Neo-Isolationism Rears Its Head in US and Europe
Published in Southern Views
(China) on 24 March 2016
by Nanfang Shuo (link to original)
(China) on 24 March 2016
by Nanfang Shuo (link to original)
Translated from
by Calvin Blackburn.
Edited by Eva Langman.
In reality, the emergence of neo-isolationism is due to new changes in public opinion. China has watched this change in the U.S. and Europe closely and could use it to oppose U.S. interference and provocation.
The rules of international policy have consistently swayed between two extremes. The first is isolationism, the other interventionism. Isolationists believe that each country ought to mind its own business, so that it may avoid exporting its own problems and causing trouble for other countries. As for interventionism, it is imperialism by another name. This ideology is only concerned with collecting benefits for the empire, indifferent to the issues [such interference] leaves behind.
The past era of the Cold War was one of balance between the opposing powers of the United States and the Soviet Union. Following the conclusion of the Cold War, the United States became the sole superpower. As a result of this, the U.S. gradually became the last empire, establishing itself as arbiter of justice for the world, arbitrarily using military force to intervene across the globe. In recent years, American intervention in the Middle East has not only wrought havoc on the world economy, but this excessive interference has also brought about the growth of terrorism and the flood of Middle Eastern refugees. These dire consequences are the just desserts for both the U.S. and Europe, above all as a self-inflicted wound for the United States. Since 2015, consequently, European elections — one after another — have seen a wave of isolationist populism wash over them. Now, in 2016, this wave has already reached the shores of the U.S.
The most defining characteristic of this wave is none other than the rapid growth in power of extreme xenophobia. The values [espoused by] this xenophobia include the declaration that foreigners should mind their own business; the issue of immigration does nothing but cause trouble for European countries. Thus, the ideology that makes up this kind of xenophobic sentiment is also a means of opposing imperial intervention. In the wake of the deluge of Middle Eastern refugees and terrorist attacks on European soil, this form of isolationism has grown even more powerful. In Germany’s recent local elections, the ruling Christian Democratic Union lost big in two states, a key reminder of how the refugee crisis has already transformed Europe. Sentiment for leaving the European Union has even become stronger in the United Kingdom, a clear indication that isolationism has emerged there. And the brash and chaotic nature of the U.S. party primaries may also be explained by the revitalization of neo-isolationism there.
Everyone initially believed that in the 2016 U.S. party primaries, Jeb Bush of the Republicans and Hilary Clinton of the Democrats needed only to wait for their coronation. However, once the primaries began, the circumstances defied all expectations. Outsider Bernie Sanders leaped forth from the Democratic Party, flying the flag of Democratic Socialism — opposed to the corporations on Wall Street and assailing America’s wealth gap and lack of prospects for the youth, in addition to opposing United States interference across the planet as world policeman. Although Sanders was unable to successfully challenge Hillary, through the course of his campaign, he has possessed great strength, with youth rallying around his banner. He has posed a great threat to Hillary, reminding her that her ascension to the throne might not go smoothly.
As for the Republicans, they have witnessed the rise of real estate magnate Donald Trump. His language is brash, forceful and extremely coarse, leading to a great deal of controversy. However, throughout the course of the primaries, he has been able to press on through the gauntlet. Although the mainstream of the Republican Party has constantly plotted to put an end to Trump — with media outlets slanted toward the mainstream even carrying out attacks on him from all sides — they have been unable to blunt the growth of his power. Consequently, the centrist media and critics have in retrospect gradually begun to discuss just how he was able to rise to power, believing there to be a discernible reason. In sum, they have discovered that
Trump’s supporters do not solely consist of the boorish and uneducated. In fact, Trump has been able to attract more of those with a college education. These people are made up of the suffering elements of the middle class, incredibly dissatisfied with the direction the U.S. is heading in. Trump’s emotional speeches summarize the release of the pent up anger and scorn of the people.
People have started to notice that Trump is not merely a man shooting his mouth, but one with an ideology of his own, which may be viewed as a form of neo-isolationism. He advocates that each country mind its own business. From this premise, he calls on the U.S. to deal with its own affairs and become a great country; and with other countries keeping to themselves, [those countries] would not export terrorism and refugees to the rest of the world. He is resolutely opposed to the Islamic State and stands against Mexico trying to abandon its responsibility for illegal immigrants crossing the border into the United States. Trump also believes that the U.S. should refrain from assuming [responsibility for answering] the defense needs of Japan and South Korea, which [he thinks] turns the United States into an empire that is losing money. In his mind, if Japan and South Korea want America’s protection, they ought to pay America’s military expenses rather than exploit U.S. generosity. Trump’s ideology is nothing less than classic rightist neo-isolationism, with that of Sanders falling under the category of leftist neo-isolationism.
It can thus be said that 2016 is without doubt an era of neo-isolationism in both the U.S. and Europe. Following the Cold War, the United States wantonly dispatched troops to intervene around the world, paying out a monstrous sum for its military and destroying the American economy and its citizens’ welfare.
America’s imperialist interventionism also led to the rise of terrorism and the wave of Middle Eastern refugees. The people of the United States and Europe have already had enough of this suffering, and the time for the citizens of the U.S. and Europe to reap the consequences of this has finally arrived. The emergence of neo-isolationism is really the result of changes in public sentiment. As these transformations hit the U.S. and Europe, China has taken note, and cannot afford not to pay attention.
The rules of international policy have consistently swayed between two extremes. The first is isolationism, the other interventionism. Isolationists believe that each country ought to mind its own business, so that it may avoid exporting its own problems and causing trouble for other countries. As for interventionism, it is imperialism by another name. This ideology is only concerned with collecting benefits for the empire, indifferent to the issues [such interference] leaves behind.
The past era of the Cold War was one of balance between the opposing powers of the United States and the Soviet Union. Following the conclusion of the Cold War, the United States became the sole superpower. As a result of this, the U.S. gradually became the last empire, establishing itself as arbiter of justice for the world, arbitrarily using military force to intervene across the globe. In recent years, American intervention in the Middle East has not only wrought havoc on the world economy, but this excessive interference has also brought about the growth of terrorism and the flood of Middle Eastern refugees. These dire consequences are the just desserts for both the U.S. and Europe, above all as a self-inflicted wound for the United States. Since 2015, consequently, European elections — one after another — have seen a wave of isolationist populism wash over them. Now, in 2016, this wave has already reached the shores of the U.S.
The most defining characteristic of this wave is none other than the rapid growth in power of extreme xenophobia. The values [espoused by] this xenophobia include the declaration that foreigners should mind their own business; the issue of immigration does nothing but cause trouble for European countries. Thus, the ideology that makes up this kind of xenophobic sentiment is also a means of opposing imperial intervention. In the wake of the deluge of Middle Eastern refugees and terrorist attacks on European soil, this form of isolationism has grown even more powerful. In Germany’s recent local elections, the ruling Christian Democratic Union lost big in two states, a key reminder of how the refugee crisis has already transformed Europe. Sentiment for leaving the European Union has even become stronger in the United Kingdom, a clear indication that isolationism has emerged there. And the brash and chaotic nature of the U.S. party primaries may also be explained by the revitalization of neo-isolationism there.
Everyone initially believed that in the 2016 U.S. party primaries, Jeb Bush of the Republicans and Hilary Clinton of the Democrats needed only to wait for their coronation. However, once the primaries began, the circumstances defied all expectations. Outsider Bernie Sanders leaped forth from the Democratic Party, flying the flag of Democratic Socialism — opposed to the corporations on Wall Street and assailing America’s wealth gap and lack of prospects for the youth, in addition to opposing United States interference across the planet as world policeman. Although Sanders was unable to successfully challenge Hillary, through the course of his campaign, he has possessed great strength, with youth rallying around his banner. He has posed a great threat to Hillary, reminding her that her ascension to the throne might not go smoothly.
As for the Republicans, they have witnessed the rise of real estate magnate Donald Trump. His language is brash, forceful and extremely coarse, leading to a great deal of controversy. However, throughout the course of the primaries, he has been able to press on through the gauntlet. Although the mainstream of the Republican Party has constantly plotted to put an end to Trump — with media outlets slanted toward the mainstream even carrying out attacks on him from all sides — they have been unable to blunt the growth of his power. Consequently, the centrist media and critics have in retrospect gradually begun to discuss just how he was able to rise to power, believing there to be a discernible reason. In sum, they have discovered that
Trump’s supporters do not solely consist of the boorish and uneducated. In fact, Trump has been able to attract more of those with a college education. These people are made up of the suffering elements of the middle class, incredibly dissatisfied with the direction the U.S. is heading in. Trump’s emotional speeches summarize the release of the pent up anger and scorn of the people.
People have started to notice that Trump is not merely a man shooting his mouth, but one with an ideology of his own, which may be viewed as a form of neo-isolationism. He advocates that each country mind its own business. From this premise, he calls on the U.S. to deal with its own affairs and become a great country; and with other countries keeping to themselves, [those countries] would not export terrorism and refugees to the rest of the world. He is resolutely opposed to the Islamic State and stands against Mexico trying to abandon its responsibility for illegal immigrants crossing the border into the United States. Trump also believes that the U.S. should refrain from assuming [responsibility for answering] the defense needs of Japan and South Korea, which [he thinks] turns the United States into an empire that is losing money. In his mind, if Japan and South Korea want America’s protection, they ought to pay America’s military expenses rather than exploit U.S. generosity. Trump’s ideology is nothing less than classic rightist neo-isolationism, with that of Sanders falling under the category of leftist neo-isolationism.
It can thus be said that 2016 is without doubt an era of neo-isolationism in both the U.S. and Europe. Following the Cold War, the United States wantonly dispatched troops to intervene around the world, paying out a monstrous sum for its military and destroying the American economy and its citizens’ welfare.
America’s imperialist interventionism also led to the rise of terrorism and the wave of Middle Eastern refugees. The people of the United States and Europe have already had enough of this suffering, and the time for the citizens of the U.S. and Europe to reap the consequences of this has finally arrived. The emergence of neo-isolationism is really the result of changes in public sentiment. As these transformations hit the U.S. and Europe, China has taken note, and cannot afford not to pay attention.
Previous article![]( "Clinton vs. Sanders, the Longest War")
