Is a liberal globalisation world order beneficial to the sovereign person in a democracy?
Firstly, what is liberal globalisation? The west, especially the United States, dominated the world, the liberal order, and whatever they said it was; it was. Other countries, such as Russia, China may have complained, had alternative approaches, but basically went along with the western-defined rules and model. But perhaps it’s better described as neo-liberal globalisation. A way of thinking that dominates the western world today, involving the free movement between countries of labour, capital, goods, services and people.
What of the cause of liberal globalisation on a weaker country? In 1817, David Ricardo, developed the classical theory of comparative advantage. In a free trade, countries will produce more yet consume less of a good for which they have comparative advantage. In this model, they can produce a good at a lower cost, prior to trade. Two countries capable of producing two commodities engage in the free market, then each country will increase its overall consumption by exporting the good for which is has comparative advantage while importing the other good, provided there exists differences in labour productivity.
Conventional argument is that with unrestricted movement of capital, labour, goods, services will be resolved on the basis of comparative advantage. But there then exists a distribution of resources rather than a natural division between countries. It will not lead to investment and training in underdeveloped or weakening areas. It only leads to the enrichment of present strong economies and weakens the poor ones. As we see today, poor unemployed people migrate to the more profitable western areas on a large scale.
A Liberal World Order is not a new concept, having surfaced from the end of WW11 to uphold peace and support global prosperity. This was underpinned by institutions such as the World Bank, the IMF and NATO; through the United Nations promoting free trade. At that time, other countries were left alone to their own business, secure within their own sovereignty, whilst the political struggle between US and the Soviet Union as the superpower continued.
After the fall of the Soviet Union, the West expanded with its liberal world order by penetrating countries’ borders and sought to pool sovereignty and establish international rules which governments must adhere to. In the West’s intervention of Iraq, they ignored the sovereignty norm in international law, rather than uphold the national sovereignty. In the European Union, all national sovereignty has now either passed or it’s over-ruled by the EU, a foreign entity. In their haste to implement their Liberal Globalised World Order, they have brought about tragic mistakes such as the war in Iraq, Libya and the global economic crisis.
We now see the rise of countries like Russia, China and India; countries with their national sovereignty intact and high on their agenda. Have those countries failed by not adopting this globalised world order ideology?
But who benefits from a liberal globalisation world? In a 2017 study of 28 member states of the EU, a poll found that 86% of people considered that ‘income inequality’ in their country was either ‘very serious’ or ‘somewhat serious’.
Big business has now, within a neo-liberalised order, become an ally to Governments and Countries as big business favours the stability of the system and improved conditions for more profit making. Whereas small business and the people will suffer under the non-restraint and power over big business, governments once commanded. There are many articles on the internet agreeing that this neo-liberal globalisation resulted from political policy decisions made by powerful elites to advance their own interests. The rich and powerful driven in the ideological service which pursues a world in which the market reigns over society.
Some may argue that nation states no longer have the power to regulate capital. Globalisation has produced a world of economic interdependence which in itself has created difficulties for state regulation. A country that has the political will to exercise some control over the movement of goods and capital over its borders may still retain significant power to regulate business. Globalisation has made Capitalism more competitive, and this open world has also opened up a financial system of major banks and institutions into competition with another.
A liberal globalisation order has brought about political ‘progressives’ and social cohesion and undermines living standards in the both the US and Europe. Distaste in anything patriotic or national identity and sovereign unity. It seems an ideology of ‘one size fits all’.
Just as with Brexit, the willingness to resort to abusive behaviour shows how the progressives have lost all grasp of morality and political reality. So immersed in the doctrine of liberal globalisation, they almost abhor any man who should stand up for his country, his sovereignty, his identity. It’s almost become a religion, a cult; somehow you are a ‘racist’, almost a ‘heathen’, to not believe and proclaim that mass immigration and multiculturalism is far greater than any national unity or identity and that sovereignty is a thing of the past and of little importance. Nor can they cope that the truth that their experiment in globalisation has failed and has only benefitted those at the top.
This has also delivered an oligarchic bloc of irresponsible ‘elites’ who utilise neo-liberal globalisation to legitimate their own interests and political ideas causing segregation within society, from inequality, economic restructuring to loss of culture, even identity.
Why is sovereignty so important? The concept of Sovereignty is the full right and power of a governing body over itself, without any interference from outside sources or bodies. It is the fundamental principle of a democratic state which determines the law, and that no one may follow any other law nor may outsiders intervene. It allows the Country to be supreme in both internal and external matters. Sovereignty defines the status and rights of all of its citizens. The Sovereignty of the U.K. is steeped in history and as such has an uncodified Constitution based on Christian values which makes it flexible and available to changes, but NOT without the Consent of the People. It is important for trade, unity, integration, order, identity.
A Country can only therefore be truly independent if it retains and enjoys its Sovereignty.
If it does not retain its hold on Sovereignty, how is it able to implement laws and form a policy for freedom and guard the welfare of its citizens?
However, past U.K. Prime Ministers have given the Sovereignty and Powers of the U.K. to a foreign entity, the EU. Can the U.K. today claim to be independent? Until such time as all Sovereignty & Power are repatriated back, perhaps not.
Just like the current Brexit negotiations – it isn’t all about trade and big companies, well, it shouldn’t be. Let’s take the EU, for one moment. It is an inward thinking, authoritarian, undemocratic entity, swallowing up sovereign states, rather than a common free trade market, and full or its own regulations and rules. Those outside are also penalised with tariffs and regulations making it harder for countries like Africa, as they are unable to raise their standards. The ideology of the liberal globalisation order to flood countries with immigration only helps to bring down wages, amongst other things. An unequal playing field by joining with countries less affluent causes money to be drained from the bloc. Just recently in his speech to the Union on 12th September, Mr. Juncker speaks of ‘European Sovereignty’ of pooling all sovereignty from states together. The EU has slipped into UK domestic law. The U.K. has an uncodified Constitution and whilst it can be altered for internal matters, to transfer the Sovereignty or parts thereof to a foreign entity, such as the EU is of different nature; that is external.
If Sovereignty is the governing body of a country chosen by the Sovereign People at times of democratic election; to define its laws, abide by its Constitution; to define its foreign policy, its internal affairs, its external affairs, its borders, its security, its forces etc., then how can a liberal globalisation world order possibly be beneficial to the sovereign person?
The ideology of the liberal globalised order is open borders and open societies. They believe by closing down all barriers, the world can trade better, and people allowed to freely move between countries whether working or not. This is not a bad concept per se, but it should not be at the detriment of the sovereign person in a democratic country. The liberal ‘elite’ seem to believe that this will keep peace and prosperity, but then what is the point of NATO and the United Nations? Do they not consider the possibility of internal wars, revolutions within their ‘utopia’? Who really benefits from the profits and cheap labour it brings to big companies and institutions? How beneficial is it to weaker countries, say in the African or Middle Eastern regions, where so many of their people emigrate in numbers?
So perhaps we need to think about the future, in which direction should we really go?
The conclusion is therefore that a liberal globalised world order cannot be beneficial to a sovereign country and its people. Their idea of multiculturalism has, in fact, become disastrous, in some ways, to the indigenous people of a country. With no proper integration into the host sovereign state only fuels confusion and bitterness and an ideology of ‘one size fits all’ causes segregation and states within a state.
Perhaps a type of regulated capitalism, world trade, and secure sovereign nations based on human need rather than private profit is well over due.