Towards global cohesion: Gray Southon examines the role of the United Nations in global development.

• Author: Southon, Gray

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Since 1990 we have been experiencing one of most dramatic changes in the nature of the world order. This change is characterised by three principal elements: a shift from military to commercial power, a shift from power politics to multilateral negotiated agreements, and the increasing role of civil society groups at the international level. While these elements can be recognised in previous eras, we are now in the early stages of what seems to be a great expansion of this process of change. Although the elements are quite different, they can relate to each other, and can support each other quite strongly.

These elements became well established after the Second World War, but have been greatly boosted since the 1990s, facilitated principally by the end of the Cold War and the development of the Internet. In this time, there has been a massive growth in international commerce, and a proliferation of activities to resolve conflicts, establish trade relationships, address environmental and resource issues as well as a host of social and development challenges.

These developments are essentially an extension of the process of the formation of nation states out of collections of feuding domains. The establishment of a central authority within a state could provide a stability which enabled commerce to expand, which in turn increased the commitment to a stable environment. This has not always been an easy process, and often the path has been painful and haphazard, taking many decades, if not centuries. Many changes were required in society. In particular, the submission to a central authority demanded sacrifices that required considerable accommodation. Where successful, however, the enormous productivity benefits accruing from the enhanced national stability and co-ordination led to a strong sense of nationalism amongst the people.

While such nationalism proved successful at the national level, it was devastating at the international level. It supported the development of enormous military capability, which enabled states to wage conflicts at the level of the First and Second World Wars. In reaction to these horrors, the European Union was formed. In only a few decades, Europe was transformed from a continent wasted by massive military conflict to one of such extensive social and economic co-operation that major military action is unthinkable. Despite the problems these changes have generated, Europe is a very much more stable, productive and equitable continent than what it was 60 years ago. The benefits are so evident that many countries desire to join it.

The United Nations was also formed to address the much more complex and problematic process of bringing a similar stability at the global level. Problems arise from the great diversity in cultures and the many evolving nations and societies involved. There is extensive poverty, corruption and at times social and governmental disintegration. There are entrenched legacies of hatred, destruction and abuse, and exploitation of disempowered masses by privileged elites and external powers. Many nations are still more pre-occupied with their own narrow self-interest than with broader global success, while a number of political and commercial interests feed off the chaos generated. Problems arise in managing the authority or governance structures to be developed. There is resistance to the concept of world government, in part because it threatens sovereignty, but also because it presents an accumulation of power that is potentially disastrous. Thus we are struggling with the slow development of a global governance structure characterised by its direct dependence on national governments, with little independent power of its own.

This global transformation which is the task of the United Nations will be far more difficult and prolonged than the transformation of Europe.

Military power

While commercial power has often been important during history, it has been military power that has usually dominated historical developments, whether it has been maintaining a balance of power between warlords, maintaining peace in vast empires, repelling invasions by distant powers, or establishing a balance of terror with nuclear arms. These military endeavours were usually supported by national cultures that made military action respectable and honoured those who sacrificed themselves. National identity, monuments and commemorations were often focused on military endeavours. In this way major sacrifices in resources and life were accepted by communities.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

However, military initiatives are increasingly being opposed by both the United Nations and civil society in general. UN peace initiatives have extended beyond conflict between states to internal conflicts and civil wars. There has been considerable growth in non-governmental organisations opposed to war, and the attitudes of religious organisations have also changed, particularly in the West. Where once major institutional churches accepted, or even supported, military endeavours, now they often oppose them. The lead-up to the Iraq War saw a quite unprecedented...