Nationalism
CFRPSAIL Nationalism Blog Abdullah Abdulrauf Political Systems September 20, 2026 Introduction: When we hear the word “nationalism,” most of us think of flags, anthems, and people cheering for their country during a football match or an Olympic event. But nationalism is much bigger than that. It is an idea, a feeling, and sometimes even a political movement. At its core, nationalism is the belief that people who share a common language, culture, history, or land belong together as one nation, and that this nation deserves its own recognition, respect, and often its own independent state. This assignment looks at what nationalism actually means, where it came from, the different forms it takes, and why it has been both a force for good and a cause of serious harm throughout history. By the end, the goal is to understand nationalism not as a simple “good” or “bad” idea, but as a powerful force that depends heavily on how it is used. What Exactly Is Nationalism? In simple terms, nationalism is the feeling of pride and loyalty a person has toward their nation. A “nation” here does not just mean a country in the legal sense. It usually refers to a group of people who feel connected through shared things like language, religion, traditions, history, or ethnicity. Nationalism turns that shared identity into a political idea: the belief that this group of people should have control over their own affairs, usually through their own state or government. It is worth separating two words that often get mixed up: patriotism and nationalism. Patriotism is generally love for one’s country, its people, and its values, without necessarily thinking it is better than everyone else. Nationalism goes a step further. It often includes the idea that one’s own nation is special or even superior, and that its interests should come before everything else, sometimes even before basic fairness to other groups. This difference matters a lot, because it explains why nationalism can inspire unity in one situation and division or conflict in another. A Short History of Nationalism: Nationalism as we understand it today is actually a fairly modern idea. For most of human history, people were more loyal to their local village, their religion, or their king or emperor than to a “nation” in the way we think of it now. Large empires like the Roman Empire or the Ottoman Empire ruled over many different ethnic and language groups without expecting them all to feel like one single nation. Historians often trace modern nationalism back to Europe in the late 1700s and 1800s. Two major events pushed this idea forward. The first was the American Revolution, where American colonists rejected British rule and built a new identity as “Americans.” The second, and arguably more influential, was the French Revolution. The French Revolution introduced the idea that power belongs to “the people” rather than to a king, and that the people who share the French language and culture form one unified French nation. This idea spread quickly across Europe. Through the 1800s, nationalism became the driving force behind major changes, including the unification of Italy and Germany, both of which were previously divided into many small states. In the 1900s, nationalism played a huge role in the two World Wars and later fueled independence movements across Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, as colonized peoples used nationalist ideas to demand freedom from European colonial rulers. Different Types of Nationalism: Nationalism is not one single thing. Scholars usually break it down into a few different categories, and understanding these helps explain why nationalism can look so different from one country to another. Civic Nationalism: This type of nationalism defines the nation based on shared citizenship and legal belonging rather than ethnicity or bloodline. Anyone who accepts the country’s laws, values, and institutions can be considered part of the nation, regardless of their background. Many people describe countries like the United States, Canada, and France as leaning toward this civic model, at least in theory. Ethnic Nationalism: This form ties national identity closely to ethnicity, ancestry, or bloodline. It suggests that people belong to the nation because of who their ancestors were, not simply because they live there or hold citizenship. This type of nationalism can be more exclusionary, since it can leave out people who live in a country but do not share the dominant ethnic background. Cultural Nationalism: Here, the focus is on shared language, traditions, customs, and history rather than legal citizenship or bloodline. People are considered part of the nation if they participate in and preserve its cultural heritage. Anti-Colonial or Liberation Nationalism: This type of nationalism grew out of resistance to foreign rule. Independence movements in India, many African nations, and parts of Southeast Asia used nationalist ideas to unite people against colonial powers and build new, self-governing states. Â Why Nationalism Can Be a Positive Force: Nationalism is often blamed for wars and division, but it has also done a lot of good throughout history. It can be a powerful, positive force under the right conditions. It has helped colonized nations gain independence and self-rule after centuries of foreign control. It builds a sense of unity and shared purpose, which can help societies work together during hard times, such as natural disasters or economic crises. It encourages people to take pride in their language, art, food, and traditions, helping preserve cultural heritage that might otherwise fade away. It can motivate citizens to care about their country’s future, get involved in politics, and hold their governments accountable. Â Why Nationalism Can Be a Dangerous Force: At the same time, history shows very clearly that nationalism can turn destructive when it is taken too far or used by the wrong people for the wrong reasons. Extreme nationalism played a central role in causing both World War I and World War II, as countries pursued aggressive expansion in the name of national glory. It can lead to the exclusion or mistreatment of minority
The New Non-State Actors: How Technology Companies are Becoming Foreign Policy Actors
CFRPSAIL The New Non-State Actors: How Technology Companies are Becoming Foreign Policy Actors Opinion Abdullah Abdulrauf International Relations September 1, 2026 When Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, Ukrainian communication infrastructure came under serious pressure. The use of satellite internet became extremely important, since it provided a way of connecting that was not reliant on terrestrial infrastructure. The United States Agency for International Development reported that it had partnered with SpaceX to provide thousands of Starlink terminals to Ukraine for civilian use, while other governments and donors provided terminals as well. Starlink has both a civilian and a military use: the latter has been discussed extensively, with research from the Carnegie Endowment highlighting that private technology companies were providing satellite communication links, commercial satellite imagery, and AI-supported intelligence services to Ukraine. International Relations has been dominated by one idea for a long time: that states are the most important actors in world politics. The decisions of governments create foreign policy, the actions of diplomats lead to treaties and alliances, and the organization of armies’ controls warfare. Companies were considered economic actors and their main goal was to make profits. This is no longer true. Technological companies can now provide internet to soldiers during a war, control access to satellite communication, influence the information sphere, create software crucial for national security or artificial intelligence systems used by states. In some cases, the decision of a company executive can have effects comparable to a foreign policy decision. One of the most high-profile examples of this trend involves SpaceX’s Starlink communication service, which was crucial for Ukrainian forces following Russia’s full-scale invasion. The importance of Starlink was such that its access could potentially shape war outcomes and military strategies. In practice, the relationship between states and technology companies is becoming much more complicated. A non-state actor is an individual, organization, or institution that can influence international affairs without being a government. International institutions, NGOs, multinational corporations, terrorist groups, media companies, and technology firms are all potential examples of non-state actors. Technology firms such as SpaceX, Microsoft, Google, Meta, Amazon, Apple, Nvidia and major AI companies are no longer only selling products their technologies are deeply integrated into the fabric of everyday life. This gives technology companies a unique status. A recent study outlines three potential roles for technology companies in geopolitics: being an object of geopolitical competition, acting as an arena to pursue geopolitical objectives, and being an agent that pursues its own geopolitical goals. This framework is helpful because it shows that a technology company can act as all three at once. For example, a government may restrict the operations of a foreign technology company because it is viewed as a national-security risk. At the same time, this technology company may provide critical infrastructure to a government, and its own decisions may have geopolitical consequences. A country can have a strong military, but if its communication infrastructure, digital infrastructure or provision of essential digital services is reliant on other countries, it is strategically weakened. This is why governments are now talking about digital sovereignty and technological sovereignty. For example, the United Nations Development Programme has recently been looking at alternatives that would let governments develop AI applications without relying on major American cloud providers. The concern is understandable: governments do not want their sensitive data or critical digital infrastructure to be reliant on firms based in other countries. A government is accountable, at least theoretically, to elections, courts, parliaments and constitutions. If a government takes a controversial decision, its citizens and political institutions can challenge it. But if a company takes a controversial decision regarding its satellite network, AI system or digital platform, the process may be much less transparent. The recent academic discussion of “corporate quasi-sovereignty” touches on this issue precisely: companies that control critical infrastructure can wield significant discretion without having the accountability of a government. It would be wrong to say that SpaceX, Microsoft, Google or AI companies are becoming states. They do not have territory in the traditional sense, nor do they possess passports, armies or sovereignty. But they can possess strategic dependence. If a government cannot easily replace the service of a company, it finds itself in a dependent position. This is similar to the concept of soft power, but it is not identical. Soft power usually refers to a government’s ability to attract others on the basis of values, culture or diplomacy. Technology companies wield a different type of influence one based on infrastructure and access. If you control the infrastructure, you do not necessarily command people but you can influence the limits of what is possible. Therefore, the rise of technology companies represents a transformation in the nature of power. Pakistan is becoming increasingly reliant on digital infrastructure, cloud services, social media platforms, satellite communication and artificial intelligence. As Pakistan’s digital economy develops, its reliance on foreign technology companies can bring both opportunities and risks. Technology partnerships can help Pakistan build its education system, cybersecurity capacity, telecommunications infrastructure, artificial intelligence capabilities and economic development. At the same time, excessive reliance on foreign technology can raise questions about data security, technological sovereignty and strategic autonomy. Author Abdullah Abdulrauf Download Share Read More The New Non-State Actors: How Technology Companies are Becoming Foreign Policy Actors by Abdullah Abdulrauf Law in Force, Justice in Doubt: Does Impunity Encourage Sexual Violence? by Eshal Nasrullah Historical Perspective of Pakistan-US Relations and the USA’s Afghanistan and South Asia Strategy by Dr. G. M. Chaudhry US Drone Attacks and National Security of Pakistan-Implications for Pakistan-US Relations by Dr. G. M. Chaudhry US Drone Attacks in Pakistan–National Security Concerns and International Law by Dr. G. M. Chaudhry Pakistan’s National Security and Trump’s Strategy in Afghanistan and South Asia–Redrawing South Asian Regional Strategic Security Paradigm by Dr. G. M. Chaudhry