The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPatrick Cockburn Archive
World Leaders Trying to Unite Their Countries Are Doing the Opposite
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Suddenly the world is full of leaders from Theresa May to President Erdogan of Turkey claiming to unite their countries while visibly deepening their divisions. Denunciations of supposed threats at home and abroad are a common feature of this new political style, whether they are tweeted from the White House or spoken at the podium outside 10 Downing Street.

“Threats against Britain have been issued by European politicians and officials,” said May this week, accusing them of deliberately trying to influence the results of the general election on 8 June. All this sounded very like Hillary Clinton convinced that Russia helped lose her the presidential election, though in the case of Britain any such calculation is highly unlikely given the common European assumption that Mrs May is going to win a landslide victory.

Defending the motherland against the evil schemes of foreigners is a political gambit that has been played out countless times since the age of Pericles, but its impact depends on the political context in which it is used. At the moment, it is peculiarly destructive as ethnic nationalism reasserts itself as a vehicle for grievances and rivalry between different nation states is reaching new heights. Populist nationalist leaders from Manilla to Warsaw to Washington are promising more than they can deliver and looking for scapegoats at home and abroad to blame when things go wrong. Nationalism has always needed real or invented threats to super-charge communal solidarity.

In an age of reinvigorated nation states, English nationalism is more dangerous than it looks. It displaces a vaguer and more inclusive British nationalism, dislocating England’s relations with Scotland and Northern Ireland. It may well be that Scotland will not become independent or Northern Ireland unite with the Irish Republic, but these options are already feasible enough to preoccupy the British state.

One destructive element in English nationalism is seldom identified. People in England understandably resent the way that their nationalism, which they see as merely sticking up for their own interests, is condemned as racist and jingoistic when Scottish and Irish nationalism (or for that matter Algerian and Vietnamese nationalism) are given a free pass as the laudable pursuit of liberty and self-determination.

There is something in this, but there is a difference between the nationalism of weak countries, whose history is one of foreign conquest and occupation, and the nationalism of larger and stronger ones who did the conquering and the occupying. Smaller countries or embattled communities always play with a weaker hand of political cards than their opponents and cannot do what they like, but this has the advantage of giving them a good grasp of the realities of power.

But states like the US, Britain, France and Russia who have an imperial past or present, have a much less accurate sense of what is feasible and what is not. Their nationalism is coloured by self-justifying myths about their own superiority and the inferiority of others. This is not just distasteful but carries the seeds of frustration and defeat. The British empire fatally underestimating the resistance of Afghans and Boers in the 19th century and the Irish, Indians and Greek Cypriots, among others, in the 20th century.

One could see the same self-destructive arrogance at work more recently in Iraq after 2003 and in Afghanistan after 2006. Public opinion at home never took on board the extent of British failure there was more complete than that of the Americans. In Iraq, the British force ended up signing a humiliating agreement with a Shia militia. No lessons were learned from defeat, as witness Boris Johnson’s glib promise to join the US in attacking President Assad.

Much of this sabre-rattling over the last week is simply part of Britain’s long-standing effort since 1940 to demonstrate its continuing usefulness as the main foreign ally of the US. But here again the political landscape is changing in a way not seen since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. US international leadership under Donald Trump is “mercurial and unpredictable” and Britain needs to rethink its policies in the Middle East according to a report by the House of Lord’s international relations select committee this week. Its chairman, the former Conservative cabinet minister Lord Howell, says that “in a world less automatically dominated by the US underpinning security in the region, it is no longer right to have a stance at every stage of “if we just get on with the US everything will be alright”.

This is all very true, but does not answer questions about whether or not Britain, if it does not piggy-back on US military power, has the inclination and resources to play a more independent role.

There are other doubts about how far British power and influence will survive post-Brexit. Not many Leave voters will have truly believed in Shakespearean rhapsodies about England as “a precious stone set in the silver sea”. But the proponents of Brexit were always cavalier about where Britain outside the EU would stand in a world which is getting more unstable. Appeals of varying degrees of sophistication to the spirit of 1940 forget that British victory in the Napoleonic wars and both World Wars depended on the Royal Navy and on building up a network of alliances with other powers. Having spurned the EU, this latter strategy is going to be very difficult to pursue. Already May, Johnson and assorted royals have been scurrying off to see unsavoury allies in Saudi Arabia, Turkey and among the kleptocratic monarchs of the Gulf.

One aspect of British decline is underrated: people favouring or opposing Brexit both speak in the future tense about the benefits or disasters that will ensue as Britain negotiates its departure. But one of the worst consequences of the decision is already with us and is simply that the British Government is wholly focused on Brexit to the exclusion of everything else.


Mrs May’s explanation that she called the general election to strengthen her hand in negotiating with Brussels is an admission of the dominance of the issue. There is not going to be much time to consider new policies for a changing Middle East or for anything else.

How did all this happen? In many respects, globalisation has turned out to be more destructive to the status quo than communism ever was. In its name, nationalism was discarded and derided by ruling elites who had an economically respectable reason to distance themselves from the rest of society and did not see that they were cutting through the branch on which they were sitting. The left never much liked nationalism, suspecting it of being a mask for racism and a diversion from more important social and economic issues. Populist nationalists came to power in country after country as others retreated from nationalism and they filled the vacuum.

The enhanced rivalry of nation states will be more destructive and violent than what went before. It is not just because of Donald Trump that the whole the world is becoming more “mercurial and unstable”. Everywhere divisive leaders are proposing radical changes that will exacerbate divisions.

(Republished from The Independent by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Brexit, EU 
Hide 9 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    “Suddenly the world is full of leaders from Theresa May to President Erdogan of Turkey claiming to unite their countries while visibly deepening their divisions.”

    That’s because they are not real nationalists. May is just globalist lite. And Erdogan messed up Turkey by playing neo-sultan.

    Also, Turkey has long been divided between city and countryside, between secular and religious.
    And UK is divided because so many people had their minds colonized by PC and Pop Culture.

    The divisions are deeper than what any politician says.

    Only the rise of true nationalist spirit can lead to unification. But too many elites are globalists as they’ve been indoctrinated with PC. And too many of the masses have pop culture as main culture.

  2. The enhanced rivalry of nation states will be more destructive and violent than what went before.

    The rivalry may well be “enhanced” when compared to the last 40 years, but pales when compared to older times. The greater destructiveness and violence will be because of the weapons and technology, not because people are more dedicated to a nation than the men who fought at the Somme or countless other battles since nations became nations.

    As alluded to in the penultimate paragraph, people are returning to nationalism because of the failure of the Global Order offered to them. Some believe that a return to past glory is possible, but more than a few are just hunkering down and hoping to ride out the gathering storm.

  3. It is not just because of Donald Trump that the whole world is becoming more “mercurial and unstable”. Everywhere divisive leaders are proposing radical changes that will exacerbate divisions


    Quite true if you except the 100 countries rallying around the thriving and growing Belt and Road system which now includes direct train service London to Beijing and return. Ignore the US and it’s maniacal dealings and the world has a different aspect. If only we, I’m an American, go quietly into the night and do no further damage the world might settle down again.

  4. Divisions are what give meaning to life; they are not the greatest possible evil. War between states is less terrible than a slow spiritual death in which the population of a distinct country is absorbed into a global capitalist glop.

    Cockburn’s terrified chattering about Britain alone in an unstable world is hyperventilating nonsense one would expect from a neurotic Jew. Pray tell whence commeth the threat? The EU is built on flawed neoliberal premises; by withdrawing Britain has avoided the collapse. Britain has nuclear weapons and a military which is still powerful enough to defend a geographically small, ISLAND nation.

    • Replies: @Eric the Red
  5. Jason Liu says:

    I feel that modern nationalists need to take a new stance. From a grander view, the enemy is seldom “the foreigner”, but leftists at home, if not the the concept of leftism altogether.

    For instance, Islamic terrorism is a negligible threat to the west compared to liberalism and ‘social justice’. The same goes Chinese nationalists who view Japan/America as the chief enemy, or Japanese nationalists who view China/Korea as the enemy, when it is corrosive elements within that ails them. If your society has too many foreigners, it’s because your society has too many leftists.

    By focusing attacks on domestic egalitarians, nationalists around the world can avoid pointless conflicts with other nationalists, while constructing a better society for themselves, and denying ideological space to egalitarianism around the world. This is why I support nationalism in countries I’ve never been to, even if it raises the risk of racism towards me.

    We should move forward into a new paradigm of right vs left, interpreted as global struggle that spans across borders and in every society. The internationalist left has been doing this for at least a few decades. It’s time they were met with an ideological response.

  6. O/T, but geographically related.

    France just elected a banker.

    Since most wars are banker’s wars, how long until Macron and his ilk manufacture a significant war? Where might it take place?

    How will his banker’s war cabal arrange for whites to die in the process?

  7. 22pp22 says:

    I am a POM and I don’t want to be an imperial power. I want us to look after our own interests and defend our own borders. And talking about the glories of our imperial past means little when we, in the here and now, are being displaced by foreign interlopers from the island our ancestors have called home for millennia.

  8. Contra Cockburn and a few Remainiacs, Britain, or at least England seems more united now than in decades. The EU boil has been lanced, May does not attract the Leftist hatred Thatcher did.

    This article describes the national mood as “a slightly cuckish, right-of-centre Euro-skeptic Conservatism” – and I think that’s accurate (‘cuckish’ here = moderate civic nationalist).

  9. @Lemurmaniac

    I agree with you. Nation-states are the culmination of Western thought. City-states were too small to afford viable protection of a tribal unit of a single ethnicity. Empires were too large to ever prevent internal conflict of multi-ethnic tribes (although Rome might have been the single exception by adopting a constant growth model for hundreds of years). Nation-states consisting of a primary ethnicity and culture were finally devised as the optimal size for effective governing between those other two models. It also has proven to be the one model that reduces constant conflict between tribal groups to a minimal and again optimal level.

    What leftists like Cockburn will always refuse to understand is that word “optimal”, but it should be practiced and promoted by traditionalists, the alt-right, and other realists on a daily basis. Reality always ultimately goes with optimality, with the predominant middle of the bell curve. But of course all that reality is anathema to rancid leftists, who instead spout stale memes and are fixated on the Holy Narrative of their perfect idealistic fantasies.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Patrick Cockburn Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Full Story of the Taliban's Amazing Jailbreak
"They Can't Even Protect Themselves, So What Can They Do For Me?"
"All Hell is Breaking Loose with Muqtada" Warlord: the Rise of Muqtada al-Sadr