Web Correspondent
Historian and futurist author Yuval Noah Harari has sparked debate online after sharing a post from his X handle arguing that nationalism and globalism are not opposing forces, but complementary ideas necessary for addressing the challenges of the 21st century.
In the post on the very night of US-Iran negotiations in Switzerland, questioning the legacy of Westphalian state and rise of ultra nationalism across the world, Harari contends that “good nationalists must also be globalists,” challenging the increasingly common perception that loyalty to one’s nation is incompatible with international cooperation.
Harari’s World Cup analogy works because all participating teams voluntarily accept a referee with the authority to enforce the rules. International politics operates differently. There is no universally accepted referee. Major powers often interpret international law according to their strategic interests, and enforcement mechanisms remain limited.
For the uninitiated, The Peace of Westphalia (1648) treaty was a series of peace treaties that ended the devastating Thirty Years’ War in the Holy Roman Empire and the Eighty Years’ War between Spain and the Dutch Republic. It gave birth to the modern sovereign nation state system.
Harari clarifies that globalism should not be understood as support for a world government, the abandonment of national traditions, or unrestricted immigration. Instead, he defines it as a commitment to a set of shared global rules that govern relations between countries while respecting the unique identity and sovereignty of each nation.
To illustrate his point, Harari draws a comparison with the FIFA World Cup, one of the world’s most prominent international sporting events.
“The World Cup is a competition between nations, where people often show fierce loyalty to their national team,” he writes. “But the World Cup is also an amazing display of global harmony.”
According to Harari, international football functions because participating nations agree to follow the same rules. Without a common framework, meaningful competition would be impossible.
“Brazil can’t play football against Morocco unless the Brazilians and the Moroccans agree on the same rules for the game,” he states. “And that’s global cooperation in action.”
Harari goes on to make a broader argument that if people appreciate the World Cup, they are already supporting a form of globalism, since the tournament depends on international agreements and universally accepted standards.
The historian then extends the analogy to some of the world’s most pressing challenges. He argues that nations should seek common rules not only for sports but also for addressing climate change, regulating emerging technologies, and reducing global inequality.
“Global problems require global solutions,” Harari concludes.
The post reflects themes that have frequently appeared in Harari’s work, particularly his emphasis on international cooperation in an era shaped by climate change, artificial intelligence, pandemics, and economic interdependence. His comments arrive on the day of direct talks between Israel and Iran in Swiss town of Burgenstock and amid ongoing global debates over national sovereignty, globalization, and the role of international institutions in addressing cross-border challenges.
While supporters view such cooperation as essential for solving complex global issues, critics of global governance often argue that excessive international regulation can undermine national decision-making. Harari’s post seeks to position global cooperation not as a threat to nationalism, but as a practical framework through which nations can preserve their identities while collectively confronting shared challenges.
The World Cup example demonstrates what global cooperation can achieve when participants agree on the rules. Current events in Ukraine, the Middle East, and elsewhere demonstrate how difficult such agreement becomes when power, territory, ideology, and national interests are at stake. Critics of Harari’s position would argue that globalism frequently underestimates the enduring power of nationalism. Governments are ultimately accountable to their own citizens, not to abstract global interests. During moments of crisis, national security concerns often take precedence over international cooperation.
The ongoing tensions between the United States and Iran illustrate how difficult it is to establish universally accepted rules even when the costs of conflict are enormous. Despite ongoing negotiations and ceasefire efforts, disputes over regional security, military actions, and the strategic Strait of Hormuz continue to generate instability that affects global energy markets and international diplomacy.
Similarly, the Russia-Ukraine war remains a stark reminder that international rules are only as strong as the willingness of powerful states to respect them. More than four years after Russia’s full-scale invasion, analysts continue to see a prolonged war of attrition as the most likely outcome, despite extensive international institutions and diplomatic mechanisms designed to prevent such conflicts.
These crises raise an uncomfortable question: if nations cannot consistently agree on fundamental principles regarding war, territorial sovereignty, and security, how realistic is it to expect broad consensus on climate policy, artificial intelligence regulation, or global inequality?
The message has resonated widely online, reigniting discussion about how countries can balance national interests with the growing need for international collaboration in an increasingly interconnected world.
Get real time update about this post category directly on your device, subscribe now.
