16 Burst results for "Liberal International Order"
"liberal international order" Discussed on podcast – Lawyers, Guns & Money
"And right, one more point I wanted to make because this is related to the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the turbulence prior to that domestically and internationally is that one thing that was so dangerous about the period starting with Brexit and going up to what will historically be seen as the end point, which is January 6, 2021, was this dedication to dismantling this international system that the U.S. had created, what John Eikenberry calls the liberal international order, and what enabled or empowered Russia to go forward and continue its illegal invasion of Ukraine. Fortunately, I think the U.S. has restored the, to an extent, has restored the international order, basically put the wires back to the end. The way we can see that is the way in which the major, let's call them the OECD powers, have cooperated to continue the sanctions package against Russia and aid to Ukraine. That's partly for their own benefit, but it's also because the United States is, as Rob pointed out, is the driving force behind this. Well, I tell Brett Devereux, who is not a political scientist but is a historian, terms this the status quo collection or the status quo coalition, right, which is that you just right now have a lot of incredibly powerful countries which kind of like things how they are and want to keep them that way. And we talk about the renegade countries, the revisionist states, but what makes this historical moment almost unique is the extent to which the status quo coalitions outweigh the power of the revisionist states. And a lot of reason why that is a financial story. It's a story of American financial hegemony. And you can see the illiberal states, or whatever you want to call it, they're illiberal, right? You can see them coming to Russia's aid because they're creating this sort of illiberal international order, which one of the most threatening things about the last 10 years was the United States' drift towards joining that part of it and away from the liberal international order, right? You have states like China, North Korea, and European revanchist states like Hungary, for example, and now Poland, who are advancing illiberal ideas and looking towards cooperating to form this sort of other order. And just real quick, I want to point out, Jeff, because I know you want to say something also, that the late Bear Bromiller just wrote a book about that a few years ago called Only the Dead See the End of War.
"liberal international order" Discussed on Monocle 24: The Globalist
"Around the world. It's 7 25 a.m. here in London three 25 a.m. if you're a night owl in Rio de Janeiro, now Brazil's president Lula had suspended in Portugal next week. In the midst of one of the most delicate diplomatic balancing acts. In the last month alone, he's traveled to China to see Xi Jinping and his welcomed Russia's foreign minister Sergei Lavrov, both the U.S. and EU have seized upon Lula's choices of meeting partners, but will he be able to convince Europe that this is all part of a bigger diplomatic scheme. While I'm joined by Christopher sabatini, senior fellow for Latin America at chatham House. Good morning to Christopher. Good morning, Emma, thank you. It's good to have you. Now, what is the purpose of this Spain Portugal trip? Basically, Lula's trying to lure the president of Brazil is trying to rebalance his relations globally. He traveled to China, signed 20 agreements with Xi Jinping, the president of China, declared that he wanted to be a mediator in Russia and doing so kind of angered Western Europe and the U.S. who saw him as tilting a little bit too far to China and certainly a little too far to being neutral in the conflict in Ukraine with Russia's envy. An invasion of Ukraine. So you have a very difficult problem here is that now he has to sort of do another sweep and tour of Western Europe to try to bring them back in line and sway their fears that he's mediating in a way that may serve to sort of certify, if you will, and legitimize Putin's invasion of Ukraine. This is a bit of a headache for the European Union, isn't it, given the fact that arguably there was a welcome sigh of relief when he replaced Jai Bolsonaro as leader of Brazil, and yet he is now become a problem. That's exactly right. As you say, a huge sigh of relief, he replaced it at quasi fascist national populist elected president, who jettisoned the country's commitments to in the environment, raged against human rights and social inclusion. And so everyone thought, well, here comes returns to power Lula after two turns in power in the early aughts. And in truthfully, this is always been his vision is trying to create a multipolar world to try to break the control that Western Europe and the U.S. have had on the global order. But in doing so, he's inserting himself and if you will sort of risks allowing himself with malign actors. But it also undermines his own authority. Authority within Western Europe. Lula, Brazil rather is part of a southern cone, common market called medico Sue. And they have, they're waiting to have a free trade agreement ratified with the European Union. So his own sort of forays and being a global diplomat risk undermining his country's own economic interest. So there's a suggestion that his membership of mercosur and being able to have a conversation with Sergei Lavrov and Xi Jinping are exclusive. Not entirely. It's a good point. But you certainly, in the last year, Western Europe has invested a lot of energy, diplomatic and economic, no pun intended on the sanctioning of gas. In isolating Putin because of the invasion, and now here comes Lula, basically trying to, in some ways, he's walked back his statements, but for a long time he was saying that both sides Ukraine and Russia were equally to blame for the war. And this really sort of in fundamentally challenges one of the primary foreign policy objectives of Europe right now. So tell us a little bit about what Lula's ambitious are. You said you wants to place Brazil in a bigger strategic diplomatic role. But there is a sense that he wants to be the peace broker in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. What are his chances? Again, this idea that Brazil is going to lead a sort of coalition of the global south and use platforms such as the BRICS alliance, the Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa alliance to sort of break apart and create a new, if you will, world order, not to be too dramatic about this, is very much in Brazil's foreign policy DNA. And certainly in this party that's in power, Lula's part of the PT, it's foreign policy vision. Whether he can do it, it's unclear. The truth is, is Brazil really doesn't have many points of power to exercise on this. It's really sort of based on an idea and arguably even a rather facile idea that Brazil can bring a new agenda, a new voice, a new approach to foreign policy that the polarizing sort of west can't. But it's unclear. Again, doing so, sometimes means ignoring or at least downplaying the principles that have undergirded the liberal international order. In this case, basically overlooking or downplaying Putin's invasion of a country's national sovereignty. In another case, making alliances with autocrats such as China, Xi Jinping, who are trying to remake the global order in their own interests, not necessarily to create a sort of a benign multipolar order, but to remake it in their own national interests. And so it's going to be a tough play and risk maligning himself with aligning himself with some very maligned actors. And if you are one of these malign actors running things in the likes of Beijing and Moscow, how riper places Brazil for you. It's actually pretty important in a number of ways. For China, first of all, Brazil is a major supplier of a number of its raw materials, iron ore, a number of agricultural and food products, petroleum, but also symbolically it's important. Brazil's, it's a large country. It aspires to a UN Security Council seat. It really does seek to speak on behalf of developing countries worldwide. And so it is a very important. It wasn't just a mistake or a stopover that Lavrov went to Brazil. To put Brazil, I want to for Russia and China to claim the Brazil is at very least neutral if not a supporter of some of their issues. It's very important domestically for their own citizens, but also internationally to build this idea that in the case of China that China's time is coming and it's going to lead a new global coalition in the case of Russia that basically that the world is becoming tired and the momentum is shifting against the United States and Western Europe and it's sanctions against a Russian. So it is, in that case, in terms of symbolism and in terms of economics for some cases, it really does punch above its weight. And even briefly, if you don't mind, Chris, the idea that actually it can be a breeding ground for spies. If you're Russian, you can go to Brazil and claim yourself a new identity. Yeah, that's the new lingering scandal right now. Of course, a number of spies that have been uncovered are sort of disappeared and people connected the dots and realized their spies had Brazilian identity, although in the stories they weren't speaking Portuguese, which should have given it away. Yes, there is a risk that given Brazil's size. Immigration policies that it's being used as a sort of jumping off point for espionage by Russia. Christopher sabatini, thank you so much for joining us on Monaco radio still to come on today's global globalist and Christian Mac will be sitting down with sahi marchenko, Ukraine's finance minister. It really believes that it's our aim right now to protect democracy. And we believe that its Ukrainian destiny to do so. Oh, that's come in the next few minutes, but first of the time nudging 7 33 here in London, a quick look at the headlines. At least 70 people have been killed in a crush as a school in Yemen. Crowds have gathered for a charity distribution in the capital Sanaa authorities say the donation hadn't
"liberal international order" Discussed on Between The Lines
"That together and you end up with a very toxic mix of politics, even without throwing in social media Fox News and all that other stuff. I think those big forces are behind much of the dysfunction that you now see in the American political system. And unfortunately, nobody has a sort of quick, easy push the button and it's all solved type solution for it. My guest is Harvard professor Stephen Walt, one of America's leading foreign policy realists. Steve, let's turn to Ukraine. Now, you were at the Munich security conference recently and you found a mismatch between what government officials were saying in public and then what they were saying in private. First, tell us about the divide between the west and the rest with respect to Ukraine. This was really striking at Munich and there's actually some interesting public opinion data that's been produced that supports this. If you were a member of the transatlantic community, Europe or America, you know, Ukraine is the most important issue overwhelming focus there at the conference. It's seen as the fulcrum of the 21st century of the fate of humanity is going to be determined by the outcome in Ukraine. And absolutely the Ukrainians must win because everything is hinging upon this. That was kind of the rhetoric you heard from most people in the sort of NATO bubble, if you call it that. For the rest of the world, you know, again, to oversimplify the global south. And nobody was defending Putin or Russia, but Ukraine is not seen as the most important issue, not the only issue. Certainly not the one that's going to determine the 21st century. They just don't believe that the fate of humanity is going to be determined by whether Ukraine or Russia ultimately controls the Donbass. And there itself interest, right? India, Saudi Arabia, Israel, do not want to sever all their ties with Russia for a combination of economic and political reasons. The global south thinks that the west is being deeply hypocritical that, you know, they welcome Ukrainian refugees, but they wouldn't welcome refugees from Syria or from sub Saharan Africa or from Afghanistan as well. The west sort of dribbled out aid for COVID vaccines, but was willing to pour a $150 billion into Ukraine. So when people from the west from the transatlantic community start talking about how important Ukraine is and how everyone around the world has to get on board, the rest of the world shakes their head and says, you guys just don't get it, do you? I can just imagine many people asking for understandable reasons that with Russia's invasion of a sovereign independent state, surely the rules by liberal international order is at stake and all nations west all the rest have an interest in upholding those rules. People might agree with that intellectually, but the immediate response you get from outside the transatlantic bubble is that this is rank hypocrisy. But first of all, these rules of the rules based order were written by powerful Western countries for the most part, not by India and not by states in Africa elsewhere.
"liberal international order" Discussed on America First with Sebastian Gorka Podcast
"Wow, we're talking doctor Stephen turley follow him on YouTube turley talks. The books are the return of Christendom beauty matters and the new nationalism I'm Sebastian gorka this is America first one on one. Coming to you from just outside the in salubrious fetid rank, mellow duris noisome swamp that is Washington D.C. from the relief factor dot com studios really factor. Pain relief that works pain relief that's real pain relief that is liberating half a million Americans right now. People like me, but not just me. People like Leah from Ohio, this is Leah's story. One Sunday morning I sat on my couch in so much pain I was in tears. That's the day I ordered relief actor. Following directions in 8 days I found relief only to get better and better. I'm a believer 100%. That should be you. That could be you, but there's only one way to find out, but it's super easy. Order the three quick starter packet relief factor dot com. It'll be at your door in three days or less. Taking morning and evening like I do, and I promise you, doctor G's guaranteed by the end of those three weeks, you will know whether it works for you, like it works for me, Leah and 500,000 of your fellow Americans, 805 183 84, or the fact that dot com. That's 805 183 84, really factor dot com, really factor dot com. Doctor T there's a exercise. It's actually now a function inside the military. It's actually there are several posts where a commander has to have an individual who specialized in this activity. It's called red teaming, where the officer has to try and think like the enemy, whether it's Russia, whether it's ISIS or what have you to help inform the commanders to what to expect on the battlefield from the other side. Let's do a little bit of red teaming with regards to the postmodern deconstructionist left the globalists, whichever label you prefer. I am of the following contention. I have yet to find somebody who can counter it. That whilst they have done inordinate, deep tissue damage to everything that we hold sacred today, I don't see any heavyweight, serious thinkers, driving the left. Yes, there's, you know, the Karl popperian acolyte with his billions George Soros, but I mean, the latest video you saw here in his more decrepit than emperor Palpatine, okay? So, yes, this called Schwab, but Karl Schwab. I mean, every utterance out of his thing is mouth is like some second rate villain from a James Bond knockoff. This isn't. This isn't the Lenin or the Trotsky or the gramsci of the past. This isn't even the Frankfurt school. This isn't the likes of alinsky or others. So for me, we're in this. Tell me if I'm wrong. I see academics in the background with their critical race theory here and there doing stuff. But the left is it's kind of functioning on road. It's just, it's following the playbook written for them 50, 60 years ago, but I'm not impressed. They're arrogance is shocking, but I'm not impressed with the intellectual fortitude, which makes me a little bit more positive. Am I being too pollyannish? No, I think you're exactly right. I think we all see it. We're all looking at each other saying, how these guys get into power. This is crazy. I mean, look who's leading them all right now, you know? I remind my talk about a symbol of a dying worldview. It's very interesting. Because I don't know if it's related. But we do have there are, I've noticed a growing body of studies that recognize that multiculturalism by its nature. And I'm not talking about a polyethnic society. 90% of our states are polyethnic. I'm talking about multicultural. This kind of cultural Marxist sort of we're going to beat up and bash the dominant culture and then celebrate the of all the so called minority cultures. There's a growing body of studies that show that it really does erode social trust. There's a really interesting study from Sweden that came out. It's an official study. It's an actual government study and they looked at levels of social trust. How much do I trust in my political institutions and my neighbors? So it's both kind of vertical and horizontal. And they looked at attitudes between the years 2014 and 2017. So you'll know, obviously, what happened in 2015, which is so they were looking at attitudes of social trust before and after the refugee crisis of 2015. Would Sweden receive per CAPiTA the most amount of refugees. And the study found that the confidence and faith that Swedes had in their nation and their fellow neighbor, you name it, dropped in 60% of their municipalities in actually sat here in 20 of 33 municipalities. The confidence level dropped between 2014, 2017 and the study found a very clear converse relationship. And that the more the refugees in a particular municipality, the lower the trust. Right. So if you think about it, what is wokeness? All it is when all is said and done, it's a radically left wing reaction. To this overall declining social trust in liberalism and the reigning liberal paradigm that starts after World War II that ends up going on a world tour after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 and ushering in the liberal international order in our endless wars and all that kind of stuff that number 45 was so hell bent on dismantling..
"liberal international order" Discussed on Pod Save the World
"Reported the white house is working on a package of clean energy strategies. That could meet our emissions reduction goals and get the okay of prime minister. Joe manchin so good news but of a mixed bag there ben. How you feel about this but as you prepare to. Scotland i mean. I think everybody's known that this was going to underperform kind of the one point. Five target Which you need to kind of keep alive as a as a possibility. I think that the us piece. I is welcome to get this through. But what's missing which is not at all joe. Biden's faults is a we talked about the punitive side. Right you invest in clean. Energy is great and everybody can agree to that. But like at a certain point you need to be shutting down new shutting down coal plants and in fossil fuels. That's how you get from one. Seven two seven seven. You know like if not just by building new clean energy. it's by shutting down. The old energy faster in australia has a ton of co two emissions of coal. They have a lot of fossil fuels. I think they might be the dirtiest country per capita in terms of working here too. Yeah and and so so and the other thing is that you've basically seen. I think depressingly the geopolitics work against action. You know t- pangs not going to the summit new putin's not going summit now seen his eyes and putin gone what's what's was you have to do. It makes me wonder whether or not part of what's happening is people like. Gm putin saying were just gonna stop going to your summits liberal international order and that's pretty dangerous because they've already rendered the un security council kind of pointless On a lot of things by walking anything right on whether it's tigray or sudan or syria or whatever myanmar they're just slowing down the gears of of these institutions. And you should think of glasgow as part of an institution. It's part of the un process that implements paris agreement. And you know it's not great No and so. I think what you have to do. A glasgow is try to get everything done you can. And if governments are gonna kinda underwhelmed than you know can you get private sector commitments. Can you get kind of creative solutions and financing. Can you get whatever you can To just creek up that ambition closer to what you need for. One point. Five degrees celsius fingers crossed. Hopefully that joe biden gets them big over the finish line before T takes off tomorrow wednesday. Was he leave. Wednesday thursday going to that should help. I mean italy. I g twenty did open g. twenty the. It should help you the. Us can get something done. That will be a big positive news story even if it's not as good as it could have been with the clean energy standard and then if you know who knows like it does india commodities. Modi's apparently going right. That's good like for all the criticism. We have a motive. Maybe there's some upside surprises. I don't know but what everybody should know is it's not gonna be glossed going to be enough and it was never going to be enough but like you want advanced the ball as far as you can around the summits and then just going to have to keep the pressure on. Unfortunately the weather is going to give us a lot of reasons to do that. And yeah Last story here's a headline from the washington post pablo escobar's cocaine hippos are legally people. Us court rules thing. We should stop there because it's going to be better than that huddling. You really aren't cocaine. Hippo underlying stories. Pretty interesting okay. Well here's the baxter. Yeah so the Long deceased drug lord pablo escobar. Apparently smuggled a bunch of hippos to his estate in columbia in nineteen eighties. Because when you're having cocaine parties in the eighties got up. Atlanta hippo hippo These hippos did what animals do And now they're wild offspring living the wetlands and the region become the largest invasive species on the planet. We literally crazy. That's like a really interesting. I didn't know that yeah. There's basically all these hippos and cleanses chilin chilling in the clubbing government considered killing some of them. Because you really don't want to piss off could mean especially cooked up. Hippo mean the males. They're really aggressive. They wait a couple tons. They've twenty inch long teeth. I went down a rabbit hole on this. I read a story about a guy who got swallowed by hippo survived. You don't want new new. But the animal rights lawyer filed a lawsuit to prevent the culling of the herd so now the colombian government is trying to figure out a different path. Maybe a humane way to sterilize. These bad boys so that they don't procreate and spread. There's like one hundred twenty fucking wild hippos. Don't want that. So the animal legal defense fund says that this interested persons designation for the cocaine hippos is actually a critical milestone larger effort to create legal rights for animals In the us in the us legal system so fascinating stuff. I don't know i don't know what to do. That seemed pretty interesting to me. That like basically you're trying to prevent these animals from being killed by giving them some status. Like i just found that fascinating from a legal perspective and It wasn't clear to me that the colombians are going to abide by the that didn't make sense You would like to think that there's a way to control the hippopotamus from that killing. Does i don't know. Yeah i mean. I know snips knepper snips. They've been hit by reserve. Or something. I mean i don't know what else. Yeah like. like really for them. Maybe they could move into miami like a lot of a eighties. Cocaine did so. I don't know where hippos are indigenous. I mean no africa parts. So do you just like fly them. Maybe you could give him a florida key. Yeah they can just sort of own a key like a hippo colony We need to solve the get a hippo. A we're going to put this offices. You guys have expanded a little bit here but it's a little empty without. Actually i work from home. Environment is gonna come back to because maybe there is room for hip. Maybe we should think about these guys here. Probably i'm sure like hippos shit is not a pleasant spirit issue. Yeah that's a good point. I wonder how coked up escobar was when he decided to import the hippos. You kind of see it happening right. I can completely..
"liberal international order" Discussed on Pod Save the World
"Their capacities. So i do think that this can be that inflection moment. We're talking about but back to this issue of nominations. The problem is you know the department of defense its primary leadership right which is military leadership doesn't need to be nominated and confirmed their secretaries. Do but every day that. You don't have assistant secretaries at state. You don't have ambassadors other day. The generals are empowered so to help the president sort of make this this this pivot towards kinds of our projection. We've still got to do our job in the senate. Yeah yeah no need. People in there need more. Resources need to rebuild Is a new focus on this new agenda. Well look thanks so much for joining and covering a whole bunch of stuff in a short amount of time but It's great for our listeners. Hear from people should follow you on twitter. Look artificial for crooked Pop up all the time on these issues but thanks for popping up here today. You know there's at least. Two members of the murphy wing. The senator christopher joining the show. Thanks to the blob. For not getting to ben's tenley town studio before we concluded this recording. It's good the blood moves slowly. Well that's part of that's part of the problems for part that's why they're so hard to stop and and also part of their challenge when you call them the blob. Were you thinking of the movie or was an acronym like what was the genesis. Yeah i was so. I wouldn't actually say this for the record right. He's which is at because everybody has own definition of the blob is the person who like coined the term should be able to offer my own and that article kind of like acted like no. There's a very specific thing i'm talking about. Which is set every single person who works in foreign policy. It is very particularly the group. Think among people work on foreign policy that presupposes that military intervention in particular. And a america's dictates can shape events in the middle east. This is in the context of the same people that had supported the win rock. We're now giving us shit about the iran deal and all of obama's foreign policy. That's it right and like if you want to know who the blob is just look at the more hyperbolic reaction to what binded afghanistan like. This is not hard to figure out what i'm talking about. But the blob to me was a way of capturing a growing group. Think you know they're kind of overtakes people And yes it brings in defense contractors and think tanks in the kind of Hardcore gulf funded. A right wing pro israel elements all this stuff if you live in. Dc like it is kind of just all one big thing So y- bob is very a as a child though. I was a big fan of old harm movies. My mom and i used to love to watch. Like invasion of the body. Snatchers the blob. Those are some good fucking movies People should go check out the back. Catalog yeah there is some scary stuff. And they were like they're thoughtful and kind of interesting in Yeah what's the one recently about the silence Shit i know right. i see. i can't watch scary movies because they've that one's good because the new silent place this sound place. That's a really good one because there's some thought behind it like if someone like sawing up people or something like that that's not that interesting me but like if there's this kind of like vague threatening thing that is growing like quiet place that that's a that's a good yeah I love. i love another one of the people who who got really upset about the blob. terminology was gonna peter feaver. Who worked for the ministration. And i googled into blake. Are what is this guy written. Recently and one piece he wrote was a decade later in the iraq. Debate is still contaminated with myths in his all Him getting huffy. That people still accuse the bush administration of conflicting iraq with nine. Eleven is like come on man. You that intellectually dishonest and then get. I'll work up if you're criticized the best thing about the blob in these debates is first of all. I just kind of i. I said that to one reporter and like the reason it became thing. 'cause how pisses people got right in. They're kind of proving the every time they open their mouth to to take umbrage they kind of proved the point like as that article does for like the no me and my colleagues in the foreign policy establishment. You know are not in the and something called the blob. We're just gonna tell you the ten reasons why the iraq war wasn't as bad as you think you know it's like thank you for proving the point you know let's imagine some some guy in an ascott Removing his white gloves To defend his honor as the henry kissinger professor of global affairs at the johns hopkins advanced international studies. Yeah people like what's the blah we'll title that that's a real user the blob and the problem that they have is how divorce sarah from public opinion like. There's there's i think someone in article said that like there's no the pro. My problem was i just couldn't change people's minds so i resorted name-calling actually it's the opposite. The only people who agree with the blob anymore. Bob like it'd be public. Opinion is not where they are. You know they say things like we got things. Right accepts vietnam the iraq war. That's majority of the response. Said we got most. Richard haass the vietnam war the iraq war the afghan war. It's like well. Yeah the comments the wars. I'm all for the liberal international order. I'm a member of that club. You know nato. You could have all those things without going to war in vietnam in.
"liberal international order" Discussed on podcast – Lawyers, Guns & Money
"Removing us for deployments for example getting the us de linked from europe wooden simply be relatively painless retreat. It would be it would be an upsetting of the entire political order that's existed in. It raises the counterfactual question of you know. Can you do that and keep the good elements of liberal internationalism. That a lot of real aspite right. I think you've put it very eloquently. And that's i definitely believe that the that's the nature of the of the order that it is more than simply a section of states that are cooperating in various ways hawk and otherwise and that it is a beeper system at that. We kind of grote grappled with trying to give it a logic name dan i wrote one of our back in one thousand nine thousand nine on on the kind of the looking for a kind of logic of it off kind of at that time it was walls and structural realism trying to some sense since elevator term interest structural liberalism but we also introduced apparently for the first time in scholarly the term liberal international order which then got picked up on a personnel. It's ubiquitous people mean different things by the term It's been weaponized and it's been a borscht into all different kinds of meetings. But i think what kind of sociology of knowledge point. What as the that. Water has kind of looked like it's fragmenting and eroding in the case trump and there's a kind of direct assault on it up. What is it. what are we losing. what what what. What what what is going away. What have we lived through a sense that we don't have good language lords states and anarchy. It's not a confederation really. But there are lots of different terms of hacks democratic the philadelphia insists the free world. I think the term liberal international order has become the the term of art for trying to capture something. That's there it's a in all of its complexity and i do think it is a kind of political formation that that countries have made commitments to a a a germany and japan. Have it's under the auspices of this order that they have made existential shifts in the nature of their. They've they've declined to acquire nuclear weapons and become traditional great powers. The way of life the constituencies floor..
"liberal international order" Discussed on podcast – Lawyers, Guns & Money
"Wrong Kind of situation I think first of all restraints and it's in how it's used in among kind of realize a focused restraint vision is very salutory so we aren't disagreeing on certain behaviors. That envy self-destruct. I think where the difference pumps is over this as you suggest this kind of extended american presence kind of the the deep gauge moment. I think is way a bill. All fourth and even brooks. I have used used to drawing on a guy and others the sense that this is a kind of the liberal. International order is more than just a a kind of mix of of a discrete institutions and agreements but his is a kind of political formation that has economic security call infrastructure to and so. I've always been very much of the view that the alliance system is a positive feature of or liberal order even with all the risks and and and and problems that can generate because it because it's a form oath of binding states together in ongoing efforts to manage our common spades. That that this goes back to my argument in after victory and remember that that book the subtitle that book is is institutions strategic restraint and the rebuilding of of order after major wars restraints is very important strategic restraint. I felt at that time now. Twenty years ago that there was there is more to say about what what what is restraint. How do you generate. Why is it important and dominant state does have a strategic interest. I argue a exercising restraint. And it can do so through building institutions that inhabits with other country and so this is where i guess there is a kind of my good friend burying osen writes about the about liberal hegemony as kind of a a kind of overturning a kind of logic restrained. I've always thought and we had an exchange years ago. The journal american american interest that the us system of agreements in alliances and all the other collateral agreements are a form of restraint in. I in yourself down. You're making agreements new work with other countries. If the us had been more committed to nato kind of common security with europe in two thousand.
"liberal international order" Discussed on podcast – Lawyers, Guns & Money
"Dan nexen. Today i'm talking to john. I can bury about all things liberal international order. John i can vary the alberti millbank professor of politics and international affairs at princeton university in the department of politics and the princeton school of public and international affairs. He's also the co director of princeton's center for international security studies. John is a whole list of other accolades which you can go read about on his website. He is the author of eight books including after victory institutions strategic restraint in the rebuilding of order after major wars which came out with princeton's who thousand one liberal leviathan the origins crisis and transformation of the american system which came out in two thousand and eleven and most recently a world safe for democracy liberal internationalism the crisis of global order which was published by yale university. Press in twenty twenty. We're gonna primarily talking about arguments that john makes the world safe for democracy as well as some pieces that you may have read me talking about at the blog most notably his piece on roosevelt and foreign policy with dan duty which appeared this year in foreign policy. And i want to start by welcoming john to our program. Thank you dan. It's great to be here so there's a lot we can talk about. I think that the i wear. I really would like to start though is if you could tell our listeners about your most recent book which i think is a really important backdrop or all the different contexts that they've been reading your name risk. Yes absolutely the the book that tha you're speaking of That came out last fall. A world safe for democracy which really is my effort to to reconstruct and eliminate the liberal international traditional across the two hundred two hundred years and it really begins with the debate that everyone is having kind of crisis of the contemporary. Bobo order the breakdown of the.
"liberal international order" Discussed on Fully Automated
"The belief at all but there is no real conflicts that it's all just kind of misunderstanding of different forms or a clash of identities and identities as we all know can be kind of socially constructed remolded and this is what i knew kind of theoretical framework. Tell us and therefore ultimately there is no political cone. I was amazed by by seeing all of this car that it spoke directly to our own times. But then we'd worse in fact that we'd recreated the same problems which card soju ever come with recreated them in different forms not perhaps in of the league of nations international law but in ideas of constructivism and the european union. And so on which i guess will come onto. The i think other say is about the difference. I suppose it's i think that our pattern of politics today kind of proves car in reverse so cars model is about liberal. Kind of international politics found on mass politics on the integration of urban working class voters the extension of the franchise mass nationalism nationalist politics the expansion of large and powerful states based on these nations kind of struggling to assert their interests against others And all of that seems to me. He says liberal internationalism could survive in that context and it seems to me the reason that we have liberal internationalism today is precisely because that context is gone so that mass politics has been surpressed deem is kind of defused in various ways through supranational politics And so this is the way in which international politics has been recreated in the aftermath of the cold war. I think that he is by the suppression of mass politics. So the claiming the book is that car is proved in reverse as as if you want because mass politics broad liberal international politics low in the interval period has been suppressed over the last eight years and this is why liberal international politics liberal international order. If that's possible if it's legitimate talk. In those terms patrick's criticism though was standing devised by virtue of the suppression of politics..
"liberal international order" Discussed on Fully Automated
"It's a tough one. Because i would like to think myself no kind of no not to be any kind of starry eyed believer in liberal international order but it and indeed liberal transformation is something which is frequently been disastrous over the last twenty years of what i style is the new twenty crisis but it seems to me to perhaps erm jerry into the game and advanced to say that there is no possibility of liberalism in an anarchist political system to me. I suppose you could say. There is deep complicity between anarchic systems and lisbon as as the ultimate anneke that is clay is the anarchy of the market system and that there is the anneke that kind of underpins the anneke of the state system that is laid on top of it but beyond that. I think that it's we can. I think it's legitimate to talk about liberal national order not perhaps in terms in which it understands itself but in terms of the way in which kinds of politics is justified in the institutions. They understand themselves which they legitimate themselves. The way in which they cast their appeal and even though those institutions and ideas and frameworks is kind of meet their limits. Very quickly to simply say that. It's simply say that it doesn't exist by virtue of the fact that it's always kind of hypocritical and bloody and that ordering is always a difficult process and that it's always tortured and falls short desperation. I'm not sure that. I i'm not sure it's sufficient though. Obviously i partake in the same kind of critique the that pad levels at the the international the idea of liberal international. We might be able to find. So perhaps jack so good three saint. I think a. That's not about place for me to maybe hop in there..
"liberal international order" Discussed on Serve to Lead | James Strock
"There were both presidents of the american historical association. Now i could look at recent presidents irrespective of party. I couldn't imagine them following a meeting of the american historical association almost much less being president. What do you think about that. Well sometimes i confess. I have trouble following some meetings in the american historical association. But i very much take your point you know. There is a common invocation of history. It american foreign policy. It's just superficial. There's been a lot of discussion in the past five. Ten years about the so-called postwar. Us lead rules-based rules-based liberal international order almost entirely aim to say how terrible it was that donald trump supposedly stood against it. When really hardly anyone could define what this was and then if you would read descriptions of this supposed order it would include institutions like the eu created in the nineteen nineties in that order You know nato is created after the un is that just a million problems one. What has with it so Bef- we don't just need more history. That would be nice but we need to have a real openness to the richness that history properly understood can provide us. It should be mind opening and often makes doesn't have easy lessons not the simplistic lessons That suddenly become the talking points of of of of the day and even words contested the very contesting of that can be valuable and we just simply for the moment seemed to be turning our back on it. Let's enclosing stephen worth. You obviously have so much to think about your written a brilliant and beautiful new book and by the way it's very attractively designed as well as written so beautifully. Is there anything. You'd like to leave our listeners. With today why hope your listeners judge the book by its cover so go look it up tomorrow. The world the birth of us global supremacy My words don't do justice to the beautiful cover. You're absolutely right. And i had nothing to do with that cover but More seriously i hope that Listeners will find it to be Enjoyable read and one that is illuminating. Whatever they make of it. I think it's possible to read this book. I made a lot of discoveries in in archives. It's i think it's probably impossible to to read the book and not learn something you hadn't done before and I think it's possible to read the book and come to the conclusion well maybe. Us leadership military leadership was Important and necessary thing. But i hope you'll think about why that was if that was the In its original moment in the middle of the twentieth century and whether going forward.
"liberal international order" Discussed on C-SPAN Radio
"And now the weekend begins with former German ambassador to the United States Wolfgang Kissinger's thoughts on the challenges facing Europe. These virtual event with the former German ambassador to the U. S hosted by the Hudson Institute took place on December 4th. Hello. My name is Walter Russell Mead. I'm a distinguished fellow here at Hudson Institute of Professor Bard College and the Global View columnist for The Wall Street Journal. Double CSP from Washington. Pleasure of speaking with ambassador both gun issue here about his new book World in Danger Germany in Europe in an uncertain times. The future of the European Union and transatlantic relations. Ambassador issues You joined the front German foreign service in 1975 served as deputy foreign minister. And his director of policy planning and political director of the Foreign Ministry in the 19 nineties, he's been Germany's ambassador to the United States. And as well to the United Kingdom. Ambassador Isn't yours been chairman of the Munich Security Conference since 2008 and teaches at the Heritage School of Governance and Berlin as senior professor. He advises the private sector governments and international organizations on strategic issues. He's published Why'd fully in world in danger? He identifies the origins of current fissures in the global order and the problems they posed for Germany in the European Union. He also offers a vision for the youth used future. Which he hopes will be peaceful, prosperous, secure and influential. Nasserist in Jersey. Great just to see you again on to Hudson Institute. Um, and thank you very much for agreeing to discuss. You're actually quite fascinating book with me this morning. The title of your books of provocative one, especially coming from such a senior member of the German foreign policy world. As you say, the end of the Cold War At the end of the Cold War, much of the western, his political leadership believed that the world was becoming a better and safer place. And now you are writing about our dangers. What's changed and what of the dangers? Well, first of all, uh, Walter. Thank you for having me It's it's such a pleasure to meet with you. If only virtually. I wish I could I could have traveled to Washington and to New York. You talk about my book and the on and the future of transatlantic cooperation. Now that we have had the Elections in your country, but You know when I when I wrote the book, and when we had to decide about the title this was, of course. Smack in the middle off the off the trump years and, quite frankly, When we decided to call it Velden Ghaffar, which translates exactly in tow world in danger. Some people said, Isn't this a little over the top? Isn't this too You know catastrophic Is the world really in such bad shape? Well. If I had had a chance. Eight months or 10 months ago to review the title. I would have probably said world in great danger because we have seen at least in my view. A falling apart of the kind of Global and regional order. The so called liberal international order built on the idea of off the rule of law on dove promoting Democracy. That kind of international order has tended to fall apart on we were onlookers rather helpless onlookers for significant period a period of time. I would say that at this very moment A to beginning of December. Uh, 2000 and 20. The outlook is beginning to be a little less grim because I think there are now wonderful great opportunities waiting to be seized, but until very recently until early November. My view off the global situation, and my view of the situation in and around Europe was really quite grim. We'll come back to the question of how President Elect Biden's election may be made change things or what a new American leadership might do. But I think it is. I think it's going to be helpful for for an American audience to understand the You know the nature of the concerns that that you had because it does seem that you know when I listened to Chancellor Merkel to defense Minister an egret Crump, Karen Bauer or Sullivan DeLay and over the European Commission. All of them are really speaking in very new ways about Germany's role in the world. And that and the Need for kind of a strategic rethink. May be helpful for American audience to understand just how the German perception of the world and of the tasks confronting German foreign policy Have changed in the last few years, and it's not all as you know, it's not all about Trump there many other things at work here. Let me uh, let me start by going back. To the moment of unification reunification of Germany, which was almost exactly 30 years ago. You know, in October off 90 90. That historic event. Which brought He's to Germany and the unification of the two parts that created a situation in the minds off many millions of Germans. Um, that now you know, paradise is about to begin. The Red Army is going to leave their the Red Army. The Soviet army did leave because the Soviet Union was beginning to disintegrate within a year or year and a half off. Off the moment of unification, and Germans began to think that you know now things are fine and we can just simply love the status quo and we don't have to worry about Being a frontline state anymore, with hundreds of thousands of Soviet troops of the other side and the US Army and Air Force all over West Germany, helping KUB to defend and to deter Um, uh, risks off war and conflict is Central Europe. Former German Ambassador to the US, Wolfgang is singer his book World in Danger. No. In 2014. At the Munich Security Conference, which I have the privilege of organizing and sharing each year. The president of the Federal Republic of Germany, uh, attack that name President Dog. I gave a rather fundamental speech, and he said Germany should now Wake up. And accept a larger responsibility for handling the future of Europe and for participating in global affairs. And that created quite a quite a debate. The interesting thing, Walter is this speech. Happened in February of 2014. And you know what happened next?.
"liberal international order" Discussed on KQED Radio
"Looks like a better decision down the road than it does today? I think there could I mean, remember, Brexit is really about the idea of national sovereignty. It's not about economics. And this is how Boris Johnson put it on Christmas Eve. When he finally got that trade deal, The British people voted to take back control of their money, their borders, their laws. And, of course, that's in an economic cost, Ari. Another potential scenario where Brexit looks a little better. Is it politically? The U becomes even harder to manage. And the U. K in the end is glad that I got out when it did. That's NPR's Frank Langfitt. Thank you for all of your coverage of the story over the years, and particularly today on this historic moment. Great to talk. All right, all right, from the edge of the English Channel. Let's have now to Oxford, where on and men and is director of the UK in a changing Europe. That's a think tank with a focus on Brexit. Welcome. Thank you having me Want to scale from solid wind to utter disaster. Where would you put this deal very much towards the wind side because by the time we reached sort of Christmas, and of course, the deal was finally done on Christmas Eve. We have a binary choice, which was between deal and no deal. No deal would have been significantly more disruptive significantly more costly and I think, as importantly and no deal outcome would have set the UK and its European partners of loggerheads. Each side blamed the other for the collapse of the talks, and that would have got in the way of cooperation on security. Climate on all kinds of things for weeks, if not months, So compared to that outcome, a deal is a wind from the American perspective. Britain's role as a global leader has been crucial. I mean, the UK has a permanent seat on the U. N Security Council. It's a powerful force in NATO. How do you see that changing after this Brexit deal? And when I say is the one that you miss there is that the UK is also being useful to the U. S. As a friend inside the European Union. That is to say, an Atlanticist liberal free trading state that could shape you decisions and make the case for Atlantis is, um and free trade at the heart of the European Union. I think the U. S. Will miss that. I suspect the UK will make efforts to be an even more activist foreign policy player. Because the government is keen to ram home that message we might have turned our back on European Union membership. But we haven't turned our back on the world or on our responsibilities as a key defender of the liberal international Order. I'm curious is a person who has devoted your professional life to following this saga over the years. Can you just tell us how you Personally feel now that this deal has finally happened, I found I found every step of the journey very, very interesting because so many weird and wonderful things have happened in British politics wonderful, broadly defined from the perspective of a political scientist. You could not how you could not hope to live through or interesting time to study the politics of your country. The other thing for me that is fascinating, though, is that many people, many people who supported Brexit leaving the European Union wasn't and ended itself. It was a means to an end. That is to say, if we leave the European Union, then we can doctor thought you fill in that blank because you won't become a more activist international player Deregulating away. The European Union would never let us so Actually, The real test of Brexit in many ways is yet to come. Which is now you've got that freedom. What the hell are you going to do with it? And how are you going to make people's lives better because of it, despite the fact You're in charge of an economy that is growing less fast. Then it would have done Had we not left in the first place. On and men in is director of the U. K and a change in Europe and professor of European politics and foreign affairs at King's College. London. Thank you for talking with us on this historic day. Absolute pleasure and happy New Year to you. You're listening to all things considered from NPR news. Let's head out to Pacific and now with Hillary Walker And that's where we have one South.
"liberal international order" Discussed on KCRW
"It does today? I think there could I mean, remember, Brexit is really about the idea of national sovereignty. It's not about economics, and this is how Boris Johnson put it. On Christmas Eve. When he finally got that trade deal, the British people voted to take back control of their money their borders. They're lose. And, of course, that's in an economic cost. Ari. Another potential scenario where Brexit looks a little better, Is it politically The U becomes even harder to manage and the U. K in the end is glad that I got out when it did. It's NPR's Frank Langfitt. Thank you for all of your coverage of this story over the years, and particularly today on this historic moment, Great to talk, Ari. All right, from the edge of the English Channel. Let's head now to Oxford, where on and men and is director of the UK in a changing Europe. That's a think tank with a focus on Brexit. Welcome. Thank you having me Well on a scale from solid wind to utter disaster. Where would you put this deal very much towards the wind side because by the time we reached sort of Christmas, and of course, the deal was finally done on Christmas Eve. We had a binary choice, which was between deal and no deal. No deal would have been significantly more disruptive significantly more costly And I think, as importantly and no deal outcome would have set the UK and its European partners of loggerheads. Each side blamed the other for the collapse of the talks, and that would have got in the way of cooperation on security. On climate on all kinds of things for weeks, if not months, So compared to that outcome, a deal is a wind from the American perspective. Britain's role as a global leader has been crucial. I mean, the UK has a permanent seat on the U. N Security Council. It's a powerful force in NATO. How do you see that changing after this Brexit deal? I mean, when I say is the one that you miss there is that the UK is also being useful to the U. S. As a friend inside the European Union. That is to say, an Atlanticist liberal free trading state that could shape EU decisions and make the case for Atlantis is, um and free trade at the heart of the European Union. I think the U. S. Will miss that I suspect the UK will make efforts to be an even more activist foreign policy player. Because the government is keen to ram home that message we might have turned our back on European Union membership. We haven't turned our back on the world or on our responsibilities as a key defender of the liberal international Order. I'm curious is a person who has devoted your professional life to following this saga over the years. Can you just tell us how you Personally feel now that this deal has finally happened, I found I found every step of the journey very, very interesting because so many weird and wonderful things have happened in British politics wonderful, broadly defined from the perspective of a political scientist. You could not, you could not hope to live through or interesting time to study the politics of your country. The other thing for me that is fascinating, though, is that many people, many people who supported Brexit leaving the European Union wasn't and ended itself. It was a means to an end. That is to say, if we leave the European Union, then we can Doctor thought you fill in that blank because you won't become a more activist international player Deregulating the way the European you would never let us so Actually, The real test of Brexit in many ways is yet to come. Which is now you've got that freedom. What the hell are you going to do with it? And how are you going to make people's lives better because of it, despite the fact That you're in charge of an economy that is growing less fast. Then it would have done Had we not left in the first place. On and two men in is director of the U. K and a change in Europe and professor of European politics and foreign affairs at King's College. London. Thank you for talking with us on this historic day. Absolute pleasure and happy New Year to you. You're listening to all.
Has Trump broken the 'rules-based international order'?
"Today on the show discussion with a renowned expert about the so-called rules based international order. It's been grabbing headlines vs. Now, how often have you heard that term, the rose by store is not perfect. We are rallying the noble nations of the world to build a new liberal order, that prevents war achieves greater prosperity for all. I have never heard. I Chinese leader commit so explicitly to rule based international order. So what do you think it actually means now for many politicians and journalists the world in which we leave the institutions of governance, the rules norms, all that, that's largely inspired by the kind of allegedly but nine global leadership that the United States. Is exercise for decades. And yet, would you believe it? The rules based international order itself has become a popular expression, only in recent times, did effective research, such of the world's newspapers and news wise. And it shows these things that in the three decades from ninety five to twenty fifteen the expression was used on three hundred nineteen occasion. That's three hundred eight times in thirty. That's all, however, get a lot of this in the past four years since Donald Trump announces presidential campaign, the term has been used nearly six thousand times six thousand times in the past four years. And about three hundred and twenty in the previous thirties, extrordinary now to me, the logic is simple. Western journalists scholars politicians policy makers, they all too often refer to this Liberal International order rules. Based international order. Why? Because it's demise is primarily blamed on one Donald Trump from this day forward, it's going to be only America first America first. Now the conventional wisdom goes lock these ball rising tariffs weakening alliances withdrawing the US from international agreements and supping with the devil, from Kim Jong Hoon that Singapore to Ladimir Putin hill, stinky, the US president has lifted void in world leadership. This is the argument as a result, Trump has undermined Feith in the open free, international order of the post Cold War era. But Trump alone really, to blind for the unraveling of the Liberal International auto or was this rules based order. So beloved of the western elites was at bound to file will my guest today has spent a lot of time. Thinking about this issue, John Measham is no stranger to this program. He's professor of political science at the university of Chicago. He's the author most recently of the great delusion liberal, drains and international realities published by ya'll university, Chris. And he's article bound to file the and full of Liberal International order that appears in the current issue of the academic journal, International Security, John joins us today from a studio on campus. The university of Chicago. Get I John welcome to the program. Thank you, Tom. I'm glad to be here now. It seems that this rules base Liberal International order is in trouble is Trump to blind. No, I think it is the conventional wisdom among the foreign policies. Tablet meant here in the United States, and probably in Australia that Trump is responsible for wrecking the Liberal International order. And once he is disposed of in twenty twenty and we get a new president someone like Joe Biden, we'll go back to the old way of doing business in the Liberal International order will survive. I think this is a deeply flawed way of thinking about what's happening with regard to that order that order was in deep trouble before, Trump got elected, just think the Iraq war, the Afghans, STAN war, the fiasco and Libya defeat. Lasko in Syria to Gasco over Ukraine, to two thousand eight financial crisis, the euro zone crisis Brexit, just a name of few of the problems. What Trump did when he ran for president in two thousand sixteen was he pointed out all these failures. He said, the Liberal International order was bankrupt and he got away. Acted and he got elected because many voters, clearly understood that he was correct. So the argument that Trump is responsible for wrecking the Liberal International. Order is dead wrong by what distinguished Trump from a lot of the Republicans and Democrats in two thousand sixteen was he's belief that democracy was not an expo commodity, and you think about it, John thirty years ago. This she had the full of the Berlin Wall, the claps Ivy, communism and the consensus that ease ago, I roll friend Francis, Fukuyama democracy was the wife of the future, what happened. I think that would happened was that we came to find out that not everyone in the world likes democracy, you and I may think it is the best system. But the fact is that they're all sorts of other people world, especially if you go to a place like Russia today, who would prefer an alternative form of political system. And in this case, it soft the -tarian his, so if you're in the business of trying to spread democracy around the world as the United States was in its pursuit of liberal. Gemini, what you discover is an extremely difficult task and it's an especially difficult task. If you use military force to spread democracy. In other words, you try to spread democracy at the end of a sword. And this, of course, is what we tried to do in Afghanistan. And in Iraq, it was with the Bush doctrine was all about, and those ended up being close. Oh failures, you'll critics will say though. Not standing all these setbacks that isn't it inevitable that as human con progresses than the prospects for democratization, and universal peace are enhanced and that, you know it was seeing this right now. There's still talk that China will eventually become a liberal democracy in these protests in Hong Kong that we've witnessed in the past fortnight that shows that eventually, China will buck, and become more liberal, democratic signed thing for Russia. How'd you respond to that? I just don't think it's inevitable. I mean, I want to be very clear, I think democracy is the best political system, and I think it would be a good thing if every country on the planet was liberal democracy. But the idea that that is inevitable as simply wrong. The fact is that Uman beings find it very difficult to agree on questions of what is the best life? What is the best political system, and would Frank Fukuyama and others? Assumed when the Cold War came to a conclusion was that everybody in the world. Wanted to live in a state, that was a liberal democracy. And therefore, with fictive -ly had the winded our back in our endeavour to spread liberal democracy, all across the planet, but that assumption has proven to be wrong. The fact is that the spread of democracy is not inevitable. And by the way, if you go back to two thousand six fast forward to the present what you see is that the number of democracies in the world is decreasing not increase. I think the New York buys freedom house's documented that. It's come down something like ten percent in the last ten or so years. Raw joan. It has. And that is regrettable. But it just points out that this is not inevitable. And again, if you get into the business trying to sprint liberal democracy when it's not an edible. And there are viable, alternatives, you're going to run into a whole his just as a conventional wisdom's are often wrong guy back to that consensus at the end of the Cold War that democracy was the wife of the future. One orthodoxy, that's also Baynes smashed in the last that he is. John is argument that nationalism was a thing of the past on the eve of the European parliamentary elections as Jordan, Claude Juncker. He's a leading European bureaucrat. He was asked about the growing reactions about, you know, against Brussels and the AU and the rise of nationalist movements across Europe. This is from CNN in general with the with the EU elections coming up, the euro skeptical right-wing forces seemed to be very strong in many countries. How does how much does that concern? You why do you think that is what's wrong with the what's your? We'll just. And if that wasn't tone-deaf enough, he added these populous necessarily stupid necessarily his day, I love the country and they don't like the others. Join me Sharma. What do you make of comments? I think it's a remarkably foolish comment. The fact is that virtually every leader of a western democracy is a nationalist just take, Madeleine Albright, who was once secretary of state here in the United States and is viewed as a canonical liberal. She's also a nationalist at heart. She wants famously said that America is the indispensable nation. We stand taller and we see further if you think about her words, she is saying, America is the indispensable, and I underline the word nation. That's at the heart of nationalism virtually every leader, whether it's an Australian or. Japanese or German leader feels that his or her country is something very special in their deeply devoted to that country. That's what nationalism is all about. And what you had in the post Cold War, period up until very recently is a situation where liberalism and nationalism coexisted, but hardly anybody ever talked about nationalism. But once the Liberal International order began to crumble people began to talk more and more about nationalism. And they felt at a lot of those liberal policies in fringed on national policies and on nationalism and ways that they didn't like, and the end result is, you got Brexit and Britain, and you got Trump and the United States and you know what you have in places like Poland and Hungary as well. So in nineteen states clash with multilateral institutions, nationalism, always Trump's liberalism that show alone. My view is that liberalism and Nash. Nationalism can coexist. But when particular liberal policies begin to bump up against nationalism, nationalism will be liberalism, every time because we are all ultimately social animals. We are all alternately very tribal in our nation matters to us greatly. I think virtually every Australian cares greatly about Australian sovereignty just like every American cares about American sovereignty.