This was not just a shouting match between Two Presidents
The task of real statesmanship is to figure out how to bring about their nation’s moral renewal.
As the meeting between Presidents Trump and Zelensky exploded into a shouting match it became evident that so much of what could be taken-for-granted in global affairs had lost their relevance in the contemporary era. The high-stake performance in the Oval Office sent out a very clear message to both Trump’s domestic and international audience. The message was not confined to the American President’s views about the war between Ukraine and Russia. It also indicated that the pre-existing geopolitical conventions and agreements between the United States and with the rest of the world in general and Europe in particular were now subject to potential revision.
Despite the unforgettable scenes in the Oval Office, it is important to realise that its performance of an obituary to the old way of doing things was a long time coming. For well over a decade, it has been evident that the globalist world order, which was underwritten by the institutions and conventions established in the post World War Two era had reached its sell-by date. The much acclaimed, omnipotent forces of globalisation were fast unravelling before our eyes. Numerous statements by economic commentators and geopolitical experts lamented the ‘End of Globalisation’. As The Economist, commented, ‘Globalisation is dead and we need to invent a new world order’[i].
However, as much you try you cannot invent a new world order and what we are left with is one where the old ways of conducting global affairs have not been replaced by conventions and arrangements that reflect contemporary power realities. Numerous experts and commentators have drawn attention to the growing regionalisation of economic affairs, the phenomenon of re-shoring and the return of protectionism. In an interesting contribution in Foreign Affairs, Michael Kimmage writes of ‘American Power in the New Age of Nationalism’ in the current Trump dominated era[ii].
There is little doubt that the past decade has seen a return to the nation-state. It is also the case that the projection of national interest has assumed a far more explicit and unambiguous form than it has during the decades following the end of the cold war. It is worth noting that until the outbreak of the most recent war in the Ukraine the Western foreign policy establishment struggled to find a language through which it could give meaning to the interest of their nation. Delusions about the ‘end of history’ were often coupled with the prejudice that the nation and national interests have become irrelevant. Particularly in Western Europe, the rejection of the salience of national interest led to an almost romantic idea of international relations.
But suddenly it appears that the world has entered a New Age of Nationalism! But has it really? It is one thing for Western political leaders to talk tough and embrace the language of realpolitik and affirm the necessity of promoting their nation’s interest. It is quite another to put these notions into practice. Why? Because of what I have characterised in several statements as the moral disarmament of the West[iii].
One the most devastating expression of the moral disarmament of the West was the willingness of its elites to detach themselves from their own nation. Until very recently they derided the idea of national sovereignty and frequently referred to it as a myth. Amongst the western cultural elites and sections of the political establishment, the pursuit of national interest was frequently depicted as an echo of the past. In the post-Cold War era, the devaluation of sovereignty acquired a hegemonic influence amongst mainstream international relations academics and commentators and experts working in the NGO sector. In these decades, anti-national prejudice often masqueraded as objective academic analysis. The principle of sovereignty was derided on the ground that its exercise was bound to be ineffective in the era of globalisation.
Most important of all, the lack of valuation for the affirmation of national interest is closely linked with the diminishing status enjoyed by historically patriotic values, such as duty and responsibility. On both sides of the Atlantic, the warrior ethos and the value of courage has declined in significance. Surveys indicate that large sections of young people in European society have indicated that they are not prepared to fight to defend their nation.
The legacy of decades of disorientation and confusion brought on by the moral disarmament of the West continues to haunt society. That means the leaders of the West can at best perform realpolitik but lack the experience and the moral resources required to identify how to pursue their nation’s interest. That is why we live in a very dangerous world. The problem is not the return of the nation state and of the salience of nationalism. The problem is that the consciousness of nation and of genuine patriotism exists only is a feeble form. In such circumstances the governing classes of the West lack the clarity necessary to navigate in what are uncharted waters. To make matters more complicated they cannot rely on the support of their people to follow them into a world that is likely to be dominated by national rivalries.
Afflicted by decades of ignoring the cultivation of the values that were central to the ascendancy of western civilization, Europe and America are morally exhausted. The task of real statesmanship is to figure out how to bring about their nation’s moral renewal. Until this question is tackled, our world will be anything but peaceful
We may be witnessing the return of a New Age of Nationalism but apparently in a caricatured form. Marx’s well-known phrase ‘the first time tragedy, the second time farce’ comes to mind.
[ii] https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/world-trump-wants-michael-kimmage
[iii] Furedi, F., 2022. The Road to Ukraine: How the West Lost Its Way (Vol. 2). Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG.
I sure hope. I am noticing a real complacency here as we travel around Europe. It is breathtakingly, astoundingly easy to go from one country to another and no one knows where you are.
I like the way Trump and Vance are shaking the assumptions. Zelensky is so obnoxious with his army fatigues and endless lectures.
A thoughtful and measured piece which poses three key areas where the leaders of Europe face striking contradictions between their domestic and foreign policy namely: borders, industry and national identity.
We have an elite that has championed a borderless post national world, initially celebrating the mass trespass into an area whose integrity they were obliged to defend, yet these same elites are now rhetorically calling for the defence of a nation state and the maintenance of its borders.
They have promised to aid the defence of this same nation state, yet an effective fighting force would require an adequate industrial base, however our elites have pursued deindustrialization for short term economic benefit, and later through ecological zealotry, both goals pursued to such an extent that as a continent we lack the very raw materials to make weapons.
The final point has been made many times, most recently by the historian David Starkey: our European leaders have suppressed and pathologized the celebration of national identity in their own states and across the EU, yet they will happily wave a Ukrainian flag. Ukraine’s national identity is one that is being reshaped by a conflict; this would entail a much more militantly nationalist society than one that the older EU members (especially Germany or France) would be comfortable with but would ironically be far closer in temperament to the Visegrád Group whom they regularly denigrate and belittle.
It can only be hoped that these crises push our leaders to change course and to address these problems with the same clarity and tenacity with which Ukrainians defended themselves. My fear is that they redouble their current efforts and fight against the new realities before them.