A global human union

The rapidly approaching Australian election will see a renewed focus on foreign policy issues as the main parties debate such matters as the best approach to the Iraq War and how to manage Australia’s relations with our near neighbours.

Although the differences between the main parties are not very great, as both will, for instance strongly support the US alliance and the need to secure Australia’s borders against “unwanted” arrivals, what differences do exist will be magnified to give the impression fundamental choices are being offered.

It is tempting to accept this limited range of debate on foreign policy issues. Australia, after all, does not have much influence on the world and the traditional alternative to relying on the US for our security; the “Fortress Australia” concept is so absurd that few can take it seriously. The election debate will almost certainly narrow into the usual battle over whether we need to assert ourselves slightly more while still being faithful US allies or not assert ourselves at all while still being faithful US allies.

But despite what most experts will say these are not the only alternatives facing us. In a world where in some countries obesity is a major health risk while in others it is starvation, a world where we are among the wealthiest and most privileged, there should be more to foreign policy than the question of how best to preserve our privileged position (such as hiding behind US power) and keeping people out of our privileged land.

In fact we need to consider building a different, more just, international system. This is not simply a humanitarian goal but a necessary one, as the policy of defending our relative privileges through border protection and wars that we follow abroad will only be the prelude for more wars and more “need” to protect our borders.

A different international system may seem difficult to visualise but in fact it is easy to visualise and to build. And Australia can play a role. To give a general idea I will use the European Union (EU) as an example. Those parts of Europe that started the EU (when it had a different name) have steadily transformed themselves from centuries of mutual hostility, warfare and economic inequality to develop a zone of peace that includes economic development and respect for human rights.

As it has evolved the EU has accepted new members and its zone of peace and prosperity slowly grows. It has its flaws but it is immeasurably superior to the self defeating warfare, exploitation and slaughter that preceded it. The world can achieve the same by slowly developing a Human Union which abolishes internal borders and which only admits countries which have respect for, or are making progress towards, democracy and human rights.

Building a Human Union is the political challenge of the 21st century. The idea may seem far fetched now but 60 years ago the idea of building a European Union after Europe’s centuries of warfare and conflict was just as far fetched.

A Human Union can start small. For example, the EU started with a Declaration by France inviting others to join a common authority for iron and steel. A Human Union can start with just one country making a “Human Union Declaration”: a declaration that it is willing to negotiate the terms for forming a Human Union with any other country that is interested and thereby commencing a process that may steadily develop into something better.

Issuing such a Declaration would be a way Australia could actually play a meaningful role in the world. It would not just make a difference, but start a process that would transform the world over time. It would be a meaningful issue to debate in the coming election rather than the endless debate about just how precisely we need to follow US policy to guarantee our security.

For those who are concerned about poverty and exploitation on a global scale, our foreign policy seems corrupt, as Australia’s interest is always put ahead of the rest of humanity. It would not be so if we were debating how to start a Human Union. For those who are concerned about protecting our planet’s environment, debate about foreign policy also appears meaningless as Australia’s national interest is always put ahead of any planetary agreement.

If we start to build a Human Union we will start to dissolve the mindset that makes us put our so-called national concerns ahead of our fellow humans and our planet.

For centuries powerful nations such as the US and UK have been victorious in wars fought to protect their “national interest”. Yet today they still need to engage in wars to protect their national interest. But no amount of wars can safeguard the “national interest” or “national security”. The only security comes from building a political system which respects the needs of humanity rather than pitting the interest of one “nation” against another.

That is why those who oppose warfare as the solution to political problems should also support the building of a Human Union as a political priority. We need to end the civil war of humanity and starting a Human Union is the first step to doing that.

So the real issue to campaign for in the coming election is to call on all Australian political parties to adopt a Human Union Declaration as a major policy plank. It is the one foreign policy issue worth struggling for.

The precise nature of a future Human Union is not within the scope of this article. It must at the least be built on a common commitment from its members to support some form of democracy and human rights and to acknowledge the common humanity of all human beings. In this article I also cannot answer all the questions and arguments about this concept (although I include some suggested reading at the end) but I will look at two key bodies for comparison purposes: the European Union and the United Nations.

The European Union

The standard criticisms of the EU are well known: it is too bureaucratic; its last attempt to agree on a constitution failed; its elected parliament has too little power; there is no clear unifying vision; and so on. To make the argument clear I will agree with all these criticisms. The EU is a bloated directionless over bureaucratised behemoth. Does this mean, though, that it is a failure? The answer is no, it is in fact one of the greatest international relations success stories of the last 100 years. How so?

The EU, like anything else can only be assessed by comparison with the available alternatives. For centuries, prior to its formation, Europe saw much warfare. Britain, France, and the states which were to become Germany and Italy, have engaged in some form of warfare in Europe every century since 1500, climaxing with the two world wars of the 20th century.

The EU offered an alternative to the centuries of destructive warfare. Europe was not a harmonious collection of states that co-operated easily and or shared economic growth prior to having the incompetent EU foisted upon them. Europe was a collection of unco-operative warring states which achieved highly uneven economic growth before embracing the EU.

Today many people have forgotten the horrific alternative world the EU replaced. So yes, it is over bureaucratised, unclear in its direction, and so on. But no, it is not a failure: it is actually one of the greatest political success stories of all time.

It is such a success that not only do people forget what preceded it, but they assume that it has always been the norm. Some people even make the argument that the EU has only succeeded because Europe’s common cultural heritage has made it possible. A common cultural heritage of warfare and religious, political and linguistic conflict!

The EU came into existence because far sighted visionaries transformed people’s views to such an extent that what appeared impossible 100 years ago appears conventional today.

The success of the EU shows that change is possible and that people can discover broader concepts of political identity which transcend national boundaries. The one true common identity we all share is our human identity and this must ultimately be the basis for any legitimate political system we build. It is time to start building a Human Union.

The United Nations

The UN is based on the principle of absolute respect for the sovereignty and independence of its members. This means, in effect, that membership of the UN has no effect on how member governments behave: the vilest dictatorship can be a member of equally good standing with the most benign social democracy. The UN model cannot and has not worked.

The EU has required all members to conform to basic requirements of respect for democracy and human rights and has developed slowly. The Human Union would be the same. A Human Union can do for the world what the EU did for Europe. Just as the EU was unimaginable and thought unachievable until people actually did it, so it will be with the Human Union, and the time to start is now.

We still do not realise that every war fought today and in the future is a civil war, a civil war of humanity, and we need to build a human political system to replace the political systems which give us those civil wars.

The great political battle of the 21st century will not occur inside or between countries. It will occur between those who want to build a truly human political system and those who continue to put the national interest or the religious interest first.

This should be the big issue of the Australian election: will we issue a Human Union Declaration and start building a human political system or will we continue to see ourselves as just one more of the warring tribes of humanity?

Some further reading:

Bilitsos, Byron and Tuttleman, Jerry: One World Democracy (Origin Press 2005).
Hamer, Chris: A Global Parliament.
Reves, Emery: Anatomy of Peace. The original bestseller critiquing the system of nation states and calling for a world federation. A special reprint is now available from the democratic world federalists.
Storey, Lyndon: Humanity or Sovereignty (Peter Lang 2006). Includes some more discussion of the idea of a Human Union.