Will Poppies Bloom in Antarctica?
If the lesson of “In Flanders Fields” is of remembering sacrifice, it is also a call to consider the costs of division and ambition.
By Kevin Haynes
Across Canada yesterday, John McCrae’s “In Flanders Fields” once again found its place, carrying the familiar weight of Remembrance Day. Written in 1915, amid the Second Battle of Ypres, the poem emerged from a field hospital in Belgium where McCrae, a Canadian doctor, was treating the wounded and grieving the recent loss of a close friend. Its lines capture the haunting image of poppies growing among soldiers’ graves—a simple, vivid symbol that has endured for over a century, reminding Canadians each year of the sacrifices made in what was hoped to be the “war to end all wars.” This reflection brings us back to a period when the world order was as precarious as it feels today. The pre-World War I era was marked by a disorderly mix of nationalism, competitive alliances, and unchecked ambitions, creating an environment ripe for conflict. Now, over a century later, we see glimpses of that fragmented world as international stability is challenged by the revival of nationalism, a surge in regional tensions, and a fragile international order under strain from multiple crises. Adding to this, Donald Trump’s re-election in the United States, with his renewed “America First” rhetoric, signals a return to a more unilateral, nationalistic agenda that strains cooperative efforts across the West, which once held the post-war vision of collective security and peace.
Today, the dangers of unchecked nationalism and fragmented alliances that haunted the early 20th century are no less relevant. In the lead-up to World War I, European powers were entwined in a web of alliances that promised to protect national interests but ultimately magnified the risk of conflict. Each nation-state acted within a framework of mutual defense agreements, viewing any compromise as a threat to sovereignty. Similar to the “Triple Entente" of World War 1, alliances such as the Franco-Russian Agreement and the Entente Cordiale sought to counterbalance the Triple Alliance but inadvertently set the stage for escalation. These alliances, designed to deter aggression, created an unstable equilibrium where commitments to mutual defence turned a regional crisis - the assassination of Franz Ferdinand - into a cascading set of conflicts which became World War 1. The web of alliances that bound European powers is a prime example of a security dilemma, a concept which is becoming more and more prescient today; safeguarding sovereignty can ultimately undermine global peace.
This instability in conjunction with security dilemmas is not new phenomena in politics, but climate change as a primary driver of tension and its presence as a collective action problem is. Climate change exerts unique, novel and unequitable pressure on every country on the planet. This pressure presents challenges for collective action as the effects of rising temperatures, resource scarcity, and extreme weather ignore borders, leaving nations to work together or risk collective peril. Nationalism, however, leads countries to become isolationist, prioritizing immediate interests over long-term stability—a dynamic as ominous as it was in the years preceding World War I. Putin may claim to be protecting Russian interests under the guise of sovereignty, but fundamentally his vision is underpinned by a nationalist rhetoric that rejects cooperation in favour of domination. As a result, the moral argument against Putin’s invasion goes beyond the gross violations of Ukrainian sovereignty. It speaks to the broader consequences of destabilizing a global system that cannot afford to be shaken. To put it simply, if we are all on a canoe, one person’s grievances do not justify flipping it. As international cooperation erodes, so does our collective ability to address shared crises. In an interconnected world, introducing chaos for national gain undermines the fragile unity needed to confront any issue, let alone the challenges climate change is presenting.
The leaders of the past in the World War 1 context and beyond it often underestimated the consequences of their agendas. The collision of nationalism with climate change presents a dark scenario for the future of global relations. The prioritization of nationalism today, particularly in the West, over the common good risks mirroring miscalculations of security dilemmas which led to the rise of conflicts like the first world war. Each nation may pursue goals out of self-interest, but that becomes a part of a larger process where seemingly small decisions can unintentionally and unpredictably escalate into global wars. Climate change forces our hand and will challenge us to either cooperate to meet the climate change challenge or, rather dauntingly, grossly reduce the amount of carbon emitters through modern industrial war. The consideration of the latter leads to the conclusion that this planet needs a coordinated, collaborative response to the threat of climate related mass atrocities. Sadly, as the election of Donald Trump demonstrates, countries are turning inward, and they are forgoing cooperative spirit in favour of a dogmatic neo-isolationism that serves the interests of a few.
If the lesson of “In Flanders Fields” is of remembering sacrifice, it is also a call to consider the costs of division and ambition. The poppies among the graves remind us that the costs of war and rivalry are borne by the individuals who sacrificed everything for collective peace. Should nationalism continue to rise unchecked, we may well be on the brink of watching the world slip from a fragile peace into something far darker. Remembrance Day isn’t just a day to honor the sacrifices of the past; it’s a reminder that the costs of division and blind ambition are real – and looming. Today’s world leaders face a choice that could shape future generations: to abandon the short-sighted pursuit of power for power’s sake or to commit to the kind of cooperation that transcends borders. The stakes couldn’t be higher. Climate change won’t wait for us to sort out our squabbles, and nationalist agendas—Putin’s, Trump’s, and others on the rise—are pushing us to the edge of a global crisis. If we continue down this path, we will watch as the delicate threads holding this world together unravel. At this crossroads, the warning is clear: either we step back from the brink, or we repeat the history we swore to remember.
Kevin Haynes has a strong theoretical foundation with degrees in political science and philosophy. He is a versatile professional with experience in leadership, technology, and campaign management. His time in post-war Croatia, along with his roles in political campaigns and IT support, has enhanced his adaptability and problem-solving abilities. Kevin is proficient in managing both hardware (physical technologies) and software systems (virtual technologies), skills that support his ability to lead teams and implement solutions effectively. He is also skilled in conflict resolution and decision-making under pressure, with strong communication and organizational capabilities, focusing on security technologies and stakeholder management.