Monitoring Policy Making at the United Nations |
| ||||||||||||
Ways of the Patriots - Nations and States - Global Policy Forum Ways of the Patriots
By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Washington Post
July 3, 2001
What does patriotism mean in a world where the international financial system daily makes a mockery of national borders, shifting money around the globe at the speed of light? What does patriotism mean at a moment when successful corporations do business in 25, 50 or 100 countries and might be sued by their stockholders if they let loyalty to any one nation interfere much with their quarterly profits?
And what does patriotism mean when international organizations -- the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, NATO, the European Union -- demand that nations pool their sovereignty in the name of some higher good?
Over what, exactly, does that Star-Spangled Banner yet wave?
In fact, patriotism is very much alive and finds itself strengthened by the very forces challenging national authority. The debate over a common currency in Europe has called forth opposition even in nations, such as Ireland, that have greatly benefited from the European Union. The World Trade Organization finds itself under regular assault from right and left on the grounds that it is undemocratic, unrepresentative and, ultimately, unpatriotic.
Of course, there is much inconsistency in how people invoke patriotism for their purposes. On the right, many who speak with patriotic urgency to support new defense spending recoil at even the mention of trade protection for national industries. On the left, economic nationalism is usually more popular than the military kind. This is not a case of patriotism being the last refuge of scoundrels. It is a commentary on patriotism's ambiguities.
The paradox is that national sovereignty almost certainly can't be protected unless nations act in concert and, thereby, give up some of their sovereignty. A country that stays out of cross-national organizations lacks any control over the decisions those bodies make, and yet those decisions can powerfully affect members and non-members alike. But international organizations do not naturally command loyalty.
Democracy and people's affections exist at the local and national levels, but the economic system -- the world of investment and profits and job creation -- operates not only within but also above national boundaries. If a true patriot is someone who wants the people of his own nation to exercise freedom, that freedom is almost always better preserved in association with other nations than alone.
Traditional diplomacy certainly took this into account. The NATO alliance did a rather good job of protecting freedom during the Cold War. Yet, as Chris Patten, the European Union's commissioner for external relations, writes in the current issue of the British magazine Prospect, members of NATO accepted "constraints on freedom of action" to achieve a larger end. Did NATO impinge on national sovereignty? Yes. Did it protect sovereignty? Yes.
Similar questions now arise on agreements about trade, environmental protection, human rights and labor standards. Can a nation, even a nation as powerful as ours, protect its values and laws without engaging other nations in the effort? The answer is almost certainly no.
Still, there's something about these non-democratic international institutions that even the most ardent internationalist will mistrust. Part of the answer is to make the institutions more open. But there are limits.
"The concept of international society is not one toward which people are attracted by sentiment or tradition," writes Patten. "When you climb a mountain, it is the national flag you plonk on top of it, not that of the U.N. or of Europe."
The United States may be better able than other nations to deal with this dilemma, and not simply because of our economic and military power. American patriotism has always been rooted in something larger than a simple defense of our own soil or way of life -- partly because our tradition is to protect many "ways of life" within our borders. Thomas Jefferson, for example, didn't object to the British king simply because his majesty wanted to control the American colonies. He objected to the very idea of despotism. Kings, Jefferson said, should be "servants, not the proprietors of the people."
Thus a test for every international organization, agreement and proposal. If international cooperation, on balance, enhances sovereignty and freedom, it can be seen as serving the cause of patriots. But to the extent that internationalism seeks to obliterate national traditions and democratic control, it not only should fail, but will.
What we celebrate every Independence Day is that no individual or institution has a right to be the people's proprietor. Serving that cause is both a national and international obligation.
More Information on States and Their Future
