One World, Many Peaces

Rise of the East, Reluctantly Rushed: The Decade in Review, Part Four

 

China and India are in the curious position of wanting to remain known as developing countries just as they begin to take center stage in global affairs, economically and politically. Over the course of the year, One World, Many Peaces has highlighted key trends and events relating to the rise of the East. However, not one in itself completely captures the paradox of this rise in terms of how reluctant these two superpowers are in taking their inevitable place, and how  rushed others are to have them do so. The bottom line is that having half the world's populations makes Asia as a whole more than important and less than avoidable.

 

But the rise of the East is not limited to China and India, although they are already starting to act like magnets of power, especially China. Japan has since the end of the Cold War turned into the greatest of Western allies in Asia and a powerhouse unto itself until the crisis of the 1990s, from which it is still recovering. The way to do so, its new premier seems to think, may be shifting primary its allegiance Eastwards. South Korea seems to be shaping up to be the country that will stick with the West come hell or high water, but even this is doubtful when it realizes the potentials of shifting. Each of these situations reinforces one thing: that the rise of the East is more reluctant than rushed.

 

The most peculiar case in the rise of the East remains Vietnam. It has been said that the U.S. belatedly won its war there when capitalism took over. The most dangerous case is still North Korea, where a military-first policy is in place. Pakistan's terrorist troubles are also a worrying destabilizing force, with the Kashmir region likely to be Balkanized. But it is precisely this complexity which brings to the East a dynamism which the West seems to have lost by falling in to the left-right pendulum swinging trap that leads nowhere but the past. To create the future, the world beginning with me and you must finds ways to take the rise of the East into account.

 

This conlcudes One World, Many Peaces' four-part weekly series "The Decade in Review," offering provocative closing and opening thoughts on the years 2000-2009. We will return on January 5, happy holidays and best New Year wishes!

 

The Future of International Relations and Global Negotiations: Lessons from Copenhagen

What was at stake in Copenhagen was not only the ecological future of our planet, but in many ways the future of how nation-states will and will not find ways to meet their needs, seek compromise and achieve common goals. The contentious round of climate change negotiations at Copenhagen, which have resulted in a "better than nothing" treaty, are a strong indication of how topic-based negotiations on a global level may take place in the 21st century. For better and worse. Is this one step away or closer to a world government?

Even though the conference took place under the auspices of the UNFCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change), hardly anyone-- participants or media pundits-- have mentioned the United Nations in its regards. Whether or not this more than hints that the U.N. may be very close to expiration date, as a standing-forum the U.N. shares many of the shortcomings of its League of Nations predecessor. Task-focused, results- oriented meetings like Copenhagen may be new wave of international relations, making it a laboratory for how unequal participants can (or cannot) reach a multilateral agreement instead of the bilateral agreements that have dominated world affairs since the 1990s. Ironically, the conference's sponsors include BMW and Honda.

Imagine if, after working out the major procedural kinks and staying vigilant to other ones, the Copenhagen process was used to address issues like world hunger, the global economy, disarmament, regional security and so on. Such ad-hoc, topical conventions could be compared to the Hague Conferences of the early 20th century, which were at least partially effective. They would not by definition constitute a world government, but if doing so is more effective, does it really matter? Perhaps the Copenhagen paradigm is the future and we are the current events creating it. 

For more on the Copenhagen conference, visit their official site.

For more on the UNFCC, visit their official site.

Food First, Everything Else Next: The Decade in Review, Part Three

Being eager to "save the planet" in its Copenhagen form is noble and necessary and all, but it remains more than a bit relevant to ask: who are you saving it for? The single most stunning piece of news this decade is, for me, that one billion people in the world are hungry. One billion, roughly one in six: think of your favorite five people in the world and, with yourself, one of them is hungry with little to hope for but still too weak to do anything else.

 

 

That the news came out halfway through 2009 only makes clear to what extent the situation has been building for years, if not decades. In Peace: A World History, I show that nutrition as the most basic component of corporeal peace is the basis for all other peaces. Far from the first to say so, food forms the basis of peace since time immemorial: Ancient Chinese sages and Ancient Greek philosophers each attested to the primacy of food in peace (and everything else, for that matter).

 

 

That hunger should persist as a worldwide problem is as atrocious as state-sanctioned slavery lasting till the late 19th century, and in other forms today. As is well known, the world's hungry are kept that way for lack of proper distribution, not production. Americans, we found out recently, waste about forty percent of their high-calorie diets on average. That's enough for about half the world's hungry, with the rest coming from removing the red tape and skimming in food aid, and sustainable local farming.  Easier said than done, of course, but worldwide hunger is worth more concerted effort and news coverage as a current event creating the absence of a future.

 

This decade's closing in two short weeks gives occaision to reflect upon it as well that which is about to open. In honor of this arbitrariness, One World, Many Peaces will run a four-part weekly series on Thursdays, "The Decade in Review," to offer provocative closing and opening. thoughts.

Two New Articles by Antony Adolf: 'Post-Islamophobia' and 'A Missile Shield by Any Other Name'

Two renowned news and commentary outlets have recently published articles by Antony Adolf, author of Peace: A World History, publisher and host of One World, Many Peaces: The Blog and The Podcast.

The first, George Mason University's History  News Network (HNN) released "Post-Islamophobia: How Cultural Integration can Prevent Terrorism and Build Peace." The second, Global Americana Institute's President Juan Cole's Informed Comment, released "A Missile Shield by Any Other Name: Is Obama's Global Military Strategy Taking Shape in Eastern Europe?" As current events, these article are aimed at shaping a better informed and more peaceful world. Here are excerpts from them and links.

"Post-Islamophobia: How Cultural Integration can Prevent Terrorism and Build Peace." On the History  News Network (HNN).

...Competing versions of local, regional, national and international histories can for example be reworked to be more inclusive, potentially stemming violence originating in the experience of exclusion. South Africa has probably taken the most proactive steps in this respect in recent times. Institutions like museums, galleries, sporting events, parades and holidays have for as long as we’ve known been consciously used in nation-building. The ethnic parades in Northern Ireland that have decreased in bloodshed and the religious monuments in Jerusalem that have increased in tensions are two cases in point. That they and the narratives they institutionalize and canonize can also be used in peacebuilding should be less of an innovation than it is. The opportunities for cultural integration they collectively offer exposes the minaret debate for its deliberate exclusivity. Perhaps the first step in systematizing and practicing cultural integration as a means of preventing terrorism and build peace at local, regional and global levels is to separate the nation and the state, just as John Locke did for religion and the state three centuries ago...

"A Missile Shield by Any Other Name: Is Obama's Global Military Strategy Taking Shape in Eastern Europe?" in Informed Comment.

...An agreement was announced by both Polish and U.S. high officials about the types, quantities and locations of advanced missile launchers and projectiles to be stationed in Poland. But they left two lecherously lingering questions about President Obama's global military goals as compared to his predecessor, particularly as to how different or similar they actually are and are likely to be. Campaign rhetoric and first Presidential steps are seemingly turning into a bait and switch. Having inked a SOFA deal with Poland, the Czech republic will be next, according to official sources, with the environmental summit in Copenhagen acting as an inconvenient cover. Romania’s contested elections make for fertile grounds for intervention, if they are not already the result...

Beware the Rise of Regionalism: The Decade in Review, Part Two

The past ten years have seen a staggering rise in what is now being called, rather benignly, regionalism: groups of geographically proximate countries that unite in an organization or agreement to pursue common goals. Sounds nice, doesn’t it? It is in one way, but in another regionalism is exactly what George Orwell warns us of in 1984. He turned out to be quite accurate in his depiction of totalitarian communism, how feasible is it for his nightmare to come true in our waking dreams?

 

 
Much more so than not, I would argue. Just weeks ago Asian nations agreed to extend the existing ASEAN organization (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) of ten nations into a much larger powerhouse including China. They are self-consciously taking as their model the European Union (EU) which has been operating on ever larger scales for decades. What these two organizations have in common is that their most basic goals are economic, with foreign policy and internal governance important too, but secondary. Of course, security trumps all at least in name.

 

 

In South America, the Organization of American States (OAS) of 35 chartered member-states has as its slogan "democracy for peace, security and development," more than hinting at its origins as a U.S.-instigated group aimed at stemming communist influence in the region during the Cold War. I guess the OAS won, except for Venezuela. Two regional organizations that have not fared so well in being ineffective are the African Union (AU) and the Arab League. The AU, unlike the EU and ASEAN, set out to be a political organization first and an economic and security one second. It hasn't worked. The Arab League's sole purpose was to destroy Israel, and that hasn’t worked either.

 

The only comparable arrangement in North America is the North American Free Trade Agreement between the U.S., Canada and Mexico, which does form the economic kernel that has lead to success in other cases of regionalism. So far, all these organizations (except the Arab League at first) have been too preoccupied with internal squabbles to think of actively targeting their rivals. As current events, these regional bodies which have taken an ever larger part of the world stage may in the future take it over, and run alongside rather than against the multipolar paradigm we encountered last Thursday.

 

This decade's closing in three short weeks gives occaision to reflect upon it as well that which is about to open. In honor of this arbitrariness, One World, Many Peaces will run a four-part weekly series on Thursdays, "The Decade in Review," to offer provocative closing and opening. thoughts