The foundation for tomorrow's international politics
Regional, Editorial, 10/18/1999

The United Nations has just finished its General Assembly meeting where most of the world leaders came to share their thoughts about their countries and the world.

The UN is one of man's greatest institutions, not due to any particular aspect of it which is riddled with success and failures or the size of any of its achievements, but because it embodies the seeds of man's noblest ideas: That nations can come together as citizens do to form a community and thus bring peace to the earth.

But the idea and the practice have not matched by any stretch of the imagination. What we have had so far is a relic of World War II where the five big victors form the UN Security Council (SC) and determine all the important political and military decisions, leaving the rest of the UN to decide on smaller social issues such as vaccination and education, in a limited manner.

There is nothing in common between the five permanent members of the SC, be it in their own internal political , economic or social systems. The members are China, France, Russia, UK and the USA and they won WWII and in the aftermath set up the UN, a place where wars could be stopped by peaceful conflict prevention and where the failure of the "League of Nations" and World War I would not be repeated. And so the UN was born in 1945 and now includes the world's countries as its members.

These members can, for the most part, be described as belonging to two groups, those who are developed (the industrialized countries of the North) form a minority and those that are underdeveloped (countries of the South) form a majority.

The UN throughout its history has shown that it is dysfunctional because of its structure that pits the General Assembly (all the members) against the will of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, which hold all the power, manifest by the fact that any single one of these five countries can veto any decision, even when the decision is approved by every other country in the world (the General Assembly).

The US is the most commanding member of the Security Council, due to its economic and military powers that dwarf the other members of the SC. As a result, the United Nations functions well when it is in the interest of the SC members to resolve a problem, in particular if it is in the interest of the leading member of the SC, then, if what the US wants is in line with the members of the General Assembly, we have what looks like a great institution tending to world affairs and being "effective" in problem solving and conflict resolution. But if the US and the General Assembly do not see eye to eye, then we find out how much the UN is an institution that is an instrument of the big powers and how divided the UN is and lacking in any real means or sense of democratic practice.

So the UN turns out to be little more than a place to provide a face-saving device for countries in conflict after they have to accept what the big powers decide, not a bad function for the UN, but nothing to brag about -- most certainly nothing that is remotely close to the vision of what it could be.

What the UN is in the simplest of terms is a continuation of the principles of the past, principles that always led to wars instead of preventing them. The UN still clearly represents the idiom "might makes right," and morality is a convenient cover when it coincides with the national interests of the powerful.

And so the other countries cry for fairness in representation in the decision-making process. They say accurately, "This is undemocratic," and that the UN should be the heart and greatest example of democracy. And they add, "Why not? Is that not what the US practices and preaches?" So why not at the UN?

It has always been the case that the rich had more power and set the rules. The poor always have asked from the rich for a chunk of that wealth and power for themselves. And so it goes that we have many of the very rich countries practice a hegemony in their foreign policy, and this policy manifests itself at the center of international diplomacy, the UN. These countries do not believe in the values they profess; it is just a nice cover says the South.

Listen to the countries of the South speak, and one immediately is struck by their belief in the importance of democratic institutions and the democratic ways of decision-making. But upon further inspection of the southern countries, one finds in their own internal practices and governance little democracy and its manifestations. But the South cries, we are young, having been abused and robbed and have little to use to start building.

We may find that the southern countries' claims are most certainly true in that they are very young entities, have been abused, and structured by the "imperialists" for failure. But these countries seem to understand that consensus politics is very healthy, yet they abhor it in their own countries.

So if the wealthy countries of the West do not trust to share their power and wealth with nations that do not share their values, that can be well understood. After all, the North is powerful and economically successful because their decision-making process internally seems to manifest a "good decision-making process" and although its external manifestation in international hegemony and power is not good, it is the same as the southern countries' internal hegemony and power-politics, while externally they seek democracy because they lack the economic and military power to fight the North.

But is it such a bad thing that the powerful and economically successful get to dominate? Not necessarily, as these two facts (being militarily and economically successful) embody information that is most valuable that nature uses to select for the better. Success in itself contains valuable information that only a fool would ignore, as the laws of nature do not. And so this information should be allowed to manifest itself and claim its rightful weight amongst the other countries, which in themselves represent information about their success and failure. When one says this individual, company or country is successful, one is implicitly saying, like it or not, this individual, company or country has a structure and/or decision-making process that is "good." That is the measure nature judges by. Of course one can inherit wealth, get lucky and find a pot of gold in the ground, but all these do not deal with "continuous success," where success is not a random event, but a demonstrated series of decisions that lead to productive results.

So the South is correct in that democratic practice is the best way, and it needs to practice it internally, while the North is correct that democratic practice is the best way and needs to practice it externally. With this conclusion, we see the genesis of the international institutions the world needs to allow it to progress to the next phase.

So who goes first, the South or the North?

The North has acquired the knowledge, security and the wealth that can kick-start the process. They who have been blessed the most, have the most moral obligations to go first and give the most. But the North has to lead by bringing its citizens along as they, the citizens, (as it should be) to make the final decision so that the process can begin.

When man was a hunter-gatherer, one's moral obligation was limited to one's family and/or tribe. With the advent of settling down and formation of villages and cities, one's moral obligations were extended to the village and a community was formed. Later, villages and cities congregated to form countries and men had to once again enlarge the circle of who they consider as human beings like them, worthy to share in moral obligations with them. At each one of these stages, human beings had to redefine their view of themselves and others by expanding the circle of who is considered an insider or an outsider. Of course, if you were an outsider, you were a fair subject for attack, brutalization, and all that history shows. But as human beings extended their circle of who is entitled to be treated morally, they also gained from the benefits that greater group action brings about, by more efficiently developing and deploying many social and economic resources.

But each time the circle expanded, from family to village to country, this change has come about mostly by force. Citizens, men and women, never saw the benefit of integration with others. It was the ambitious rulers that conquered and unified, bringing forth the next stage of human evolution in forming countries and empires. But the masses never willingly wanted to extend their circle of morality and obligations. It was the ambitious rulers and expensive merchants.

So why would men not want to move from a hut to a village to a country? Because that implies more obligations at each one of these stages of development, and not seeing the corresponding benefits for the individuals who for the most part had limited knowledge of economics and public policy (politics), let alone cross-border politics (international politics). Most peasants were busy just surviving. They had little disposable time for such affairs, and these issues were confined to the limited upper class and priests.

Any time a human being has to accept another human being as a fellow family member, villager, or countryman, then you automatically have to extend to them certain privileges and obligations. These privileges and obligations vary, but the primary part of these is to view those individuals as entitled to the same rules and values that he wants for himself. That is a taxing moral obligation on individuals, as there is so much morality that you can afford, when you decide you want to invade your neighbor and steal something from them that you feel you need or can enrich you.

That is the history of the world; viewing others as humans like you means that you have to live by the code that you want for yourself, a cost. It also means that this robs you psychologically from justifications to take unfair actions against that person, another cost.

We are expanding on this point because in the countries of the North, this issue is going to be the main obstacle to fulfilling the vision of the UN, in that the US citizen (for example) will rebel against such a cost as will the European Union or any union that has to explain why they should cede political power (and thus economic, too) to some semi-civilized nations that they don't know or care to, as they do not want to threaten the system and wealth they have accumulated. In the US, for example, they will say, "We are surrendering our sovereignty. For what? We should maintain military power and when someone misbehaves against our interests, we'll take care of it." So we will see the same resistance at this stage of world development to expanding the circle of what it means to be human and who is seen as human fit for this privilege.

If this is a game with no benefits to the northern countries' citizens, then such a scheme should be rejected, but the North should know better. The North should know that proper democracy and educated capitalism are in their modern form the greatest tools invented for creating social and political stability and for creating wealth. So why would the North not lead the way in implementing these concepts in international institutions that would propel the world into a new stage of development that will reap back to the North further stability and economic wealth many times the investment?

If one believes that beggar-thy-neighbor is a bad policy, and if a wealthy middle class is essential for maintaining a healthy democratic and capitalistic society, and if that democracy is the best form of government for justice and social stability, then why not extend that circle of these values to the neighbors? We know these values are good not because they are moral, but these values are moral because they are good. Throughout history, humans lacked the understanding that what is good and moral is also the right thing for politics and economics. What was considered moral was a religious admonition relating to social behavior and did not extend to politics or especially economics.

But the greatest discovery is that goodness and moral values (definition: treat others as you wish them to treat you) are not only good, they are the deep foundation and unification theory that brings politics, economics and sociology into harmony with each other as being driven by the same moral laws.

It is time that we embark on setting policies needed for the development of the needed institutions so that we can bring the internal institutions developed in the West to the outside world so that we can develop an international middle class, rule of law and transparency, and democratic practice so that human resources can multiply for the benefit of all and wasteful use of resources can decrease for all, with the major side-benefit of a built-in system of conflict resolution! This is a win-win policy that, if implemented properly, can propel humanity to the next phase of development (we will deal with implementation and the real dangers of this turning into a monster at a different time).

Humans are a nobel beast, despite their best efforts sometimes. Humans are a beast because they are prisoners to their basic and primitive impulses that formulate and rationalize their values, and they are noble because they can be prisoners of ideas that, once these ideas resonate in their minds, can compel them to action that only a human will undertake and thus lifting humanity to a higher level by bringing our ideals and actions in congruence. We know, we hope, that this is not mere "talk," but the solid foundation of what is "good" in politics and economics. The time to start is now, and those who do the initial work and set the rules of the game will effect the direction and results. Those who are practiced most in those affairs that we seek to build and those who have the most have the duty to lead and lead well and fast, before this early opportunity is missed due to shortsightedness, and pay the price later in regret of what may have been.

It is time to start a dialog and develop consensus on whether it is a good idea to externalize values and institutions that have been most successful and share them with others, and all the implications that this would mean.

We now have a fairly clean paper to write on and a short time to do it if we wish to guide the way with the US's and Europe's successful experiment. It would be one of man's greatest tragedies to miss this chance. It does not come often. The last time for a very fresh start was some 230 years ago, and the next time may not come for a much longer time.

Is it time to expand the circle? Is it time to live and practice one set of values? Can we afford to be this moral? Can we afford not to be?

Previous Stories:
  The foundation of good development: rule of law and transparancy   (9/16/1999)

Please add a link on your webiste pointing to ArabicNews.com and bookmark ArabicNews.com & subscribe to our daily email news bulletin.

Search