Religion and World Order Program

Rationale and Context

by Patricia and Gerald Mische

It is now commonplace to speak of a new world order. But there is not yet a shared vision of what that new world order should be. The end of the Cold War, the emergence of global communications systems, the continuing pressure for democratization at all levels -- from local and national to global structures -- are all signs of a historic window of opportunity. This is a very open and malleable period in history. Old systems are breaking down and new ones are struggling to be born.

But this malleability will not last forever. There is a very narrow margin of time to make a difference in the shape of these new systems and structures. Once in place, they will be very difficult to change. The time to make a difference is now. For better or worse, a new world order will be developed. Decisions being made now will shape the norms, policies, and systems that govern the world well into the 21st century.

The Role of Religious Networks...

Cultures, and human institutions are shaped not only by political and economic forces, but also by religious and spiritual ones. Throughout history spiritual visionaries and religious leaders have had a powerful role in shaping and maintaining world views and cultures. The teachings of Lao Tzu, Confucius, Buddha, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Paul, Mohammed, and Baha'u'llah, for example, have had a profound effect on social evolution.

accommodation in EgerThe great world religions include members from different races, nationalities, and ethnic backgrounds. Their values, commitments, and identities transcend national boundaries. They are global communities in microcosm, with shared values, beliefs, and social agendas.

Of course, this does not mean that religion's role in human interactions is always positive. The very features that contribute to a sense of belonging for some may contribute to a sense of exclusion for others. Religious differences have on occasion turned into self-righteousness, divisiveness, and fanaticism -- contributing to conflict, hostilities, and sometimes brutality, atrocities, and war. Organized religion has sometimes been a tool of the state, used to manipulate people toward blind obedience and unquestioning allegiance to state power. Sometimes it has been indistinguishable from the state, wielding political power for its own gains. And one does not need to be a Marxist to know that religion has sometimes been an opiate, numbing people into acceptance of hunger, poverty, and injustice, and making them impotent to effect change.

The more destructive behavior of some members of organized religions needs to be distinguished from the authentic spiritual or religious impulse. The Latin word religare, from which the word for religion in many Western languages is derived, means "harmony," "to unify," "bind together," "make whole." In Eastern languages the words for religion have the same or similar meanings. In Sanskrit, for example, one of the original meanings for dharma (eternal religion) is "to bind together the whole universe."

The fact that organized religion can and has sometimes been such a powerful force in war and human destructiveness suggests that it can also play a powerful role in building and sustaining systems of global peace, human rights, social justice, and ecological balance. There is ample evidence that religion and spirituality have been humanizing and constructive forces in history.

ERROR MSGDespite some major variations between different religions, and between religious experience in different historical periods and societies, there are some important similarities or commonly shared aspects of religious experience. Spiritualities and religions have evolved from a sense that reality is greater than self or the sum total of measurable physical, economic, political, or other phenomena. Religion and spirituality have been defined as our unitive experience - i.e., the experience of "the holy" or "whole," or of the "ultimate," "sacred," and "unknowable." They have also been defined as the human effort to discover some order (cosmos) in disorder (chaos).

Some have described religion as a means by which societies interpret life and develop and reinforce codes of morality and conduct in keeping with those interpretations and the requirements of community life. It has also been described as those beliefs and practices by means of which a group designates and seeks to deal with its deepest problems of meaning, suffering, and injustice.

In these understandings of authentic religion and spirituality, then, world order is not something peripheral or outside the realm of religion, but rather at its deepest core of interest, experience, and concern.

...in the Development of a New World Order

sheraton hotel VoruIn his explorations of the rise and fall of great civilizations, the historian Arnold Toynbee found that spirituality and religion played a significant role in bridging the time/space between the fall of one civilization and the rise of another. The "creative minorities" that helped build new civilizations from the ashes of the old were often operating from a strong spiritual impulse. In contrast, civilizations that lost their spiritual core were not long sustained.

If we accept Toynbee's conclusions about the importance of spirituality and religion in the rise and fall of civilizations, we are led to certain conclusions about the importance of spirituality in the development of any truly new world order or global civilization in our time. Inner spiritual growth and transformation may be as, or even more, important than external political changes in global systems. Put another way, inner, spiritual growth, and the development of more democratic, effective, and humane global systems, may be inseparable parts of a holistic world order. They develop in conformity to one another and are mutually reinforcing. The nurturing of a deeper, global consciousness, and the harnessing of spiritual and moral energies for a more just and humane world order, are vital aspects of its healthy development.

In addition to the meanings, spiritual experience, and moral/ethical considerations that religion brings to questions of world order, there is also the power of its networks and institutions. The major world religions have world-wide networks of organizations, educational and medical institutions, alumni, research institutes, local communities, and social- and civic-action projects. They can and often do operate across national boundaries with greater ease than many government officials, unbound by the constraints that often tie the hands of governmental actors. They can be major actors in the development of a more peaceful, equitable, and ecologically sustainable world order. They can contribute important scholarship and professional expertise to help resolve some of the grave issues that confront humanity. Their members, programs, and institutions put them in touch with leaders and shapers of public policy. They can be important partners and co-creators in developing a more humane and just world order.

Partnership with the United Nations and Secular NGOs

In his address to government representatives at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, UNCED Secretary General, Maurice Strong spoke of the need for partnership. Reflecting on the imperative to develop and promote a vision of the sanctity of creation and an ethic of social justice and ecological sustainability, he spoke to the vital role of authentic religion:

Changes in behavior and direction must be rooted in our deepest spiritual, moral and ethical values. We must reinstate in our lives the ethic of love and respect for the Earth which traditional peoples have retained as central to their value systems. This must be accompanied by a revitalization of the values common to all of our principal religious and philosophical traditions. Caring, sharing, cooperation with and love of each other must no longer be seen as pious ideas, divorced form reality, but rather as the ERROR MSGindispensable basis for the new realities on which our survival and well-being must be premised.

United Nations agencies and secular NGOs are beginning to recognize the valuable contributions that religious networks can play in building a viable future. The UN Environment Programme (UNEP) sponsors the Environmental Sabbath (or Environmental Holy Days) with the cooperation of world religious and spiritual traditions. UNEP also invited religious NGOs to participate in preparations for the Earth Summit and to develop global environmental ethics. UNESCO has sponsored conferences on the "Contribution of Religions to the Development of Cultures of Peace." UNICEF and the World Conference on Religion and Peace (WCRP) collaborated in promoting the Convention on the Rights of the Child. WCRP initiated a project with UN officials on ethical guidelines for humanitarian intervention. And Global Education Associates and Project Global 2000 are working with UNICEF and UNESCO to link religious networks around the world with their worldwide "Education for All" initiative.

The United Nations: Past, Present, Future

When the United Nations Charter was drafted and signed in 1945, the world faced a particular set of problems and challenges. Now there is a new nexus of military, economic, environmental, population, human rights, and health problems that were not anticipated at that time. These problems can only be dealt with through new levels of global cooperation and strengthened global systems.

Existing international institutions were shaped in the shadows of World War II and the Cold War that followed. While the war was still on, Allied powers began planning for a new world order and for institutions that would focus on two main concerns: (1) the prevention of future wars, and (2) the reconstruction of war-devastated economies and international monetary relationships. The UN was designed to address the first; the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund the second.

Those involved in drafting the UN Charter were not aware of work on an atomic bomb. Thus, those who signed the final document in June, 1945 did not anticipate Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Nor could they foresee the nuclear arms race and threat of nuclear proliferation that followed. Nor did they anticipate the Cold War and how it would obstruct the UN's effectiveness.

Instead of the new world order based on collective security that had been envisaged, what emerged was a bipolar world order -- driven by the arms race and economic and ideological conflict between the military powers aligned on either side of the Cold War divide. This division dominated and obstructed the work of the UN Security Council and other UN agencies. The major powers viewed all international relations through this bi-polar lens.

An entire generation of national and international policy-makers was trained to think and act within this framework. They, and the institutions they created and maintained, are now ill-prepared to lead their nations or the world toward solutions to the economic and environmental threats that have emerged in the post cold-war world.

Also in 1945, much of the world was still colonized. Great numbers of the world's peoples were under foreign domination and not represented or consulted in the San Francisco negotiations that shaped the UN Charter. Only 51 nation-states participated in determining the principles and structures that would frame the new international organization. In the following decades, self-determination movements gave birth to more than 130 new nation-states, each seeking equal representation and decision-making in the international community.

Environmental concerns were also not on many peoples' minds in 1945. None of the drafters of the UN Charter, or of the subsequent Declaration and Covenants on Human Rights, foresaw the threats to the Earth's air, water, soil, rainforests, and plant and animal species that exist today. They never imagined that human activities would one day threaten global climate change, create a hole in the Earth's protective ozone layer, or devastate the ecological underpinning of economic activity. Nor did they consider the need to protect the rights of future generations to a healthy environment. Today all these issues are before the world community, but without adequate global structures to respond effectively.

Furthermore, when the Charter was drafted, the underlying assumption was that states were the only legitimate international actors. "We the peoples" were the first words in the UN Charter, but, in fact, "the peoples" were not given a real role or voice. The centrality and ultimate authority of the nation state was enshrined in the new Charter and other international agreements that followed. Thus, in the new community of nations there was not only a failure of democratization between the member states (some states were more equal than others), there was also a failure of democratization or representation from below -- i.e. a failure to recognize the source of sovereignty or authority in peoples.

Because states were determined to hold on to absolute national sovereignty, they failed to delegate sufficient authority at the global level to make the new international organizations really effective in preserving peace, protecting human rights, and promoting economic and ecological security. Consequently, the UN was left relatively weak, unable to effectively deal with acts of aggression, mass violations of human rights, and other threats to human security.

In the last few years, this state-centric system has been increasingly challenged from both above and below. From below, people's movements, civic society, and nongovernmental organizations, often acting in solidarity across state borders, are pushing for a greater voice and role in shaping the global policies and structures that affect people's lives. There is a growing global civic literacy and sense of global citizenship. This new global civic society is demanding the democratization of global institutions; demanding that "we the peoples" have a greater role in global governance. At the same time there is growing recognition -- including among some heads of states -- that, in an interdependent world, national sovereignty is largely an illusion.

Global environmental and economic threats pay little attention to national borders or sovereign banners. If there is to be an adequate response to these transboundary threats, some sovereignty must be delegated to global level institutions to make them more effective. The question is not one of abandoning the principle of state sovereignty. Rather, it is one of determining how much sovereignty to invest at local, national and global levels of governance, and for which purposes. There is a need for effective systems at all the appropriate levels of decision-making -- local, national, and global.

The partners of Project Global 2000 are linking their expertise, networks, and influence, to achieve such systems. The Religion and World Order Program is a key vehicle in this effort.

 

Global Education Associates
475 Riverside Drive, Suite 1848, New York, NY 10115
Tel: 212/870-3290  Fax: 870-2729  E-mail: globaleduc@earthlink.net  11/6/96

 

Back to Religion and World Order