I thought that there is no better way to explain my vision on this new trend on nationalism associated with xenophobia than this “Tuning stone” in London, UK. A piece of granitic block deeply cut that produces sounds just by striking the tone with one´s hand. That is precisely what political leaders are doing getting one tone simply by stroking the rock of hate.
It seems that we are getting to a point of no return: global crises, a world demanding global responses but surprisingly it vibrates just by just stroking one tone: isolationism as the answer for all national and global crises. We are vibrating at a very low frequency if we are just stroking that rock named isolationism without taking into account decades of global policies.
Exchange of talent, skills, and technology are some of the benefits that globalization and regional power brought to many countries and now are key to success. Joint action is the way to move forward, the how is what we need to debate on. Is it a logical consequence that crises create a disempowered feeling as it happening with the European Union crisis on delivering stability and a sense of balance relations. The emotional bias prevents to get into a global and interconnected world within trust and confidence. We live in global terms, and even for those political leaders –as in the UK- that defend isolationism they can not promise not to be inserted globally. Internet, technology, investigation, trade, etc. and the own standardization of consumer habits make a society global in terms of implementation.
Living in global terms but not within a global attitude.
There is an important failure in attitude mainly from the political sector. Political leaders gain power from the defense of national interests within an extremist and alarmist message. That is precisely the point; national interests can be defended without a nationalist focus and from a global framework. Is there any contradiction of supporting a global trade agreement and defend national interests? In a well-organized global world the balance remains on fair distribution and sense of equality, not homogeneity, but diversity on an equal basis.
Standardization of consumption habits as products and services will lead to failure if there is not an attitude towards delivering global services o products strategically focus on fulfilled national needs. Each market has its own identity and it needs to be respected differently during sensible times of multiple crises for whom national sovereignty represents a point of balance to face uncertainty.
Authors as Yuval Noah Harari on “21 Lessons for the 21th century” said that politics most become global, which is a big dilemma as the European Union is gaining rejection precisely because is looking for “an even closer union”. To become truly global we need to become closer and relate to each other differently on shape and goals but when we face the emotional bias of uncertainty instead of becoming “global politics” they are just “chaotic national compartments” without vision for the near future.
Currently, an anarchical distribution of power is leading a political attitude that tend to be tyrannical instead of humble, accepting new approaches and the wisdom of holistic focus within new actors.
In the case of trade agreements is where we see more clearly the paradox “national interests” against “global interests” but is it just about a comprehensive and smart way of thriving together. A nationalist perspective just adds more vulnerability and less effective responses,. Once again, the emotional ingredient is manipulated by political leaders. Gaining trust without giving much reason for their short-term positions. To steadily repeat that we need to become nationalists and fear about joint efforts with other countries to overcome crises, is not enough and very risky in terms of sustainability.
When we debate about immigration there is another model of emotional bias: prejudice and fear, however, is it quite a fact that most of the less-skilled jobs are taken by immigrants while the high skilled workers are actively demanded without considerations of their nationalities. Particularly for research and investigation, there is a constant demand for a true free movement of people.
That only means that diversity is an asset for getting into sustainability and make of a global world a driver to change by more connection and smart combination of different skills and talents. Historically, the movement of people was not only a matter of emergencies but a true driver for growing. It is an injustice to take the opportunity of a global migration crisis to see on individuals migrants a threat.
Recently PM Boris Johnson said that he will stop immigrants from treating Britain as their own country. Adding that: “we are letting people in, in a way that is controlled and checked”. It makes us wonder if there is wrong to feel “at home” when you live in a different country or if there are “controlled and checked” they should not even feel as “their country” and be discriminated for the rest of their stay.
This dangerous position is not only far away from being global but surprisingly go against there own principles for nationalist prosperity. It means not to integrate anyone than there own nationals. Canceled free movement of people is a true red line that we should not be accepted.
I always encourage negotiation processes within nationalists but when there is room for it. Regulation for an uncontrollable migration movement is negotiable but a cancellation of a fair movement within xenophobia practices is not. Regulations are not the same to undermine foreign presence.
Not even in past times –before globalization – we face this feeling of rejection. Is it true it has always been resistant to foreign people but once they are accepted and become part of the fabric of the society is pacifically agreed that he/she feels “at home”. Not even centuries of war, racism and social conflict have changed it.
So now is not just about turn back the clock but the total ban of immigrants that is a new reality. Going further than defense of national sovereignty A lack of empathy towards the global migration crisis is not about being fair but to not enter into the path of results-driven strategies. For instance, it has a direct impact on the free exchange of talents and skills so needed for a world in crisis. A country out of a global strategy on connections is also a country out of technological advances and profitable trade agreements.
A world walking towards AI involves strong connections, skills and trust among partners. Diplomacy has never been so needed and even Trump´s nationalism agrees about it and has made steps towards contributing to be inserted as with South Korea, being in WEF Davos or recent offering to Palestine to end the conflict with Israel.
Global peace is not negotiable and it cannot be accepted that nationalist leaders isolate their countries from the main global crises, although leading by nationalist feelings they must be involved and search for common grounds even at minimum standards. Many times just a matter of rationality and goodwill for peace.
The world is going through in-depth crises that demand a global harmonically approach, coordinated and strategically focus on joint action not just striking a block of stone with a hand but to play a new rhythm of coordinated action within reforms of the current globalization model. Stroking a new world …
thesustainabilityreader 