***************************
Global Cultural Diversity Conference:
Attacking the sovereignty of states
The Global Cultural Diversity Conference held in Sydney on April
26-28 was hosted by the Australian government as a contribution
to the International Year for Tolerance, the first year of the
Decade for the World's Indigenous People and the 50th anniversary
of the United Nations. It was attended by delegates from around
50 countries, including the Secretary-General of the United
Nations and the Director-General of UNESCO. The conference was
opened by the Prime Minister of Australia, Paul Keating.
The Australian Prime Minister, the Australian Foreign Minister,
Gareth Evans, the Secretary General of the United Nations Boutros
Boutros Ghali and others used the Conference to expand on the
important question of "cultural diversity" but, at the same time,
used the conference to promote an offensive against the concept
of state sovereignty and to undermine the principle of non-
interference in the internal affairs of states.
The process of undermining nation-states has already proceeded
apace under the combined impact of "globalisation" being driven
by the transnational corporations who control international
bodies like the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the
European Union and newly emerging multi-lateral trade
organisations like the World Trade Organisation.
The idea was assiduously advanced that the undermining of
sovereignty and the splitting up of states was an inevitable
development stemming from the reality of global cultural
diversity.
Prime Minister Paul Keating set the ball rolling in his opening
address by raising the question of redefining the nation state.
He said that states like the former Soviet Union and Yugoslavia
merely contained "ingrained, small-scale hatreds" by means of
"political iron bonds". This, he said, was attested to by the
"tragic and intractable conflicts", that followed the release of
these bonds. He claimed that the ensuing conflicts were
essentially cultural in character.
"The nation-state ... is going through a period of profound
transition, and the international community has to respond", said
Keating.
He suggested that the responses in some cases lie in "redefining
our idea of the state. In others cases, we need to rethink our
view of the nation... Part of the answer may lie in a radical
redefinition of what constitutes a state."
Warming to his theme Paul Keating declared: "One of the mantras
of modern international relations -- non interference in the
internal affairs of other countries -- these days has a greatly
modified and much reduced meaning."
He further expounded on his theme when he discussed building up
the role of regional institutions and identities to provide
"quick and effective responses to humanitarian or security
problems". Mr Keating made clear the type of solutions he had in
mind, referring to the use of a "regional peacekeeping force" in
Bougainville. (In this instance the Australian government is
providing money, armaments and training to Papua-New Guinea
military forces to suppress the struggle of the people of
Bougainville for self-determination and whose lands have been
seized by one of the world's big mining monopolies -- Conzinc
RioTinto (Australia) [CRA].
The presentation of a case for redefining the modern state or at
least certain kinds of modern states (such as socialist ones) is
one way in which the imperialists and their spokespersons attack
the sovereignty of states. If they can undermine the idea of
sovereignty it will be so much easier for them to justify the
breaking up of states and intervention in the internal affairs of
recalcitrant states.
Mr Keating admitted that "[The] redefinition of the nation is a
complex task." To sweeten the pill and to cover his real
objectives he added some motherhood objectives. He went on: "It
involves economic and social development, justice, human rights,
good governance, inclusive institution building, tolerance,
respect for difference, the strengthening of civil society."
But the aim is clear: "Sometimes the best response to intractable
tensions may be the old fashioned remedy of redefining the
borders of the state".
Keating referred to the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia which he
maintains were fundamentally flawed because of their culturally
diverse nature.
It is a spurious argument intended to justify the break-up of
states to make way for the new global economic order by
undermining or doing away with national sovereignty and
independence altogether. The strategy is to gain popular
acceptance for the idea that the integrity and sovereignty of
states is not immutable. Once this is achieved, then it will be
that much easier for international bodies like the UN and for
imperialist powers to intervene in the internal affairs of
countries.
Dr Boutros-Ghali, Secretary-General of the United Nations, also
addressed the Conference. He spoke about the UN's "global
mission" to democratise the international system, making it clear
that this democratisation would be carried out whether or not
individual states requested it. He was, in effect, arguing for
foreign intervention in the internal affairs of independent
states.
Linking democratisation to the acceptance of cultural diversity,
Boutros-Ghali claimed justification for the UN's interventionist
mission was to be found in the UN's Charter and the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights.
He spoke of "the importance of culture to the global mission of
the United Nations today, maintaining international peace and
security, pursuing development cooperation and, in a new
initiative, supporting democratisation ... throughout the
international system in general."
But these statements should be assessed in the light of
experience. While Keating recognised that the emergence of the
"global market place" had played a role in the transformation of
nation-states, he ignored the role of capitalism in fomenting
ethnic and communal strife and downplayed its contribution to the
break-up of nation states.
There is ample evidence to show that the break-up of states and
the explosion of nationalist, communal and ethnic conflicts in
recent years have been fomented and sponsored by western
governments and transnational corporations.
The United States encouraged the secession of former Soviet
republics like Lithuania, while more recently, giant oil
companies like Exxon, Standard Oil and Shell were active behind
the scenes in the brutal war between the Chechens and the Russian
Federation.
Germany and the Vatican played a major role in the break up of
socialist Yugoslavia giving vigorous and early support to the
extreme right-wing Croatian and Slovenian separatists.
The United States has encouraged ethnic conflicts in India,
including the separatist movement in Kashmir. Only recently a
number of American Congressmen tabled a resolution calling for
the establishment of "Kalistan", the name given to an independent
Punjab by separatists and terrorists.
The UN has played its role too in the creation of strife.
Increasingly in recent years it has become an agent of the
western powers, particularly the US, helping the imperialists to
pursue their objectives in countries like Iraq, Somalia,
Yugoslavia and Cambodia. In each of these cases the people have
suffered calamities and the intervention of UN commanded forces
has complicated but not solved the problems.
The same theme was vigorously pursued by Australia's Foreign
Minister Gareth Evans: "In the case of the former Soviet Union
the transition from state repression to relative political
license has facilitated the emergence of long-suppressed ethnic,
religious and political hatreds ..." and "the 'nation-state' is a
confusing misnomer..."
Foreign Minister Evans made clear that intervention will be
defended on the grounds of protecting human rights when he said:
"it should never be forgotten that the UN Charter is at least as
much ... about the protection of human rights ... as it is about
protecting the territorial integrity of states ...".
Referring to the provisions of the UN Charter which restrict
intervention in matters "essentially within the domestic
jurisdiction of any state", Evans said that "if there is a will
by UN members to tackle the problem of cultural-diversity driven
conflict then the UN Charter allows ways for that to occur."
Foreign Minister Evans elaborated on the Australian government's
preparedness to support military intervention in other countries.
He said it was important "that there be some credible
international capacity to deal collectively and forcefully with
deadly conflicts that cannot be prevented or resolved by other
means" and raised the question of the desirability and
possibility of improving "the UN's rapid reaction capability by
establishing a standing volunteer force".
In discussing the idea of "co-operative security" he said that
this might entail at one end of the spectrum "the enforcement of
peace by military means".
Evans also expressed the view that "it is possible to draft
criteria for intervention which might gain reasonable acceptance"
and suggested possible criteria.
The attack on sovereignty was taken up in different ways by a
number of other speakers who delivered papers to the Global
Cultural Diversity Conference.
Ms Ratih Hardjono an Indonesian journalist questioned the very
basis of the former Soviet Union.
She spoke of a "form of enforced cultural unity ... the old
Soviet Union where a variety of diverse cultures were forced to
live next to each other ...".
The logical extension of Hardjono's argument is clear: the Soviet
Union was fundamentally flawed and its break-up justified.
Needless to say Ms Hardjono does not extend the same
"justification" towards East Timorese independence.
In her paper to the Conference, Dr Marianne Heiberg, a senior
official in the UN's Relief and Works Agency in Israel,
challenged state sovereignty at a more fundamental level by
disputing the validity of "the territorial state" and
"territorial sovereignty".
No doubt with the claim of the Palestinians to statehood in mind,
Heiberg argued that in the modern world with its "intricate
ethnic diversity" the insistence on existing notions of
territorial sovereignty only leads to conflicts and forms of
ethnic cleansing.
Two other leading UN figures also took up the ideological attack
on the sovereign state at the Conference.
One was Dr Federico Mayor, Director-General of the United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO). In his
address, Dr Mayor spoke about the need to protect and promote the
"cultural identity" of the world's indigenous peoples and
minorities, but presented the achievement of this objective as
being at odds with the principle of state sovereignty.
"Many original cultures have been artificially split by
superimposed boundaries", Dr Mayor correctly claimed.
"'Territory' has become -- and remains -- an inviolable aspect of
the 'sovereignty' of the nation-state." But he then went on to
suggest that the best solution would be a transfrontier one that
created common living conditions -- rights of movement, cultural
facilities, educational provision -- for citizens belonging to
different "countries". This would recognise the existence of
"ethnoscapes" -- which are becoming an increasingly important
reality in an age of globalisation."
Presumably the acceptance of globalisation demands the
elimination of or at least the qualification of sovereignty.
As with the promotion of cultural identity so claims to protect
human rights are also used to justify trampling on state
sovereignty.
The UN's High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mr Jos Ayala-Lasso,
said that: "the mission of the United Nations to uphold human
dignity and human rights globally transcends national borders".
By presenting the concept of state sovereignty as being
incompatible with the promotion of cultural and human rights, the
imperialists hope, on this issue to, to undermine the legitimacy
of modern states.
They hope to advance a spurious, "universality of human rights"
justifying their intervention in and assault on independent
states. Intervention is dressed up as the pursuit of worthy
goals.
Mr Ayala-Lasso spoke about his office's efforts to promote human
rights through measures such as the development of advisory
services projects to benefit indigenous peoples, concerted
efforts to eliminate racism, and the development of human rights
education and public information programmes.
Without question, goals such as the ending of communal conflicts,
the promotion of human and cultural rights, and the abolition of
racism, are worthy ones. However, Mayor and Ayala-Lasso do not,
at least explicitly, advocate the only course of action that will
finally and completely guarantee their achievement: namely, a
profound transformation of the world's economic system.
A transformation which smashes the power of the corporations and
creates a global economy serving the interests of the people is
an absolutely necessary condition for the advancement of
democracy, human rights, cultural diversity, the rights of
indigenous people.
The rights and freedoms of the "global community" can only be won
by establishing these rights in each of the independent and
sovereign states which make up the global community. The
sovereignty and rights of states is also a right which must be
upheld by the United Nations Organisation.
Dr Mayor's answer to the problem of "the terrible disparities of
wealth" between the developed and developing countries is,
basically, education: "Educational action ... is an essential
part of any strategy to reduce these disparities."
Imperialism's spokesperson's are not interested in promoting a
radical redistribution of the world's wealth but in obscuring the
real nature of the causes of conflict and abuse of human rights.
Whether they realise it or not, individuals like Dr Mayor and Mr
Ayala-Lasso are helping to provide the ideological and
philosophical superstructure of the "global market place".
There can be no doubt that this is the real agenda of the
statements of Australia's Prime Minister and Foreign Minister and
others at the UN Conference even while claiming to be the
protectors of cultural and human rights.
Mr Ayala-Lasso for instance applauds recent "action on the part
of the financial and development institutions towards ...
programmes that favour good governance and the rule of law [among
other things]". At a time when the International Monetary Fund
and the World Bank are forcing vicious structural adjustment
policies on already impoverished nations, there is surely only one
interpretation that can be put on his remarks?
In a world in which the power of the TNCs is dominant and is
being exercised by the IMF, the World Bank and soon through the
World Trade Organisation, what interpretation are we to place on
Dr Mayor's demand that "a sense of 'earth patriotism'" be
nurtured? Surely only one: that the nations of the world affirm
their loyalty -- or submission -- to capital.
In view of the developing attack on the idea of the sovereignty
of states it is necessary that the people's of the world in their
continuing struggles against capital, give priority to defending
the principle of sovereignty and national independence and the
principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of states.
It must be the right of the peoples of all nations that they
assert the right to independently determine their own economic,
social and political system.
For all their pretentious references to "human rights",
"democracy", "cultural diversity" and even the "rights of
indigenous people" the imperialist's emerging world state is a
mechanism for the exercise of capitalist class rule and the
reimposition of colonialism in new forms on a world scale. It is
not about the liberation of the world's peoples, but about their
further enslavement.
**************************
More information about the Cultural Diversity Conference can be
obtained by email to guardian@peg.apc.org
Source: PNEWS
From:guardian@peg.apc.org
DAte: May 6th, 1995
Topic: Cultural Diversity Conference