And that was happening at the very time when, more than ever before, human beings throughout the world formed a single society, he said. So many of the challenges were global and demanded a global response, in which all peoples must play their part. “I deliberately say ‘all peoples’, echoing the preamble of our Charter, and not ‘all States’”. International relations were not a matter of States alone. They were relations between peoples, in which so-called ‘non-State actors’ played a vital role. “All must play their part in a true multilateral world order, with a renewed, dynamic United Nations at its centre”, he said.
“Yes, I remain convinced that the only answer to this divided world must be a truly United Nations”, he said. Climate change, HIV/AIDS, fair trade, migration, human rights -– “all these issues, and many more, bring us back to that point”, he said, adding: “addressing each is indispensable for each of us in our village, in our neighbourhood, and in our country. Yet each has acquired a global dimension that can only be reached by global action, agreed and coordinated through this most universal of institutions”.
What mattered was that the strong, as well as the weak, agreed to be bound by the same rules, to treat each other with the same respect, he said. What mattered was that all peoples accepted the need to listen; to compromise; to take each other’s views into account. What mattered was that they come together, not at cross purposes, but with a common purpose: to shape their common destiny.
So are we talking about a thin notion of the common good or a thick notion?
“And that can only happen if peoples are bound together by something more than just a global market, or even a set of global rules. Each of us must share the pain of all who suffer, and the joy of all who hope, wherever in the world they may live”, he said. Each of us must earn the trust of his fellow men and women, no matter what their race, colour or creed, and learn to trust them in turn. “It is what I believe in. It is what the vast majority of people in this world want to believe in”, he said.
Share in the pain of all who suffer? And how will this be accomplished? Internationalism and universalism--the twin goals of a certain form of liberalism. At the same time he acknowledges that the state is not everything, a legitimate reaction to a modern notion of the state. Will he able to recognize the need for decentralization? Or will the UN be the instrument by which consolidation of power is eventually achieved?
Maybe the conspiracy theorists aren't wrong about the UN and the "New World Order." It seems to me that the UN is inseparable from internationalism and universalism.
Sarge brought up Wilson Philips in a phone conversation. Weird, I had a dream about them this afternoon.
No comments:
Post a Comment