Hey there, Today I'd like to talk about how people talk about other countries.
So a week or so back, the formal Brexit proceedings started.
Great Britain is leaving the EU, and the European Union put together, sort of a preliminary
talking points document.
And in this document, there was something that was kind of a legalistic stab.
It was a statement that Spain would have a veto on any settlement of the relations between
Gibraltar, a chunk of land that Britain owns, that's right next to Spain, and the European
Union.
Last Week I made a video talking about the response of a UK politician, who compared
Spain to 1980's era Argentina and threatened the use of military force.
Now 1980's Argentina is one of the more vile dictatorships we had during the 20th century.
The body count wasn't as high as some of the other ones, but it was a pretty terrible place.
So it's a very insulting statement, and it's also a threat of violence.
Now this struck me as very like going into divorce proceedings with your spouse, and
then getting up in front of the judge and threatening to beat the crap out of your spouse.
Not a good move.
Not very polite.
That reading of this event seemed pretty straightforward to me, but it's become clear from the YouTube
comments to that video that a lot of people don't see it that way.
They saw these two things, the EU making a sort of legalistic push and this British politician
threatening military force, and comparing Spain to a really nasty dictatorship.
They saw these two things as being equivalent somehow.
As a fair give and take.
So I thought I'd explain a little bit more about why the British comment bothered me
so much.
We're entering a new era of geopolitics in 2017.
Nationalism is on the rise.
I think I've made it pretty clear in my other videos that I'm not the biggest fan of this
development, but I think we all can agree that we need to look at these things objectively
and figure out how we can all survive in this new era peaceably, no matter how nationalist,
or not nationalist a country is.
So in an era of nationalism, in an era of renewed competition between different countries,
people need to be more careful about what they say about other countries, not less.
World history is filled with examples where a stray word, or a silly thing that somebody
said, turned into a larger conflict.
Words have power.
Angry words, threats of violence, can turn into real violence.
Words can cost thousands of lives.
Now I'm not talking about individuals.
I'm not talking about people saying stuff on YouTube, I'm not talking about journalists,
I'm not even talking about political candidates.
But for individuals like this guy last week, who can be interpreted as leaders in their
country.
He's a member of the House of Lords, if I recall correctly, and he used to be in charge
of the conservative party, during one of the times when it was in opposition.
So he's a sort of quasi-official figure for the British government.
People like him need to be more careful about what they say.
In a new, more nationalist era, like the one that we are entering, the words that are exchanged
between countries become more important.
There are more options on the table now.
In 2017 it looks more possible than it has in 70 years, for two large, powerful state
actors to come into conflict.
Wars between states are much more serious, and much more dangerous than anything we've
seen.
The potential of a battle between Russia and Turkey, or Russia and the United States.
Or even Spain and the United Kingdom, would likely kill dramatically more people, dramatically
more quickly than any kind of civil war.
Even the horrible one in Syria that's going on right now.
To be clear, I don't think there's any chance that Spain and the United Kingdom will get
into any kind of shooting war in this decade or the next.
But after that?
The point I'm trying to make is that people in public life need to be more careful about
what they say in a nationalist era because the stakes are so much higher.
I don't think anybody wants war.
Even hyper-nationalist people who want a more assertive reading of their country's rights
put out there, they'd like to accomplish that peacefully...
I'm assuming.
So last week, Donald Trump was criticized for a lot of things...
a lot of things.
But there was one criticism in particular that I thought was unfair, and I think it
illustrates what I'm talking about here.
As a candidate, Donald Trump said a lot of things.
And he said a lot of things about China in particular.
One of the statements he made was that when he was president, and it came time for a state
dinner or some kind of interaction between Donald Trump and the leader of China, that
there wouldn't be any kind of official dinner or anything like that.
He was gonna buy him McDonald's and they were going to get to work.
Well, last week, Xi Jinping, the leader of China came to visit the United States and
they sat down for a very official looking state dinner.
The internet went crazy with this, and a lot of people thought they'd "gotten" Trump or
something like that, and I don't, I don't agree with that.
I actually think that Donald Trump should be applauded for changing his stance on this
issue.
It recognizes that there's a difference between what an individual says as a candidate and
what they say when they're representing their country.
I still think that Donald Trump is way too negative on China, and I think a lot of his
plans are troubling, and not the right thing to do, but I applaud Donald Trump for acknowledging
that he can't follow up on his sillier campaign pronouncements when it comes to diplomacy.
State dinners are important.
Observing the forms are important.
What our politicians say about other countries is very important.
Donald Trump has learned that he has to be more careful about his statements and actions
when it comes to China.
That's a great thing.
If politeness goes out the window, as we saw last week, the story becomes about the comments.
And the politicians and the governments in question lose control of the issue.
What should have been a very straightforward negotiation, where the British said "We believe
this provision is unfair and it should be off the table" it's now become a darker conversation.
The British and Spanish people are both now dramatically more aware of this issue, and
harder angrier positions are forming.
That simply wasn't necessary.
As you look back through European history you can see that diplomacy has always been
something that has been handled very carefully.
The relationships between states, even when they were fighting each other, or they knew
they were likely to get into a war sometime soon, were always very careful, very measured.
Even when they were making demands that the other country would never accept.
This was a survival strategy.
In a more nationalist era, the chances of disputes between state actors becoming wars
becomes much higher.
This means that people who can be seen as speaking for their country need to be more
polite, and more careful with their words, not less.
Thanks for watching, please subscribe, and if you'd like to help me make more videos
like this one, please click on the Patreon link here to find out how.
Thanks.