Global governance before the 21st Century was an immature concept. Although the term gained currency in the language of academics and decision-makers, it remained a rather hesitant way of describing something we could not really ‘put our finger on': it expressed a feeling that the way the world was governed had begun to change in tandem with the processes of globalization, but quite what the changes were was still unclear. How much more was there to global governance than simple inter-state cooperation, which had existed in one guise or another for centuries? How much influence did the growing multitude of multinational firms and transnational associations really have? The trends of the last decade provide us not only with answers to these questions, but with a different perspective on world affairs: and a new set of accompanying questions.
It is a fundamental mistake to try and comprehend global governance within the traditional framework of international relations. Inevitably, we focus too much on structures and institutions, and jargonize real people and groups of people as ‘non-state actors', asking only how their behavior affects the behavior of the states. Adopting, instead, the ‘global governance approach' as a distinct perspective on world affairs, we can come to a better understanding of the underlying process at work: namely, the globalization of decision-making. What global governance brings to the new millennium is not so much a new cast of characters in the power play of conventional IR, but a new style of acting that leaves behind the outdated frames of reference exemplified by traditional theories.
Globalization is a process that sees actions by one person with one role in one part of the world acquire a new significance for other people with other roles in other parts of the world. Global governance is nothing more, and nothing less, than the reflection of this development in worldwide patterns of decision-making. Globalization gives substance to the old chaos-theory parable of the tornado in Texas caused by the gently fluttering wings of a butterfly in Brazil. Global governance is what happens when the Texans, realizing the danger they are in, try to come to an arrangement with the butterfly.
The dilemma that the Texans face is a metaphor that justly highlights the moral ambiguity of global governance. What means will they use? Can we even conceive of institutions so knowledgeable, so resourceful, so well-respected, that they could clear the ground for a reasoned settlement, a fair and effective set of rules? Must we not worry that the Texans, if they find it hard to co-opt the butterfly by peaceful means, will look to intimidation and violence when the storm threatens? In a world which has not for many years seen a major war between great powers, security is paradoxically more fragile than ever. When the Western world can be shaken to the very core by three hijacked airplanes, and when powerful Israel can be driven to vengeful fury again and again by low-tech rocket attacks, it is clear that military strength offers no guarantee of safety. When the global economy can be brought to catastrophe by ill-informed financial gambling, with government leaders around the world holding themselves powerless to correct the vagaries of the market, little wonder that we begin to ask, "Is anyone really in control?"
The task awaiting is the remolding of the institutions of global governance in the wake of the war on terror and the financial crisis, and with the threat of climate change looming ahead, the lesson of the global governance approach is that a decade of in vain attempts by the Western powers to dominate and regulate will cost the planet dear. Only a consensual attitude to decision-making, one which sees actors of all kinds learning to recognize and take responsibility for the consequences of their actions, offers some hope that the world of 2020 will be safer, cleaner and more prosperous than the world of 2009.
John Frew is studying for a Masters in Global Governance and Diplomacy at the University of Oxford.
This article has been shortlisted for the Atlantic Community's "Global Governance in 2020" student competition.
- 6
February 20, 2009
Member deleted
It is not necessarily the leaders as much as the problem solving techniques used by the leaders that improve the chances of success. Here I will list some of the problem solving and planning techniques used by the world’s military leaders. Please keep in mind the following factors that military commanders must operate within: Lives and economies are in peril, short and long term strategies with ground level tactics, you cannot fire anyone, team work with various units and countries, must use available equipment and can request new or additional equipment, real detailed information about situations is provided, some things are always unknown, secrecy is a must and adaptability is required.
Mission
In order to set ones priorities, we must have an overall mission objective with subcategory objectives. This starts the mind into a problem solving mode. This is extremely important because all of one’s perceptions of information, considerations of resources and forming of strategies (high level) and tactics (low level) will be organized by the mind based on the objective.
Situation
Information about the situation is vital if the commander is to understand all the forces created and maintain the situation. Then he can develop a strategy to counter those forces and restore order, return things to normal or improve the situation. Honesty with oneself about the situation is critical for a Reality Check because misreading the situation can cause the commander to develop and employ an inadequate strategy.
Planning
This phase of the operation is very thorough and takes into consideration what resources and tactics will be employed, how and when. The following questions are answered. Who, What, Where, When, How and Why and How many for these: Teams and skill sets, equipment, vehicles, weapons, communications, timing and coordination for each phase of the operation.
Adaptability
All variables can seldom be accounted for or anticipated, so contingencies (modifications to the plan) are actually created during the planning phase. In the event of various changes in the situation the teams will employ prearranged tactics to counter the threat and stay on course to the completion of the plan.
Command and Control
Management of the plan is imperative. How do we know if plan is succeeding or even if we are still on course? Phase lines or subcategory objectives are a way to keep track of our progress as well as keep the team focused on the current objective for maximum effect.
Rehearsals
Simulate the plan with an actual walk through in a training area to see if there are any gaps in the plan. Make modifications and keep practicing until the team can prove the plan will work at least in training.
20 Questions
Understanding new situations often require some deep thinking. The military uses the scientific method of asking first general questions and then narrowing the questions to more specific details. One way to do this is to keep asking why. 1. Why is this situation occurring? 2. Then why did that happen…. Keep asking why until you have the real reasons. A similar method is to ask What caused that? Again and again until you have the root causes. Avoid looking for someone to take the blame, as this is seldom the real cause. A military commander sees it this way: If someone fails in a task one of these caused it; He was not trained adequately, He did not have the resources or He did not understand the instructions. These things can be improved upon.
ABC 123
Keep things simple. If the plan requires 2,000 rocket scientists to accomplish and you have none available. Guess what? The plan will fail. It is better to create step by step, sequential procedures that are easier to understand and follow by the personnel on the team. If your plan cannot be understood even by rocket scientist, then it is total nonsense and no one will be able to follow it.
Globalization is very challenging and I agree that better team work and better analysis of problems is required. With modern communications, it is possible to succeed as a team. Nice article.