Mærkelige politikere; urart

Af og til bliver man når man påpeger, at der faktisk er kræfter, de aller sorteste rød-fascistiske kræfter, der aktivt arbejder for at udslette nationerne og deres folk, og at det især er vestlige hvide mænd disse kræfter har på kornet for deres påtænkte folkemord, udskreget som konspirationeteoretiker m.v.

Hvad angår udslettelse af nationer og folk lader en repræsentant for disse kræfter nu selv fingrene løbe over tastaturet og kommer med hvad der nærmest er en blank indrømmelse. Der er tale om en top-rådgiver for den berygtede nazistsøn og chef for EUSSR kommisionen Jean-Claude Juncker, Claus Haugaard Sørensen, der på altinget.dk i en klumme ønsker sig mindre magt til nationerne og omvendt mere magt til overstatslige organer. Fra klummen:

Vi beklager os tit og ofte over, om regeringer kan levere varen: fuld beskæftigelse, smart transport, Femern-forbindelse, hofteoperationer, kloge børn og glade nydanskere – eller slet ingen nydanskere.

Ny global regeringsform?
Bekæmpelse af internetkriminalitet, menneskesmugling, narkotikatrafik. Beskyttelse af torskebestanden. Bemestring af finansstrømme. Skatteundvigelser. Ozonlaget og drivhusgasser. Bekæmpelse af krig og konflikter. Syrien, Irak, Libyen.

Alt sammen emner, der ikke kan håndteres gennem en national tilgang, og som endog rækker langt ud over, hvad stormagter som USA, Kina og Rusland kan håndtere alene, og da slet ikke hvis de ikke er bare en lille smule enige.

Vi er nok ved at nærme os et punkt, hvor ressourcepresset og de politiske og befolkningsmæssige jordskred i verden enten fører til et kvantespring frem mod en ny global regeringsform eller en rutsjetur tilbage til små eller større konflikter. Kernen er at finde en metode til at bringe parterne sammen og forlige modsætningerne. Der er ikke rigtigt nogen mellemvej.

I tænketanken var stemningen dyster. Forsamlingen af lærde professorer, statssekretærer, mediefolk og tænkere fra hele verden havde svært ved at give et bud på, hvad Europas rolle i den globale regeringsførelse kunne blive, hvis man allerede den 23. juni så, at Europa mistede et af sine vigtigste medlemmer, nemlig Storbritannien.

Men de globale tal skræmmer: 125 millioner mennesker lever i absolut nød. I øvrigt de fleste ret tæt på Europa. I Afrika, kun fem timer i fly fra Europa, er vi vidne til en befolknings-eksplosion, der med vandstress, misvækst og pickuptrucks vil ramme Europa.

Og hvad gør vi ved det? Smider vi penge og pigtråd efter problemerne, eller finder vi frem til en samlet gennemtænkt forebyggelse, politisk, økonomisk og socialt, for at give de stakkels mennesker et egentligt fremtidsperspektiv, så de kan overleve i deres eget land? Det er jo nok det, der skal til.

men med velmenende og bestemt nyttige løfter fra masser af organisationer, virksomheder, lande og individer, der gerne vil gøre godt, men som også er sig pinligt bevidst, at skal det komme til bindende beslutninger, så er chancen for total blokering på grund af enstemmighed i FN-systemet en garanti for, at intet vil ske.

Så bedre undgå en konfrontation. Og tale pænt sammen. Finde løsninger fra sag til sag. Samle penge ind til at undervise børn i flygtningelejrene. Bygge udrykningshold af læger til at bekæmpe zika eller ebola. Opfordre til forebyggende diplomatiske løsninger. Men er det nok? Har toget allerede forladt stationen på autopilot med kurs mod afgrunden?

Nu er det jo sådan, at hvis borgerne ser, at der ikke er løsninger, og at problemerne tårner sig op og skyller ind over os, så kravler de op i det nærmeste træ, nemlig nationalismetræet, og sætter sig helt deroppe, hvor man tror, katastroferne ikke kan nå op.

Man stemmer på mærkelige politikere, der sælger nationale løsninger,…

Ikke rart at tænke på. Og forunderligt, når man tænker på, at der aldrig har været så mange veluddannede, internationalt orienterede, kloge mennesker, der kan finde på løsninger, og aldrig har der været så mange almindelige mennesker, der sådan set bare gerne vil leve i fordragelighed med hinanden og have tingene til at fungere. Det er, som om vi er fanget af en nationalstatsromantik, der stammer fra tidligere tider, men som er helt ude af trit med de opgaver, verden står over for. Og som tit og ofte stiller sig i vejen for de løsninger, der skal til.

Og uden løsninger kan man ikke fortænke bekymrede borgere i at trække dynen over hovedet. Hvad venter der os mon i 2040?

Ude på de filippinske øer havde nyvalgte (men endnu ikke tiltrådt, sker 30. juni) præsident Rody Duterte blandt flere bidende kommentarer (hvad der tricker Duterte er journalister der bliver myrdet, hvilket lokalt i en hel del tilfælde er et resultat af AC/DC journalistik dvs. en betalt side forretning som går galt), denne om FN:

MANILA, Philippines – Controversial president-elect Rodrigo Duterte has launched a profanity-laced tirade against the United Nations while criticizing it for being too weak to fix problems in the Middle East and Africa.

In a seemingly unprovoked attack on the UN at a Thursday night press conference, Duterte vented his anger in response to a question about foreign media groups that were critical of him.

“That’s the trouble here, they’re always raising fears about this or that United Nations convention,” Duterte said, even though the journalists’ criticism had not been linked to UN protocols.

“Fuck you UN, you can’t even solve the Middle East carnage… couldn’t even lift a finger in Africa… shut up all of you.”

Duterte, 71, had been incensed by the criticism of foreign and local media groups to his comments earlier in the week that corrupt journalists were legitimate targets of assassination.

Mht til en overnational regering som svar på problemer, hvad enten de indbildte, et udslag af konspiration mellem sjovnalister og magthavere eller reelle så har filosoffen Thomas Nagle i artiklen “The Problem of Global Justice” set på sandsynligheden for at det kan fungere i praksis. Han bedømmelse er et nej. Fra artiklen:

On either the cosmopolitan or the political view, global justice would
require global sovereignty. But there is still a huge difference between the
two views in the attitude they take toward this conclusion. On the polit-
ical view, the absence of global justice need not be a matter of regret; on
the cosmopolitan view, it is, and the obstacles to global sovereignty pose
a serious moral problem. Let me consider the issue of principle between
the two conceptions. While we should keep in mind that different views
about the content of justice can be combined with either of these two
conceptions of its scope, I will continue to use Rawls to exemplify the
political view. But most of what I will say is independent of the main dis-
agreements over the content of domestic justice—political, economic,
or social.
The implications of the political conception for world politics tend to be
conservative, but that is not the end of the story; the conservatism comes
under pressure from powerful forces in the other direction. The source
of that pressure lies both in existing global or international institutions
and in the increasingly felt need to strengthen such institutions and to
create new ones, for three types of purpose: the protection of human
rights; the provision of humanitarian aid; and the provision of global
public goods that benefit everyone, such as free trade, collective
security, and environmental protection. Institutions that serve these
purposes are not designed to extend democratic legitimacy and
socioeconomic justice, but they naturally give rise to claims for both, in
respect to their design and functioning. And they put pressure on
national sovereignty by their need for power to be effective. They thus
present a clearly perceived threat to the limits on claims of justice
imposed by the political conception.
This poses a familiar dilemma: Prosperous nations have reasons to
want more governance on a world scale, but they do not want the
increased obligations and demands for legitimacy that may follow in its
wake. They do not want to increase the range of those to whom they are
obliged as they are toward their own citizens; and this reflects the con-
victions of their citizens, not just of their governments.
But this, I believe, is not the main issue. Multilingual and multina-
tional states have their problems, and they may have functioned most
successfully before the era of democracy. But if there came into being a
genuine European federation with some form of democratically elected
representative government, politics would eventually develop on a Euro-
pean scale to compete for control of this centralized power. The real
problem is that any such government would be subject to claims of legit-
imacy and justice that are more than the several European populations
are willing to submit themselves to. That reflects in part a conviction that
they are not morally obliged to expand their moral vulnerabilities in this
way. (The recent expansion of the European Union, by increasing its
economic inequality, will almost certainly inhibit the growth of its
federal power for just this reason.)
Yet in thinking about the future, we should keep in mind that political
power is rarely created as a result of demands for legitimacy, and that
there is little reason to think that things will be different in this case.
If we look at the historical development of conceptions of justice and
legitimacy for the nation-state, it appears that sovereignty usually
precedes legitimacy. First there is the concentration of power; then,
gradually, there grows a demand for consideration of the interests of the
governed, and for giving them a greater voice in the exercise of power.
The demand may be reformist, or it may be revolutionary, or it may be
a demand for reform made credible by the threat of revolution, but it
is the existence of concentrated sovereign power that prompts the
demand, and makes legitimacy an issue. War may result in the destruc-
tion of a sovereign power, leading to reconfigurations of sovereignty in
response to claims of legitimacy; but even in that case the conquerors
who exercise power become the targets of those claims.
Unjust and illegitimate regimes are the necessary precursors of the progress toward
legitimacy and democracy, because they create the centralized power
that can then be contested, and perhaps turned in other directions
without being destroyed. For this reason, I believe the most likely path
toward some version of global justice is through the creation of patently
unjust and illegitimate global structures of power that are tolerable to
the interests of the most powerful current nation-states. Only in that way
will institutions come into being that are worth taking over in the service
of more democratic purposes, and only in that way will there be some-
thing concrete for the demand for legitimacy to go to work on.

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s