Is the World Poised for the Humanistic Century?

In keeping with the policy of the Humanist to accommodate the diverse social political, and philosophical viewpoints of its readers, this occasional feature allows for the expression of alternative and dissenting views on issues previously discussed within these pages.

Editor's note:

In our September/October and November/December 1998 issues, we published a twenty-fifth anniversary symposium on Humanist Manifesto II that analyzes the document and suggests changes. Then, in our July/August 1999 issue, we boldly proposed that humanity can end war in the next century. Now we publish an alternative viewpoint that calls into question not so much the value but the feasibility and likelihood of such humanist ideals setting the standard over the next 100 years.

HUMANIST MANIFESTO II, first published in 1973, outlines a humanistic world vision to help guide humankind toward the future. Building on the dramatic advances in science, technology, and evolving social and political changes, the manifesto declares that the next century should be the "humanistic century." Among the seventeen principles affirmed is a call "to transcend the limits of national sovereignty and move toward the building of a world community in which all sectors of the human family can participate." As we rapidly approach the new millennium, we need to examine the factors influencing the current international environment and seek to answer the following question: is the world community poised to make the next century the humanistic century?

THE QUESTION OF CULTURE

In profiling the humanistic century, Humanist Manifesto II suggests a world order based upon a transnational federal government that would appreciate diversity, cultural pluralism, and pride in national origin--in effect, a global government grounded on a system of world law. Is this actually a feasible notion in today's international environment? With the demise of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, the bipolar--and arguably more stable--world in which we had grown accustomed to living ceased to exist. In its place is a much less predictable, more multipolar world--one with many new actors now playing on the world stage.

Each of these actors possesses a unique cultural identity. But whose culture? Culture--or civilization, if one prefers--encompasses the basic ways of a people that resist alteration and remain significant to following generations. Culture includes the shared norms, values, language, history, science, art, and religious views of a group. And unlike the relatively youthful nation-state system around which our modern world affairs revolve, many of today's civilizations date back over several centuries. Assessing humankind in the post-Cold War environment, Samuel P. Huntington hypothesizes in his summer 1993 Foreign Affairs article "The Clash of the Civilizations" that the fundamental source of future world conflict will primarily be cultural and between groups of different civilizations--not exclusively between nation-states. Cultural identification doesn't necessarily confine itself neatly within the borders of the established states but may transcend state borders, as is the case in the Balkans, or may include several nation-states, such as the Arab civilization.

How might culture be a source of future conflict? The reasons are varied and may include differing views over politics, economics, and ethnicity, just to name a few. Perhaps the most compelling source, though, is religion. Each culture produces its own fundamental views of religion, and many of these views are the result of centuries in the making.

In the history of humanity, perhaps no other catalyst has generated the level of violence and conflict as has religion. Although differing religious views in and of themselves may not lead to hostility, the historical record, coupled with a look around the globe at several contemporary conflicts gives one pause to reflect otherwise. For instance: Catholic and Orthodox Christians fighting in the Balkans, both of them fighting Muslims (and, most recently, Orthodox Christians carrying out near genocide against Muslims in Kosovo); Muslims and Hindus fighting in India; Muslims and Christians fighting in Egypt, Algeria, Azerbaijan, Indonesia, and Nigeria; Christians and Muslims fighting in Lebanon; Sunni Muslims and Shiites fighting in Iraq; and Shiites and Baha'is fighting in Iran. The list goes on.

Cultural clashes and the seeming inability of humanity to overcome them present a daunting challenge for the future. In his winter 1996 Washington Quarterly article "Conflicts After the Cold War," Joseph S. Nye Jr. maintains that cultural clashes can occur at three levels: over transnational identity, such as religion; over national identity, as in Russia; and on subnational identity based on linguistic, religious, or ethnic divisions, as in Africa or the former Yugoslavia. If the coming century is to be the humanistic century, solutions to reduce this cultural strife at all three levels must first be found.

IS WAR REALLY OBSOLETE?

Humanist Manifesto II proclaims that the world community must renounce the resort to violence and force in solving international disputes and declares war and the use of weapons of mass destruction obsolete. Unfortunately, the world remains a very dangerous place and conflict abounds. In international relations theory, there are primarily two world views that help explain conflict: realism and liberalism. Realists assert that conflict results as states struggle with one another over power and security concerns in an anarchic world--a world where there is no higher authority or ultimate arbiter. They claim that human beings have an instinctive desire to dominate each other and believe the furthering of national interests is supreme. Leery of international institutions or the idea of collective security, realists seek to tilt the balance of power in their favor.

Liberals, on the other hand, contend that conflict is not only influenced by power struggles but determined by the domestic structure and values of the state. Paramount to liberalist theory is the belief in the democratic ideal. In effect, democratic states don't go to war with one another; rather, they rely on negotiation and dialogue to solve differences. Liberals believe international commerce and trade promote peace and maintain that international institutions increase the cooperation between nation-states.

According to the Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict, following the thawing of the Cold War in the years 1990-1997, there were thirty-nine major world conflicts in which at least 1,000 deaths occurred in any one year. Although most scholars and policymakers agree the potential for global conflict has significantly lessened in today's international environment, they also agree that great uncertainties still abound. Many world "hot spots" exist that could quickly escalate into small-scale or regional war.

For example, striving for self-determination, twenty million Kurds--the largest ethnic group in the world without their own state--are vying for a Kurdistan homeland carved from the countries of Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey. In the former Soviet Union, Chechnya went to war with Russia in a bid for independence, and much anxiety lingers. The Arab-Israeli dispute remains a tinderbox in spite of extraordinary efforts to mediate events. India and Pakistan, the newest members of the nuclear club, have fought three wars and the Kashmir issue is still unresolved. Tensions continue to be high on the Korean Peninsula--as well as between China and Taiwan. Iraq remains a threat to its Middle East neighbors. The crisis in the Balkans and collapse of states in central Africa also give great pause for concern.

Always a contentious issue because of their horrific destructive potential, chemical, biological, and nuclear weapon concerns are of particular interest in today's world. On the subject of nuclear weapons, John F. Spoko writes in his winter 1996-1997 Foreign Policy article "The Changing Proliferation Threat":

   The familiar balance of nuclear terror that linked the superpowers and
   their client states for nearly 50 years in a choreographed series of
   confrontations has given way to a much less predictable situation where
   weapons of unthinkable power appear within the grasp of those willing to
   use them. Rogue nations and "clientless" states, terrorist groups,
   religious cults, ethnic minorities, disaffected political groups, and even
   individuals appear to have joined a new arms race toward mass destruction.

Fearful of being on the receiving end of an attack, nuclear-capable nations are going to be hard-pressed to completely eliminate their arsenal of weapons due to their perceived deterrent value. On the positive side, since 1989 the stockpile of Russian and U.S. nuclear warheads has been reduced by half, and when all three strategic arms reduction treaties (START) are implemented, roughly 80 percent of their strategic nuclear arsenals will be gone. Since both nations have signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, calling for the eventual elimination of nuclear weapons, the START treaties are a key milestone in achieving a major principle of Humanist Manifesto II.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of chemical and biological weapons. Known as the "poor man's nuke," these weapons don't require the level of sophistication to manufacture as do nuclear weapons and, although many nations (including the United States) have implemented policies against their use, the outlook for their total elimination in the near future is far bleaker. Any rogue nation or faction that so desires can easily obtain weapons of this sort.

Is war really obsolete? In theory, yes; in reality, no. But this question does give rise to a third international relations world view: idealism, or globalism. Idealists view the world as a global community. Within the community, global institutions are formed leading to cooperation, security, and collective action. They believe in the universal rule of law and the rights of individuals everywhere. If this world view can ultimately be achieved in the next century, conceivably war may then become truly obsolete.

SOVEREIGNTY AND NATIONAL SECURITY

Perhaps the biggest challenges in fulfilling the aims of Humanist Manifesto II are the issues of national sovereignty and national security. In the foreseeable future, it is difficult to imagine the international security environment evolving in such a manner that nations, such as the United States, would actually give up some degree of sovereignty and yield to a transnational federal government. While the world community is steadily moving in the direction of more cooperative intergovernmental relationships--including the increased interaction of nongovernmental organizations, transnational corporations, and academia--the circumstances to transcend the limits of national sovereignty have not yet been achieved.

Humanist Manifesto II maintains that it is a planetary imperative to reduce the level of military expenditures and direct this money toward more peaceful purposes. As the world's only remaining superpower, the United States maintains a sizable military force. Yet according to recent polling data from the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, nearly 75 percent of Americans feel the level of defense spending should remain at its current level and an additional 17 percent think it should be increased. It is important to note, however, that, as a result of the post-Cold War "peace dividend," the United States, like many other nations, has already substantially reduced its defense expenditures and shifted this revenue into domestic and social programs.

Fundamental to humanist philosophy, and essential in the humanistic century, is the recognition of individual civil liberties. A central premise in the guarantee of global human rights is a more open and democratic world. Promoting democracy abroad is one of three core objectives President Clinton says the United States seeks through its national security strategy. As a world leader, the United States must play a major role in spreading democratic ideals throughout the world, but can the democratic ground already won around the globe be maintained if the U.S. military doesn't remain strong? Can international security organizations fill the vacuum if the armed forces of the United States and other democratic nations are marginalized by further reductions in force and capability?

CONCLUSION

Is the world poised for the humanistic century? In my opinion, not as described in Humanist Manifesto II and not in the immediate future. As the manifesto states, not everyone who endorses its content agrees with every detail. I'm not convinced that we have reached a point in human history where the best option is to transcend national sovereignty. The world remains a dangerous and capricious place with widely divergent ideological and cultural views. The ability to effectively work through these differences and achieve a greater degree of harmony must be demonstrated before we can move forward.

Perhaps humankind's best course of action is for the world's democratic states to maintain as much dialogue as possible with other nondemocratic states. The recent addition of three former Warsaw Pact nations--Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic--to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization demonstrates how the spread of democratic values and political and economic freedom can help lead the world in a direction more in line with humanist thought. It is in this sense that the next century has the potential to be the humanistic century.

Lieutenant Colonel Kenneth O. Lynn is an eighteen-year veteran of the U.S. Air Force and currently serves on the faculty of its Air Command and Staff College teaching in the international securities and military studies department. The views expressed here are solely his and do not reflect the position of the U.S. Air Force. Humanist Manifestos I and II may be downloaded from the American Humanist Association's website, www.humanist.net, in accordance with copyright laws.3