with a state whose human rights record you condemn is the standard example.
Conscription in Canada, twice. In 1917 and again in 1944, English Canada largely saw an obligation to Britain while many in Quebec saw a foreign war with little connection to them. One state, two readings of the national interest, and a crisis both times. This is the best Canadian case for the argument that national interest is contested rather than given.
Realism versus liberal internationalism. Realists treat the international system as anarchic, so security comes from power and alliances. Liberal internationalists hold that institutions and interdependence can make cooperation rational. This split runs through Related Issue 3 as well, and naming it is worth marks.
When nationalism becomes ultranationalism
The idea: Flags, holidays and language policy are ordinary. The turn comes when membership in the nation decides who is entitled to rights at all.
What to look for.
- A claim that the nation is superior, not merely valued.
- An internal enemy named and blamed.
- Individual rights overridden in the nation's name.
- Expansion justified as national necessity — Lebensraum, a new Roman Empire.
- Control of information, so that no competing account survives.
Canadian cases. The Japanese Canadian internment of 1942 removed over 22,000 people, most of them citizens, from the coast and sold their property; Canada apologised and made redress in 1988. The MS St. Louis was turned away in 1939 with over 900 Jewish refugees aboard; Canada apologised in 2018. Both are studied because they are ours, not somebody else's.
Genocide and crimes against humanity
The idea: Intent is what makes genocide a distinct crime — and what makes it so hard to prove.
The 1948 Genocide Convention defines genocide as acts committed with intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, in whole or in part. Mass killing on its own is not enough; it must aim at the group as such.
Cases the course uses.
- Armenian genocide, 1915–16. Deportations and massacres under the Ottoman Empire. Recognised by Canada; still disputed by Turkey.
- Holodomor, 1932–33. Famine in Soviet Ukraine, produced largely by grain quotas and movement restrictions. Recognised as genocide by Canada; intent is still debated by historians.
- The Holocaust. About six million Jews murdered, along with Roma, disabled people, Polish civilians and political prisoners. The case against which the Convention was written.
- Rwanda, 1994. Roughly 800,000 killed in a hundred days while the international community did not intervene.
Nuremberg's contribution. Following orders was rejected as a defence, and individuals were held responsible for acts of state. That principle runs directly to the International Criminal Court, created in 2002.
What costs marks
The idea: Mostly precision about terms.
- Calling any mass killing genocide. The definition turns on intent to destroy a group.
- Treating patriotism and ultranationalism as the same thing. Say what distinguishes them.
- Using only non-Canadian examples. The course expects Canadian cases, and there are good ones.
- Assuming national interest is obvious. Ask whose interest, decided by whom.