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