Nationalism meets globalism head on

For over a decade there has been a concerted effort to indoctrinate
Americans into believing that national borders have become obsolete. In
fact, we have been told by numerous Progressives (read
Socialists) that the nation-state is nothing more than an archaic
reminder of the “bad old days” where nations acted in their own best
interests in matters of foreign political and economic policy.

But a new study of the current global order has laid waste to this
utopian vision of a world without borders. A recent analysis by
Stratfor has concluded that a number of
events over the past year or so have demonstrated unequivocally that not
only is the nation-state alive and well, it is alive and well precisely
because that is the natural order –not the “New World Order” — of
things.

“The news from around the world is about war, political intrigue, and
espionage,” writes Stratfor in their May 31 weekend summary. “The
obsession with free and fair trade, global interdependence, and
economies without borders has evaporated over the past year or so,”
because the world is “experiencing the reassertion of traditional
understandings of nationalism and of national security and the decline
of the ideology of globalism.” Naturally, Stratfor analysts seem to be
saying, a world more joined at the hip rather than less would not be
filled with governments that continue to fight amongst themselves, to
oppose each other politically and to spy on each other.

In reaching their conclusions, Stratfor analysts refuted two basic,
but erroneous, presumptions the New World Order crowd has used
throughout history to prove that nationalism is not dead. The first
presumption assumes that a world interconnected economically is not
prone to regional or global conflicts, and the second presumes that
economic interests always supersede national security interests.
As Stratfor confirmed, these premises are wholly anathema to the
historic behavior of nations and the human beings that run them.

“International merchandise trade and cross border investment were no
higher in the early 1990s than they were in 1913, measured against Gross
Domestic Product,” Stratfor concluded. “Now, 1913 is an important year,
since World War I broke out a year later. Since the 1913 level of
interdependence had not prevented World War I, there was no reason to
believe that lower levels in 1990 had abolished the politico-military
dimension.”

Secondly, in assuming that interdependence improves cooperation among
nations, Stratfor concluded that presumption works well as long as all
parties are benefiting equally in economic and foreign policy areas.
China has disproved this theory.

In using China as an example, analysts said that when Western loans
from massive investment in the early 1990s were coming due later in the
decade, “and China was facing the fact that Western interests owned
substantial portions of the most dynamic sections of the Chinese
economy,” the benefits to both regions were no longer equal. “As the
benefits shifted, each party sought to manipulate the other’s actions,
leading to friction. The friction didn’t arise in spite of
interdependence; it arose because of interdependence.”

Socialists and globalists find it easy to dismiss these reasoned and
historical perspectives while convincing Americans that in times of
economic prosperity nothing relating to national security or the
“old-fashioned” concerns of this nation-state is really important. To
“prove” their globalist theories, they like to point to the rise
of the multinational corporation, which calls everywhere “home” and owes
no allegiance to any specific piece of ground. But complicated things
like the recent Asian financial crisis tend to shatter these myths.

Consider that if the globalists’ theories on interdependence proved
correct, the United States — as well as most of Europe and parts of
Africa — would also have suffered financial meltdowns. Clearly that
chain reaction was limited mostly to Asia, leaving the U.S. and much of
Europe virtually unaffected and seeing an increase, rather than a
decrease, in economic prosperity.

Furthermore, when true issues of national security arise — like the
Chinese espionage scandal currently unfolding — Americans, as is
normal, begin to rally round the flag and start questioning the wisdom
of globalist endeavors like the war in Yugoslavia. If nothing mattered
but the almighty dollar, then these phenomena would not be occurring and
would validate the globalist assertion that indeed the old-fashioned
nation-state is dead and buried.

Perhaps that’s because in times like these, people tend to realize
that without national security — no matter how “rich” we are — we
stand to lose everything we have. It is “natural” for one nation to
seek out another in times of vulnerability and it is “natural” for human
beings running these nations to favor conquest over diplomacy. In fact,
periods of economic growth seem more prone to spark an increase in a
nation’s interest in enhancing its military prowess from what history
bears out.

It is also noteworthy to mention that regardless of how well a nation
is doing today economically, nothing lasts forever. When economic
policies fail, as they have in Russia, other methods of gaining (or
regaining) power and prestige tend to re-emerge. In Russia’s case,
“former” communists and ultranationalists have begun reasserting control
over that country’s foreign policy. That influence has led to Moscow’s
push to reassert control over vast regions of the former Soviet empire,
and it has also led to a number of “mutual cooperation” agreements with
China in a bid to directly counter U.S. hegemony — at least in that
part of the world.

Those decisions were not made because everyone involved is benefiting
equally in this so-called global economy. Even the term “global
economy” — while it applies to a great many U.S. corporations — has
never applied universally to the rest of the world.

As Stratfor correctly noted, when economic times get tough, nations
also tend to go their own ways in matters of domestic and foreign
security policies. For China it was increasing repression; for Japan,
it was failing to make the radical changes needed to restart their
economy; for Indonesia, it was nothing that worked.

Perhaps this helps explain why Bill Clinton has undertaken to bomb
Yugoslavia. Though the world remains well-entrenched in the “old order”
of nation-statehood, global socialists like those permeating the current
administration still behave as if their failed theories were genuine.
That’s why they believe we “must make Yugoslavia peaceful,” because they
believe any instability anywhere in the world will have consequences for
all nations.

It just ain’t so.

It is imperative to understand these theories if you’re ever to
understand why globalists and internationalists behave the way they do.
Their utopian vision of a world without conflict means not what it
implies. “Without conflict” to them means never opposing the policies
— economic, political, or otherwise — of these anointed few. But
that’s nothing more than a bastardized version of tyranny, which is why
it is so common to hear these people trash national sovereignty,
national identity, and, yes, even national unity if that unity is
focused on an ideal anathema to their ultimate goal of world domination.

Stratfor’s analysis provides confirmation that the world’s collection
of “outdated” nation-states will have none of this phony utopianism. It
also substantiates a lesson long proven by history: No matter how hard
the New World Order crowd tries to create a global system that they can
ultimately dominate, pesky nationalism just keeps getting in the way.

Ah, yes — let’s hear it for the “bad old days.”