The governing committee would make decisions regarding the conference's process as well. They could draw upon the expertise of people who have insights into such things.
I would propose that this process might begin with only the first step planned, with subsequent steps to be decided as things unfold.
A possible first step would be for those participants who wish to make a statement to the assembled group to do so. Those making statements would be charged with the assignment of addressing this question: how might humankind best proceed to create a world in which there is less conflict and more security? The presenters would also be encouraged to address the more specific question: what would be a good next phase for this conference to undertake?
There would also be certain rules drawn up to govern these opening statements. For one thing, there would presumably be a time limit. More importantly, there would be some rules regarding substance. And the text of the statements would be submitted in advance to the committee to assure that those substantive rules were followed.
One such substantive rule might be, for example, that the opening statements contain no attributions of blame to any of the other world actors.
The governing committee of the conference would then --on the basis of whatever ideas they have, whatever ideas the world actors have proposed, and whatever counsel they've received from experts-- decide on the next phase for the conference. The participants would then move to that phase.
(Among the possibilities that might be worth considering would be some kind of carefully and appropriately structured process by which parties in tension with each other are led to engage regarding those tensions.)
Imagine that the whole world gets to watch and listen to the proceedings, or at least to those portions of the process that the governing committee would decide should be publicized. Other parts of the proceedings, it might be decided, might be kept private in the belief that this would make constructive outcomes more probable.
What Might Be the Value of this Idea?, or, The Problem of the Bush Administration
In general, sovereign states do not generally cede control over much of anything to anyone else. In this case, the only thing that would need to be ceded is control over a conference. But even such a concession is not common in international affairs. What hope is there that the world's actors might agree to such a conference now?
The main reason for such hope is the fear that is growing in the world because of the destructive dynamics now at play. If that level of fear is high enough, perhaps the nations of the world will decide that something other than more of the same is required. Perhaps, recognizing that what they collectively are creating now must be interrupted and reversed, they will willingly enter into a process governed by a highly prestigious group that represents the best in humanity.
Of course, if the world's leading nation -- or perhaps nowadays it would be more accurate to call it simply the world's strongest power-- the United States, were to call for such a conference, that American initiative could have a powerful influence. That influence would come not only from America's historic leadership role, but would also be because such a call would in itself be an implicit but also strong and welcome message to the world.
That implicit message would be one of humility from the American administration. The nature of the conference described above is premised on the idea that the current world dynamic needs to be changed. For the world's only superpower to propose that a group of well-chosen others intervene to alter those dynamics might reasonably be interpreted as a tacit acknowledgment of its role in fostering that destructive dynamic.
And this by itself could help change the dynamic, just as the American invasion of Iraq did more than anything else to create the growing disequilibrium in the world system.
But even to mention the possibility of this administration taking an initiative that would at least implicitly acknowledge that its style of "world leadership" might be a component of the world's present problem is to be led quickly to doubts about the likelihood of such an initiative from the present American government.
I would propose that this process might begin with only the first step planned, with subsequent steps to be decided as things unfold.
A possible first step would be for those participants who wish to make a statement to the assembled group to do so. Those making statements would be charged with the assignment of addressing this question: how might humankind best proceed to create a world in which there is less conflict and more security? The presenters would also be encouraged to address the more specific question: what would be a good next phase for this conference to undertake?
There would also be certain rules drawn up to govern these opening statements. For one thing, there would presumably be a time limit. More importantly, there would be some rules regarding substance. And the text of the statements would be submitted in advance to the committee to assure that those substantive rules were followed.
[Question: What would be other good substantive rules by which the present unconstructive dynamics at work in the world system might be replaced by a more constructive form of interaction?]
The governing committee of the conference would then --on the basis of whatever ideas they have, whatever ideas the world actors have proposed, and whatever counsel they've received from experts-- decide on the next phase for the conference. The participants would then move to that phase.
(Among the possibilities that might be worth considering would be some kind of carefully and appropriately structured process by which parties in tension with each other are led to engage regarding those tensions.)
Imagine that the whole world gets to watch and listen to the proceedings, or at least to those portions of the process that the governing committee would decide should be publicized. Other parts of the proceedings, it might be decided, might be kept private in the belief that this would make constructive outcomes more probable.
What Might Be the Value of this Idea?, or, The Problem of the Bush Administration
In general, sovereign states do not generally cede control over much of anything to anyone else. In this case, the only thing that would need to be ceded is control over a conference. But even such a concession is not common in international affairs. What hope is there that the world's actors might agree to such a conference now?
The main reason for such hope is the fear that is growing in the world because of the destructive dynamics now at play. If that level of fear is high enough, perhaps the nations of the world will decide that something other than more of the same is required. Perhaps, recognizing that what they collectively are creating now must be interrupted and reversed, they will willingly enter into a process governed by a highly prestigious group that represents the best in humanity.
Of course, if the world's leading nation -- or perhaps nowadays it would be more accurate to call it simply the world's strongest power-- the United States, were to call for such a conference, that American initiative could have a powerful influence. That influence would come not only from America's historic leadership role, but would also be because such a call would in itself be an implicit but also strong and welcome message to the world.
That implicit message would be one of humility from the American administration. The nature of the conference described above is premised on the idea that the current world dynamic needs to be changed. For the world's only superpower to propose that a group of well-chosen others intervene to alter those dynamics might reasonably be interpreted as a tacit acknowledgment of its role in fostering that destructive dynamic.
And this by itself could help change the dynamic, just as the American invasion of Iraq did more than anything else to create the growing disequilibrium in the world system.
But even to mention the possibility of this administration taking an initiative that would at least implicitly acknowledge that its style of "world leadership" might be a component of the world's present problem is to be led quickly to doubts about the likelihood of such an initiative from the present American government.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
