I am not a person qualified in anything other than butchering accountancy. Please, if anyone wants to take me on about the "scientific" validity of what I am going to say "have at it". Remember that I put the word in quotes simply because I do not consider any of the psycho-sciences to qualify as such. I promise that I will not listen to any attempted refutation that states I do not know what I am talking about. I admit it, this is a purely personal, abstract, appraisal.

I want to talk about "isolationism", in particular the attitude that some people from the United States of America adopt whenever the kitchen starts getting a bit on the warm side for their liking.

Because this is a totally UN-scientific, opinionated and possibly biased analysis I am not going to apologise either in advance or after. If my approach upsets readers, that might indicate the need for a little quiet soul searching on their part, not mine.

There, health and safety warnings in place, check; furnace grade ceramic underwear in place, check... Next thing is the development of the scenarios and analysis…

To be fair, though, this really is about the practicality of a nation such as the US withdrawing from the general society of nations (not here implying the UN, but rather the global community). There are already at least two instances of nations having chosen or preferred such isolation; North Korea and Mianmar without doubt, East Germany and the Russian bloc, other possibilities would be the apardtheit South Africa, Mugabe’s Zimbabwe and Iran with others as weaker possibilities. All of these instances are so unlike the US that using them as immediate "proof" of my position is unwarranted and unsupportable.

So to the first example…

At the extreme, the notion of "withdrawal" has been taken by some as far as including mutual defence arrangements, external trade, sharing of technological development, and (by implication) any immigration, emigration, or tourism.

Now I do not believe for a moment that this is the level of isolationism that most "proposers" have considered. It is interesting to see just how conceivable it might be as a proposition. In effect, this would be a self-imposed combination of North Korea, East Germany and Cuba.

The first and immediate impact of this level of isolationism would be on the internal politic. It would require voluntary, individual level, suspension of most aspects of the American Constitution. The more opposition there might be, or the lower the level of voluntary compliance, the greater would be the pressure for the isolation to collapse, or for the government to impose even more draconian measures to uphold its position.

The second level to impact would be economic. When I read the papers and news releases from the White House, I find that the justification for America’s fiscal and trading deficits is the "fact" that these are countered by external investment in the nation. Shutting off the external trading deficit, and the counter-balance external investment leaves the internal fiscal deficit hanging out there on its own. I know little of the internal machinations of the US so I am not going to preach what might or might not be sacrificed in trying to get that internal balance back. We can see the results of failure to address the economic implications of uncontrolled internal deficits in history. Germany of 1930 to 39 is one example, Argentina today, and on a small scale in New Zealand between 1965 and 1984. In all instances extreme demand driven inflation, and internal deficits in excess of 20% GDP are present. In NZ, it resulted in default on external loans – a case of international insolvency.

Aligned with the economic impact is the closing of trade with the rest of the world. Would the US survive without coffee? Does the US have the capability to be self-sufficient in food over a long period? Does the US have the capacity for long term energy requirements?
Taking all into consideration the chances that this level of isolation would even start, let alone survive, are close to nothing.

So, up the scale to the next level…

If I minimise the impact of the isolation – to the point where it might be seen to give greatest benefit to the US – I think the scenario might be along the lines of:

• Withdrawal from the United Nations
• Withdrawal from selected defence arrangements, including replacement of NATO with bilateral US - Britain and US – EU at a lower level.
• Withdrawal from international trade and finance organisations such as WTO, OECD and World Bank.
• Withdrawal from international law conventions.
  

My first reaction after seeing those words is "Plus ca change, les meme choses".

Would the withdrawal of the US from the United Nations spell the end of that international forum? I can not be sure if it is heart or head that says "No."

How would Europe greet the death of NATO, given that its soul intention was defence against neighbours who now are members of the political/economic equivalent – the EU? I suspect that France especially and, possibly, Germany would welcome the prospect. Britain would want a bilateral arrangement similar to ANZUS (With NZ gone, should that now be AUSUS, or AUS, or USA or USAUS? Sorry…). The smaller and "poorer" signatories would be concerned, and perhaps very unhappy at the thought of throwing their lot in with French or Germans.

When I think about the other two pieces I posted earlier, the first thing to come to mind is Sir T.O.M. Sopwith who (if memory serves me right) was the man who said of his participation in the America’s Cup in 1900-1925 that "Britain rules the waves, America waves the rules". It becomes even more appropriate when adding "I" to create "America waives the rules" increases the pune.

There is an increasing international disenchantment over the US’s ability to circumvent any rules that might stand in the way of "our interests". This has been especially so in the past three or so years, starting with the renunciation of the US’s support for the International Court of Justice.
Therefore, it seems on reflection that in terms of effect rather than fact that the US is already somewhat isolationist in its outlook. That is true, I think, as long as it is in the interests of the US to so do.

It is at this point too, that I tie back to a comment in an earlier post. In 1984, NZ was at the forefront of protest against French testing of nuclear weapons at Mururoa, Tahiti. This was not a government sponsored or supported protest. Greenpeace led it with great verve and vigour.

In 1984, as the French were about to begin I think the third series of atmospheric tests, the Greenpeace flagship Rainbow Warrior was berthed in Auckland preparing to lead a small flotilla of yachts to Mururoa. She was bombed and sunk with the loss of one life. A short while later, two members of the French Secret Service were detained, charged and found guilty of the crime. This was New Zealand’s first taste of a world in which advantage and success is gained through acts of stealth and terror. It might not measure in impact with 9/11. It sure did qualify under the same heading as "an attack against NZ". Remember at this point that this took place two years before the passing of the nuclear weapons ban legislation by the NZ government. This was a good two years before the US closed New Zealand’s membership of ANZUS.

Now, if the world were right then an attack on NZ such as this, irrespective of the perpetrator, should elicit some response from the other Treaty partners. Well one would imagine if the document required "an attack on one member will be considered an attack on all members". That certainly was the interpretation in 2001 following 9/11. Certainly, that clause won Australia’s involvement in Iraq 2.

What happened in 1984 when NZ was attacked by French terrorists? Nothing. As far as ANZUS partnerships were concerned, it was a non-event. Literally, it did not happen. There were no offers of weapons to repel boarders; there were no offers of help to investigate and apprehend (mind you we do that pretty well by ourselves as the Israelis have discovered); there was no offer of support to extract revenge (utu is a much better word) from the French.

So even today, if the US sees no interest or advantage to its involvement under a mutual defence treaty, I strongly suspect that it would be almightily difficult to get their attention. As a f’rinstance; if Israeli commandos were to attack government buildings in Paris or Bonn tomorrow, I suspect that there would be a lengthy silence from Washington once the "Oh dear how sad…" messages had gone out. No "I told you so" ‘s because diplomacy is not meant to be that petty. No "Can we help…" because ‘tit for tat’ is a valid diplomatic response.