|
Our Global Neighborhood The report of the Commission on Global
Governance Chapter One -- A New World The collective power of people to
shape the future is greater now than ever before, and the need to exercise it
is more compelling. Mobilizing that power to make life in the twenty- first
century more democratic, more secure, and more sustainable is the foremost
challenge of this generation. The world needs a new vision that can galvanize
people everywhere to achieve higher levels of co- operation in areas of
common concern and shared destiny. Fifty years ago, international co-
operation, collective security, and international law were powerful concepts.
In 1945, world leaders met in San Francisco to sign the United Nations
Charter, a document expressing the universal hope that a new era in
international behaviour and governance was about to begin. The onset of the
cold war did not entirely smother that hope, but it greatly diminished its
fulfilment. As the cold war ended in 1989,
revolution in Central and Eastern Europe extended the movement towards
democratization and economic transformation, raising the prospect of a
strengthened commitment to the pursuit of common objectives through
multilateralism. The world community seemed to be uniting around the idea
that it should assume greater collective responsibility in a wide range of
areas, including security--not only in a military sense but in economic and
social terms as well--sustainable development, the promotion of democracy,
equity and human rights, and humanitarian action. In the three years since the idea for
the Commission on Global Governance was advanced by the Stockholm Initiative
and endorsed by leaders around the world, the mood has changed significantly.
Today, given such experiences as the Gulf War, the enormities of ethnic
cleansing in the Balkans, brutal violence in Somalia, and genocide in Rwanda,
there is far less assurance. And there is deepening disquiet over the
actions--and in some cases the inaction--of governments and of the United
Nations. Instead of coming together around a common vision of the way
forward, the world seems in danger of losing its way. The Concept
of Global Governance There is no alternative to working
together and using collective power to create a better world. Governance is the sum of the many ways
individuals and institutions, public and private, manage their common
affairs. It is a continuing process through which conflicting or diverse
interests may be accommodated and co- operative action may be taken. It
includes formal institutions and regimes empowered to enforce compliance, as
well as informal arrangements that people and institutions either have agreed
to or perceive to be in their interest. Examples of governance at the local
level include a neighbourhood co- operative formed to install and maintain a
standing water pipe, a town council operating a waste recycling scheme, a
multi- urban body developing an integrated transport plan together with user
groups, a stock exchange regulating itself with national government
oversight, and a regional initiative of state agencies, industrial groups,
and residents to control deforestation. At the global level, governance has
been viewed primarily as intergovernmental relationships, but it must now be
understood as also involving non- governmental organizations (NGOs),
citizens' movements, multinational corporations, and the global capital
market. Interacting with these are global mass media of dramatically enlarged
influence. When the United Nations system was
created, nation- states, some of them imperial powers, were dominant. Faith
in the ability of governments to protect citizens and improve their lives was
strong. The world was focused on preventing a third world war and avoiding
another global depression. Thus the establishment of a set of international,
intergovernmental institutions to ensure peace and prosperity was a logical,
welcome development. Moreover, the state had few rivals.
The world economy was not as closely integrated as it is today. The vast
array of global firms and corporate alliances that has emerged was just
beginning to develop. The huge global capital market, which today dwarfs even
the largest national capital markets, was not foreseen. The enormous growth
in people's concern for human rights, equity, democracy, meeting basic
material needs, environmental protection, and demilitarization has today
produced a multitude of new actors who can contribute to governance. All these emerging voices and institutions
are increasingly active in advancing various political, economic, social,
cultural, and environmental objectives that have considerable global impact.
Some of their agendas are mutually compatible; others are not. Many are
driven by positive concerns for humanity and the space it inhabits, but some
are negative, self- serving, or destructive. Nation- states must adjust to
the appearance of all these forces and take advantage of their capabilities. Contemporary practice acknowledges
that governments do not bear the whole burden of global governance. Yet
states and governments remain primary public institutions for constructive
responses to issues affecting peoples and the global community as a whole.
Any adequate system of governance must have the capacity to control and
deploy the resources necessary to realize its fundamental objectives. It must
encompass actors who have the power to achieve results, must incorporate
necessary controls and safeguards, and must avoid overreaching. This does not
imply, however, world government or world federalism. There is no single model or form of
global governance, nor is there a single structure or set of structures. It
is a broad, dynamic, complex process of interactive decision- making that is
constantly evolving and responding to changing circumstances. Although bound
to respond to the specific requirements of different issue areas, governance
must take an integrated approach to questions of human survival and
prosperity. Recognizing the systemic nature of these issues, it must promote
systemic approaches in dealing with them. Effective global decision- making thus
needs to build upon and influence decisions taken locally, nationally, and
regionally, and to draw on the skills and resources of a diversity of people
and institutions at many levels. It must build partnerships--networks of
institutions and processes--that enable global actors to pool information,
knowledge, and capacities and to develop joint policies and practices on
issues of common concern. In some cases, governance will rely
primarily on markets and market instruments, perhaps with some institutional
oversight. It may depend heavily on the co- ordinated energies of civil
organizations and state agencies. The relevance and roles of regulation,
legal enforcement, and centralized decision- making will vary. In appropriate
cases, there will be scope for principles such as subsidiarity, in which
decisions are taken as close as possible to the level at which they can be
effectively implemented. The creation of adequate governance
mechanisms will be complicated because these must be more inclusive and
participatory--that is, more democratic--than in the past. They must be
flexible enough to respond to new problems and new understanding of old ones.
There must be an agreed global framework for actions and policies to be
carried out at appropriate levels. A multifaceted strategy for global
governance is required. This will involve reforming and
strengthening the existing system of intergovernmental institutions, and
improving its means of collaboration with private and independent groups. It
will require the articulation of a collaborative ethos based on the
principles of consultation, transparency, and accountability. It will foster
global citizenship and work to include poorer, marginalized, and alienated
segments of national and international society. It will seek peace and
progress for all people, working to anticipate conflicts and improve the
capacity for the peaceful resolution of disputes. Finally, it will strive to
subject the rule of arbitrary power--economic, political, or military--to the
rule of law within global society. Effective global governance along
these lines will not be achieved quickly: it requires an enormously improved
understanding of what it means to live in a more crowded, interdependent
world with finite resources. But it does provide the beginning of a new
vision for humanity, challenging people as well as governments to see that
there is no alternative to working together and using collective power to
create a better world. This vision of global governance can only flourish,
however, if it is based on a strong commitment to principles of equity and
democracy grounded in civil society. It is our firm conclusion that the
United Nations must continue to play a central role in global governance.
With its universality, it is the only forum where the governments of the
world come together on an equal footing and on a regular basis to try to
resolve the world's most pressing problems. Every effort must be made to give
it the credibility and resources it requires to fulfil its responsibilities. Vital and central though its role is,
the UN cannot do all the work of global governance. But it may serve as the
principal mechanism through which governments collaboratively engage each
other and other sectors of society in the multilateral management of global
affairs. Over the years, the UN and its constituent bodies have made vital
contributions to international communication and co- operation in a variety
of areas. They continue to provide a framework for collaboration that is
indispensable for global progress. But both the United Nations itself and the
broader UN system need to be reformed and revitalized, and this report addresses
these needs in the context of the new world that has emerged. The first challenge for us as a
Commission is to demonstrate how changes in the global situation have made
improved arrangements for the governance of international affairs imperative,
and to point to the concepts and values that should underpin these
arrangements so they may produce a world order that is better able to promote
peace and progress for all the world's people. That is what we attempt to do
in the first two chapters of this report. It is against this background that
we offer the substantive recommendations set out in the subsequent chapters. The
Phenomenon of Change Never before has change come so rapidly, on such a global scale,
and with such global visibility. Nelson Mandela's inauguration as
President of the Republic of South Africa in May 1994 marked the virtual
completion of a major transformation of modern times. The enfranchisement of
South Africa's black population may be seen as part of the final phase in the
liberation from colonialism and its legacy. This process has nearly
quadrupled the world's sovereign states and fundamentally altered the nature
of world politics. One effect of World War II was to
weaken the traditional great powers of Europe--the United Kingdom and France--and
so trigger a fundamental shift in the relative standing of world powers and
the structure of world politics. Just as important was the role of the war in
the collapse of the old colonial order. The most important development of the
last five decades may be the emergence of new economic and political powers
out of the developing world. In a relatively short time, countries such as
India and Indonesia have become significant regional powers. For countries
such as Brazil and China the path has been different, but the result the
same. To comprehend the immensity of these changes, just imagine the
difference between the delegates present in San Francisco and those who would
be present--and the influence they would exercise--if such a conference were
convened in 1995, or how different the Security Council would be if it were
created from scratch today. The transformation from colonialism
was accompanied--indeed, it was fuelled--by a revolution in communication.
Thirty years before Mandela made the transition from liberation leader to
head of government before a global audience, no satellites carried images of
the trial at which he was sentenced to life imprisonment. Over the years of
struggle, the communications media revealed, and to some degree reinforced,
progress towards liberation. In 1945, as the delegates of fifty countries
assembled to form the United Nations, television itself was in its infancy.
Many people probably had no idea what had happened in San Francisco. In the
fifty years since then, the revolution in communications has quickened the
pace of interaction and strengthened the imperative of response. The last few decades have also
witnessed extraordinary growth in global industrial and agricultural
productivity, with profound social consequences. Among these have been
migration and urbanization that in turn have upset traditional household
structures and gender roles. The same forces have depleted non- renewable
natural resources and produced environmental pollution. They also first
subdued and subsequently reinforced ethnicity, nationality, and religion as
sources of identity and the focus of political commitment. The very tendencies that now require
and even facilitate the development of global governance have also generated
obstacles to it. For example, the perceived need for co- operation between
developing states--whether through regional organizations or such broader
groups as the Non- Aligned Movement or the Group of 77--had to contend with
the strong nationalism and regard for sovereignty borne out of independence
struggles. The Commission believes that such contradictions can be resolved,
and that this may best be achieved through a system of global governance that
includes the whole range of associations and interests--both local and global,
formal and informal--that exist today. Globalization Deregulation, interacting with
accelerating changes in communications and computer technology, has
reinforced the movement towards an integrated global market. The changing
patterns of economic growth of the last few decades have produced new poles
of dynamism. Germany and Japan, vanquished in World War II, have dislodged
the United Kingdom and France in economic league tables. The European Union
matches the United States as an economic power. New areas of economic
vibrancy are appearing in Latin America. The striking performance of the four
Asian 'tigers' and of China, with countries such as India and Indonesia not
far behind, is shifting the world centre of economic gravity. Developments such as these are even
shifting the meaning of traditional terms and rendering many of them less
useful. There is no longer an East to be juxtaposed against the West. With
the abandonment of communism, capitalism has become even more of an omnibus
term that hides important distinctions between different ways of organizing
market economies. Similarly, the North- South dichotomy is becoming less
sharp. And the problems of Africa are now strikingly different from those of
South- east Asia or South America. More and more, it is disparities within
nations and regions, both North and South, no less than the disparities among
nations and blocs that reveal injustice and cause insecurity. The term globalization has been used
primarily to describe some key aspects of the recent transformation of world
economic activity. But several other, less benign, activities, including the
drug trade, terrorism, and traffic in nuclear materials, have also been
globalized. The financial liberalization that seems to have created a
borderless world is also helping international criminals and creating
numerous problems for poorer countries. Global co- operation has eradicated
smallpox. And it has eliminated tuberculosis and cholera from most places,
but the world is now struggling to prevent the resurgence of these
traditional diseases and to control the global spread of AIDS. Technological advances have made
national frontiers more porous. States retain sovereignty, but governments
have suffered an erosion in their authority. They are less able, for example,
to control the transborder movement of money or information. They face the
pressures of globalization at one level and of grassroots movements and, in
some cases, demands for devolution if not secession at another. In the
extreme case, public order may disintegrate and civil institutions collapse
in the face of rampant violence, as in Liberia and Somalia. Mounting evidence indicates that human
activities have adverse--and sometimes irreversible--environmental impacts,
and that the world needs to manage its activities to keep the adverse
outcomes within prudent bounds and to redress current imbalances. The links
among poverty, population, consumption, and environment and the systemic
nature of their interactions have become clearer. So has the need for
integrated, global approaches to their management and world- wide embrace of
the discipline of sustainable development counselled by the World Commission
on Environment and Development and endorsed at the June 1992 Earth Summit.
The call is for fundamental changes in the traditional pattern of development
in all countries. The Need for
Vision The last fifty years have radically
and rapidly transformed the world and the agenda of world concern. But this
is not the first generation to live on the cusp of a great transformation.
The turbulence of the last decade is not unlike those that accompanied the
rise of Islam in the century following the death of the Prophet, the European
colonization of the Americas after 1492, the onset of the Industrial Revolution
in the eighteenth century, and the creation of the contemporary international
system in this century. Yet there is a distinction between the contemporary
experience of change and that of earlier generations: never before has change
come so rapidly--in some ways, all at once--on such a global scale, and with
such global visibility. A time of change when future patterns
cannot be clearly discerned is inevitably a time of uncertainty. There is
need for balance and caution--and also for vision. Our common future will
depend on the extent to which people and leaders around the world develop the
vision of a better world and the strategies, the institutions, and the will
to achieve it. Our task as a Commission is to enlarge the probability of
their doing so by suggesting approaches to the governance of the global,
increasingly interdependent human society. Military
Transformations The strategic terrain is now sharply different from what it was
even five years ago. On 6 August 1945, the United States
dropped the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima. The death toll, some 140,000 by
the end of 1945, was to rise to around 227,000 by 1950--all from a single
explosion that was small and primitive by current standards of nuclear
weaponry. From then onward, the destructive power of nuclear weapons
increased exponentially, and the world lived with the possibility that life
on earth could end in one apocalyptic blast. During the past fifty years, trillions
of dollars have been spent on weapons that have never been used, chiefly by
the United States and the Soviet Union. It has been argued that nuclear
weapons prevented the bitter rivalry between these two countries from
erupting in a full- scale war between them. It cannot, however, be denied
that the development of nuclear arms brought enormous risks for humanity
while absorbing money that could have supported worthier, life- enhancing
purposes. Nuclear weapons came to be seen as a
badge of great- power status and a potential shield against a hostile world.
All the permanent members of the Security Council felt it necessary to
acquire their own nuclear capabilities. Several other countries also invested
heavily in developing the ability to produce these weapons: Argentina,
Brazil, India, Iraq, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, and South Africa. Others
are widely believed to have started on the same road. And there has been a
further dispersion of nuclear weapons material and technology following the
breakup of the Soviet Union. At the same time, there were large-
scale sales of conventional weapons, particularly to developing countries.
The Third World became increasingly militarized, drawing funds away from
vitally needed economic and social development. A New Arms
Race The lessening of tensions in the 1980s
between the United States and the Soviet Union started a process that led to
dramatic reductions in the nuclear stockpiles of these countries. But the end
of the East- West confrontation does not stop the spread of nuclear weapons:
as long as these weapons exist, the risk of their use remains. The world may, in fact, be on the
verge of a new race to acquire weapons of mass destruction. These include
biological and chemical weapons in addition to nuclear ones. The new arms
race could also involve more countries. Even non- state entities--drug
syndicates, political movements, terrorist groups--could join it. A much
wider range of interests and motives will have to be taken into account in
efforts to discourage proliferation, and the factors to be considered in
plans to deter the use of weapons of mass destruction will be vastly more
complicated. There will also be higher risks of accidental war as the number
of countries with these weapons rises. In all these respects, the strategic
terrain is now sharply different from what it was even five years ago. But
weapons of mass destruction are only one factor in the global military
equation. And for most people, they are still an abstract and distant threat
compared with the threat that conventional arms pose. The Arms
Trade The period since 1945 may be regarded
as a long peace only in the restricted sense that there has been no war
between major powers. In other respects, and for much of the world, it has
been a period of frequent wars. In a few of these, the United States and the
Soviet Union were directly involved; in many others, their support was a key
factor. By one estimate, between 1945 and 1989
there were 138 wars, resulting in some 23 million deaths. But military force
was also used elsewhere, without an actual war breaking out, as in Hungary in
1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968, and Grenada in 1983. The Korean War, which
caused 3 million deaths, and the Vietnam War, which killed 2 million people,
were the most deadly conflicts. All 138 wars were fought in the Third World,
and many were fuelled by weapons provided by the two major powers or their
allies. Between 1970 and the end of the cold
war in 1989, weapons worth $168 billion were transferred to the Middle East,
$65 billion worth went to Africa, $61 billion to the Far East, $50 billion to
South Asia, and $44 billion to Latin America (all in 1985 dollars). The
Soviet Union and the United States accounted for 69 per cent of the $388
billion total. The surfeit of weapons, especially small arms, left over from
this era is a key enabling factor in many conflicts now scarring the world. Yet the arms trade continues. Although
the demand for arms has declined as many countries face economic difficulties
or feel less threatened since the end of the cold war, those that are buying
find many countries eager to sell. The five permanent members of the Security
Council provide 86 per cent of the arms exported to developing countries. In
1992, the United States alone accounted for 46 percent of the deliveries of
weapons to these states. For arms exporters--the United States, Russia,
United Kingdom, France, and Germany are the top five--strategic
considerations now matter less than protecting jobs and industrial bases. And
the huge research and development costs of major weapons often mean that even
the largest domestic market cannot guarantee a profit. The Rise in
Civil Conflict In each of the last few years, at
least thirty major armed conflicts--defined as those causing more than 1,000 deaths
annually--have been in progress. Many have gone on for several years. Each
has its own historic origins and proximate causes. Structural factors at the
regional or global level are significant in many conflicts. The wars of
Afghanistan and Angola are direct legacies of cold war power politics. Other
conflicts, including those in Azerbaijan, Bosnia, Georgia, and Somalia, were
in different ways precipitated by the end of the cold war and the collapse of
old regimes. In many cases, structural factors have combined with tension
across social cleavages, whether ethnic, religious, economic, or political,
to fuel antagonisms. Personal ambitions and missed opportunities have played
some part. The risks of war between states have
not been eliminated, and several sources of discord that could spark
interstate war remain. Flashpoints have existed in many regions; the
dissolution of the Soviet Union, leaving troublesome sources of contention
between some of its successor republics, may have added to these. Meanwhile,
it is conflicts originating within national polities--in Yemen, Rwanda, and
the former Yugoslavia, for example--that have posed a formidable new
challenge to the world community. Until recently, the United Nations has
had very little to do with these conflicts. The peace and security provisions
of the UN Charter were designed to deal with wars between states, and it was
not envisaged that the UN would intervene in the domestic affairs of
sovereign states. But the United Nations is under public pressure to take
action when violent strife within countries leads to extensive human
suffering or threatens the security of neighbouring countries. Widespread
Violence A disturbing feature of the
contemporary world is the spread of a culture of violence. Civil wars
brutalize thousands of young people who are drawn into them. The systematic
use of rape as a weapon of war has been an especially pernicious feature of
some conflicts. Civil wars leave countless weapons and a legacy of continuing
violence. Several political movements ostensibly dedicated to the liberation
of people have taken to terrorism, showing scant regard for the lives of
innocent civilians, including those in whose name they are fighting. Violence
is sometimes perceived as an end in itself. The ascendance of the military in many
countries has contributed to an ethos inimical to human rights and democratic
values. In some societies, the trade in narcotics has been responsible for
raising the general incidence of violence. Russia and some parts of Eastern
Europe have seen a surge of violence as criminal syndicates seek to exploit
the new freedoms. Widespread criminalization can threaten the very
functioning of a state. In the United States, the easy availability of
weapons goes with a startling level of daily killings. Ethnic violence in
several parts of the world has shown extreme savagery. Conflict and violence also leave deep
marks on the lives of children, innocent victims who are rarely able to rid
themselves of the legacy of war. The culture of violence is perpetuated in
everyday life. Violence in the home, particularly against women, has long
been an underestimated phenomenon, both widespread and tolerated, and part of
both the roots and the consequences of violence within and between societies.
The world over, people are caught in vicious circles of disrespect for the
life and integrity of others. A hopeful scenario portrays the
present level of violence as a transitional phenomenon. In this view, the
world is likely to become much more peaceful and secure for most of its
inhabitants once it recovers from the disruptions caused by the sudden end of
the cold war. Another scenario envisages a world divided into two: a
prosperous and secure part that would include most of Western and Central
Europe, East Asia, and North America, and a larger part of impoverished and
violently conflicted territories without stable governments, which would
include large areas of Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia and possibly
bits of Central and South America. In a third scenario, the entire world
would be engulfed in spreading violence, and large areas would become
ungovernable. Crime, drug abuse, high unemployment, urban stress, economic
mismanagement, and ethnic tensions would lead to low- level violence or graver
conflict in regions and cities throughout the world. In this view, the
Chiapas rebellion in Mexico, the Los Angeles riots, the murders of
journalists and academics in Algeria, and the appearance of neo- fascist
movements in Europe--different though they are in character and scale--bode
ill for their respective societies and the world as a whole. Unless the optimism of the first
scenario is borne out--even if the world does not move fully towards the
forbidding situations projected in the other two scenarios--global governance
faces a grave test. Economic
Trends The dazzling performance of several developing countries has
tended to blur the relentless growth in the number of the very poor. At the end
of World War II, the United States, as the world's only thriving industrial
economy, was thrust into an unparalleled position of economic leadership.
From the early days of the war, U.S. and British officials set about
designing a set of international institutions to promote economic recovery,
full employment, free trade, and economic stability. The United Nations
Relief and Rehabilitation Administration, the Bretton Woods institutions, and
the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, together with the Marshall Plan
launched by the United States to revive Europe, helped lay the foundation for
the most rapid and sustained expansion of the international economy in
history. The driving force of the long post-
war boom was the private sector. Major extractive, service, and manufacturing
firms in Europe and North America had already developed a substantial
international presence during the first half of the century. After 1945, the
weight of these transnational corporations (TNCs) in the world economy grew
as the pioneers matured and were joined by Japanese and subsequently by other
Asian and Latin American enterprises. Complementing these were a number of
massive state- owned firms, mostly in the energy and service sectors.
Together and often through joint ventures, these transnational firms extended
and intensified industrialization and brought about a globalization of
production, trade, and investment that dramatically increased world economic
interdependence. At the same time, however, it increased the vulnerability of
the weak through uneven distribution of gains and pressures on natural
resources. From the early 1950s, the world's
output grew at a historically unprecedented rate. During the four decades up
to 1990, real output increased fivefold. The benefits of economic expansion
were especially obvious in Western industrial countries. In one generation
after 1950, per capita income increased in most of Europe as much as it had
during the previous century and a half. A tide of new consumer goods flooded
U.S. and European markets, transforming societies that only recently had
suffered the hardships of the Great Depression and the ravages of World War
II. The quality of life improved dramatically. Particularly in Europe,
extensive social security systems were constructed. The welfare state, with
widely accessible, high- quality health care and enlarged educational
opportunities, appeared. In many countries, unemployment was kept at very low
levels. Many developing countries also
achieved higher growth rates than those in the already industrialized world.
Great strides were made in combating hunger and disease, improving sanitary
conditions, and providing education. The gains, however, were not equally
shared. Some groups began to enjoy vastly increased prosperity while others
languished in poverty. Since the 1970s, a succession of
challenges has shaken confidence in the post- war order and slowed growth in
many countries. A series of shocks--including the US government's 1971
decision to sever the dollar- gold link and the dramatic rise in oil prices
starting in 1973--signalled the end of the easy growth years. At the end of
the decade, recession in the industrial countries and anti- inflationary
policies precipitated a sharp rise in real interest rates. Mexico's declared
inability to service its debt in 1982 marked the onset of a debt crisis that
engulfed much of Latin America and also Africa, where it aggravated already
deep economic problems. Many countries were caught in a debt
trap, unable to maintain interest payments, let alone repay debt, public or
private. Investment and imports were curtailed, exacerbating the difficulties
of growing out of debt. Growth rates fell sharply, with average income per
head actually falling on the two continents. Africa is today poorer than at
the start of the 1970s. Everywhere, the poor suffered greatly from falling
real incomes and rising unemployment. The 'lost decade' of development--for
some, actually a 'lost generation'--had roots both in domestic conditions and
the international economic environment. Economic policies that were too inward-
looking left countries unable to respond to external shocks, and proved
unsustainable. Inadequate global economic governance both contributed to the
crisis and, perhaps worse, postponed its resolution. Most countries have
faced up to the crisis by introducing difficult and often painful structural
adjustment programmes. Some, but not all, have as a result reversed economic
decline. With policies for macro- economic stability and a market- driven
recovery, a number of middle- income countries are experiencing a revival in
economic strength. The crisis, especially in terms of human development, is
still far from over, but most countries have a better sense of what could
lead to sustainable economic development. At the same time, some developing
countries had a radically different, much more positive experience during the
1980s. Particularly in Asia, a number of countries weathered adverse trends
and in fact benefited from strong demand in the industrial world, achieving
high levels of export- led growth. In the wake of the spectacular economic
success of Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan, many other
developing countries, including some of the world's most populous--China,
Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand in Asia; Brazil, Chile, and Mexico in Latin
America-- achieved several years of high, sometimes double- digit, growth.
The Indian subcontinent, home to more than a billion people, has also shown
greater economic vigour. These developments are not uniformly benefiting all
people. Sustained growth, however, is providing greater opportunities for
many millions, and is fundamentally transforming global economic relations. Persistent
Poverty The dazzling performance of several
developing countries in Asia has tended to blur a less admirable aspect of
the economic changes of the post- war world: the relentless growth in the
number of the very poor. Though the global economy has expanded fivefold in
the last four decades, it has not rooted out dire poverty or even reduced its
prevalence. Even some otherwise successful countries have not managed to
eliminate poverty. The entrenchment of poverty is borne
out by the fact that the number of people falling in the World Bank's
category 'the absolute poor' had climbed to 1.3 billion in 1993. This level
of poverty spells acute destitution; it is life at the edge of existence. For
the absolute poor, for example, a nearby source of safe drinking water is a
luxury; in several countries--Bhutan, Ethiopia, Laos, Mali, Nigeria--less
than half the population has even this. Geographical, gender, and age
distributions of poverty also deserve attention. By the late 1980s, the
chronically undernourished in Asia had fallen to 19 per cent of the
population, half the level of two decades earlier. But the same twenty years
saw little change in Africa, where undernourishment continued to afflict
about a third of a rapidly growing population. Sub- Saharan Africa and South
Asia stand out as the poorest regions in the world today. In all, about 800
million people do not have sufficient and regular supplies of food. Such levels of poverty and
malnutrition are shocking. Equally shocking is the 'feminization' of poverty
and the ways in which these evils and their associated deprivations blight
the lives of children throughout the world. Women who enter the labour market
continue to receive less reward than men for equivalent work and to be
confined to stereotypical and low- status tasks. At the same time, their
unpaid work in the home and the field goes unrecognized, even though no
national economy could survive without it. Their low incomes are reinforced
by cultural patterns that place women behind men in the queues for food and
education in countries where these are scarce. A third of adults in the
developing world are illiterate; of these, two thirds are women. Deprivation is passed on to the next
generation. In low- income developing countries, seventy- three out of every
1,000 babies do not live until their first birthday. The rate of infant
mortality is ten times that in rich countries. Of the children that survive,
many do not receive an education. Just over 40 per cent of eligible children
attend secondary school. Absolute poverty provides scant basis
either for the maintenance of traditional society or for any further
development of participation in civic life and governance. Yet poverty is not
only absolute but relative. The destitution of perhaps a fifth of humanity
has to be set alongside the affluence of the world's rich. Even using income
data based on purchasing power parity (PPP) to correct for different price
levels in different countries, the poorest fifth earn less than one twentieth
as much as the richest fifth. Per capita incomes in the United States and
India, for instance, were $22,130 and $1,150 respectively in 1991 on a PPP
basis. Unfair in themselves, poverty and
extreme disparities of income fuel both guilt and envy when made more visible
by global television. They demand, and in recent decades have begun to
receive, a new standard of global governance. Eastern
Europe's Experience The collapse of the Soviet bloc has
opened up new opportunities for the people of Central and Eastern Europe.
Except in the already industrialized parts of Central Europe, the early years
of the Communist economic system did bring some improvement in economic and
social conditions. But politically motivated isolation from the world
community and world economy, combined with an emphasis on militarization and
heavy industry, eventually led to stagnation and decline. Efforts to secure
progress through command economies proved impossible to sustain and
environmentally disastrous. These people are now engaged in fundamental
transformations of their economies and integration into the European and
world economies. Transformation into successful market
economies is an extremely difficult process. The breakdown of old structures
has everywhere precipitated a severe decline in output. For many people, the
quality of life has deteriorated. The situation in Russia and Ukraine, as
evidenced by a dramatic rise in mortality and criminality, gives special
cause for concern. It is not clear yet that these countries will be able to
achieve the right combination of national liberation, shared responsibility,
and mutual respect and tolerance, or to strike the right balance between
radical transformation and stability or between market reform and political,
social, environmental, and other objectives. Nevertheless, signs of new economic
creativity are to be found everywhere in the region. Its countries, home to
more than 300 million people, possess both human and natural resources that
should enable them to develop relatively quickly once functioning market
institutions have been created. Their integration into the international
economy will increase competition on the world market. That may well cause
economic dislocation, for example in European agriculture. But there is also
much scope for mutually beneficial trade, not least with the dynamic Asian
economies and other parts of the developing world. If the transformation
finds sustainable forms, global economic relations could acquire a
fundamentally positive new dimension. Regional
Groups The emergence of regional economic
groups enlarges the prospect for a new geo- economic landscape. The uniting
of Europe has created a single regional economy that accounts for about 40
per cent of the world's imports and exports. As this integration proceeds,
the European Union will take on more and more of the global economic roles
and responsibilities traditionally shouldered by its member- states. The
North American Free Trade Agreement has brought into being another regional
body that could play an increasingly important role in the global economy. In Asia, the Association of South-
East Asian Nations now has a significant regional economic role, and there is
some prospect of an eventual emergence of a larger Asian economic community.
Asian and Pacific leaders recently formed the Asia- Pacific Economic Co-
operation forum, which will allow them to discuss common problems and develop
co- ordinated policies. There have also been moves to set up an East- Asian
Economic Caucus. Progress towards closer regional co-
operation has also been evident in recent years in Central America, the
Caribbean, and South America, where democratization and new initiatives have
revived established forums and fostered new ones such as MERCOSUR and the
Association of Caribbean States. Elsewhere--in South Asia and
Africa--regional arrangements have fared less well or failed to emerge. In
Europe, there is debate about the speed and scope of integration, including
its extension to Central and Eastern Europe and Mediterranean countries. It is also unclear whether regional
organizations will become building blocks of a more balanced global economic
order or degenerate into instruments of a new protectionism that divides the
world. It is therefore important that they become an integral part of a more
democratic system of global governance. The Private
Sector Another phenomenon of recent years that
holds immense but as yet unclear consequences for the evolution of global
governance is the burgeoning of private enterprise. The demands created
during two world wars and the general economic dislocation brought about by
war and depression resulted in massive state intervention during the first
half of the twentieth century even in countries most strongly committed to
free enterprise. Twice in a generation, world business leaders became civil
servants entrusted with the management of military and civilian supplies by
warring states. This experience left its mark on the
attitudes of policy makers towards the private sector in industrial and
developing countries alike after 1945. Economic policy makers were confident
of their ability to guide and regulate market forces for the public good.
This was reflected in the economic policies adopted by most industrial
countries to stimulate growth and improve living and working conditions. It
was also revealed in the institutions created by the architects of the post-
war order to govern the international economy; in ambitious strategies of
import substitution adopted by India, Mexico, and Brazil; and in the
restrictive systems of regulation imposed on foreign- owned firms in these
and many other developing economies. But the extensive movement in favour
of market- driven approaches since the end of the 1970s has recast
transnational corporations into mobilizers of capital, generators of
technology, and legitimate international actors with a part to play in an
emerging system of global governance. Many TNCs now manufacture on several
continents, buying and selling world- wide. Numerous consumer products and
brand names have become ubiquitous. The change in the economic policy
environment has also helped many vigorous small entrepreneurs emerge,
particularly in developing countries. This is another facet of the trend
towards greater empowerment world- wide. Social and
Environmental Change People are beginning to assert their
right to participate in their own governance. Along with political and economic
transformations, the past five decades have seen far- reaching social and
environmental change. Rapid population growth has been accompanied by many
changes in the way people live as increasing economic activity has helped
raise living standards and spread literacy. The media, aided by new
technology to become pervasive in its reach, reflects some of these changes
and influences others. Increasing population and economic
growth have placed additional pressure on natural resources and the
environment, and the management of both demographic and economic change to
safeguard the interests of future generations has become an issue of
paramount importance. As significant as these changes is the
increasing capacity of people to shape their lives and to assert their
rights. The empowerment of people is reflected in the vigour of civil society
and democratic processes. These point to the potential of human creativity
and co- operation, both vital to meet the many challenges--security,
economic, environmental, social--that the world faces and that governance
must address. Population More than twice as many people inhabit
the earth today as when the post- war era began. Indeed, more people have
been added to the world's population in the past five decades than in all the
previous millennia of human existence. Although the rate at which population
is growing has been slowing for some time, annual additions remain high,
reaching a near- peak level of 87 million in 1993. In 1950, by comparison,
only 37 million people were added to the global total. The fertility of the earth and farm
technology--new seeds, fertilizer, pesticides, machines, irrigation--have so
far prevented a Malthusian crisis in which numbers completely outstrip the ability
of humankind to feed itself. As highlighted at the 1994 International
Conference on Population and Development, the prospect of continuing
demographic growth raises disturbing questions. These are not just about food
supplies, though in some parts of the world rising population is contributing
to growing food insecurity. They are also about the capacity of the earth to
withstand the impact of human consumption as numbers multiply if present
trends of rising economic activity and rising consumption continue unchanged.
The distribution of future expansion is also worrying: the fastest population
growth will be in Africa, both the poorest and ecologically the most fragile
of regions. UN demographers now believe world
population growth will slow much more gradually than they had expected. In
1982, they thought global population would reach a peak of 10.2 billion at
the end of the next century. Now they say that it could go on climbing for
another century and more, until it hits 11.6 billion. Developing countries
already have 78 per cent of the people in the world; as much as 94 per cent
of the current increase is also taking place in these countries. Their cities
will face severe strains as more and more people leave rural areas that
cannot support them. These countries are urbanizing much faster than today's
industrial ones did at a comparable stage in their development. They are also urbanizing faster than
they are industrializing. Cities are attracting people ahead of their
economic capacity to provide jobs, homes, water, sanitation, and other basic
services. This is the road to urban squalor, with social tensions, crime, and
other problems to follow. Large cities have long ceased to be exclusive to
industrially advanced countries. By 1960, three of the ten largest cities in
the world were in developing countries. By the end of the 1990s, these states
will have as many as eighteen of the twenty- four cities with more than 10
million people. The problems are much more acute in the rapidly growing
cities of the developing world. The city is a vital subject of all levels of
governance. Global governance has an important contribution to make in
tackling causes of excessively rapid population growth and urbanization, and
in strengthening regional, state, and local capacities to cope with their
consequences. The Earth's
Resources Rapid growth in population is closely
linked to the issue of environmental security through the impact that people
have on the earth's life- supporting resources. Evidence has accumulated of
widespread ecological degradation resulting from human activity: soils losing
fertility or being eroded, overgrazed grasslands, desertification, dwindling
fisheries, disappearing species, shrinking forests, polluted air and water.
These have been joined by the newer problems of climate change and ozone
depletion. Together they threaten to make the earth less habitable and life
more hazardous. Both the rate at which and the way key
resources are used are critical factors in determining environmental impact.
Industrial countries account for a disproportionate use of non- renewable
resources and energy. Despite a substantial rise in energy use in developing
countries in recent decades, per capita consumption of fossil fuels in
industrial countries is still nine times as high. With less than a fourth of
the world's people, industrial countries (including Eastern Europe and the
former Soviet Union) accounted for 72 per cent of the world's use of fossil
fuels in 1986-90. The pattern for key metals shows even larger disparities.
Developing countries use only 18 per cent of the copper consumed each year,
for example, and per capita use in industrial countries is seventeen times as
high as in developing ones. In developing countries, the main
environmental pressure is linked to poverty. Poor people press on the land
and forests, over- exploiting them to survive and undermining the resource
base on which their well- being and survival depend. These countries must be
helped to climb out of poverty and so ease pressure on their habitat. But as
they become less poor, their living standards and therefore consumption
levels will rise. The world must find ways to ensure they can do so without
endangering environmental safety. They must have access to technologies that
use fewer resources, such as energy- saving technologies. To keep global
resource use within prudent limits while the poor raise their living
standards, affluent societies need to consume less. Population, consumption, technology,
development, and the environment are linked in complex relationships that
bear closely on human welfare in the global neighbourhood. Their effective
and equitable management calls for a systemic, long- term, global approach
guided by the principle of sustainable development, which has been the
central lesson from the mounting ecological dangers of recent times. Its
universal application is a priority among the tasks of global governance. Global Media Innovations in communications
technology, in addition to driving economic globalization, have also
transformed the media world and the spread of information, with important
consequences for national as well as global governance. This began with radio
broadcasting in the 1940s and has since been extended through television and
satellite transmission to give even those in remote places immediate access
to sound and images from a wider world. In some countries, new communications
systems have even brought people news of domestic events that is not
available locally. Direct- dial international telephone and fax services have
swelled the transborder flow of news and other messages. Another important
development has been the sharing of information through links between
computers around the world. Exposure through the media to foreign
cultures and life- styles can be both stimulating and destabilizing; it can
inspire both appreciation and envy. Concern that the dominance of
transnational media could result in cultural homogenization and could damage
indigenous cultures is not limited to non- Western countries. Many people are
worried that media images will strengthen the consumerist ethos in societies
in the early stages of development. There are questions about distortion and
imbalance as the world's news is filtered predominantly through Western prisms,
and dissatisfaction that information flows from and within the developing
world are inadequate. Apprehension about concentration in media ownership is
linked to worries that this sector's power to shape the agenda of political
action may not be matched by a sense of responsibility. These varied concerns
have given rise to the suggestion that civil society itself should try to
provide a measure of global public service broadcasting not linked to
commercial interests. The wider access to information has been
healthy for democracy, which gains from a better- informed citizenry, as well
as beneficial for development, scientific and professional collaboration, and
many other activities. The wide linkages now facilitated can also help pull
the world's people closer together. Media images of human suffering have
motivated people to express their concern and their solidarity with those in
distant places by contributing to relief efforts and by demanding
explanations and action from governments. The media's influence on the
shaping of foreign policy is considerable in many countries. Although there has been a spectacular
expansion in the reach of some communications media, serious imbalances
remain in access to information and in the distribution of even the most basic
technology. Two billion people--more than one in three individuals in the
world--still lack electricity. In 1990, Bangladesh, China, Egypt, India,
Indonesia, and Nigeria together had fewer telephone connections than Canada,
which has only 27 million people. These disparities are repeated in the
ownership of communications satellites, the key to media globalization. Agents of
Change in Civil Society Among the important changes of the
past half- century has been the emergence of a vigorous global civil society,
assisted by the communications advances just described, which have
facilitated interaction around the world. This term covers a multitude of
institutions, voluntary associations, and networks--women's groups, trade
unions, chambers of commerce, farming or housing co- operatives,
neighbourhood watch associations, religion- based organizations, and so on.
Such groups channel the interests and energies of many communities outside
government, from business and the professions to individuals working for the
welfare of children or a healthier planet. Important non- governmental
organizations and movements have existed for as long as the modern state. But
the size, diversity, and international influence of civil society
organizations have grown dramatically during the past five decades. The
spectacular flourishing of such organizations at first centred mainly on
industrial countries with high living standards and democratic systems. More
recently, such organizations have begun to blossom in developing countries
and in former Communist countries in Europe. The NGO community has changed with
shifts in economic and social patterns. Trade unions, which were among the
largest and most powerful NGOs nationally and internationally, have declined
somewhat with changes in industrial employment and trends towards free market
ideologies in labour relations, although their influence and membership
remains considerable in many countries. Conversely, issue- oriented mass
membership and specialist organizations have become much more numerous. All in all, citizens' movements and
NGOs now make important contributions in many fields, both nationally and
internationally. They can offer knowledge, skills, enthusiasm, a non-
bureaucratic approach, and grassroots perspectives, attributes that
complement the resources of official agencies. Many NGOs also raise
significant sums for development and humanitarian work, in which their
dedication, administrative efficiency, and flexibility are valuable
additional assets. NGOs have been prominent in advancing respect for human
rights and are increasingly active in promoting dispute settlement and other
security- related work. Growing awareness of the need for
popular participation in governance, combined with disenchantment with the
performance of governments and recognition of their limited capabilities, has
contributed to the growth of NGOs. The proliferation of these groups broadens
effective representation, and can enhance pluralism and the functioning of
democracy. Civil society organizations have attained impressive legitimacy in
many countries. Yet, some governments and powerful interests remain
suspicious of independent organizations, and issues of legitimacy and
accountability will continue to arise everywhere as assessments of the NGO
sector become more careful and nuanced. The sector includes a huge range of
bodies, not all of which are democratic in structure or broadly
representative in participation. Some NGOs serve narrow interests, and
this pattern may intensify as the sector is seen to take on greater political
importance. NGOs increasingly span the entire range of interests and
political positions on particular issues. Civil society organizations make
tremendous contributions in mobilizing the energies and commitment of people,
but the focus on single issues that gives some of them strength and expertise
may also block out perspectives on wider concerns. As such organizations
become more institutionalized, they become more dependent on tactics to raise
membership or obtain funding. In developing countries, civil society
organizations often face particularly difficult dilemmas of securing funding
and access to current information while retaining independence and avoiding
being portrayed as foreign- influenced. Overall, however, civil society
organizations and the NGO sector in general are vital and flourishing
contributors to the possibilities of effective governance. They must occupy a
more central place in the structures of global governance than has been the
case. As at the national level, civil
servants in intergovernmental organizations have been cautious in
acknowledging that NGOs can be useful partners. UN- NGO relationships are,
however, improving. Collaboration is now an established feature of
international life, though much remains to be done. It reached a high point
in Rio with the UN Conference on Environment and Development in 1992: more
than 1,400 NGOs were accredited to the official conference and thousands more
participated in the parallel Global Forum--the largest number to attend a UN
event and perhaps the closest collaboration ever between the official and
independent sectors. Strong NGO participation has also
marked the UN conferences held after Rio: on human rights in Vienna in 1993,
on small island states in Barbados in 1994, and on population and development
in Cairo, also in 1994. It is likely to be repeated at the World Summit on
Social Development in Copenhagen in March 1995, the World Conference on Women
in Beijing in September 1995, and the Conference on Human Settlements in
Istanbul in June 1996. The growing range of actors involved
makes the challenge of governance more complex. Policy makers have to serve,
engage, and mobilize a much wider variety of institutions--and hence to cope
with a broader range of interests, values, and operating styles. Although
institutional diversity may complicate the process, it could also greatly
increase the capacity of the governance system to meet the complex demands
placed on it. Problems that may go unobserved by one set of institutions may
be detected by another; those beyond the capacity of certain organizations
may be easily addressed by others. This is especially true in the area of
sustainable development: many development mistakes have occurred because
bureaucrats, national and international, failed to foresee or ignored the
likely effects of new projects. Civil society organizations play important
roles in identifying genuine development needs, initiating projects, and in
some cases implementing projects as funding or co- funding agencies. In
projects funded by governments and intergovernmental agencies, involving NGOs
in the preparation and evaluation of projects may increase the likelihood of
success. Finding ways for so many different
organizations to participate constructively in international activities is a
challenging task, but the progress made in Rio and since then provides a good
foundation. Official bodies need, of course, to relate to the independent
sector on a regular basis, not simply at or in preparation for a major
conference. They must reach out to civil society in a positive spirit and
seek its contributions at all stages, including the shaping of policy. The
agents of change within civil society can help this process through
arrangements to ensure balanced representation of their own varying interests
and positions and through manageable modes of participation. The
Empowerment of People The new vigour of civil society
reflects a large increase in the capacity and will of people to take control
of their own lives and to improve or transform them. This has been helped by
wider educational facilities, improved opportunities for women, and greater
access to information as well as political progress. A number of governments,
political movements, and other institutions have also made conscious efforts
to empower people. Empowerment depends on people's
ability to provide for themselves, for poverty translates into a lack of
options for the individual. Economic security is essential if people are to
have the autonomy and means to exercise power. While the number of productive
jobs world- wide has multiplied, particularly through the growth of the
small- scale private sector, practically all societies are affected by
debilitating unemployment. And the situation seems to be worsening, with
marginalization eating away at communities. No empowerment will be sustained
if people lack a stable income. The most egregious failure in the
process of empowerment is in respect of women; despite wide campaigning for their
emancipation and many advances, a large share of the world's women remains
voiceless and powerless. The struggle to achieve equal opportunity and
remuneration for women in the economic sphere continues, and it should be
joined by a comparable struggle to achieve equal access and voice for women
in the political sphere. The number and proportion of people
who can make their voices heard is nevertheless vastly greater in all parts
of the world today than in 1945. This is principally the product of decolonization,
economic improvement, and the spread of democracy. Beyond elections, however,
people are beginning to assert their right to participate in their own
governance. They include indigenous peoples long deprived by settlers of
control over traditional lands, ethnic minorities seeking a role in
government, and regional and local groups who feel their interests have been
neglected by national leaders. These groups have become more effective in
asserting their rights. More generally, attitudes towards governments
are changing. Tensions between the government of the day and opposition
groups are a vital part of any democracy. But there is now greater
disenchantment with the political process itself; both government and
opposition parties and politicians of all hues have been losing credibility.
This may partly derive from the increasing demands of electors and the
growing inability of politicians to deliver results, as in an increasingly
interdependent world, individual states are constrained in what they can
achieve. There are also deeper causes, such as corruption and criminalization
of politics. Many people expect more from
democracy. Two minutes in a voting booth every few years does not satisfy
their desire for participation. Many resent politicians who, having won
elections in democratic systems, neglect large sectors of the
community--sometimes even a majority of the electorate--who have voted for
the 'losers'. The widening signs of alienation from the political process
call for the reform of governance within societies, for decentralization, for
new forms of participation, and for the wider involvement of people than
traditional democratic systems have allowed. Enlightened
Leadership Leadership is urgently needed that
represents all the world's countries and people, not simply the most
powerful. Fifty countries met in San Francisco
in 1945 to create an international organization that could help build a new
world out of the wreckage of war. What united them was not so much a clear
view of the future as a determination to prevent a repetition of the horrors
and mistakes of the past. The goal of the conference in San
Francisco was aptly summed up in the phrase 'never again'. Never again should
the world's leaders fail to prevent a global depression. Never again should
they fail to stand up to aggression. Never again should they tolerate
governments that assaulted the most basic dignities of their citizens. Never
again should they squander the chance to create institutions that would make
a lasting peace possible. It was these aims that led the delegates in San
Francisco--and at the July 1944 United Nations Monetary and Financial
Conference held in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire--to establish the key
international institutions that became part of the post- war arrangements for
global governance. Few delegates in San Francisco
questioned the state as such. What bad states had upset, good states could
restore. Many of those with the requisite qualities of leadership and
expertise had, after all, been drawn into the ever- widening web of state
during the preceding thirty years. And the public- service mentality that had
reached new heights during the war was now channelled into the construction
of welfare states and the United Nations system. Forty years on, the public sector has
shrunk and service to the state has lost its exalted status. While leadership
is once again urgently needed, it is leadership of a different character, in
which reserves of commitment to public service are sought not only among
politicians and civil servants but also in the voluntary sector, in private
enterprise, and indeed throughout global civil society: leadership that
represents all the world's countries and people, not simply the most
powerful. The concept of dispersed and
democratic leadership should not be seen as contradictory. It draws its
strength from society as much as the state, from solidarity much more than
from authority. It operates by persuasion, co- operation, and consensus more
often than by imposition and fiat. It may be less heroic, but it is the only
form of leadership likely to prove effective.
Back
to the Domestic Decay Homepage Back to the documents and articles listing |
