The March 2019 murders in Christchurch by an Islamophobic fascist have given rise in what passes for our news media to an extensive use of the term "white nationalist". The implication in this is that there is such a thing as a "white" nation. Given even a very loose definition of "nation", there is no such thing. A Norwegian and a Greek, both "white", which is usually a synonym for being of European origin, would be unlikely to perceive themselves as having the same nationality. It would be the same with a Portuguese and a Russian.

A better term for people like the Christchurch mass murderer is "racist". Of course, all racists are not necessarily fascists, although fascists are usually racist. But even the notion of a white race let alone a white nation is questionable. Napoleon is supposed to have said in an unpleasantly racist barb: "Scratch a Russian and you will find a Tartar". Stalin's (himself a Georgian trained as a priest) treatment of the Crimea Tartars suggests he disagreed.

There is a small ultra-Left faction within New Zealand that would characterise the approach of Foreign Control Watchdog as Rightwing or reactionary because of its perceived nationalism. This is because such opinions reflect just one end of the continuum of ideas which can encompass the word "nationalism" (Lenin would likely have characterised that view as "an infantile disorder").

To avoid such misunderstanding, and in addition to this magazine's well-known opposition to the intervention of transnational capital in New Zealand's real estate, industry and commerce, the objectives in CAFCA's registered incorporated society rules include:

"To actively oppose the replacement of foreign companies with privately owned local ones".

and

"To actively oppose New Zealand/Aotearoa companies exploiting other countries".

Patriotism, Chauvinism & National Independence

At one end of the continuum of what is called nationalism, it can at its best can be defined as a near synonym for patriotism, if that is limited to simple affection for, or pride in, one's country (its culture, flora and fauna, or even, at a stretch, the intellectual or sports achievements of its citizens). This attitude is usually harmless, and based on the familiarity of residence, though we should bear in mind George Bernard Shaw's wry aphorism that: "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it".

Nevertheless, affection for one's own culture and environment does not necessarily imply a dismissive contempt for those of other people and places. Where it does so, a second definition of nationalism becomes, in its extreme form, a chauvinism, ("Deutschland Über Alles", "Make America Great Again", Brexit, New Zealand First, etc.) These dangerously evil absurdities, which often float effortlessly into undisguised racism, are well illustrated by the novelist Simon Toyne, thus: "'Country' exists in the minds of men, the land itself is indifferent".

Or, thirdly, nationalism can be simply the seeking of national independence. It can be argued that a genuine national independence is an essential prerequisite for a human-based internationalism devoid of capitalist globalisation. The best contemporary example of this is that of Cuba, that most patriotic of countries with their revolutionary slogan "Patria o Muerte", (Fatherland or Death). Having fought for and maintained its independence in the face of invasion, economic blockade and assassination attempts by the US, Cuba has the most exemplary record of internationalist efforts, in the fields of health and education in particular.

The first of the above definitions can be defined as ethically neutral, the second as negative, and the third as positive. All of them raise the question of what defines a "nation". Frequently, and mistakenly, it is identified as being identical with the State. Acceptance of any definition may depend on the perspective of an adherent to a "nation" as opposed to that of an outside observer.

Usually, criteria of common language, history and culture are germane. And to define "nation" within the context of a multinational State (Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union, Canada, the United Kingdom - with officially acknowledged nationalities) omits recognition of the many other instances where, as Otto Bauer put it, "a nation exists if its component parts believe it to be a nation". Much of Maoridom in New Zealand, for example, would claim a national identity.

On other occasions a nation is, in the minds of adherents, an attachment to a particular religious superstition (Israel, Serbia/Croatia, Yemen, the north of Ireland), and often blended with outright racism (contemporary regimes in Poland and Hungary are examples). As a rule, such religious bigotry cloaks more fundamental social and economic interests.

Internationalism

In my view, the first and third definitions above, being ethically neutral or justified, are compatible with internationalism, which, by definition, encompasses us all. An oppressed nation(ality) can seek international solidarity in promoting its independence but cannot participate as an equal with independent nations - which will usually include its oppressor. The most prominent current examples of those engaged in independence struggles today include:

• the Kurds, who were excluded from having a nation state by Churchill and his French ally Picot when they broke up the Ottoman Empire to their own imperialist advantages,
• the Palestinians, who are progressively excluded from their homeland by the Zionist colonial/settler state's ethnic cleansing, ironically for what Hitler called lebensraum (living space),
• the Sahrawis, people of Western Sahara, once a Spanish colony now progressively occupied by the Moroccan monarchy,
• the West Papuans, once part of the Dutch East Indies colony, invaded and occupied by Indonesia (much like Timor-Leste and with similar brutality). There is an active support movement in New Zealand for West Papua's independence struggle, led in Christchurch by one-time CAFCA Committee member Brian Turner.

The inherited colonial borders imposed by the old (and some newer) imperial powers, especially in Africa and the Middle East, and the breakup of some multinational states (Stalinist Soviet Union and its peripheral client states and Titoist Yugoslavia, for example) have led to numerous border disputes between nations that were until recently within those States. There are also numerous historical national grievances yet to be resolved of those still captured within such multinational states (Catalunya [Catalonia], Euskadi Herria [the Basque lands], Scotland).

In some territories nationalist sentiments are in a minority or near minority for various reasons including misinformation, bribery, confusion, fear, lack of confidence, immigration by the occupying power, etc. (Scotland, Kanaky, Wales, the north of Ireland, West Papua, American Samoa, Puerto Rico). And in some cases, people identifying themselves as a nation are in a considerable minority and have been so for many generations.

Western Hypocrisy

Their relationship to the majority nationality varies, depending on how they are treated by the majority culture (New Zealand, China, the US, Canada, Australia, most of Latin America). Of course, imperial countries are crassly hypocritical in their recognition of, and sometimes military interference in, countries striving for independence. For example:

Kosovo, historically a Serbian homeland, but a more recent majority of Albanian immigrants demanded independence militarily. This war was endorsed and assisted by the US and its adherents and the newly independent Kosovo recognised by them. In an opposite model, the people of Crimea are in their majority of Russian nationality. In 1954 Soviet Premier Khrushchev re-assigned Crimea to Ukrainian administration within the arcane internal politics of the Soviet Union. The return to Russian sovereignty is, of course, not recognised by the US & co.

As opposed to the alacrity with which the US and its auxiliaries recognised the new separated nations of Yugoslavia (Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia/Herzegovina, Macedonia), leaving the Serbian rump of the old Yugoslavian federation, it rejected the same right of a number of new separated nations arising out of the breakup of the Soviet Union, thus:

Abkhazia (Abkhaz is the majority local language) separated from Georgia;

Nagorno-Karabahk (Artsakh is the local language and the population is of Christian orientation), separated from largely Muslim Azerbaijan to which administration it had been attached by Stalin;

South Ossetia (Ossetic, an Eastern Iranian tongue is the majority local language) separated itself from Georgia to which it had been incorporated by Stalin;

Transnistria (Russian is the majority local language) separated itself from Moldova (where they speak a Romanian dialect). The "West" recognises none of these countries. Hypocrisy 101.