By David French
Saturday, June 25, 2016
I’m old enough to remember when history had a side.
History, you see, had chosen to progress toward an international order that
de-emphasized international sovereignty, elevated a bureaucratic and
technocratic elite, and sought to solve international conflict through a
combination of moral and economic pressure. Nations caused wars, so nationalism
(and even patriotism) had to be set aside. Democracy unleashed bigotry, so “the
people” mattered mainly when they agreed with the elite.
It was a system that worked remarkably well for the
international upper class. Men and women dedicated to commerce enjoyed
unprecedented access to international markets. Activists dedicated to social
justice could engineer their societies without ever truly facing the
accountability of the ballot box. The logic of the system was self-proving. It
would triumph through the sheer force of its virtue.
Unable to grasp the extent to which the new international
order had endured and prospered not so much through its self-evident goodness
but through the protection of American arms, it proved completely incapable of
meeting the challenge when America chose to retreat. Vladimir Putin wanted no
part of a system that sidelined Russia and viewed it as just one more economic
and bureaucratic entity in a global superstate and decided to exert raw power
to shape the world. He put boots on the ground in Crimea, and he dared the
world to move him. He exerted his will in Syria, and he dared the world to stop
him.
In response, John Kerry actually said, “You just don’t,
in the 21st century, behave in 19th-century fashion by invading another country
on completely trumped up pretext.” It’s a comment that would be hilarious if it
weren’t so impotent. Putin did as he liked, and “history” had nothing to say
about it.
At the same time, ISIS emerged — reminding a world that
had already largely forgotten 9/11 what jihad looked like. To men who believed
in divine favor for holy war, the new international order meant opportunity.
European countries compete for the title of “moral superpower,” while ISIS
merely calls them “targets.” It confronted a civilized world that had vowed
“never again” with a new genocide, and that civilized world — possessing
immense military power — largely chose ”compassion” over confrontation, opening
its borders to floods of refugees whose ranks contain those who despise European
culture, subvert European values, and rape and kill European citizens.
Is it any wonder that citizens of one of the greatest and
strongest nations in human history would recoil from an international order
that was proving mainly that it could enrich an elite without seeming to lift a
finger to preserve the nation’s core values and traditions — the very things
that had made it great and strong? Is it any wonder that citizens of other
great countries are —wondering what loyalty they owe to that same elite?
And so we launch yet another phase in human history,
where what’s old — nations pursuing their own interests — is new again. On one
end of the European continent sits Russia, a nation that is flexing its muscles
and seeking to reclaim its traditional power. On the other end is Britain, a
nation that has reclaimed its independence and now faces an uncertain future
defining its new relationship with the world.
Across the ocean, America faces its own crisis. Our
technocratic elite has constructed its own self-serving system — one that
mirrors the very system that Britain rejected yesterday. Our politics are more
uncertain and chaotic than at any time in decades. We can’t predict what will
happen. But one thing I do know — history never truly had a “side.” Instead, it
is the story of action and reaction, and no outcome is inevitable.
Britain has acted. The world is set to change, and
history can’t tell us what’s next.
No comments:
Post a Comment