“Nations do not want to die”

In last week’s column, I spent some time talking about defending Macedonia’s sovereignty, name and identity, pointing out how the Trump Doctrine is in part about the national sovereignty of nations. In his first interview as Macedonia’s new foreign minister Nikola Dimitrov was quoted in Bloomberg last week stating that “he’ll revive talks with Greece, with any solution ‘subject to a referendum.’ The minister, who has been a negotiator on the name dispute, said ‘what’s important is to have a solution that the citizens will accept, and they must not feel humiliated by it.’” But the solution is in plain view — the name is the Republic of Macedonia. One does not “negotiate” your own name or identity. Why must there be a negotiation? Why must there be a referendum? That referendum happened on September 8, 1991.

However. To be fair past governments have engaged in these negotiations and the current government will negotiate. And the current government has just clearly stated that any agreement between the two parties will be “subject to a referendum.” Remember this: the elites of Macedonia and of the West are counting on Macedonia to sell its soul for a few shiny trinkets in the form of a failing and flailing EU. They want Macedonia to believe that membership in the EU is a cure-all for economic ills, that membership in the EU will be the magic money tree that one can pick from freely and often. But, first, Macedonians should ask this: why is the UK leaving the EU? Why have so many across Europe said “no” to the EU in recent elections by voting for parties willing to take on the EU? The vast majority of Macedonians do not want to sell their name and identity, because, as French philosopher Pierre Manent has said “nations do not want to die.”

In a fascinating interview in late May with the Wall Street Journal, Manent spoke about how “nationalism can solve the crisis of Islam.” While I don’t want to address that specific issue in this week’s column, Manent had some extremely useful and instructive thoughts about the defense of the nation-state and sovereignty which US President Donald Trump is now making a centerpiece of his presidency and something which is under sustained attack. The interviewer, Sohrab Ahmari, begins by stating that “For decades, the West has seen itself as an empire of rights and liberal norms. There were borders and nations, but these were fast dissolving. Since rights were universal, the empire would soon encompass the planet. Everyone would belong, including Muslims, who were expected to lose their distinctness.” Two points on this. First, it’s important to remember the words of EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker from last year when he stated “borders are the worst invention ever made by politicians,” a confirmation, if you needed one, that the elites want to do away with borders and sovereignty. Second, it is essential to point out, for purposes of this column, that the author’s assertion is that every human being on planet earth would become a part of this empire of the West. This fits in with the assertion of Polish philosopher, politician and MEP Ryszard Legutko in his book “The Demon in Democracy” who writes about the “similarities between communism and liberal democracy.” He identifies three common threads between the two: first, their belief in the “unilateralism of history, leading inevitably and triumphantly to the era of perpetual peace” (the “right side of history” argument), second, that “deliberate human action” by “distinguished minority groups, elite and enlightened rulers” will prepare mankind for this and thirdly that these groups will allow humanity to create “a modern society liberated from ignorance and superstition,” in other words, tradition and religion which they reject (though they are happy to push their secular humanism which is a religion).

The interviewer continues noting that “Trump wants to revive the nation-state” and that “The nation has clear — and limited — territorial and cultural boundaries. It says we are this, and you are that.” He juxtaposes that with what newly elected French President Emmanuel Macron has claimed: “There is no such thing as a single French culture…There is culture in France, and it is diverse,” he claimed this past February. Manent understands these elitists who say, according to the interviewer, “We can go anywhere on the planet, work anywhere on the planet — these new liberties are inebriating.” Better, then, “to be a citizen of the world.” But as British Prime Minister Theresa May has said “If you believe you are a citizen of the world, you are a citizen of nowhere.” And so Manent believes that the “European Union’s efforts to punish voters in such countries for electing the “wrong kind” of government will therefore intensify the backlash” against the EU. We see it happening and despite recent setbacks in elections in the UK and France, it will continue.

All of this gets us to the crux of the issue facing the West, and the world, today: as liberal democracy becomes corrupted and takes on more and more the trappings of traditional communism and totalitarianism, what is the right model for states? The elites and globalists of this world will tell you that the traditional nation-states, borne out the Peace of Westphalia of 1648, should give way to an all-encompassing state of Big Brother and global governance. However, as Manent says, “….if we don’t propose a reasonable idea of the nation,” now and in our debates, “we will end up with an unreasonable idea of the nation. Because simply: However weakened the idea of the nation, nations do not want to die.”