In his book Change and Habit: The Challenge of Our Times, one of the 20th century’s most respected historians, Arnold J. Toynbee

The phrase New World Order has appeared in the press once again. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown was quoted saying it this time, and not for the first time either, having said it before he became PM. He joins a list of world leaders who, unhappy with the present situation, have used this phrase to describe the vision of a more balanced and equitable future; a place where we’ll have finally figured out all the economic, environmental, moral, political, you-name-it messes that afflict the human race. In the past this list included Woodrow Wilson, Rajiv Gandhi, Mikhail Gorbachev, George H.W. Bush and Tony Blair. Current leaders include Georgia’s Mikheil Saakashvili, Abdullah Gül of Turkey and, entirely ironic considering Iran’s unabated persecution of the Baha’i community, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

This list, along with the list of leaders who have used related phrases like the “end of history” or the “era of globalization” (think Bill Clinton), or all those who have appealed in vain for greater political unity and justice in international trade, are sufficient evidence to indicate that a major shake up is needed. All signs indicate that while present-day global bodies, like the UN and WTO, promote these aims in principle, they are neither capable in their present format nor do they possess the unqualified support of member nations to bring about long-lasting change. 

Toynbee begins by taking a step back from this scene to look at what brought us here. He studies the characteristics of the so-called would-be world states, who through a process of conquest and victory, extended far beyond their original boundaries with the aim of bringing the world under one rule. He acknowledges their successes and examines reasons why they ultimately failed, in so doing gleaning numerous insights (of which I will only touch on four). If, as the saying goes, one should “look to the future through the lens of the past”, then this seems like the perfect place to start. 

1. Technology and world-mindedness

The rapid emergence of new technology over the past century has annihilated the distances that once divided tribes and nations. But technology, as pointed out by Toynbee and affirmed in the Baha’i writings, is a morally neutral force which can be used, at will, for good or evil.

In the atomic age, with nuclear warheads dotted all over the planet, the consequences of how we choose to make use of technology have been magnified beyond all compare. In other words, trying to mimic the approach of would-be world states of the past, that of using  force to bring about unity, has the potential to end in catastrophe. This outcome cannot be risked, for obvious reasons.

Toynbee optimistically asserts that throughout history, whenever man has been forced to choose between survival or destruction, the move has eventually been towards the former. However, the obstacles to surmount this time lie not only in making “correct technology decisions”, but more importantly in overcoming habits of division that have characterized 99% percent of the span of human history.

99% percent, really?

In brief, yes. The world split into separate parts over 900,000 years ago, and the earliest of the would-be world states, the empire of Egypt, was established under 5000 years ago. Thus, relatively speaking, the movement towards unity has occured in the blink-of-an-eye (nevermind the major acceleration over the past 150 years). It is clear, then, that humanity has an entire history of antagonistic feeling to overcome before embracing a new culture of world mindedness, which may partly explain why international diplomacy has been such a painful struggle for everyone concerned — we’re just not used to the realities of life in a global village. This disconnect between our (often noble) attempts at establishing international peace and our final decisions are encapsulated in this gem of a paragraph from the Baha’i International Community:  

Twice in this century humanity has attempted to bring about a new international order. Each attempt sought to address the emergent recognition of global interdependence, while nevertheless preserving intact a system which put the sovereignty of the state above all else.

BIC : 1995 Oct Turning Point For All Nations

The process, of transferring the loyalty one feels towards one’s tribe or nation to that of mankind as a whole, is according to Baha’is the single most vital condition to nurture for the sake of universal peace and prosperity. 

The chief Personages in history, according to Toynbee, who have striven to promote sentiments of universal goodwill have been the founders of the world religions and their closest followers. Interesting, then, that relatively few of the adherents of these religions have succeeded in breaking the shackles of tribal, national, or indeed religious loyalty, in exchange for a love of the entire human family. It’s almost as if a saturation point would be reached, beyond which societal unity could no longer be sustained.  

The reasons for this, according to the Baha’i Faith, have nothing to do with any failure on the part of Buddha, Christ, Muhammad or founders of the other religions. Rather, the problem lay in (a) human capacity at the time the message was delivered and (b) the existing conditions of society. It would have been futile, for example, to promote feelings of world unity at a time when the world was supposedly flat and didn’t extend beyond the point of the horizon!

In this age, Baha’u'llah renews the timeless message of universal love and extends it to encompass the entire globe:

Let not a man glory in this, that he loves his country; let him rather glory in this, that he loves his kind…

Soon will the present-day order be rolled up, and a new one spread out in its stead.

Part II to follow.