by Clem McCartney

I have been involved in a group that is concerned about the disregard for the multilateral system which guides international relations. I am thinking of structures like the United Nations; the rules and norms, such as the Geneva Conventions; and diplomatic conventions. People and states of all political persuasion distrust those systems, claiming they are biased and co-opted by their opponents, or are impatient to get their own way. They act unilaterally, using force or the threat of force, and the UN seems powerless to intervene.

This trend has been going on for a long time but it is now brought into sharp relief by the attitudes and behaviour of parties in numerous conflicts. At the same time we are approaching the Summit of the Futures at the United Nations in September which aims “to forge a new international consensus on how to deliver a better present and safeguard the future. Our group were trying to craft a statement in light of the Summit, trying to think what would make a difference and ensure that any consensus was not just empty rhetoric but that the state parties really meant to make it work. We had some differences of opinion, but did come up with a statement.

At that point I took a break, mostly walking. Walking provides a great opportunity to do some thinking and I was thinking a lot about what were they back provides a good opportunity to put down those thoughts in writing. So now I take the liberty to share the result.

I think our first point of agreement was that states are very preoccupied with preserving and asserting their national sovereignty, and not pooling any of it in order to support a system to manage inter-state relations, in contrast to the way that in society most of us are willing to limit our assertion of our individual liberty and accept the system of law and order, even if it does not always work in our favour. Our second point of agreement was that the assertion of national sovereignty is not always necessary or advisable, especially if it relies on coercion and threats based on military or economic power. We can list many negative consequences that can result:

• More powerful countries can dominate others and get their own way

• Getting what we want is not necessarily what we need or what the world needs, but we avoid pressure to consider alternatives.

• Threats, coercion and unilateral action provoke anger and resentment which makes future relations difficult

• They also invite counter threats and preemptive or retaliatory action in what ever form is available

• The result is escalation and polarisation

• It requires unsustainable investment of human, financial and environmental resources, which could be directed to human development.

• Rather than increasing security it creates greater insecurity.

We all know this. Political leaders know this. And recent history, never mind examples throughout history, are salutary reminders, if needed. The creation of the United Nations is only the latest example of how, often after catastrophic events, states have realised they have to work together, but as time passes they began to subvert the systems they created to do that, and fell back on unilateralism to get short term gains. So why does the dominant discourse continue to be controlling our own destiny and prioritising security through power? Why does the human species focus on defending absolute national sovereignty, when it is a zero sum game? The assertion of national sovereignty requires limitations on the sovereignty of others. But no person “is an island, entire of itself ” as John Donne said, and, in international relations, no nation is “entire of itself”. All states need the co-operation of others. So why does humanity not learn the lessons?

Those of us trying to promote an alternative form of international relations, based on diplomacy, dialogue and co-operation, have every reason to be discouraged. The next thing we agreed on is that, at the present time we see no appetite for change in the world at large, or that the Summit of the Future will make much difference to the current adversarial approach to international relations. Our group have been debating two possible ways forward: national self restraint on the one hand and on the other, strengthening or revising the peace and security architecture to ensure compliance with it.

On the one hand some of us are very aware that we will be seen as naive and possibly damage our credibility if we support the idea of stronger regulatory systems as this will be a challenge to national sovereignty. In any case, we are aware that all states use legal casuistry to redefine rules and arrangements to suit their own purposes thereby undermining the system’s future efficacy.

On the other hand we are also aware that it is not easy for states, or any other body or person, to exercise restraint, voluntarily, in the use of their powers and privileges. Once given up on one occasion it will be harder to reassert it in the future.

Both strategies rely on personal and political will that is not there. If history and experience tell us that the existing system does not work, history and experience also tell us that states are unlikely to adopt either approach if they can act unilaterally to get what they want.

Our solution is to propose a two stage approach. First rely on self restraint and propose “a thorough review should be conducted over the coming 3 years by an international expert group to assess how existing articles [of the UN Charter] can be more effectively applied by member states to resolve political and military conflicts peacefully.” This might encourage member states to think about the failure of their current practices. But to encourage genuine re-thinking we also propose introducing the “threat” that if this does not happen it will trigger “a General Conference of all member states according to Article 109 of the Charter” in order “to discuss and agree among member states how the UN can be equipped for the challenges of today.”

This is quite an ingenious proposal but it still may not overcome the deep resistance to even discuss the dominant discourse of security through power and control, even though in reality control is slipping away from all of us. To be willing to talk about the nature of this resistance might be the beginning of finding a better solution. And so we come back to my question: why do we not learn from experience and past experience?

For me this is the most important question. We know some of the reasons but nevertheless they are often ignored. We are all aware of the US President Dwight Eisenhower warning in 1961 of the danger “of the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial-military complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of mis-placed power exists and will persist.” There are clear and present dangers and challenges to worry about, but as noted earlier, the preferred responses create more insecurity, and there are other dangers such as climate change that are not treated as priorities.

Political leaders, including autocratic leaders, face challenges from within if they appear weak in the face of external threats, but ironically they have often drawn attention to those threats in order to gain power. A form of group think develops in which the leaders incite their followers and the wider public, who in turn demand aggressive rhetoric and action from their leaders. In the face of uncertainty and insecurity there is a strong desire to keep control of one’s destiny in one’s own hands, even if that is illusory in a complex world. And there are corrupt and Machiavellian characters and psychopaths who cynically manipulate these dynamics to gain power, but they can only do that in a context where the wider society is willing to allow them.

These elements are all certainly part of the conflict dynamic, but they do not really explain why the vast majority can not or will not step back and reflect dispassionately on the different options and assess which will lead to a solution which satisfies the needs of all parties and therefore is sustainable. Then on that basis they act as a restraint on aggressive assertion of national sovereignty. The Elders have taken up the idea of “long-view leaders” who do not take decisions on the basis of short term interest, and who do not ignore the negative unintended consequences in the future.

Peeling another layer from the onion, we come to the underlying mental processes that navigate all of us through everyday life whatever our situation and whatever our status. During my break I found this illustrated in a most unexpected way. Please bear with me for a moment if I seem to digress.

As well as walking and sitting in planes, trains and airports I also went to the cinema. In the small town where I was staying there was a very unique and cute independent cinema. From the outside it looked like a typical clapboard house, with a touch of Gothic about it. But when you went inside it had everything you would find in a multiplex, multiple screens, pop corn and all the latest films. It really invited one to watch a film, but with the choice of current blockbusters like “Deadpool v Wolverine”, the best on offer was the animated film “Inside Out 2”. The basic conceit of the film is that our emotions are little people controlling us and motivating us from a command console that looks like the bridge of an ocean liner or a space ship. They call on memories which are stored away to motivate us, manage our instinctive impulsive reactions, and guide the decisions that have to be made. Some, unpleasant memories are sent to the back of the mind and suppressed, but they do not go away. The film makers say they have worked with psychologists in order to be as close as possible to the real processes in our brains as signals are passed between neurons across synapses.

In the first film in the series a little girl is moved by her parents to a new town away from everything familiar, including her friends, and it shows how the emotions of Joy, Sadness, Fear, Disgust and Anger guide her through the experience. In the present film she is just entering puberty and new emotions arrive – Anxiety, Embarrassment or Shame, Envy and Ennui – just as she enters a competitive situation. She wants to win; she wants recognition; she fears rejection; she fears losing control. In this situation Anxiety and Joy tussle to guide the girl and look after her, and for much of the film, Anxiety is dominant. Anxiety may be a helpful emotion as it focuses on the dangers, but in the face of the dangers it tries to control all possibilities and encourages us to be single-minded and aggressive and push others to one side, reinforcing the original anxiety. Joy, and the possibility of Joy, are more powerful motivators, and, if anxieties are kept to reasonable levels, we are open to respect, engagement and co-operation.

I think Kamala Harris and Tim Walz must have watched the film, as at present in their election strategy they seem to be channelling joy rather than warning of doom and gloom. The film is a vivid depiction of how we are contested beings as we decide what to do. There is a nice scene in the film where Anxiety is calling on part of our brain full of little people to produce scenarios of what could happen, an acknowledgement of the use of futures thinking/strategic foresight. But Anxiety only recognises negative scenarios and when Joy encourages them to generate positive futures, Anxiety immediately dismisses them as dangerous because they encourage the person to relax and lower their defences.

Here is a little article about the psychology underlying the film:

https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20240730-the-key-message-that-made-inside-out-2-bigger-than-barbie

I recommend the article, but I am not recommending everyone should watch the film. It is loud, garish and kitsch. And of course it is facile to assume a child’s psyche is exactly the same as the psyche of political leaders, a society’s psyche or a nation’s psyche. The more people involved, the more the dynamics are amplified. And over time more and more assumptions, motivations and emotions get locked into fixed patterns: group think. But it does point us to the need for people, societies and nations (and ourselves) to go back to the emotions, memories, impulses and instincts that are drivers of attitudes and behaviours, surface them and test them.

And we need to also consider other possibilities that have been discarded and suppressed as counter to the dominant narrative of the day. I am reminded that during the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, the US Administration invited outside experts to challenge their thinking and work together on how to be firm in the face of the threat as they saw it, but at the same time defuse the situation. This can best be done through diplomatic engagement, dialogue, critical thinking and joint analysis with opponents, because we have to take into account their interests and they have to take into account our interest, and once that is established, often solutions can be found that satisfy the interests of all concerned. It helps too if those involved, individuals, communities and states are secure in themselves, not secure on the basis of military power, and have the confidence to take the risk of engaging with opponents.

Where does that come from? If their dignity is respected; if they are treated fairly and equitably; if they have access to opportunities; if they are listened to; if their rights are protected; if they feel that what they do matters: these are among the approaches for which the Shared Societies Concept advocates, not only because they are fair, but because when this happens then people and nations want to act responsibly and have that self assurance to be self critical and challenge their own assumptions and to reach out and engage with their opponents in joint problem solving and developing mutually respectful relationships.

During the Annual and Spring Meetings of the World Bank/IMF in 2011/12, the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Club de Madrid and Center of Concern brought together representatives from global institutions to consider the global economic policy framework needed to support and nurture equitable development, building on the Shared Society Concept, which resulted in the Global Shared Society Agenda. Likewise, the Institute of Economics and Peace has identified similar characteristic of more peaceful societies which it called the Pillars of Peace. So as well as suggesting what should be done to make the systems function better or to reform the systems, we need to begin to raise awareness of the underlying dynamics at work and the need to address them, and we can then propose, through quiet diplomacy, ways in which that can be done. By creating awareness of a problem, those concerned have taken the first step in analysing how to address it.

–

The title of this piece is a reference to the refrain from the Pete Seeger Song “Where have all the flowers gone?”

Regarding the film referred to, Inside Out 2, see also https://opinion.inquirer.net/174839/developing-our-emotional-intelligence