Karl Marx wasn't right about everything, and the political reality he inspired was really a dismal faliure. However, we have to note that the application of his theory and even the representation of his ideas have been influenced by the failiure of practical communism. Marx didn't believe that capitalism was bad. The soviet-american conflict seems to have given people the idea that Marx viewed capitalism as the devil, as nothing but a system of ruthless exploitation. In fact this is not the case, in many of his writings Marx portrays capitalism as a step forward from feudalism and as an immensley productive system. I have included this example as a clarification..because I know people are going to think "what is Blair doing talking about Marx?"
Although I strongly disagree with Marx's economic outlook, and even more so with the practical system it spawned, that isn't all Marx is. Personally, I find his most useful contribution to the argument I am about to make is his theory of societal change. He talks about the forces of production, by which he means the technology available for use, the resources and geography where that tech can be applied, and the characteristics of the population that will be applying the technology. These characteristics include culture, literacy and so on. A given set of forces of production give rise to a set of relations of production, how people organize themselves as a society to produce most efficiently. These relations of production eventually have an effect on the forces of production through technological improvement and changes to culture etc based on the new forms of organization. This results in a cyclical process that approximates evolution in a society.
I personally like Marx's interpretation in this case. Where he goes wrong is in saying that this societal evolution can only be accomplished through a series of violent class-based revolutions. We can see societal eveolution going on every day..for example, the math-science bend in western schools in the 1950's-1970's was a result of a cultural factor (high prestige associated with technological achivement, which in turn was motivated by the space race among other things) This math-science emphasis is a relation of production. The result of schools being so math-science oriented was a massive explosion in technology by the children that went through that school system, which fundamentally altered the forces of production (caused the information revolution), which is now allowing an increasing decentralization of businesses, which is part of the relations of production.
This theory can also be applied to relations in international politics. A given set of forces (for example, a europe-dominated state system recovering from a massive crisis (WWI), run by liberal, pacifistic elites) gave rise to a certain mode of relations between states (the league of nations, revanche, appeasement, US isolationism) This mode of relations causes changes in the system (rise of fascism and communism etc). In that case, the disparity between the mode of relations and the political forces did in fact cause a crisis, but I believe that a crisis is not neccesary for "evolution"
After WWII, a new set of international relations norms were defined. This included a United Nations that was designed to reflect the bipolar political reality, and as a result a good forum for negotiation and for less-political actions such as peacekeeping and humanitarian aid. However, on the political front the UN was and is almost completley toothless. Since 1991, the collapse of the soviet union has radically changed the international political reality. The emergence of the United States as a unipolar superpower and the massive waves of democratization and capitalist reform in the former communist states as well as some other parts of the Third World has made the political reality of the world very incongruent with the current mode of international relations. In order to continue to move forward without hinderance, changes must be made to the international system, and particularly the United Nations.
The next question clearly is about the nature of these reforms. I think there are a number of changes that have occured since the fall of communism that can point us in the right direction concerning furthur reform of the international system. First, since the fall of communism, the world as a whole has become more homogenous. There is no longer a great ideological divide among the nations of the world. Second, in the last decade, the information revolution I mentioned earlier has caused the world to become a much smaller place. Individual people can easily communicate with others across the world. Communication has been revolutionized over the last decade, and I think this has profound implications for global change.
Having put forward those two observations, I am reminded of an exceptional book by Robert Wright. In Nonzero, he outlines many arguments similar to the ones I have put forth so far. In particular, he talks at length about "societal evolution" and where it might be taking us. Obviously, the ideas he puts forth are similar to the ones of Marx, which i have just outlined. His thesis with regard to societal evolution is that humankind is continually moving toward an increasingly integrated global system. He says that there are two primary barriers to this integration, communication and trust, and uses game theory as a proof of this. Since 1991, the world has seen both these barriers reduced significantly. The lack of an ideological divide, and increased general knowledge of what is going on in the world has reduced trust barriers, and I would argue that people now more than ever see people of other nations as people like themselves, with thoughts, culture etc, rather than "them", a hostile group with whom they have nothing in common. The reduction in communication barriers is self-evident. Given the reduction in these barriers, if Wright is correct, the direction of his (and Marx's) societal evolution would be toward an increasingly integrated global system, both politically and economically.
There is a mountain of emprical evidence that this integration has in fact occured since 1991. In the economic arena, the phenomenon is called globalization. The world had become vastly more economically interdependent. In the political ring, there has been just one sterling example of what integration might look like, and that is the EU. Since the treaty of Maastricht in 1992, the EU has turned Europe's fortunes around. Economic growth has been staggering in some areas, notably Ireland, and the application of EU policies like a Europe-wide free trade zone, the euro, and common agricultural and resource polices have reversed a 45 year decline in European political and economic weight. The EU is a political entity that correlates much better with the new order in international politics, and allows economic integration to reach its maximum potential. In the rest of the world, I would argue that globalization will flatline sometime in the reletivley near future, because there will not be a sufficiently integrated political system to support economic growth. Problems with incompatible legal systems and differences in contract law, as well as subsidies, tariffs and taxes are continually becoming more significant as the level of globalization grows. International regulatory bodies, such as the WTO or the NAFTA panel. are powerless to back up any resolutions they might issue.
Despite the recent rejection of the EU constitution by France and Holland, I believe that the EU, and its policies of maintaing the state system while pushing for economic and political integration should be a model for the transformation of other international institutions like the UN. A stronger and more active UN would facilitate economic globalization while better reflecting the geopolitical realities of the post-USSR world.
Of course, there is a small portion of countries, approximatley 2.5% of UN membership, with about 29% of the worlds population but with 43% of world GDP, who currently benefit from enormous control over the UN and who are reluctant at this point to make significant changes, as they stand to lose significantly in the short run. If the UN is to become a democratic world body capable of increased responsibilities, the very first reform that must be made is the elimination or at the very least, modification of the security council veto power held by France, the UK, Russia, China and the US. Of course, these countries are reluctant to give up their power. Still, the veto power neccesitates consensus in the UN, and this in turn prevents the UN from action on any of the major world issues of today, which are often divisive.
For example, think of what might have happened to the Iraq situation if the veto power did not exist. A vote could have been held in the security council or the general assembly which either confirmed or rejected the US plan to topple Saddam Hussein. In the event of confirmation, the US would have gone into Iraq with much more legitimacy. Nations like France and Russia, who were opposed to the war, would have been under no obligation to send troops, but there could have been no charges of unilateralism and US-european relations would be much less strained than they are today. Even countries in the middle east would have had to acknowledge that a majority of the world believed military action against Iraq was justified. This would cool anti-american sentiment and undermine charges of hypocracy.
In the event the proposal was voted down, the US would have been in a position where they were faced with clear, democratically expressed opposition to their plan, and if they chose to ignore the vote, they could have been subjected to economic sanctions or other punitive measures. Such options were impossible in today's UN, because they would automatically have been vetoed. There have been attempts in recent years to eliminate or limit the veto power, and all have been unsuccessful. A proposal to eliminate the power in 1997 was vetoed by Russia. A proposal by Uruguay to limit the veto power to non-procedural questions was withdrawn under threat of veto from the United States. A Mexican proposal to limit the power to issues covered under chapter 7 of the UN charter (international peace and security) also never made it to a vote. Most recently, a Chilean proposal to phase out the veto by 2030 was withdrawn under American pressure.
The justification for the rejections was that the political realities of the world must be expressed in the United Nations to ensure participation by all countries. It is argued that if the veto power was eliminated, a predicament like that which doomed the League of Nations would arise, where powerful nations who had decisions go against them simply walked away from the institution. To prevent this, powerful countries must be given power within the UN as well, hence the existence of the veto. I think that this argument is flawed, because as we have already established, the world is much more interconnected than it was in 1930, and that simply walking away from the UN is no longer a viable alternative for any major power. However, the reality is that the countries who have the power want to keep it, and therefore, veto abolition is likely an impossible goal, and any modification would have to be a part of a much larger system of reforms that gave each of the major countries something in return for a limitation of the veto power.
My proposal would look something like the following. The UN would reform itself into an organization modelled along the lines of a bicameral national system. This system would work alongside UN bodies like the International Court of Justice, UN Economic and Social Council and the UN Trusteeship council, which would remain essentially unchanged. The system would include three levels, with the "executive" level being the security council, and the "legislative" level being comprised of the General Assembly and a new entity, which I will call the UN Senate. The Senate would be composed of 203 delegates, with distribution based approximatley on world population. Each seat would represent approximatley 31 million people, proportioned as closley as possible to national population levels. Countries with less than a cutoff level of population..perhaps 28 or 30 million, would share a seat with other countries of similar size and would rotate in alphabetical order every 2 years. This would provide a UN that reflected political reality, with one branch being based on world power and influence (security council) one branch based on population and one branch being egalitarian (one member per country). The UN secretariat would be responsible for facilitating relations between the three branches.
The decision allocation process would remain the same, with some General Assembly decisions allocated to the Senate. However, in the event of an "divisive issue", defined as an issue where over 1/3 of the body charged with the decision votes against the prevailing opinion or if there is a veto in a security council decision, the issue would be referred to seperate votes in all three bodies. In order for a resolution to be passed in this case, it would require 50% support in two of the three bodies. In the event of a veto, the following rules would apply. If a single Veto was cast, it would nullify the resolution except in the case of a 2/3 vote in the security council and at least 50% approval in both other bodies. if two vetoes were cast, it would take 2/3 approval in all three bodies to pass. If three vetoes were cast, it would take unanimity among the reminder of the security council and a 75% vote in both bodies to overturn the veto. If four vetoes were cast, it would take 90% approval in both houses and security council unanimity (which, incedentally, would make a resolution impossible to pass if China was one of the vetoing countries). If all five major powers were to veto, the veto would be final and impossible to overturn. (This prevents furthur restriction or elimination of the veto after this)
This reform could be the foundation for a stronger UN that would be far more democratic and far less bound to the 1945 status quo. Of course, given the significant opposition to veto modification, this proposal would be unlikely to pass without additional concessions. The addition of the population-based Senate would be a significant power boost to China, probably removing a threat of their veto. The UK has never used their veto except in conjunction with the US, and France has used it only once, and that was a situation involving a French military action. I think given that it is a reasonable assumption that those two would go along with a US/Russia approval. That leaves only those two. I believe that Russia would support the new system if given a minimum of concessions, including continued and increased aid funds for development, gurantees of its oil rights and so on in the Caspian/Black Sea region and international support of its position on Chechnya, especially if it was faced with US pressure.
That leaves only the superpower, and being a superpower there is little that could be offered to the US in the way of concessions. The biggest one would be the massive increase in international support that such reform would result in, it would certainly help the United States recover its tarnished international image. Other possible concessions could include an extended ban on the trial of US nationals in the International Criminal Court (perhaps 25 years), or the position that any votes on issues to do with Israel/Palestine could be subjected to US veto without threat of overturning, as most of their vetoes in recent years have been on that issue. i think, however, that the ultimate choice will have to rest on the US administration and their willingness to forgo their own interest for the sake of the greater good in this particular case. Given the history of past US administrations, I would judge this to be unlikely, but I believe that without meaningful UN reform, beginning with restriction on the veto, the organization will continue to be marginalized and will eventually become irrelevant. I think that even in this case political integration will eventually have to occur, but it will take a long time, will definatley exacerbate world problems in the short term, and might even cause a Marxian "crisis".
As HG Wells said in his 1921 book An Outline of History, "I believe that men will one day be united under a single government, committed to peace as one people, but whether this is a peaceful process that takes a few generations or a long struggle involving many crises and many centuries more of toil will ultimatley be determined by the will and morality of the leaders of mankind." In the subsequent 80 years, I think Wells would have been disappointed with our progress. But progress had been made, and I believe that my generation has the potential to make an impact, because among the widespread disillusionment and cynicism that tends to run through people my age, especially with regard to politics, I have observed that there exists pockets of idealism. They are rare, even among the distinguished and brilliant people I have met both here at McGill and at home in Calgary, and they hide themselves well. Nevertheless, I believe that the people of my generation believe that a better world is possible and that they can contribute, perhaps more so than any generation since WWII. So I want to ask everyone who reads this to "examine yourselves, and let each of you discover where your true chance at greatness lies." Follow your dreams. To quote James T. Kirk (I know I'm a nerd),
"Never let them do anything that takes you off the bridge of that ship, because while you're there, you can make a difference."
No comments:
Post a Comment