I don't know whether the following article or book extract I fell upon offers you any hope that our society might turn out better than you expect, but here it is anyway.
I'm reluctant to agree with its conclusions myself (as I fear global governence, overweening power etc.), but then I don't live in an unstable, lawless country, where my life or liberty may be taken at any time.
ATB, Graham
The Uniting of Nations: An Essay on Global Governance
By John McClintock, with the collaboration of Xavier Guigue
Published by PIE Peter Lang, ISBN: 978-90-5201-049-6
Summary Introduction
There is a big structural problem in the manner in which the world is governed. The problem is that states are pursuing power in a manner that is largely unregulated. There is nothing inherently wrong with the pursuit of power. But in today’s world, this pursuit of power is taking place without a sufficient level of regulation. Global issues such as war and conflict, terrorism, the proliferation of nuclear weapons, poverty, debt and global warming, cannot be resolved in a timely, peaceful and just manner. The present system of global governance is dysfunctional. It is not working properly and, indeed, cannot work properly. Faced with this situation, our essay proposes, for general discussion, an idea. This is that the world should do for itself what the founding fathers of the European Union did for the states and peoples of Europe. Fifty years ago, they designed a new system of governance. It is a system of governance that allows states to share particular elements of their national sovereignty within a political collectivity.
The European Union is a miracle of our time. This is rarely acknowledged because most commentary
about the organisation tends to concentrate on the issues and controversies of the moment. In this sense, we are susceptible to ‘the tyranny of the present.’ But when viewed from a distance, and with an historical perspective, the European Union can be seen as the midwife to a new period in the history of Europe.
The beneficiaries of this miracle are the citizens of the European Union. So long as the European Union exists, they can be assured that their countries will not fight each other. The issues that confront the citizens — at least those issues that derive from within the borders of the European Union — can be addressed in a timely, peaceful and just manner. The new system of governance has not only brought peace to a continent that was frequently ravaged by war but has also brought a very high level of prosperity and a relatively high regard for human rights.
The idea is that the world as a whole should adopt this system of governance.
If it were to do so, then a new period of global history could begin. The world would have a system of governance that could settle differences between states in a peaceful and just manner. Such a system would bring greater freedom to states and their citizens. As the French philosopher, Jean-Jacques Rousseau observed more than two hundred years ago: “To follow one’s impulse is slavery, but to obey the selfprescribed law is liberty.”
Part I: Statement of the Problem and Diagnosis
The purpose of Part I of the essay is to define the problem and to diagnose it in order to reveal its root causes. This part of the essay comprises seven chapters.
The first chapter reminds the reader of the threats that are confronting the world. It selects a number of these threats and briefly describes them and assesses the current state of play. The following examples are taken: war and conflict, acts of terror, the proliferation of nuclear weapons, the depletion of natural resources, instability in the domain of international finance, the outsourcing of jobs, migration, inequality, poverty, debt and deprivation, the violation of human rights, global warming, the concentration of corporate power and pandemics. These are threats that transcend national borders. They are ‘global threats’ — threats without borders.
The chapter argues that these threats are not being addressed in an adequate or timely manner. The evidence for this assertion is that, inter alia, there are some thirty wars in the world; despite the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which was supposed to result in nuclear disarmament, there are now more states with nuclear arms and the arsenals of the nuclear powers have been upgraded rather than dismantled; the present debt crisis is the fourth that has occurred during the last 150 years; despite nearly twenty years of discussion, the threat of global warming has not been brought under control; and despite the expenditure, year after year, of billions and billions of dollars to eradicate poverty, there are some one to two billion people in the world who lack the necessities of life.
In the light of the fact that global threats are not being addressed in an adequate or timely manner, the chapter asserts that the present system of global governance is dysfunctional. This is the problem that the essay explores. The problem is not that the world faces various threats — there have always been threats to Man’s welfare and there probably always will be. The problem is that the world is having great difficulty is addressing these threats. Something is wrong in the manner that the world is running its affairs. The remaining chapters of Part I attempt to ascertain exactly what is wrong. They constitute a diagnosis of the present system of global governance.
In Chapter two the term ‘present system of global governance’ is defined as the states of the world (of which there are some 200), the European Union and the United Nations. These are termed ‘governing bodies’. There are two attributes that all governing bodies must possess, if they are to be in a position to govern effectively. These are, on the one hand, the possession of sovereign powers and, on the other, the possession of political legitimacy.
Chapter three examines the effectiveness of the states of the world in terms of their capacity to govern.
There are some that have great difficulty in providing for their citizens the most basic service: internal security. States such as Liberia, Sierra Leone and Somalia fall into this category and are commonly referred to as ‘failed states’.
The chapter examines why some states have failed. It takes the example of Sierra Leone and describes
its political history since it was established some 50 years ago on the dissolution of the British Empire.
Sierra Leone was, to all intents and purposes, predestined to fail as a state. It was born into a hostile world that did not encourage it to develop and it comprised peoples from a variety of ethnic groups that had little in common with each other. Effectively, Sierra Leone entered into a cycle of ever-decreasing sovereign powers and ever-decreasing political legitimacy. This cycle continued long enough to ensure that the state eventually failed.
The chapter then generalises from the specific case of Sierra Leone to other failed states of the world. It also examines the case of India, which, like Sierra Leone was a part of the British Empire, but is now a relatively successful state.
Chapters four to six explore the European Union and the United Nations. Chapter four asks the
question: ‘is the European Union effective?’ It starts with a brief explanation of what the European Union is and how it works. It examines the record and concludes that, whilst the European Union is by no means a perfect organisation, from the point of view of its member states and citizens it has been comparatively successful. It has brought peace to the countries that belong to it. The centuries of what seemed to be perpetual warfare between France and Germany have ended. As for prosperity, the people of the European Union are now among the most prosperous in the world. With regard to their human rights, these are generally well respected.
Chapter five asks the same question of the United Nations: ‘is it effective?’ Has the United Nations
succeeded in doing what it was set up to do? It was established, in 1945, to bring both peace and prosperity to the world and, furthermore, to promote the respect of human rights. The chapter discusses the record of successes and failures. It concludes that, on the whole, the record has been disappointing. The United Nations has not brought peace to the world, it has not solved the problem of poverty and, as for human rights, there are very serious violations in many countries of the world.
But why should the European Union have been relatively successful while the United Nations has been relatively unsuccessful? After all, both seek to do the same thing: to provide a form of governance for their member states which enables their citizens to live in peace with each other, to become prosperous and to enjoy a high level of human rights.
To what can the poor record of the United Nations be ascribed? It is because it does not have enough
money? Is it because the membership is very large — some 192 countries, all with their own interests and cultures — compared to the much smaller European Union with its twenty-seven member states?
Chapter six answers this question by comparing the two governing bodies from the point of view of the possession of sovereign powers and political legitimacy.
The United Nations possesses sovereign powers in a very narrow domain — that of peace and security.
In all other domains — such as human rights, the environment, trade, development — the organisation does not possess sovereign powers. It cannot oblige any member state to take any action that it does not wish to do, even though the action may be clearly in the interests of the world. This is the reason why, for instance, the United Nations is often not able to assemble sufficient peace keeping forces and why its member states are around $ 1 billion in arrears to the organisation.
In that domain where it does possess sovereign powers — peace and security — the manner in which
decisions are made is the antithesis of democracy. Firstly, decisions are taken by the Security Council
which consists of only 15 members out of 192 members (7%). Secondly, a small minority of five (China, France, Russia, United Kingdom and United States) enjoy a very privileged position. Not only are they permanent members (unlike the other ten for whom membership is for a period of two years only) but they each have the right to veto a discussion of any issue which they do not wish to be raised. They have not been shy to exercise this right and by doing so have been able to pursue their own individual interests at the expense of the peace of the world.
In the words of one observer, this arrangement means that “the Security Council with its mandatory
powers can oblige members of the United Nations to comply with its decisions, embodying, in effect, a crude form of government of all States by a few States.”
In vivid contrast to the United Nations, the European Union has both sovereign powers and political legitimacy. Its member states share their national sovereignty — not all of it, only those elements pertaining to the areas in which the member states wish to act together. The practical effect is that the European Union has the power to oblige its member states to respect the decisions that they themselves have, collectively, made. In the last resort, member states which do not respect the decisions can be required to account for themselves in a court of law and, in the case of continued infraction, may suffer a financial penalty.
The European Union also enjoys a relatively high degree of political legitimacy. Firstly, all states are treated as equals. All have a seat at the table where the decisions are made. There is no question of decisions being made by a small clique of members with the rest of the members having to toe the line.
Secondly, every proposal for a new decision has to be discussed both by the member states and the peoples. The member states are represented by their governments and the peoples are represented by their members of parliament, meeting in the European Parliament.
Thirdly, there is a presumption among the member states that they will work by consensus. If, however, a consensus cannot be reached concerning a particular proposal then a vote is taken. A number of provisions make the voting procedure highly democratic. For instance, the member states have to cast a clear majority of their votes (at least 74%) in favour of the proposal, two-thirds of member states (out of twenty-seven) have to be in favour and the combined population of those member states that are in favour must represent at least 62% of the population of the European Union. Furthermore, the distribution of votes between member states is such that small member states cannot out-vote large member states and vice versa.
Whilst there may be particular member states or persons that may not welcome or like a specific law, these procedures are generally regarded as fair and just. As a result the laws, in general, carry a broad level of support and are regarded as reasonable. This is the source of the political legitimacy of the European Union.
The relative success of the European Union therefore lies in its design. It is endowed with both sovereign powers and political legitimacy. It has the capacity to make laws which are regarded as fair and just, and to enforce these laws.
This is the manner in which Europe now governs itself. It contrasts starkly with the situation in the past.
In previous periods of history, it was the big countries only that took the decisions and the rest of Europe was simply informed of them and expected to obey them.
Chapter seven seeks to deepen the diagnosis. Why should some states have been born in an imperfect
form? Why should the rest of the world have been hostile to their development? And why should the
United Nations have been designed without the two sine qua non for effective governance?
States have always vied with each other for power and there is nothing inherently wrong in this. But this pursuit of power is largely taking place in a manner that is unregulated.
The world has become caught in a vicious cycle: the United Nations is ineffective and has little capacity to regulate states; without regulation states use both fair and foul tactics in their pursuit of power; this makes the world a hostile place for small and weak states; small and weak states enter into a cycle of failure; the failure of states combined with the generally hostile environment mean the world is an uncertain and dangerous place for all states; faced with uncertainty and danger, the rationale strategy for states is to continue to pursue power by any means they can muster and for those states that control the United Nations to resist its reform lest it starts to regulate them in their pursuit of power.
Part II: What are the Options?
In Part II, the essay turns to the future. If the world is going to solve the problems that it faces, it has, somehow, to construct a system of global governance that works. At first sight, it may seem that this requires two things: on the one hand, states that are in a cycle of failure have to exit such a cycle and enter into a cycle of success and the United Nations has to be reformed.
Alas, things are not as easy as this. As we have seen, the failure of states and the inappropriate design of the UN are not diseases in themselves, but are the symptoms of a disease. The disease is the unregulated pursuit of power by states. The cure of this disease is for states to entrust particular elements of their national sovereignty to a global collectivity that can govern in a fair and just manner. But how, in all realism, could this be done?
In Chapter eight, the essay explores a number of options. Regarding the United Nations, there have
been some fifty attempts to reform it. None of these has resulted in the sharing of any sovereignty or the adoption of fairer ways of making decisions. It is highly doubtful that any meaningful reform will take place in the future, simply because the five permanent members of the Security Council do not see reform as being in their short-term national interest. It means that the United Nations will remain impotent in practically all the areas in which it is supposed to act and will never become democratic.
Could the answer lie in opening up the European Union to all the countries of the world? If this
organisation has been successful in regulating the behaviour of twenty-seven states, perhaps it could do the same for all the states of the world? Is there any convincing reason for restricting this political union to that part of the world known as Europe?
The authors consider that the European Union should not extend beyond Europe. The European Union is, quintessentially, a European endeavour. It derives its motivation and aspiration from features that are intrinsic to European history, culture and philosophy. The European Union would not work if it were to extend beyond Europe.
Among the other options that the essay considers is the integration of regional organisations (such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and the African Union) to come together into a sort of world union, modelled on the European Union. But the problem is that regional organisations would have to mutate into political unions — in other words their members would have to share sovereignty amongst themselves. So far, members of regional organisations have generally been most reluctant to share sovereignty. This route to a better system of global governance is an unlikely one.
The conclusion of Chapter eight is that it is not possible to achieve the regulation of the behaviour of states by simply reforming the United Nations, expanding the European Union or modifying existing organisations. This leaves only one possibility: the creation of a new organisation.
Part III: A Practical Proposition
Part III consists of five chapters. Its purpose is to propose the creation of a new organisation — a global union of democracies.
Chapter nine addresses the functions, principles and design of such an organisation. It argues that a global union should start from a small and modest beginning, that it should be based on the model of governance deployed by the European Union and that it should be allowed to grow and deepen slowly and steadily in a manner similar to the gradual growth and deepening of the European Union over the last 50 years. Its purpose should be to address global threats such as war and conflict, the proliferation of nuclear weapons, global warming, global poverty and so forth.
What would a global union do in practice? How would it go about addressing global problems?
It would undertake the tasks that are common to all governing bodies. These are to define and pursue the common interest. With regard to a particular global problem, it would formulate a solution that was feasible from a technical point of view. It would then render this solution acceptable from a political point of view by negotiating how the costs and benefits are to be shared between the member states. Finally, it would lay down the results of these negotiations in the form of law (i.e. a code of rights and responsibilities falling upon states).
Membership would be entirely voluntary: no state would be required to join. Membership would be
open to any state in the world, irrespective of where it was located. The only criterion for membership would be that the state is democratic.
What would be the structure? The essay proposes a presumption that, in its final form, the members are regional political unions not individual states. For instance, the European Union would be a member in its own right; its twenty-seven member states would belong to the global union by virtue of belonging to the European Union. The advantage of this structure is that the organisation would have, at most, some 15 to 20 members. The alternative would be for individual states to be members, meaning that there could be up to some 200 members. This would not make for an efficient organisation.
The proposal that states join as members of regional unions does not preclude an individual state from joining. A situation could arise when only one state from a particular region wished to join. It would be permitted to do so. If, at a later date, another state from the same region also wanted to join, then the two states would form themselves into a union of states and it would be the union of states that would be a member. This arrangement would encourage more integration, and better relations, between states within the same region.
Chapter ten discusses how a global union could rectify the dysfunctionality of the present system of global governance. Its effect would be to regulate the conduct of states. A global union would not, and could not, stop states from pursuing power but it would provide the rules within which this pursuit of power could take place. Providing the union was democratic, the rules would be just.
As for failed states, the adoption of a principle of ‘Do No Harm’ would engender a more benign world
— a pre-condition for failed states to make progress.
Chapter eleven asks if any states would be interested to join a global union. This, of course, depends on its design and effectiveness. A precondition for success would be the participation, from the outset, of the European Union. This would render it important and significant.
The essay puts forward a number of reasons why many countries — particularly those that are not major powers — could find membership an attractive proposition. The larger powers of the world — such as the United States, Russia, China and India — are likely, in the first instance, to be hesitant about joining. This is because their political elites may regard the sharing of sovereignty as a diminution of their country’s power. But, if the organisation was seen to be effective, their attitude is likely to change. It should be recalled that the United Kingdom changed its attitude to the European Union in the 1960s. At first, the United Kingdom was dismissive of the European Union and did not want to join. But when the United Kingdom realised that the European Union would be an important organisation it reversed its position and insisted on joining.
Chapters twelve and thirteen illustrate how a global union of democracies could work in the real
world. Chapter twelve considers global warming and chapter thirteen considers global poverty. They discuss why the world is finding it difficult to resolve these problems. They explain the approach that a global union of democracies could adopt.
Chapter thirteen, moreover, makes the point that poverty can only be eradicated if there is a redistribution of political power in the world. This can be done in either a violent or peaceful manner. If the world were to create a global union of democracies then it would, in effect, be choosing the peaceful route to a more equal distribution of power.
The final chapter — Chapter fourteen — consists of a number of questions and answers concerning a global union of democracies.
The annexes consider a number of subjects in greater depth. Annex 4, for instance, considers the attitude of the United Kingdom towards the European Union. It explains why the people of the United Kingdom are generally hesitant towards the European Union.
In overall conclusion, the essence of a global union of democracies is the sharing of sovereignty and the democratic exercise of the sovereign power that is thereby created. The democratic exercise of the sum of humanity’s sovereignty would allow the powers of humanity to be exercised by humanity for humanity.
The creation of a global union of democracies would be a response to the invocation of the late Pope Jean-Paul II, that “all are responsible for all.”