vision papersCenter fo

r Strategic Research

No.2, March 2012

GlobalGovernance

Prof.Dr. Ahmet DAVUTOĞLUMinister of Foreign Affairs

Republic of TURKEY

GlobalGovernance

Prof.Dr. Ahmet DAVUTOĞLUMinister of Foreign Affairs

Republic of TURKEY

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 3A PERSONAL EXPERIENCE 3SYSTEMIC INTER-CONNECTEDNESS 5TAKING STOCK OF HISTORY 7PILLARS OF GENUINE GLOBAL GOVERNANCE 8POLITICAL ORDER 8ECONOMIC ORDER 11CULTURAL ORDER 13CONCLUSION 14

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Ahmet Davutoğlu was born in Taşkent/Konya in 1959. After completing his secondary education at Istanbul High School, commonly known as Istanbul Erkek Lisesi, he graduated from the departments of Economics and Political Science at Boğaziçi University, where he then went on to complete his M.A. in Public Administration and Ph.D. in Political Science and International Relations. He became an Assistant Professor in 1990 at the International Islamic University of Malaysia where he established and chaired the Political Science Department until 1993. He also lectured at the Institute for Middle Eastern Studies, the Institute for Insurance and Banking and the Political Science Department’s PhD programme of Marmara University as well as at the Military Academy and the War Academy. He was Professor of International Relations and Head of the International Relations Department at Beykent University from 1995 to 2004. He served as Chief Advisor to the Prime Minister and Ambassador at large during the 58th, 59th and 60th Governments. He was appointed as the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the 60th Government of the Republic of

Turkey on 1 May 2009. He was elected as Deputy of AKP from Konya to the Turkish Grand National Assembly at the 2011 General Elections and appointed as the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the 61st Government.

Author of many books and articles on foreign policy and international relations in Turkish and English. His books and articles have also been translated into several other languages including Japanese, Portuguese, Russian, Arabic, Persian, Greek and Albanian. Professor Davutoğlu is married with four children and speaks English, German and Arabic.

His publications include Alternative Paradigms (Lanham: University Press of America, 1993), Civilizational Transformation and the Muslim World (K.L.: Quill, 1994), Stratejik Derinlik (Strategic Depth) (Küre Yayınları, 2001) and Küresel Bunalım (Global Crisis) (Küre Yayınları, 2002). He has pursued a multi-disciplinary approach in his work on such fields as international relations, regional analysis, comparative political philosophy, and comparative history of civilizations.

©All rights reservedThis brief is a revised and updated version of the speech delivered at the Bled Strategic Forum in Slovenia on 30 August 2009.

3

university instructors in political science. The composition of the students attending the class was the prime catalyst for this shocking insight into our shortsightedness. There were Chinese and Muslim Malays, Buddhist Chinese, Hindu Indians, Malays of Indian origin, students from different African countries, and even one from El Salvador. After looking at the class carefully, I glanced at the book that had been assigned for the class.

It was a typical, classical textbook. It began with Plato, continued onto the Roman Empire, Christendom, the Reformation, the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, modern ideologies, and culminated in an overview of current schools of thought in the realm of political ideas. I hid the book. If I had assigned that book, it would have meant that I was teaching my students they had no place in the history of political thought, as if they or their ancestors had not existed at all. How could I do that when we all know that the Chinese tradition of political philosophy is older than Greek political thought? Indian civilization, in all its grandeur, existed long before Western civilization. Islamic civilization contributed to global culture – and indeed the globalization of culture – throughout the vast lands of Eurasia. But the textbook simply ignored those great traditions. At that moment I realized that this marginalization of the East was more than an academic and analytical problem.

It was also an ethical issue, since teaching from a standard textbook and curriculum would entail ignoring the contribution of crucial actors and forces to the world of political

Global governance is a topic of serious discussion among students of politics, within both academic and policy circles. To do this important topic justice, one needs to adopt a rigorous methodological approach, and offer a well thought-out definition of the adjective ‘global.’ Only in this way one can develop a comprehensive framework to analyze the complex phenomenon of global governance and suggest the ways through which it may be made more effective. Scientific inquiry sometimes benefits from personal experience, which, in turn, can offer profound insights into our inquiry about the workings of global governance. Recognizing this, I will start by recollecting a personal experience which sparked in me a genuine engagement with the question of what ‘global’ actually means. I will then reflect upon the systemic forces at play in global governance, an endeavor which necessitates placing such forces in their proper historical context. I will move on to dealing with the preconditions for a more effective system of global governance, concluding with a discussion of the policy principles upon which such an agenda can be built.

A PERSONAL EXPERIENCEI had a mind-opening experience when I was teaching the history of political thought in a Malaysian university in 1991. Like other professors preparing for class, I finalized a syllabus and assigned a classical textbook which is widely used to teach the history of political thought all over the world. Yet, the moment I entered the classroom, I realized the extent to which Eurocentricism infuses our mentality and our practices as

GLOBAL GOVERNANCE

4

and we pretend we know enough about the history of humankind over millennia. But we are in fact missing an immensely important part of the picture, both analytically and normatively, as my experience in Malaysia drove home. We need to pay utmost attention that when we talk about global phenomena, we think ‘globally’ in the truest sense of the term. Personally, I embarked on this journey in earnest, as I collected and studied the texts of Confucius and other traditions in political philosophy so as to create a more inclusive and genuinely global learning environment in the classroom.

If this was my experience in the field of university education, it is also very relevant to other spheres of human interaction such as politics and the economy. Our guiding principle should be achieving inclusivity and outreach across a global world. One should think that the security of a child in Somalia is as important as that of one’s own child or that of the children in Slovenia, Brazil,

ideas. If I had told my students that these civilizations, i.e., their own cultural heritage, had no place in political history, then I would also have deprived these young men and women of any ability to shape the world in the future. I did not want to be a part of what I considered to be a brainwashing process. So, rather than following the standard approach, I developed my own course material by collecting sample writings from Chinese, Hindu and Muslim political thought which I used in the classroom together with the texts on Western political thought.

This personal experience brings into focus a very critical problem in our approach to the issue of globalization. We sit in the West

Marginalization of the East was more than an academic and analytical problem.

5

Of course, we need to be realistic when we are reflecting on the prospects for a renewed and reinvigorated approach to the issue of global governance in the 21st century. We are operating, after all, in an environment where there are deep structural, institutional, and psycho-political impediments to a more inclusive understanding of the global. But this only makes it even more imperative that we continuously seek ways to forge a new mentality and approach that may transform our exclusionary institutions and policies. Global thinking and a novel mentality would save us from encountering the dilemma that I faced in the classroom in a really meaningful way, and the implications of such a shift in consciousness would expand exponentially from there.

SYSTEMIC INTER-CONNECTEDNESS

We need to shed light on the type and nature of the systemic inter-connectedness we would encounter in our search for genuine global governance. We have faced two important systemic issues in the past few years. One was the Russia-Georgia conflict in 2008. Another was the breakdown of the US financial markets, which spiraled into a global economic crisis that continues to impact the lives of peoples across the globe in profound though differentiated ways. It is now time to ask several serious questions about these two systemic issues. What did we learn from these two challenges? Did we succeed in handling the associated problems? How will we prevent the expansion or re-emergence of these problems? Are our existing institutions able to offer comprehensive solutions?

and elsewhere. This kind of thinking is a must for developing a sense of a truly global world. We should also be aware that this kind of thinking is more challenging than simply overcoming a tradition of ignoring some parts of the world. If we were to adopt a truly global frame of reference, we would have to pay the utmost attention to the hunger problem in some parts of Africa and be responsive to the economic needs of people in global terms. Anything less than this perspective would fall short of genuine global thinking. Indeed, we are obliged by the very term ‘global governance’ to treat all these societies as part of our common and shared history and destiny. At the same time, we must appreciate their contributions in the past, and acknowledge their potential contributions today and the roles they can play in shaping our shared future.

The concept of governance implies the existence of multiple – and in that regard, overlapping – centers of power. It thus stands in contrast to notions of government, hegemony, or imperialism that are based on exclusionary logics like insider/outsider or center/periphery or above/below. The existence of multiple centers of power/authority can serve to prevent any one from dominating the others. Governance, in this regard, means the mutual and respectful interaction of different actors.

The security of a child in Somalia is as important as that of one’s own child or that of the children in Slovenia, Brazil, and elsewhere.

6

The financial crisis emerged in a similar manner. When the crisis struck the financial markets, most observers focused solely on its sectoral impact on the financial institutions themselves. Few thought it would have any further impact on the global economy. However, in just a few months, it was clear that those analyses that had treated the crisis as a sectoral or even national problem were seriously mistaken. The crisis we were experiencing was of far greater scope and it had a direct and significant impact on production networks around the world, diminishing demand and supply at the same time. The financial crisis evolved into a widespread global economic crisis in a period of a few months. The global crisis has had far-reaching consequences, causing governmental crises and virtual collapses, and inflicting devastating hardships upon societal groups. One consequence is that in many corners of our globe there is social as well as economic upheaval, caused by soaring unemployment rates, deteriorating economic conditions, and the perception that the established order is deeply unjust in its distribution of rewards and punishments.

The quick lesson drawn from these two cases is that the degree of inter-linkage and inter-connectedness in today’s international system far exceeds our current imaginative capacities. These two events show that if so-

I would like to reflect upon Turkey’s experience vis-à-vis the tension in Turkey’s

Caucasus neighborhood caused by the

conflict between Russia and Georgia. The

tensions escalated into military conflict

during the vacation period in the summer

of 2008. It first emerged as an ethnic

problem between Georgia and its breakaway

autonomous regions, Abkhazia and South

Ossetia. This ethnic problem soon escalated

into a bilateral crisis between Georgia and

Russia. Within four days, the bilateral issue

turned into a regional issue in the Black

Sea region. We in Turkey felt the tension in

our neighborhood and the Black Sea due

to the conflict between our two important

neighbors. What is more, we also felt the

tensions created by the mounting demands

for the passage of the U.S. warships through

the Turkish Straits, purportedly so that they

could deliver humanitarian aid to Georgia.

In a week’s time-span, this issue became a

global security problem as Russia and NATO

risked a direct military confrontation in the

Black Sea. Thus a very local conflict escalated

beyond everyone’s expectations, almost

instantly acquiring a global dimension.

This example alone suffices to demonstrate

that the existing conflict prevention and

resolution instruments are poorly equipped

to deal with the many contingencies that may

arise without much warning at any time. It is

therefore essential to develop new and more

effective mechanisms to prevent and address

similar problems in the future.

The existing conflict prevention and resolution instruments are poorly equipped to deal with the many contingencies that may arise without much warning at any time.

7

The challenges to this weak global order came from intense economic crises and the rise of ever more belligerent and expansive forms of nationalism.

After the Second World War, another gathering of the representatives of sovereign states paved the way for the creation of the United Nations. Thus, a new international order was established which was Westphalian in terms of its emphasis on the nation-state as the foundational pillar of this new system, but far more global than its Euro-centric predecessor in terms of its membership and geographical coverage. Although various forms of privilege for Europeans and the West continued to characterize the system, the membership of the UN became universalized with the collapse of the European colonial empires. The economic pillar of that order was backed by institutions commonly termed ‘the Bretton Woods institutions.’ This post-World War II vision of world order soon became entangled in the dynamics of Cold War rivalry with a resulting loss of global reach and authority. The Cold War was a war unlike all previous wars, and thus defies easy comprehension. It was fought throughout the world and the antagonistic parties expressed their rivalries through the idiom of ideological clash. A condition of bipolar compartmentalization between the two blocs characterized international politics during the Cold War period.

called “local” crises are not anticipated or controlled at their outset, or further, if they are not proactively prevented, then they risk easily evolving into far reaching global crises that even may threaten the fundamental viability of the global political or economic order.

TAKING STOCK OF HISTORYHow can we overcome the negative repercussions of an increasingly inter-connected world under the forces of globalization? How can we recalibrate our global institutions so that our interdependence is a source of security rather than insecurity? History offers valuable examples and even provides us with an opportunity to compare examples of earlier international systems with our modern ones. History instructs us that there is a relationship between war, peace, and grand international bargains, on the one hand, and political, social, and economic order, on the other.

To illustrate, consider that the Westphalian order that started to emerge in the 17th century in the wake of the Thirty Years War, initiating an era of European state formation, mercantilism, and myriad forms of intellectual transformation. It was institutionalized in the settlement at Westphalia that set forth the rules of the emerging European state system. When systemic warfare returned to the European peninsula in the form of the Napoleonic Wars, it paved the way for the Congress of Vienna in 1815. The political change ran parallel to economic transformation with the Industrial Revolution and the cultural transformation brought about by the Enlightenment. A century later, the First World War ended with the establishment of the League of Nations.

The degree of inter-linkage and inter-connectedness in today’s international system far exceeds our current imaginative capacities.

8

that constitute the broader web of global governance, namely, politics, economy and culture.

POLITICAL ORDERThe first and most contentious dimension of global governance is the question of political order. The challenge remains as to what kind of political order we want to institute at the international level. Following the Second World War, the world community agreed on a new political order represented by the United Nations. Like any order, this political order is based on certain principles, procedures, and political realities. The UN system persisted and evolved in subsequent years and was further consolidated despite the emergence of a new generation of nation-states reflecting the outcomes of a series of anti-colonial struggles. The UN system is unable either to accommodate current political conditions or to address the growing number of global challenges. International society is increasingly aware of this shortcoming, as evidenced by widespread calls for reforms to the UN system to reflect the needs and aspirations of today’s world. However, the push for a UN reform debate has yet to produce concrete results, which has become a source of disillusionment. The benchmark for reform should be the pursuit of representative and inclusive political institutions within the UN structures. Once this reform challenge has been addressed, the UN could provide an essential pillar of global governance.

It has been twenty three years since the end of the Cold War. What have we done to address the challenges presented by the emerging international order? Was a congress convened, along the lines of the Congress of Vienna, or a new institution established, like the United Nations, so that stakeholders could hammer out the much needed foundations and constitutional framework of a new international system? After all, the collapse of bipolarity was accompanied by a huge economic transformation with the locus of economic activity moving from the boundaries of national economies to broader domains of regional and global scope. An accompanying revolution in information technology accelerated this process of economic transformation. And, in a cultural sense, an even broader transformation was taking place due to the revival of several national, regional, and, in a sense, civilizational actors in Asia, the Muslim world, Latin America and Africa. It is therefore high time that we have a global conversation and commit our various selves to a new grand bargain concerning the economic, political, and cultural order.

PILLARS OF GENUINE GLOBAL GOVERNANCEAs I have tried to sketch out, the need for asking and answering hard questions about what ought to be the nature of the global system after the Cold War is not simply an academic one. It is of urgent importance and thus a responsibility for world leaders to engage in more serious thinking about global governance. The question we should address at this juncture is a crucial one. What are the preconditions for genuinely global governance? My approach to this question is based on the idea of three sub-orders

It is of urgent importance and thus a responsibility for world leaders to engage in more serious thinking about global governance.

9

own persistent problem of achieving regional cohesion. Other regional organizations in various parts of the world are taking similar steps, though their achievements are not at this point comparable to the impressive progress attained by the EU integration process. Recent initiatives of the African Union are very encouraging, especially considering the fact that it operates as an inclusive organization throughout the whole of Africa. The good practices that have been tried and tested in these successful examples should be expanded to the global level.

The question of global governance is indeed an urgent one. We are currently faced with

In addition to comprehensive reform of the UN’s organization and decision-making rules, the UN should develop a constructive relationship with regional organizations and regional orders, through a more effective utilization of its prerogatives under Chapter VIII of its Charter. A corresponding and meaningful dialogue should also be established between the institutions that regulate regional order and sub-regional cooperation arrangements. In this regard, the EU is a successful model which has established a continental order through soft measures premised on the consensus of its members. Although the ongoing Eurozone crisis suggests that even this most successful experiment in regional integration may have difficulties when tested by adverse global developments, the Western Balkans aim to join the EU precisely because they are inspired by the idea that the EU’s soft power approach will help them solve their

The UN should develop a constructive relationship with regional organizations and regional orders.

10

lesson can we draw from these countries’ experiences? If the crises cannot be managed in the micro models of the sub-regional orders, they turn into regional crises, and may easily escalate into international crises affecting the global order.

Afghanistan presents serious security challenges. There is a stalemate in Afghanistan and the situation is not poised to move in the right direction. Although Afgan security is an internal issue, it is not merely a national concern for the Afghans. The Afghan situation has implications for regional and international security. The challenge of Afghan reconstruction should be addressed through the collaboration of the Afghans with the regional actors and the international community. NATO is in Afghanistan to help provide security in the country, and also because it is the strongest international security organization of our time. But, as the Afghan situation exemplifies, there is a need

an alarming security situation, which may get worse in the future. As we move ahead to address it, the fate of three countries should be taken into serious consideration to ensure that we correctly interpret current problems and are ready to meet future challenges. These countries are former Yugoslavia, Iraq, and Afghanistan, all of which have experienced military conflict to varying degrees and faced the specter of collapse. They share the characteristic of having been buffer zone states at the center of economic transactions in their respective regions. All these countries functioned as micro-models of their regions; namely former Yugoslavia as a small Balkans, Afghanistan as a small Central and South Asia, and Iraq as a small Middle East. All the ethnicities and religious groups of the Balkans were present in former Yugoslavia. There are Pashtuns, Tajik, Uzbek, Turcoman, Hazaras, Shia and Sunnis in Afghanistan. Similarly, Iraq has Arabs, Kurds, Turcoman, Shiites, Sunnis, Yezidis, Keldani and Assyrians. What

11

that will allow political leaders to address the challenge of climate change in a manner that protects the future of humanity.

ECONOMIC ORDERThe second pillar of genuine global governance is the economic order, which needs to be analyzed at two different levels. The first level is the crisis environment which we are facing these days. The nature of production and economic interactions has recently changed drastically, mainly as a result of technological innovations. In this rapidly transforming world, it may be finance and financial markets that are changing the fastest. This is the second level at which one should engage with the question of economic order. Despite the rapid changes in financial markets, the structures within which the financial sector operates have remained almost entirely static, as has the surrounding institutional architecture. Despite the major financial crisis of the past few years, and the broader transformation of global economic activity, the only substantive attempt to grapple with the new challenges and opportunities has been the establishment of an informal G20. It is more representative than the G8. But it is far from being satisfactory. The emergence of the G20 is akin to the piecemeal and ad hoc reform of the UN Security Council, which itself has been disappointing, when what is really necessary is the reform of the entire UN system.

In short, we need to reform the international financial apparatus in its entirety. This transformation should be global in the sense that it needs to display the utmost inclusivity as explained earlier. In tandem with the renovation of our global economic order, there is a need for facilitating economic

for a more meaningful and better-planned linkage between sub-regional, regional, continental, and global institutions.

In some respects, the greatest unmet political challenge of the present day has to do with deficient global problem-solving mechanisms. This deficiency has more to do with the outlook and priorities of sovereign states than the UN system as such. Two problems that threaten our common human future and complicate present realities involve the continued possession of nuclear weapons and the growing threats associated with the impact of accumulating greenhouse gas emissions on climate change.

In regard to nuclear weapons, it has been agreed since their first use in 1945 against Japanese cities that their elimination was important for global security and for establishing the moral foundations of world order. We need to bring the focus back to the fact that it is not tolerable or tenable to have a world divided between nuclear have and have-not states. With respect to climate change, the UN framework for fashioning a response seems stalled. Nothing significant was achieved at either the 2009 Copenhagen Conference or the 2010 meeting in Cancun, and nothing happend in Durban in 2011. And yet, greenhouse gasses continue to accumulate and a consensus of scientists warns that the longer we wait the more expensive and difficult an adequate response will become. Climate change is a particularly challenging illustration of the need for global problem-solving. Countries cannot act alone to effect change, only within a framework that calls for unprecedented levels of inter-governmental cooperation. We need a global governance structure and supportive attitudes

12

same time, it was a road of peace. In order for commercial activity to be sustainable there was a need to establish peace. As this historical experience suggests, there is always an intimate relationship between large-scale economic interaction and a stable political order. We have energy routes in today’s world, which could be beneficial to all parties if a Silk Road mentality could come to prevail in the implementation of these projects. Unfortunately, current international thinking and behavior promotes competition and conflict rather than cooperation. We should be thinking along the positive sum lines that energy routes increase the size of the pie for everyone, while creating large scale interdependencies. As such, no rational political actor should put their interests at risk by harming the interactive premises of economic interdependence. The best way to achieve peace is through economic interdependence. The instruments

transactions between and within regions as well as promoting the quest for regional self-sufficiency. This call does not mean that regions should seek isolation or autarchy, but rather that they should develop cohesion within regional contexts, so as to facilitate mutually beneficial interaction with other regions.

Retrospectively, the Silk Road can be considered as a good example. The Silk Road not only facilitated the transfer of goods but also the interaction of peoples and societies from China to Europe across the vast and continuous Eurasian landmass. At the

There is always an intimate relationship between large-scale economic interaction and a stable political order.

13

celebration to realize that we can learn a great deal from each of these world civilizations. This interaction will provide a new cultural vitality and contribute to the emergence of a genuine global culture in which convergence and pluralism coexist and interact in exciting ways. As a relevant initiative, it is worth recalling the United Nations Alliance of Civilizations spearheaded by Turkey and Spain, in which 86 countries are currently participating.

The idea of an Alliance of Civilizations refers not only to the relationship between ‘East and West’ or ‘Islam and Christianity’ – categories that we need to unpack and recognize as plural and dynamic rather than monolithic and static. It applies also to the conversations taking place between actors like Turkey and Brazil. In addition to its work on the national and inter-national levels, the Alliance also aims to include the many indigenous cultures in its work and to develop a shared learning process for worldwide multicultural co-existence. It may be argued that multiculturalism is a typical feature of the rising imperial structures. When the Roman polity was first established, its members were of pure Roman stock. As it expanded, Rome became, by the 3rd century AD, a city of Persians, Egyptians, Greeks, Latins, and Germans. This is typical of an imperial political order. However, the age of imperial orders is over. With globalization,

of economic interdependence should be supported and strengthened in order to underpin global order. The G20 type of international organization may represent a step towards a new template for global economic order, especially if supplemented by some of the other institutions I have already mentioned, which are needed for establishing and safeguarding a new economic order.

CULTURAL ORDER

The third essential pillar of global governance is cultural order. Here, we see two somewhat but not entirely contradictory tendencies at work. On one hand, with the spread of global culture, there is convergence underpinned by the ways through which growing numbers of people spend their money on similar things in different parts of the world. On the other hand, global culture is a plural culture in which the complex bundle of norms, understandings, and practices that emanate from one context are being transmitted to others, transforming and being transformed in the process. This phenomenon is very much evident in the cultural and civilizational revival of India, China, the Muslim world, Africa, and Latin America. And while it has given rise to some anxiety in the form of cultural nationalism, the reinvigoration of authentic traditions and civilizations should not be considered a threat to a potentially global system of governance. They are all core parts of human history and human culture. It is time to reject Huntingtonian theories of inevitable civilizational conflict. This worldwide civilizational revival should be seen as opening many doors to new forms of interaction and communication for humankind. It should be an occasion of

The reinvigoration of authentic traditions and civilizations should not be considered a threat to a potentially global system of governance.

14

to the present-day globalization challenge. The EU should utilize the situation for its own benefit and, in so doing, contribute to the emergence of a global order responsive to the historical moment.

CONCLUSIONIn light of the foregoing discussions, one may mention five principles of global governance in the current context. The first principle is inclusiveness, which assumes that global governance should be based on an inclusive rather than exclusive world view. Interestingly, when we look at the historical record, agents of exclusion have always found themselves excluded before long. The philosophy of exclusion must be abandoned and inclusiveness must be the rule of the day. The second principle is comprehensiveness. Our focus should be comprehensive in the sense that the solutions we devise should encapsulate all regions, subjects, political ideas, political order, economy and the culture of everyone on our planet. If we ignore any one of these dimensions, it will not be possible to address the crucial issues at stake in an adequate

we must think of multicultural coexistence not in terms of hierarchy and subordination but as occasions for mutual recognition and mutual reinforcement of the shared human desire to live in peace, justice, and prosperity in this world of diversity. The process of globalization has created diversified microcosms all around the world. This is almost a historical necessity. There will be no more pure cities in terms of their ethnic or religious characters. All of our cities will have a cosmopolitan character. This is indeed a healthy development.

In this context of transforming our thinking towards multicultural existence, Turkish hopes for membership in the EU are a relevant and important issue. Europe is facing the limits of tolerance and multi-culturalism as witnessed in the rise of ultranationalist parties in general, and the terror attack in Norway in particular. Turkey’s EU membership would make the EU a multicultural center of attraction in global terms. The EU’s response to Turkey will have a direct impact on its ability to rise

15

manner. The complex challenges of our time require comprehensive solutions.

The third principle is participatory representativeness. Any institution established for the sake of governance should represent all the relevant actors. For example, in the case of a nation-state, as was reflected in attempts to rebuild Iraq, any attempt at state-building should be representative of all factions in the country. This is a must for ensuring stability in Iraq. If we extend the same principle to international organizations, we will expect them to be representative of all the relevant parties from the multitude of regions across the globe. The fourth principle is effectiveness. We need to be proactive in problem solving, as attested to by the ways in which a conflict in the Caucasus or a financial sector problem in the United States can lead to a potentially global crisis. We have

to respond effectively and be as proactive and preemptive as possible so as to prevent crises from erupting in the first place.

The fifth principle is a future-oriented vision, in the sense that our approach to global issues should be emancipated from the burden of a history – or rather a historiography – infused with prejudice and exclusionary perspectives. We have to be conscious that all humankind has the same destiny and the same future, regardless of our petty rivalries. Climate change is a gigantic challenge awaiting all of us in the days ahead. Therefore, a future-oriented and visionary approach should form the basis of the new global governance system. What we need is to nurture the consciousness of our common future through the lens of a common vision shaped by all actors, and infused with inter-civilizational sensitivities.

Republic of Turkey Ministry of Foreign Affairs Center for Strategic Research

Dr. Sadık Ahmet Cad. No. 8 Balgat- 06100 Ankara / Turkey

www.sam.gov.tr strategy@mfa.gov.tr

Tel: (+90) 312 292 26 22 Fax: (+90) 312 292 26 35

It has been 23 years since the end of the

Cold War. What have we done to address

the challenges presented by the emerging

international order? Was a congress

convened, along the lines of the Congress

of Vienna, or a new institution established,

like the United Nations, so that stakeholders

could hammer out the much needed

foundations and constitutional framework

of a new international system? After all,

the collapse of bipolarity was accompanied

by a huge economic transformation with

the locus of economic activity moving from

the boundaries of national economies

to domains of regional and global scope.

The revolution in information technology

accelerated this process of economic

transformation. And, in a cultural sense, an

even broader transformation was taking

place due to the revival of several national,

regional, and, in a sense, civilizational, actors

in Asia, the Muslim world, and also Latin

America and Africa. It is therefore high time

that we have a global conversation and

commit our various selves to a new grand

bargain concerning the economic, political,

and cultural order.