Toward a New World Order

We know that something is wrong with the world, but we do not know what it exactly is, nor do we believe that the solution is in our hands, although we know that someone must do something urgently. The problem gives rise to anguish and despair due to our own impotence, while the noise of trouble grows. The noise we hear are the explosions of sophisticated missiles and home made bombs, the impact of stones on tanks, orders to open fire, automatic rifle fire, the whine of bullets, bodies hitting the ground, cries of pain, the gnashing of teeth, the weeping of mothers. Of course we have a problem. What can we do?

What can we do? This may have been the question that led to the Council of Europe in Laeken to convene the Convention. After it was agreed to organise a convention on the future of Europe, the European Movement, under the auspices of the European Commission, formed an academic group that would reflect on the organisation and the work procedures of the future Convention and would provide support for its members in their work. At the first meeting of the Agora Group[1] in the Val Dúchese Palace, Brussels, on March 21, 2001, what we might call “the preliminary question” on the advisability of having a European Union arose. One of the professors, I only recall that he was British (there were seventy-five of us), put forward his doubts on the advisability of discussing the future of Europe when it was unclear what Europe was, nor were there evident reasons why there should be a European Union nor was it known what we wanted a European Union for. His objection was refuted with the argument that the meeting had been convened to reflect on the Convention that had already been convened, this settled the matter and left “the preliminary question” open.

As one component more of the global problem of living together in a globalized world, one of the first objectives of this work is to endeavour to give a reply to “the preliminary question” on the European Union. 

The euro-sceptic who put forward the preliminary question in Val Dúchese accused the European Union of lacking both an ideological basis and arguments to justify it, he accused it of suffering from what I call an ideological deficit. Can this be overcome? On examining the identity, reason and mission of the European Union, we will endeavour to state the ground for its raison d’être, and to contribute to eliminating the ideological deficit, which is still argued and underlies the difficulties involved in approving the Constitution.

In addition, Jaspers, in 1950, raised the problem of unstoppable globalisation, and saw that it was necessary to have a world order to control this. This involves two alternatives: The world empire, under a single power which imposes a forced peace on the uniform masses or the world order, which integrates a variety of countries without violence, as the result of a common decision, freely assumed as the result of a negotiating process. Clearly, there is a third alternative, which is to leave everything to anarchy.

The problem that Jaspers brings up on the organization of a globalised world is the other big issue that is addressed in this work. The two alternatives that Jaspers proposes as two models of international coexistence on a large scale will be analysed.

`(1)

Agora was the name of the group of university professors brought together by the European Movement, backed up by the Commission, in order to prepare the work of the Convention. The author was a member of Agora.< body="">