More from Henry Kissinger's book, World Order. In this extract, Kissinger is talking about Metternich (Austrian) and Bismarck (German), two towering figures in the development of a workable World Order in the 1800s:
Quote:
The divergence in these two seminal figures’ views of the nature of international order is poignantly reflected in their definitions of the national interest. To Metternich, order arose not so much from the pursuit of national interest as from the ability to connect it with that of other states:
"The great axioms of political science derive from the recognition of the true interests of all states; it is in the general interest that the guarantee of existence is to be found, while particular interests-the cultivation of which is considered political wisdom by restless and short-sighted men-have only a secondary importance. Modern history demonstrates the application of the principle of solidarity and equilibrium . . . and of the united efforts of states . . . to force a return to the common law. "
Bismarck rejected the proposition that power could be restrained by superior principle. His famous maxims gave voice to the conviction that security could be achieved only by the correct evaluation of the components of power:
"A sentimental policy knows no reciprocity ... Every other government seeks the criteria for its actions solely in its interests, however it may cloak them with legal deductions . . . For heaven’s sake no sentimental alliances in which the consciousness of having performed a good deed furnishes the sole reward for our sacrifice . . . The only healthy basis of policy for a great power . . . is egotism and not romanticism . . . Gratitude and confidence will not bring a single man into the field on our side; only fear will do that, if we use it cautiously and skillfully . . . Policy is the art of the possible, the science of the relative."
Unquote:
Metternich was an internationalist who sought consensus, whereas Bismark was a rampant nationalist who sought dominance and hegemony at any cost - usually to the detriment of others.
The self-centredness and parochialism of nationalism is an anachronism at a time when we face global, existential issues that can only be solved by working in concert and subsuming self-interest for the common good, rather like the EU project.
One threat, which has already embraced an internationalist outlook and is aiming for a global world order, is radical Islam, which does not recognise country or ethnicity - and this is its key strength. Luckily the schism between Shia and Sunni radicals means they fight each other more than they fight the West - for now. The nation states of Europe are trying to create a new world order on a secular basis, but can't while populist nationalism opposes it and tries to thwart it at every opportunity. The irony is that nationalism also sees radical Islam as a threat but, paradoxically, can only counter it with a fractured approach. History has taught us that this is an egregious mistake.
Another existential threat that can only be countered by a federalist approach is Putin, who would love nothing more than the EU to implode so he can pick off the satellites of the former USSR with impunity. Yes, NATO is a defence but if, say, Latvia were to be invaded by Putin, would NATO launch an offensive for the sake of 2m people? The answer is probably no, as proven by a war gaming exercise conducted several years ago. Relying on an unpredictable and egocentric Trump is not an answer either. However, a territorially federal EU with an army of its own would be a different matter and any territorial incursions would be treated more seriously - Putin knows that.
Israel is an example of what a small number of people with varying national backgrounds can achieve when working together for a common cause. Whether you approve or disapprove of Israel's tactics, it cannot be denied that it had made enormous strides on almost every level. Ashkenazi Jews from northern Europe and Sephardi Jews from Spain, North Africa and the Middle East - even if secular - all subsume their previous national identities to share a common identity and work with a common purpose against insurmountable odds - and succeed. The irony (and the tragedy) is that they have become vociferously nationalistic with regard to their new identity.
Interesting article by Nick Cohen - a journalist I respect - in today's Observer and Guardian about Britain's fascination with the far right. We are sleepwalking into a nightmare, led by Old Etonians who care not a jot about Britain and just want to line their pockets.
Quote:
The divergence in these two seminal figures’ views of the nature of international order is poignantly reflected in their definitions of the national interest. To Metternich, order arose not so much from the pursuit of national interest as from the ability to connect it with that of other states:
"The great axioms of political science derive from the recognition of the true interests of all states; it is in the general interest that the guarantee of existence is to be found, while particular interests-the cultivation of which is considered political wisdom by restless and short-sighted men-have only a secondary importance. Modern history demonstrates the application of the principle of solidarity and equilibrium . . . and of the united efforts of states . . . to force a return to the common law. "
Bismarck rejected the proposition that power could be restrained by superior principle. His famous maxims gave voice to the conviction that security could be achieved only by the correct evaluation of the components of power:
"A sentimental policy knows no reciprocity ... Every other government seeks the criteria for its actions solely in its interests, however it may cloak them with legal deductions . . . For heaven’s sake no sentimental alliances in which the consciousness of having performed a good deed furnishes the sole reward for our sacrifice . . . The only healthy basis of policy for a great power . . . is egotism and not romanticism . . . Gratitude and confidence will not bring a single man into the field on our side; only fear will do that, if we use it cautiously and skillfully . . . Policy is the art of the possible, the science of the relative."
Unquote:
Metternich was an internationalist who sought consensus, whereas Bismark was a rampant nationalist who sought dominance and hegemony at any cost - usually to the detriment of others.
The self-centredness and parochialism of nationalism is an anachronism at a time when we face global, existential issues that can only be solved by working in concert and subsuming self-interest for the common good, rather like the EU project.
One threat, which has already embraced an internationalist outlook and is aiming for a global world order, is radical Islam, which does not recognise country or ethnicity - and this is its key strength. Luckily the schism between Shia and Sunni radicals means they fight each other more than they fight the West - for now. The nation states of Europe are trying to create a new world order on a secular basis, but can't while populist nationalism opposes it and tries to thwart it at every opportunity. The irony is that nationalism also sees radical Islam as a threat but, paradoxically, can only counter it with a fractured approach. History has taught us that this is an egregious mistake.
Another existential threat that can only be countered by a federalist approach is Putin, who would love nothing more than the EU to implode so he can pick off the satellites of the former USSR with impunity. Yes, NATO is a defence but if, say, Latvia were to be invaded by Putin, would NATO launch an offensive for the sake of 2m people? The answer is probably no, as proven by a war gaming exercise conducted several years ago. Relying on an unpredictable and egocentric Trump is not an answer either. However, a territorially federal EU with an army of its own would be a different matter and any territorial incursions would be treated more seriously - Putin knows that.
Israel is an example of what a small number of people with varying national backgrounds can achieve when working together for a common cause. Whether you approve or disapprove of Israel's tactics, it cannot be denied that it had made enormous strides on almost every level. Ashkenazi Jews from northern Europe and Sephardi Jews from Spain, North Africa and the Middle East - even if secular - all subsume their previous national identities to share a common identity and work with a common purpose against insurmountable odds - and succeed. The irony (and the tragedy) is that they have become vociferously nationalistic with regard to their new identity.
Interesting article by Nick Cohen - a journalist I respect - in today's Observer and Guardian about Britain's fascination with the far right. We are sleepwalking into a nightmare, led by Old Etonians who care not a jot about Britain and just want to line their pockets.
No comments:
Post a Comment