07.14.08

Organizing the Future

Posted in Theory, Politics at 3:57 am by diantus

            The great political debate of the century will not be the great conflict between the classes or the struggle of civilizations, but the conflict between those who favor internationalization or protectionism for the future.  I believe that one of the critical responsibilities of the progressive left today is to help shepherd the transition towards a stable and secure form of internationalism that is based on mutual responsibility and progress.  This is why I am so fascinated by ongoing projects like the UN.

            On item that came to my attention today is the recently announced Mediterranean Union.  This primarily political organization has brought together representatives from 43 countries bordering the Mediterranean.  Its first meeting already scored on major historical first, as it was the first time that leaders from both Syria and Israel sat down at the same table together (its worth noting that they didn’t actually listen to each other).

            Most noteworthy, the Mediterranean Union includes proposals for ecological goals and coordinated energy projects; however I watch developments like this with guarded optimism.  After all, there is nothing nobler than bringing together these disparate nations into coalition despite their historical antipathy, but we must worry about the group’s long term viability.

            All too often, groups like this fail because of the absence of genuine integration by members.  These projects do better when there are tangible incentives to the potential loss of sovereignty when a nation subjects itself to international regulation.  One of the troubles faced by the UN is that the only player who really and genuinely has the ability to enforce its edicts is the US, and the US has no interest in having to abide by those edicts itself.  This can handily undo everything that the UN stands to try and do.  The EU has succeeded because it is a genuinely integrative project where every member is expected to give something if they want to get something out of it.  It’s about shared responsibility instead of the ultimate threat of force – which must be enforced by someone willing to use it.  The more successful examples are one which use economic levers to promote change.

            NAFTA in North America is a good example of a project that could have been implemented better, but remains a much needed initiative – a real chance for the United States to start taking baby steps into a wider world of integrative politics.  Trade between the US, Canada, and Mexico constitutes some of the highest volumes in the world.  While it is tempting to blame cheap Mexican labor for troubles in America’s domestic industrial center, in truth most of the jobs have gone on to places like China where unskilled labor is even cheaper.  In the meantime, the growing service sector in the US has been doing bumper business with both Mexico and Canada, and the economic links between the three are only getting stronger.  Macro-economically it has been a success.

            What makes NAFTA fail is that, while it helps to promote integration and foster growth, nothing is done to help the losers; those people who work in industries sensitive to economic dislocation.  This is the role that must be played by government and must be managed by careful international coordination.  In truth, we need organizations like NAFTA, the EU, and the Mediterranean Union to be models for the future, but they have to be designed to maximize opportunities for people – not just corporations and businesses.  By arranging things in the spirit of cooperation and an understanding that nobody “wins” life, we can try and manage the massive forces that the globalizing economy has unleashed.  Because they can be used to make life better for all of us – but that doesn’t mean that we won’t have to learn how to change.