Globalization

Ahmad Hussein Annan

  

The Text is a citation of some Parts of my book (Dialectics of the Globalization 2006)

The American Role and the UN Contract

despite the fact, that the USA plays a leading role in initiating the international political process(beginning with the Foundation of the League of Nations and later the United Nations, up to the Foundation of the WTO and other related Institutions and Organizations), The White House has been showing less commitment to the UN during the last three Decades (whereby the Neo liberals and classical Liberals gained much more sympathy on the international economic Stage, than the likely sinking left Capitalism).

On the occasion of the Council resolution (1373), which came as a declared international Support to Bush Campaign against Terrorism, the secretary general reminded the Administration of some UN agreements being not been ratified by the Congress yet. Worth mentioning; Kyoto Protocol, an agreement on banning biological and poisoning weapons, the non-proliferation of nuclear Weapons treaty, Rome statute of the international criminal Court etc.

Until 2004, the USA ratified only 157 agreements (refusing the rest of the 549 agreements and treaties). Specifically, the approved are; 14 of 162 agreements on Labor, 3 of 11 on environmental regulations, 5 of 12 on rights  and about an half of the intellectual properties rights (whereas the Americans rely more on the WTO Trips), but approved and ratified all anti-terror agreements.

The following Table shows the US involvement in the international System (2004):

     

Treaty chapter*                 % US ratified           Number ratified by U.S      Total Chapter

5

4

80%

I. Charter of the UN

 and Statute of the International Court of Justice

35

5

14%

III. Privileges and Immunities, Diplomatic and Consular Relations, Etc.**

21

6

29%

IV. Human Rights

4

1

25%

V. Refugees and Stateless Persons

22

9

41%

VI. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances

 

12

2

17%

VII. Traffic in Persons

 

6

3

50%

VIII. Obscene Publications

 

12

7

58%

IX. Health

 

16

9

56%

X. International Trade and Development

 

13

7

54%

XI-A. Transport and Communications: Customs Matters

 

7

4

57%

XI-B. Transport and Communications: Road Traffic

 

2

0

0%

XI-C. Transport and Communications: Transport by Rail

 

6

0

0%

XI-D. Transport and Communications: Water Transport

 

1

0

0%

XI-E. Transport and Communications: Multimodal Transport

 

16

9

56%

 

XII. Navigation

 

4

0

0%

 

XIII. Economic Statistics

 

9

4

44%

 

XIV. Educational and Cultural Matters

 

3

0

0%

 

XV. Declaration of Death of Missing Persons

 

3

1

33%

 

XVI. Status of Women

 

1

0

0%

 

 

XVII. Freedom of Information

 

17

7

41%

 

XVIII. Penal Matters

 

13

4

31%

 

XIX. Commodities

 

1

0

0%

 

XX. Maintenance Obligations

 

10

5

50%

 

XXI. Law of the Sea

 

2

1

50%

 

XXII. Commercial Arbitration

 

3

0

0%

 

XXIII. Law of Treaties

 

2

1

50%

 

XXIV. Outer Space

 

2

1

50%

 

XXV. Telecommunications

 

9

4

44%

 

XXVI. Disarmament

 

38

12

32%

 

XXVII. Environment

 

2

0

0%

 

XXVIII. Fiscal Matters

 

1

0

0%

 

XXIX. Miscellaneous

 

34

1

3%

 

League of Nations Multilateral Treaties

 

332

107

32%

TOTAL

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. U.S. participation in multilateral treaties

Active treaties deposited with other institutions

                                                         Total ratified        total per Category

Category

By U.S.

% U.S. Ratified

Treaty Depositary or Category

162

 

14

 

9%

International Labor Organization (ILO)

3

1

33%

 

Geneva Conventions (ICRC)

23

12

52%

 

World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)

10

6

60%

 

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)

 

10

 

8

80%

 

Disarmament

9

9

100%

 

Terrorism

Total number of active, U.S.-applicable treaties with other depositaries    217

U.S.-ratified treaties                                                 23%                                 50%

 

TOTAL NUMBER OF ACTIVE TREATIES                                                        549

U.S.-RATIFIED TREATIES                                                         29%                                 157

 

 

IInstitute for Agriculture and Trade policy

Iatp.org/global/project_globalcoop.cfm

 

Further, the United States didn't ratify the agreement on child rights, though gave signature 16th April 1995. Other neglected are the agreement on protection of

immigrating workers rights, indiscrimination of Women and the nuclear test ban Treaty.

It is liberally very usual to hesitate the approval of  agreements like the mentioned on indiscrimination of women, and it is no racism to believe in functional or biological differences between men and women. As mentioned before, the first Women Movements emerged in the United States, and the Americans approved the Agreement on Women Rights in April (1976), but remain discussing whether it is realistic to approve the equality.

The American Participation in the international political Process focus mainly on Security Issues. So the US Involvement in anti-terror Agreements is 100%. While the US presence in the international fiscal Agreements doesn't exceed the ratio of 9%. In Health and education fields the US presence is about 51%, and that is the shared horizon of both (Democrats and Liberals or Republicans).

The eighties and nineties Rise of Conservativism and Neo Liberalism strengthened the hesitation to join the positivistic international Trend, which became weak and confused in confronting  the new international Challenges. Although the USA remain not only leading on the international political decision making level, but in practice and experimental Fields, a natural Veto fueled by great military and economic Capacities makes America worth being the Leading Force in the new Era. SO the USA has been a decisive Power in all international Conflicts that has emerged since World war one.

Behavioral Studies on the USA national Security Policy show how critical, decisive and important  the Process of Democratization and liberalization for the US Security (in a broader sense) is.

The Administration liberal capitalistic Security Strategy has been giving Democratization and Liberalization the highest Priority. This has been a goal of the US independence declaration, and served as symbol of war success in the fight against the soviet Communism. Today, that symbol became the post war Anti-terror Era. The integration proportion in the international System indicates a negative liberal Position (negative means; a Hand-out political position), while the wider integration in the international System requires a positivistic political Turn, simply because the international System has been structured under Cold War Pressure. The mentioned Table shows 29% integration in the Rights rules, and the UN archive tells that among the unapproved 71% are some important UN legacies such as the agreement on banning trade in children and women, which was signed (13 January 2000) but not ratified yet. This Agreement has been ratified by 151 States (2004). The signed Agreement on economic, political and cultural rights (05.10.1977) has not been ratified yet also.

Statistics show, that the not ratified Agreements are mostly positively shaped. Which means; that rights be given some attraction, but not necessarily protected. To explain the dilemma of losing Way between positive and negative Notions, it is important to note, that Rights consist of both (positive and negative aspects). To be achieved, the rights need to be protected, and to be protected they need to be achieved or given. So the dialectics between positivism and negativism seem to have been the mover of the general liberal process. Ambiguity appears when researchers mix between the theoretical and practical Aspects. Example; the right for freedom of fear and poverty means (ethically) justifying it, and politically legitimating or legalizing it. But practically authority Forces are needed for implementing rather protecting it. This all doesn�t mean that a freedom of fear or of poverty be a matter of fact. For providing the chance doesn't mean fulfillment anyway. Given Chances can not be a grant for success, and as such, failed individuals are not denied rights in the free Societies. So positivism and Negativism grant rights and rights protection, rather legislation and integration, which means; that Liberalism can not be a negative Concept only.(idiomatically Negativism is understood in terms of a laissez-faire policy, giving no way for supporting Individuals or pushing them toward their goals through exploiting the Capacity of some other successive individuals. in that overlapping sense, positivism is a socialistic concept providing social support for failed individuals. In the social  logical analysis we find no scientific justification of supporting the one through burdening others, and there is simply no possible way of determining and demarking the quite responsible factors for social failure phenomena.

Question: who bears the responsibility for failed individuals? Liberalism reduce the bottom individuals to their qualities. In fact; the western positivism didn't do better when left and progressive governments stripped Millions of their Jobs, and offered them instead what Carl popper called a peace Meal, derailing positivism on practical and pragmatic levels, to lose the purpose of making rights accessible chances for all.

Negativism contains already some positivistic interventional characteristics, in so far Negativism interferences lie in Mobilizing the Ambient to make use of the Forces (instead of poultric positivism). So the rights demand requires access to labor and market system, and not a compensative peace meal of course. If Liberalism be understood in terms of Negativism only, there would be no need for liberal policy at all. So liberalism is charged in the core with both negativism and positivism, which makes the propagandistic supportive and interventional left wing a merely overflow of a  parasitizing Movement. Politics can be viewed from a certain point of View as positive or negative initiation, but in general (like the rights) consist of both, and the imbalance between both leads to collapse of the free and just Society. In that sense, the negativism and positivism of rights and politics differ definitely from the generally assumed meaning of both trends.

The 100% negative American Involvement in the international security System, and the positive power to protect and enforce rights put the US Leadership on the top of the international natural political Rule. There is simply no Country that can liberally better perform (in both negative and positive senses). But to be balancely credible in the Eye of other more or less natural Societies, the administration should either get more integrated in the international System, or should build a strong international coalition  to adapt some alternative rules. The American democratization Strategy fit hardly the security Council shape, and the adherence to the contemporarily international decision making standard makes it impossible for the Administration to implement its national security strategy as based on democratization and defense of rights being part of a wider liberal Capitalistic Agenda. The Administration champion free market policy and advocate an open WTO organization, which can not function well in a world of dictatorship and authoritarianism. On the other hand, to operate without supportive security council resolution would lead to holding the administration responsible for weakening the UN and its role in the world. A polemic of Ethics versus law and order would be the right description of the mentioned Misery. In my book (dialectics of the Globalization) I explained the relation of Ethics to Law and vice versa. The ethical stance gives a legitimate birth to Law in the free society. So before the Demand becomes a political matter, it be a cultural focus, and for the social relations are changeable, the demands constantly change, which makes it necessary for the Law and political Stance or Structure to reform or change in response to the cultural and ethical changes. The international Cultural and political relations has dramatically changed sense the fall of the soviet empire, so the international cultural Demands has become completely discontent with the contemporarily not complying irrelevant political Structure. So the ethically justified and politically legitimated Law might turn in the run of the general social process to become a state of illegitimacy, specially when it becomes closed and untouchable. This is why the liberal Governments constantly change Rules keeping an open trajectories for reforms. Nongovernmental Organizations, global production companies and other political and cultural Institutions has been calling for UN reforms, hoping to improve political participation and rights protection. All classically oriented American Orgs (like Heritage and other liberal and neo liberal Inst) called for UN relief and budget cuts, describing the UN as inoperative and dysfunctional Organ. Western Countries used economic threat ,Aid Cut and Payments reduction, demanding Reforms in exchange for Finance.

But to democratize the Institutions, benefiting Members should show commitment to the rules on which such reforms be usually met. A democratic Council, that would contain 75% dictatorial Membership will turn the World upside down to exploit international Structure for the sake of Tyranny and Authoritarianism, leading necessarily to the fall of the international contract anyway.

The real challenge for the UN is; that some of the already democratized and liberalized Countries are denied representation in the Council, while the totalitarian China enjoy a Veto permanence right. Hitherto, every improvement Gate of the international political Structure would chiefly rely on building coalitions of integrating liberal democratic Countries in the international political Process, which would lead to the defeat of Authoritarianism and wider political participation in the international rule Apparatus. It grants a reduction of  tension, strengthen Immunity against all possible aggressive and peace threatening Fractions, and open way for greater economic and political Stability . Many US politicians view in NATO the right Coalition to exercise control throughout the hopefully temporarily transitional international governmental Crisis. Freezing the UN Reform Track disgusts  the harmed, while many others prefer to deliver their files to the NATO. The north Atlantic Organization emerged in the Fourties , showing harmony with the UN declarations, but differs through distancing China and other blocking authoritarian and totalitarian Veto powers.

The 100% US Ratification of the international Anti-Terror System, on behalf of hesitation to join some other interventional rule Tracks of an inharmonic Mixture, reflects a neo liberal Trend based on an internationally proposed and ethically well supported global Government with a liberal Security Concept of supporting a free and open international economic and Trade  System. The international and local Reform desire, added to the revolutionary Characteristics in the neo American concept of a new international relation explains well the neo evolutionary Tendency in the new Political Era. The international economic development, motivated consciously or subconsciously to head in a Neo Liberal Trend, invented and directed by  American economic and political Engineers, show Indicators of a natural American Leading Role in the World, and is philosophically and logically well understood in term of relatively negative political Ideology (negative in according to our perception of what a negative rights concept mean. Negative is a political Terminology referring to what has been defined as a classical or Neo classical Liberalism. A relatively Neo liberalism in the right political Understanding of the Topic. But for the Terminology remains used in the international political literature, let us call it "The so called Negative Liberalism" ).

The US foreign political Activities have embodied the so called negative Concept through deeds. Military Interventions have been negatively harmonic, in Bosnia (1994-94), in Kosovo, In Kuwait, in Iraq (2003) etc.

The Clinton Administration brought some spirit of negativism to the Keynesian economic, and a political Echo was loudly heard at the Anchor Guard Actions against Totalitarianism. The actions were not authorized by the Security Council, but later became approved. The Removal of Saddam Hussein has been also opposed by Some Veto Members. In addition to the mentioned interventions, the actions in Afghanistan and other Parts of the World, all bear and play same protective and so called negative Symphony. It serves the interest of the United States of Course. But is also relevant to the UN rights Declarations, and respond to

the demands and Freedom Desires of the oppressed Nations, and violated Sovereignty of the States.

Free Competition, Free Market Systems and open Borders for Trade and Investments all have been a natural People demand, and serve the interest of the USA. Many Countries opened their Markets, but keep their political Systems alive on Papers, and that would lead sooner or later to a responsive political freedom and openness. In according to the liberal capitalistic Philosophy, the Collapse of authoritarian Governments serves the general Health of liberal Capitalism in the World. Every authoritarian and totalitarian regime could expand to build a very dangerous and hostile concurrence. While many western Countries try to score temporary Gains and Business through backing some pressured authoritarian Governments, the United States keep supporting Rights even in partners Countries, and that is a very usual Characteristics of  traditional Leadership

 

ahmadhusseinannan@hotmail.com