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
