Nathan Gardels is the editor-in-chief of Noema Magazine.
As President Donald Trump unfolds his agenda, two theories of strong governance from the pre-liberal world order fit his instincts like a glove.
In justifying his barrage of rapid-fire executive orders and tariff proclamations as an urgent response to a “national emergency,” the hyper-active commander-in-chief brings to mind the Weimar-era “decisionist” theory of conservative legal scholar Carl Schmitt.
Writing amid the “cosmopolitan decadence,” flailing chaos and parliamentary paralysis of inter-war Germany, Schmitt argued that politics is fundamentally about “friends versus enemies.” In this view, absolute sovereign authority derives from the decision to suspend normal constitutional rule in a “state of exception” where enemies, within or without, threaten the nation. Whatever action is taken to address the danger and establish order by the person or group comprising the sovereign is a priori regarded as legitimate.
This conception of politics and authority is closely connected to the “sovereigntist” worldview in global affairs.
Sovereigntism, simply put, is a my-country-first, “don’t tread on me” approach to international and planetary relations that abjures any entanglement in the rules or norms of others that might constrain the absolute autonomy of a state to act unilaterally in its own interests.
As Rutgers historian Jennifer Mittelstadt has noted, sovereigntism is not isolationism, though it has a long history in America of opposing any internationally sanctioned authority, from Woodrow Wilson’s League of Nations to the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, the International Criminal Court or binding alliances and treaties.
Rather, it favors building up robust military prowess to ward off any challengers and is not shy about coveting the territory of others if incorporating those frontiers would manifest its destiny as a singular “exception” on the world stage.
The president’s aggressive musings about annexing Greenland, the Panama Canal and even Canada fit within this context.
“Sovereigntism is not isolationism, though it has a long history in America of opposing any internationally sanctioned authority.”
Sovereigntist Mercantilism
When it comes to trade, sovereigntists are fervent mercantilists who aim to increase the nation’s wealth, power and prestige by means of economic coercion to open foreign markets, punish nations through sanctions, ban exports that would strengthen competitors or limit access to domestic markets through protective tariffs.
“An increase in wealth through foreign trade relations leads to an increase of power relative to other countries — precisely the aim of mercantilist policy,” the German economist Albert O. Hirschman wrote in his seminal 1945 study, “National Power and The Structure of International Trade.” A country with the most bargaining power can achieve “disproportionate benefit” over others if foreign trade is “consciously and efficiently used as an instrument of national power.”
As Trump puts it, “When you are a pot of gold, tariffs are very good.”
As we have seen by the way his administration is dealing with Colombia, Mexico, Canada and China, sovereigntist mercantilism is not limited to economic effect alone but serves as a lever to achieve other policy goals. That might mean curbing immigration and drug flows from friends, restricting technology transfers to adversaries on the rise, preventing nuclear proliferation or even forcing territorial concessions from weaker states.
Demolishing The Liberal Order
The impact of this dramatic departure of the United States from being the leading promoter and defender of a liberal internationalist order to the chief architect of its demolition is only just beginning to register worldwide. By definition, if the guarantor of that order is out only to defend and promote its own interests by severing all ties of interdependence, everyone else must follow suit or foolishly expose themselves to vulnerability.
In other words, the turn to sovereigntism by the leading global power inexorably entails the same turn by others all around, further reinforcing a path the illiberal great powers such as China and Russia were already well along.
Other large powers, such as India, already bent toward Hindu nationalism, will have to figure out how to maneuver in this disjunctive constellation. The European Union will be at the greatest disadvantage in this tough new global neighborhood since it is predicated on de-sovereigntizing the nation-state yet is so far unable to sovereigntize as a meaningful power at the continental level.
In short, where sovereigntism reigns, there will be no world order, only a free-for-all where the strongest strive to prevail and the weaker must accommodate.
