A New World Order?

Article by Chris Thomson

Read comments (2)

A Person Reflection on �Failed States� by Noam Chomsky: published by Hamish Hamilton, 2006

Whenever I read anything by Chomsky, I feel very uncomfortable, partly because he keeps telling me that the world is in a mess, but mainly because I do not know what to do with this knowledge. I suspect many others feel the same. Chomsky's latest book "Failed States" is no different. Although I learned a few new details, the general picture was familiar to me, and will be familiar to many Sun readers. I do not think it unfair to summarise the book as follows: the United States is a hypocrite on a grand scale. The United States is fast becoming the world's pariah. And the United States has given itself the right to be the unique exception to international law and standards.

Now, if what Chomsky says is true, where does this leave us? Will Americans vote Bush out of office? And would that make much difference, given that, for the foreseeable future, anyone occupying the White House is likely to continue with neoliberal policies and to use the military as a blunt instrument to get America's way. Although there is massive disenchantment with, and disengagement from, mainstream politics in the USA, this has yet to translate into fundamental policy shifts. Meanwhile, let us look at some of detail in Chomsky�s message.

A New World Order?

When the Berlin Wall was pulled down in 1989, we were left in no doubt that there was to be a "new world order" and that this would be shaped and led by the world�s remaining superpower, the United States. To ram the message home, Frank Fukuyama told us, in The End of History, that the American version of free-market capitalism would be at the heart of the new order, and that it was the only game in town. What Frank did not tell us was that this would be a new order of unprecedented hypocrisy, violence and greed.

It did not take long for the new world order to become the new world nightmare. The end of the Second Millennium saw wars raging in Asia, Africa, South America and Europe. Inequality within and between nations was at record levels, and the environment and planet were more threatened than ever, as were indigenous and national cultures the world over. It should not have surprised us that some small groups felt the need to take matters into their own hands, by starting their own wars. As we now know, when a state prosecutes violence, it is called "war" when the violence is done to other countries and "justice" or "law and order" when the violence is done to its own people. When small groups do the same, it is called "terror."

The main difference between state violence and small group violence is that the former is regarded as "legitimate" (even when, by international standards, it is often illegal) and usually very destructive, while the latter is "illegitimate" and usually much less destructive. The slaughter of the innocents in New York on September 11th, 2001, is put into uncomfortable perspective when set alongside the slaughter of a much larger number of innocents in Fallujah, Iraq, in November, 2004. However, the slaughter carried out by the small group of Saudis received unprecedented media attention, whereas the slaughter carried out by the United States military received relatively little. The former has gone into history as "9/11," while the latter will no doubt be airbrushed into oblivion, as so often happens. How many Americans know, for example, that 9/11/1973 was the date on which the US-backed overthrow of a democratically elected government took place? The government was in Chile, and the overthrow was followed by a slaughter of more than 10,000 innocents by an army supported by the United States.

This is one of the points that Chomsky makes - that the American version of history bears very little relation to reality. Anyone who has read Howard Zinn�s "A People�s History of the United States" will know what Chomsky means. In what is a difficult read, Zinn shows that the USA was founded not so much on "freedom and democracy," but more on violence and greed. The genocide of Native Americans was one of the major holocausts of modern times. Perhaps it makes sense, after all, that America chose, as one of her heroes, a man who ordered and condoned the killing of tens of thousands of people when he landed in the West Indies. Every year on Columbus Day, Native Americans from Alaska to New Mexico jam the phone lines of radio stations complaining that the USA sets aside a day for a mass murderer. In their view, it is rather like the Germans deciding to have a Hitler Day.

[BB]

The World�s Hypocrite

The motto for the Bush government and, to be fair, for many previous US governments, should be "Do as we say, not as we do." The world looks on in astonishment as the US berates Iran for even thinking about nuclear weapons, while it casually makes itself the exception to the Non-proliferation Treaty. Even the Blair government in the UK cringes in embarrassment as the USA unilaterally decides that international law applies to other countries, but not to America. In keeping with its policy of making itself the unique and privileged exception to international standards, the United States government continues to preach "free trade," while doing all it can to sabotage the attempts of the World Trade Organisation to create genuinely free trade. Although most Americans will never know it, because their media will not tell them, the United States has made itself a laughing stock in Europe by passing what many are calling the "Netherlands Invasion Act," a piece of legislation that authorises the President to use force to rescue Americans brought to the International Criminal Court in the Hague. If we are ever to have a new world order, then it really has to be a world order, applicable to the whole world, including America. So long as America makes itself the exception to genuine international order, the world will slide into deeper chaos.

The World�s Pariah

Being the world's hypocrite is, of course, a big part of the reason the US is seen by many as the world's pariah. But there are other reasons, which Chomsky discusses in his customary detail. For example, America is currently the world's greatest per capita consumer of energy and other resources, and the single biggest cause of climate change. While it is true that there are many American cities, communities and individuals who have signed up to Kyoto and other planet-friendly initiatives, the overall picture is still poor. An example that a makes Europeans raise their eyebrows is the fact that, although Americans think they are doing well when their cars get 30 or more miles per gallon, the equivalent figure in Europe would be 50 or more.

Climate change is one thing. America's propensity for violence is quite another. The United States has been the world's bully for as long as I can remember. As William Blum documents in his book "Rogue State," America has been at war more or less continually for the last 50 years. Some of these wars have been overt (Vietnam, Somalia, Kuwait), but most have been covert, waged under the guise of "advising" a foreign power. With very few exceptions, the United States has taken the side of right-wing dictators against the poor and minorities. In this, it has done exactly the opposite of what it preaches. While it may be true that the US wants "free elections," the people better make sure that they elect the right government. If they do not (Venezuela, Bolivia, Palestine, etc.), there will be trouble. It will be interesting to see how the US reacts if progressive, enlightened government ever emerges from the carnage of Iraq.

[BB]

What now?

Much of what I have said so far will be familiar. However, it is all very well to know the truth about what is going on in the world, but what on earth are we supposed to do with this knowledge? For me, this is the hardest part. In the penultimate page of his book, Chomsky gives us "a few simple suggestions". He suggests that the United States should:

Accept the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court and the World Court

Adopt the Kyoto protocols

Let the UN take the lead in international crises

Rely on diplomatic and economic measures in confronting "terror"

Keep to the traditional interpretation of the UN Charter

Give up the Security Council veto and "have a decent respect for the opinion of mankind"

Cut back sharply on military spending and sharply increase social spending

On the face of it, these seem very sensible, but I doubt very much whether they will change anything, for two reasons, one obvious and one far from obvious. The obvious reason is that these suggestions will fall on Washington's deaf ears. We know, with reasonable certainty, that this is exactly what the United States will not do. How do we know this? We know because not adopting all these measures has been at the heart of US policy for decades. Indeed, this very fact is what has given Chomsky his rationale for writing all his books! The less obvious reason will take longer to explain. It is about "deeper causes.".

Identifying and Addressing Deeper Causes

I applaud what Chomsky has been doing all these years. I have learned a lot from him. My only real criticism is that I do not think he gets to the heart of the matter. The problems he describes in such detail are, in my view, not the real problems. They are "symptoms" of a much deeper, underlying malaise that afflicts not just the United States, but all modern societies. But, before I outline what I believe this malaise to be, I should like to say a few words about "deeper causes," because I do not think we pay enough attention to this.

Although they may be unaware of it, most people, most organisations and most governments try to solve problems by addressing symptoms rather causes. That is neither effective nor sustainable. Treating the symptoms may seem to make things better for a while. It may even give the impression that the problem has been cured once and for all. But if the deeper causes are not addressed, the symptoms will inevitably return, often worse. The analogy with medical treatment is instructive. In busy, overstretched healthcare services, it is rare that we identify and treat the root causes of illness, which are often cultural, economic, emotional or spiritual in nature. Services that focus largely on the provision of medical treatment (this is where nearly all the money goes) is simply not equipped to address the causes of illness. All it can hope to do is to keep symptoms at bay. A service focused on health, on the other hand, would do things very differently. It would go as deep as it could into what causes illness and into what promotes health and it would put its money and attention into these two areas.

As a society, we tend to deal with illness, poverty, crime, drugs and pollution as if they were the problems themselves, when in fact they are more likely to be symptoms of something going wrong at a deeper level. They reflect an underlying malaise. The intelligent thing to do is to find out what this malaise is and then do something about it, even if it might mean facing up to some uncomfortable truths about our beliefs and behaviour and about the direction of our policies and strategies. Meanwhile, crime, for example, is typically addressed by recruiting more police, building more prisons and imposing tougher sentences, all because criminal behaviour is seen as the problem rather than as a symptom of something deeper. What is true for crime is equally true for all our other problems. Prevention is better than cure. But if you have to cure, better to address the underlying causes. Having said this, dealing with symptoms is undoubtedly appropriate when the symptoms have become life-threatening or intolerable. But we should remind ourselves that, in many cases, it is we who have allowed them to get to that point. And this brings me neatly to the "deeper, underlying malaise" I mentioned earlier.

[BB]

Hard as it may be for many to accept this, I think we are part of the malaise, collectively and individually. While it is true there is much about America that is hypocritical, who among us can put his hand on his heart and say that he is not a hypocrite? Very few of us, I suspect. Indeed, hypocrisy has become a major issue in Europe as the very journalists and politicians preaching to us about climate change and social justice are discovered to be flying frequently on cheap flights to their second homes in France and Spain! Not all of us can afford to do this, of course, but how many of us would not like the "good life" if we could afford it? For me, the main problem in the world today is not unscrupulous politicians or business leaders. It is our own addiction to a lifestyle that it both unsustainable and spiritually deadening. To be fair to politicians and business leaders, many of them believe that are giving us what we want. After all, large numbers of us vote them into office and even larger numbers buy their products. So, while Chomsky is quite correct to point out that there is a huge disconnect between public policy and public opinion (especially when it comes to healthcare and social provision), the fact remains that too many of our own behaviours feed this disconnect.

So, when you find yourself criticising anyone, be it George Bush or Exxon, stop what you are doing immediately, and think instead about yourself. Is your own behaviour beyond criticism? If it is, you are very fortunate and very unusual! If it is not, stop thinking about Bush and Exxon and all the others out there, and direct all your attention on to yourself. For the fact is that the world will change only when you change. If we are serious about wanting to create a world in which people and planet are enhanced, rather than exploited, then each of us has to live our lives as if this were already a reality. If we are waiting for our political and business leaders to make a better world for us, then we shall wait an eternity.

I cannot finish without saying a little more about the "deeper, underlying malaise." In a word, I think it is "modernity." Clearly, this requires some explanation. I am involved in an unusual project called "The Second Enlightenment." The essence of the project is to find ways to go beyond modernity and our obsession with materialism. There is not the space here to go into detail, but I am keen that we do no throw the baby out with the bathwater, because, for all its shortcomings, modernity has given us a lot. However, without ever intending to, the first Enlightenment (sometimes called the Scottish Enlightenment), in spawning the beliefs, values and behaviours that we call "modernity," set in motion a dynamic that effectively removed some very important parts of our lives. They removed, or at least devalued, deeper meaning, wisdom and ecology. With such important things pushed to the margins, it is hardly surprising that we have become the most dangerous, destructive species on the planet. I am convinced that any "Second Enlightenment" will largely be about bringing wisdom, deeper meaning and ecology right into the heart of our lives and work. How we will do that is beyond the scope of this article.