Globalism and nationalism: The oppositions have it all wrong
BECAUSE the press and pundits have created them to push their own political agendas, the terms “globalism” and especially “nationalism” have taken on negative connotations. as a result, the governing philosophies behind those two ideas are not being properly examined. neither is the impact on elections being considered.
Some definitions of globalism: “The expansion of a global political system, and its institutions, in which inter-regional transactions are managed.” “An increasing trend toward multilateralism...in which the United Nations plays a key role, and nongovernmental organizations act as watchdogs over governments and have increased influence.”
“The UN has 4 main purposes: To keep peace; To develop friendly relations; To help nations work together; To be a center for harmonizing the actions of nations to achieve these goals.”
The key words here are “managed,” “influence” and “harmonize.”
Globalism is not some spiritual
concept where nations hold hands and have group hugs. It is the formation of a kind of global civil society—in the words of English political scientist Colin Crouch—where governments and non-governmental advocacy networks operating across borders “encourage” and often “demand” what another sovereign nation can and cannot do.
Therefore, under globalism, each country has a primary obligation to the greater good of all nations as determined by that larger group of nations. It is justified by ideas like your homeowner’s association has a rule against you raising “dirty, stinking goats” in your front garden.
The collective has a duty to protect itself from the individual by limiting the rights and actions of the individual, even when it comes to countries.
Nationalism is the idea that promotes the interests of a particular individual nation, especially with the aim of gaining and maintaining that nation’s sovereignty (self-governance) over its homeland. If my goats are not dirty and stinking and do not interfere with my neighbors, I have a right to keep them.
But since World War Two, in the furtherance of globalism, multinational pacts have been established like the Us-led North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the Soviet-led Warsaw Pact. Yet those pacts allow for a political cover. The US formed the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization or Manila Pact, and then no one could claim the US invaded Vietnam. It was a group decision for the benefit of everyone including Vietnam, which obviously was making bad decisions. War against Saddam’s Iraq, Gaddafi’s Libya, and Assad’s Syria were all fought by “coalitions.”
But it happens only when a war serves the “greater good.” It is great public relations in support of globalism to condemn the military in Myanmar. But no way is any Western blood and treasure going to be spent, no matter if thousands of protestors are killed.
In 1966, French President Charles de Gaulle downgraded France’s membership in Nato, withdrawing France from Nato’s integrated military command. The shock wave of rejecting Nato’s “globalism” was heard around the world.
The political opposition in almost every country believes that the candidates’ character, personality, and specific policies determine elections, and to a certain extent that is accurate. But perhaps it is more profound and instinctive than that. In 2009 President Nicolas Sarkozy changed course and returned France to full Nato participation. Currently, those advocating France withdraw from Nato include the entire political spectrum from the far-right National Rally, Gaullist Debout la France, and the Popular Republican Union parties and the far-left La France Insoumise and the French Communist Party.
People may be voting on the question, “Who should control the course of my country, the Globalists or the Nationalists?”