RE: [Futurework] Pax Democratica - a proposal

[Karen Watters Cole]

Gail, I thought the proposal read very well, if perhaps too optimistically for me at this dark moment.  My primary concern would be that in these times of emphatic uber-practical Necessaritarism (ie. 9/11 “changed everything”) there is not much enthusiasm in the present administration for idealism and/or international bodies that don’t show strength.  Everyone seems to be selling muscle these days.   Even though I am worried about the economy, I think Ray raised a good point, that it is premature to declare American economic power in permanent decline, so unless this American administration gets to found and host a new global body, I am dubious that Canada and the UK would have much luck with it.  However, since these large concept ideas take such a long time to come to fruition, I’d like to see some competitive talk among nations that might, at the very least, remind this current US administration that it has a ‘checks and balances’ reputation to uphold, not ignore.  The less pessimistic part of me says Go for it. We must have other options than the long range plans that this elite is putting into place for us. They do so not in my name.   While reading this I kept thinking of Yalta, a moment when the victorious leaders of allied forces stopped by a tiny spot and made plans for an otherwise neglected region while the world’s attention was focused elsewhere.  Look what happened.  Of course, we can’t let all the failures and missteps in the past prevent us from trying again.  Like they say, it doesn’t matter how many times you fall down, it’s how many times you get back up that counts. I think we need visionary minds and voices to help us imagine a sustainable peace, not permanent, ongoing militancy to transplant instademocracy.   Bon chance. - Karen   Pax Democratica   (Draft - April 1, 2003)   "From top to bottom, Americans do believe democracy is good for everyone, even if some may have to wait for it longer than others. But here comes the crux of the American dilemma. Even if we're prepared to grant the existence, deep in American purposes, of more idealism than is usually admitted, its fulfilment has become unattainable."   "... What Iraqis see, and the world along with them, is a hegemon going about its business of domination, and barely any longer interested in why it is hated for doing so. Its motives, to put them no lower, are compromised."    "It is inconceivable that Bush would make a speech disclaiming the merits of a Pax Americana."   " But at least Blair's motives are not compromised. ... He's an internationalist visionary, albeit a naive one."     The article, "Blair has one final chance to break free of his tainted fealty," by Hugo Young (The Guardian, April 1, 2003) http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/comment/0,12956,927061,00.html) from which these quotations are taken, is of a type becoming increasingly common in recent days. It reflects the growing concern about a world in which the US enjoys hegemony and will practice it in such a way as to result in an imperial role for itself, seeking a Pax Americana. At the same time the UN is struggling with its future role. A possible response to such a situation follows.   The current situation   It is easy to read into the short-term power agendas of any particular US administration a long-term trend that may not develop. It is important to be skeptical about the present US administration but not be blinded by cynicism. By and large, with many mistakes and much to be corrected and developed, the American experiment, now more than two hundred years in the making, has contributed substantially to world civilization. It would be foolish indeed to throw the US out with the bathwater of all things bad internationally simply on the basis of its current initiative in Iraq -- as many, worldwide, seem prepared to do. Judgment might be suspended until such time as an effective context and accountability structures can be created for that action.   The US did not so much seek as find itself thrust into its present role, following World War II. Its role in the world became even more dominant following the end of the Cold War. Today, with the United Nations having failed to assert its own responsibility for maintaining international peace and security and thus being in crippled condition, and the invasion of Iraq under a coalition headed by the US well begun, the American role has inevitably taken on the full colour of imperialism.   The world today thus finds itself on the horns of a dilemma. Resisting the hegemony of the United States seems likely, if successful, to create an even more turbulent international situation. Similarly, allowing a dubiously authorized US-led "enforcement action" perhaps fueled by imperialist ambitions to proceed without protest is dangerous. In such a situation a new conceptual framework becomes needed, a new myth or story, a narrative of world affairs in which broad common ground can be found and the forces supportive of a human and humane future be fostered and those inimical to it constrained.      The US, doubtful of a United Nations with its growing membership of nations of various sizes and forms of government and membership franchise of one nation one vote (a very different matter from a one person one vote situation), and its Security Council veto arrangements, appears to have concluded that the UN is not constituted in such a way as to be able to ensure international peace and security. (Nor is it alone: there is much to be done before the world can be confident that the UN is in condition to embrace its responsibility for maintaining international peace and security.) However it is still possible to read the US as not wanting imperial power so much as wanting a world in which security is assured, a world in which the US and all nations are free to develop their potential, a world in which "coalitions of the willing" set about addressing some of the primary global agenda items that now supercede mere international affairs in their urgency. This reading could be wrong but may not be: it seems highly unlikely that the Americans want a world in which they must have troops stationed abroad on a continuing basis.   Thus, far from the US having "Dreams of Empire" and the rest of the world having to pronounce "Eulogies for International Law," ("Dreams of Empire, Eulogies for International Law" by John Gershman, http://www.presentdanger.org/frontier/2003/0325empire.html), we could be on the verge of a welcome new development. Whether such a development is realized will depend now on the initiative of other nations than the US. Will the anti-Americanism that has emerged over the war in Iraq develop and fester, or will a more forward-looking effort be made toward a peaceful world of the future in which power is widely distributed even though force may continue to be concentrated in a few hands?   At present, it is the US government's combined roles of being a significant civil authority in the world (the government of a leading nation state) and the leader of a self-elected international police force that are making the US President's role untenable on the global stage. An international police force requires a client, an international civil authority. The situation is of course inviting backlash, including potentially threatening terrorism against the very peace that is sought.   The difficulty at the moment seems to reside in an absence of options. The world is being asked to choose between a United Nations that could have provided a legitimate international policing force in the Iraq situation but didn't, and an American imperium that has, in association with some other nations, taken the matter into its own hands. At the present time the dialogue between the two powers, the UN and the US, is in disrepair and neither, of its own, offers an effective option to the world's people and their desire for peace. The addition of a third institution of some credibility seems to be needed to alter the current unhappy dynamics.   A proposal   With the foregoing in mind, and recalling that planning for the United Nations preceded the end of World War II, it is proposed that plans go forward immediately, without waiting for further developments in Iraq or elsewhere, toward creating a "Commons of the Democracies" with a view to fostering an international architecture that might be called "Pax Democratica".   Such a proposal does not seek to displace the United Nations. It seeks to secure an international environment wherein the UN can strengthen its peacekeeping and humanitarian functions and its member agencies; can assist its currently "failing" member states to become successful states, and can deepen some of the reforms of its procedures and component organs that were given impetus by its recent 50th anniversary celebrations. Nor does the proposal seek to displace the United States from its current position as the leading nation in the world. It seeks to secure an international environment wherein the US can strengthen its society and economy and work with other democracies toward building the secure world that is in everybody's interest, and the UN be developed and strengthened with all member states on board until the Pax Democratica is enbraced within a fully effective Pax Mundi -- a world of sustainable peace.   Lest the notion of a Commons of the Democracies seem far-fetched, the nations of North and South America have already considered an agreement to which only those nations that maintain a democratic form of government will be allowed membership. The European Union and other alliances have similar criteria as does the Commonwealth -- the unique family of fifty-four developed and developing nations around the world with a commitment to democracy and good government. It is but a small step from these and other such arrangements to a convening all the democracies in a Commons, an instrument that not only looks forward to a peaceful world of the future but facilitates the UN and the US in playing their appropriate roles in that world.   In the planning for the first convening of a Commons of the Democracies, it is possible to envisage the setting up of criteria for initial membership, accompanied also by an openness to those nations which indicate their intention to become increasingly democratic in their practices. To envisage the style as being that of the Commonwealth, without formal charter or constitution and with friendly and mutually respectful and supportive relationships among members. To envisage member states having democracies (and economies) of a variety of different types, according to the will of their people. To envisage the initiator of the Commons of the Democracies as being the United Kingdom, assisted perhaps by Russia and others, in a small but broadly acceptable consort that includes states from all continents and of diverse religious and cultural background. To envisage Canada, a non-participant in the Iraq war, as prepared to play host to the initial meeting, for geopolitical reasons. To envisage the agenda of that meeting to consist not merely of a sharing of opinion about the current global situation but a search for creative options for the way ahead. To envisage it being less important that conclusions be reached than that constructive approaches be identified which might be followed up at the discretion of participating nations acting alone or in various "coalitions of the willing" or perhaps collectively outside the Commons. To envisage the Commons itself as "presence" and "forum" more than an entity that would itself engage activities other than discussion and research ( including global issues that now supercede mere international affairs).To envisage an early second convening of the Commons being planned to develop its potential.   The import of this proposal is to place increased value on the principle of responsible self-government by persons and nations in relation to the principle of national sovereignty (the principle on which the United Nations is based). The presence within the United Nations of states whose governing regimes have not yet had to earn the confidence of their population erodes the moral authority of the UN at a time when the world's people, in order to ensure their human security, need states prepared to acknowledge their "responsibility to protect."   An international body composed of states accountable to and having the democratic responsibility to respect and care about their people, and to further develop their institutions and populations toward responsible self government, would provide a forum for discussion and the making of agreements toward creation of an international architecture, Pax Democratica. The effect would be to obviate the necessary for a Pax Americana and to support the United Nations in its responsibility to maintain international peace and security. The creation of the Commons would not only help to strengthen the role of democratic states within the UN, it would also contribute to strengthening international law and thus the Security Council's capacity to maintain international peace and security. And it would provide an immediate context in which America might begin to place its confidence that it is not alone and need not seek global security through a mere Pax Americana.  (The immediate US acceptance of an invitation to a founding meeting could help set many minds at ease at the present juncture in affairs.)    Conclusion   The proposal is to put in place, as rapidly as possible, an international architecture of successful, responsible and responsive states, a Commons of the Democracies for a  Pax Democratica in which the United States and all democracies, old, new, and seriously aspiring would, it is hoped, join.   The real challenge that the world is facing is surely not between the UN and the US, and certainly not the Crescent and the Cross, but in developing governments that serve their people and can increasingly be held accountable for doing so. No governments are fully successful in this respect, and by having a third entity, a Commons of the Democracies enter the present situation, as an entity is clearly committed to friendship among its member states, continuing openness to other states, to evolutionary and developmental processes, and to only the legitimized use of force, the present dangerous international situation could perhaps become an opportunity.   Like other proposals in a world of many states with many different types of government, this proposal for a Commons of the Democracies and a Pax Democratica has its virtues and its difficulties. It seems nonetheless worth considering at the present time, when adversarial binary options, none of them satisfactory, are predominant in international affairs. The proposal may be helpful in moving the world past this difficult moment. Providing a vision of our common future that leaves increasingly less room for despotism and terrorism, and a growing possibility for sustainable peace, it should be given serious thought. At the very least we should become prepared for a peaceful world emerging from the present state of affairs -- lest it not happen simply because we weren't ready for it? Gail Ward Stewart