I once referred to the term Nationalism as euphemism for racism. That's to say if you want to be polite and diplomatic, you could use the term Nationalism instead of Racism.
The term concerns with relations between nations and was recently used to refer to advanced rich nations that because of their advantage in capital, wealth and population therefore status, they secured most of the vaccines. And in so doing, the not so rich nations are disadvantaged because not only the preferable vaccines were taken, but also only a few are left for the rest of the world.
[Having said that, I am not suggesting in a disclaimer that some vaccines are better than others, nor am i saying that there is a limited supply of vaccines. I also exempt China from those advantageous nations because China had shipped vaccine supplies to other countries].
Anyway, Nationalism is a bit like narcissistic for the individual. Well, it's like a self-centred person who has a huge sense of self-importance. But this for a nation is especially important for the personal interest of the leader. That's when it's lurid, we could see the opportunistic sense. It's loud!
So, in the scramble for vaccines, rich nations deploy their status to their advantage without much considerations of other nations. And guess what, they use Australia's PM Scott Morrison's favourite cliché; 'it's in the best interest of their country'. Oh yea, what about diplomatic and human rights relations for the best interest of human survival?
Considering our close ties with Australia like mates; tropical fruits and horses, we could say that Australia has a nationalistic attitude towards New Zealand. This is because it is bigger by capital, wealth and population therefore has a bigger market and New Zealand is more or less a subordinate partner. You get the impression that New Zealand has no choice but to submit with whatever Australia handed down under.
However, that didn't stop PM Scott Morrison's exporting its domestic problems like those persons who were brought up in Aussie culture who identify themselves with an Aussie ID.
Well we know the story that their Australian upbringing for one reason or another had led them to undesirable way of life. And in response, Australia tapped into these 'undesirables' birth certificates to revoke their passports and being Australian nationals.
I'm saying for those who were young and brought up in Australia, cancelling ones passport doesn't cancel his/her ID. To cancel one's ID is like cutting that part of his/her person off in a surgery operation. But this time it's a mental surgery.
The undesirable still thinks and behaves like an Australian and in this case an Australian outcast. So PM Scott Morrison is exporting a social issue of the mental kind. Well, one of those big guys who was deported under the outcast label is glorifying his status. He claimed that Australia couldn't deal with him so what makes you think New Zealand can?
So in a way, because PM Scott Morrison's inability to deal with his nation's social and mental issues, he claims in the best interest of this nation, he has indirectly glorified bad behaviour. And so he had deported dead men walking that is; persons who naturally think Australians are deported to a foreign land in New Zealand.
On the same line, New Zealand has in the best interest of its nation a diplomatic relationship with Australia just like it has a relationship with China. This time, it's about Kiwifruit, Fish, Timber and etc., so a decision that might affect the interest of one party would be better handled in a diplomatic bi-lateral and multi-lateral talk.
I think a better leader would seek the say of other affected parties before executing such international orders.
I'm sure under an objective approach, all nations have social obligations to human life. And life precedes nationality. At the same time, the organisation of the means of survival has brought humanity closer. Therefore the relationship between nations is a representation of a relationships between nationals and individuals irrespective of their nationality.
I know, some leaders have worked hard to organise this multilateral approach in the best interest of humanity but others continue to dictate ideological influence to impose tribal and patriotic sentiment in a populous control of the mass.
When such leaders as Trump casts ultimatums across the globe whether they like or not, they are imposed ideological influence for personal interests ie; the incitement of patriotic followers in the interests of the vote. We use the phrase 'race card' to proliferate propaganda of patriotic followers, but to proliferate propaganda of a nation is similarly given the term 'national flag'. Thus we might say he raised the national flag in his own best personal interest.
In the centre for UN, nations have their flags raised to represent their people. But if their leaders are present to represent their own interests, then the meaning behind that flag is compromised. It is now symbolic of the leader's interests.>