09/03/2021
A GLOBAL COUNCIL OF NATIONS
The Path towards peaceful co-existence
''That’s why I want to say again, the United States welcomes the rise of a China that is peaceful, stable, prosperous, and a responsible player in global affairs. And I’m committed to expanding our cooperation, even as we address disagreements candidly and constructively. That’s what President Xi and I have done on this visit -- during our working dinner last night and our meetings today''.
Barak Obama - September 25, 2015
"China and the US have different histories, culture, social systems and levels of development, but their peoples are peace-loving and in pursuit of growth. I hope that the friendship between our two nations will last forever."
"China and the United States have major influence in international affairs and shoulder important responsibilities in upholding world peace and promoting common development."
Hu Jintao - State visit to Washington D.C., 2011
‘’China and the US are heading toward a war neither wants. The reason, among others, is Thucydides’ Trap: when a rising power threatens to displace a ruling one, violence is the likeliest result. Over the past five hundred years, these conditions have occurred sixteen times; war broke out in twelve. Today, as an unstoppable China approaches an immovable America, and both Xi Jinping and Joe Biden promise to make their countries “great again,” the seventeenth case looks grim’’. A trade conflict, cyberattack, Korean crisis, Taiwan, or the Uyghur people of Xinjiang province or even an accident at sea could easily spark a major war’’.
The rhetoric in recent times has bordered on outright belligerence. Indeed, one could very well argue that these verbal confrontations between Washington and Beijing are a preliminary step towards armed conflict The consequences of armed conflict are unimaginable in modern day terms. One can reasonable argue that politicians of today are doing little to soften the rhetoric and leaders of the West and China are both trading barbs as if there were no tomorrow. Be that as it may, and to the chagrin of leaders of the West and China one can say that there is a path towards peace before war and a path towards peaceful co-existence, provided there is a political will to seek peace and prevent one.
At the recent foreign ministers meeting held in London in early May, there were invited guests from Australia, India, South Korea, South Africa, and the secretary general of ASEAN. Not surprisingly the G7 wishes to broaden its support and so invites like minded democracies to the table. The final communique explicitly addressed issues related to China in no uncertain terms and in a confrontational manner, preaching rather than expressing a view. China for its part quite rightly refuted the charges laid but did so, once again, in a confrontational manner. The summit meeting held in London delivered much of the same.
Today China has arguably become a world economic, political and military power, a power that the West has still not fully understood or acknowledged. It can be argued that there exists today a new ‘’de facto’’ world order, if not yet a ‘’de jure’’ one. Democracy is being challenged across the globe and authoritarianism lead by China is on the rise in several world regions. There is tension, there is suspicion on either side, there is fear, there is misunderstanding, there is preoccupation of a potential armed conflict, but above all there is a high degree of mistrust.
The path ahead lies in peaceful co-existence. The path ahead lies on the fundamental precept that constructive engagement is the only way out. The path ahead implies that both China and the West must tone down the rhetoric. The path ahead lies in direct engagement, direct talks. The path ahead requires political will and political wisdom to engage in a spirit of cooperation, not confrontation.
The mechanism of such a path to be built lies in an acceptance by the West of China’s status in today’s world, and China of its acceptance that there exists a world order which must be respected. It is necessary that both parties engage constructively in a spirit of cooperation. Such a mechanism lies on the West, as the predominant power in the world today, taking the first step towards reconciliation. It can do this in several ways, but primarily by inviting China to the table. Engagement must be in the spirit of State-to-State dialogue, regardless of personal considerations which more often than not taint the spirit of constructive dialogue. True statesmen put their country first and foremost. Leaving aside the G20 and the United Nations Security Council which were created and exist for specific purposes, there is no institution of world governance today that is designed to include members of different ideologies and political systems where permanent dialogue can take place in a frank and constructive manner in a spirit of cooperation and the search of compromise for the sake of world peace.
The path forward must be all encompassing through the creation of a Global Council of Nations to reflect the composition of the United Nations body; it must be accompanied by the creation of a UN Office for Strategic Threats, increased membership to represent all nations of the world, a new format for voting rights and elimination of the veto powers, the principle of one a threat to one is a threat to all, permanent dialogue based on the principle of cooperation, creation of a path towards peaceful co-existence, and the creation of rules of engagement in international affairs.
Towards a Path of Peaceful Coexistence – A Global Council of Nations
Seeking common ground is a fundamental precept to building peace; at present both China and the USA have opted for confrontation, sad but realistic. It is thus necessary to seek common ground that has existed for centuries to enable building a path towards peaceful co-existence, this path lies in philosophical considerations.
Two antagonistic powers – One philosophy
The West - The Concert of Nations
The Concert of Nations emerged in the nineteenth century as the ideal for international relations in Europe. In order to understand its practical and theoretical uses, it is important to review the philosophical history behind its formation. This philosophy declared that every being has its place under God's rule, and that harmony between all creatures is only achieved when each accepts the duties and joys to which it has been designated.
Not only did diplomats establish a system to maintain European political stability, but they did so in a way that emphasized harmony over power. Much of the significant negotiations happened around music or dancing rather than just formal meetings. While every nation had its own agenda to pursue and many less-powerful voices were lost in the concert, diplomats worked to blend interests within the common goal of maintaining an imperialist structure.
Given the great success of the Congress of Vienna, many politicians resurrected the idea of a Concert of Nations in order to support their contemporary agendas. Two excellent examples of this came from U.S. Senator France in 1921 and again from Senator Fulbright in 1961. Both of these cases faced the difficulty of adapting concert politics to the twentieth century while disassociating themselves from its imperialist roots.
In 1921, Senator France proposed a “Concert of Nations” to replace the League of Nations. In his mind, this Concert would be more effective than both the Concert of Europe or the League of Nations because it would be rooted in democratic (and very American) values. At the time, politicians already looked up to the stability achieved by the Concert of Europe, but for the most part it bent concert ideology to match Senator France's existing political agenda.
The same problem resurfaced in the Cold War, when Senator Fulbright proposed a “Concert of Free Nations". While Senator Fulbright did better research into the details of the Concert of Europe, he ran into similar trouble with how to make use of concert politics within a democratic sphere. He saw a contemporary concert including an inner circle of powerful democracies and an outer circle of less significant countries. In some ways, this strongly imitated the original Concert ideologies by allowing for differences in degree of influence in the concert. But it also left out very significant world powers who ascribed to communist values.
Concert of Democracies
The Concert of Democracies seems to follow closely on the heels of both Senator France and Senator Fulbright by proposing a concert limited to democratic countries that pursues democratic ideals like human rights and self-government. But in a similar vein, it also fails to address the significant ways in which it diverges from the Concert of Nations as understood by the Congress of Vienna: namely, its members are dependent on democratic support and it leaves out very powerful undemocratic nations. In practice, this means that the members of a Concert of Democracies would be subject to popular opinion for their continued participation, rather than on their imperialist good judgment. It also divides the world based on democratic or nondemocratic values rather than bringing differences together into balance.
China - The Socialist Harmonious Society
From an entirely different tradition, China's Socialist Harmonious Society proposes similar values as the nineteenth century's Concert of Nations. A discourse balanced between international cooperation and pursuit of power in international relations make this policy seem the most similar to the nineteenth century conception of working “in concert”.
The Harmonious Society (also known as Socialist Harmonious Society) is a socioeconomic concept in China that is recognized as a response to the increasing alleged social injustice and inequality emerging in mainland Chinese society as a result of unchecked economic growth, which has led to social conflict. The governing philosophy has therefore shifted around economic growth to overall societal balance and harmony, where the individual is the prime player. Along with a moderately prosperous society, it was set to be one of the national goals for the ruling vanguard Communist Party.
The concept of social harmony dates back to ancient China, to the time of Confucius. As a result, the philosophy has also been characterized as a form of New Confucianism. In modern times, it developed into a key feature of General Secretary Hu Jintao's signature ideology of the Scientific Development Concept developed in the mid-2000s, being re-introduced by the Hu–Wen Administration during the 2005 National People's Congress.
The promotion of the "Harmonious Society" demonstrated that Hu Jintao's ruling philosophy had departed from that of his predecessors.[8] Near the end of his tenure in 2011, Hu appeared to extend the ideology to an international dimension, with a focus on the international peace and cooperation, which is said to lead to a "harmonious world" whereas the administration of Hu's successor, Xi Jinping, has used the philosophy more sparingly, likely in favor of emphasizing his vision of the Chinese Dream.
The Socialist Harmonious Society concept was a response to the problem of social inequality/ wealth gap, which if not dealt with immediately, could lead to social unrest and even turmoil. A key reason contributing to a widening wealth gap was social injustice, which features collusion between entrepreneurs and officials. Through collusion, entrepreneurs were able to buy land from farmers and then sell it at high prices. Furthermore, with the protection of local officials, private coal mine owners ignored safety regulations to cut production costs. As a result, thousands of miners are killed in accidents.[8]
Hu Jintao visited the US in early 2011, two years before he stepped down as the General Secretary of the Communist Party (the paramount leader). One of the key messages of his visit was the idea of peace and cooperation: "China and the United States have major influence in international affairs and shoulder important responsibilities in upholding world peace and promoting common development. "In addition to attending state dinners, President Hu visited the US-China Business Council, a Chinese-owned auto parts plant in Ohio, and Walter Payton College Preparatory High School in Chicago/Confucius Institute of Chicago. When asked about the differences between the US and China at Walter Payton Prep, Hu Jintao responded, "China and the US have different histories, culture, social systems and levels of development, but their peoples are peace-loving and in pursuit of growth. I hope that the friendship between our two nations will last forever."[13]
With few agendas at hand before his retirement, Hu Jintao brought to America a concept of harmony that is based on peace, cooperation and "soft power" exchanges. Soft power is a concept developed by Joseph Nye to describe the ability to attract and cooperate rather than using coercion, force or money as a means of persuasion.
The administration of Hu's successor, Xi Jinping, has used the phrase more sparingly. It was mentioned only once in the resolutions passed by the 3rd Plenary Session of the 18th Central Committee. Be that as it may, the tenets remain.
Whether one analyzes one philosophy or another, the basic precept lies in the precept that the individual well being is paramount, that peace and harmony are fundamental to social coherence and that successful human development is based upon these precepts. In today’s world one can surmise the existence of two antagonistic powers sharing, in essence, one philosophy. Therein lies the basic concept that there exists common ground from which to build peace, harmony and peaceful co-existence.
The path forward must be all encompassing through the creation of a Global Council of Nations to reflect the composition of the United Nations body; it must be accompanied by the creation of a Court of Arbitration for Conflict Prevention and World Peace, the creation of a UN Office for Strategic Threats, increased membership to represent all nations of the world, a new format for voting rights and elimination of the veto powers, the principle of one a threat to one is a threat to all, permanent dialogue based on the principle of cooperation, and the creation of rules of engagement in international affairs.
A Global Council of Nations
World peace requires world participation. The present structure of world governance centred around the United Nations Security Council whose primary reason of existence is the preservation of world peace and security is and has been a failure. It has become necessary to question its very existence in today’s global environment. Discussions of reform dating back to 1993 have also been a failure. To be significant today there must be global representation, and that global representation lies in the creation of a Global Council of Nations. A Global Council of Nations that is authentically representative of all nations of the world. The reason for this is quite simple. Globalisation and international trade have led to an increasingly interconnected world where the actions of one nation must forcibly have consequences on other nations. The actions of one region have consequences on other regions. No longer can the world depend on one single nation or group of nations to govern over others in their self-interest and quest for global superiority. Today one is mesmerised by two super-powers, the United States and China, vying for predominance over the other. Yet one fundamental aspect of this conflict ignores the existence of some other 190 nations across the world. It appears that in their quest for superiority they have completely ignored the fundamental issue that we live today in a global interdependency where the actions of one reverberates on others. Locked in a myopic view of the world they look upon the world stage as their playing ground, ignoring the very existence of the very nations they wish to influence. Such a dichotomy is absurd as it is unreal. The time has come for the voice of all nations to be heard, even more so when the threat to world peace lies in the hands of only two states. They hold no rights to threaten the world with their antics and confrontations. Neither the United States and its allies in the West or China have, under international law, the right to impose war on the rest of the world. It is time for the rest of the world to unite and do so in no uncertain terms. This is what can be accomplished through the creation of a Global Council of Nations.
Membership – 15 Permanent Members
US, China, Russia, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Canada, India, Japan
European Union (EU)
Asia Pacific Nations (ASEAN)
Latin America and the Caribbean (OAS)
Africa (AFRICAN UNION)
Eastern European States (EEG)
Middle East (ARAB LEAGUE)
The actual mechanisms under which such a Council would operate will be the matter of much discussion. Included in the factors for broad consideration are the following:
Voting rights and majority: All members have 1 vote, decisions to be settled by 50 % + 1.
The principle of a threat to one is a threat to all.
Permanent dialogue based on principle of co-operation
Creation of rules of engagement in international affairs
To complement the Council of Nations there would be an institution that would be specifically created, that of a UN Office for Strategic Threats. A UN Office on Strategic Threats could centralize and coordinate information and strategic thinking on a global scale. It would be a central point to identify and assess long-range trends and synergies among potential future threats. It would serve the main international agencies, multilateral organizations, nation-states,
-and humanity in general.
=====================================
