FT: Why globalisers still retain the upper hand

[MikeWB]

Debate often boils down to a war between nationalists and globalists

In her recent unsuccessful campaign during France's regional elections, Marine Le Pen, the leader of the far-right National Front, argued repeatedly that international politics is increasingly pitting nationalists against globalists. In this respect, if few others, Mrs Le Pen is correct. All over the world, globalisation is under challenge from resurgent nationalist forces. One of the great political challenges of the coming year will be to defend the benefits of globalisation — while fending off the arguments of nationalists such as Mrs Le Pen, Donald Trump in the US and his new admirer, President Vladimir Putin of Russia.

The benefits of globalisation are both economic and political. In economic terms, they include enhanced global trade and international investment, which boost prosperity and enlarge choice for ordinary people. Believers in globalisation are more interested in opening borders than closing them. Globalisation is closely linked to internationalism in politics, since it involves a recognition that the world faces common problems, such as climate change or refugees, that can only be dealt with effectively through international agreements.


The world's nationalists increasingly reject these tenets. In the US and Europe, they often argue that their citizens have suffered from globalised trade, and want to reimpose tariffs. When it comes to migration, the nationalists want to keep foreigners out, a policy that, taken to extremes, can lead to outlandish suggestions such as Mr Trump's demand to build a huge wall along the Mexican border and ban all Muslims from entering the US.

Defenders of globalisation cannot simply dismiss the concerns that are driving voters towards nationalists. Rising inequality is an important issue in the US, the EU, and even China. But the causes are complex and involve technology and education, as much as international trade. Similarly, it would be a mistake simply to wave away popular concerns about mass migration. The better solution is to improve popular confidence in the security of borders and immigration procedures while continuing to make the moral and economic case for the benefits of immigration.

The best response to the nationalists in the west and elsewhere is often not to dismiss their concerns, but to demonstrate that their proposed solutions are usually impractical or dangerous. Countries such as France, the UK and the US are already multicultural and multifaith societies. Attempting to reverse those social changes is both unrealistic and a recipe for conflict. It is legitimate, however, to insist all citizens subscribe to certain values, to make multicultural societies work.

Next year is likely to see some important set-piece political battles between nationalists and internationalists. In the US, the nationalist wing of the Republican Party is currently in the ascendancy, in the form of Mr Trump and his closest rivals, such as Senator Ted Cruz. In the EU, nationalist politicians are already in power in Hungary and Poland, and remain a potent force in France. In the UK, a likely referendum on whether Britain should stay in the EU will provide a vital set-piece between nationalists and internationalists, whose result will change the tone of politics across Europe.

Supporters of globalisation and international co-operation should enter 2016 vigilant, but in good heart. Some of the battles ahead will be uncomfortably close. But economic logic, social trends and liberal values are all on the side of the globalisers. They are still likely to win more battles than they lose.