Skip to main content

Internationalism and the Individual

Bishop Hill is a blogger who I kind of like, even when I disagree with him, because although sometimes his analysis is slightly eccentric, it is usually trenchant.

However one rant recently did catch my eye recently on Internationalism.

Following up on a blogger debate between Tristan Mills and the Nameless One at Devils Kitchen , the Bishop argues that because Liberal Democrats say they are Internationalist, they are in favour of World Government.

"Hard as it is to believe, internationalism embodies a belief that we need more government. That if we can just come up with some political structure to agree the correct course of action, out problems will be over. No matter that some of us might disagree with the chosen course - in a world of superstates it's hard or sometimes impossible to vote with your feet. We will be forced to go along with what our political masters decree.

It's not that internationalism is hard to reconcile with individualism. Internationalism is individualism's antithesis."

Now there is a major error of logic here. It suggests that "all Internationalists are in favour of World Government"- which is not in fact true. A subset of Internationalists may well be in favour of this pretty hypothetical possibility, just as several million people still believe that Esperanto is the next global language. However that is certainly not what Liberal Democrats mean when we talk about Internationalism.

October 2nd is the anniversary of the adoption of the Geneva Protocol , an agreement made by most of states of the world not to use chemical weapons. Given that my Great-grandfather was gassed at Ypres and died before the Protocol was signed, I do feel a certain involvement here. This was not an act of legislation by a global government, it was treaty between sovereign states.

It has generally been followed, with Saddam Hussein's use of gas in the war with Iran a major exception and of course the key factor in the idea that "WMDs" would indeed be found in Iraq. Iraq had signed the protocol in 1931, but they broke their word when they used gas against Iran, which had also signed the protocol in 1929.

To be Internationalist is not to advocate world government; it is to accept that treaty obligations are binding, even on sovereign states. This is why Liberal Democrats opposed the war in Iraq, because we had not completed the procedures that would have allowed the United Nations to sanction the invasion under the provisions of the United Nations charter . A further United Nations resolution was still required, and was not obtained, or even requested. This was a clear breach of our obligations to comply with the United Nations charter that we had freely signed in 1946. As has been shown all too clearly since, the war was ill-conceived from the start, and the failure to gain UN approval demonstrated how miscast the project was ab initio.

The failure of Iraq to comply with its obligations under the Geneva Protocol was a substantial part of why a war was launched against them, the failure of the United States-led coalition to gain UN sanction for invasion was a mistake with continuing ramifications.

The point is that the UK should only sign treaties that it intends to keep, but that the UK regards treaty commitments as fully binding- notwithstanding any short term advantage in bending the rules. A state that can not be trusted to keep its word internationally can not be trusted to keep its contract with its own citizens either. So Bishop Hill is wrong- and it demonstrates the dangers of relying too much on Wikipedia.

Internationalism, by setting limits to the freedom of action of the state, is very much part of the individualist agenda of modern Liberalism.


Internationalism is a vague term. It can, as Nameless One points out, mean a World Government, but it can also simply mean opening the borders for immigration, trade and capital, which means more freedom from the individual. Like in the case of the EU, internationalism can thus mean both good and bad things from a liberal point of view, so one shouldn't either idealise or demonise the word itself, but be constructive and look behind what is really advocated in its name in each case.

The boarders can be open with international agreements or also unilaterally. Incidentally, Samuel Brittan wrote recently an interesting piece about unilateralism for CentreForum.
Bishop Hill said…
As I pointed out in the comments on my original post, the definition of internationalist I use is Wikipedia's. If you mean something else by it, I suggest you need to make yourselves clear.

And anyway, as EU enthusiasts, you Lib Dems are in favour of supranational government, aren't you?
Anonymous said…
Bishop Hill, Wikipedia is hardly the ultimate source of the objective truth.

I suggest, that you also read the comment of John Locke's Ghost above.
Cicero said…
Nice try Andrew! Internationalism and supporter of World government are indeed different, and the EU is not likely to be a government, even if it were required, for a long long time...

Popular posts from this blog

Trump and Brexit are the Pearl Harbor and the Fall of Singapore in Russia's Hybrid war against the West.

In December 1941, Imperial Japan launched a surprise attack on the United States at Pearl Harbor. After the subsequent declaration of war, within three days, the Japanese had sunk the British warships, HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse, and the rapid Japanese attack led to the surrender of Hong Kong on Christmas Day 1941 and the fall of Singapore only two months after Pearl Harbor. These were the opening blows in the long war of the Pacific that cost over 30,000,000 lives and was only ended with the detonations above Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

"History doesn't often repeat itself, but it rhymes" is an aphorism attributed to Mark Twain, and in a way it seems quite appropriate when we survey the current scene. 

In 1941, Imperial Japan, knowing its own weakness, chose a non-conventional form of war, the surprise attack. Since the end of his first Presidential term, Vladimir Putin, knowing Russia's weakness, has also chosen non-conventional ways to promote his domestic powe…

The American National nightmare becomes a global nightmare

It is a basic contention of this blog that Donald J Trump is not fit for office.

A crooked real estate developer with a dubious past and highly questionable finances. he has systematically lied his way into financial or other advantage. His personal qualities include vulgarity, sexual assault allegations and fraudulent statements on almost every subject. 

He lost the popular vote by nearly three million votes.

He has, of course, been under criminal investigation practically since before he took the oath of office. The indictment of some of closest advisers is just the beginning. His track record suggests that in due course there is no action he will not take, whether illegal or unconstitutional in order to derail his own inevitable impeachment and the indictments that must surely follow the successful investigation of Robert Mueller into his connections with Russia.

However, all of that is a matter for the American people. 

It is also a matter for the American people that Trump is cheating…

The rumbling financial markets

Security specialists use a variety of ways to address the risks that they face: and these risk assessments are made in the certain knowledge that the actors in the system hold only incomplete information. Although much mocked at the time, Donald Rumsfeld’s categorization of “known unknowns” and “unknown unknowns”, is now generally recognized as a succinct summery of his strategic quandaries.
By contrast, actors in the financial markets have a more sanguine assessment of the risks they deal with: they divide them into two kinds of risk: quantifiable and unquantifiable. Unquantifiable risk is not generally considered, since there is usually no financial profit that can be made except from pure supposition. Therefore for the purposes of the financial markets, any given event is priced relative to its level of probability, that is to say its quantifiable risk. 
Depending on the market, higher levels of risk generally carry higher prices, lower levels generally lower prices. Clearly such an…