|
WP21 Summary No. 5 (November 25 - December 8, 2002)
Arnaud BLIN, WP21 team
Saturday, December 14, 2002 1:27 AM
ººº Abstract : 2nd topic on the architecture of global governance.
Simultaneous policies and transnational embassies : are we ready for them?
How would a WP have an impact in shaping the architecture of global
governance and with what means could it function? City-states as the
future foundation of democracy. Initial debate on the WP and the U.N. The
architecture of global governance as responsibility, solidarity, pluralism.
World governance as a computer. The tree of palaver continued. ººº
This is the first summary for the 2nd topic of the forum : the architecture
of global governance. It will include the messages for the first two weeks
of the topic.
After a discussion on the values, purpose and principles of a World
Parliament, we now move on to a discussion on the architecture of global
governance. In general, the debate was very animated, with several lively,
but always civil, exchanges. Following in the footsteps of the first
discussion, the exchange revolved around two distinct approaches. Some
participants preferred to argue along the lines of what a new global
governance architecture * should * look like while others insisted on
looking at what it actually * could * look like, both approaches seemingly
complementing one another with some overlap in the middle and some
inevitable disagreements.
Simultaneous policies and transnational embassies
A large part of the exchange focused on the idea of * simultaneous policies
* (or Simpol) and * transnational embassies * that a participant introduced
in the discussion.
Simultaneous policies result from a change of attitude on the part of
international actors who decide to switch from a regime of international
competition to a regime of global cooperation. This concept is founded on
the principle the international community has come to a consensus that one
should promote a balanced existence and a harmonious humanity. The idea
behind this is that a state will not commit to such things on its own but
that a community of states will. Simultaneous policies should be understood
mainly as a tool for negotiation.
Transnational embassies comes back to the idea of world citizenship
(ci-terrestrial) introduced earlier. These embassies would function as a
network that would facilitate and develop global communications. The
ambassadors would represent continents rather than countries and would act
as * technical mediators at the service of humankind. *
How feasible would the creation of these institutions be? For some
participants, the establishment of simultaneous policies and transnational
embassies would require something that does not exist, at least not yet :
individuals capable or performing these tasks. Arguing along those lines,
one contributor suggested that "It would be necessary to have a basis of
free beings, free from all prejudices related to cultural roots and networks
of adherence, without any personal nor emotional engagements." A daunting
task at the local level, let alone at the global one.
Even without arguing about the current readiness of the world to attempt
such policies, some contributors thought that it would already be difficult
to come to a general agreement regarding the nature of simultaneous
policies. But there were more optimistic voices arguing that a World
Parliament might just be the right type of institution that could help
simultaneous policies be defined and implemented, in cooperation with other
key actors of the current architecture of global governance.
How? With what means?
The feasibility of these ideas brings us to another aspect of the discussion
that will occupy us not only for the duration of this particular topic but
throughout the forum : how (would a WP have an impact in shaping the
architecture of global governance) and with what means would it function? On
this issue, there were more questions raised at this point than answers.
There were basic questions such as who might pay the transnational
ambassadors or what means a WP might have (or not) to influence governments
to better spend their money. A list of the costs of various policies
(posted on the forum) conveniently showed how easy it would be for certain
governments to resolve some of today's current problems if these governments
chose for example to invest a little less on defense. How one might
influence governments to do this is another problem, and it is one of the
main problems that a WP might have to resolve. One participant put the
question in these terms : what means of deterrence would a WP have to
mobilize in mass ci-terrestrials so that they exercise real democratic
pressure and get the partial disarmament of their nation-states? Without
going this far, how would we insure that the funds would actually reach
their legitimate recipients?
City-States?
Everyone who has read a little Greek philosophy knows that the original
model for democracy is the city-state. In fact, until the 18th century
common wisdom had it that only city-states could function democratically.
One participant suggested that we take a closer look at cities as a
foundation for a more democratic global governance today. "Cities are
natural and voluntary concentrations of people in organized communities with
local systems of organized self-government," she says, " and many of them
have their own periodic People's Assemblies or * town meeting * type of
events. They are also clearly definable by geographical boundary and size of
population. As a result, they are not inherently competitive or militant, as
are nation states with their artificial, disputed boundaries." She adds
that one could envision a system of * global cities * which would convene
every couple of years for an event open and available to citizens within
their radius of up to six million people, including adjacent towns, villages
and farms. With more cities getting involved, delegates would gradually come
from all parts of the globe.
Representation, within the context of city-states or in general terms, is
one of the problems that several participants see as fundamental in the
creation of a WP. One contributor summarized this concern : "How to assure
that this new world parliament - in full gestation - is not going to repeat
the same errors made by the States if the representation of the poorest
citizens in the world is small, i.e. absolutely absent?"
World Parliament and U.N.
One of the questions raised in the agenda concerns the relationship between
a WP and the United Nations. Basically, should a WP replace the U.N.,
should it complement it, should it act to reform it? One contributor
launched this discussion by saying that the WP should not try to replace the
General Assembly of the U.N. but rather should try to cooperate with it and
act as a strong pressure group of the civil society that forces the UN to
work in a more democratic way and to have more force and more competences.
No doubt more will be said on this topic in the future.
Foundations of global governance
We will end this week's summary with a couple of comments on the general
foundations of a global architecture. One participant described succinctly
the architecture of global governance as being built on responsibility,
solidarity, plurality: " It must be responsible for the avoidance of misery
and inequalities, must be united in the invention of other ways of
development, plural by taking account of the cultures of men and women for
building global policies." Someone else imagined the world system as a
"huge personal computer that calls for us to change together the operating
software rather than the system itself."
In order to invite each and every one of us to continue this discussion, I
will end again on the metaphor of the WP as a tree of palaver that many of
us really appreciated, including one participant who suggests that we focus
on the essential questions of the WP :
1. What kind of tree? 2. where is it planted? 3. how does it grow? how can
we make it grow fast enough to solve our huge problem and harmoniously at
the same time? 4. who sits there since not all the people of the world can
at the same time? 5. what happens with the decisions taken under the tree ?
6. how do we make those decisions stick, have impact?
WP21 Alliance Forum on a World Parliament for the 21st Century
E-mail : world-parl@forums.alliance21.org
Fax 1 717 264 5036
Information, inscriptions, désinscriptions: germa@alliance21.org
|
|
|
english ·original·
[FORUM]
[DISCUSSION]
[SYNTHESES]
[DOCUMENTS]
[CALENDAR]
[PARTICIPANTS]
[SUBSCRIBE]
[CONTACT]
[HOME]