My old friend Ronald Radosh, writing in the Daily Beast about President Trump鈥檚 recent United Nations speech, notes, 鈥淭here was a critical word tucked into Donald Trump鈥檚 U.N. speech . . . that word is sovereignty and we should all understand what the president means when he invokes it.鈥�
I agree, let us understand what he means.
What is sovereignty? I wrote a 450-page book on the subject but in the end it all comes down to two words: who decides? Who decides a nation鈥檚 tax policy, foreign policy, trade policy, immigration policy? Will it be the people in the nation themselves or supranational global institutions?
A year ago, President Trump told the U.N. General Assembly, 鈥淚n America the people govern, the people rule, and the people are sovereign.鈥� Abraham Lincoln defined sovereignty as 鈥渁 political authority without a political superior.鈥� American leaders who have valued our own sovereignty have also valued the sovereignty of our friends and allies. Thus, Ronald Reagan in his inaugural address declared:
bq(blockquote). To those neighbors and allies who share our freedom. . . . We will match loyalty with loyalty. We will strive for mutually beneficial relations. We will not use our friendship to impose on their sovereignty, for our own sovereignty is not for sale.
Like Lincoln and Reagan, Trump defends sovereignty鈥攖hat is, independent self-government鈥攁s a positive principle. Radosh tells us that Trump鈥檚 version of sovereignty might sound 鈥渧ery nice,鈥� but it 鈥渉as darker consequences.鈥� It is the 鈥減romotion of isolationism and nationalism.鈥� Let us take these two points one at a time.
Old-School Internationalism
Far from any hint of isolationism, Trump鈥檚 2018 U.N. speech literally bristled with a robust internationalism. In paragraph after paragraph, the president cited current examples of, and future proposals for, international cooperation. He praised President Ban Ki-moon and heralded 鈥渢he successful completion鈥� of a 鈥渂rand new鈥� trade deal with South Korea. He gave a 鈥渟pecial thanks鈥� to Japanese President Shinzo Abe of Japan, as well as South Korea鈥檚 Ban for facilitating the difficult negotiations with North Korea. While also thanking China鈥檚 President Xi Jinping for assisting in this process, Trump did not hesitate to condemn dishonest Chinese trade practices. The president lauded Jordan and Egypt and declared that the United States would work with the Gulf Cooperation Council to 鈥渁dvance prosperity, stability, and security鈥� in the Middle East.
He congratulated India, a 鈥渇ree society of over a billion people, successfully lifting countless millions out of poverty;鈥� the Polish people for supporting the construction of a Baltic pipeline and 鈥渟tanding up for their independence, their security, and their sovereignty;鈥� and Israel 鈥渃elebrating its 70th anniversary as a thriving democracy in the Holy Land.鈥�
As American statesmen from Alexander Hamilton through Henry Clay, Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, and Reagan have done, he has called for fair and reciprocal trade policies with other nations (emphasis on the reciprocal). While, at the same time, like his patriotic predecessors, he is willing to use tariffs when it is in the interests of American workers, the American middle class, and our manufacturing base, to do so.
What we are seeing in Trump鈥檚 policy is not 鈥渋solationism,鈥� but classical internationalism. The prefix 鈥渋nter鈥� in the compound term inter-nationalism signifies relations 鈥渂etween鈥� nations. As anyone familiar with U.N. documents or the writings of international relations professors, or the analysts at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) would be well aware鈥攁nd as Radosh should know鈥攖he concept of 鈥済lobalism鈥� differs from internationalism. Globalism implies not traditional internationalism, but a transnational or supranational dimension beyond or above the nation-state.
This is certainly the case with the International Criminal Court (ICC) which in its enabling Rome Statute asserts authority over nation-states (including democratic ones) that have not consented to the authority of this global court.
Radosh writes, 鈥淔or this reason (loss of American sovereignty) he [Trump] and John Bolton favor pulling the United States out the International Criminal Court, which Trump says, 鈥榗laims near universal jurisdiction over the citizens of every country.鈥欌€� Radosh would be more credible if he bothered to get his facts right, by say, typing in a simple Google search of 鈥淚nternational Criminal Court鈥� and looking at its membership list. It takes about a minute. Ron, the United States cannot 鈥減ull out鈥� of the ICC because we have never been in it. The Senate never ratified the Rome Statute.
What John Bolton announced last month was that the Trump administration was no longer going to assist the ICC (by providing intelligence, documents, etc.) as the Bush and Obama administrations have done in the past. The reason for this change in foreign policy is that the ICC Prosecutor for the first time is proposing to investigate American soldiers and officials for alleged 鈥渨ar crimes鈥� in Afghanistan. Interestingly, when she was secretary of state, Radosh鈥檚 preferred 2016 presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, told an audience in Nairobi that it was a 鈥済reat regret鈥� that the United States was not a member of the International Criminal Court.
Noble Nationalism
Let us now take up the issue of 鈥渘ationalism.鈥� Here, it depends upon what one means by nationalism. During the 20th century, statesmen as disparate as Winston Churchill, Mahatma Gandhi, David Ben Gurion, Charles de Gaulle, Ronald Reagan, and Margaret Thatcher were called nationalists and they clearly were democratic nationalists, which is often used interchangeably with the concept of patriotism. Hence, in contemporary world politics, Benjamin Netanyahu is considered a democratic nationalist and a quintessential Israeli patriot.
It appears that what has triggered Radosh is Trump鈥檚 praise for the conservative government in Poland, which is taking seriously its election campaign promises to reform a corrupt judiciary. Radosh repeats the false progressive-liberal narrative that Poland is becoming 鈥渁uthoritarian鈥� and 鈥渕oving away from democracy.鈥� He notes 鈥渢he EU sued Poland for steps it has taken to undermine an independent judiciary.鈥�
So, what is going on in Poland? The conservative Law and Justice government has inherited a corrupt judicial system that was established in 1989 in 鈥漴oundtable talks鈥� between the 鈥渞eformed鈥� Communists and the anti-Communist Solidarity movement. Ultimately, the former Communists proved to be better negotiators.
Writing in National Review Online, Michael Brendan Dougherty described the unfortunate results of the roundtable negotiations. For decades, 鈥渢he Polish judiciary was run like a medieval guild, with judges nominating their own successors. On occasion, the sons of existing judges would get preferential treatment over qualified law professors. Judges protected one another from lawsuits and pay freezes.鈥� Further, the judiciary influenced by post-Communist elites repeatedly blocked transparency initiatives that would have revealed more perpetrators and collaborators of the crimes of the Communist-era dictatorship.
The Law and Justice government, whose leadership was formed by the most uncompromising anti-Communist elements in the Solidarity movement, is attempting to democratize the judiciary. In the final analysis, their judicial reforms will mean that democratically elected officials (rather than the sitting judges themselves) will play a role in the appointment of new judges. After all, in most Western democracies鈥攊ncluding the United States and Germany鈥攄emocratically elected officials participate in the process of choosing judges, otherwise one would have an unaccountable and undemocratic judicial oligarchy.
Radosh writes that Trump in his U.N. address 鈥渄id not mention Hungary, but it鈥檚 likely [Stephen] Miller had Victor Orban and his Fidesz Party in mind鈥� when the president declared that each sovereign nation should concentrate on 鈥渦pholding national borders, destroying criminal gangs,鈥� and 鈥渟et[ting] its own immigration policy in accordance with its national interests.鈥� Radosh then tells us that 鈥淸w]hat Trump means鈥� is 鈥渁ll nations should echo his immigration policy.鈥�
What is Radosh鈥檚 point? That it is somehow problematic for sovereign nations to uphold their borders, destroy transnational criminal gangs, and establish immigration policy on the basis of national interests because this is what Trump recommends? The implication is clear, if Trump is for it, it must be prima facie bad, no matter what the merits of the policy.
Democratic Sovereignty Rightly Understood
In point of fact, the president鈥檚 remarks on sovereignty, borders, and immigration are on an even higher plain than simple public policy. They are directly related to the core principle of American constitutional democracy鈥攇overnment by consent of the governed鈥攖he right of a free people to rule themselves.
Alexander Hamilton expressed this principle of democratic sovereignty succinctly in Federalist 1, when he declared the purpose of the American experiment in self-government was 鈥渢o decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend . . . on accident and force.鈥�
Illegal mass migration in the United States and Europe brings into clear focus the crucial choice that Hamilton presented at America鈥檚 birth. Are policies decided by 鈥渞eflection and choice鈥� or by 鈥渁ccident and force鈥�? Clearly, in the case of illegal immigration, 鈥淲e the people鈥� are not making policy based upon 鈥渞eflection and choice,鈥� but, as Hamilton feared might happen, immigration policy is being made for us by 鈥渁ccident鈥� and in some cases (with MS-13) by 鈥渇orce.鈥�
Most importantly, in direct contradiction to the core principle of our democratic republic 鈥済overnment by consent of the governed,鈥� de-facto migration policy is being made without (and essentially against) the consent of the citizens of this country.
What President Trump did in his second U.N. speech was to take the Founders concept of independent self-government and articulate a universal principle of democratic sovereignty. Further, he correctly emphasized that 鈥淪overeign and independent nations are the only vehicle where freedom has ever survived, [and] democracy has ever endured.鈥� Put otherwise, constitutional democracy and individual freedom do not exist (and are not militarily protected) within transnational and global institutions but only in sovereign nation-states and in alliances of sovereign states (NATO rather than the EU).
Returning to Self-Rule
Let us return to the two most important words in world politics: who decides? Who decides a nation鈥檚 immigration policy? The people in the host nation? A transnational organization like the U.N. or EU? Or the migrants voting with their feet against the wishes of the people in the host nation? As I write these words, yet another 鈥渃aravan鈥� of thousands of foreign migrants is heading for the U.S. border, highlighting the centrality of Hamilton鈥檚 existential question, once again.
I believe the president is declaring that just as Americans have the right of self-government, the Hungarians today are a free people and they have the right (and they have expressed this right by voting overwhelmingly for Fidesz and border control in a free democratic election) to decide for themselves their own immigration policy, rather than having that policy decided for them by the supranational European Union (with the prodding of the two overbearing nations in that Union: Germany and France) or by the migrants themselves who arrive in Hungary and other sovereign European nations without the consent of the governed.
Our president is simply saying that democratic sovereign peoples have the moral right to rule themselves. Once an excellent historian, but now severely afflicted with, and apparently traumatized by, Trump Derangement Syndrome, Ronald Radosh finds this core principle of American constitutional morality objectionable.