The current Coronavirus pandemic strengthens a type of narrow-minded nationalism that
the international community seemed to have already left behind. During the last decades
since the end of the Cold War, some considerable progress has been made to establish
transnational institutions which are capable of tackling the great challenges of our time.
Now, however, national instincts return precis
...[Show More]
The current Coronavirus pandemic strengthens a type of narrow-minded nationalism that
the international community seemed to have already left behind. During the last decades
since the end of the Cold War, some considerable progress has been made to establish
transnational institutions which are capable of tackling the great challenges of our time.
Now, however, national instincts return precisely at a moment when the spirit of
transnational cooperation is needed more than in less demanding times. At the first peak of
the crisis in March 2020, even some of the well-established international rules and
agreements were on the verge of collapsing. What would be appropriate, instead, is a
considerable increase of global cooperation. Furthermore, in my view, the step to be taken
in this situation is to establish transnational institutions which cannot simply be ruled out
when resentments of nationalism occasionally re-emerge. I think of firm and stable
institutions of global crisis management. The position I want to argue against is normally
not explicitly defended. It is rather an implicit one but one that is largely shared: I call it
the dogma of nationalism in politics.
It is hardly disputed by anyone that the nation-state
and the national community is the ultimate foundation to organize politics. But this dogma
leads us into a highly ineffective and unwelcome global situation when it comes to
transnational problems like the current pandemic. One phenomenon that makes this
palpable is the shutdown of national borders at the beginning of the Coronavirus crisis.
Even in EU Europe, including the Schengen Area, national border controls have been
widely re-established. The new inner-European border controls were extremely strict and
almost insurmountable, at least for the majority of citizens, including unmarried couples
living on both sides of a border. The spirit of free travel and free trade broke down within
only a few days. And quite surprisingly, almost nobody protested against it. Strictly
speaking, however, the line of action taken by national administrations without Brussels
being involved violates EU law and neglects the sense of the contracts: the border closure
was not multilaterally agreed upon but a simple unilateral decision of each single nationstate. The respective neighboring countries were not asked for their consent, sometimes
they were not even informed before the measure was taken. What is worse: concerning the
fight against Covid-19, the shutdown of inner EU borders had no positive effect at all – it
did not even improve the chances to control the spread of the disease. In order to limit the
dissemination of the virus, one has to trace single cases under a local and regional
supervision.
[Show Less]