The research found that international politics is a more central issue for European radical right political actors than is usually appreciated, and these actors articulate a coherent challenge to liberal internationalism which goes beyond extreme nationalism, racism or xenophobia. A key central thread unites all the EPRR actors studied: their central nativist commitment to preserving the ethnic integrity and autonomy of the national community is inseparable from their belief in a bordered world of sovereign nation states.
Moreover, foreign policy issues provide populist opportunities for radical right parties to challenge the coherence and integrity of mainstream parties of government. Radical right political actors frame themselves as defending the rights and identity of the ethnonational community from an international ‘globalist’ agenda, which includes liberal elites in their own countries. The ‘globalist threat’ is characterised by multilateral regimes drawing power away from sovereign states, especially with respect to borders controlling migration and trade.
‘Globalism’ is also characterised by Western military intervention against sovereign states (e.g. Iraq, Libya, Syria). Actions taken in the name of human rights or democracy are said to have caused uncontrolled migration and facilitated Islamist extremism. The domestic unpopularity of these interventions provides an opportunity for radical right parties to align with the majority and challenge the integrity and coherence of policies pursued by governments involving all mainstream parties.
More broadly, radical right actors share a suspicion of both the US and EU as engines of globalism, as well as deep and growing concern at Chinese trade practices deemed to undermine domestic capacity in critical industries. They also tend to show a sympathy for Putin’s Russia driven by various factors including the perception of Russia as an ally in resisting the ‘globalist’ threat to sovereign national communities.
Yet the research finds significant variations within and between the cases studied. The extent to which an EPRR parties challenge mainstream rivals on foreign policy varies according to national political culture and the specific political context. For example, the more military intervention has public backing, the less incentive there is for the EPRR to take a clear stance either way.
Moreover, there is variation within parties as to the extent to which its representatives subscribe to populist conspiracy theories about the hidden purposes and agendas of liberal elites. Whilst some representatives subscribe to the most implausible conspiracy theories, others articulate views closer to the mainstream right.
As this data is further analysed and disseminated, the insights will deepen the understanding of these political forces for both scholars and practitioners of European politics.
