In 1946, the Roper polling service asked what people in the United
States thought about the possibility of moving beyond nationalism. One of the key
questions was this:
"If every other country in the world would elect representatives
to a world congress and let all problems between countries be decided by this
congress, with a strict provision that all countries have to abide by the
decisions whether they like them or not, would you be willing to have the
United States go along on this?"
Any pollster who suggested that question today would probably either be
called a socialist or given a reality check by management. Nevertheless, at the
end of World War II an impressive 62.8 percent answered yes to the question.
Only 19.8 percent gave a definite no; 17.8 apparently didn't know what to
think.
Going further, the poll also asked, "If every other country in the
world would give up its armies and navies and instead just contribute its share
of men and materials to an international police force, would you be willing for
the United States to go along with this?"
Maybe it was post-war stress disorder, but 52.2 percent said they
wanted national disarmament and a global military, 32.7 percent said no thanks,
and the remaining 15.1 percent were basically clueless. In other words, almost
70 years ago most Americans were ready to move beyond the nation-state and
handle global problems by electing a world parliament.
It’s certainly a grim testament to the power of propaganda and Cold War
paranoia that this emerging consensus, expressed just as the UN was launched,
was so effectively undermined, reversed and erased over the next years.
Today, on the Left and Right, mention global governance – even a modest
expansion of the UN's authority – and you’ll spark cynical dismissal, and
probably a current “conspiracy theory.” At the same time, however, a corporate-friendly
global administration, managed by a web of unaccountable bodies, has moved from
the drawing board to the boardrooms through multi-lateral agreements and other
tools of the current “world order.”
Disillusioned about government's ability to meet basic needs or get
anything done, many have been persuaded by reactive, anti-government, and often
isolationist appeals. Of course, most people are also painfully aware that no
single country, especially a disoriented superpower, can control inter- or
intra-state violence, reverse the environmental damage underway, or protect
human rights around the world. Yet too many have accepted the assumption that
any form of "global management" is either a utopian dream or a dystopian
scheme that will only make matters worse.
It’s basically a case of denial; an inability to acknowledge the shape
of the existing "new world order," acknowledged publicly by George H.W. Bush after
his election as president. By that time the emergence of regional economic blocs,
along with the diverse activities of the UN and the influence of
quasi-governmental structures and private institutions had already begun usurping
many powers of nations, raising profound questions about sovereignty,
self-determination, and the impact of global dynamics on local realities.
How did we get from there to here? And what can be done to begin moving
beyond a global regime based on profit and consumerism to a process of
globalization from below that puts people and the natural world first?
To begin, consider how earlier, post-nationalist instincts were
manipulated. The process began at the 1944 Dumbarton Oaks Conference, when the
winners of World War II – the US, United Kingdom, and Soviet Union – decided to
impose a primitive form of "unification" on the rest of the planet.
But the confederation they envisioned would have little to actually administer
and no effective enforcement power. Their fateful approach spurred the
development of rival blocs and an intensive arms race.
Throughout 1945, events crowded upon one another-- the death of
President Roosevelt in April, the opening of the UN founding conference less
than two weeks later, the end of the war in Europe, and then, on August 6, the
leveling of Hiroshima with an atomic bomb. By then the winners of the war had
already forced their UN plan on more than 40 other nations who sent delegates to
San Francisco. Only the Dumbarton Oaks proposals were discussed, and although a
few delegates, notably Cuba, called for a union of all peoples, no one had the
nerve to defy the dominant nations known as the Big Five.
There were some discussions of a constituent assembly, as well as
proposals to make international court jurisdiction compulsory and turn the
General Assembly into a world legislature with real authority. During heated
debate about the veto power of the Security Council's five permanent members,
many countries protested that this contradicted the principle of national
equality. The Australian delegate reminded the US that its Bill of Rights might
never have been passed if five states had been granted the right to veto. But
the Big Five -- the US, UK, France, Russia, and China -- refused to compromise:
no veto power meant no Charter. In the end, 15 nations abstained from voting on
the issue; Cuba and Colombia opposed it outright.
Outside the Conference, meanwhile, signs welcoming "world citizens"
were on display, much to the displeasure of the US State Department, which
eventually had them removed. Thousands of people signed petitions calling for a
world legislature, elected by the people of all member nations. "The
sovereignty which belongs to us," the petition stated, "we now wish
to re-divide, giving to a higher world level of government -- which we continue
to control through our representatives -- the power to decide questions of
world-wide concern."
As the 1946 Roper Poll suggested, this was a sentiment with broad
support at the time. Almost two-thirds of those surveyed said they favored a
world congress, an idea supported by all age groups, both sexes, and across the
country. Elmo Roper concluded, "These figures leave little doubt that a
majority of Americans still believe in a strong world organization. Not only do
they approve, in principle, of such a plan, but they are willing to take some
of the practical steps by which such a plan might be assured."
However, Roper also predicted that certain developments might change
this situation, particularly "a distrust of Russia's motives in regard to
world domination." He also might have mentioned the ineffectiveness of the
UN approach to confederation, the manipulation of post-War military tribunals
by the victors, and the squelching of demands by scientists that development of
atomic energy be controlled by a world authority.
As the 1940s ended, a modest movement for world government struggled
on. At first, many groups merged into the United World Federalists, then
splintered into a rainbow of assemblies, coalitions, and would-be world
government bodies. A hard-hitting evangelical treatise on global governance by
Emery Reves, The Anatomy of Peace, appeared in over 20 countries.
Organizational blueprints proliferated, including a University of Chicago study
of a possible World Constitution. For many people, the threat of nuclear
weapons provided more proof that world government was a necessity.
Yet, as Roper predicted, the Cold War made any serious consideration
impossible for the next half century. In the authoritative anthology, United
Nations, Divided World, Michael Howard concludes that the UN security system
itself "collapsed almost before it was put to the test." Action
against aggression could be taken only if the two "great powers," then
the US and USSR, chose not to object. Although the General Assembly might
occasionally "unite for peace," it was basically impotent.
As years passed and opportunities were wasted, the UN Secretary-General
became a popular scapegoat, and the organization as a whole was increasingly
viewed as pathetic, irrelevant, and possibly even a corrupt bureaucracy. In the
US, it was widely portrayed in the media as a forum for "third world"
rhetoric and "anti-American" outbursts.
Despite its post-Cold War rehabilitation, the UN is still far from
being, as its Charter originally proposed, "a center for harmonizing the
actions of nations." And even if this modest goal is achieved someday, the
conspiracy-oriented have little to fear. The UN will not soon, if ever, evolve
into a world legislature with binding authority. Rather than watching for black
UN helicopters, those worried about a global dictatorship might be better
advised to focus on World Bank headquarters and other branch offices of the
actual “world government,” which have been pursuing "structural
adjustment" for decades.
Throughout the history of the UN a few powerful nations have manipulated
its institutional framework and policies, often using a "financial
whip" to impose their will. Alternately neglected and undermined, it has
struggled with countless humanitarian emergencies, often while its dominant
members worked to limit its scope or "roll back" programs worldwide.
The vision of democratic global governance has always faced strong
resistance. For example, the decision to keep the so-called Bretton Wood
Institutions (BWIs) -- the World Bank and International Monetary fund -- as
well as the GATT and WTO separate from the UN has limited public participation
in economic decisions. Although the UN provided a forum for decolonization
efforts during its early years, demands for economic justice have been routinely
sidetracked. From 1980 onward, the disaffection of dominant players, along with
a global economic downturn during that decade, produced a chronic UN funding
and identity crisis.
Manipulation and restriction of the UN has taken the form of refusal to
make promised financial contributions, pressure on various secretary-generals,
and arm-twisting directed at specific countries. On the other hand, few
constraints have been placed on the World Bank, which has used funding to
impose draconian policies on the South. Beyond public control, unaccountable
institutions have become instruments for imposing domestic policies, requiring programs that tend to reduce living standards, dismantle
state-run agencies, and distort development.
The UN is commonly called inefficient, bureaucratic, and compromised.
Its deliberations, except when they serve the short-term political objectives
of the Big Five, are portrayed as largely hot air. This makes it easy to write
off the UN as a place where important policies could be made. Yet that was part of the original vision. The UN Charter pointed directly toward
work to promote "higher standards of living, full employment, and
conditions of economic and social programs..."
One essential step is therefore to put international financial
institutions under democratic control, and, at the very least, make their
policies consistent with the UN's long-term agenda. In his Agenda for
Development, former Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali outlined a
pragmatic strategy, including "better coordination" with the BWIs.
The same conclusion was reached at the 1997 Social Summit. As critics of
corporate capitalism often note, allowing the "hidden hand" of
economic globalization to run its course only widens the gap between the haves
and have-nots. By the end of the 20th century, for instance, 70 percent of all foreign
investment in the developing world was going to only 10 countries, hardly an
equitable situation.
Agenda for Development made three main points: development must include
equity and more employment, the present framework for international cooperation isn't working, and the UN should become a powerful force. Issues
such as debt management, structural adjustment, and access to money and
technology should not be off-limits. Beyond such specifics, it is time to
consider alternatives that move us beyond nationalism and corporate rule,
time to question basic assumptions, to come to grips with the world as it is,
and imagine where we can go from here.
Greg Guma's second novel, Dons of Time, will be published in October by Fomite Press.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment