By Sumantra Maitra
Tuesday, September 17, 2019
“The world order of tomorrow is not a world order based
on nation-states or countries, it’s a world order that is based on
empires,”said former Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt, the current leader
of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe in the European
Parliament, in a barn-storming speech in the Liberal-Democrat conference in
London.
“China is not a nation, it’s a civilization. … The U.S.
is also an empire, more than a nation — maybe tomorrow they will speak more
Spanish than English, I don’t know what will happen. And then finally, the
Russian Federation,” he continued. “The world of tomorrow is a world of
empires, in which we Europeans and you British can only defend your interests,
your way of life, by doing it together in a European framework and a European
Union.”
Interestingly, he is right in his own way, and I at least
respect his sense of history and unabashed imperialism, although I am confused
why, according to him, the British should join a European empire and not an
American empire, since Brits are culturally and historically more compatible
with the Anglosphere than with continental Europe. But at least he is not a fraud
and is refreshingly honest about the ultimate endgame of global governance and
“perpetual peace,” to borrow from Immanuel Kant.
Liberal Honesty and a
Realignment of Politics
I respect a liberal who’s open and honest about his
intentions, more than a stealthy internationalist. In that sense, Verhofstadt
is better than the cultural commentators, journalists, and academics who think
the common people are too stupid to see and understand what’s happening right
in front of their eyes. His daily rants are doing a public service, pointing
out the ultimate aim of internationalism. The honest and open ones are always
better than the hidden ones pretending to be something else.
The current realignment in British politics, and to some
extent in American politics, reflects that change. In the same conference where
Verhofstadt spoke, another former Conservative member of Parliament joined the
Liberal Democrats. Britain has forever been a Tory-Whig country, the Tories
being the conservatives and the liberals being the Whigs. That balance was lost
in the recent years of the Blair-Cameron tandem, where both major parties were
led by either center-left or center-right broad churches, with all the tenets
of liberalism — from lax law and order, to transgender overdrive, to broader
trends such as global institutionalism and borderless technocratic governance —
as the norms.
One of the results of Brexit is that the closet liberals
of both the Conservative and Labour Party are now joining the historic Whigs,
the Liberal Democrats, with Conservatives turning back to historic conservatism
and Labour reduced to a Marxist rump. This trend is equally observable in the
United States and broader Anglosphere (Australia, India, etc.) as well. With
the neoconservatives and libertarians moving back to the
liberal-internationalist side, the Republican Party is slowly morphing to a
historic social conservative force, with social conservatism rising from the
ashes to form a reaction.
The Religion of
Liberalism and Libertarianism
As one of the finest living British philosophers, John
Gray, once wrote, modern liberalism is like Marxism, a faith, almost verging
toward a religion. It has sinners and saints, its own holy month where the
flags and symbolism are displayed from every building, and a providential end
of history. More importantly, the metric in the current political landscape
isn’t between left and right anymore, but between the practitioners of a global
internationalist faith and the ones who refuse to accept it. View it from that lens,
and it all makes sense.
Modern liberalism and libertarianism, like Marxism, are
progressive faiths and beliefs in an ultimate end of history, a stateless
society, global peace, and rule by the enlightened few. The only things that
stop the fulfillment of that predicament are the old-fashioned conservative
units of society: the faith, the flag, and the family. Sooner or later, every
progressive faith will come into conflict with those three units.
Internationalists in this planet are opposed to the idea
of nation-states and borders — which, to them, are a detriment to progress
under a small technocratic elite. Liberals, for all their talks of diversity,
would rather see a homogeneous world, where there’s no coexistence with any
other forms of governance, ideology, religion, or culture. This is why Barack
Obama signed up for climate treaties under the auspices of the United Nations,
why Google refuses to work with the Pentagon, and why the only visible flags in
BBC Proms during Jerusalem and Rule Britannia are rainbow flags and EU flags,
not the British Union Jack.
Dealing with the EU
Empire
To return therefore to the problem at hand, the European
Union is shaping into an empire, and sooner or later the United States, as a
maritime great power, will come into conflict with it. That is a structural
issue, and it is inevitable. Any power consolidating the European landmass
would have so much material, financial, and demographic power, it would be a
threat to other land and maritime powers around, including the United States,
United Kingdom, or even Russia.
As I have repeatedly said, the EU as one single empire
under one flag, one liberal faith, and one fiscal and military union will never
coexist with an American-led world. Sooner or later, due to their difference of
interests, Washington and Brussels will be on opposing ends.
The EU won’t need to match toe to toe with U.S. military
might. It can simply have a separate currency to the dollar’s domination and
take away the U.S.’s financial coercive power of sanctions, or even worse,
throw its weight behind China or even Russia against U.S. companies.
The U.S. policymakers who still think geopolitically will
have to think of “divide and rule” for EU sooner or later. And the U.K. will
have to decide whether to side with the EU empire or American empire.
All of that is true and inevitable, and someone should
remember this column when that comes to pass. But more importantly, any Brit
and American who values sovereignty needs to realize that, more than the EU,
the issue at hand is internationalists within, working tirelessly to capture
the institutions to promote their stateless and genderless egalitarian utopia.
No comments:
Post a Comment