I decided to go with a 'big' story today. 'Big' in the sense that it deals with global scope and long-term trends. Many media outlets have covered UK PM Gordon Brown's speeches in China and India of late, but I rather liked the way that Brown's message was framed in today's linked article from The Manila Times entitled "British PM calls for ‘new world order‘". Although many newspapers have picked up on his urging of UN, World Bank and IMF reform, I think Brown has highlighted something much more profound - namely, that the world's centers of political and economic power are evolving rapidly, that this will impact every aspect of our collective lives, and that we must all ready ourselves for these changes. Part of this readiness is about making sure global institutions - not just the UN and multilateral agencies, but financial institutions, for example - are 'fit for purpose' and stay ahead of the curve. This is a sage warning. In previous eras, such institutions have evolved not in anticipation of but in response to (often violent) realignment of global powerbases. Now, we have a chance to learn from the past and to avoid tension and aggression, with the UN and others facilitating a more peaceful evolution of the world order - not just mopping up afterwards. If the world's leaders can refocus themselves on this task, including at Davos this week, then that would definitely be cause for hope...
Monday, January 21, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
13 comments:
Great story!
We're certainly seeing a major realignment in comparative national strengths - in just a few years the superpower has lost much of its capacity to persuade other nations and become over-extended both economically and militarily. Such end-of-empire times has often induced bellicose fears (Europe before WW1) or a collective pretence of continued glory (Europe before WW2).
The challenge this time will be whether people can take a less nation-based approach and appreciate the advances of people far away as distinct from foreign governments becoming stronger. It may be hoping for too much, but it would be great if the UN and other world bodies reformed not by just changing the seats at the table, rebalancing powers between nations; but by becoming less inter-national and more inter-people. Let's hope!
Interesting perspective, Diana, that points to the evolution of both global citizenship and global governance and the diminishing importance of the nation state. One of my worries is that there are few promising harbingers here - applications of international laws have had limited success, for example, and private corporations (and many powerful private individuals for that matter) seem to be increasingly 'beyond governance'. Some would say this is the epitome of 'freedom'; others would ask what happens to collective responsibility in such a scenario - neither would be wrong, in fact. The question is how to get the right balance, I suppose... E
Spot on, eazibee!
And the way to reconcile freedom (or at least a separate identity) from the nation state and continued respect by people for their collective responsibilities is a shared ethical code. Again, using old European analogies, that transnational code used to Christianity (just within Christendom, of course!), backed up by medievel sanctions like ex-communication and being sent to hell. The model no longer works for various reasons, many of them welcome, such as respect for other religions, the Enlightenment possibility of non-religious ethics, and the Church losing its much of its power and respect.
But a new wide-ranging ethical code with broad, multi-cultural appeal could still emerge, and potentially yield tremendous benefits. (Ethical codes tend to have weaker systems of enforcement than law, both national and international, but this isn't an insuperable problem. There's always a reason to be hopeful!)
Well, how very interesting. I have been thinking about this a lot recently - how people perceive moral responsibility to those to whom they have few if any religious, cultural or community links. When you think about it, the degree to which an ethical code is perceived to govern our actions when they affect others 'far away' is key to solving so many of the world's problems - climate change, for one...
This is an interesting debate. Let's hope we get some more people pitching in at some point... E
Samre world order new actors!
This is absurd Must the new world order be determined for ever more by which countries are powerful and which are not... so India and China are now powerful so we must listen to them... beacuse they are powerful! And Africa can make do with charity and Millennium Villages YUCK!
changing the World...NOT!
I completely agree, Rathin. I think the rise of India and China has prompted some leaders, like Brown, to consider the way the world's 'balance of power' is managed and reflected in global institutions, such as the UN. But given that dominant powers are now becoming slightly more open to institutional reform, there is an opportunity to push for greater ambition. We should be thinking through how UN and other key global institutions represent all the world's people more effectively - not just those who live in the biggest and most powerful nations. The question is, how? Any suggestions?? E
There must be a model here in the European Parliament: a directly elected body drawn from 27 nations, which oversees and holds to account the European Commission, which is the executive. Interestingly, this Parliament has acquired powers beyond it's constitutional due largely because it is the only really democratic body of the many European institutions.
The analogy is with the General Assembly, which is currently weak and often ignored, leaving the executive (the secretariat) and security council to call the shots. If the General Assembly were directly elected Rathin's could be addressed and the UN could be transformed. It may even help transform the United Nations into a United Peoples!
... and the flip-side of individual world citizens directly electing their members of the general assembly is direct taxation - money coming from people rather than through nations 'on their behalf'. UN spending is always tight, and results from intense discussions between various nations. It results in those funds usually being directed towards projects which serve the interests of powerful nations, and has proven feeble at cutting back on bloated bureacracy and waste.
If, instead, the UN were funded by direct payments from people - either voters, or a Tobin or environmental tax (the funding base would have to be discussed and agreed) - it could help radically reform the institution.
Nice discussion :)
I have 2 penneth.. just a snippet of some relevant things and thoughts from my day:
I happen to work in the renewables industry doing web stuff - and I listen to Radio4 on the way to work, and I am starting to see some positive patterns emerging in the messages in the media I monitor (Radio4 gives me a useful round-up and gives me some threads to pursue on the web). I am fairly new to the renewables industry and am still trying to work out the 'ins and outs' but I certainly picked a good time to join. There are big positive changes occurring.
Kissinger interview on the way to work - His thoughts on the future of global politics and super power shift - particularly the role of the US and India/China.
Which reminded me of Buckminster Fuller - and his Spaceship Earth and his world game concepts.
At work I was seeing lots of news stories about an increase in renewables. Which makes me hopeful that at some point soon we are going to se some sensible planning decisions made for onshore wind in the UK. I am hoping that we don't have to wait for the teletubby generation to grow up before we see an end to NIMBYism ;-)
I keep thinking "wouldn't it be great if people who said yes to megawatt turbines to be able to get power directly from it". On that note I also heard that Greenpeace are moving to their next phase with the decentralised energy campaign. Now we need some advances in energy storage.
A sensible futurologist was interviewed on the way home on PM - which reminded me of a great site I stumbled on recently about Transition Culture (I should send Eddie another email about that!). There are so many visionary people at a grass roots level who are out there making the world a better place because they want to make it so - one step at a time. It is about time there was a multilateral framework that promotes individual autonomy and collective responsibility to give them some support. I can't help but think of Prisoner's Dilemma though when it comes to climate change, global peace and other serious matters. I just hope we have finally played the same silly games enough times now to realise that the long term winning strategy is absolute cooperation.
In the words of Bucky:
"Think of it. We are blessed with technology that would be indescribable to our forefathers. We have the wherewithal, the know-it-all to feed everybody, clothe everybody, and give every human on Earth a chance. We know now what we could never have known before-that we now have the option for all humanity to "make it" successfully on this planet in this lifetime. Whether it is to be Utopia or Oblivion will be a touch-and-go relay race right up to the final moment."?
Will the 20th Century be seen as the selfish century? Could this century the age of transition? I hope so - the signs are positive. We just need to get the world leaders and multinational industries and financial institutions on board and into shape as they are not currently fit for purpose ;-)
Thanks, Paul!
Whenever I get comments from the likes of you, Diana, Harry (who I understand is ill at the moment, otherwise he would be here big style!) and others I thank my lucky stars that I have such a thoughtful and intelligent readership! That's a reason to be hopeful, for sure!!
You are spot on re the prisoner's dilemma. The tendency for nation state representatives to default to the least co-operative stance, on the assumption that others are doing the same, is the principal reason why the UN so often functions sub-optimally. Most international negotiations are structured to encourage this approach. Having said that, how would they be structured differently to avoid it? Even electing the UN General Assembly (Diana's interesting suggestion) wouldn't help if people were elected to serve national constituencies or similar - indeed, it might even make things worse! Hmm...
So, to tackle your final point, Paul - what should be done about the governance of multi-national corporations?!
E
This is thinking aloud as much as writing a comment, and given I've said a lot on this already, feel free to tone me out if you've had enough....
I think there are two different problems here, and they may require different approaches. Reform of international institutions is one, and Eazibee is quite right to say electing the GA won't necessarily solve things, especially if people are elected to serve sectional interests (sectional interests could be national, or any other sub-global division of humanity). The electoral system matters here; but whatever system is used means there are sure to be permanent minorities who could have an interest bypassing the GA. The key is to develop a world-wide collective identity which overcomes the sectional identity (and solves the prisoners' dilemma problem). People should be elected on the basis of what they can do for the world, not a narrower portion of the electorate. (As an optimist, I hope many voters can reach beyond the Nash equilibrium, but it's not easy, especially if the media encourages cynicism.)
The second set of problems are more direct and real: things like climate change, international monetary issues, global poverty and corporate governance. Centre-left people from developed countries (like me!) naturally assume that for every problem there should be an institution (often pan-national) which can address it - hence the appeal to the UN, etc, and seeking to make progress on these issues by reforming the institutions. But this isn't the only approach - alternatives include developing a wide consensus for fair and appropriate behaviour (which is how most countries deter murder etc); it tends to need minimal policing when you think about it, since only a tiny percentage of people who would gain (narrowly defined) from murder actually think to commit it. Other sources of progress include finding ways to inspire and channel technical innovation; a 'wiki' type approach; and, for global poverty and climate change where the victims are often far away from the non-cooperative types, much greater cross-cultural awareness, including perhaps 'twinning' of people from very different backgrounds, effectively extending family-strength relationships between individuals in different continents.
Hehe - I have tried replying about 3 times but end up going off on tangents...
WRT to prisoners dilemma and nashequilibrium - it's all about percieved rewards or punishments insn't it? Iterative game playing should inform play for next itme - but I think history is one of the issues. Like the news - it is written by people. I like the way blogging and samizdat/self-publishing is helping to collaboratively write history. It has more transparency these days - like the news.
So how to create a new end-game that doesn't involve gloabl domination and control of resources..? I wish I could ask Bucky..
That's the challenge the UN now faces. Satisfying not only personal "what's in it for me's" but politcal and industrial. Global citizenship is a key factor.
WRT your question about multi-national corporations - well - I think a strengthening of Corporate Social Responsibility should be encouraged for a start. Funnily enough I noticed and article on BBC News site yesterday about this kind of thing. I hadn't actually heard of the Millennium Development Goals before - Bono is on the case ;-) but rather than it being a PR excercise for companies - it should be mandatory.
Perhaps the earth needs to be a stakeholder in all business - an environmental tax would be a step in the right direction - but not if selfish nation states try to keep the proceeds for their own coffers! A percentage of all profits should go to an earth fund.
Regardless - I would like to see that Goal 7 & 8 are given due attention (it always occurs to me that sorting out 'sustainability' would be the cure-all)
I suppose I am also guilty of thinking that there should be a commision lol perhaps the long tail and web 2.0 ccould help in some way.
Sorry gonna have to cut short - there is chaos in my house. Blinking kids! Wifes! lol - how are we supposed to put the world to rights eh? Also my spelling isn't being checked :)
Diana, Eazi - and Rathin spot on discussion!
Wonderful blog & good post.Its really helpful for me, awaiting for more new post. Keep Blogging!
DBloatedness
Post a Comment