New World Order? Conspiracy theory or fact?

mkpdavies · 04-03-2006, 09:33 AM

http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/pdf/r...Psecurity2.pdf

Quote:

Re-territorialization

Although the human in human security implies a universal
or cosmopolitan ethic, policy discourse makes it clear that
the territorial nation-state is vital to achieving human
security. ‘Responsibility to protect’-style interventions are
not, for example, trying to secure non-insured populations
in the name of a universal citizenship, but instead take on
a rather more limited role of reinstating an effective state.
Following the collapse of the small-state Washington
Consensus in development policy and growing
dissatisfaction with the transformational powers of nonstate
humanitarian assistance, human security signals that
the state is now back at the centre of development
discourse.
This begs another question. In exercising the
responsibility to protect, what sort of state is being
constructed? In the case of ineffective states (variously
known as weak, failed or fragile), ‘governance’ states are
being constructed that draw their architectural inspiration
from the developmental success stories of Africa. A
governance state is, in effect, a transnational enterprise in
which the core budgetary and human security functions of
the state are subject to a high degree of international
oversight and control. While new instruments and means
of aligning donor-government policies are required, the
future of ineffective or fragile states has been cast in terms
of their gestation INTO phpbb_governance states. With the placing
of human security at the heart of an emerging governance
state, one can detect a process of re-territorialization that
gathered momentum during the 1990s. This has been
boosted further by the war on terrorism.
The international political architecture of the Cold War
was defined by the respect for territorial integrity together
with the principles of sovereign competence and noni
nterference. The architecture of the post-Cold War period
has changed, however, especially in relation to ineffective
states. While respect for territorial integrity remains, with
regard to non-interf e rence, sovereignty over the noni
nsured populations living within such states has become
internationalized, negotiable and conditional.
Interventions in Kosovo, East Timor, Afghanistan and Iraq,
for example, have not challenged the territorial integrity
of the states concerned; indeed, its principle has been
upheld. What is in question is how populations within
such territories are governed and maintained. Ret
e rritorialization within the existing borders of ineffective
states, based upon external oversight and control of core
b u d g e t a ry and human security functions, is not only seen
as good in itself, it is has been cast as essential for the
security of mass consumer society.
Conclusion
The process of re-territorialization has had a significant
impact on the role of NGOs. During the Cold War, NGOs
operated outside the state and, indeed, were critical of
state-led development. But in the name of coherence,
re-territorialization has demanded new forms of
centralization, including transforming NGOs INTO phpbb_the role
of state auxiliaries. For some, the move to pre-emption,
together with bringing the state back INTO phpbb_development
policy, has been an uncomfortable process of adaptation.
At the same time, however, the securitization of aid has
c reated openings for new actors and opportunities for
wider privatization. The war on terrorism, in emphasizing
the radical interdependence of global affairs, has made
possible new forms of coordination and centralization that
bridge the traditional national/international divide. In the
search for human security a new planetary order is
currently in the making.

Now you see why a "War on terror" and a "Clash of civilisations" is actually welcomed by those in power.