On Global Order
In 2008 Jean Pierre Bemba, a Congolese former rebel
leader and an acting senator was arrested in Brussels and taken to the
International Criminal Court (ICC). The basis of his arrest was the accusation
that while helping the president of the Central African Republic to fight an
insurgency, Jean-Pierre Bemba troops committed violations against humanity
(including acts of torture, massive rapes and even incidence of cannibalism).
Sadly enough, what make Jean Pierre Bemba’s arrest remarkable is not the
gravity of the crimes that his troops allegedly committed but also the selectivity
of the ICC. At the same time as Jean Pierre Bemba was indicted and arrested
President Kagame of Rwanda and Museveni of Uganda had long been accused of
crimes against humanity in their countries and in the Congo. So long as Kagame
and Museveni are in good terms with the big dogs in the Arena (i.e. the US,
England and other big players) their involvement in the Congolese conflict and
the acts of barbarity that their armies committed in the Congo will never be
accounted for. That is a crude slice of African politics. That is how most Africans understand the concept of “world order”.
I have an uneasiness to engage Andrew Hurrell since
his work is more descriptive than argumentative. For the most part, his
description of the changing nature of the international space is accurate, as
far I am concerned. However, I am not convinced that the “patterns of governance
and institutionalization in world politics have already changed,” as Hurell seem
to suggest. In part, it is because Hurell does not convincingly elaborate on the
directionality or nature of the so-called “change”. Secondly, the diffusion of
norms or values and the maintenance of “order” continue to essentially be subject
to political, military and economic powers. Jean Pierre Bemba was arrested not
because he violated values or norms of warfare (which he did). Kagame, Museveni
and George Bush violated international norms as well, but they were never
arrested. Jean Pierre Bemba was arrested because he was not on the side of the
most powerful.
I am wiling to admit that
the centrality of the state has been affected since the end of the Cold War and
the deepening of economic interdependence. Non-state actors such as NGOs, INGOs, and even insurgent groups such
as AL Qaida and Boko Haram, have been able to make their voice heard and
influence at some extent the course of the international politics. However, for
developing countries, it seems that the diffusion of international norms, values and the maintenance of “world order” continue to depend on the decisions
of the most powerful.
For instance, the chief of IMF, Christine
Lagarde, just warned that a US default would send the global economy into
recession. Certainly, “liberal solidarism complicates” the question of
legitimacy, and economic interdependence has caused fissures in the sovereignty
of peripheral economies. For, instance many African states rely on
international aid and bilateral cooperation for their annual budgets (Moyo,
2009, and Collier, 2007), this put their governments at the mercy of the donor
community. I consider “liberal solidarism” as a materialization of the dominant
strategy. This being said, is there a substantial difference between
“pluralism” and liberal solidarism? And what does the “world order” represent
for you? Finally, can we say that the “patterns of governance and institutionalization in
world politics” have changed while our language, our money, our policies and our
military continue to influence the majority of the world?
posted by Patrick Litanga at 1:51 PM
3 Comments:
I think your posting addresses a central point of the Hurrell book- which is that in a "liberal solidarist" conceptualization of global order, there is a shift to looking at law and power as not being in opposition to law and morality. But what does this really mean? Hasn't the definition of morality and how it is applied in law always been related to power? In your examples, the application of moral stances and how international law has not been applied evenly illustrates how perhaps these changes that Hurrell articulates have yet to be realized. Hurrell addresses both unequal power and the mediation of difference as two of the three central challenges to global political order. He claims that his book is an exercise in "clarifying complexity" (p. 8), but do his claims about changes reveal his own position in the world, and does he acknowledge his position within his research? Is the complexity and clarification of complexity a closed conversation? Who are the authors he cites and builds off of and what is their position? While these are basic questions, I pose them because as I read his text I felt like I was listening in on a conversation that is very specific and rooted in the position of the authors. He does ask how "moves beyond pluralism will reflect the interests of the international community at large rather than simply those of a single state or group of states?" (p. 56) But, how does this look in practice?
This comment has been removed by the author.
I keep thinking about the civil war in Syria and how "international society" has been addressing the use of chemical weapons. Today marks the first day that Syria joins the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons is on site to remove the weapons. (see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24516303#). On page 66, Hurrell says, "“although the logic of solidarism point toward the conditionality of sovereignty, movement in this direction has been, and continues to be, the subject of bitter contestation.” Perspectives on the roots of this contestation vary according to the party in question- for historical and moral reasons. As he points out on page 67- those who opt out of the legal norms risk being labeled as "rogue". But, what is wrong with having normative goals for human rights and how states should behave in regards to their own citizens and beyond? This is one of the central debates of this book- how do norms get decided and are institutions simply being "used" as another way to exert influence and power?
Post a Comment
<< Home