gpeag.PDF

Globalization and Political Economy

Exchange and Interdependence

The terms internationalization and globalization now form part of the

current vocabulary. At a very general level, the two terms are, so to say,

interchangeable. They signify that at the world level trade or other forms of
exchange have multiplied, and that this proliferation has taken place rapidly.

That is manifestly the case in the scientific, technological, and cultural

fields. This proliferation of trade and exchange is made possible thanks to

evermore efficient, and largely instantaneous, systems of communication.

Again in this first current sense of the term, the terms

internationalization and globalization evoke the interdependence of human

societies. An economic crisis in the United States; OPEC's decisions

regarding the price of petrol; the tensions between Palestinians and Israelis -

just to cite one or two examples - have repercussions of global magnitude.

We are concerned, challenged, and even affected by the disasters that take

place in countries far away from us; we feel our responsibility for famine and

disease anywhere in the world.

Religions themselves increasingly dialogue together. Even within the

Catholic Church, communications have intensified.

We have thus acquired a keener consciousness of our belonging to the

human community. In this first familiar sense, we speak of integration. In

common parlance we say that "distances no longer count"; that "travel brings

people together" and "that the world has become a global vi llage."

The world is tending toward greater unity; in principle, we can only

rejoice about this. It is normal, moreover, that to aim at this goal, new

political and economic structures capable of responding to these new needs

should be envisaged, but not just at any price or on any conditions.

Political Unification, Economic Integration

Throughout the last few years, the meanings of the words

internationalization and globalization have become slightly more precise. By
internationalization (in French: mondialisation) we mean the tendency leading

ultimately to the organization of a single-world government. The emphasis is

therefore placed on the political dimension of the unification of the world. In

its actual form, this tendency has been developed in several currents studied

by internationalists. In the present context, it will suffice to cite two

examples. The first model can be traced back to the late 1960s and is

attributable to Zbigniev Brzezinski.

According to this model, the United

States should assume world leadership, and reformulate its traditional

messianism; it should organize particular political societies, taking into

account a classification system that classifies these societies according to

their degree of development. Internationalism is here defined on the basis of

a hegemonic project whose objective is clear: imposing the Pax Americana on

the world or sinking into chaos.

At the end of the 1980s, another internationalist project arose. One of

its main exponents was Willy Brandt. The North (developed) and the South

(developing) have a need for each other; their interests are reciprocal. It is

urgently necessary to take new international measures to bridge the gap that

separates them. These measures should be taken at the political level; they

should aim first and foremost at the monetary system, disarmament, and

the alleviation of famine. According to the Brandt Report's "program for

survival," "a high-level surveillance body" needs to be set up. Its mission

would especially be that of making the UNO more effective and consolidating

the consensus that characterizes it.

The concept of internationalization that

appears here is not connected in any way with a hegemonic project. It is

situated, rather, in the tradition of socialist internationalism. No doubt it does

not go so far as to recommend the suppression of States, but their

sovereignty would have to be curbed and placed under the control of a world

political authority if the survival of humanity is to be ensured.

At the same time that the term internationalization was acquiring a

rather political connotation, the term globalization was acquiring a rather

economic one. The proliferation of world trade, the improvement of

international communication led to people's speaking of an integration of

world economic agents. Economic activities would be distributed between the

various States or regions: The work would be shared. To some would be

given, for example, tasks of extraction; to others, tasks of transformation; to

others, again, tasks of technological production, world coordination,

decision-making. This view of globalization is of frankly liberal inspiration,

but with one precise proviso: If it is largely a question of the free circulation

of goods and capital, it is less a question of the free circulation of persons.

Globalization and Holism

In the recent documents of the UNO, the theme of globalization

appears more frequently than that of internationalization, though without

these issues competing with each other.

The UNO has taken on board the current concepts of the two themes

we have briefly recalled heretofore. At the same time, however, it has profited

from the momentum offered by the current concept of globalization to

submit this term to a semantic alteration. Globalization is thus reinterpreted
in the light of a new view of the world and man's place in it. This new view

has been dubbed holism. This word means that the world constitutes a

whole and that this whole has greater reality and greater value that its

constituent parts. In this whole, moreover, the appearance of man is only an

avatar: a manifestation of the evolution of matter. Man only has reality by

virtue of his belonging to matter and he will finally return to matter. Man's

destiny is death: It is to disappear ineluctably into the Mother Earth from

which he emerged.

The great whole, let us simplify matters by calling it "Mother Earth,"

therefore transcends man. Man must yield to the imperatives of ecology, to

the needs of nature. Not only must he be willing to submit himself to the

surrounding world and no longer to rise above it, he must also accept to be

no longer the center of the world. According to this interpretation, the

"natural" law is no longer that inscribed in his mind and in his heart: it is

the implacable law that nature imposes on man. The ecological gospel

presents even man as a predator, and like all populations of predators, the

human population must be contained within the limits of sustainable
development. Man must therefore accept the need to sacrifice himself to the

imperatives of Mother Earth not only today but also in the future.

The UNO is in the process of formulating a very important document

systematizing this holistic interpretation of globalization. It is called the
Charter of the Earth , or which, several drafts have already been published,

and whose editing is now in its final phase. This document will not only be

called to supersede the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, but,

according to some, is also destined to supplant even the Ten

Commandments themselves!

Here, by way of example, arc some excerpts from this Charter:

"We are at a critical moment of the history of the Earth, the

moment of choosing its future… We need to unite to establish a

durable global society, based on respect for nature, universal

human rights, economic justice, and the culture of peace..."

"Humanity is part of a vast evolutionary universe… The global

environment, with its finite resources, is a common concern for

al peoples. The protection of the life, diversity and beauty of the

earth is a sacred duty…"

"An unprecedented growth of the human population has

overburdened economic and social systems…"

"Here is our choice: to form a global society to take care of the

Earth and to take care of each other, or to expose ourselves to

the risk of destroying ourselves and destroying the diversity of

life..."

"We have an urgent need for a shared view of the basic values

that offer an ethical foundation to the emerging world

community..."

Religions and Globalism

To consolidate this holistic view of globalism, certain obstacles need to

be removed and instruments put in place.

Religions in general and, in the first place, the Catholic religion, are

comprised among the obstacles which, in this view, need to be neutralized. It

is in response to this aim that the Summit of Spiritual and Religious Leaders

was held, as part of the millennium celebrations. It launched the "Joint

Initiative of Religions" whose objectives include the protection of the holiness

of the earth and that of all living beings. Strongly influenced by New Age,

this project aims, in the long run, at the creation of a world religion that

would also involve banning any other religion from engaging in proselytism.

According to the UNO, globalization ought not to concern merely the

political, economic, and juridical spheres; it ought to concern the global soul.

Representing the Holy See at the Summit, Cardinal Arinze could not sign the

final document that put all religions on the same footing.

The World Economic Pact

Of the numerous instruments put in place by the UNO with a view to

globalization, the World Economic Pact deserves to be mentioned here.

During his opening address to the Millennium Forum, Kofi Annan repeated

the invitation he had made to the World Economic Forum in Davos in 1999.

He proposed "the acceptance of certain essential values in the fields of labor

provisions, human rights and the environment." The UN Secretary General

declared that only thus would the negative effects of globalization be

reduced. More precisely, according to Mr. Annan, to close the North-South

divide, the UNO must largely appeal to the private sector. What is needed, he

said, was to obtain the acceptance of this pact by a large number of

economic and social players: companies, businessmen, trades-unions,

NGOs. This Global Compact or World Compact would be essential to regulate

world markets, to widen access to vital technologies, to distribute

information, to satisfy basic needs in the field of health care, and so forth.

This Pact has already received numerous promises of support, including that

of Shell, Ted Turner (owner of CNN), Bill Gates, and even of several

international trade-union movements.

The World Pact undoubtedly raises serious questions: Can one rely on

major world companies to resolve problems that they could have contributed

to resolve a long time ago if they had wanted? Does the growth of world trade

itself justify the progressive establishment of a centralized authority to

regulate international economic activity? What freedom would still be

retained by trade-union organizations if labor legislation, incorporated in

international law, had to submit to "global" economic "imperatives"? What

powers of intervention would the governments of sovereign States still have

at their disposal to intervene, in the name of justice, in economic and social

questions? Even more serious is the question: Since the UNO is always

hovering on the verge of bankruptcy, does it not risk falling victim to a

takeover bid by a consortium of big international corporations?

A Political Project Served by the Law

It is, however, at the political and juridical level that the UN

globalization project is most disquieting, In proportion, as the UNO,

influenced by New Age philosophy, develops a materialist, strictly

evolutionist view of man (in the way we have described), it necessarily
replaces the realistic concept of man implicit in the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights of 1948. According to this materialist view, man is pure

matter and is utterly incapable of saying anything at all true about himself

and about the meaning of his life. He is reduced to basic agnosticism and

skepticism. The why? of life has no sense for him: all that matters is the
how?

The Declaration of 1948 presented a wonderful originality in its wish to

base new international relations on the universal extension of human rights.

That ought to be the foundation of peace and development. That ought to be

the basis that legitimizes the UN's existence and justifies its mission. The

world order ought to be built on founding truths recognized by everyone,

protected and promoted progressively by all States.

Today the UNO has replaced these references to founding truths.

Today, human rights are no longer founded on a truth applicable to everyone

and freely recognized by everyone: the equal dignity of all men. Human

rights are now the result of consensual procedures. Since we are incapable -

so the argument goes - to attain a solid truth concerning man, and since

such a truth is either inaccessible or does not even exist, we need to put our

heads together and reach a decision, by an act of pure will, on what is the

right course of action, since the need for action impels us. However, we are

no longer going to decide by a universal reference to values that impose

themselves on us by the sole force of their truth. Henceforth we are going to

begin a consultation procedure, and after having heard everyone's opinion,

we are going to settle the question once and for all; we are going to make a

decision. This decision will be considered the right one, because it will be the

actual result of the consensual procedure.

The "new human rights," according to the UNO today, are the result of

consensual procedures that may be reactivated indefinitely. They are no

longer the expression of a truth about man; they are the expression of the
decision-makers' will. In the future, it does not matter what may be

presented as a "new human right" at the end of this procedure: the right to

homosexual marriages, to divorce, to single-parent homes, to euthanasia -

while awaiting the right to infanticide, the elimination of the handicapped,

eugenic programs, and so forth. That is why, in all the international

assemblies organized by ONU, UN personnel strive with all their might to

arrive at a consensus, for once acquired, the consensus is invoked to ensure

the adoption of international conventions that acquire force of law in the

States that ratify them.

A System of Positive International Law

Such is the crux of the problem posed by the UN globalization project.

By its conventions or by its normative treatises, the UNO is in the process of

putting in place a system of purely positive international law that bears the

strong imprint of Kelsen.

A basic tendency can be increasingly observed:

The provisions of  state  laws are only valid if they are endorsed by
supranational  law.  As Kelsen had anticipated in his famous Pure Theory of
Law,  the power of the UN is concentrated in a  pyramidal  fashion. Purely

positive international law, shorn of any reference to the Declaration of 1948,

is the instrument used by the UNO to establish itself as a super-State.

An International Penal Tribunal

By controlling the law, by even posing itself as the sole source of law,

and by being able to verify at any moment whether this law is being

respected by the executive organs of government, the UNO has established a

One Thought system. It thus endows itself with powers as a tribunal in

proportion to its appetite for power grows. Thus, crimes against the "new

human rights" could be judged by the International penal court established

in Rome in 1998. For example, in proportion that as abortion fails to be

legalized by such-and-such a State, the State in question could be excluded

from the "global society"; in proportion as a religious group is opposed to

homosexuality, that group could be condemned by the International penal

court for violating the "new human rights."

Global Governance

We are thus in the presence of a gigantic project, whose ambition it is

to realize Kelsen's utopia, by aiming to "legitimize" and to put in place a

single world government, of which the agencies of the UNO could become

ministries. It is urgently necessary - we are assured - to create a new world

political and legal order, and take urgent steps to find the funds to realize

this project.

This global governance had already been envisaged in the Human

Development Report in 1994. Drawn up at the request of the UNDP by Jan

Tinbergen, winner of the Nobel Prize for Economics in 1969, this text has all

the appearance of a manifesto commissioned by and for the UN. Here is an

extract from it:

The problems of mankind can no longer be solved by national

governments. That is why there is a need for a world

government.

The best way of achieving it is to reinforce the system of the

United Nations. In certain cases, this would mean that it would

be necessary to change the role of United Nations agencies and

that they would become executive, and no longer consultative

bodies. Thus, the FAO would become the World Ministry of

Agriculture, UNIDO would become the World Ministry of

Industry, and ILO the World Ministry of Social Affairs.

In other cases, completely new institutions would be necessary.

They might comprise, for example, a permanent World Police

Force, which could summon nations to appear before the

International Court of Justice, or before other specially created

courts. If nations fail to respect the Court's sentences, it would

be possible to apply sanctions, both non-military and military.

Undoubtedly, in so far as they exist and perform their role well,

particular nations do protect their citizens; they enforce respect for human

rights and use appropriate means to this end. At the present time, in the

UNO and its agencies, the destruction of nation States seems to be an
objective to be pursued if the anthropocentric conception of human rights is to
be stifled once and for all. By putting an end to the intermediate body formed

by the national State, an end would also be put to subsidiarity, since a

centralized world State would be put in place. The way would therefore be

open for the arrival of globalizing technocrats and other aspirants to world

governance.

Reaffirming the Principle of Subsidiarity

Positive international law is thus the instrument used by the UNO to

organize a global world society. Under cover of globalization, it organizes

world "governance" to its own advantage. Under cover of "shared

responsibility," it invites States to curb their rightful sovereignty.

The UNO globalizes by increasingly posing as a world super-State. It

tends to rule over all the fields of life and human activity by putting in place
an ever more-centralized control of information, of knowledge and technology;

of food, of human life, of health, and populations; of the resources of the soil

and of the subsoil; of world trade and trade-union organizations; and last,

and most important, of politics and law. Exalting the neo-pagan cult of

Mother Earth, it deprives man of the central place that the major

philosophic, juridical, political, and religious traditions have accorded him.

Faced by this globalism built on sand, we need to reaffirm the urgent

need to base international society on the recognition of the equal dignity of

all men. The juridical system that predominates in the UNO makes this

universal recognition strictly impossible, given its assumption that law and

human rights can only proceed by voluntary determinations. The primacy of

the principle of subsidiarity, in the way it should be correctly understood,

thus needs to be reaffirmed. This means that the international organizations

should not deprive nation States and intermediate bodies of their natural

rights and jurisdictions, but, on the contrary, should help them to exercise

them.

As for the Church, she can only rebel against this globalization, which

implies a concentration of power with a totalitarian flavor. Faced by the

impossible "cohesion" - the "globalization" that UNO is doing its utmost to

impose by pleading for a "consensus" that must always remain precarious, it

is essential that the Church appear, in the image of Christ, as a sign of
division.

She can support neither a "unity" nor a "universality" that would

be suspended at the subjective wish of individuals or imposed by some

public or private authority. Faced by the emergence of a new Leviathan, we

can remain neither silent, nor inactive, nor indifferent.

_______________________________________________

1. Brzezinski, Zbigniev, Between Two Ages: America's Role in the

Technetronic Era (Harmonsworth: Penguin Books, 1970).

2. North-South: A Programme for Survival (London: Pan Books World

Affairs, 1980). See, in particular, chap. 16, 257-66.

3. Among the first "modern" theoreticians of this concept one may

mention Francisco de Victoria (with his interpretation of the universal

destination of goods) and Hugo Grotius (with his doctrine of freedom of

navigation).

4. It was on this occasion that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the

Faith published its declaration Dominus Jesus.

5. Cf. Kelsen, Hans, Théorie Pure du Droit, trans. Charles Eisenmann

(Paris: LGDJ, 1999).

6. This text is included in the Human Development Report 1994 (New

York and Oxford: UNDP, 1994); the quotation is from p. 88.

7. Cf. Luke 2:33f; 12:51-53; 21:12-19; Matthew 10:34-36; 23:31f; John

1; 6; I John 3:22-24; 6.

Source:

PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR THE FAMILY - Acton Institute for the Study of

Religion and Liberty, Globalization, Economics, and the Family.

Proceedings of the International Conference on Globalization, Economics, and
the Family. Vatican City, November 27-29, 2000; Libreria Editrice Vaticana,

Città del Vaticano, 2001.