PEACEFUL CO-EXISTENCE: A PROVEN IDEA FOR A TUMULTUOUS WORLD

By Boutros-Ghali Boutros and - - Reprint | | Print |

This column is available for visitors to the IPS website only for reading. Reproduction in print or electronic media is prohibited. Media interested in republishing may contact romacol@ips.org.

PARIS, Jun 1 2004 (IPS) - The principle of peaceful co-existence has just turned fifty, and while the pessimists feel that it is out of fashion, the optimists believe that it is more important than ever, writes Boutros Boutros-Ghali, Secretary General of the UN from 1992-1996. On 29 April 1954, the China and India signed an Agreement on Trade and Communications between the Tibet region of China and India based on five principles: mutual respect for each other\’s territorial integrity and sovereignty; mutual non-aggression; mutual non-interference in each other\’s internal affairs; equality and mutual benefit; peaceful co-existence. In his article, the author writes that pessimists hold the five principles have lost their force because they are linked with the UN, marginalised since the end of the Cold War and the emergence of a single superpower. To apply the five principles there is no need to wait for an overhaul of the UN system, since the basic concepts are already in the Charter. They can be made more effective by taking into consideration the drastic technical changes brought about during the post-Cold War period, globalisation, the increasing gap between rich and poor countries, the multiplicity of internal wars, and the unilateralism of the lonely superpower\’s policy.

The principle of peaceful co-existence has just turned fifty, and while the pessimists feel that it is out of fashion, the optimists believe that it is more important than ever in this tempestuous time.

On 29 April 1954, the People’s Republic of China and India signed an Agreement on Trade and Communications between the Tibet region of China and India. It was based on five principles: mutual respect for each other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty; mutual non-aggression; mutual non-interference in each other’s internal affairs; equality and mutual benefit; peaceful co-existence.

The first four principles were not new; they were already included in the United Nations Charter. The fifth principle, ”peaceful co-existence”, was not new either, but the term was. The fact that 50 countries with different political regimes and traditions have cooperated within the United Nations proves that peaceful co-existence has existed de facto within the UN system, and the term has been adopted with enthusiasm by the international community. It now appears in many international treaties.

The pessimists consider that the five principles have lost their force because they are linked with the United Nations, which has been marginalised since the end of the Cold War and the emergence of a single superpower.

Since the end of the Cold War, non-alignment has lost its importance and dynamism. Colonialism, racism, and apartheid have been practically eradicated, the need for a mediator between the two superpowers has become obsolete, and the non-aligned movement has lost cohesiveness in terms of ideology and institutional structure. Thus, peaceful co-existence has lost the infrastructure which had sustained the concept for half a century.

The principle of territorial integrity has suffered several violations, the last example of which is the UN protectorate in Kosovo. The principle of non-interference has been severely weakened by humanitarian intervention, by the appearance of failed states and of nation states with marginal defence capabilities. Furthermore, the concept of preventive military action advocated recently by the United States has undermined the whole United Nations system, the main pillar of which was non-intervention. Another blow to the principle has been unilateral sanctions applied by member states without approval by the UN.

The principle of equality has been replaced by the concept of a hegemonic and hierarchical world order in which the sole superpower has the right to determine the destiny of the poor and the weak by intervening in their internal affairs under the pretext of promoting democracy and the free market for the sake of world peace. This concept of globalisation and uniformisation is bound to destroy the philosophical substance of the principle of peaceful co-existence.

In conclusion, for the pessimists there is little evidence that the US will accept any reform which might decrease its power within the UN system. In consequence there is little evidence that the five principles can go on playing the important role they have played for the last fifty years.

The optimists can be divided into two categories. The first are those who believe that change in favour of multilateralism and respect for the five principles will be promoted by the global and the American civil society. They believe that American democracy, which gave birth to President Wilson, the father of the League of Nations, and to President Roosevelt, the father of the United Nations, will be able to provide a leader with the transcendant vision, imagination, and generosity needed to create a new UN able to respond to the needs of humanity. The optimists add that the superpower has neither the capacity nor the political will to be the policeman of the world. They add that American public opinion does not approve of the violation of the rule of law by their government and that, sooner or later, the pendulum will swing from extreme unilateralism to multilateralism and respect for international law.

The second category of optimists reject this utopian approach. They believe that the superpower may adopt multilateralism ”a la carte” but that as long as there is no counter power, the UN will continue to be a mere extension of the foreign policy of the unique superpower. To constitute this counter power, these optimists propose a coalition of developing countries together with the two great powers of tomorrow, China and India. They believe that the five principles must be the new basis of a drastic reform of the United Nations. The fifth principle is the most important; there can be no coexistence without diversity. Thus the prerequisite for peaceful coexistence is cultural, economic, and political diversity among nations.

The dynamic dimension of peaceful coexistence implies opposition to the ‘uniformisation’ of the planet. Cultural and political diversity is a part of humanity’s heritage and must and can be protected by implementing the principle of peaceful coexistence.

To apply the five principles there is no need to wait for an overhaul of the UN system, since the basic concepts are already in the Charter. They can be made more effective by taking into consideration the drastic technical changes brought about during the post-Cold War period, globalisation, the increasing gap between rich and poor countries, the multiplicity of internal wars, and the unilateralism of the lonely superpower’s policy. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)