True peace is not merely the absence of tension, it is the presence of justice. Martin Luther King, Jr. Whenever you are in doubt, recall the face of the poorest and the weakest man. Gandhi The world is for the public good, such is the Great Way. Confucius Two dangers constantly threaten the world: order and disorder. Paul Valéry *


Sections
Rethinking Global Governance
Comments
Afterword

---

Rethinking Global Governance
Arnaud Blin, Gustavo Marin ¤ July 2007


Comments on the document

16 Comments on this document. Comments will not be translated

> Comment submitted by Carlos Liberona on 30 May 2008

El tema de la Gobernanza ha crecido en importancia en la medida que cada día se hace más evidente que requerimos consolidar una Nueva Cultura de gobierno.
Vivimos una época de rápidos cambios y de profundización de distintas crisis, podemos afirmar que hay una crisis de la política, no solo de los partidos.
Este es uno de los momentos más complejos y decisivos de la larga transición que vive el planeta.
El proceso de aceleramiento de la globalización ha provocado distintos efectos, los más importantes a mi juicio son:

· Agotamiento de las fórmulas estatales basadas en la construcción nacional

· Emergencia de tendencias de construcción de una sociedad civil internacional

· Crisis de las políticas basadas en la búsqueda de soluciones locales o nacionales

· Agotamiento de unas cultura de poder, basada en el control y el dominio y nacimiento de una cultura que plantea colocar el centro de la construcción, la participación

Por ello la búsqueda de una Nueva Gobernanza se ha vuelto una necesidad. Las razones son varias, todos productos de los cambios concretos. En el caso de nuestro continente la búsqueda se ha acelerado y ha tomado carácter fundacional, Asambleas constituyentes en Venezuela. Bolivia, Ecuador; crecimiento de una Nueva Cultura Organizativa construida por las redes que se vuelven en la modalidad actual de organización y que tuvieron en el Foro Social Mundial su expresión más explícita.

En esencia asistimos a la extinción de un modelo de organización de la sociedad y el nacimiento de otro que es activado por la necesidad de integración de tod@s, más explícitamente la internacionalización de la vida ha potenciado a los llamados actores secundarios, a las minorías, sean indígenas, discapacitados, Tercera Edad, en fin los excluidos que quieren estar, participar y decidir.

Asistimos a la refundación de la Sociedad Civil, asistimos también a la readecuación del Estado. La gobernanza será la vía que habilitará el nuevo acuerdo requerido por las relaciones del Estado y la Nueva Sociedad Civil.

También debería buscar una fórmula latinoamericana en este proceso de construcción de una comunidad internacional en nuestro continente. Pensando en el rol de las Asambleas Ciudadanas Regionales en este proceso, concluimos que hay que acentuar la búsqueda de una ciudadanía latinoamericana, tendremos también que apoyar la construcción de modelos de gobernanza territoriales. Las Asambleas deberán irse constituyendo lentamente en espacios de diálogo, en lugares de construcción institucional de la ciudadanía latinoamericana y deberá transformarse paso a paso en instancia de apoyo y desarrollo de una nueva Orden Internacional que tendrá en el futuro dos actores decisivos:

· el Estado y

· la Ciudadanía

y tres pilares:

· la Declaración de los Derechos Humanos

· la Carta de la Tierra

· la Carta de las Responsabilidades Humanas

Todos sabemos que la crisis actual solo será resuelta en la medida que se aumenten las respuestas autónomas, crezcan los espacios de participación y se generen nuevas relaciones de poder.

Tres preguntas son claves para construir un concepto de gobernanza:

1. ¿Qué es la Sociedad Civil: es el estado organizado, es lo No Gubernamental o el actor del futuro a construir?

2. ¿Cuál es la noción de gobierno que requiere la idea de gobernanza?

3. La nueva cultura del poder, ¿cómo se expresa en lo organizacional, en lo territorial, en el pacto social que nace?

Carlos Liberona es el Presidente de la Corporacion AYUN, activa en Chile y en el Cono Sur

> Comment submitted by Hamilton Faria on 17 May 2008

Considerações sobre "Repensar da Governança Mundial"

O texto de Gustavo Marin e Arnaud Blin aponta para uma urgência na definição de problemas e objetivos para uma governança mundial. Sem dúvida que definir o lugar dos Estados no jogo mundial e os interesses em cena torna-se vital para desenhar uma nova governança no vazio que se abre pela pouca presença de mediação da ONU, principalmente frente ao comportamento das grandes potências. Mas esta regulação, sem, dúvida, passa também por um questionamento mais profundo do papel de cada país na geopolítica mundial e na construção de instrumentos de regulação eficazes para impor limites a interesses hegemônicas, destacadamente aqueles de "guarda pretoriana" quando algumas nações se arvoram equivocadamente a " defensores da paz mundial". De um outro lado " a mundialização redistribui as cartas de forma desigual".
São muito eloqüentes as condições indicadas no texto para o exercicio de umagovernança mundial: vencer a pobreza, estabelecer a dignidade, paz e justiça e legitimidade do poder.
É certo que não há ainda uma visão européia da governança mundial. Talvez nisso haja mais positividades que algo negativo, pois todas as vezes na história que se formou uma visão mais completa sobre alguma saída civilizatória a partir da Europa, constituiu-se praticamente uma ideologia inacessível aos demais membros da comunidade mundial. Assim, foram a visão da colonização e a do desenvolvimento onde os paradigmas europeus se fixaram como guias rígidos para os povos rumo ao progresso. Portanto, é salutar não existir ainda uma visão formada pois podemos, a partir de outras nações, interferir nessa visão européia para que veja um horizonte de equilíbrio mundial e de processos de desenvolvimento humano que partam de uma dialogia
na própria Europa e não apenas de sua governança constituída.

Segundo Michel Rocard o consenso europeu no campo de uma visão européia trata das múltiplas ameaças neste momento: mudança climática, extensão da violência, terrorismo, pauperização e trabalho precário, o desequilíbrio financeiro que está aflorando.

A seguir aponta para alguns princípios de uma prática européia: fala das dificuldades de aceitação de um governo mundial na Europa e os limites das regulações mundiais. Esta preocupação, sem dúvida, procede, pois um governo mundial deve ser um pacto mais que político, deve ser um pacto cultural entre os diversos paises-atores, o que significa um processo de amadurecimento e de desenvolvimento cultural e intercultural que defina qual o papel de cada cultura em uma cultura universal. Quanto as regulações também esta mostra limites, pois qual o papel dos outros continentes, das regiões, das culturas, das minorias neste processo? Como evitar que a regulação não seja instrumento de grandes nações e de corporações e que seja realmente partilhada entre os diferentes? São problemas postos para o nosso
debate.

O texto de Gustavo Marin e Arnaud Blin aponta para a definição de objetivos da governança: aqui chamo atenção para a Carta dos Direitos Humanos e outras que tratam da exigibilidade de direitos no plano internacional, bem como a Convenção sobre a Diversidade Cultural(2005). E também para a construção de uma verdadeira Cultura de Paz que privilegie o diálogo e a democracia, a solidariedade internacional e o respeito à vida. Não existe governança sem o
aclaramento desses princípios orientadores. Já circulam muitos documentos internacionais de peso que podem orientar neste caminho: Haia, 1999; Manifesto 2000 da Unesco e outros. Combinar a realização da justiça com a Cultura de Paz é uma chave civilizatória. O funcionamento pleno da Corte Penal Internacional deve estar em nossa agenda, mas combinado sempre com parâmetros de largo prazo visando não apenas a punição da violência, mas a construção da paz, e isto não é a mesma coisa.

Para concluir, quero deixar o chamamento para que o momento europeu, seus impasses de governança e civilizatórios, sejam partilhados com outros povos, principalmente com aqueles povos penalizados por uma visão eurocêntrica presente até hoje. O fato é que não existe e nem deve existir uma visão estritamente européia sobre a governança ,pois a Europa já é multicultural e com grandes ramificações em outros continentes e isso traz um outro cenário ao debate. A questão européia é uma questão global e para ser formulada deve ser adotada a máxima "ouvir para compreender", vital para os novos rumos da humanidade.
O texto "Repensar a governança mundial" abre um horizonte histórico dessa construção, que será aprofundado na medida do envolvimento da sociedade civil, pois a governança não é apenas uma questão de governos, por mais justos que sejam, mas uma questão de sociedade e de governo, de desenvolvimento de culturas, para que o novo horizonte político contemple uma mundialização não apenas baseada na equidade e na justiça, mas nos impulsos mais generosas das diversidades de cada continente e país.

Hamilton Faria é poeta brasileiro,publicou seis livros de poesia e
participou de 12 antologias, no Brasil, na França e nos Estados Unidos. Coordena a Rede Mundial de Artistas em Aliança e publicou livros e artigos sobre Arte e Cultura. Participa de movimentos de Cultura de Paz nacionais e internacionais. É professor titular da Faculdade de Artes Plásticas da FAAP e do pós graduação Pólis/ Universidade Metodista e especialista em Políticas Públicas de Cultura. É cônsul em São Paulo do Movimento Poetas del Mundo.

> Comment submitted by Ricardo Jiménez on 13 May 2008

miembro de la Red de Responsabilidades Humanas - Asamblea Regional Ciudadana del Cono Sur.

Me parece un documento importantísimo que plantea cuestiones que están al centro de la crisis evidente y extendida de Gobernanza desde el nivel mundial hasta el nivel local.

Comparto y creo que son afirmaciones sustanciales varias de las tesis sustanciales del trabajo, tales como:

a) La Gobernanza como proceso mejorable, como construcción (soberana, constituyente) de todos los miembros de la comunidad y no como “modelo” (constituido, por encima de la soberanía de la comunidad) “al cual llegar”. Esto es, hacer conciente y facilitar algo que siempre ha sido: la Gobernanza como construcción social e histórica, en permanente tensión / transformación.
b) La Gobernanza como proceso específico de cada tiempo espacio histórico, condicionada por múltiples dimensiones que interactúan complejamente. Esto, a mi juicio, trae la consecuencia de que seguramente la Gobernanza mundial, construida / negociada / consensuada permanentemente, deberá articularse concientemente con numerosas y diversas Gobernanzas nacionales, locales.
c) La centralidad de un marco ético mínimo compartido por toda la comunidad que se regula y sostiene la Gobernanza, articulada complejamente en todos los niveles, sobre la base de “mínimos” comunes.

Sin embargo, sólo hay un elemento que me parece central haber considerado con detención y que me pareció ausente. Se trata del “conflicto” y de la diversidad / oposición de intereses, equiparable en términos prácticos a “ética”, en los sectores que conforman la comunidad que se regula por una Gobernanza concreta. Esto me parece crucial, decisivo, para lograr que el análisis de la Gobernanza (que considero un virtual y valioso “programa” para la Gobernanza para el siglo XXI) encuentre operatividad práctica, utilidad concreta en comunidades concretas.

Sobre todo, a partir de un eje metodológico sustantivo planteado en el mismo trabajo y que considero un acierto estratégico: el carácter “clínico”, concreto, historizado, de las realidades específicas y cotidianas como insumo de la reflexión y la propuesta. En el caso de Nuestra América (para usar la nominación que José Martí acuñó para el espacio tiempo latinoamericano), esta diversidad / oposición de intereses (ética) y poder en la sociedad real, cotidiana, parece porfiadamente imponer el conflicto como forma central de definición de una Gobernanza, compartida, sí, finalmente, pero sobre la base del juego de fuerzas (no sólo de legitimidad, sino en todas las esferas, incluida la violencia física o militar), negociación, imposición, consenso.

La ausencia del tratamiento del conflicto no ofrece estrategias posibles, viables, al menos no para Nuestra América de implementación de ese programa.
El conflicto concebido como expresión de la diversidad / oposición de intereses - ética, tan central en nuestra realidad cotidiana permanente y que alcanza recurrentemente expresiones de violencia y resultados de Gobernanza más impuestos que consensuados. A pesar de esta importante omisión, percibo este trabajo como una especie de “Programa” de horizonte, de guía última a alcanzar, como ideal deseado que recoge el acumulado de experiencias históricas hasta aquí para el siglo XXI (lo que ya es bastante aporte).

Agradezco este espacio de reflexión que es en sí mismo un ejercicio de ciudadanía global y este importante trabajo del Foro para una Nueva Gobernanza Mundial que viene a colocar este crucial y urgente debate en el centro mismo del presente en marcha y los horizontes posibles.

> Comment submitted by Gustavo Marin on 7 April 2008

La chute de l’Union soviétique en 1991, plus que le choc du 11 septembre 2001, a marqué la fin d’une très longue période de l’histoire internationale, celle dite de l’« équilibre ». Depuis cet événement historique, la planète est en phase de rupture géostratégique. Le modèle de la « sécurité nationale », par exemple, bien que toujours en vigueur pour la plupart des gouvernements, laisse place progressivement à une conscience collective émergente qui dépasse ce cadre étriqué.

L’équilibre dont vous parlez était très déséquilibré. La guerre froide était bien chaude partout dans le monde.

> Comment submitted by an anonymous visitor on 7 April 2008

La chute de l’Union soviétique en 1991, plus que le choc du 11 septembre 2001, a marqué la fin d’une très longue période de l’histoire internationale, celle dite de l’« équilibre ». Depuis cet événement historique, la planète est en phase de rupture géostratégique. Le modèle de la « sécurité nationale », par exemple, bien que toujours en vigueur pour la plupart des gouvernements, laisse place progressivement à une conscience collective émergente qui dépasse ce cadre étriqué.

L’équilibre dont vous parlez était très déséquilibré. La guerre froide était bien chaude partout dans le monde.

> Comment submitted by Charles Harper (USA) on 6 April 2008

I did carefully read the paper and would like to make some brief comments from the point of view of someone who has been quite involved in situ with the churches and human rights movements in Latin America, i.e. quite vigorous and, in some cases, leading members of the strong NGO community - I prefer calling them full participants in the (not exactly to coin a phrase") "civil societies".

1. Dusting off some philosophy dictionaries which I read as well as I could when I was about twenty years of age, or so, in college, I must pay respects to the authors’ meticulous references to the Fathers of Western Political Thought. It was helpful to be reminded of the roots of our modes of political organization (quite understandable, given that the distinguished authors are French and French/Chilean). In this regard (see my paragraph above) my suggestion would be that this entire issue might be enriched if there were references made, of equal weight, to the thinking of the Arab philosophers, particularly in the 10th to 12th centuries, and to other (Far) Eastern, not to mention Southern (e.g. African) historical political development and systems. For example, five thousand years of Chinese political culture and governance (ancient and modern) must certainly contain some lessons to be examined in when treating this theme.

2. Is the existence of the United Nations bête noire of these authors? One would think so, given the paucity of references to this organization, and when made, in a relatively disparaging way. I was struck, on page three, by the authors’ statement that the UN "did nothing more than support the status quo" - yes, the reference is made to the UN at its inception, a relatively valid point. However, my antennae were alerted to this dérapage when I find a grudging admission, on the next page that it is "indeed useful and essential and (...) has evolved". Yet, clearly the authors’ thesis is that this "stagnated" (p. 7) institution - reformed or not - does not represent the "future of global governance" and that the "international system navigates between anarchy and clumsy self management". (p.15) thus attempting to portray the UN as having created an "international vacuum" citing international public law as being the "tree that hides the forest" ! (p. 16)

We (in the ecumenical community) are certainly aware of the weaknesses of the UN system - and must agree with much of the impatience clearly expressed by the authors with respect to its toothlessness, its bloated bureaucracies and its subservience to the permanent members of the Security Council, and so forth. The WCC has constructively participated in the attempts to be in critical solidarity with the UN and its activities.

However, when one looks at the accomplishments, over the last fifty years, created and established by this organization - its agencies in Geneva and Vienna, for example - and is work since 1945, one must undeniably come to the conclusion that the United Nations has 1) set up structures and policies which in fact contain the characteristics of an effective world governance in touch with reality and 2) taken specific action to address severe and urgent problems affecting the protection of peoples and individuals, both through the adopting of international standards and in voting to create instruments designed, exactly as a State government has within its mandate, to protect specific sectors of society (e.g. Refugees, Rights of Women, Rights of the Chile, of Indigenous Peoples). Nor has the UN been negligent in meeting expectations with respect to environmental concerns, sustainable development, the biosphere and inequality - mentioned as important by the authors on page 4 - not to mention the Aids crisis addressed so effectively by the WHO.

Would it be belaboring the point to mention the vast list of international instruments in the area of human rights which have in effect become standards and reference points for national and regional legislative action and which have spawned hundreds of domestic laws and practice? On the abolition of slavery, forced labor, detention, forced disappearance, torture, war crimes and crimes against humanity, on impunity.... On freedom of information, of association, on employment, social welfare, progress and development, on the right to enjoy culture ... On humanitarian law.

Perhaps I have been misunderstanding the authors when I say that my impression is that they have focused their attention too much on the workings and authority of the Security Council in their analysis of the United Nations. To the contrary, it would seem that they should take into consideration - as grist for analysis of the history of world governance and of realistic consideration for the future - of the entire spectrum of effective accomplishments of the UN.

3. I have found few references (e.g. page. 8) to the strength and influence of national and regional NGOs (the so-called "civil society"), as being relevant to the analysis of political elements in governance, be they within national, regional or international contexts. This is unfortunate. Mr. José Zalaquett, a Chilean lawyer and experienced human rights expert, has judiciously remarked that international standards and instruments did not suddenly appear out of the blue within world or regional fora, but that were forged out of the costly sacrificial struggle, from below, by men and women who protested injustice and claimed redress. There are myriad examples of grievances and campaigns having influenced, or indeed forced, executive or legislative authorities to act. The persistent work of representatives of national, regional and international organizations, within the last thirty years, have undoubtedly made a difference, as rarely before, in the articulation and adoption of laws and standards.
It would be useful were the authors to give due consideration to the role of this relatively new phenomenon.

4. Nevertheless, it is quite disappointing to find that this quite brilliant analysis has, like the proverbial elephant, "accouché une souris" ! Here I must agree with Dwain in his conclusion. The very idea of imagining political processes being enjoined to choose truly representative members to make up a body of "sages", is so naïve and utopian as to question some of the authors’ previous presuppositions. This may be a severe comment, but should be taken as a challenge to look into the recent history of the key ways in which States - still the cradle and arbitrer of national aspirations -(e.g. Kosovo, East Timor) have become actors increasingly challenged , on the one hand - to be responsive to peoples’ movements - and on the other - to the stronger roles being assumed by existing regional and international bodies, such as the United Nations.

> Comment submitted by Makarand Paranjape (India) on 2 April 2008

The paper is brilliant, but some preliminary responses:

1. It is totally Eurocentric. This is not just a methodological problem but an ethical one. The world simply doesn’t (never has) worked in the way in which Europeans thought it did!!! Of course, it may work for Europe or even from a European perspective, but not from that of other peoples. How to "cure" this disease of Eurocentrism? Hard, but to begin with, acknowledge it—this is how it seems from our point of view, but we don’t know (simply don’t know!) how the others will view it.

2. I don’t quite see the "end of superpowers" thesis working. The US as a hyper-power has been bypassing the UN to flex its global muscles (not always effectively, which is a different matter). Unless there is a major economic meltdown in the US, I don’t see this changing easily.

3. A new balance of power? I think this is what we will see in the world to come, with Europe and the US balancing each other on the one hand, and a noticeable shift towards China, India, Russia, Brazil, and other players that are emerging.

4. What I see is a parceling out of influence, that is different powers will handle different global challenges.

5. The paper is very good on the "geo-rupture," but what about the new models of global governance? It ends on an inconclusive note and does not spell out concrete steps ahead.

6. I think there is very little mention of "alter-globalization," NGOs, networks, media, internet, and other such "virtual communities" which will also play a role in shaping opinion.

7. Terror and the costs of peace—this is a topic that needs to be addressed in greater depth.

8. The end of wars between states—not entirely true—think of India and Pakistan!

9. Changing meaning and role of capital. More reflection needed on this.

10. I think the global constitution is an excellent idea. States need to be rated "and shamed" into taking care of their poor and underprivileged.

> Comment submitted by Abdallah Zniber (France) on 10 March 2008

Je trouve le document très dense et riche avec des références historiques et même philosophiques particulièrement pertinentes.

La question d’une nouvelle gouvernance mondiale est posée d’une façon cruciale surtout depuis les tendances hégémoniques des USA après la chute du mur de Berlin. L’équilibre des forces et de la terreur a été rompu avec la disparition de l’URSS. Ce modèle basé sur la domination et la répartition des richesses mondiales entre deux blocs (avec des satellites de part et d’autre) a montré ses limites et ses déviances. Les USA en croyant que leur modèle ultra libéral appuyé sur un fort lobby militaro-industriel a gagné se sont mis dans une situation d’hégémonie rejetée non seulement par les pays pauvres victimes de cette politique, mais surtout par les nouvelles puissances (UE, Chine, Inde, Japon, Brésil, Afrique du Sud) qui sont perdants dans cette nouvelle configuration des rapports de force au niveau mondial.

Le début de prise de conscience des sociétés civiles de leur force et de leur capacité d’influer sur le cours des choses, rendent possible des évolutions profondes de la gouvernance vers un modèle plus démocratique, plus horizontal l’écoute des populations mondiales. Je pense que le document mériterait un développement important de ce volet, celui du rôle des sociétés civiles, et d’un bilan critique aussi de l’alternative des Forums sociaux mondiaux, régionaux et locaux. L’essoufflement de cette alternative nécessite un regard qui s’appuie sur les acquis des Forums sociaux tout en donnant de nouvelles perspectives ce mouvement d’idées très important déclenché depuis Porto Alegre.

La garantie d’ancrer une nouvelle gouvernance démocratique pour le 21 siècle, doit s’appuyer sur l’expression organisée de contre-pouvoirs civils capables de faire avancer les Etats. Faut-il une conférence permanente des sociétés civiles ? La conférence de Bondung dans les années 50 a été l’oeuvre de quelques chefs d’Etats qui ont portés la lutte anti-coloniale. Elle a abouti aux indépendances des années 60. La tricontinentale avait pour objectif de continuer soutenir les mouvements de libération nationaux, et de rechercher une autre voix que celle des USA et de l’URSS. Elle a été avortée dans l’oeuf. Reste savoir si nous sommes capables aujourd’hui d’insuffler au niveau mondial de nouveaux modes de libération de l’Homme.

Des attentes fortes au niveau aussi bien de chaque peuple qu’au niveau mondial s’expriment confusément, travers le rejet du modèle ultra-libéral, du terrorisme et de l’intégrisme. Mais l’alternative des forums proposée montre ses limites bien que les petits ruisseaux verseront un jour ou l’autre dans un fleuve qui mène le monde vers plus de démocratie et vers un modèle plus humain.

La complexité dans laquelle nous vivons (nécessité de la réforme des systèmes de gouvernance et aussi d’ancrage des mouvements sociaux) nous oblige rechercher des espaces de confrontations d’idées pour sortir du marasme idéologique et politique actuel.

> Comment submitted by Francis Wilson (South Africa) on 1 March 2008

I have read the Blin-Marin paper… Clearly they are focusing on what seems to me likely to be the central problem of the 21st century.

… Apart from fleeting and quite inadequate references to ’globalisation’ (which is not defined in any way) there is almost no reference in the paper to the economic forces at work in the world today. How DOES one deal with a rapacious and anxious America that sees the oil trends and wishes to be sure that it and not China controls the Middle East oil fields? How does one move from war to markets where, as in Africa at present, different countries will pay the earth for the right to prospect a patch of ocean sea bed...$1.2 billion for each of three licenses issues recently by the Angolan govt to Chinese & Italian oil wallahs ?

Tantalising but quite inadequate reference to the European model which I think European authors should be much more upbeat about. Quite right to point to the Jean Monet approach. Absolutely correct, that is the way to go. Start with a specific problem like steel and build the structures you need. But one needs to recognise two things: a. That the background to all this was the horror of two world wars in the European cabbage patch and a determination to build structures of cooperation, riding a groundswell of political opinion that this was the right and necessary thing to do. In passing, we might pause to ask why this was not done at the treaty of Versailles. And b. That this EU process DID involve (admittedly by stealth) and gradually dilution of state power with a concomitant growth of the power of ’Bruxelles’.

In other words it is not enough to have internally democratic states talking to each other. One has to build structures of interaction w.r.t.specific issues which will, in turn, broaden the democratic base of the interacting states as a whole. I don’t think Blin & Martin make this point sufficiently strongly. In this context does the EU model really fall into one of the three listed in the middle of page 12. It was surely one which used economic linkages to build political co-operation. Is this Empire? Balance of Power? Collective Security? Bits of the latter two possibly, but something else as well surely?

The few concrete issues (pp 19 ff) are o.k. but I am not sure that they would all be at the top of my list. Is the "terrorist threat’ really more of a problem at a global level than the currently raging forest fire of HIV/AIDS, especially when combined with TB? Nuclear power certainly is an issue but your authors say nothing new or creative about it. Merely that it is a problem. What about looking at the kind of approach that the Oxford Research Group, for example, has done? Finding the actually decision makers in each country and getting them to meet each other and talk about what they are doing.

I have to say that I found the remarks on the last page disappointing....how many conflicts, crises, tensions are born from resentment ? George W. Bush’s attack on Iraq? The Sudanese government’s behavior in Darfur ? Mugabe’s assault on people trying to eke out a living on the fringes of urban Zimbabwe? Sure, there have been some serious resentments in world history: Hitler’s resentment of Versailles for one; the Irish trouble for most of the past 40 years for another. Bin Laden’s attack on the twin towers for a third. And where they exist they must be dealt with but they hardly form the central core of the challenges facing our world today and I think it makes a weak ending to the paper.

Finally, going back to the list on page 18, I think the very first point needs to separated into two: A. Defeating poverty. B. The environmental imperative to save our planet for us and for our children

As you see the paper has done what it set out to do: to get the reader thinking. And that is a great thing to have done.

> Comment submitted by Siddhartha (India) on 1 March 2008

I have stated that the following points may bear further looking into:
1. The role of ethics, values and spiritualities in creating the climate to create better governance. It is my feeling that the world of neo-liberal globalisation is quite a savage and cynical one, and offers an illusory notion of human fulfillment. Good governance also entails offering other notions of human well-being and fulfillment. The crisis of governance at all levels is also a crisis of spirituality, values of ethics and by extension, of conviction.

2. In my view we cannot advance to better governance without also offering a tentative outline of the paradigm of development we wish to embrace. The violence, the anarchy, the poverty and the ecological destruction of the planet is also largely a result of the neo-liberal paradigm.

3. I think it might be worthwhile to look at the notion of context-specific governance, which also attempts to build a new universalism.

4. How to implement the excellent insights and ideas on governance? Can we give flesh to governance by linking it to action-possibilities in series of concrete sectors? In the paper you have mentioned key sectoral topics like violence, poverty, etc.

> Comment submitted by Patrice Mompeyssin (France) on 15 February 2008

Usage de la force et gouvernance
L’usage de la force militaire permet d’atteindre des objectifs tactiques, opératifs (sur un théâtre) ou stratégiques (manoeuvre de pions sur un échiquier), mais pas de résoudre lui seul durablement des tensions graves entre des communautés humaines. Il doit être accompagné, coordonné, intégré des mesures politiques, de rétablissement de l’état de droit, économiques, sociales, etc. (dites de reconstruction). L’état final "politique" recherché de l’intervention doit être clairement établi.

L’écoulement du temps n’est pas le même pour les militaires, les politiques et les diplomates. Il faut du temps pour apaiser les haines et ressentiments. A terme, les parties adverses sont forcément amenées vivre en harmonie. Ce sera le cas en Palestine un jour (comme cela l’a été en Europe en 1945), mais les adversaires en présence sont coriaces dans la volonté d’en découdre.

La Charte de l’ONU me semble toujours valable. C’est son application qui pèche. Les opérations militaires actuelles de l’ONU sont peut être cependant la seule formule réaliste pour gagner ce temps nécessaire aux diplomates et politiques pour "cicatriser les blessures", même si cyniquement les parties adverses en jouent et en abusent souvent. L’exemple du Liban en 2006 est caractéristique. Un des adversaires avait sans doute atteint son objectif stratégique (reconnaissance de sa puissance) et n’avait aucun intérêt poursuivre, sinon prendre des coups inutiles. L’autre n’avait pas de solution militaire en vue. L’intervention internationale était donc un bon moyen de sortir de la crise au bénéfice de tous, y compris des populations civiles otages.

Imposer la paix ou appliquer le devoir d’ingérence sans l’accord préalable des parties implique d’en payer le prix en moyens engagés (donc en coûts financiers) et en vies humaines, sans garantie de succès, car nul ne sait prévoir les conséquences d’un conflit (il est toujours dangereux de "soulever le couvercle de la marmite"). Une intervention militaire est certainement utile (nécessaire, indispensable) au Darfour, mais il faut y aller avec un rapport de force très avantageux, la volonté d’utiliser celle-ci (des règles d’engagement robustes), et condition d’en sortir rapidement, ce qui n’est jamais certain. Le devoir d’ingérence humanitaire, si on arrive le faire admettre, doit être strictement encadré pour éviter les abus, ce qui a été souvent le cas dans l’Histoire.

En tout état de cause, il me semble y avoir une limite claire l’envoi de forces multinationales sur un théâtre. Des soldats ne doivent pas être mis dans une position où ils sont témoins impuissants de crimes contre l’humanité ou de génocide, au nom de la neutralité ou par manque de moyens, ce qui va souvent de pair, et se retrouver eux ensuite devant les tribunaux nationaux et internationaux.

Tout cela n’exclut pas bien sûr de poursuivre la réflexion et d’améliorer les conditions d’emploi des forces multinationales (meilleure réactivité en particulier).

> Comment submitted by Manfred Rosenberger (Allemagne) on 12 February 2008

1. La structure du document me paraît plus claire dans sa première partie (introduction, héritage historique, effet de rupture) que dans la partie principale.

2. "La structure tripartite" que vous proposez (objectifs=Constitution mondiale, éthique=charte des responsabilités, dispositif de mise en oeuvre = ???,) ne me semble pas assez développée.

3. L’Union européenne (bien que plusieurs fois mentionnée) et le "succès" incontestable de l’intégration de la plupart des états issus du tourbillon de la décomposition de l’Union soviétique, me semblent trop peu appréciés et respectés: le processus européen est - mon avis - devenu en quelque sorte le nouveau "contrat" dont vous constatez l’absence.

4. Concernant l’utilisation de la force/de la violence: on peut se plaindre de l’impuissance voire de l’incapacité des Nations Unies et de ses instances, mais la Charte de l’ONU (Chapitre V et Chapitre VII) on bien instauré un cadre reconnu pour l’utilisation légitime de la force, il faudrait au moins le rappeler. Le problème non résolu du comportement des Etats (respectant ou non ces règles selon les cas... cf. Etats Unis/Irak) ne changera pas en cas de "gouvernement mondial".

> Comment submitted by Jean-René Bachelet (France) on 11 February 2008

Le texte sur "la gouvernance mondiale", mériterait un commentaire plus développé et mieux étayé que celui que je vais vous faire.

D’abord 2 remarques dans l’usage des mots et des concepts.
- la première a trait l’emploi systématique de la notion de "violence institutionnelle". Je réaffirme pour ma part qu’il faut parler en l’occurrence de "capacité d’usage de la force".
- La deuxième a trait une réalité historique que l’on a baptisé "système westphalien". Ce système serait désormais résolument caduc. Pourtant, si l’on veut bien considérer qu’il s’agissait de l’équilibre des puissances en Europe, il me semble que cette notion d’équilibre, élargie la planète, est plus que jamais d’actualité. En effet, les prouesses technologiques, avec leur impact sur les conditions même de la vie sur terre, ont contribué faire prendre conscience d’une réalité cosmique: dans le monde et, singulièrement s’agissant de la vie sur notre planète, l’équilibre est la condition sine qua non de la pérennité du système. D’où la vogue de l’écologie qui est d’ailleurs ...la science des équilibres.

Qui ne voit que cette prise de conscience au regard de la technologie doit s’élargir aujourd’hui l’exercice du pouvoir, donc aux relations internationales? Si "gouvernance mondiale" veut dire dispositions propres assurer les grands équilibres géostratégiques et économiques entre états souverains, je suis d’accord. Si cela veut dire je ne sais quelle instance internationale, c’est un contresens historique. Cela étant dit, je suis surpris que l’on commence par l’éthique, alors même que l’on se réclame des pères fondateurs de l’Europe quant au modèle. Faut-il rappeler qu’ils ont commencé par la mise en commun des produits stratégiques par excellence de l’époque qu’étaient le charbon et l’acier?

Autrement dit, c’est par la mise en convergence d’intérêts communs que l’on a commencé bâtir cet espace de paix qu’est aujourd’hui (je n’ai pas dit " jamais"...) l’Europe. De même, je crois qu’il n’est d’autre voie aujourd’hui, sur notre planète désormais inéluctablement rétrécie, que dans la prise de conscience d’intérêts vitaux communs, exigeant un minimum d’orchestration commune: l’eau, l’air, la diversité biologique, le climat, l’énergie, en bref, l où nous parlions hier de la "survie de la nation", la "survie de la planète". Cela ne veut pas dire la fin des nations, bien au contraire.

Et l’on voit bien que cette notion d’équilibres vitaux est vouée s’élargir; ainsi, au lendemain du 11 septembre, j’étais naïvement convaincu que les Etats-Unis allaient en tirer la conclusion que rien n’était plus urgent que de s’atteler au problème posé en y associant, parité, dans une démarche inédite justifiée par l’universalité du péril, un maximum d’Etats, commencer, bien sûr, outre les Etats européens, par la Russie, la Chine, l’Inde, le Japon, le Brésil, etc.

Autrement dit, parmi les intérêts vitaux communs, il y a aussi la sécurité collective au regard des agressions humaines éventuelles. Pour cela, je ne vois pas que l’ONU soit disqualifiée. Certes, il faut sans doute élargir le cercle des membres permanents du conseil de sécurité. Mais elle me semble rester le lieu où pourra s’élaborer une véritable "écologie des relations internationales" dont je préférerais le concept celui de "gouvernance mondiale",

> Comment submitted by Pierre Calame (France) on 25 January 2008

[Quand vous dîtes que] “c’est bien connu que les pays démocratiques ne se font pas la guerre entre eux”, il me semble que c’est beaucoup plus controversé que cela. A force de “définitions strictes”, n’aboutit-on pas une tautologie du genre: “les pays qui ne veulent pas se faire la guerre ne se le font pas?”.De même, l’affirmation: ‘le problème épineux de la «paix démocratique» est qu’elle nécessite une communauté entièrement démocratique’ n’est pas clair: une «communauté entièrement démocratique» ne donnerait-elle pas une personne, une voix l’échelle mondiale?

[Sur la Constitution mondiale]:
La Constitution, c’est des objectifs, [il faut ajouter] une éthique (la Charte) et les méta concepts de la construction de dispositifs de travail pour chaque régime de gouvernance. Ici le trépied: objectifs/éthique/dispositifs de travail, permettrait de clarifier le propos. On peut réintroduire l’observation de notre Cahier de propositions "Refonder la gouvernance mondiale pour répondre aux défis du 21e siècle" :la «communauté internationale» a multiplié les objectifs sans aucun moyen de les atteindre, chacun donnant naissance une institution s’ajoutant aux autres. Mais il faut mieux expliquer en quoi notre notion de régimes de gouvernance rompt avec cette pratique.

[Avant la présentation des quelques problèmes concrets]:
…Il faudrait être plus systématique dans la présentation des régimes de gouvernance imaginables correspondant aux différents types de problèmes globaux. Et pour cela, il faut esquisser une certaine typologie des problèmes. On ne comprend pas bien la transition avec ce qui suit; tout est trop mis sur le même plan.

> Comment submitted by Ben Quiñones (Philippines) on 18 January 2008

The point where the paper posits the role of an ethical paradigm in a new architecture of global governance is the very foundation from which a new, solidarity economy can be articulated. Most economists view economy in terms of supply, demand, GDP, sectors, and prices. I tend to view economy in terms of stakeholders, especially the relationships among stakeholders where ethics could play a dynamic role, even a pivotal role in determining prices and the allocation of resources. It is such viewpoint that enables one to link economics to governance.

I fully agree that solidarity economy must take into account the global governance issue. In the context of the globalized world, governance of national economy is inextricably linked to governance of global economy. But how to link these two concepts? There seems to be a conceptual vacuum here that needs to be filled.

What we tried to do with the Asian Forum for Solidarity Economy is to define solidarity economy from the standpoint of governance. Thus, we define solidarity economy as a people and eco-centered governance of the socio-economic stakeholders (e.g investors, producers, technology generators, financiers, traders, consumers, ethics bearers, etc). The keywords are governance of/by stakeholders (for the benefit of mankind), and we narrowed down further our focus on two stakeholders - investors and enterprises, they being the major repositories of the world’s wealth. According to the Charter of Human Responsibilities, those who have been entrusted with greater resources also have greater social responsibility.

> Comment submitted by Dwain Epps (USA) on 13 January 2008

I liked the description of the historical development of international relations from the Treaty of Westphalia forward. I agree with the judgment that the present structure of global governance is not functioning. I share the ideological perspective of the authors. I agree that the mobilization of public opinion and trans-national movements and actions comprise one of the most positive components of the contemporary process of globalization (the ecology movement, the landmines campaign, etc.) I am also convinced that the notion of “Common Heritage” that emerged around the negotiations for the treaty on the Law of the Sea is an essential corrective to notions of unlimited national sovereignty and doctrines of national security. I believe that people must assume responsibility for one another, for the environment we share and for providing future generations with a positive inheritance.

So this far I can go with the authors. I have more difficulty however with their rather cavalier way of looking at the role of the state, of the need for a common understanding of the nature and rule of law and for international institutions to apply it. I do not believe that the state will wither away, and I think the authors don’t either, but on this they are not very clear. One of the problems of globalization today, as I see it, has been the systematic erosion of the power of states to protect the sovereignty of their people against exploitation by external (primarily) economic powers over which they have ho control and against whom they have no adequate defense. Who will assure the peoples of their rights to education, culture, economic well-being, freedom of thought and conscience and religion – all necessary for civil society to become aware of the world around them and its threats and opportunities, and to act upon this awareness – if not the state? I do not believe in the elimination of the notion of national (peoples’) sovereignty. I think it needs to be strengthened, but that the concept of what is the responsible nature of sovereignty needs to be further developed and strengthened.

I believe that the UN is a fragile, badly misused, but essential instrument for global governance – a place where the voices of both the states and the peoples can be heard and where the two can come together in the exercise of imagination and power.

I have been involved in a host of different NGO and think-tank efforts on global governance and UN reform along these lines. Unfortunately few have prospered. So, even though I differed to a degree with some the author’s analysis, I thought our ideas were close enough that I looked forward to what they were going to propose as an alternative. When I reached the end of their piece I was astonished and disappointed that they had nothing to offer but a rather fuzzy notion of World Federalism. That did not get us very far in the 1930s and is doing no better today.

 


Links
Contact
RSS RSS 2.0
World Governance Index
Proposal Papers
Dossiers and Documents
Document Database
Videos
Home Page
About Us
Front Page