In studying imperialism or globalization from an American perspective, the turn of the twentieth century provides a useful starting point. Until that time, the nation was able to isolate itself from major overseas wars through geographic separation. Washington and Jefferson’s warning against entangling alliances and the Monroe Doctrine’s assertion of hemispheric self‐determination provided strong rhetorical justification for a policy of non‐ interference.1 This perspective changed after the Spanish‐American War of the late 1890s, when the United States acquired the Philippines and other territories as permanent possessions in postwar negotiations. For the first time, the United States had the eminent capability to begin overseas expansion and rival European imperial powers. Albert Beveridge's "March of the Flag" not only delivered a rhetorically powerful argument for such an expansion project into the Philippines and beyond, but also placed this argument into the larger context of Manifest Destiny—the historic mission of Americans to spread liberty, civilization, and "God’s kingdom on Earth." The call for such a policy of imperial conquest had great appeal in its era and carries insight for American foreign policy from that time forward.2 The speech is rhetorically significant as well. The march allegory has often been the critical focus of American public address students and scholars. The vivid image brings alive the themes of nationalist imperialism, making Beveridge's speech more memorable and meaningful. The forward progress of the flag gave the speech its organizing principle and its moral certitude. Rarely has one figural theme held such centrality for American political oratory as in the "March of the Flag" speech. This analysis brings to the foreground the values and keywords of the era to better understand how the powerful march allegory functioned in the speech. Beveridge redefined several key terms of the speech both through connotative and denotative strategies. Specifically, "liberty" and "civilization" are linked to a continuous forward march. Meanwhile, Beveridge employed altered meanings of the terms that are specific to expansionist rhetoric while appearing consistent to a larger narrative. The power of Beveridge's speech flowed not only from the figurative language that scholars often identify
I think the question refers to the Yugoslav war, which was based on ethnic and religious conflict: so I think a possible good answer would be "nationalism" or perhaps "separatism" as all the nations wanted to split away from Yugoslavia.
