|
A
New Paradigm of International Relations
and the function of religions
Hans Kung
Introduction
I. A short reflection on history
Let me start with a short reflection on history:
Three symbolic dates that signal the new paradigm
in international relations that is slowly
and laboriously establishing itself: its announcement
(1918), its realization (1945), and finally
its breakthrough (1989).
First opportunity: 1918, the First World War,
unfortunately supported on both sides by the
Christian churches, ended with a net result
of around 10 million dead, the collapse of
the German Empire, the Habsburg Empire, the
Tzarist Empire and the Ottoman Empire. The
Chinese Empire had collapsed earlier. Now
there were for the first time American troops
on European soil and, on the other side, the
Soviet Empire was in the making. This marked
the beginning of the end of the eurocentric-imperialistic
paradigm of modernity and the dawning of a
new paradigm. That new paradigm had not yet
been defined, but had been foreseen by many
far-sighted and enlightened thinkers, and
was first set forth in the arena of international
relations by the United States of America.
With his 'Fourteen Points', President Woodrow
Wilson wanted to achieve a 'just peace' and
the 'self-determination of the nations', without
the annexations and demands for reparations
which some in Congress wanted. President Wilson
has been ignored too much in the United States
and even denigrated by Henry Kissinger who
often polemized against 'Wilsonianism'.
The Versailles Treaty of Clemenceau and Lloyd
George prevented the immediate realization
of the new paradigm. That was the 'Realpolitik',
a word used first by Bismarck, but its ideology
was developed by Machiavelli and it was the
first time put into political practice by
cardinal Richelieu. Instead of a just peace,
there emerged a dictated peace in which the
defeated nations took no part. The consequences
of this approach are well known to you: Fascism
and Nazism (backed up in the Far East by Japanese
militarism), not sufficiently opposed by the
Christian churches, are the catastrophic reactionary
errors which two decades later led to the
Second World War, which was far worse than
any previous war in world history.
Second opportunity: 1945 saw the end of the
Second World War with a net result of around
50 million dead and many more million exiled.
Fascism and Nazism had been defeated, but
Soviet Communism appeared stronger and more
formidable than ever to the international
community, even though internally it was already
experiencing a political, economic and social
crisis because of Stalin’s policy.
Again, the initiative for a new paradigm came
from the USA. In 1945 the United Nations was
founded in San Francisco and the Bretton Woods
Agreement on the reordering of the global
economy was signed (foundation of the International
Monetary Fond and the World Bank). In 1948
came the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
along with American economic aid (Marshall
Plan) for the rebuilding of Europe and its
incorporation into a free trade system. But
Stalinism blocked this paradigm for its sphere
of influence and led to the division of the
world into East and West.
Third opportunity: 1989 saw the successful
peaceful revolution in Eastern Europe and
the collapse of Soviet Communism. After the
first Gulf War it was again an American president
who announced a new paradigm, a 'new world
order', and found enthusiastic acceptance
all over the world with this slogan. But in
contrast to his predecessor, Woodrow Wilson,
President George Bush senior felt embarrassed
when he had to explain what this 'vision thing'
for the international order should look like.
No change in Iraq, no democracy in Kuweit,
no solution for the Israel-Palestine conflict,
no democratic change in other Arab States.
And in the present moment the doubts also
in the United States increase that the so-called
'war against terrorism' can be our vision
for the future. So today the question arises:
over the last decade, have we again forfeited
the opportunity for a 'new world order', a
new paradigm?
We should not give up hope. And especially
committed Christians, Jews, Muslims and members
of other religions should work for the new
paradigm. After all, despite the wars, massacres
and streams of refugees in the twentieth century,
despite the Gulag archipelago, the Holocaust,
the most inhuman crime in the history of humanity,
and the atomic bomb, we must not overlook
some major changes for the better. After 1945,
not only has humanity seen numerous grandiose
scientific and technological achievements.
But many ideas set forth in 1918 that had
been pressing for a new, post-modern and overall
global constellation were able to better establish
themselves. The peace movement, the women’s
rights movement, the environmental movement
and the ecumenical movement all began to make
considerable progress. There emerged a new
attitude to war and disarmament, to the partnership
of men and women, to the relationship between
economy and ecology, to an understanding among
the Christian churches and the world religions.
After 1989, following the end of the enforced
division of the world into West and East and
the definitive demystification of both the
evolutionary and the revolutionary ideology
of progress, concrete possibilities for a
pacified and co-operative world have begun
to take shape. In contrast to colonialist
European modernity, these possibilities are
no longer eurocentric but polycentric. Despite
all the monstrous defects and conflicts still
plaguing the international community, this
new paradigm is in principle post-imperialistic
and post-colonial, with the ideals of an eco-social
market economy and truly united nations at
their core.
Despite the terrors of the twentieth century
there is 'still perhaps something like a hesitant
historical progress.' Over the last century,
the formerly dominant political orientations
have been banished for good. For one, imperialism
has no scope in global politics after de-colonialization.
Moreover, since the end of the South African
apartheid regime, racism, a consistent policy
of racial privilege and racial discrimination,
is no longer the explicit political strategy
in any state. Likewise nationalism has become
a non-word in the lands of Western Europe
from which it originated, and for many people
is being replaced by dialogue, co-operation,
and integration.
The movement is now tending toward a novel
political model of regional co-operation and
integration, and is attempting to peacefully
overcome centuries of confrontation. The result
is peace between Germany and France first,
then in the European Union, finally in the
whole area of the OECD (Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development, founded in 1948
and developed in 1960), including all of the
Western industrialized countries (the European
countries, the USA, Canada, Mexico, Australia,
New Zealand and Japan): half a century of
democratic peace! That despite all failures
and deficiences truly is a successful paradigm
change. I know there were and are still wars
in Asia, Africa, South America and in the
Islamic world (e.g. El Salvador, Guatemala,
Nicaragua, Colombia, Israel-Palestine, Sudan,
Jemen, Algeria, Gulf, Bosnia and Kosovo),
but nobody could anymore imagine a war between
Germany and France or the United States and
Japan.
II. The new paradigm
After this all too brief historical tour I
want to move now to the fundamental definition
of the new paradigm of international relations.
I have received much stimulation and support
in a discussion within the small international
'group of eminent persons' which was convened
by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan for the
UN year of 'Dialogue of Civilizations' 2001
, an endeavour which produced a report for
the UN General Assembly, 'Crossing the Divide.
Dialogue Among Civilizations', Seton Hall
University, 2001. On the basis of the experiences
in the EU and the OECD, the new overall political
constellation can be sketched briefly as follows.
Here, ethical categories cannot be avoided.
In principle, the new paradigm means policies
of regional reconciliation, understanding
and co-operation instead of the modern national
politics of self-interest, power and prestige.
In specific, the exercise of political action
now calls for reciprocal co-operation, compromise
and integration instead of the former confrontation,
aggression and revenge. This new overall political
constellation manifestly presupposes a change
of mentality, which goes far beyond the politics
of the present day. For this new overall political
constellation to hold, new approaches to international
politics are needed. For one, new international
organizations are not enough here; what is
needed is a new mind-set. National, ethnic
and religious differences must no longer be
understood, in principle, as a threat but
rather as possible sources of enrichment.
Whereas the old paradigm always presupposed
an enemy, indeed a traditional enemy, the
new paradigm no longer envisions or needs
such an enemy. Rather, it seeks partners,
rivals and economic opponents for competition
instead of military confrontation, and uses
'soft' power (diplomatic influence and political
persuasion, cultural influence and prestige)
instead of 'hard' military power (Joseph Nye).
This is so because it has been proven that
in the long run national prosperity is not
furthered by war but only by peace, not in
opposition or confrontation but in co-operation.
And because the different interests that exist
are satisfied in collaboration, a policy is
possible which is no longer a zero-sum game
where one wins at the expense of the other,
but a positive-sum game in which all win.
Of course this does not mean that politics
has become easier in the new paradigm. It
remains the 'art of the possible', though
it has now become non-violent. If it is to
be able to function, it cannot be based on
a random 'post-modernist' pluralism, where
anything goes and anything is allowed. Rather,
it presupposes a social consensus on particular
basic values, basic rights and basic responsibilities.
All social groups and all nations must contribute
to this basic social consensus, especially
religious believers, but also non-believers
and adherents to the different philosophies
or ideologies. In other words, this social
consensus, which cannot be imposed by a democratic
system but has to be presupposed, does not
mean a specific ethical system, but a common
minimum of ethical standards, a common ethic,
an ethic of humankind. This global ethic is
not a new ideology or 'superstructure', imposed
by the west to the 'rest', but brings together
the common religious and philosophical resources
of all of humankind. For instance the Golden
Rule you find already in the Analects of Confucius
but also in the writings of Rabbi Hillel (before
Christ) and of course in Jesus’ sermon on
the mount, but also in the 40 Hadith of an-Nawawi.
'What you do not wish done to yourself, do
not do to others.' 'No one of you is a believer
until he desires for his brother that which
he desires for himself.' And a few very basic
directives you find everywhere in humanity:
Not to murder, not to steal, not to lie, not
to abuse sexuality. I shall come back to this
point. Global Ethic should not be imposed
by law but be brought to public awareness.
A global ethic is simultaneously orientated
on persons, institutions and results. To this
degree, a global ethic does not just focus
on the collective responsibility to the relief
of any responsibility the individual may hold
(as if only the social 'conditions', 'history',
and the 'system' were to blame for specific
abuses and crimes). Instead, it is focused
in a particular way on the responsibility
of each individual in his or her place in
society and specifically on the individual
responsibility of leaders in politics, economics
and culture. Free commitment to a common ethic
does of course not exclude the support of
law but rather includes it, and can in some
circumstances appeal to law. Such circumstances
include cases of genocide, crimes against
humanity, war crimes and aggression contrary
to international law, as in former Yugoslavia.
Meanwhile, following the ratification by more
than 60 nations the International Criminal
Court (ICC) is now established to which such
violations can be brought, specifically when
a signatory state is unable or unwilling to
inflict legal penalties on atrocities committed
on its territory (cf. President Milosevic).
But: Our vision has to be confronted with
political reality:
III. Realistic alternatives for the
future
It is notorious that it is the second Bush
administration which opposes precisely such
important international agreements like the
Kyoto agreement to reduce global warming,
the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the Anti-Ballistic
Missile Treaty, the implementation of the
Biological Weapons Treaty etc. These are sad
facts for all admirers of American democracy:
The present administration of the only remaining
superpower seems to many people not only in
the Islamic world, but also in the Asian and
African worlds and in Europe to disrupt a
policy in the new paradigm. So I cannot avoid
comparing the new paradigm with the political
reality after 11 September 2001, given that
beyond any doubt the fight against terrorism
had to be started and the monstrous crime
in New York and in Washington could not remain
unatoned for. After the perhaps avoidable
war in Afghanistan and the illegal and immoral
war in Iraq – two wars which have brought
anything else than peace to both countries
– the decisive question is more than ever:
what international commitment are we to make?
And should we simply continue the fight against
terrorism in this style? Can armed forces
solve the terrorist problem? Can a bigger
Nato stop terrorism? And should European nations
now furnish and finance what would amount
to a 'foreign legion' in the service of the
Pentagon? My concern are not the alternatives
of the past, but the alternatives for the
future. Have we any alternatives at all, as
long as foreign policy is above all military
policy and billions are being spent on sinfully
expensive new weapon systems and transport
planes instead on kindergartens and schools,
healthcare and public services in Europe and
on fighting against poverty, hunger and misery
in the world? Are there still any opportunities
at all for the new paradigm outside the OECD
world as well? I think that there are, and
I want to indicate them cautiously: not with
seemingly firm predictions, but in the mode
of 'It could be that…' I shall do this in
full awareness of all the real uncertainties
of the future, which today often bring about
fundamental changes more quickly than before,
changes which are however not always for the
worst – as we have seen in the changed attitude
of the Bush administration regarding the United
Nations. I shall adopt so to speak the realistic
anti-Murphy principle: What can go wrong need
not always go wrong…‹ And as an admirer of
the great American tradition of democracy
and the demand for human rights, I would plead
for peace politics – even in face of the campaign
against terrorism which should not primarily
be a military, but a political, economic and
cultural fight. It could be that the present
or the next American administration, will
realize that those who think that they can
win the fight against evil all over the world
are self-righteously condemning themselves
to eternal war, and that even the sole remaining
superpower and a self-designated police force
of the world can carry out a successful policy
only if it does not act unilaterally in a
high-handed way but has real partners and
friends, not satellites, practising therefore
the 'humility' in dealing with other nations
G.W. Bush promised before his election, but
did not practise afterwards. It could be that
the United States, more shrewdly than former
empires, will not over-extend its power and
come to grief through megalomania, but will
preserve its position of predominance by taking
into account not only its own interest but
also the interests of its partners. The attempt
to organize a messy world to our liking, is
hubris; and also for empires – remember the
French, the British, the German, the Japanese,
the Russian empire – pride goes before the
fall. It could be that the present or the
next American administration, because it does
not want to alienate the whole Islamic world,
will take more interest in the root causes
of Arab and Muslim resentment towards the
West and the United States in particular;
that instead of being concerned only with
the symptoms it will be more concerned with
therapy for the social, economic and political
roots of terror; that instead of spending
yet more billions for military and policing
purposes it will devote more means to improving
the social situation of the masses in its
own country and those who lose out all over
the world as victims of globalization. It
could be that the superpower USA would also
act out of enlightened self-interest to prevent
the international sense of law from being
shaken, as it is when the only superpower
sets different standards from those which
apply generally in international law, because
by doing this it helps those powers which
do not want to observe the standards of international
law and precisely in this way encourages terrorism
and the breakdown of international rules governing
the use of force. It could be – to say also
a word on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
as the main source of terrorism – that a new
majority of the Israeli people replaces leaders
who provided Israelis with neither peace nor
security but with an economy which teeters
on ruin, and will elect more peace-minded
political leaders with the vision and ability
to lead the country out of the morass and
– not without heavy American pressure – to
implement the 'Road map', supported by the
UN, the EU, the US and Russia: withdrawal
from all occupied territories and recognition
of the State of Israel by all Arab states,
with normal political and economic relations.
The Geneva Initiative of December 2003 should
be considered as a welcome 'navigation system'
to implement the road map. This would create
the conditions for an autonomous and viable
(not dismembered) state of Palestine, preferably
in an economic union with Israel and Jordan,
which could be a real blessing for the whole
region and especially for Israel. Indeed,
it could be that then even the extremist Palestinians,
who apply the same logic of violence, will
stop their bloody terrorist activities, and
that the Palestinians will realistically restrict
their 'right to return' to symbolic return
for some particularly hard cases – in exchange
for new settlements and financial compensation.
In the long run only the recognition by Israel
will lead to a less authoritarian and corrupt
and more democratic administration in Palestine.
- But you are certainly eager for the dessert.
IV. Consequences for religions and ethics
Here particular demands would be put on the
three prophetic religions, Judaism, Christianity
and Islam, not to support uncritically the
official politics of their respective governments
but to show their prophetic role: ? 'Recompense
no one evil with evil' (Romans 12.17). This
New Testament saying is today addressed to
those Christian crusaders in America and elsewhere
who look for evil only in the other, thinking
that a crusade hallows any military means
and justifies all humanitarian 'collateral
damage'. ? 'An eye for an eye, a tooth for
a tooth' (Exodus 21.24): this saying from
the Hebrew Bible on the limitation of damage
is addressed to those Israeli fanatics who
prefer to take two eyes from their opponent
instead of just one, and would like to knock
out several teeth, forgetting that the perpetuation
of 'an eye for an eye makes the world go blind'
(Gandhi). ? 'And if they incline to peace,
do thou incline to it' (Surah 8.61): this
saying from the Qur’an is addressed to those
Palestinian warriors of God who today would
still like to blot out the state of Israel
from the map and try to sabotage all peace
initiatives. Peace among the religions is
a presupposition of peace among the nations.
Let me therefore conclude with a few elementary
remarks on a Global Ethic which in the age
of globalization is more urgent than ever.
Indeed, the globalization of the economy,
technology and communication needs also the
globalization of ethic in coping with global
problems. The two fundamental demands of the
1993 Chicago Declaration, confirmed by the
call to our guiding institutions of the 3rd
Parliament of the World’s Religions in Cape
Town 1999 and taken up in the Manifesto 'Crossing
the Divide' for the United Nations Year of
Dialogue among Civilizations, are the most
elementary ones that can be made in this regard,
yet it is by no means a matter of course.
The first is the principle of Humanity: the
demand for true humanity: 'Now as before,
women and men are treated inhumanly all over
the world. They are robbed of their opportunities
and their freedom; their human rights are
trampled underfoot; their dignity is disregarded.
But might does not make right! In the face
of all inhumanity our religious and ethical
convictions demand that 'every human being
must be treated humanly'. This means that
every human being – man or woman, white or
coloured, young or old, American or Iraqi
has to be treated not in an inhuman, even
bestial way, but in a truly human way. The
second fundamental demand is the Golden Rule:
'There is a principle which is found and has
persisted in many religious and ethical traditions
of humankind for thousands of years: What
you do not wish done to yourself, do not do
to others … This should be the irrevocable,
unconditional norm for all areas of life,
for families and communities, for races, nations,
and religions'. On the basis of these two
fundamental principles four ethical directives,
found in all the great traditions of humanity,
have to be remembered: – Not to murder, torture,
torment, wound; in positive terms: have reverence
for life; that means a commitment to a culture
of non-violence and reverence for life. –
Not to lie, deceive, forge, manipulate; in
positive terms: speak and act truthfully;that
means a commitment to a culture of truthfulness
and tolerance. – Not to steal, exploit, bribe,
corrupt; in positive terms: deal honestly
and fairly; that means a commitment to a culture
of fairness and a just economic order. – Not
to abuse sexuality, cheat, humiliate, dishonour;
in positive terms: respect and love one another;
that means a commitment to a culture of partnership
and equal dignity of men and women. But let
me conclude now: I started with the lack of
vision after 1989. I hope it became clear
what this vision really could be. It is not
a vision of war – but a vision of peace. Let
me summarize it in the following four propositions:
There will be no peace among the nations without
peace among the religions. There will be no
peace among the religions without dialogue
among the religions. There will be no dialogue
among the religions without global ethical
standards. There will therefore be no survival
of this globe without a global ethic.
Bibliography:
Kung, Hans, Global Responsibility. In Search
of a New World Ethic, New York 1991, London
1991. Kung, Hans (ed.), Yes to a Global Ethic,
New York 1996, London 1996. Kung, Hans - Schmidt,
Helmut (eds.), A Global Ethic and Global Responsibilities.
Two Declarations, London 1998, New York 1999.
Kung, Hans, A Global Ethic for Global Politics
and Economics, London 1997, New York 1998.
Kung, Hans (ed.), Globale Unternehmen – globales
Ethos. Der globale Markt erfordert neue Standards
und eine globale Rahmenordnung, Frankfurt/M.
2001. Picco, Giandomenico;
Kung, Hans; Weizsäcker, Richard von (a.o.),
Crossing the Divide. Dialogue among Civilizations,
South Orange, NJ, 2001. Kung, Hans, The Catholic
Church. A Short History, Weidenfeld and Nicolson,
London 2001, The Modern Library, New York,
2001
Kung, Hans, Tracing the Way. Spiritual Dimensions
of the World Religions, Continuum, London
2002; and Continuum, New York 2002.
Kung, Hans – Senghaas, Dieter (eds.), Friedenspolitik.
Ethische Grundlagen internationaler Beziehungen,
Piper, Munchen 2003.
|
