| |
Editorial
05/2006 |
|
Enlightend self-restraint
In political discourse, “globalisation” often stands for nothing more than free trade and worldwide competition. Depending on one’s point of view, it is then either considered a curse or a blessing. Either way, however, this understanding does not go far enough.
Sociologist Niklas Luhmann has come up with a more meaningful definition. According to him, globalisation is about important functional systems of society reaching beyond the borders of the nation state. In the case of science, this was so from the very beginning. Competition for commodities, in turn, has been a global affair for at least 500 years. However, modern technology – from air traffic to satellite TV to the internet – has accelerated global interaction and interdependency tremendously. On their own, even the governments of the most powerful countries cannot tackle issues crucial for national survival anymore. Multilateral cooperation is imperative in many areas – including the environment, epidemics, industry standards, poverty and peace.
These challenges require global governance. Not by coincidence has the theoretical discourse on the topic resounded particularly well in prosperous nations with some – but not overbearing – international influence. Decision-makers in the USA, the remaining superpower, are more inclined to try to act on their own. Governments of marginalised countries, on the other hand, have little hope of being heard in complicated global talks. Therefore, multilateral policy-making appeals most to mid-sized powers like Germany or France. They are too weak to impose their views internationally, but too strong to be ignored.
There are more reasons, however, for Europe’s sense of sharing sovereignty being particularly well-developed. The continent’s leaders have learned the lessons of the World Wars in the 20th century. Moreover, complex industrial societies are especially sensitive to the need for transnational policy-making. Governments in densely-populated Europe must cooperate – even though smaller EU partners may sometimes complain about arrogance in Paris or Berlin, in similar ways decision-makers there bemoan unilateral tendencies in Washington.
Indeed, power is not equally shared in multilateral bodies. Countries with spectacular economic output have more influence than those with high poverty levels. Big countries are more influential than smaller ones. The military matters – but so do scientific and technological expertise as well as the ability to export goods others depend on. Institutional credibility and diplomatic skill are also relevant. The failed World Trade Organisation summit in Cancun in 2003 made it clear, that regional heavyweights of Asia, Africa and Latin America (“anchor countries”) have become influential in global affairs.
Policy-making in multilateral bodies is arduous and stressful. It can only succeed if the major players are prepared to practice enlightened self-restraint. Weaker partners, in turn, at least have an opportunity to be heard. The alternative would be an all-out power struggle, in which marginalised regions will always lose out.
It is redundant to state that, in our atomic age, violent conflict is no option at the global level. Something else highlights the urgency of adequate global governance better. Confronted with the risks of global warming, humankind cannot afford to simply “wait and see”. Once our climate will change irreversibly, we will be exposed to catastrophic consequences, which are not even quantifiable yet. Most likely, however, the Second World War would seem negligible in comparison.
Dr. Hans Dembowski
Editor in Chief of D+C Development and Cooperation/E+Z Entwicklung und Zusammenarbeit
euz.editor@fsd.de
|
