Jihad vs. McWorld - Benjamin R. Barber [204]
11. Maurice F. Strong, “ECO ‘92: Critical Challenges and Global Solutions,” Journal of International Affairs, No. 44, 1991, pp. 287–298. Thus, a 1994 conference explored reconfiguring international agenies like the World Bank and I.M.F. See Rethinking Bretton Woods (Washington, D.C.: Center for Concern, 1995). The several environmental and social “summits” that have met over the last five years have had similar objectives, but have been long on rhetoric and short on common action.
12. Oscar Schachter, “The Emergence of International Environmental Law,” Journal of International Affairs, No. 44, 1991, p. 457.
13. Geoffrey Palmer, “New Ways to Make International Environmental Law,” American Journal of International Law, No. 86, 1992, p. 259. Also see Benjamin B. Ferencz, New Legal Foundations for Global Survival (New York: Oceana Publications, 1994), which like almost everything else written about international law deploys a futile rhetoric of “must,” “should,” and “ought” in a domain where realists correctly talk in terms of “can’t,” “don’t,” and “won’t.”
14. There are a variety of international institutions—laws, conventions, agencies, and organizations—strewn about among the hulks of disintegrated nations, slaughtered tribes, homeless refugee masses, and devastated environments that constitute the history of the last seventy-five years that have some legitimacy. In limited domains where powerful nations can agree on particular agenda items, these institutions have even accomplished some good. During the postwar era when the United States could play “hegemon” to the world, most “international” institutions in fact conducted themselves as not very disguised agents of American policies and interests and helped secure a limited “pax Americana” that in turn assured a limited, Cold War kind of peace. John Gerard Ruggie introduces the term, which has become fashionable in academic international relations and economics circles among scholars like Robert Keohane, Charles Kindleberger, and Robert Gilpin.
15. Robert Kuttner, The End of Laissez-Faire: National Purpose and the Global Economy after the Cold War (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1991), p. 260. Kuttner offers a penetrating account of the illusions of laissez-faire and their devastating impact on the American economy.
16. Assembly of Regions; see discussion below, note 19.
17. For a fascinating exchange on patriotism and cosmopolitanism, see Martha Nussbaum, “Patriotism or Cosmopolitanism? Martha Nussbaum in Debate,” Boston Review, special issue, Volume XIX, Number 5, October/November 1994, and my reply in the same issue.
18. Robert Reich, Work of Nations (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1991), p. 313.
19. Article 24/i of the Basic Law discussing the “power of integration,” states that “the Federation may by legislation transfer sovereign powers to international institutions.” It was replaced by a new “Europe Article” in 1992. For a careful discussion see Charlie Jeffrey, “The Laender Strike Back: Structures and Procedures of European Integration: Policy-Making in the German Federal System,” research paper prepared for the 26th World Congress of the International Political Science Association, Berlin, August 21–25, 1994.
20. Humanitarians still dream of intervention by a United Nations army not dependent on American hegemony. But a global humanitarian army without a global sovereignty is unthinkable, while a global army dependent on the participation of interested nations can be neither disinterested nor global. For a discussion, see Kai Bird, “The Case for a U.N. Army,” The Nation, August 8/15, 1994, p. 160.
Even the venerable World Federalist Association has seemingly given up the conceit of a world government and campaigns primarily within nations on behalf of extant organizations that have already proved themselves