In recent weeks [mid 1992], the world
has been treated to contrasting expositions of Weltanschauung and international policy by representatives of two erstwhile
competing superpowers. The official American position, expounded by representatives
of the self-proclaimed world's greatest democracy, was more ethnocentric and
could envision nothing much beyond a sterile status quo -- yet another version
of Realpolitik with spheres of influence. However, in a traditional
split between diplomacy and war-making, one group of American spokesmen would
try to co-opt allies on an ad hoc basis, while the other -- more ultra-nationalist
-- would try to keep any potential competitors -- even allies -- in their
subservient places and would deal selectively with "major regional conflicts"
(M.R.C.s.) Such views appeared either aristocratic or autocratic but hardly
democratic. Neither had an answer for the many M.R.C.s and other world problems
beyond the reach of the U.S.'s self-proclaimed interests or its military's
abilities.
Fortunately, there is a growing
recognition by U.S. spokespersons--still quite timid--that there might be
a role for the United Nations with which the U.S. might cooperate in expanding
the "democratic peace." But in contrast to plans by the Americans was an exposition
by a one-time communist-turned-democrat, who envisions a dynamic new world
in which all the world's peoples would have a part.
A Call For U.S. Leadership
On 21 April 1992, U.S. Secretary of State
James A. Baker III made a major foreign policy speech in Chicago entitled
"A Summons to Leadership." He called for building a democratic peace for the
whole world--no longer for just the free half--on the twin pillars of political
and economic freedom by pursuing a straightforward policy of "collective engagement"
under American leadership. Collective engagement to Baker means working together
with allies and the United Nations, the World Bank, and the International
Monetary Fund and sharing costs and responsibilities with our partners. The
moving force in collective engagement is to be American leadership. But the
U.S. would drive forward on common problems only "where we can."
Baker also called
for working together with Russia, Ukraine, the Central Asian republics, and
other newly independent successor states of the Soviet Union to promote multiparty
democracy and the rule of law in Eurasia. He saw a "revolutionary vision...a
Europe truly whole and free: a continent of free, independent, and sovereign
nations working to build democracy and free markets, cooperating with one
another to resolve disputes peacefully, and integrating themselves fully into
the democratic global community of nations and the global economy."
Some Problems of U.S. Leadership
Baker cited several examples
where he felt collective action had been successful with American leadership
such as reversing Iraqi aggression against Kuwait; uniting Germany peacefully;
getting the U.S.S.R. to release its grip on Eastern Europe and the Baltic
States; and bringing peace to Cambodia. That the U.S. played the leadership
role in reversing Iraqi aggression against Kuwait cannot be denied. However,
a more unbiased evaluation of the U.S. role in some of the other areas might
reveal that: it was the German Federal Government that played the major role
in getting Germany reunited (as Kohl and Genscher got Gorbachev to concur);
many European states had recognized the Baltic republics well before the U.S.
got around to doing so; and Australia, Indonesia, and France played a greater
leadership role than the U.S. in guiding the transition from war to peace
in Cambodia. Even U.S. assistance to the Kurds in northern Iraq, as welcome
as it is, did not come until after Britain and France had urged action to
help save them. (Meanwhile, who bothers to help the Shia Iraqis being persecuted
in the South?)
Unfortunately, the rhetoric of
building a democratic peace has been overshadowed over the past year as right
next door to the NATO war machine the rulers of Serbia invaded Slovenia, Croatia,
and Bosnia-Herzegovina and laid waste the lands of ethnic neighbors. Perhaps
collective engagement with American participation beyond sanctions which have
not worked will eventually stop the Greater Serbian War, but so far it has
been too little and too late. Nor has U.S.-led collective engagement ended
the wars in Burma, Guatemala, Sudan, Somalia, et al. In fact, Africa wasn't
even mentioned in Baker's speech. Realistically, there are just too many trouble
spots in the world, where -- despite over a trillion dollars lavished in recent
years on war preparations -- the U.S. is simply unable to "drive forward"
on common problems. A more revolutionary world outlook more appropriate
to world problems is needed.
Secretary Baker's remarks were nevertheless a major improvement over the ultra-nationalist policy proposed by strategists at the Pentagon in Mid-February [1992]. Searching for new enemies to thwart, they urged the U.S. to play "King of the Hill" and protect its "one-superpower" status by convincing "potential competitors" not to "aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests." Fortunately, Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney on 22 May, perhaps realizing that the U.S. could go it alone neither in the ashes of Yugoslavia nor in the Armenia-Azerbaijan war, committed the U.S. to collective military action as a key feature ofU.S. strategy and stressed the importance of strengthening organizations like the United Nations for resolving disputes.
From Cold War to Restructuring the UN
Meanwhile, on 6 May [1992], another politician out of favor in his home country but idolized in the United States, spoke at Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri, where Winston Churchill had made his memorable [iron curtain] speech 46 years earlier. Part of Mikhail Gorbachev's speech, entitled "The River of Time and the Imperative of Action," was a look backward with an analysis of the Cold War. Like Baker, he noted a shift in favor of a democratic world for the whole of humanity, not just for half of it. However, he cautioned against the danger of territorial and intergovernmental disputes and of exaggerated nationalism released from the constraints of the Cold War. There also remained today's major split between "North" and "South," between the rich and poor countries.
Although Gorbachev felt that "many countries are morbidly jealous of their sovereignty, and many peoples of their national independence and identity," he recognized the necessity of "international interference wherever human rights are being violated." Furthermore he urged that a special body be set up under the U.N. Security Council "with the right to employ political, diplomatic, economic, and military means to settle and prevent" conflicts arising in many parts of the world.
It should not be surprising, therefore, that Mr. Gorbachev called for restructuring the United Nations. Not only must the labeling of Germany and Japan as "enemy states" be removed from Article 53 of the Charter. He felt that the Security Council should also be reorganized to admit the two countries and others, including India. To make peacekeeping forces more effective, certain national armed forces could be put at the disposal of the Security Council under the U.N. military command. And to provide sounder financing of the U.N., he suggested some mechanism tying its financing to the world economy.
Needed: A New World View
These refreshing views of Mikhail Gorbachev, a private
citizen retired from the reins of Soviet power, are a culmination of new thinking
on the world situation since he introduced glasnost to the Soviet Union.
Already in a speech prepared for the U.N. General Assembly in September 1987,
he spoke of his conviction that "A comprehensive system of security is at
the same time a system of universal law and order ensuring the primacy of international
law in politics." Already he was calling for a major enhancement of the
authority and role of the U.N. and its specialized agencies.
Gorbachev's political adviser Georgi Shakhnazarov writing in Pravda in January 1988 noted that after Hiroshima and Nagasaki many had concluded that "only a world government could save mankind from doom." However, the U.S.S.R. had rejected this idea because of the feeling that it would result in the formalization of U.S. domination. He went on to suggest that "making human rights a matter of international regulation would signify a breakthrough to a new level of international cooperation." Noting that the "governability of the world, despite all of its contradictions, is slowly but steadily expanding," he perceived in the numerous international organizations of the U.N. the rudiments of a world government.
Speaking in person to the U.N. General Assembly in December 1988, Gorbachev called for "unity in diversity" (comparable to the U.S. motto e pluribus unum), declaring that "no genuine progress is possible at the expense of the rights and freedoms of individuals and nations." His goal was creating a "world community of states based on the rule of law,...ensuring the rights of the individual," and forbidding persecution based on political or religious beliefs.
A Democratic World Federation
At Fulton, in May 1992, Gorbachev observed that the democratization of international relations was a consequence of increasing world integration. Asserting that democracy "must move from the national arena to the international," he felt that the goal should no longer be "just a union of democratic states, but also a democratically organized world community."
"On today's agenda is not just a union of democratic states, but also a democratically organized world community .... An awarness of the need for some kind of global government is gaining ground, one in which all members of the world community would take part." -- Mikhail Gorbachev |
|---|
Moreover, declaring invalid "the idea that certain states or groups of states could monopolize the international arena," Gorbachev saw the need for "some kind of global government ...in which all members of the world community would take part."
It's time for Americans trying to set policy to stop talking as if the United States, having won the Spanish-American War, is still approaching the 2Oth Century as Numero Uno among competing nation-states. Instead, as we approach the 21st Century, we need to change our mindset and accept the role of a leading partner in cooperation with other countries in the movement towards the goal not only of World Federalists, but also apparently now of Mikhail Gorbachev -- a democratic federal United Nations.
Toward Democratic World Federation, Summer 1992
| Return to Top | ||||
| Home | About us | Library | Take Action | Links |