From the last page:
After all, when in 1776 the Founding Fathers of the United States of America declared it to be "self-evident" that "all men are created equal" and "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights", there were many (not least in Great Britain!) who felt that this was little more than an idealistic outpouring. Yet their vision was so strong and commanding that it helped to found the strongest and most commanding nation in the world today.
And the language of their vision was not that of a narrow nationalism, but of a fundamental universalism which shines through those opening sentences of the Declaration of Independence.
If there could be some sort of world vision with that degree of clarity and confidence, who is to say that it would not transform the world in the same sort of way as that Declaration transformed the whole development and history of the United States of America some 226 years ago?
Should there be a new World Order –
and if so, what form should it take?
A Consultation at St. George’s House, Windsor Castle, March 4-5 2002
Introduction
The decision to convene this Consultation, as the first in a new series of St. George's House Consultations devoted to this theme, was prompted by the appalling atrocities of September 11.
Shortly after the events of that day, our instinct was that we should spend some time exploring the concept of a "new World Order" in the sense in which it was then being used, to refer to the idea of an Order capable of ridding the world of terrorism with a global reach. We were most concerned by the way in which religious fanatics were being driven by an ideology of "religious totalitarianism", and wanted to think through what sorts of core values would need to be embedded in a new World Order able to attract broadly-based support and marginalise the fanatics.
A few weeks before the Consultation we invited those attending to say what key issues they felt we should cover. There was a strong view that we should approach this debate about a new World Order in broader terms than those of fighting terrorism, vital though the anti-terrorist campaign might be.
As one participant asked, "Is a new World Order that is against terrorism and for world peace being used selectively by powerful nations for blatantly imperialist reasons?"
He went on, "The wider issues of injustice between the wealthy North and the poor South - especially Africa - must be addressed. If there should be globalisation, its rules should be designed to promote social justice, particularly for those being excluded and on the margins of our societies, rather than just ever greater wealth for those with the political and economic power to make the system work for them.
Whose World Order are we trying to build? If you want a World Order, you need a governance structure that isn't just Pax Americana."
These sentiments were shared by quite a number of participants, which is why we agreed to broaden the agenda somewhat and engage with four key issues:
what the core values of a new World Order should be
who would take the lead in establishing it
whether there should be some sort of global democracy, and
whether a new Order would be able to impose settlements on nation states unable to resolve violent conflict on their own.
As we approached the event, we were conscious that on most if not all of these issues we could not expect to be of one mind. We felt it important that we should feel free to disagree with and challenge each other as part of the process of trying to gain some fresh insight into what a new World Order might look like. That is why, right at the outset of the Consultation, we agreed to see ourselves as 'free spirits', each ready to accept that we might be wrong and encourage each other to sharpen up any differences in approach, rather than blur them.
In the tradition of St. George's House events, we also agreed that comments made in plenary or small group sessions would not be attributed to individuals afterwards. Accordingly, whilst this report seeks to capture the main themes of our debate, it does not seek to represent the views of all participants at all times.
In St. George's House, our belief is that good ideas will commend themselves in their own right, and that what matters is their free flow rather than the particular number of participants that favoured them at any one point in time.
We view the movement of ideas as a continual process, and hope that through this new series of Consultations we will be able to focus on some of the most important and most difficult issues that need to be engaged with, as we think through what form a new World Order should take. At the end of the report we include a list of participants.
We are grateful to everyone who took part in this Consultation, and especially the nine participants who travelled from overseas to join us. We are also extremely grateful to BP International for their sponsorship of the event, as well as to St. George's House itself, which set aside funds to assist with the costs of bursaries. Before embarking on the report, it is important to acknowledge that through our discussions we realised that the title we had set for this event when we sent out invitations early in the New Year had already become out of date.
The issue is no longer whether or not there should be a new World Order, because one is already developing. The key question now is whether that is the sort of Order that the world really wants or needs.
And the challenge for us all is to try and influence the direction in which this new World Order is developing.
Is "global tyranny" a real possibility?
Towards the end of our discussions, one participant said that if there were to be "a series of events like the destruction of the World Trade Centre, it would change the world for the worse". It was one of those statements that makes you think "yes, of course", since in many ways it's completely obvious. And yet it also stops you in your tracks.
On the back of September 11th, there has been much talk about how we must all now realise that what happens to the poorest citizen in the poorest country can directly affect the richest citizen in the richest country; how America now has to recognise that there is simply no alternative to engaging with the rest of the world, and how Islamic countries have to recognise (as, say, General Musharraf in Pakistan has done so publicly) that action must be taken to deal with those in medrasas and elsewhere who preach hatred of other faiths.
After the initial reactions of shock and anger, we have all tried to focus on some of the good things that have come out of September 11th, and have wanted to believe that the message of interdependence is now much better understood even though the means to us receiving that message was so utterly diabolical and shocking.
Yet there was a strong sense in our discussions at Windsor that the lasting consequence of September 11th might be a world in which the United States is more arrogant and self-regarding than ever in its exercise of power, and that in the quest to deal with terrorism, democratic and human rights might be treated as evermore expendable.
We feared that there is a real danger of new barriers being erected between different cultures, at the very time when what we really need is to be taking down those already there. There was a profound concern among many that on the back of the struggle against terrorism we are witnessing a loss of respect for values that should sit at the very core of our World Order.
We all wanted to see the defeat of terrorist groups, but were genuinely fearful of the price that the world might end up paying for their defeat. When one person warned that "global tyranny is a real possibility" if terrorists keep on striking against the United States, it was noticeable that we couldn't just dismiss this as scaremongering.
The world is a more dangerous place, not just because of al-Qaeda but also because the weaknesses in our global structures for co-operation between nations have been so exposed by the aftermath of September 11th. Now, writing this report exactly six months after September 11th, one can not but fear that the current build-up of militarism might pose one of the greatest dangers to our freedom and democracy, unless we are at least alert to that danger and able to speak out without being instantly dismissed as soft on terrorists.
When one participant said that the best we could realistically hope for was some 30 to 40 years of American-led "benevolent imperialism", he was delivering a message that quite a few people didn't want to hear, but no-one could readily demolish.
The fact is that he might well be right - which is why it is even more important now to engage with the debate about what form an alternative World Order might take. If we end up with Pax Americana, let us at least have explored whether that is the only option now facing us.
A vision for a new World Order
Against this background, we knew how important it was that we should spend some time discussing what our vision for a new World Order should be.
Our starting point was that the new World Order needs to be based on "principles, rather than power" - which we immediately saw as different from the current World Order, which was characterised as being driven too much by power rather than principles.
These principles need to command a very wide base of support if the international community is to be able to carry out the major "restructuring of the global political and financial architecture" that is now necessary to create a more multi- lateral World Order, better able to manage the process of globalisation and minimise violent conflicts.
"A big inside and no outside"
One idea which prompted quite a bit of debate was that there should be what was described as a new "global creation myth". This would involve an imaginative and ambitious campaign to build popular support for a new social contract between all peoples and all states, on the basis that we are all members of "one global human family" , and find ourselves "in the same boat, which is now in danger". It would advance the notion that we are all bound together with each other, irrespective of which part of the globe we live in, as citizens of one world.
The message would be that whilst the world is a big place, it has "a big inside and no outside".
Those who favoured this approach (and there were some who were unsure about the concept, and distinctly unimpressed by the language!) felt that such a myth should promote a very strong sense of commonality of purpose among all peoples, with "positive and neutral symbols of co-operation, not conquest and domination".
One participant told of how he had recently attended an event for young people from many different nationalities and faiths, as part of a process of trying to embed a new peace culture among the young. They had started off by seeing the film "Star Wars", which he described as being structured around "a myth that crosses cultures". All of the young people had been moved by it, and prompted to explore some deep issues to do with the nature of mutual responsibilities and the battle against evil.
It was said that our monotheistic faiths tend to have values that they see as exclusive to followers of their faith, whereas the core values of the new World Order need to be "cross- cultural and inclusive ". Rather than promoting a male-dominated and competitive view of the world, the symbols of a new World Order need to be "altogether more spiritual, more sharing and more feminine", and to focus on the fundamental needs of all people, such as the need to live at peace without being conquered or occupied.
There was clearly a sense of deep conviction on the part of those drawn to this line of argument. They went on to urge that any new "global creation myth" should respond to the mood in so many countries since September 11th, where there has been an upsurge in the numbers of people who say they are searching for greater meaning in life.
It should "look forward and not backwards", and help people to understand what could be achieved through much more sharing and openness between people on a global basis. As one person told us, with great enthusiasm, "We all know that biotechnology will be the next big scientific thing that could eradicate disease and cure cancer. It could, literally, revolutionise the control that we all have over our lives, and that is something that should be shared by the world".
It was said that this would be a complex message, but that the campaign for reducing the debt burden of poorer countries had already shown how some very complex messages can be distilled into a very powerful and simple message. What we now need is "an accessible narrative" that is able to "mobilise non-elite public opinion". Some were confident that this would be possible, on the basis that "everything begins with imagination", and that with greater imagination on the part of our leaders it should be possible to create "a political process that makes cultural diffusion more legitimate".
This was an extremely important point for the group: we really wanted to see a World Order that promotes greater cultural diversity. We were wary, as one person put it, of "countries that begin by talking about shared values and end up talking about their own".
Focusing on the reduction of suffering
What was striking about our discussions was that whilst we (predictably) saw conflict prevention as central to the vision of a new World Order, we were keen that this should be set in a wider context.
One participant argued very powerfully that the new World Order should focus especially on the reduction of suffering:
"Every day, between 60,000 and 100,000 people in this world die, for no good reason, due to lack of food, lack of housing and lack of healthcare. It is their suffering that should be the focus of a new World Order". We knew that some would regard such an approach as too idealistic, although we took heart from telling ourselves that the position could be defended as that of "idealistic realists" .
Big Snip -
Going from Page 5 to Page 13 & 14 of 15 pages
We didn’t really ask how we might best take them with us on either a modest or a fullyfledged reform of the UN, or down the road of a more robust system of international law. At times we were tending to view them as the ‘bad guys’, who just need to see that they are in the wrong and we are in the right. So long as we let ourselves assume the worst of the Bush Administration, we continue to make Pax Americana that much more likely.
What would it take to wipe the slate clean?
The second moment that comes to mind is the exchange that we had in this final session about the concept of a new “global creation myth” (not the easiest of phrases), and the idea that at some particular stage the world community would be persuaded to “wipe the slate clean” by writing off all of the debts of developing countries and agreeing that we are all “starting from the same point as members of one world” .
We all knew that this global creation myth would need to be much clearer before such a stage could really be envisaged. And yet, whilst a few were clearly unimpressed by this idea, there was a sense of its potential for inspiring all of the institutional change that we knew would be necessary to create a more democratic global community.
In recalling this moment, one has a horrible thought, which is one of those thoughts that you instinctively want to suppress. What sort of catalyst would create such a moment for the world to agree to “wipe the slate clean”?
Another atrocity similar to September 11th, except much more devastating in scale?
One can’t help fearing that if the world were to agree to “wipe the slate clean”, that would have been the catalyst. Without it, national self-interest seems set to get in the way. What an awfully depressing conclusion! It spurs one on to want there to be some other way in which the global community might engage with the idea of taking a quantum leap forward in the way the major players relate to each other, and how they relate to those many, many millions within their communities who see themselves as having no stake in the existing World Order.
Can we contemplate wiping the slate clean without another September 11?
Let us hope that we can, and we will all work that much harder to ensure that these sorts of “idealistic outpourings” have a chance of being converted into tomorrow’s reality.
After all, when in 1776 the Founding Fathers of the United States of America declared it to be “self-evident” that “all men are created equal” and “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights”, there were many (not least in Great Britain!) who felt that this was little more than an idealistic outpouring. Yet their vision was so strong and commanding that it helped to found the strongest and most commanding nation in the world today.
And the language of their vision was not that of a narrow nationalism, but of a fundamental universalism which shines through those opening sentences of the Declaration of Independence.
If there could be some sort of world vision with that degree of clarity and confidence, who is to say that it would not transform the world in the same sort of way as that Declaration transformed the whole development and history of the United States of America some 226 years ago?
Peter Ashby
St. George’s House
March 11 2002
Read full introduction and see the list of attendees, click below
http://www.rumormillnews.com/pdfs/NewWorldOrderReportStGeorge.pdf
Serving Freedom
and Liberty
