Meditations (Politics) - From Martin LeFevre in California
The International Order is History - What's Next?
As the international world order, based on the nation-state, continues its slow-motion collapse, much more than another
historical transition to another world order is at stake. The ancient organizing principle of coercive power, and even
archaic human consciousness itself (arising from particular identities), are also at issue.
Despite the enormous reach and influence of American power, which essentially formed and continues to be the fulcrum of
the international system, the American Empire is an eggshell about to crack and crumble. When it goes, it will take
international institutions with it, unless a new and true order takes root before the collapse occurs.
Part of the fragility of the international world order stems from the fact that it serves the interests of so few, both
inside and outside America. But the main reason the American Empire will be so short-lived is that the character and
strength of the American people, the core traits and drive that once made America a great nation, no longer exist. A
dead people cannot sustain an empire.
Professor Emeritus of International Law Richard Falk has proposed a "citizen elected global parliament modeled on the
European Parliament." I was pleased to hear of this parallel vision, having written and spoken since the first Gulf War
about the increasing urgency of creating a third component in world politics (a non-power-holding Global Polity of
Peoples, which would hold international institutions and state governments accountable to the common human good).
However, since the European Parliament is proving to be unwieldy and bureaucratic, Falk's model is not a viable one.
More importantly, he undercuts his own proposal by two contradictions.
Falk rightly says that "states and not citizens are the constituents of global [i.e. international] institutions," and
yet he falls back on nation-states to provide authority and legality for a global parliament of peoples. On the one
hand, he says there is "no international authority outside the state to whom citizens directly owe political loyalty or
legal obligations," but then he turns around and says that a global parliament would initially be based on and
sanctioned by "20 or 30 geographically and economically diverse countries."
The logic is inescapable: to supersede the nation-state, and infuse international institutions with authority and
impetus, a genuinely global body must be created, with a philosophical and legal basis that lies outside the
nation-state as well as international institutions. Global civil society now potentially provides such a starting point.
Falk fails to make the crucial distinction between the international and global dimensions. A "supervening international
authority" would be a redundancy of the United Nations. It is impractical, unnecessary, and beside the point. The
adventitious and unlooked-for development that is required is not inter-national at all; it is truly global.
Presuming the UN can survive the onslaught by the Bush Administration, which intends to make it a servant of American
power, it could and should grow into the "international authority outside the state." International institutions must
survive; the international order is history.
But for the UN to have any chance of deep reform, a genuinely global body, operating in a space outside international
institutions (and thereby conferring legitimacy and maintaining accountability for them), must be envisioned and built.
Unless the age-old problem of power is effectively addressed however, these points of logic and legality will remain
moot. Bush's derisive dismissal of international law reverberates chillingly around the world ("international
law-heh-I'll have to find a lawyer"). That scoff not only embodied the core attitude of the Bush clique, it showed just
how "irrelevant" the Bushites believe international law and institutions are in the face of American military might. It
also pointed to the abyss into which they are leading the world.
Many factors, foremost being the self-made ecological crisis confronting humankind, foretell not only a quick end to
Bush's anachronistic, nationalistic policies, but also an end to the international order. Indeed, the implacable
pressures facing our species necessitate ending politics based on coercive power, as well as consciousness based on
identification with particular groups.
For a democratic global body of any kind to emerge, a revolution in human consciousness must occur, probably
simultaneously. This exigency goes far beyond Falk's "countermovement that articulates an alternative approach to global
security," though any viable vision for the human future must indeed "capture the popular imagination."
A revolution in consciousness will have countless manifestations, but politically it will mean that the primeval tribal
character of humans, which is as old as culture and humankind themselves, will no longer hold sway. Identification with
particular groups will cease being the basis of human security (and insecurity). Nationalism, religious zealotry, and
ethnic pride will begin to fall away, since human survival depends on it.
An effective, though non-power-holding Global Polity of Peoples, located in East Africa, the evolutionary birthplace of
humankind, and philosophically and physically drawn from global civil society, will mark a momentous shift not only in
the world order, but also in human psychology and spirituality.
************
- Martin LeFevre is a contemplative, and non-academic religious and political philosopher. He has been publishing in
North America, Latin America, Africa, and Europe (and now New Zealand) for 20 years. Email: martinlefevre@sbcglobal.net. The author welcomes comments.