Multilateralism and the Populist Agenda: A Historical Perspective

A Trending Uncertainty

A major outcome of the recent rise of populism exhibited in numerous Western nations is protectionism, which represents a reversal of policy orientation dating back to the reconstruction and development of the post war world after 1945. President Donald Trump’s statements and actions are undeniably the most visible and yield the most chaotic results amongst American strategic and economic partners.

What initially began as statements against multilateral trade agreements such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership and NAFTA, in favour of bilateral negotiations, has progressed to negative sentiments directed at multilateral bodies and organizations such as the European Union, the United Nations and the World Trade Organization. This was the case in spring of 2018 as the United States of America levied economic tariffs against traditional post-war allies such as Canada and member nations of the European Union. The resulting chaos from these actions was exemplified during the most recent G7 summit in Charlevoix, Quebec, Canada. These actions represent both a figurative and literal threat to the democratic stability of the Western democratic world that has prevailed since the middle of the twentieth century.

A Familiar Motivation

The events of the most recent G7 summit and the associated issue of trade negotiations are disruptive to the accepted norms of diplomacy based on longstanding cooperation and integration of Western democracies following 1945. In stark contrast, the most recent examples of populism, support a combative mentality which results in a protective response and inherently increases the potential points of conflict between formerly strong allies. Such a result intuitively points to a pre-1914 era of ardent economic and territorial nationalism, historically referred to as the new age of Imperialism. This era’s commonly held belief promoted that the perceived gains of national expansion and economic domination were of primary concern.

At the dawn of the twentieth century the Western world was in the midst of an era of imperialistic nationalism, with highly competitive economic and militaristic rivalries, especially amongst European nations. Self-impressed by developments of the enlightenment and the industrial revolution, the traditional powers of Europe sought to expand their economic, cultural and geographic power across the globe so as to ensure their nation’s prosperity, quite intentionally to the detriment of one’s contemporary rivals. Whether in the arenas of industry, trade, the drive to colonize, or in previous military conflicts, each interaction was viewed as a zero sum game in which one nation must profit at the expense of the other. In such an international atmosphere, conflict lines were established, alliances emerged, and multiple parties were forced into scenarios in which the slightest dispute could spark military conflict or all out war. Such was the case in June of 1914 when an internal dispute and the assassination of an Austrian prince lead the entire world to war. Of the many and nuanced causes of World War I, it remains a clear warning that tensions were so heightened, sides were so clearly drawn, and assurances of protection were so complicatedly conceived that the internal political dynamics of one country acted as the spark to the timbers of world diplomacy.

Lessons Earned

The horrific events of WWI certainly sent a shockwave through the entire world, yet the self-assessments attempted in 1919 failed to remedy the condition which had led them to such a destructive path. Instead, a peace was achieved by assigning guilt and retribution at the expense of a specific nation and its people. Such punitive economic measures as those placed upon Germany, and the failed attempt to establish a true league of nations, would result in an even greater level of devastation only twenty years later. From the start of the post WWII era therefore, multilateral organizations were designed not solely for altruistic intentions, but with the expressed intent of pacifying traditional adversarial tensions between nations, specifically those in the economic realm. Take for example the greater purpose of the European Economic Community.

The European Economic Community was established with the Treaty of Rome on March 15, 1957 and with it, the creation of a common market for the free movement of people, goods and services. This was a grand expansion of the initial concept of the European Coal and Steel Community (1951), in which the founding six nations would “run their heavy industries – coal and steel – under a common management”. Envisioned by the Schuman plan of May 9^th, 1950, the French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman presented his plan by directly stating “World peace cannot be safeguarded without the making of creative efforts proportionate to the dangers which threaten it”. The basic model of cooperation for shared prosperity was easily argued after the faulty and ultimately disastrous model of fervent competition and protectionism. It was accepted that the losses of a total war far outweighs the possible concessions of economic cooperation.

The expanding community of European nations would officially change its name to the European Union in 1993 and though the EU struggles in terms of national sovereignty and financial policies to this very day, the theory presented in Schuman’s initial proposal pointed out that cooperation through the expressed intent of peace supersedes most of the problems. Through the second half of the twentieth century, the Western democratic nations, as a direct result of the past mistakes, made a conscious commitment to engage in the process of multilateralism.

Greater Perspective

The case for multilateralism takes into account much more than just industry specific trade deficits, or allowances such as opt-out clauses. It heeds the lessons of history to avoid destructive competitions, to reduce diplomatic barriers and to create numerous areas of shared and common interests between nations and their peoples.

Multilateral organizations and treaties are not perfect solutions. The resulting propagation of free trade can have, and has had, destructive impact on traditional industry sectors. Such results have contributed to the creation of a reactionary political force currently viewed as populism. Any protective political appeal solely focused on the defence of internal segments of a nation’s population, fails to recognize the lessons of 1914 and the resulting decades of conflict. Despite the potential limitations, the support for multilateralism and international cooperation have proven to be in any nation’s best interest, rather than at its expense. Through interconnected relationships between nations, be it economical, diplomatic, or otherwise, the case for military conflict between said nations presents no plausible benefits. The post WWII model of Western democratic nations built on the hard lessons learned, conceived of a world in which war was only comprehensible in response to an attack or in defence of universal human rights.        

Nationalism certainly has its benefits, and elected leaders of a nation must hold a devotion to their citizen’s prosperity, but there is a proven danger in elevating traditional trappings of power, namely economic supremacy, as the chief priority in service of a nation’s people. It has been unmistakably established through the lessons of the West, economic competition to the point of alienating and demonizing other nations of the world holds a far greater risk than economic costs. A leader should always be cognisant of such lessons, to seek shared prosperity and to avoid the pitfalls and devastating human costs of war.

In our current time, any nationalistic political ideology which elevates economic triumph to its primary concern ahead of accepted international norms, blatantly rejects the lessons of history, and therefore, represents a threat to the expansion of peace, which though often challenged, has endured as our diplomatic norm since the end of World War II. 

Image Credit: NOAA [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Geopolitics.

Nicholas Sehl

Nicholas Sehl, B.A., M.A., is a Historian, Policy Researcher and Ph.D. Candidate at the University of New Brunswick, specializing in Worldview Studies. He has conducted numerous professional community policy research projects in Atlantic Canada.