What's Wrong with Global Governance?

By Robert Gorman

In an increasingly interconnected world, the question of how the world’s peoples should interact, cooperate, and settle conflicts rises to the fore. For many, especially among the global business and political elite, it is obvious that the path to peace and progress lies through the centralization of political power in governing bodies that are ever larger and further removed from the concerns of particular localities, nations, or regions. Robert Gorman brings extraordinary experience and keen judgment to the task of applying the timeless principles of Catholic social teaching to the issue. He recognizes the benefits of international integration, but he also warns against the anti-Christian agenda of some globalists. At the heart of Gorman’s treatment are the local communities and intermediate institutions, such as the family, whose wellbeing must be a priority in any discussion of global governance.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Acton Institute
• Release date: Nov 30, 2016
• ISBN: 9781942503514

Book preview

Foreword

That we live in an increasingly globalized and interconnected world seems to be one of the truisms of our time. Advances in communication and transportation have attenuated geographic limits, while large-scale migration and extensive trade promise—or threaten—to overcome historic distinctions among peoples based on language, culture, ethnicity, and religion.

Yet, forces of resistance to these trends continue to manifest themselves. Religious and ethnic strife, xenophobia, and terrorism undermine the development of a harmoniously integrated world. Debates about immigration, trade, and national identity and sovereignty demonstrate that the transition to a seamless, globalized world—if indeed that is what the future holds—will not be uncontested.

One important dimension of this contest is the question of the role of governments—both national and international. The basic organization of the world into sovereign nation-states that has been taken for granted for three centuries has, at least, been put into doubt. For many, especially those among the global business and political elite, it is obvious that the path to peace and progress lies through the centralization of political power in governing bodies that are ever larger and ever further removed from the relatively parochial concerns and prejudices of particular localities, nations, or regions. Others strenuously oppose this push toward global governance, arguing that the removal of authority from local institutions and governments entails a dangerous separation of the possession of power from the individual persons over whom that power is exercised.

Where should the Christian take a stand in these disputes? The position of the Catholic Church with respect to such questions is complicated because it is contingent on many factors that in turn depend on details specific to time and place. Yet, as always, the core principles of the Church’s social teaching—human dignity, solidarity, subsidiarity—are applicable. That application is not always straightforward, but it is one that must be attempted.

Robert Gorman brings extraordinary experience and keen judgment to this task. He is fully cognizant of the benefits of international integration and the dangers of nationalistic isolationism. Yet he is also sensitive to the fragility of local communities and intermediate institutions—in particular, the family—that are irreplaceable and whose wellbeing must be at the forefront in any discussion of global governance. Moreover, he is aware that, although the Church has always embraced the ideals of the unity of mankind and international cooperation, most twenty-first-century advocates of global governance operate from a perspective that is post- if not anti-Christian. Thus, while Christians can share and work cooperatively toward the goals of international concord and prosperity, they must be ever vigilant against more pernicious agendas that may be promoted, more or less openly, within the same structures that have been built, ostensibly, to maintain peace and stability.

Kevin Schmiesing

Acton Institute

I Introduction

About forty years ago, when I first began teaching international relations, the world was locked in the Cold War. The high hopes for the ability of the United Nations to keep international peace and punish aggression had long been sobered by the lack of great power consensus, but hopes for the elimination of the underlying causes of conflict persisted as did the belief that the increasing interdependence of the free world might at least bring greater prosperity to those countries, even the recently independent and still fairly poor countries of the world. Daunting challenges confronted these aspirations, however. Grinding poverty still affected about a third of the world’s population. Totalitarian governments ruthlessly violated human rights, and precious few countries provided scope for democratic government. A few idealists still envisioned some kind of future world government or a universal parliament of man that would assure global peace and prosperity. Despite the grim realities of global politics, most academics in the field of international relations still hoped for a better world and preached an academic gospel of diplomacy, conflict resolution, and increased cooperation in multilateral agencies.[1] Even this more moderate expectation seemed only remotely possible under the circumstances.

Then the momentous events of the 1990s produced a new and active hope as global communism collapsed, arms races slowed, disarmament commenced, and the Cold War ended. A new world order of peace was proclaimed as the UN Security Council embarked on peacekeeping and peacemaking efforts on almost every continent, often with some success.[2] In the same decade, democracy blossomed as global trade, investment, and migration accelerated. At last, Immanuel Kant’s prediction of perpetual peace once the world embraced more trade, more democracy, and more international organization seemed possible. In Europe, the European Communities aimed toward the long-awaited European Union. Nongovernmental agencies increased in numbers and influence. The United Nations itself proclaimed Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) that aspired to exterminate the ancient ailments of mankind, including poverty, malnutrition, disease, ignorance, and discrimination against women. In fact, in the new millennium much progress along these lines was realized in many parts of the world as economic globalization unleashed the productive capacity of humanity.[3]

In light of the great progress made in the last two-and-a-half decades, the title of this inquiry, What’s Wrong with Global Governance? might seem strange. Indeed, what is the matter with global governance? In one sense, nothing at all. Global governance is a term that has gained favor over the past two decades among students and practitioners of international relations and international organization when referring to the structures of cooperation that exist among nations to advance their mutual interests and to resolve problems and issues in their international relations. In this sense, it is without controversy and is a necessary and often fruitful individual and collective enterprise of prudence on the part of governments.

I also distinguish between globalization of the international economy and global governance. The term globalization refers to the actual process by which nations have become increasingly linked together by modern means of transportation and communication and by increasingly interdependent economic interaction. This has been accompanied by expanded labor migration, trade, direct foreign investment, and formal aid mechanisms. It requires some level of political coordination and regulation and thus some governance on the part of individual states and through transnational cooperation. To the extent that globalization has been driven by private and decentralized economic activity, evidence demonstrates that it has contributed greatly to economic development and prosperity.[4]

The term global governance refers to the political dimension of globalization. Here the question is to what degree governance will be centralized and controlled by international institutions in ways that threaten to diminish national and local governmental capacity. Global governance advocates tend to prefer both transnational regulation of markets and the creation of new human rights norms marked by increased centralization. The latter is the primary focus of this monograph.

In this sense, global governance can imply much more than simple international coordination and cooperation, which has existed throughout modern international relations. Now it is also a deeply and widely embedded ideology that seeks global centralization and regulation of wide-reaching areas of international interaction. It is believed and advanced by its devotees with an almost religious zeal. Among these devotees are (1) university professors and teachers at all levels, (2) nongovern-mental organization professionals, (3) international lawyers, (4) journalists, (5) increasingly large numbers of elected and appointed governmental leaders and officials, (6) international civil servants, (7) celebrities and cultural elites, and (8) experts in the United Nations and other intergovernmental organizations. The European Union (EU), founded on the principle of eroding the sovereignty of European member states, is an especially active hotbed of global governance ideology.[5] If this growing and increasingly influential body of believers simply wanted to resolve pressing international problems, its effects would also