Politics

ترميم النظام العالمي

Jun 29, 2015 Dominique Moisi

وارسو- لقد عاد العنف لاوكرانيا بتحريض من روسيا كما تستمر الدولة الاسلامية بفتوحاتها الاقليمية المخضبة بالدماء وبينما تستعر الصراعات والازمات العنيفة على مستوى العالم من افريقيا الى اسيا فإن من الواضح تماما انه لم يعد هناك ضامن لنظام – ليس القانون الدولي او حتى الهيمنة العالمية- تنظر اليه البلدان (وبناة الدول المستقبليين ) على انه شرعي ويتمتع بالمصداقية .

ان تطوير استراتيجية لاستعادة النظام يتطلب فهم للمحركات المعقدة للتصدعات الحاصلة اليوم وافضل مكان لأن نبدأ به هو مصير اربع امبرطوريات رئيسه.

لقد بدأت هذه القصة سنة 1923 بانهيار الامبرطورية العثمانية والتي سيطرت في عز قوتها في القرنين السادس عشر والسابع عشر على معظم جنوب شرق اوروبا وغرب اسيا وشمال افريقيا وبعد سبعة عقود تقريبا من ذلك التاريخ تفكك الاتحاد السوفيتي يليه نهضة الامبرطورية الصينية مجددا والتي تهدف الى ترجمة نجاحها الاقتصادي الى نفوذ جيوسياسي.

To continue reading, register now.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Already have an account? Log in

Subscribe to PS Digital

Access every new PS commentary, our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – including Longer Reads, Insider Interviews, Big Picture/Big Question, and Say More – and the full PS archive.

Subscribe Now

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 13 Comments on this article

Enrique Woll Battistini Jul 25, 2015

Below is the link on Academia.edu to the Mathematical Model and Simulation for "A Partnership for Development with the United States of America" completed in December 1999. This is a tool for the detailed evaluation of the Partnership's modus operandi and theoretical impact in widely diverse economic scenarios which might occur during its implementation, and which adequately addresses the complex nature of today's globalization requirements.

https://www.academia.edu/12823841/Mathematical_Model_and_Simulation_for_A_Partnership_for_Development_with_the_United_States_of_America_-_December_1999
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Enrique Woll Battistini Jul 18, 2015

October 12, 1993

"A Partnership for Development with the United States of AmericaTM" (Sociedad para el Desarrollo con los Estados Unidos de AméricaTM)

© Enrique A. Woll B. 1993

As Mr. David Rockefeller wisely admonishes in his excellent article "A Hemisphere in the Balance" in The Wall Street Journal of October 1, with the basic groundwork already in place--after 500 years--to build a true "new world" through the creation by the year 2000 of an American hemisphere-wide free-trade system, within a democratic context, it would be no less than a crime if NAFTA, a key turning point in its accomplishment, were frustrated or delayed in Congress.

As honorary chairman of The Americas Society and the Council of the Americas, and as a man who has shown a life-long active interest in the well-being and prosperity of all of the People of the Americas, which includes of course the people of Canada, Latin America, and the Caribbean, as well as the people of the United States, he has a clear vision of the potential for growth which would be unleashed by such a colossal creation. A free trading area stretching from Canada´s Hudson Bay to Tierra del Fuego at the tip of South America: a true and significant empowerment of the American Hemisphere, a community of nations with a predominantly young population of more than 700 million people that already generates a combined gross national product of more than U.S.$7 trillion.

On the verge of such momentous and promising change however, which will no doubt come to pass sooner than later, it is an obvious imperative to also note, on the one hand, the marked developmental disparities amongst Latin American and Caribbean countries, and on the other hand, the abysmal developmental difference between these countries (excepting perhaps Mexico and Brazil), and the U.S. and Canada. With such an imbalanced inter-American economic scenario, and in the light of their own harsh national realities, how are the critically-disadvantaged masses of the most underdeveloped countries in the American hemisphere going to fare in their shoeless climb to paradise? Who, then, is able to help them? Who is willing to help them? How can they be helped?

But a few seconds pondering such questions should suffice to make responsible officials in the OAS and elsewhere, and most thinking persons on the planet, keenly aware of the absolute necessity of expediting massive private risk-capital flows from developed countries into the less developed nations in the American hemisphere, well in advance of the final toppling of inter-American trade barriers.

Indeed, one quickly and unequivocally realizes that for these vulnerable nations, fueling their private sectors, the economic engines that drive efficient job-creation, is the only pragmatic way to minimize the human suffering which the coming tremendous dislocation of their workers, forced to compete at even greater disadvantage, will inevitably bring. To be sure, a mercy ride for the financially handicapped on the steep road to economic salvation; and in the dusty fall of communism´s gilded leaden angel, the only visible ride. But an indispensable one, and not of necessity, a free one. In fact, they are not economically disabled and should not be forsaken, lest they become so, permanently, and a needless burden to themselves and the world. After all, the most developed nations of the American hemisphere, and the world, are expectantly banking on cheap labor and vast untapped consumption potential, to spur mankind into a great surge of general economic activity and prosperity lasting well into the next century.

Truly, the poorest of Latin American countries include some of the hardest-striving and most deserving people on earth, whose daily torment will now be greatly increased by a step-up of the media´s penetrating non-stop free-market-hawking of more goods, services, and lifestyles, typical of developed countries, currently afforded, and as is human, flaunted, only by their upper-middle-class compatriots; a minuscule but highly-visible stratum. The world cannot afford to simply stand by, watching, while hemispheric free trade slowly resolves their atavistic poverty through an upward harmonization of their standards of living with those of the rich. Relative economic idleness by the extremely disadvantaged would carry an opportunity cost which is by far too great to bear. Worse, it would be borne to an unfairly disproportionate and intolerable degree by those who cannot and will not afford it: the dislocated poor without savings or welfare systems to support them, during the long transition to a system whose success ultimately and ironically depends on their political support.

Moreover, through the formation of Sendero Luminoso and Movimiento Revolucionario Tupac Amaru, and their gruesome and destructive activities in Peru, recent history has again shown us the horrific effects which the sudden perception by the innocent, of their prolonged extreme poverty and suffering, will have in an emerging free-market economy; effects which by their very nature serve only to exacerbate their causes. In truth, without substantial and timely external aid for development during this painful transition period and beyond, many a fragile democracy may literally be threatened by hungry hordes descending on the capital, or by new Tarata Street incidents, affecting mainly the very same Andean countries whose populations stand the most to gain, and to give, if the desired inter-American system were successfully implemented. Clearly, regional and inter-American prosperity and security, and eventual political integration, will not be served by ignoring this lesson and risking an escalation of such effects.

What underdeveloped Latin American countries need then, at this time in which a new world order is emerging, and what the world expects from its only remaining superpower, is no less than A Partnership for Development with the United States of America that would work to the advantage of all of the People of the Americas. Prominent institutions and individuals who share our view of the urgent Latin American need, and opportunity, would be convened to establish Development Consortiums in appropriately prioritized Target Country capitals in Latin America, selected from amongst the most underdeveloped nations. These Development Consortiums would provide a means of structuring and coordinating symbiotic efforts between private, public, and multilateral institutions in the inter-American community, including the U.S. Treasury, to effectively channel private-resource outflows from OECD-Source Countries seeking acceptable risk-capital investments with the highest total rates of return, for their focused application to balanced economic, social, and environmental development.

To ensure their acceptance and success, Development Consortiums should be convened and sponsored by a prestigious inter-American multilateral organization, and would operate under the leadership of recognized players in the U.S. Securities and insurance industry in partnership with local financial institutions, in order to underwrite massive local IPOs and new issues through the worldwide sale of a new and suitable ad hoc financial instrument of universal appeal, aimed primarily at OECD and local institutional investors. If successful, all participants, and indeed the entire American hemisphere would stand to benefit. Hark! O good and mighty People of the Americas, prepare anew to hear your liberty bells toll!

***

https://www.academia.edu/12823875/An_idea_set_forth_in_1993_A_Partnership_for_Development_with_the_United_States_of_America_-_1993101201
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Enrique Woll Battistini Jul 18, 2015

November 6, 2011

The definition of a nation in the wider global context

© Enrique Woll Battistini 2011

Whether or not a Global Financial Authority that would, for instance, constitute a World Central Bank having as voting members the two hundred or so existing National Central Banks, is on the horizon, and it very well might, no nation can today afford to define itself, its citizens, and it objectives within the sphere of its current or even future domestic concerns and interests, and must do so in the wider global context, as is very obvious to all. This is especially true of the USA, especially in the context of domestic and foreign poverty, whose resolution is mutually dependent, and without which real and meaningful long term peace based on justice, and not arms, will never be had. This happy ending, I fear, will not happen spontaneously as a result of economic and social growth, and will require Global Private-Public Partnerships for Development, with Multilateral participation. But Government plans for domestic action of any kind, moreover against domestic poverty, and Government plans in the multilateral context for hemispherically articulated action against poverty in the Americas, or worldwide, if ever really considered, are hindered and defeated by commonplace political realities in the USA, such as those which beleaguer President Obama. Given the paradoxical reality that warring is a known quantity, ever present in the American folklore, and a recurring phenomenon in practice, whereas large scale Private-Public Partnerships for Development, and peace, are simply not, I believe that movements such as the Ninety-Nine Percent Declaration should take into account the wider global economic and social protest context. This threatening groundswell, which must be addressed, is exemplified by the "Los Indignados" of Spain, begun on May 15, that has spread not only to the USA, in the form of Occupy Wall Street, begun on September 17, but to the UK, is being amplified by other movements, in the First World, in the context of the European crisis, and is widening its reach to very many other countries in it and in the Second, Third, and Fourth Worlds, echoing the current global revolution begun earlier this year in the Arab Spring.

***
https://www.academia.edu/14174471/The_definition_of_a_nation_in_the_wider_global_context_-_2011110604
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Enrique Woll Battistini Jul 18, 2015

October 7, 2011

The failure of post World War II governance paradigms

© Enrique Woll Battistini 2011

It appears that the world has reached a point where the paradigms of national and supranational government in the fields of finance, industry and commerce, justice, and security, at both levels, established at the end of World War II through global institutions such as the United Nations, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, have on the one hand reached a certain level of philosophical irrelevance, and on the other, a level of practical incompetence, a la Peter Drucker. In this situation would also fall, under their own weight, sooner rather than later, the old British Commonwealth of Nations, the Organization of American States, the Commonwealth of Independent States created by the Russian Federation after the Soviet Union's demise, with its recent Eurasian Economic Community, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, currently without any counterweight, and even the European Union, preceded by its Euro Zone and nascent fiscal union, and the probably hundreds of dependent organizations, treaties, and multinational projects. This will be so, of course, if the pernicious global socio-economic disorder, a historical ball and chain legacy that is being dragged about in this new century, and millennium, to common loss, and which is now focused on by new global protest organizations such as Avaaz.com and Los Indignados, and Occupy Wall Street, in a climate of neglected global warming and pollution, is sufficient indication of the incompetence of these mammoth and very expensive governance organizations to solve the serious problems facing humanity at large. This global disorder, which at the end of last century and the millennium operated somewhat below the radar of the great majority, which still accepted with some hope each day as it came, suddenly became visible, to all, as of the abominable event of September 11, 2001, and the resulting advent of new, frightful, and costly wars in the Middle and Near East, always fratricidal, and increased terrorism, and is frontally contravening the ambitious objectives of the fight against poverty of the United Nations for this new Millennium. This world disorder has been widening at an accelerated pace since the Lehman Brothers bust in 2008, with the recent repeated threats of insolvency by the U.S. Government, because of the blind political and fiscal disagreements between Democrats and Republicans, with the 2011 Arab Spring of unpredictable consequences, which may well be worse than terrible, and with the near term threat of chained bankruptcies in European Union countries. No one is exempt from this without large, and in some cases enormous, sacrifices. There remains, then, only the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, whose high principles and achievements deserve generalized attention, as an ideological and practical resource, and forum, for the democratic reformulation of the purpose of the current supranational and national entities, and their reorganization, or for the design and development of better institutions to replace them. The much-quoted New World Order, candy bait that led the G8 to the wars against Afghanistan, and Iraq, by the nose, is now, clearly, the manifest of the New World Disorder.

***
https://www.academia.edu/14174442/La_falencia_de_los_paradigmas_de_gobernanza_post_II_guerra_mundial_The_failure_of_post_World_War_II_governance_paradigms_-_2011100703
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Enrique Woll Battistini Jul 18, 2015

April 2, 2009
The new “New World Order”
© Enrique Woll Battistini 2009
Now that the G20 Summit in London is over, it is fair to ask if sufficient attention was given by the leaders of the world's 20 richest countries to the economic and social conditions and prospects for development of the remaining 90%, which as should be noted, are almost all non-OECD members and, in contrast, located mostly in the Southern hemisphere. Why is it considered acceptable that the rich and powerful decide on the fate of the poor, without their consent? Poor does not mean stupid or morally inept. Rather, it means disenfranchised, still, and that, in the new “New World Order” proclaimed by Gordon Brown today, should be abolished forthwith. The grossly unacceptable welfare imbalance between countries in the Northern and Southern hemispheres also must be corrected forthwith. It is a reflection of the gross capitalization imbalances between them, and will cease in short order if G20-supported special action to promote North-South foreign direct investment is undertaken. For such action to be successful, it must occur in the context of for-profit PRIVATE-PUBLIC Development Partnerships in each of the three main geo-economic North-South scenarios -The Americas, Europe-Africa, and Asia-Oceania. These Partnerships must be comprised of the fittest surviving financial companies in the leading OECD-member country in each scenario, and their counterparts in each non-OECD or developing country in that scenario. In addition, each Partnership must include appropriate multilateral institutions relevant to economic and social development and their counterpart local governmental entities, in a supporting role. Without question, these Partnerships must be for-profit, as stated, and must be led by key members in the PRIVATE sector. In order to eradicate extreme poverty and globalize peace in this century, and set the world on a course to prosperity, it is not enough to reform the national and international financial systems, or necessarily convenient to abolish banking secrecy, super-inflate the IMF, or to enact a massive world-wide deficit-spending scheme. And it is not enough for the United Nations to set lofty Millennium Development Goals, or to support the creation of additional tax-dependent multilateral financial institutions for their achievement. In The Americas, the Partnership could be called, for instance, "A Partnership for Development with the United States of America" ("Sociedad para el Desarrollo con los Estados Unidos de América"). This idea was first proposed in 1992 to President Clinton, and in 2005 to Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown. Perhaps its time has finally come.
***
https://www.academia.edu/14174345/The_new_New_World_Order
- Enrique Woll Battistini Jul 25, 2015
  
  CORRECT LINK TO The new "New World Order" https://www.academia.edu/14177013/The_new_New_World_Order_-_2009040505
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Cary Fraser Jul 5, 2015

It is possible to argue that the current phase of the crisis of legitimacy in the international system has its roots in the instability of the Middle East triggered by the 1973 Israeli-Arab War and the oil crisis. The failure of the superpowers to find common ground in managing the conflicts among their allies in the region, and the emergence of the region's role as the strategically most important source of energy in the global political economy, has expanded the scope for international destabilization within, and across the region and beyond. The current negotiations about Iran's nuclear program, involving the UNSC and other major players, remains the only option available for negotiating the parameters of an embryonic system that may achieve legitimacy among the major stakeholders. The Western-dominated order that emerged out of the rise of Europe and the North Atlantic region as the centre of global industrial production and military power is no longer viable - given the industrialization and rising military power of Asian states.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
William Pu Jul 5, 2015

If you want order for the sake of order, move to North Korea.
The two major contributing fators causing chaos and violences today are: Different brands of religions and the for profit weapons merchants.
Mao tried to outlaw religion and as powerful as he was, he failed drastically.
Do you ever notice that media never report the sources of the weapons used in killings of people - targeted and collateral damages?
The beat goes on - we are humans!
Borrowing Lenz's law from E&M, the mere fact that our population grows produces a force that reduces the population.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Tom Nowicki Jul 5, 2015

While it is true that globalization has increased inequality within countries there is no evidence that it has done so among countries, in fact the opposite is true - witness US and China.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Jul 2, 2015

In the last ninety odd years, four "empires" had helped shape the world today. With the defeat of the Ottomans in 1922, much of the Middle East and North Africa had been carved into "artificial" states by the British and French colonial powers, without taking ethno-sectarian faultlines into account. This explains the conflicts we are seeing in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon etc.
The demise of the Soviet "empire" in 1991 had traumatised many Russians, and Putin described the fall of the Soviet Union as "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe" of the 20th century. Thanks to its oil and gas Russia had thrived economically under Putin, yet it will hardly regain its former glory. He saw the annexation of Crimea as its "reunion" with Mother Russia, and his aggression against Ukraine has made him the "primary generator of disorder" in Europe.
China, with its rise as an economic power, wants to increase its sphere of "geopolitical influence" under Xi Jinping, dubbed by some as China's new "emperor". This comes at a time, when the US, seen by Raymond Aron as an "imperiral republic", "has retreated from its global leadership" and turned inward, raising the question about its stature as the world's hegemonic power. This new situation has fueled tensions, as China is trying to position itself as America's equal partner, while the US is reluctant to relinquish its supremacy.
Dominique Moisi says in order to "renovate the world order" and prevent the international community from descending into chaos, China and the US will have to cooperate, by reforming "multilateral institutions – the United Nations Security Council, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank", and modernising the "international system", that will reflect the reality on the ground. It is equally important to close the gap between the rich and the poor, by upholding the rule of law and ensuring social equality.
Since World War II, Pax Americana has beem providing for global stability. Yet America's retreat, means that there is no "guarantor of order" on the world stage. With no other country able "to fill the void", this would leave "the system vulnerable to instability".
The question is, how deep would such a cooperation be? China had in the past felt discriminated by the US, that it wanted to change the current world order, by creating its own set of multilateral institutions.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Cam Jennings Jun 30, 2015

The current global order is changing and if we are to have a multipolar or a bipolar world that is stable and sustainable, it may just depend upon the United Nations ability to reform.
The U.N.S.C. needs to reform so that the effective solutions can be implemented to provide our children with a world that works in a collaborative manner to resolve the global challenges.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Cesar Augusto Jun 30, 2015

There has never been "clear .. guarantor of order", to the contrary, we've always had clear guarantors of disorder and control. The difference is that we now have information flowing 24/7 and so we are constantly exposed to all forms of "territorial conquests". This should not be used as an excuse to exert control over the sovereignty of nation states, after all, violence, corruption, etc. are all derivatives of that same hegemonic perception of world order.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Zsolt Hermann Jun 29, 2015

There is no structural, institutional solution for the truly threatening problem.
The article itself proves it when it still tries to identify "positive" and "negative" forces in the world today.

There are no "positive forces", nations people as we are all driven by our inherently self-serving, egoistic nature.
The US is just as faulty in the Ukrainian crisis, in the far east crisis, not to mention in the bloodshed and chaos in the Middle east as anybody else if not more. The strong nations in Europe are much more responsible for the Greek crisis than the Greek themselves.

Everybody is making selfish, individual or national calculations and want to succeed at the expense of others.
This is not a sin, or "evil", we are simply following our nature.
But today we have the opportunity and capability of recognizing this in the 11th hour just before we sleepwalk into some global catastrophe on multiple fronts.
this is the first time we encounter free choice in human history: we can continue instinctively, destructively or we can try to rise above our inherent nature and start a new path, building mutually complementing cooperation instead of the ruthless competition.

Just imagine humanity's potential that way? Just imagine the qualitative rise, the effortless and sustainable existence we could achieve!
But for that it is not institutions, ideologies, governing systems or the economy that needs changing.
for the first time ever we have to start changing ourselves.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/aU7TiCjar

ترميم النظام العالمي

Subscribe to PS Digital

New Comment

Contact us

Log in/Register

ترميم النظام العالمي

Subscribe to PS Digital

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification