Quote of the day

It will be interesting to see exactly which customs the Vatican is going to allow from the past rich five centuries of Anglican worship, life and thought.

Syndicate content

Columns

Paul Rogers

Global security


Li Datong

China from the inside


Fred Halliday

Global politics


Mary Kaldor

Human security


Daniele Archibugi

Cosmopolitan democracy

Email & RSS

Sign up to oD's editorial summaries email:


Enter your Email


Powered by FeedBlitz


Follow oD on Twitter:


Join our Facebook group:
Add oD to your Netvibes: Add to Netvibes

Demotix witness*upload*share

Navigation


View 2 comments

A world in contraflow

David Hayes, 3 - 01 - 2008
There is a stark disjunction between the scale of global problems in 2008 and the tools available to resolve them, says David Hayes.

The fact that history is lived forwards and understood backwards keeps journalists and historians in business, but can also offer them convenient escape from the responsibility to engage with the complicated “now”. For the present too is history, demanding to be situated in dynamic as well as linear ways. The attempt to make sense of a moment - to “think the present historically” as Walter Benjamin put it - is even more necessary in a world whose accumulating problems require fresh thinking and urgent, imaginative solutions. We have already lost a lot of time to confront some of them - global warming, Israel/Palestine, weapons proliferation, a political strategy to address terrorism - and may have less time (on these and others) than we think.

For more on the year ahead in openDemocracy, see: “The world in 2008: a year and an era” - analysis, prediction and comment from Ivan Krastev, KA Dilday, Rajeev Bhargava, Kerry Brown, Mariano Aguirre, Roger Scruton, Ramin Jahanbegloo, Ivan Briscoe, Nasrin Alavi, Keith Kahn-Harris, Krzysztof Bobinski, Becky Hogge, Mary Kaldor, Michel Thieren, Chukwu-Emeka Chikezie, John Palmer, Arthur Ituassu, Mark Vernon, and Patrice de Beer

What is the world waiting for? An easy answer is new leadership with a sense of global responsibility - a deficit that is almost everywhere palpably clear: the United States, the United Nations, Europe, the rising power of China, the resource-rich ones of Russia and Iran. Too easy, because at a deeper level the absence of solutions is not only the responsibility of those who directly govern; it also belongs to the world’s flawed institutions, redundant ideas, and disaggregated social ethics.

2008 is not too late to begin the work of repair. For as the first decade of the 21st century nears its end, it is becoming ever more evident that the processes of transformation the world is experiencing are - in their scale, their speed and their character - complex and daunting to a perhaps unprecedented degree. In almost every geographical region and sphere of human life, immediate tensions and challenges are also the visible sign of profound structural problems that demand coordinated, focused attention.

David Hayes is deputy editor of openDemocracy This article was first published (as Diez problemas no resueltos en 2007) in El País on 31 December 2007

Twelve trends

It is the way these problems - political, economic, social and environmental - are addressed that will shape the course of human events in 2008. A list of twelve of the most prominent ones suggests the size of the task, though in itself this makes them no more comprehensible or less formidable:

▪ the long-term shift of global economic and financial power from the United States and Europe to Asia, especially China

▪ the unavoidable and pressing threat of global climate change

▪ the economic and social effects of globalisation (among them greater inequality within countries, and the increasing danger of global epidemics)

▪ armed conflicts, insurgencies, and “frozen” disputes, often accompanied by humanitarian crises (among them Iraq, Afghanistan, Darfur, southeast Turkey, Somalia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Georgia, southern Thailand, and western Sahara)

▪ geopolitical quarrels with great destructive potential (among them those involving Iran, Israel / Palestine, Kosovo / Serbia, China / Taiwan, and Pakistan)

▪ the crisis of states where citizens’ lives are especially degraded (among them Burma, Zimbabwe, and North Korea)

▪ the problems of nuclear proliferation and the spread of other weapons of both mass and small-scale destruction (among the latter small arms and cluster-bombs)

▪ the change in world order signified by the rising confidence of emergent powers fuelled by incremental strategic influence and / or “resource nationalism” (among them China, Russia, Iran and Venezuela), alongside the confusion and misdirection of the United States

▪ the impacts of Islamist and other forms of radicalisation on nation-states in the Muslim world and beyond; more generally, the emergence of a global Muslim political identity as part of what Malise Ruthven has called “the divine supermarket”

▪ the consequences of immigration and “people flow” on both sending and receiving countries and across the range of political, social and cultural life (not least, on attitudes towards national identity and social diversity)

▪ the impact of new technologies (the internet, mobile phones, social networks) on human experience, identities and life-chances

▪ the new vulnerability of democracy, both as idea and as uniquely legitimating political model - in face of authoritarian regimes and of crass, insurgent populism in democracy’s western, liberal-democratic heartlands.

Three contradictions

It is a component of the current global predicament that so many of these issues inhere in and can be understood only in relation to one or more of the others. It is an indication of the nature of this predicament that the effect of public discussion of many of them is so infused with contradiction. Three examples illustrate the point.

First, the sheer weight and difficulty of many of the twelve problems - from the future of Burma and Palestine to managing the impacts of migration and climate change - can create among citizens weariness or passivity; the difficulties have been there for so long, so many powers and factors seem to conspire against practical solutions, is progress really possible? At the same time, the very interdependency of these problems (the Kosovo question is at once intercommunal, transnational, regional, and global, and in this is emblematic) is an index of their political effectivity; where so many have a stake, commitment itself can be an antidote to the luxury of despair.

Second, the spread of dynamic communications technologies makes people feel weaker and stronger at the same time. The instantaneity of information and opinion - especially via the relentless “24/7” news-cycle - routinely solicits a disempowering feeling of unmanageable overload that encourages dependency on unreliable or even extreme sources; if there is so much to process and filter, why not trust ideologies of power and radical simplification to do citizens’ work for them? Yet the same technologies that spur a retreat into enclaves of tribal agreement also increase people’s ability to expand their knowledge, find innovative ways of holding power to account, and develop their own enlightening channels of social connection and mobilisation.

Third, the disarticulation between the individual and the collective is an increasingly clear part of the contemporary global condition. This too is highlighted in the way that the uses of technology so often fragment and dissolve as well as reinvigorate social bonds. More broadly, the retreat or collapse of great collective projects - the “grand narratives” of political ideology - has been accompanied by an intense search for replacements which (in anti-globalisation, environmentalism, or regenerative nationalism, for example) have not yet found real political traction; while the advance of a global consumerist society that appeals to individual aspiration seems equally to define the age.

Amid these contradictions, and in the absence of ideas that are both enlightening in themselves and speak to the experiences of the majority of citizens, the active search for new forms of political community often takes regressive or wasteful directions. What remains are disparate, uncoordinated attempts to find coherent responses to global problems without the structures of governance, the institutions, the agents, the ideas and the ethics - and the political leadership - essential to resolving them.

More than ever, we are (in Kant’s words) “unavoidably side by side”. A combination of political polarisation, rampant inequality and injustice, the seductions of dogma and the availability of destructive weaponry increases the perils of ignoring this reality. A “global we” is the beginning of wisdom; but how to get there? As 2008 opens, Minxin Pei’s description of China’s political dilemma - the “trapped transition” - seems applicable to the world as a whole.

Average rating
(6 votes)
 
This article is published by David Hayes, and openDemocracy.net under a Creative Commons licence. You may republish it without needing further permission, with attribution for non-commercial purposes following these guidelines. These rules apply to one-off or infrequent use. For all re-print, syndication and educational use please see read our republishing guidelines or contact us. Some articles on this site are published under different terms. No images on the site or in articles may be re-used without permission unless specifically licensed under Creative Commons.
This article adheres to the openDemocracy.net principles.

Comments


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

pendragon.jay said:



Fri, 2008-01-18 12:18

We cannot solve the problems we have created until we change our traditional beliefs about this planet, each other and our political and corporate myths.
It is these beliefs that have created the world we live in, and so therefore by their very nature they are incapable of finding solutions.
We cannot financially "manage" our way out of climate change or a profit oriented mindset.
For us to stand any chance of reversing our present position we must find leaders who understand who and what we are as a species and how we have to relate to this wonderful planet.
For example - Credit works against the human condition because we receive the reward before we have made any effort. As a species we are designed to strive, and in so doing grow and mature as beings. Competition is a fundamental human motivator in whatever aspect of life you choose, and the spur is winning or at least making a good account of ourselves and preparing for the next time.
Credit on the other hand works on impulse and the striving comes after the reward, when we have to strive to earn the wherewithal to pay for what we have accumulated.
What we see with the collapse of the sub prime mortgage market is people on both sides of the financial fence under unreal levels of stress, resulting in low self esteem and no chance of regaining personal self worth because of the narrow financial confines that determine the efficacy of their actions.
Since the dawning of time our religious beliefs have told us we are "born sinful" and have to spend a lifetime seeking forgiveness. Great for those in charge of handing out the rewards for our efforts to become "good", but what has been the collective effect upon our self esteem as a species over the last two millennia - it doesn't bear thinking about!
I am not suggesting that we scrap what we have and start again, as there is much of value within our traditional religious doctrines that can nurture us. However we need a brand of leadership now that acknowledges how much we have evolved as a species over the last two millennia and review, upgrade and adapt our traditional beliefs to meet our needs in this new millennium.
We desperately need to make a quantum leap forward in how we interact with each other, to catch up with our technological capabilities. Our view about conflict remains unaltered to those we held at the time of the Crusades and yet we have moved passed bows and arrows, and knights in armour to the nuclear age and the ramifications this has upon our very existence as a species.
We need leaders who understand this situation and can focus their attention beyond corporate and political beliefs and considerations to a whole new way of dealing with each other and life.
It's a challenge I'll grant you, and a big one - but think of the excitement and new sense of purpose taking up such a challenge could instill around the globe!

raghuvanshiramesh said:



Sat, 2008-01-05 06:38
As you raised 12 problems which we face in 2008,it is very difficult to slove them.You did not included one some important problems, research in biotechnology, clone,artificial intelligent, Robot.and most important population explosion and limited resources.They are also dangerious to mankind. First you just understand we human are very very selfish, every nation want all resources. for himself. Take exemple of Iraq, U.S. want oil monopoly of Iraq with himself.Russia, China India, all are hungery for enegery. How can we fulfil each nation`s want in limited resources? Even for peace UNITED NATIONS is complately failed. Great German pholosopher Heidegger dreamed, as a vain wish let GOD appeared on earth and slove our problems.Can we also dream this kind of vain wish?

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd><b> <i> <br> <p> <div> <img> <map>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • You may quote other posts using [quote] tags.
More information about formatting options