 |
 |
|
||
|
|
|
Pugwash Meeting No. 249
So, while recognising the continuing importance of the whole disarmament process, I will this time focus on issues of peace rather than war. After all, peace is much more difficult. In war the military take over, national dissension is forgotten and everything is simplified. That is why politicians frequently prefer war, or the threat of war, to the more difficult task of governing in peace. If we take a long view of the way the world is governed we can discern trends, we can discuss the utopia to which we aspire and then we can try to help the process along. This is the goal of Pugwash and many other organisations with broadly similar aims. Where are we now, where do we hope to get to and how are we going to get there?
CONVENTIONAL wisdom says that democratic government and the market economy are winning the battle. Ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union things seem to be going in this direction. Perhaps South America is the clearest example of the triumph of democracy. A continent traditionally run by military cliques and dictators is now in democratic hands. Eastern Europe, the former Soviet bloc, is joining up with the more mature democracies of the Western Europe. Asia is in the process of converting economic development into political change. Naturally there is a wide variation in the style and strength of these various democracies. Some are well established and stable, others are very new and fragile. For some the development of democracy was a long and natural part of their history and culture, for others it represented a sharp change and a foreign import. Nevertheless we can take reasonable hope from the rapid enlargement of the democratic world and look on this as a good augury for the future. If indeed democracy is the way of the future then we need to look carefully at the particular problems that this gives rise to and prepare for them in advance. It is not clear that a world of democratic governments is automatically a world living in peace and harmony. First of all we must recognise that there is more to true democracy than an elected parliament. We need a free press, free radio and television. We need a fair and independent legal system, an honest and impartial police force. We also need the military establishment and preferably also the religious establishment to be kept at arms length. We need a respect for human rights and the protection of minorities. Finally, and most crucially, we need a sound decision making process – one which responds to an informed public opinion. I will follow up this point later, but first let me look in detail at the tricky question of minorities and human rights – highly pertinent in view of the situation in the Balkans. The basic premise of democracy is that, after free discussion, votes are taken and (within limits) the view of the majority prevails. But this begs the basic question: what is the size and extent of the unit which votes? In the aftermath of the first world war, Woodrow Wilson proclaimed the right of self-determination. Cynics will say that, as the United States did not have an Empire, this idealism was at the expense of the former European Imperial powers, notably Austria, Britain and France. Essentially it meant that colonies should become independent, and this process accelerated by the second world war, effectively saw a proliferation of new nation-states, all exercising "self-determination."
BUT what determines the boundaries of a "nation-state", the area in which the democratic system is supposed to operate? A quick look round the world, or at the membership of the United Nations, shows that there is often little rhyme or reason in what constitutes a nation-state. History is the only common feature, and since history has been so varied, this is reflected in the variety we now have. Here in Africa we have been reminded that the colonial powers drew lines on the map that did not respect traditional communities. I shall return later to the problems this produces for the UN at the international level, but my present point is simply the arbitrariness in the frontiers within which the democratic process is supposed to operate. Take for example the highly controversial one of Ireland. The demography of the situation is simple. In Ireland as a whole the Catholics are in a majority, within Northern Ireland the Protestants predominate, and the division of Ireland reflected this. A somewhat similar situation prevails between Lebanon and Syria. Taken together (which they were in former times) the Moslems are the majority, whereas Lebanon, as carved out by the French after the first world war, had a Christian majority. I mention these two examples just because I am familiar with them, and because the problems that these divisions have given rise to are still with us. I am sure all of you can cite parallel instances in other parts of the world. Many of the most intractable problems of the world at present arise from the historical origins of nation-states. But this problem is not just an accident of history, or the aftermath of Imperial rule. It is more fundamental and is inherent in the ideas of democratic government. Given the complex history of mankind and the intermingling of peoples that has occurred over the centuries, no perfect boundaries can be drawn which make each nation-state entirely homogenous with respect to race, religion, language and culture. The world is a polyglot mixture and becoming more so every day. The potential conflicts between different groups inside a nation can sometimes be kept in check by a forceful non-democratic government. Yugoslavia, under Tito, and the diverse republics and nationalities of the old Soviet Union, under Communism, provide recent examples. British rule in the days of the Empire kept tribal conflict in Africa at bay. Independence and democracy of sorts has unleashed a Pandora's box of hostility and violence. This is not an argument in favour of empires, but it does illustrate the deep nature of the problem. How do we keep peace among different groups in a free environment? Even in Western Europe, one of the more peaceful and stable parts of the world, internal conflicts are still with us. I have already mentioned Ireland. There are also the Basques in Spain and the more complex relation between Flemings and Walloons in Belgium. On the other hand the example of Switzerland shows that harmonious coexistence between different peoples is certainly possible, provided there is a high degree of local autonomy and adequate constitutional safeguards to protect minorities. A close look at Western Europe suggests a few thoughts on the possible utopian future where all such conflicts are eliminated.
WHAT we see emerging, in a truly democratic context, is a hierarchy of levels of authority interwoven with each other. We have the European Union, under which are the various nations; many of these are themselves federal, with autonomous provinces and further down the line we may have smaller regions and then cities and towns. At each stage we have democratic control and, in principle each level of authority supervises the one beneath it to ensure that the rules are kept. Disagreements or potential conflicts at one level can be passed up for adjudication to the next level. In so far as the European Union has developed a policy for the component parts of the former Yugoslavia this seems to be the sort of model it has in mind. In other words, within the larger family of European nations, the rivalries in the Balkans can hopefully be kept on a leash. I think it is recognised that the recent progress in Northern Ireland has been made easier by the fact that both Britain and Ireland are now parts of a larger entity, namely the European Union. Perhaps even more crucial has been the involvement of the United States as an outside player, and here perhaps there is an important lesson to be learnt. In the past there would certainly have been many British politicians who would have objected strenuously against the United States being brought into the Irish problem, on the grounds that this was an internal problem, and that we did not want any infringement of our sovereignty. One hears similar statements in other parts of the world. But there are in the end only two ways to solve a conflict, either by brute force (and this is rarely a permanent solution) or by some negotiated agreement. Such an agreement is difficult to achieve without the involvement of one or more outside parties. Some 15 years ago I was having a dinner discussion with a government minister who had academic pretensions. We were discussing the nation-state in the context of Germany (at that time still divided). He was arguing that the nation-state was a 19th century invention and that its time was past. I was emphasising the strong emotional attachment to German reunification that I had always found on my frequent visits to Germany. History has vindicated me, but the minister had a point. The increasing complexity of the modern world, mainly as a result of technological change, has meant that national sovereignty is now highly circumscribed. Our national politicians still talk as though they exercised great power, but in real fact their freedom of manoeuvre is strictly limited. Actually when things go wrong our politicians usually ascribe this to world economic forces beyond their control, but they are happy to accept the credit in good times! One of our problems is that we have not yet made the necessary adjustment in our ideas and our discussions to the new reality of interdependence. Let me illustrate this from the scene in Scotland where I now live. As you may know, after more than 300 years, Scotland now has its own parliament with very considerable powers. This reflects the strong sense of identity of the Scottish people and the existence in Scotland of separate legal and educational systems and a separate church. So far so good and autonomy is now accepted, but the big question around which the political parties circle is whether Scotland should acquire total independence or not. It is argued that, within the European Union, an independent Scotland could be a viable unit. Now, although I live in Scotland and sympathise with the need for Scottish autonomy, I see very little difference in practice between the alternatives ahead. As part of the European Union and as a neighbour of England it is not clear that a separate army and foreign policy would make much difference to the situation. Words like independence or national sovereignty no longer have much real meaning and their continued use by politicians is window dressing intended to enhance their own importance. So let us agree that interdependence between countries will gradually lead to a system of interlocking relationships which may help to prevent outright conflict and let us return to consider the operation of democracy within each country. As I mentioned earlier, democracies are not necessarily peaceful. It is enough to recall that many Germans in the 1930s voted for Adolf Hitler. Unfortunately, banging the nationalist or military drum has always been popular. Is then democracy together with human weakness an inevitable recipe for the triumph of dangerous demagogues? That would be a dismal prospect. I am a perpetual optimist, but there are I believe rational grounds for optimism. The 21st century, even in its first decades, is going to be transformed by the internet and other forms of electronic communication. This will mean that the natural arena for the spread of information and ideas is the whole world. It will be much harder to build up the misinformation, self-delusion and hatred that demagogues thrive on. The most dramatic recent example of the effect of new methods of communication was the collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe. It is widely accepted that it was the inability of the communist authorities to control the free flow of information which contributed to the speed of the collapse. But there are other even more striking ways in which electronic communication may affect the workings of democracy. In ancient Athens, the birth-place of democracy, the whole citizenship could in practice turn up to discuss and decide. But on the large scale of modern states, this is no longer possible and we have elected representatives instead, although Switzerland with its constant referenda is an exception. In recent times, with the use of increasingly sophisticated public opinion polls, perhaps the views of citizens can be tested more frequently. But electronic communication offers a much more effective way of consulting the public. In a sense we can revert almost to the Athenian model of direct involvement. As yet this has not happened but it is technologically possible and there seems every reason to believe that something like this will happen. After all, why bother to take a small sample of the population when you can consult the lot? The phrase teledemocracy has already been coined to describe this future scenario. In essence we are now on the verge of the second phase of the communication revolution. The first stage, the era of radio and television, was passive: the ability of the public to receive information rapidly. The second active stage is when the public can respond in a two-way process. I imagine this teledemocracy will start in the United States, since this is technologically the most advanced country and since American politics is already very much dominated by opinion polls. The question is: how will it work in practice and what will the consequences be? As we all know, the way a question is put frequently determines the nature of the answer. For example, if the British public were asked: are you in favour of abolishing the pound and becoming subservient to Brussels? the answer will surely be negative. However, if the question is: are you in favour of strengthening the British economy by joining the Euro? the answer might be positive. So, if we move to a new style of democracy in the next century where the public is consulted, as matter of course, by electronic means, the key point will be the management of the process. Who asks the questions? If this becomes a world-wide phenomenon, even in countries where democracy is still in its infancy, the dangers are obvious. George Orwell would have recognised them. Where internal objectivity cannot be guaranteed or inspire confidence there will have to be external monitors, rather the way the United Nations monitors elections in critical areas. You may think that I am describing a very distant world, and that we have more pressing problems, but the speed of technological change usually exceeds expectations and is far in advance of the controls that need to be exercised. It is, I think, significant that our student participants were much more aware of the opportunities and problems opened up by the internet. It pays to look ahead and plan for the future. The world has been late in coming to grips with scientific revolutions in nuclear physics, chemistry and biology. We should not make the same mistake again.
I have attempted to outline a future of interlocking nations with mechanisms for adjudicating conflicts. At some level and for important issues this may need the intervention of the United Nations or one of its subsidiary bodies. Unfortunately, at the present time, the United Nations is not nearly as powerful and effective a body as the world needs. Of course it is much better than nothing, and it has had many successes, but it has obvious limitations. There are manifold reasons. It is widely recognised that, after 50 years, the UN should be drastically reformed to reflect the realities at the end of the 20th century. But vested interests have effectively blocked any serious movement, and the major powers are perhaps not unhappy to see the UN remain a weak body thus leaving effective control in their hands. Perhaps attempting to reform the UN from within, by delicate negotiation, is a hopeless task. Instead, some impartial body or bodies, preferably non-governmental, should try to think the problem through from scratch. An attempt should be made to produce a new structure for the UN which would be equitable, effective and realistic. This could then handed to the UN to provide at least a new basis for discussion. Just tinkering with the present set up is perhaps inadequate, more radical thinking may be necessary. I should emphasize that I have no clear idea of what a reformed UN should be like. There are many anomalies which should be removed, and the experience of inadequacies over the last 50 years should be fully utilised. The problem is extremely important, since the present international scene is an untidy mismatch of activities by the UN, by NATO, by independent states and this is not a recipe for stability in the long run. One weakness of the present UN is its poor financial position. This reflects other aspects, such as the lack of confidence in it by the United States. There is also a general distrust of large bureaucracies, which are seen as black holes which suck up money. The European Union suffers from a similar syndrome, with Brussels seen as an expensive and over-luxurious bureaucracy. So a reform of the UN has to address both issues. How to provide more resources and how to see that these are properly spent.
ONE idea which has been floated that would provide the UN with an adequate financial base would be to impose a small tax on international financial transactions. This is proposed by James Tobin, a distinguished economist, for two quite separate reasons. In addition to solving the financial problems of the UN it would also dampen down the dizzying scale and speed of money flows round the world. The argument is that such dampening would remove some of the froth without doing serious financial damage, and the result would be to add stability to an otherwise dangerously volatile scene. Since Pugwash elected a mathematician as its President I am afraid you have to pay the price of listening to a little arithmetic! But, do not worry too much, the sums will be easy since I will not attempt to be too precise. But, following good astronomical practice, I will just deal with orders of magnitude – counting the number of zeros. First a little history. In the 19th century, when Britain, as the first country to industrialise, was the leading economy, about 50 percent of British savings were invested abroad. This helped the economic development of many parts of the world, not only in the British Empire. You might think, with the vast amount of money that is moving around the world, a similar process is now taking place, with the developed countries investing a large fraction of their savings in the developing countries. You might be confirmed in this view when you hear that international financial transactions approach two trillion dollars daily and are rising fast. But you would be wrong. In fact the fraction of savings of rich countries that is invested in poorer countries is more like 5 – 10 percent, rather than 50 percent. Of the two trillion dollars that I mentioned about 90 percent consists of very short-term movement, money that moves back and forth over a matter of a few days. This is speculative money that has nothing to do with investment. To be blunt, this is gambling on a global scale. The motive behind the free movement of money was the encouragement of trade and investment – not the support of gambling. It is for this reason that serious economists have discussed ways of reducing short-term speculative money movements, with its destabilising effects, such as we saw during the recent Asian financial crisis, without reverting to old-fashioned currency controls which inhibit genuine commerce. This is the main purpose of the “Tobin tax”: the support of the UN is, for economists, an incidental if beneficial by-product. Moreover other good causes could also be supported. Now let us look at the sums, the orders of magnitude involved . A tax of say .01 percent (and this figure is just illustrative) on international financial transactions of two trillion dollars daily would yield 200 million dollars daily. For the genuine business man .01 percent added to his other costs would be negligible. But, for the short-term speculator, the effect would be very discouraging. If I borrow one billion US dollars for two days, say at 5 percent annual rate, it will cost me about a quarter of a million dollars. A transaction tax of .01 percent on the other hand would cost me 100,000 dollars, a significant addition. This might make me think twice. So the tax would be a severe discouragement to speculators but it would not eliminate them all. Suppose they were reduced by a factor of two. Thus instead of collecting 200 million dollars daily, the Tobin tax would only yield ½ that amount namely 100 million daily, approximately 35 billion annually. If only one half of this amount went to the UN, this would be over 15 billion which is about 3 times its present budget. This is perhaps a realistic minimum of what a truly effective UN would need. So the sums make sense in a broad sort of way. Many of the parameters could be altered without changing the overall picture. The Tobin tax would be beneficial economically and it would provide a firm basis for the UN. The objections are mainly political, since the United States in particular is not keen on seeing a UN with real power. There may also be more legitimate concerns about so much money being handed over to a single body with inadequate controls. There would be opportunity for massive corruption and extravagance. These dangers could be mitigated by channelling the Tobin tax through some other international organisation, such as the IMF, which could be responsible for monitoring the way the UN spent the money, and could withhold it if it was not satisfied. Such a division of responsibility is the most effective way of ensuring probity and efficiency. It is encouraging that the Canadian Government has put the Tobin tax on the international agenda and asked that a serious feasibility study should be made.
LET me move now to a point I made earlier, the artbitrariness of the boundaries of many nation states, and let me relate this to the UN. The UN consists of individual states, with their status essentially frozen by historical accident as of 1945 (though subsequent changes have occurred, sometimes peacefully but often as a result of force). Moreover the moral legitimacy of the governments of many states can be questioned. As we have heard, here in Africa there have been, and still are, a number of regimes which are corrupt, undemocratic and disregard human rights. But Burma reminds us that this is not solely an African problem. In this respect the UN is like a gentleman’s club where gangsters are accepted, provided only that they pay their dues and wear jackets and ties! Admittedly, to follow this analogy, some of the respectable members are increasingly unhappy to have such undesirables in the club and they try to bend the rules to find an excuse for expelling them. Perhaps, the rules should even be changed to allow bank accounts and tax returns to be examined? Well, you get the idea. Reform of the UN, either by explicit changes, or by more flexible interpretation of the Charter, should allow the UN to interest itself in the internal affairs of its members. We should no longer pretend that, within its borders, a government is entitled to do entirely what it likes. Human rights violations or gross corruption should not be tolerated, just because they are committed by a member of our club. Current events in East Timor show that there has been some positive movement in this direction, but we should remember that, for more than 20 years, the world ignored the repression in that area. Notice that I have not said outright that the UN should acquire the right to interfere in the internal affairs of its member states. The word “intervention” has, as our South American colleagues have pointed out, unfortunate connotations. I am not going to spell out in detail how, and under what circumstances , the UN should get involved with the internal affairs of member states. I am not an international lawyer (and I realise we have several distinguished lawyers among us), nor am I an expert on the UN charter, but I do think this whole question lies at the heart of many of our current problems and Pugwash will shortly be undertaking a serious study of it. We all want an international order where we operate within the law, but this requires a better legal framework, one that harmonises more with morality. A world based on injustice can never be at peace. |