Connect with us

Latest

Analysis

News

Russia’s ‘constitution’ for Syria (FULL TEXT AND ANALYSIS)

The ‘draft constitution’ Russia presented to the parties at the Astana conference is not a blueprint for Syria’s future and the Russians did not intend in that way. It was a diplomatic play to get the parties talking about other issues than the sterile issue of the future of President Assad, which has prevented process in all the negotiations up to now. In that it appears to have been successful.

Alexander Mercouris

Published

on

2,229 Views

Since shortly after the Syrian peace talks began in the Kazakh capital Astana rumours have circulated that Russia proposed at the conference a ‘draft constitution’ for Syria.

Rumours about the contents of this ‘draft constitution’ have spread widely, with concern widely expressed that Russia might be seeking to impose its ideas on the Syrian people in quasi-colonial fashion, and that Russia is overreaching itself.

There have also been serious concerns that the ‘draft constitution’ threatens the integrity of the Syrian state by enforcing its federalisation and by granting autonomy to the Kurds, and that Syria’s traditional system of government with a strong executive President is being threatened, thereby making the country ungovernable and unable to meet external or internal threats.

In my opinion these concerns are wrong, though not groundless.  It is always an extraordinary step when one country produces the draft of what it calls a ‘constitution’ for another country, and it is certainly not something that should be encouraged.

Having said this, there were in my opinion valid – indeed obvious – reasons why the Russians acted as they did, and once these are understood and the document itself is explained, it becomes clear that the concerns which have been expressed about the ‘draft constitution’- though made in good faith – are in fact misplaced.

I would say that whilst this will take some explaining, I have no doubt the Russians have explained it all privately to the Syrian government which is why the Syrian government, and the Turks and the Iranians both of whom also oppose Syria’s federalisation, have been so quiet and relaxed about it.

In order to explain this properly, I will now provide a link to the complete text of this so-called ‘draft constitution’.  This is a lengthy document, and I should express my grateful thanks to Mariam Al-Hijab, Editor-in-Chief for Inside Syria Media Center, and to Sophia Mangal, for sending it to me.  Without their help this analysis would be impossible, though I should stress that it is entirely my own and I take sole responsibility for it.

The document – as any document which calls itself a ‘draft constitution’ must be – is very long.  However certain claims which have been made about this ‘draft constitution’ turn out even on a quick reading to be untrue.  For example, it has been claimed that it envisages turning Syria from a Presidential to a parliamentary republic, with the President losing most of his powers and limited to an essentially ceremonial role, and limited moreover to serving for just one term.  The actual text of the ‘draft constitution’ shows that this is all wrong.

The powers of the President are set out in Chapter 4 page 23.

Article 48 makes it clear that the President exercises executive power alongside the government.  Article 49(1) and (2) allow the President to stay in office for two consecutive terms each of 7 years, not just one.   There is no provision that prevents the same individual from standing for a third or more terms as President, provided the third term does not follow directly after the first two.

Article 55 confirms that the President is the guarantor of the constitution, and of Syria’s “independence, unity and territorial integrity”.  Article 57 gives the President the power to issue “decrees, edicts and instructions in accordance with the Constitution and the law”.  Article 60 confirms that the President is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces.  Article 60(1) authorises the President to issue “all the decisions necessary to exercise this authority”.  Article 60(2) makes it clear that it is the President who is tasked with responding to any threat to the state, though he or she is obligated to inform the upper house of the country’s parliament of whatever action he or she is taking.  Article 60(3) gives the President the power to declare a state of emergency, though only with the prior agreement of the upper house of the parliament or – if this cannot be obtained in the time available – with its agreement to be sought within one day.

Article 63(3) confirms that it is the President who “directs the general course of the Government’s activities”.  Article 64 confirms that it is the President who appoints the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister’s deputies, and Article 63(3) confirms that the President has the right to summon the members of the government to report on their activities, and that the President has the right to preside over meetings of the government.

In summary, though the President’s powers may be somewhat reduced by comparison with what they are now, the ‘draft constitution’ clearly envisages Syria remaining a Presidential republic, with the President normally serving for two consecutive terms of 7 years each (14 years in total), and remaining in command of the armed forces and in control of the government.  The President would still be the country’s leader, and it is doubtful whether in practical terms the position of the President would be significantly different from what it is now.

If rumours about what the ‘draft constitution’ does to the role of the President are wrong, what about the other more serious claims that have been made about it?  Does it in fact provide for Syria’s federalisation and for the grant of sweeping autonomy to the Kurds?

As has been pointed out by several people, the words “federal”, “federalisation” and “federation” appear nowhere in the document.  Article 1 says that that the names of the country are “the Syrian Republic” and/or “Syria”, with the two names being used interchangeably.  Article 1(2) says that “Syria relies on the unity of its nation and is a common and indivisible homeland for all its citizens”.  Article 9(1) says that “the territory of Syria is indivisible, inviolable and integral”.  Article 9(2) says that “the territory of Syria is inalienable”.

These provisions are more consistent with a unitary state, such as the one Syria is now, then with a federation or with a federal structure.  Certainly the right of secession of any constituent part of Syria is expressly ruled out.

The ‘draft constitution’ does however contain certain other provisions, which some see as pointing in a different direction.  What do they say?

The key provision is Article 15, which reads as follows

  1. Syria consists of constituent parts;
  2. The law states the number of constituent parts, their boundaries and status;
  3. The organization of local administration is based on applying the principle of decentralization of authorities and responsibilities.  The law states that the relationship between these units and the central authority, their mandate, financial revenues and control over their work.  It also states the way such authorities are appointed or elected;
  4. The law shall the status of the Kurdish Cultural Autonomy.

Alongside Article 15, certain other provisions need to be considered.  Specifically there are some particular provisions concerning language in Article 4 which pertain to this question.  Article 4 reads as follows

  1. The official language of the state is Arabic.  The law shall regulate how the official language is used;
  2. Government agencies and organizations of the Kurdish cultural autonomy shall use Arabic and Kurdish equally;
  3. Syrian citizens shall be guaranteed the right to educate their children in their native language in state educational institutions and in private educational institutions that meet the educational standard;
  4. Each region shall have the right to use another majority language in addition to the official language as is regulated by the law, if such use was approved by a locally held referendum.

One big change the ‘draft constitution’ introduces to Syria’s existing arrangements is that it replaces Syria’s existing directly elected unicameral parliament with a bicameral one.  This is relevant to the question of Syria’s “federalisation” because of the way the new upper house of this bicameral parliament – referred to in the ‘draft constitution’ as the “Constituent Assembly” – is set up.  The relevant provision is Article 40

  1. The Constituent Assembly shall be formed to ensure participation of representatives of the constituent parts in legislative activities and administration of the state;
  2. The Constituent Assembly consists of representatives of the constituent parts;
  3. The law shall specify how members of the Constituent Assembly are delegated, their number, status and term of service.

Article 44 sets out the powers of the Constituent Assembly.  Mostly these mirror those of the lower house (the People’s Assembly) but in addition the Constituent Assembly possesses the following further powers: “resolving issues of war and peace” (Article 44(1)(3), “terminating the mandate of the President of the Republic” (Article 44(1)(4)), and “approval of the President’s decision to declare the state of emergency or mobilization” (Article 44(1)(5).  The power to “terminate the mandate of the President” in Article 44(1)(4) requires an impeachment process initiated by the lower house and involving the country’s Supreme Constitutional Court, the details of which are set out in Article 61.

These are extraordinarily vague provisions.  It is not clear for example whether the “Kurdish cultural autonomy” mentioned in Articles 4(2) and 15(4) is a political entity, or whether it is simply a provision granting Syria’s Kurdish people certain cultural and linguistic rights.

The number, boundaries and powers of the so called “constituent parts” and their relationship to the central government are left unresolved, to be decided by another law (passed by whom?).  Amazingly, the ‘draft constitution’ leaves unresolved even the basic question of whether the governing bodies of the “constituent parts” are to be elected by the local people, or are to be “appointed” (by whom?), whilst it seems members of the Constituent Assembly will not be elected but will be “delegated” (again by whom?), which will inevitably reduce their status and power.

Of course not all constitutions define or discuss the parts that make up a federation.  That of the US for example does not.  However in such cases the federal parts that make up the union usually already exist or are in the process of formation before the new constitution comes into effect.  That is far from being so in the Syrian case.

Such vague provisions are scarcely a programme for Syria’s federalisation, and – as I have said – some of the other provisions appear to envisage Syria remaining a unitary state, albeit one which may be somewhat more decentralised than it is now, though again the decentralisation provision is so vague as to be almost meaningless.

Such vagueness in such key provisions on such contentious subjects points to the real purpose of the ‘draft constitution’.  It is not a blueprint for Syria’s future.  It is a tool in a diplomatic play.

The ‘draft constitution’ was circulated to the Syrian parties at the peace conference in Astana. Russia’s objective at the peace conference was to consolidate the shaky ceasefire which is in force in some parts of Syria, to get the Syrian opposition groups which are attending the conference to accept Russia as an honest broker, and to get the Syrian parties talking about a possible settlement that will hopefully bring peace to Syria.

In order to have any hope of achieving these things the Russians need to get the Syrian opposition groups talking about issues which go beyond the sterile subject of the future of President Assad.  This is vital because it is this issue which has stymied all attempts to secure an agreement up to now.  The ‘draft constitution’ was the Russians’ tool to do this.

Everything about the ‘draft constitution’ suggests that it is a hurriedly cobbled together document probably farmed out to a postgraduate student at some institute.  Most of it consists of cliches, whilst some sections – for examples the ones concerning the Constituent Assembly – seem to be based, though in a very sketchy way, on Russia’s own constitution.  That the ‘draft constitution’ is so vague on so many of the most crucial issues however shows that it is not intended seriously as a true constitutional document, or even as a subject of discussion or a position paper.

Once the ‘draft constitution’ is understood in the way it is intended – as a diplomatic play – it becomes clear that none of this matters, and the true purpose of its provisions becomes clear.  Precisely because it is not a genuine constitutional document or even a position paper, it is able to offer something to everyone whilst fully satisfying no-one.

The Kurds are given references to their language and their ethnicity, promises of some sort of vague ‘autonomy’, and a provision that some officials of the central government will be picked according to ethnic quotas, which would include them.  Also the world “Arab” is removed from the country’s name.

The secular Ba’athists are given a strong directly elected executive President and a promise of what looks like a unitary state.  The ‘draft constitution’ is also determinedly secular, and importantly it safeguards women’s rights.

The preamble reassures the Arab nationalists by referring to the Arab League and confirming that the official language will be Arabic, whilst the Islamists are offered a reference to the Charter of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation.

There are vague suggestions of decentralisation such as might give hope to some Sunnis in some of Syria’s provinces, with nothing however so concrete that the Baathists or the Arab nationalists might balk at it.

Needless to say none of these people – the Kurds, the Ba’athists, the Arab nationalists or the Sunni fundamentalists – would consider this ‘draft constitution’ remotely acceptable, and all of them have rejected it, as the Russians of course knew they would.  The point is that by presenting it to them the Russians have got them all talking about something other than the future of President Assad, whilst highlighting areas for future discussion, and leaving open the possibility of a future invitation to Astana to the Kurds, who are currently being prevented from going there by the Syrians and the Turks.

Early indications are that the play was successful.  It seems that the Jihadi groups who came to Astana have warmed to Russia, accepting that the Russians are indeed prepared to act as honest brokers and not simply steamroller over them on behalf of President Assad.

The result was that there were no tantrums or walkouts, the peace process is continuing, and the parties are all talking, if not yet to each other.  The ‘draft constitution’ has given them topics they can all talk about other than the status of President Assad, and – since they all dislike it – even something they can all agree about.

If this all sounds clever, the answer is that of course it is.  However one should not overstate this.  Anyone who has been involved in mediation exercises knows that presenting a document like the ‘draft constitution’ is actually a standard diplomatic and mediation ploy to break the deadlock, get the parties to accept the bona fides of the mediator, and get the parties talking to the mediator if not yet to each other.

One of the great problems in international relations over the last several decades is that the country which has usually tried to fill the role of honest broker in international disputes – the US – is temperamentally unsuited to the role.  What the US invariably does in any dispute it becomes involved in (which is to say all of them) is pick sides, reduce everything to black and white, and demand that the side it has decided against accept in its entirety whatever proposal the US considers the appropriate outcome to the quarrel.  The result is that instead of peace there is usually war, with the settlement of disputes becoming incredibly protracted.

The Russians have a very different approach to diplomacy, one they have perfected over the centuries as a result of their long history as a great European and Eurasian power which – unlike the US – has had throughout its history to deal with other cultures and other countries on equal terms.  The ‘draft constitution’ is exactly the sort of play that might be expected from them, just as it is the sort of play that an earlier generation of diplomats – a Bismarck or a Gorchakov for example – in a like situation might have also used.

With the shift in what old Russians still sometimes call “the correlation of world forces” (which means more than just the balance of power) it is likely that Russian diplomacy will become more prominent in future.  If so then diplomatic plays of this sort will become more common, and we should try to understand them better.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

May Forces Brexit Betrayal to its Crisis Point

We’re 29 months later and the U.K. is no closer to being out of the EU than the day of the vote. 

Published

on

Authored by Tom Luongo:


The only words that were left out of Theresa May’s announcement of achieving Cabinet approval over her Brexit deal were Mission Accomplished.

Theresa May was put in charge of the U.K. to betray Brexit from the beginning.  She always represented the interests of the European Union and those in British Parliament that backed remaining in the EU.

No one in British ‘high society’ wanted Brexit to pass.   No. One.

No one in Europe’s power elite wanted Brexit to pass.  No. One.

No one in the U.S.’s power elite wanted Brexit to pass.  No. One.

When it did pass The Davos Crowd began the process of sabotaging it.  The fear mongering has done nothing but intensify.  And May has done nothing but waffle back and forth, walking the political tight rope to remain in power while trying to sell EU slavery to the both sides in British Parliament.

We’re 29 months later and the U.K. is no closer to being out of the EU than the day of the vote.  Why?

Because Theresa May’s 585 page ‘deal’ is the worst of all possible outcomes.  If it passes it will leave the EU with near full control over British trade and tax policy while the British people and government have no say or vote in the matter.

It’s punishment for the people getting uppity about their future and wanting something different than what had been planned for them.

Mr. Juncker and his replacement will never have to suffer another one of Nigel Farage’s vicious farragoes detailing their venality ever again.  YouTube will get a whole lot less interesting.

It’s almost like this whole charade was designed this way.

Because it was.

May has tried to run out the clock and scare everyone into accepting a deal that is worse than the situation pre-Brexit because somehow a terrible deal is better than no deal.  But, that’s the opposite of the truth.

And she knows it.  She’s always known it but she’s gone into these negotiations like the fragile wisp of a thing she truly is.

There’s a reason I call her “The Gypsum Lady.” She’s simply the opposite of Margaret Thatcher who always knew what the EU was about and fought to her last political breath to avoid the trap the U.K. is now caught in.

The U.K. has had all of the leverage in Brexit talks but May has gone out of her way to not use any of it while the feckless and evil vampires in Europe purposefully complicate issues which are the height of irrelevancy.

She has caved on every issue to the point of further eroding what’s left of British sovereignty.  This deal leaves the U.K. at the mercy of Latvia or Greece in negotiating any trade agreement with Canada.  Because for a deal between member states to be approved, all members have to approve of it.

So, yeah, great job Mrs. May.  Mission Accomplished.  They are popping champagne corks in Brussels now.

But, this is a Brexit people can be proud of.

Orwell would be proud of Theresa May for this one.

You people are leaving.  Let the EU worry about controlling their borders.  And if Ireland doesn’t like the diktats coming from Brussels than they can decide for themselves if staying in the EU is worth the trouble.

The entire Irish border issue is simply not May’s problem to solve.  Neither is the customs union or any of the other stuff.  These are the EU’s problems.   They are the ones who don’t want the Brits to leave.

Let them figure out how they are going to trade with the U.K.  It is so obvious that this entire Brexit ‘negotiation’ is about protecting the European project as a proxy for the right of German automakers to export their cars at advantageous exchange rates to the U.K. at everyone’s expense.

Same as it was in the days of The Iron Lady.

If all of this wasn’t so predictable it would be comical.

Because the only people more useless than Theresa May are the Tories who care only about keeping their current level of the perks of office.

The biggest takeaway from this Brexit fiasco is that even more people will check out of the political system. They will see it even more clearly for what it is, an irredeemable miasma of pelf and privilege that has zero interest in protecting the rights of its citizens or the value of their labor.

It doesn’t matter if it’s voter fraud in the U.S. or a drawn out betrayal of a binding referendum. There comes a point where those not at the political fringes look behind the veil and realize changing the nameplate above the door doesn’t change the policy.

And once they realize that confidence fails and systems collapse.

Brexit was the last gasp of a dying empire to assert its national relevancy.  Even if this deal is rejected by parliament the process has sown deep divisions which will lead to the next trap and the next and the next and the next.

By then Theresa May will be a distant memory, being properly rewarded by her masters for a job very well done.


Please support the production of independent and alternative political and financial commentary by joining my Patreon and subscribing to the Gold Goats ‘n Guns Investment Newsletter for just $12/month.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

The DOJ Is Preparing To Indict Julian Assange

Ecuador’s relationship with Assange has deteriorated considerably with the election of President Lenin Moreno.

Published

on

Via Zerohedge…


The US Justice Department is preparing to indict WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange which, after sensitive international negotiations, would likely trigger his extradition to the United States to stand trial, according to the Wall Street Journalciting people in Washington familiar with the matter.

Over the past year, U.S. prosecutors have discussed several types of charges they could potentially bring against Mr. Assange, the people said. Mr. Assange has lived in the Ecuadorean embassy in London since receiving political asylum from the South American country in 2012.

The people familiar with the case wouldn’t describe whether discussions were under way with the U.K. or Ecuador about Mr. Assange, but said they were encouraged by recent developments.

The exact charges Justice Department might pursue remain unclear, but they may involve the Espionage Act, which criminalizes the disclosure of national defense-related information. –WSJ

In short, the DOJ doesn’t appear to have a clear charge against Assange yet. Then there’s the optics of dragging Assange out of Ecuador’s London Embassy and into the United States, then prosecuting him, and if successful – jailing him.

Prosecuting someone for publishing truthful information would set a terrible and dangerous precedent,” said Assange lawyer Barry Pollack – who says he hasn’t heard anything about a US prosecution.

“We have heard nothing from authorities suggesting that a criminal case against Mr. Assange is imminent,” he added.

Moreover, assuming that even if the DOJ could mount a case, they would be required to prove that Russia was the source of a trove of emails damaging to Hillary Clinton that WikiLeaks released in the last few months of the 2016 election.

An indictment from special counsel Robert Mueller that portrayed WikiLeaks as a tool of Russian intelligence for releasing thousands of hacked Democratic emails during the 2016 presidential campaign has made it more difficult for Mr. Assange to mount a defense as a journalist. Public opinion of Mr. Assange in the U.S. has dropped since the campaign.

Prosecutors have considered publicly indicting Mr. Assange to try to trigger his removal from the embassy, the people said, because a detailed explanation of the evidence against Mr. Assange could give Ecuadorean authorities a reason to turn him over. –WSJ

It’s no secret that Assange and Hillary Clinton aren’t exactly exchanging Christmas cards, however would WikiLeaks’ release of damaging information that was hacked (or copied locally on a thumb drive by a well-meaning American), be illegal for Assange as a publisher?

Despite scant clues as to how the DOJ will prosecute Assange aside from rumors that it has to do with the Espionage Act, the US Government is cooking on something. John Demers – head of the DOJ’s national security division, said last week regarding an Assange case: “On that, I’ll just say, we’ll see.”

The U.S. hasn’t publicly commented on whether it has made, or plans to make, any extradition request. Any extradition request from the U.S. would likely go to British authorities, who have an outstanding arrest warrant for Mr. Assange related to a Swedish sexual assault case. Sweden has since dropped the probe, but the arrest warrant stands.

Any extradition and prosecution would involve multiple sensitive negotiations within the U.S. government and with other countries. –WSJ

Beginning in 2010, the Department of Justice beginning under the Obama administration has drawn a distinction between WikiLeaks and other news organizations – with former Attorney General Eric Holder insisting that Assange’s organization does not deserve the same first amendment protections during the Chelsea Manning case in which the former Army intelligence analyst was found guilty at a court-martial of leaking thousands of classified Afghan War Reports.

US officials have given mixed messages over Assange, with President Trump having said during the 2016 election “I love WikiLeaks,” only to have his former CIA Director, Mike Pompeo label WikiLeaks akin to a foreign “hostile intelligence service” and a US adversary. Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions has said that Assange’s arrest is a “priority.”

Ecuador’s relationship with Assange, meanwhile, has deteriorated considerably with the election of President Lenin Moreno – who called the WikiLeaks founder a “stone in our shoe,” adding that Assange’s stay at the London embassy is unsustainable.

Ecuador has been looking to improve relations with the U.S., hosting Vice President Mike Pence in 2018 amid interest in increasing trade.

Ecuador’s Foreign Relations Ministry declined to comment. This month, Foreign Relations Minister José Valencia told a radio station the government hadn’t received an extradition request for Mr. Assange.

Mr. Assange has clashed with his Ecuadorean hosts in over internet access, visitors, his cat and other issues. Last month, he sued Ecuador over the conditions of his confinement. At a hearing last month, at which a judge rejected Mr. Assange’s claims, Mr. Assange said he expected to be forced out of the embassy soon.  –WSJ

Assange and Ecuador seem to have worked things out for the time being; with his months-long communication blackout mostly lifted (with strict rules against Assange participating in political activities that would affect Ecuador’s international relations). Assange is now allowed Wi-Fi, but has to foot the bill for his own phone calls and other communication.

In October, a judge threw out a lawsuit Assange filed against Ecuador from implementing the stricter rules,.

“Ecuador hasn’t violated the rights of anyone,” Attorney General Íñigo Salvador said after the court ruling. “It has provided asylum to Mr. Assange, and he should comply with the rules to live harmoniously inside Ecuador’s public installations in London.”Assange’s attorneys say he will appeal the ruling – however it may be a moot point if he’s dragged into a US courtroom sooner than later.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Trump Understands The Important Difference Between Nationalism And Globalism

President Trump’s nationalism heralds a return to the old U.S. doctrine of non-intervention.

The Duran

Published

on

Authored by Raheem Kassam, op-ed via The Daily Caller:


President Macron’s protests against nationalism this weekend stand in stark contrast with the words of France’s WWII resistance leader and the man who would then become president: General Charles de Gaulle.

Speaking to his men in 1913, de Gaulle reminded them:

“He who does not love his mother more than other mothers, and his fatherland more than other fatherlands, loves neither his mother nor his fatherland.”

This unquestionable invocation of nationalism reveals how far France has come in its pursuit of globalist goals, which de Gaulle described later in that same speech as the “appetite of vice.”

While this weekend the media have been sharpening their knives on Macron’s words, for use against President Trump, very few have taken the time to understand what really created the conditions for the wars of the 20th century. It was globalism’s grandfather: imperialism, not nationalism.

This appears to have been understood at least until the 1980s, though forgotten now. With historical revisionism applied to nationalism and the great wars, it is much harder to understand what President Trump means when he calls himself a “nationalist.” Though the fault is with us, not him.

Patriotism is the exact opposite of nationalism: nationalism is a betrayal of patriotism … By pursuing our own interests first, with no regard to others,’ we erase the very thing that a nation holds most precious, that which gives it life and makes it great: its moral values,” President Macron declared from the pulpit of the Armistice 100 commemorations.

Had this been in reverse, there would no doubt have been shrieks of disgust aimed at Mr. Trump for “politicizing” such a somber occasion. No such shrieks for Mr. Macron, however, who languishes below 20 percent in national approval ratings in France.

With some context applied, it is remarkably easy to see how President Macron was being disingenuous.

Nationalism and patriotism are indeed distinct. But they are not opposites.

Nationalism is a philosophy of governance, or how human beings organize their affairs. Patriotism isn’t a governing philosophy. Sometimes viewed as subsidiary to the philosophy of nationalism, patriotism is better described as a form of devotion.

For all the grandstanding, Mr. Macron may as well have asserted that chicken is the opposite of hot sauce,so meaningless was the comparison.

Imperialism, we so quickly forget, was the order of the day heading into the 20th century. Humanity has known little else but empire since 2400 B.C. The advent of globalism, replete with its foreign power capitals and multi-national institutions is scarcely distinct.

Imperialism — as opposed to nationalism — seeks to impose a nation’s way of life, its currency, its traditions, its flags, its anthems, its demographics, and its rules and laws upon others wherever they may be.

Truly, President Trump’s nationalism heralds a return to the old U.S. doctrine of non-intervention, expounded by President George Washington in his farewell address of 1796:

” … It must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of [Europe’s] politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.”

It should not have to be pointed out that the great wars of the 20th century could not be considered “ordinary vicissitudes”, but rather, that imperialism had begun to run amok on the continent.

It was an imperialism rooted in nihilism, putting the totality of the state at its heart. Often using nationalism as nothing more than a method of appeal, socialism as a doctrine of governance, and Jews as a subject of derision and scapegoating.

Today’s imperialism is known as globalism.

It is what drives nations to project outward their will, usually with force; causes armies to cross borders in the hope of subjugating other human beings or the invaded nation’s natural resources; and defines a world, or region, or continent by its use of central authority and foreign capital control.

Instead of armies of soldiers, imperialists seek to dominate using armies of economists and bureaucrats. Instead of forced payments to a foreign capital, globalism figured out how to create economic reliance: first on sterling, then on the dollar, now for many on the Euro. This will soon be leapfrogged by China’s designs.

And while imperialism has served some good purposes throughout human history, it is only when grounded in something larger than man; whether that be natural law, God, or otherwise. But such things are scarcely long-lived.

While benevolent imperialism can create better conditions over a period of time, humanity’s instincts will always lean towards freedom and self-governance.

It is this fundamental distinction between the United States’ founding and that of the modern Republic of France that defines the two nations.

The people of France are “granted” their freedoms by the government, and the government creates the conditions and dictates the terms upon which those freedoms are exercised.

As Charles Kesler wrote for the Claremont Review of Books in May, “As a result, there are fewer and fewer levers by which the governed can make its consent count”.

France is the archetypal administrative state, while the United States was founded on natural law, a topic that scarcely gets enough attention anymore.

Nationalism – or nationism, if you will – therefore represents a break from the war-hungry norm of human history. Its presence in the 20th century has been rewritten and bastardized.

A nationalist has no intention of invading your country or changing your society. A nationalist cares just as much as anyone else about the plights of others around the world but believes putting one’s own country first is the way to progress. A nationalist would never seek to divide by race, gender, ethnicity, or sexual preference, or otherwise. This runs contrary to the idea of a united, contiguous nation at ease with itself.

Certainly nationalism’s could-be bastard child of chauvinism can give root to imperialistic tendencies. But if the nation can and indeed does look after its own, and says to the world around it, “these are our affairs, you may learn from them, you may seek advice, we may even assist if you so desperately need it and our affairs are in order,” then nationalism can be a great gift to the 21st century and beyond.

This is what President Trump understands.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending