Chapter 64 Section 1 Narrow Internationalism

Once the news media paints a certain image of a politician in the public eye, it is almost impossible for him to shake off that image.At every important period of his career, this image will appear between himself and the public) People seem to see and hear not himself, but a made-up character. My public image is generally not bad.I'm "The Iron Lady," "Puggy Maggie," and "Attila the Hen," among others.Due to these titles, opponents are generally given the impression that I am a difficult woman, and I enjoy being portrayed as such, and while no one can really be so hard-hearted, I suffer in one respect: whenever people I am usually portrayed as a narrow, nostalgic nationalist when it comes to European questions, and it seems to me that I cannot bear to see the feudal ornaments of the old British regime like Miss Havisham's when the modern light of European reason shines on them. The wedding cake fell into the dust like that.I was "isolated", "looking backward", "rooted in the past", "clinging to the remains of an empire", and "obsessed with outdated notions of sovereignty".Indeed, take all my treatment of Europe as such.

In fact, there are three basic reasons for my skepticism about European federalism, not the least of which is that the European Union is an obstacle to productive internationalism. (The other two reasons are that Britain has shown that established, "satisfactory" nationalism is the best cornerstone of international cooperation, and that, as I have argued elsewhere in this cannot function in supranationals, where disparate languages ​​make democratic debate and democratic accountability mere slogans.) In fact, European federalists were "narrow internationalists," "narrow-minded Europeans", who have consistently placed the interests of the community above the common interests of the wider international community.The European Union came close to destroying the GATT, which had already caused a series of trade disputes on both sides of the Atlantic; it maintained ridiculously high trade barriers to the new export industries in Central and Eastern Europe, thus prolonging the instability in the region; It threatens to split NATO with its half-baked, cryptic military plans to create a "European Pillar" or "European Defense Integration".Most of these disruptive initiatives cannot be justified in themselves.They're just trying to get closer to the day when "Europe" will be a full-fledged country with its own flag, anthem, army, parliament, government, currency and, it's supposed, a unified people at the end .

I'm not alone in warning that doing so would prompt the US and Japan to build similar protectionist empires to protect themselves.By then, the world may be heading towards what Orwell described as the three future increasingly hostile world commercial empires of Oceania, Eurasia, and East Asia.In the process, international organizations that have served us well after the war, such as NATO and GATT, will be weakened, sidelined, and ultimately rendered meaningless.That prospect persists and should concern us. However, if we look further to the end of the 21st century, the outlook is likely to be even more worrisome (because of greater instability).Considering that some of the world's medium and large countries, such as India, China, Brazil, and possibly Russia, are now standing steadily on the brink of a free market revolution, plus today's economic powerhouses: the United States, Japan, and the European Union (or modifying this scenario slightly to become the Franco-German "fast track" bloc), we could see by 2095 an unstable world in which more than half a dozen "great powers" all Having patrons of their own, they are vulnerable if isolated from each other; they can increase their power and influence if they form alliances against each other; and they employ long-term diplomatic strategies whether they like it or not To ensure that their mutual position can be improved rather than worsened.In other words, 2095 may look like 1914, only on a somewhat larger stage.

Whether your favorite succubi is Orwell's three-way sharing of the spoils, or a reenactment of the 1914 fantasy, the key to avoiding these events is the same. Long-term interests generally obey the allies it leads, and the above two situations may not necessarily happen.The realities of population, resources, technology, and money are such that if the United States remains a dominant partner in a combined West, then the West can continue to be a dominant force throughout the world.Since only one superpower can truly provide collective security as a last resort, the rest of the world's powers (excluding "rogue states" and terrorist groups) generally support, or at least acquiesce in, such an international structure.

I think the UK's role in such a structure would be particularly influential.But that's not my main reason for supporting this structure.My rationale is that such a world would best serve the needs of international peace and collective prosperity.It would also be a free world politically, economically and culturally, much freer than a world dominated by Asian or Eurasian blocs, although, these blocs have achieved extraordinary feats historically and in recent years . But let me stress again that this will not happen unless the United States is persuaded to remain a dominant power in Europe, both militarily and economically.This means that we must ensure that US troops remain in Europe for the foreseeable future, especially if budgetary pressures in the next few years tempt the US to withdraw.In this case, the EU wants to quietly establish itself as an independent "third power", which would alienate the US and cause it to bring large numbers of troops home.The stakes are big.Splitting the West, moving towards long-term instability in the world, so that Europe can somewhat improve its status, and become an independent superpower by itself among the seven or eight superpowers, seems to me the most harmful and irresponsible A nationalist form of responsibility.