The “new order” according to Chrystia Freeland – Canadian Minister of Finance
On Tuesday October 11, Canadian Minister Chrystia Freeland was addressing a talk to a modest-sized crowd in Washington, but really her audience was the top-level international economic leaders gathered in the U.S. capital, for the annual meetings of the International Monetary Fund. (Source : Globe and Mail)
Ms. Freeland declared the end of globalization and multilateral co-operation that had begun with the fall of the Berlin Wall. For some time now it has been clear that the hope of post-cold war diplomacy, stating that the world could be more prosperous, democratic and more peaceful had failed. Freeland called on the Western democracies to shape a new order and diplomacy that will help thrive and defend their economic interests, and she laid out a rough strategy to get there which said something like this: Western democracies need to work with friends and not autocratic governments!
According to Freeland the Western democracies would need a kind of economic NATO – in which they would share their democratic values, and deepen their common trade and supply chains and distance their economies from autocracies such as China and Russia. They would also defend each other from hostile actions from these autocratic governments.
In summary, facing a complex world with very complex global issues instead of pushing dialogue and reciprocity agreements, Freeland proposes the tactic of stepping back. Stepping back to the past and to the cold war era, which everyone knows is a time that has already vanished!
A new collective image and direction would give adequate response to the general crisis
In an era of environmental crisis, rising inequality, nuclear threat and international tension, we need more than ever dialogue and diplomatic agreement among all nations even with those who aren’t democratic. We need to strive for a collective image as a whole and a common direction to give adequate response to these crises. We have the capacity to evoke a collective future. I truly think that conditioning ourselves to believe that we should go back to past diplomatic solutions to resolve the global crisis is naive and a fatal mistake. We are already global, the new generations are global, the fact that globalization failed doesn’t mean that we failed as a people or as a culture. Instead of looking back, we should reach out for a new way to interact moving toward convergence, without, however, losing our own ways of life, identities and democratic values.
But here is where we find ourselves today, with leaders that are incapable of foreseeing a collective planetary future. They are capable of imagining bits and pieces of a common reality but their main concern is trying to maintain some semblance of normality. But then, for us citizens of this planet who live in this fragmented world, it’s not easy to propose a common future when most leaders talk about “enemies” and support wars as a way to resolve conflict.
If we take a moment to think, we understand that it’s dangerous for society and for any individual to plan to live entirely in the present moment with a “semblance of normality” toward the past. This scenario is unsettling and could possibly lead to even more chaos!
Going back to a past could generate a moment with “no social future”. It could limit our ability to function, to create, to build our life with others, to empathize, to feel invested in anything beyond our own immediate needs. It could be the most dehumanizing process, in which human freedom would be totally reduced. Without a future we could become easy targets for manipulation, disinformation and all forms of discrimination. The duty for anyone who wishes to step out of this dehumanizing “semblance of normality” moment is to open their own future and the future of others!
How can we open our own future if the general theme in this moment is to the closing of the future?
We need to create a global image that can mobilize us and others, such as the planetization! We need to rebel against the “old World Order” and started treating others the way we would want to be treated.
About planetization*
Radically distinguished from the concept of globalization. The latter corresponds to the trend toward imposing a worldwide homogeneity, driven by imperialism, financial interests, and international banking interests. Globalization has advanced at the expense of diversity and the autonomy of nation states, and at the expense of the identity of cultures and subcultures. Those who preach globalization were seeking to establish a worldwide system based on an ostensibly “free” market economy.
Planetization gives its backing to the process in which the different cultures move toward convergence, without, however, losing their own ways of life or identities. The process of planetization can pass through stages that include national federations and federative regionalization, ultimately approaching a model that is a multi-ethnic, multicultural and multi-faith confederation – a universal human nation.
* Source : Dictionary of New Humanism
