There's a joke that's prevalent in the Westminster foreign policy circles, I'm remembering as I return from my second trip to London. Archduke Franz Ferdinand, has already defied all expectations when it comes to political surprises, but the human mind enquires, is that all or is there more? The answer is there could be, it's only a matter of time until someone shoots an archduke. The reference is of course, to the times before the First World War, when Austrian Archduke Francis Ferdinand was shot and killed, triggering the first truly global war on a continent which was steadily marching towards conflict for quite some time.

As Donald Trump and his isolationist policies win the Republican nomination and get the official stamp of one of America's two major political parties, in the most contested and vicious summit I have seen since I started my career as a columnist in 2007, Britain renewed its Trident nuclear missiles. An act which would have been almost Biblically symbolic if the order was the other way around. Trump used his platform, a traditional American center right platform, to change the direction to a more 1940s, mercantilist, quasi-fascistic isolationism, which was against the global established liberal pro market order that we have known since 1945. A Chinese journalist was quoted by Politico during the convention, saying why it is wrong to say China "stole" the jobs. No one stole, it was the free market, the same market that was espoused since 1945, and China won the competition in manufacturing.

It is difficult to understand the undercurrents in the West, if you're not present here. Yes, people are laughing, watching movies, going on with their lives, and thinking nothing will happen and everything will be fine. Maybe they will be fine. But the rules of the game are being changed every second; some things which were out of bounds even a year ago are suddenly normal and playable in the game.

Consider this. Even a year ago, it was considered stupid to even think that the EU enlargement will not only be stopped but actually be rolled back. It was considered inappropriate to talk about nationalism and "saving European culture" in policy circles. Open borders and refugee policy were sacrosanct. Russia was a villain, and Turkey was firmly a NATO ally. Nuclear proliferation was considered a global challenge. Free trade was paramount.

In the first two days of this week, there have already been two Islamist attacks, in Germany and France, one by an Afghan, one by a Moroccan, both of whom entered as refugees to Europe. The second one was in France where an eight year old girl was stabbed because she and her mother were considered to be dressed "inappropriately."

Europe is evidently seething with a nationalist undercurrent and it is not hard to understand why. Anyone who is knowledgeable about the history of Europe will know that Europe and ultra-right wing nationalism don't go well together. The liberal elites to the western feminists and post-modern academics living in their own bubbles, have long since neglected this undercurrent and are used to dictating to the people what is good and right, and are naturally shocked by events such as the Brexit or the firebombing of refugee places. If and when the genuine center left and center right ruling consensus crumbles in Europe, hardliners like Marine Le Pen are waiting to burn down the continent again.

The same can be said in the United States. Donald Trump is a borderline racist xenophobe, but when he talks about NATO he is tapping into a sentiment which is not new, unique, or irrelevant. From Bob Gates to Stephen Walt, everyone mentioned this before, that there will be a time when the U.S. would be fed up of defending the established global order and peace and be completely alone. Only five countries, in the richest continent of the planet, spend more than 2 percent of their anointed budget for their defense and safety. Belgium and Luxembourg, two of the richest countries in the entire planet, spends around 0.6 percent in their defense and security plans, even when they are highly subsidized in social welfare including caring for drug addicts, and even when they are bafflingly suffering from home grown Jihadism, with almost zero surveillance and intelligence capabilities.

It is no wonder that "Uncle Sucker" would someday be fed up and say, that's enough folks, and the free-ride is over. The same goes for the fact that Trump doesn't want to defend Ukraine, Japan or South Korea or pay for them. Yes, if the U.S. recedes and isolates itself from these areas, that might increase nuclear proliferation which might further destabilize the region and even start a war, but the U.S. population, or at least a healthy percentage of it who supports Trump doesn't understand or care. Trump is a horrible messenger, but the message is nonetheless important.

Which brings me to the final paragraph, and believe me, nothing satisfies a political scientist more than to gloat and say, I told you so. Western foreign policy realists, of all shades and denominations, warned about this perfect storm for two decades, ever since the ill-advised and ultimately indefensible NATO expansion happened during Bill Clinton's presidency. From the Iraq war, to the intervention of Libya, to the open border Utopia, to the Brexit and Trump, realists have always argued against this seeming historical inevitability of the liberal order and interventionism. And since realists are considered pessimists in the foreign policy circles, here's one more prediction. Trump is not going to win. More than human nature, I believe in raw mathematics, and it is difficult (not impossible) for Trump to be the U.S. President. However, the forces that are being unleashed are and will be difficult to contain. Structural changes need to be made, urgently, all over the world, especially in the West. One more mass Islamist attack, one more migrant floodgate, one more failed intervention, can tip the balance. If there is one thing that the world can learn from this year, it is that history is very often not dead, and each country is ultimately responsible for their own security and answerable to their own citizens. Globalism has its limits, and Si Vis Pacem Para Bellum was never truer.

Sumantra Maitra is a columnist with China.org.cn. For more information please visit:

http://www.china.org.cn/opinion/SumantraMaitra.htm

Opinion articles reflect the views of their authors only, not necessarily those of China.org.cn.

Go to Forum >>0 Comment(s)