8.0.7.2 Responses to our Global Inability to Address Threats

Version 1.2 December 2016                                         (Previous Version)

The concerns we are addressing here are summarised in the introduction (more) as follows:

On a global level, society’s ability to address these threats is compromised:

§ 2.1   Our global decision making is being hijacked by anachronistic political structures.

We show that the current world bodies that are supposed to address global issues are inadequate.  These include the United Nations, International Monetary Fund, World Bank, World Trade Organisation, and the World Court.

We advocate the evolution of these global government bodies so that they are more representative and focused on the major critical issues we face.

We also advocate support for global non-government organizations, focussing on:

·       Publication of global issues, advocacy and witness, together with reasonable analyses for action, based on research and scientific investigation;

·       Delivery of human rights services – the provision of clean water, food, sanitation, housing, medicine, legal aid and education – directly to individuals, regardless of their location or origins, via democratic institutions the donors and recipients control.

§ 2.2   The lack of consensus on global beliefs makes changing these structures more difficult.

Much of the conflict in international bodies is due more to parochial self-interest, rather than fundamental political, religious or ideological differences.  But a significant proportion of conflict is due to such differences.  We can address both of these aspects.

We show that many issues, such as climate change and risks to the international financial system, are global, and it is in all countries’ interest to co-operate on such matters.  This Way also provides a natural and rational path towards minimising political, religious and ideological differences.  This is of course idealistic, but we hope for a long term convergence.

§ 2.3    International bodies such as the United Nations are remote collections of nation states.

We explain that the UN and similar bodies are run by diplomats appointed by national governments.  There is no direct link to the populations they supposedly represent.

There is a risk of “global government� conspiring, perhaps in the name of stability, security, or peace, to become unduly oppressive, restricting local freedoms. 

We advocate a major role for global non-government organisations, in advocacy and service delivery, separating these from coercive, area based government control.

§ 2.4    Nation states generally vote at such bodies to promote their own national interests.

Politicians appoint representatives to global bodies who must be seen to be working in their own nation’s interests. Even in totalitarian countries leaders must take into account the risk of a people’s revolt.  International bodies consequently often follow discredited and ineffective policies, because they cannot obtain the consensus required for sensible changes.  They are impotent against leading nations such as America, China, India and Russia, who can choose to enter into, ignore, or withdraw from, any treaty.

We show that global non-government organisations are not only required to bypass these parochial perspectives but that they are politically and financially viable.

§ 2.5    Few nations are willing to sacrifice a short term gain for a long term global benefit.

Many countries are wary of adopting a long term solution that involves short term costs if the majority of other countries are not willing to do the same.  By promoting this way we can show it is not inevitable that we will behave in collectively selfish and short sighted ways. 

We show that we have grounds to appeal to everyone’s better nature.  We cite examples of countries that have adopted leadership positions on international issues.

§ 2.6    There is widespread indifference and apathy in many nations to foreign policy.

Most people are more concerned with their own welfare, and that of their families and local communities, than with foreign or global affairs.  We can understand this is reasonable for someone living at a subsistence level or with severe disabilities.  We show that in supposedly ‘advanced’ economies parochial views are short sighted.  We explain how the global issues we face affect us all, even if some of us aren’t aware of them.

§ 2.7    Many global bodies are dominated by the West and the winners of World War II.

The structures of the UN Security Council, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank are based on the victors of the Second World War which ended in 1945.  Any one of America, Britain, China, France and Russia can veto any resolution of the UN Security Council.  The presidents of the IMF and World Bank are shared by Europe and America.  All attempts to reform these structures have failed, and progress will inevitably be slow.

We accept that there is still a need to work with the existing international bodies.  But we show that effective global NGOs, which are already operating effectively on a global scale, can bypass the historical anachronisms of the UN and other world bodies so that they are able to effectively address global issues.

§ 2.8   Global corporations and international trade in various ways subvert and bypass national and international controls, reducing our ability to make global decisions.

Multinational corporations and big banks have increased their dominance of international trade and are setting the agenda in national politics to have legislation and regulations changed to suit themselves, justifying this as creating local jobs and increasing prosperity.

We show that over time national governments, especially in times of financial crisis and falling tax revenue, have slowly begun to appreciate the multinationals’ tactics.  Ultimately national governments can and must insist on total transparency in international trade and the arrangement between related parties, so that they can be properly regulated, taxed and held to account.  NGOs have a legitimate role in investigating and publishing about multinationals and their links to government that allow them to avoid legitimate social responsibilities.

We phrase our initial draft conclusion on addressing these global threats this way: