A vision of global governance

[B][I]Part 1 of a series[/I][/B]

This week marked the 61st anniversary of the founding of the United Nations on Oct. 24, 1945m in San Francisco. In the spring of that year, 50 nations gathered to put the final touches on the charter of the United Nations, and on Oct. 24, the required number of nations ratified its charter and the United Nations was founded. Here in the CNMI, the United Nations has played a significant role, for after all, we were, in the years following World War II until the founding of the Commonwealth, a Trust Territory of the [I]United Nations[/I].

Eleven years ago, the year of the 50th anniversary of the founding of the United Nations, much commentary was made on the accomplishments, failures and future of the United Nations. One of those documents was [I]Turning Point for All Nations[/I]. Its authors analyzed the requirements of the coming century. Over the next few weeks, I hope to share a few paragraphs from this document in order to help stimulate our appreciation for the ongoing relevance of the United Nations in our lives, and to think more broadly about the requirements of the future.

“The current world confusion and the calamitous condition of human affairs are a natural phase in an organic process leading ultimately and irresistibly to the unification of the human race in a single social order whose boundaries are those of the planet.

“The human race, as a distinct, organic unit, has passed through evolutionary stages analogous to the stages of infancy and childhood in the lives of its individual members, and is now in the culminating period of its turbulent adolescence approaching its long-awaited coming of age. The process of global integration, already a reality in the realms of business, finance, and communications, is beginning to materialize in the political arena.

“Historically, this process has been accelerated by sudden and catastrophic events. It was the devastation of World Wars I and II that gave birth to the League of Nations and the United Nations, respectively. Whether future accomplishments are also to be reached after similarly unimaginable horrors or embraced through an act of consultative will, is the choice before all who inhabit the earth. Failure to take decisive action would be unconscionably irresponsible.

“Since sovereignty currently resides with the nation-state, the task of determining the exact architecture of the emerging international order is an obligation that rests with heads of state and with governments. We urge leaders… to consider how the international order might be redefined and restructured to meet the challenges facing the world.

The authors call for the holding of an international convocation of leaders to address global governance, and state, “A key to the success of these deliberations has been the substantive participation by organizations of civil society. Painstaking negotiations among government delegations about changes in the world’s political, social and economic structures have been informed and shaped by the vigorous involvement of these organizations, which tend to reflect the needs and concerns of people at the grass roots. It is also significant that in each case, the gathering of world leaders, in the presence of civil society and the global media, gave the stamp of legitimacy and consensus to the processes of the conference.

“World leaders would be wise to heed these lessons, to reach out to as wide a circle as possible and to secure the goodwill and support of the world’s peoples.

“Some fear that international political institutions inevitably evolve toward excessive centralization and constitute an unwarranted layer of bureaucracy. It needs to be explicitly and forcefully stated that any new structures for global governance must, as a matter of both principle and practicality, ensure that the responsibility for decision-making remains at appropriate levels.

“Striking the right balance may not always be easy. On the one hand, genuine development and real progress can be achieved only by people themselves, acting individually and collectively, in response to the specific concerns and needs of their time and place. It can be argued that the decentralization of governance is the sine qua non of development. On the other hand, the international order clearly requires a degree of global direction and coordination.

“Therefore, in accordance with the principles of decentralization outlined above, international institutions should be given the authority to act only on issues of international concern where states cannot act on their own or to intervene for the preservation of the rights of peoples and member states. All other matters should be relegated to national and local institutions.

“Furthermore, in devising a specific framework for the future international order, leaders should survey a broad range of approaches to governance. Rather than being modeled after any single one of the recognized systems of government, the solution may embody, reconcile and assimilate within its framework such wholesome elements as are to be found in each one of them.

“For example, one of the time-tested models of governance that may accommodate the world’s diversity within a unified framework is the federal system. Federalism has proved effective in decentralizing authority and decision-making in large, complex, and heterogeneous states, while maintaining a degree of overall unity and stability. Another model worth examining is the commonwealth, which at the global level would place the interest of the whole ahead of the interest of any individual nation.

“Extraordinary care must be taken in designing the architecture of the international order so that it does not over time degenerate into any form of despotism, of oligarchy, or of demagogy corrupting the life and machinery of the constituent political institutions.

In 1955, one concept of world order was stated in these terms: “A world Super-State in whose favor all the nations of the world will have ceded every claim to make war, certain rights to impose taxation and all rights to maintain armaments, except for the purposes of maintaining internal order within their respective dominions. This State will have to include an International Executive adequate to enforce supreme and unchallengeable authority on every recalcitrant member of the Commonwealth; a World Parliament whose members are elected by the peoples in their respective countries and whose election is confirmed by their respective governments; a Supreme Tribunal whose judgment has a binding effect even in cases where the parties concerned have not voluntarily agreed to submit their case to its consideration.”

“While we believe this formulation of a world government is at once the ultimate safeguard and the inevitable destiny of humankind, we do recognize that it represents a long-term picture of a global society. Given the pressing nature of the current state of affairs, the world requires bold, practical and actionable strategies that go beyond inspiring visions of the future. Nevertheless, by focusing on a compelling concept, a clear and consistent direction for evolutionary change emerges from the mire of contradictory views and doctrines.

Next week we’ll look at defining a role for the UN within the emerging international order.

[I](David Khorram, MD is a board certified ophthalmologist and director of Marianas Eye Institute. Comments and questions are welcome. Call 235-9090 or email him through www.MarianasEye.com. Copyright © 2006 David Khorram)
[/I]