Martin Wolf has always been super-gloomy. In 2016 he really came into his own, as the year delivered him so much to be gloomy about. His latest column in the Financial Times is a great example, ending with a prediction that authoritarian nationalism is centre stage and will change everything about the world order.
The column alludes to Benedict Anderson’s Imagined Communities, so I went back to the book today. I’d underlined this definition of ‘official nationalism’: “An anticipatory strategy adopted by dominant groups which are threatened with exclusion from an emerging nationally-imagined community.” Not so much the left-behinds as the ‘once-aheads, really don’t like their loss of status in a changed nation’.
As Wolf puts it: “[T]he politics of nationalist resentment are not just an upsurge from below. They are a tactic of power-seekers.” He argues that economics is bound to find itself in opposition to official nationalism: “Perhaps the greatest contribution of economics is the idea that societies will gain more from seeking to trade with one another than trying to conquer one another. … The wise relationship between states, therefore, is one of co-operation, not war, and trade, not isolation. This brilliant idea happens to be correct. But it is also counter-intuitive, even disturbing. It means that one might gain more from foreigners than fellow citizens.”
So brace yourselves, fellow economists. The Govian war on experts will continue.
“The wise relationship between states, therefore, is one of co-operation, not war, and trade, not isolation” << This seems to accurately reflect Chamberlain's goal at Munich in '38.
I think there are "red lines" of initiating violence, including thru threats, which can be crossed by one side which demand a violent response, including threats.
But if others are doing the violent response, neutrality can work — see Switzerland and Sweden from WW II.
Note that NATO has allowed Russia to invade Crimea; as well as Eastern Ukraine. How much invasion does there need to be before a violent response is justified?