1

A Call for Multilateralism 2.0: The Invocation of Open World Order on the United

Nations System at the 2015 ACUNS Annual Meeting (The UN at 70 – Guaranteeing

Security and Justice) in The Hague Institute for Global Justice, Netherlands (June

11-13), Panel 5.

As Presented by Adewale Muteeu Bakare

At seventy, the United Nations (UN) is facing wider array of concerns and the

responsibility to protect mankind against man-made and natural disasters. The UN

System and Agencies are today characterized by the fluidity of Western cultural

globalization while the phenomenon has created wider forms of global inequalities, as

States and Regional Organizations are unequal in the inter-state space relations. In this

paper, the convergence of different civilizations is fundamentally considered as justice

and a requirement for guaranteeing security to all inhabitants. Therefore, the invocation

of Open World Order has emerged at the intersection of security and justice in global

governance. On one hand, the borders of States have collapsed beyond the ecological

interconnections of land, sea and air space. On the second hand, nations and people of

different civilizations are digitally interconnected and its impact on people, culture,

markets, and diplomacy are the reasons for UN transformation. Finally, a Bakarean world

view is applied for realizing the open Multilateralism 2.0 and formed, as the built

Intercontinental System where survival is adjudged by value matrix across geo-political

routes via the fluidity of Open globalization.

Keywords

Multilateralism 2.0, Bakarean World System, Open World System, Unified Identity Theory, Medium Theory

B.Eng. in Electrical/Computer Engineering; Master in International Affairs and Diplomacy; Microsoft Certified

Technology Specialist; Member, Academic Council on the United Nations System, Institution of Engineering and

Technology, Nigerian Society of Engineers and Council for the Regulation of Engineering in Nigeria; Independent

Researcher; waleshk@yahoo.com.

2

Introduction

Background

In the wake of Second World War, Franklin ‘Roosevelt [dreamt and] first suggested the

name United Nations in 1942’1. On the 26 June,1945 at ‘the final full session of

delegates to the United Nations Conference on International Organization, States’

representatives signed unanimously the approval of the UN Charter and the Statute of

the International Court of Justice’2in Opera House San Francisco. But the ‘Charter came

into force on 24 October, 1945’3soon ‘after the [5-permanent Security Council members]

and the majority of other signatory States each had ratified the Charter, and deposited

notifications to the [United States of America (US)] State department’4.

Sequel to the completion of all members’ ratification of the UN charter,

‘Multilateralism was thus created as a form of cooperation among States which

institutionalize intergovernmental cooperation and replaces anarchy’5. Therefore, the UN

Charter is mandated ‘to make and implement international rules and principles. They

include equality of all nations that one country should not interfere in the internal affairs

of another state, and that force should not be used or even threatened in the bilateral

relations’6.

1 Luk Van Langenhove, “The Transformation of Multilateralism Mode1.0 to Mode2.0,” Global Policy 1, no.

3, (Oct., 2010), 263. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1758-5899.2010.00042.x/pdf. 2 ACUNS, “2015 Annual Meeting: The UN at 70 – Guaranteeing Security and Justice”,

http://acuns.org/am2015/. 3 United Nations.“The Charter of the United Nations and the statute of the International Court of Justice,”

http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/intro.shtml. 4 ACUNS, 2015 Annual, http://acuns.org/am2015/.

5 Langenhove,

The Transformation, 263

6 Adewale M. Bakare, “The Open World System and Political economy: A Bakarean World, “Alternatives

Turkish Journal of International Relations 11, no. 2 (2012), 91.

3

About 70 years on, humanity is still at the crossroad of uncertainties and

inequalities that negates, the underlying world view of Roosevelt’s ‘four essential human

freedoms; freedom of expression, freedom of religion, the freedom from want and the

freedom from fear,’7. While the nature and scope of the UN System’s activities have

included wider array of global concerns than it were debated in San Francisco. They

include ‘promoting international peace, preventing and resolving crisis and pursuing new

norms of global justice, and now involve issues of sustainable development, economic

crisis management, climate change, human rights and gender, conflict management and

resolutions, the rule of law and transitional justice’8. As such, the UN is saddled with ‘the

responsibility to protect’9 and to ‘balance the intersection of security and justice’10 around

the globe.

In practice, inequality has become an on-going concern for States in the inter-

state space as entrenched in the social, economic, political economy, historical and

environmental components of global governance. As Thakur and Van Langenhove put it

that“[t]he policy authority for tackling global problems still belong to the States, while the

sources of the problems and potential solutions are situated at transnational, regional or

global level”11. This implies that ‘the building blocks of multilateralism, the States [has

become] less and less capable of dealing with the challenges of globalization’12. ‘As

7 The Transformation, 263.

8 2015 Annual, http://acuns.org/am2015/.

9 The Transformation, 266.

10 2015 Annual, http://acuns.org/am2015/.

11 R. Thakur and Luk Van Langenhove, “Enhancing Global Governance through Regional Integration,”

Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations 12, no. 3 (2006), 233–

240.

12 The Transformation, 265.

4

such, ‘multilateralism itself is not functioning well’ 13[since, the present] ‘multilateral world

order is so dependent on the input of States’14.

Consequently, the UN mandate to pursue the legal equality of all nation states

and non-use of force in bilateral relations, as approved in San Francisco has become

impracticable among the Super powers (Britain, China, France, Russia and the US). On

the contrary, the milieu of inequality has transcended into a much staggering proportion

among member States and ROs in the aspects of imbalanced power, sovereignty and

voting rights in the geo-political space equation that have dominated the center stage of

International Relations (IR).

In Davos 2015, ‘the influential research group Oxfam [has made the issue of

global inequality] more personal at the World Economic Forum and reported that the

world’s wealthiest 1% are close to owning as much wealth as the rest of the globe

combined’15. Therefore, globalization, as both a concept and a tool has been exploited

by the rich and powerful States for command and control of the academia, media,

financial, trade, economic, political and social systems, professionals, businesses

corporations, Inter-governmental Organization (IGO) and Non-governmental

Organizations (NGOs) to mention but few to spread the universality of Western cultural

values, while undermining the stabilizing roles of the hegemonies of other civilizations on

mutual and equal dimensional values.

Following the outcome of these realities, I have put forward in this paper the

13

Luk Van Langenhove. “Multilateralism 2.0: The transformation of international relations”. 14

Langenhove, Multilateralism 2.0. 15

Steven Gandel, “At Davos, expect talk of oil, terrorism, and sex scandals”.

http://fortune.com/2015/01/20/davos-oil-terrorism-sex-scandals

5

challenging views of the ongoing globalization and Multilateralism debates, to unveiled

inequality as a universal social problem and in turn to further liberate humanity from its

devastating global effect; as we are now in a divided rich North and poor South, even

when they both share common values. This form of global divide is widening the gap

between the rich and the poor, and thereby making global governance a difficult task as

complex issues have become transnational, regional and that is also taken place at

global level, while its effect can no longer be contained by the States.

Empirically, the West and its values have become globalized via the contemporary

UN System, Bretton Woods Institutions and other Agencies (like the International

Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank Group, Organization on Security and Cooperation in

Europe (OSCE), North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), World Trade Organization

(WTO), European Union (EU) and others but, it is happening about the same time in

history when the whole world is characterized by social and economic inequality,

economic and political instability, social injustice and environmental/ climate change as

evidenced by complex and interdependent global issues facing the whole mankind.

For example; the wars and crises in Ukraine, Syria, Libya, Iraq, Gaza,

Afghanistan, South Sudan, Central African Republic, Nigeria, the occupation of

Palestine, the rise of racism, same sex rights, Muslims-

West/Christians/Jews/Atheist/Hindu/Buddhists conflicts, Islamist insurgency and terror in

the world, hate and Islamophobia in the West. Others are the 2008 capitalism’s global

financial crisis in the US, Euro Zone, poverty in Congo, Zimbabwe, Haiti, Liberia and

others; nuclear war threats from North Korea, the Iranian nuclear program and its

proliferation elsewhere; the recent Ebola Virus Disaster in Liberia, Sierra Leone, Nigeria,

6

Senegal and others; the 9/11 attack on World Trade Center; the humanitarian crisis in

Syria, Iraq, Jordan Nigeria, and elsewhere, avalanche of human migration into Europe,

Canada, US and others, and the climate change disaster with earthquake happening in

Iceland and many more.

As a result of these recurring imbalances in the social sphere, the ‘United Nations

System is in deficits with the on-going challenges of nurturing, developing, promoting,

balancing and defending ideas and practices of security and justice in global

governance’16.These deficits are consequent upon the limitations in global governance

definition in both concept and operational essence, as ‘a process of multi-level

governance, requiring States, as the building blocks of the multilateral system, to

undertake a new, collectivist role within the multilateral context.’17To reverse this global

trend, this paper is calling for Multilateralism 2.0 as ‘a new, improved global architecture

to deal with the challenges posed by global governance’18 - which is exactly what I intend

to propose.

In view of the UN failure to resolve the deficiencies raised so far on security and

justice, I will henceforth challenge conventional wisdom in global governance by

exploring current global issues from symptomatic to geo-structural dimensions of the

weaknesses of the UN System and Agencies (both internal and external), and infused

them to frame evolutionary questions as follows; In what ways does the pursuit of

equality among people, nations and civilizations guarantee Security and Justice in global

16

2015 Annual, http://acuns.org/am2015/.

17 United Nations. Report of the Secretary-General for the Millennium Assembly, A/54/200.

18 United Nations Development Programme. “UNDP human development report”. Oxford University Press

(1999), Oxford/London.

7

governance? What type of governmental system can better protect mankind by way of

averting crises before they become a disaster, and respond faster to managing disasters

at global, transnational and regional level?

But ‘the key issue…in reforming Multilateralism is how to create a balance of

power among UN members and a balance of responsibilities and representation for the

people of our planet’19. ‘Such a complex set of balances [cannot be achieved as] States

are the sole building blocks of Multilateralism’20. Hence, the move for the recognition of

‘[W]orld [R]egions [par civilizations] is essential for the integration processes between

States, and their roles in establishing an effective Multilateralism’21.

In ‘today’s reality, World Regions [that is same in concept, as in Continental

Systems] have become tools of global governance… [for] creative and innovative

thinking that is based upon ‘careful analysis of the regional dimensions of ongoing

conflicts and of existing cooperation between the UN and ROs’22.

In line with the complexity of proposing for an Open world order, multilateralism

will be upgraded to incorporate flexible regionalism that is adjustable to the reality of

Multilateralism 2.0 vision. One of such recent UN cooperation was ‘the upgrading of the

EU’s status in the UN’23 to speaking rights while ‘Other ROs such as the African Union,

Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) or the League of Arab States'24[and

the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC)] are yet to follow this trend. Therefore, the

19

Langenhove, Multilateralism 2.0. 20

Multilateralism 2.0. 21

Ibid.

22 Ibid.

23 Ibid.

24 Ibid.

8

revival of ‘Chapter VIII is a promising way to combine global concerns with local

(regional) legitimacy and capacity to act’25.

Consequently, “there are two major developments in reality that are transforming

the multilateral system (of one state-one vote pattern) in IR. Firstly, the trend towards

multi-polarity that is based on economic values as expressed by the rising number of

States becoming dominant players in the geopolitical game as global or regional actors.

The (voting) behavior of the BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South

Africa) in the UN and their presence in the G20 illustrates this trend.

The second trend is the changing nature of the playing multilateral field by new

actors, like the [ROs] with statehood properties are increasingly present in IR. Since

1974, the European Union (EU) for instance has been an observer in the United Nations

General Assembly (UNGA). But on 3 May 2011, UNGA upgraded the EU’s status to

speaking rights while other similar ROs are yet to request”26. Going forward, a change for

a networked civilization-based RO is imminent to statehood in the near future and the

reformation of UN as a universal organization, otherwise known as the Global Union

(GU).

Multilateralism 2.0 and beyond: the next UN Transformation Proposal

“The main characteristics of Multilateralism 2.0 are the diversification of multilateral

organizations, the significance of non-state actors at the regional level, the States have

influence on global and regional institutions that are players in world order, increased

25

Ibid.

26 Multilateralism 2.0.

9

relations between vertical levels of governance and interconnectivity between policy

domains horizontally, and the increased room for nongovernmental actors at all levels”27.

However, ‘Multilateralism is both normative in concept and a practice,28 which

requires a vision for ‘an updated global multilateral governance system’29 that has raised

universal concern at both level for the need to transform the UN System to

Multilateralism 2.0’30This is ‘a metaphor [that relates to the web] jargon in Information

and Communication Technology’ 31(ICT) for creating innovation in the emerging structure

of geopolitics in global governance. ‘The core of metaphor of [Multilateralism 2.0 is the]

implicit reference to web 2.0;’32as ‘a describing concept of the second developmental

phase of World Wide Web that is changing the interactive interface of web

applications’33.

Since, the Web 2.0 is an interactive interface for establishing and completing

internet communication, as ‘all media are active metaphors in their power to translate

experience into new forms.’34Consequently, the outcomes of McLuhan’s four tetrad

questions on Web 2.0 retribalizes the entire human race into a new form of different

civilizations, to build the Multilateralism 2.0 vision from the Bakarean World view. In this

regard, the phenomenal process of Open globalization is as well retrieved from the

27

The Transformation, 266-267. 28

The Transformation, 265.

29 Ibid., 265.

30 Ibid., 265.

31 Ibid., 265.

32 The Transformation, 266.

33 Ibid.,266.

Much of the following section is based upon this source.

34 Marshall McLuhan (Introduction by Lewis H. Laphan), “Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man”.

London: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, (1994):57.

10

tetrad, as a causal phenomenon for bridging the wider gap between the rich and poor

nations within the same and different value system (or same geopolitical

interest).Therefore, the Multilateralism 2.0 metaphor describes the transformation of the

UN in a way that it would replace the ideals and practices of the present Multilateralism

1.0.

In the proposed UN Multilateralism 2.0, the [major] players will be the ROs that

have stepped to challenge the notion of sovereignty in order to form a multi-regional

space relation. In Multilateralism 2.0, it is critical to note that States will be free to move

into the multi-regional space of their choice based on alignment to common identity

and/or economic value (or geopolitical interest), which represent the behaviours or

dynamics of the ROs that they are associated with. In other words, the flexibility of ROs

is illustrated in different forms of diplomatic channel/frames ahead for analytic purposes).

By so doing, the Westphalian relation between State and sovereignty is weakened as

both level of supra- and sub-national governance are dependent agencies and entities of

States.

Based on the Web 2.0 technology as a core metaphor of Multilateralism 2.0, I

could think, feel, see and touch an open, flexible, interactive, multipolar and multiregional

governance innovation that is made after our heart desires for the realization of the much

awaited next world order. However, ‘the essence of the Web 2.0 metaphor is that it

stresses the emergence of network thinking and practices in IR, as well as the

transformation of multilateralism from a closed to an open system’35. As such, the

35

The Transformation, 266.

11

building blocks of multilateralism2.0 are ROs that are star players for integrating different

value choices at global level.

The Future Transformation link from Multilateralism 1.0 to 2.0 and Beyond

At this historic time of changing Multilateralism 1.0 to version 2.0, global governance will

be viewed from a whole new study perspective of Intercontinental Relations, where there

is a shift of sovereignty into the multi-regional and power to multipolar space. As a result

of the role of open world order on the stability of the UN, the International System will

later be linked, or upgraded to the next dimension of the built IcS where the ROs or

Union groups would assume the status of sovereignty, as postulated in the Bakarean

World System.

This transformation will however, attempt to resolve complex global, regional,

transnational issues and to further address, the necessity for the effectiveness of

governance change. Hence, the legal equality of the sovereignty for States and ROs

would be required to set in motion these multi-regional and multi-polar arrangements (or

formations) as Open World Order on the UN System. The world order would later in the

future be followed by the Unified World Order for its universality and benefits for common

humanity (of one earth).

For this kind of transformation to take place, the concept of Continental System,

Union group and RO are same or greater (wider) than the context of geographical World

Region, to become intercontinental by spread that can be used interchangeably for

clarity of purpose.

Furthermore, ‘it is the universality of ‘open freedom’ that is now required by all to

12

interconnect and build civilization based global institutions or multilateral systems on the

basis of Same, or Mutual Global Significance and Survival’36 (SGSS or MGSS). ‘This

kind of concept is referred to, as [Openist approach] where autonomous supremacy lies

in the functional variables of civilization as follows; ‘language, religion, [irreligion],

tradition and history’37, as stated by Huntington which forms the basis for the

convergence of different civilizations in the contemporary world’.

To this end, I am going to take a futuristic step in this paper to amplify the

relevance of global governance beyond the Multilateralism 2.0 vision, for the pursuit of a

unifying generation to come via the upcoming Unified World Order.

Aim and objectives38

a. To transform the International System (IS) into the next dimension by linking

the built IcS.

b. To adopt IcS as a governance platform for brokering world peace, security and

universal justice while it changes the art of diplomacy.

c. To crystallize the world into multiple market places of open

interconnectedness, with each having its own firewall or financial facility and

stability fund, common economic, financial, monetary fund, trading, banking

and regulatory systems, legislation, destiny, defense policies and other fiscal

actions for its member States.

36

The Open World, 92 37

Samuel P. Huntington, “The Clash of Civilizations”. Foreign Affairs, Vol. 72, No. 3, 1993.

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/issues/1993/72/3.

38 The Open World, 93

13

Methodology and Design

The methodology is conceptualized from the Bakarean world view that is rooted in

McLuhan’s view on electronic global village, [which the Web 2.0 metaphor is part of] that

technology extends human body as computer technology is invariably, an extension of

the central nervous system. For example, if we take a look at a ray of light that emanates

from the sun, what we thus see, or retrieve is white light through our own very eyes while

an extension of the eye through the use of a spectrometer, we would thus see, or

retrieve are seven varying colors of rainbow as in the spectrum of light.

This sort of predictive methodology is applied in this paper to coin the Open

globalization phenomenon over which the Bakarean world is built, as a result of the

positive or superior outcome of the four tetrad questions applied to digital media namely:

"What does the medium extend?", “What does it make obsolete?”, "What has the

medium retrieved?" and “What does the technology reverse into if it is over-extended?”.

As a result of the combined outcome of the four tetrad questions, it is deduced that all

media are active metaphors in their power to translate experience into new forms –

hence, the Web 2.0 media technology would create a new form of global governance

innovations that are retrievals from developments in emerging ICT.

Conversely, a physical view of all human species across the continents – what we

thus see is diversity of many forms within the spectrum of humankind namely; races or

colors, tribes, sects, nations and civilizations. Meanwhile, a view of same through the

Internet medium (that consist of an international network of computers, interactive web

sites and multiple users to form an electronic global village), we thus feel or retrieve the

convergence of civilizations, or a unified global community, as an extension of the

14

collective skin (body) of mankind (in order to answer the first-tetrad questions as in figure

I and II below).

In respect of answer to the second-tetrad questions, the internet age has

collapsed the territories of nation states, as the advent of social media over Web 2.0

technology like Face book, Tweeter, YouTube and others have today collapsed the

boarders of nation states to allow for equal global action and reaction in the social,

political, and economic and environmental space. Globalization is now obsolete as it is

destabilizing nations with threats of terrorism, capitalism’s economic crisis, ethno-

religious crises and wars, and nuclear weapon to mention but few. Hence, Western

cultural globalization theory has made the design of the IS become antiquated and the

need for an upgrade has globally become imminent.

In view of the essentiality of world order in global governance, Open globalization

is thus retrieved from the third-tetrad questions, as a causal phenomenon for the

convergence process of different civilizations. Meanwhile, the over-extension of

electronic global village is essential for unifying different races, tribes, nation states and

civilizations in order to become one with equal and common humanity, as the answer to

the forth-tetrad questions.

Multiple Users (Sources) Unified Global Communities

Encoding Decoding

Figure I The Global Village (Convergence of Technologies/Communities)

Internet

Medium

(Web 2.0)

15

Multiple Civilizations (Sources) Unified World Societies

Encoding Decoding

Figure II The Global Union (The Convergence of Civilizations)

Therefore, the inter-networking phenomenon of open globalization is applied for

the construction of the Open World System Theory, Unified Identity Theory, Unified

(Bakarean) Word System, Open Global Economy and Global Plenary Matrix. Finally, the

concept of Web ( or the electronic global village) is simply an extension of the

convergence of human diversity in colors, or races, tribes, sects, nations, and cultures,

or civilizations (as the skin of all mankind) from the technology parlance.

Method of Data Analysis

Data gathered are systematically analyzed through the qualitative method by theorizing

and interconnecting new logics for innovation and expansion of knowledge.

Theoretical frameworks

The Medium Theory

In 1962, McLuhan unveiled his theory of technological determinism (“the medium”) as a

framework for how technology impacts humanity and society, and as a base framework

of reference for realizing Multilateralism 2.0 vision. ‘The theory states that media

technology shapes how we as individuals in a society think, feel, act and how society are

Global

Union

(Mankind)

16

operates as we move from one technological age to another (Tribal-Literate-Print-

Electronic).’39

For the purpose of creating innovative theories in global governance, I have

therefore used his theory as the overall frame of reference for coining Open globalization

as a causal phenomenon.

The Open World System Theory40

The Open World System as theorized from open globalization phenomenon is a set of

logically related symbols which resolves civilization issues in reality and contains set of

empirical generalizations that is connected deductively.

Im + Vm = f (Lm, Rm, Irm, Tm, Hm) .......... equation 1 and Cs = IOs dSs

………..equation 2

(The integration of five civilization based IOs where Cs = Summation of civilizations and

Ss = Summation of all preferred World Societies).

The Unified World System Theory

‘By logic, it is a world seen as multiple markets with major (diverse) civilizations par

continental abstractions forming itself into different Union groups, whose common goal is

survival within a socio-political supra-structures called the Global Union (otherwise

known as, the IcS in figure IV). At international level, the political, economical and social

structures of all member States are tied together within their five primary Union groups,

39

Honors: Communication Capstone Spring 2001 Theory Workshop.“Technological Determinism Theory”.

http://www.uky.edu/~drlane/capstone/mass/determinism.htm.

40 Bakare, The Open World, 94-96.

17

and inter-depend as in world star-pentagon relations in figure III. While at national level,

local States in one primary Union group are free to adopt values from other known Union

groups. By so doing, the gaps between the poor and rich states or the north and south,

or developing and developed states at all levels of human spheres are greatly reduced if

not eliminated completely’41.

EU

AU IU

AMU ASU

Figure III The World Star-Pentagon Framework 42(World Wide Matrix)

The Bakarean political economy43

This theory is referenced and interconnected with the Unified World System in order to

analyze the future geopolitics of various diplomatic frames based on their quest for

survival, political and economic hegemony. The theory thus states that the world is seen

on the one hand, at intercontinental level as a place for multiple divisions of labor where

nations specialize in what they have or know best and multiple markets with multiple

societies (or civilizations). 41

The Open, 97.

42 The Open, 99.

43 The Open, 98-99. Much of the following section is based upon this source.

18

On the other hand, nations do not need to emulate others nations in the area of

market where they do not have comparative advantage but organize themselves where

they have advantage, in order to even out at national and intercontinental level. This sort

of association and interaction among nation states are sustainable, once the states at

national level do not consume or controls what they do not produce outside their domicile

Union group.

The Future of Global Governance (The Intercontinental Governance Innovation)

The Openist Approach to International Relations (The Intercontinental Relations)

1. The world is viewed as interdependent systems containing environmental,

social, political and economic space where unequal distribution of wealth,

population, resources and power are geo-strategically present. However, the

Openist main objective is to strive to make the world green by closing the gap

between the rich and poor states, civilizations, and people for sustainable global

security index in terms of food, water and peace, protection of environment,

Cyberspace, lives and properties, and provide good health, education, housing

and job availability. Hence, the ascendancy of a listening benevolent hegemon

and other regional powers are determined by their capacities to coerce the world,

and make it as a place for convergence of major civilizations.

2. For the Openist, the pursuit of the ideals of major world civilizations are

greater than the uncommon aspects that separates mankind into different tribes,

races, sects, religions, irreligions and nation states. These ideals are tolerated for

19

different cultural identities and values to competitively strive as geo-regional

interest. Therefore, regional interest supersedes a state’s national interest and

foreign policies when it concerns survival, peace and security, political, economic,

and social union. In the same manner, universal interest in terms of open

freedom, independence and interdependence of major world civilizations,

supersedes geo-regional interest for overall system stability.

3. Man is a greedy being by character. This implies that, for any value based

system whether it concerns the social, political or economic system, greed is

notably a common attribute that influences its performance. Similarly, man as a

custodian of these systems can infect the entire system with greed. The

proportion of the damaging effect of this greed factor can be measured by the

impact of socio-economic conditions or the exposure level of mankind to either of

these developing or developed man-made systems. These conditions are as

follows; global economic recession, credit crunch, high unemployment rate,

poverty, inflation, sovereign debt crisis, social insecurity, infrastructural and

budget deficit, banking and financial system collapse to mention but few.

Consequently, the adoption of political, economic and social union within any

given value system as well as, the interconnection of various value based

systems will offer man open freedom, choices or alternatives and gradually,

remove greed if a healthy competition is allowed. Therefore, the cancellation of

greed is essential for building a benevolent world.

4. The existence of man into different races, sects, tribes, religions, irreligions,

civilizations and nation states are forms of identity for classification, collaboration

20

and administrative purposes, and not a recipe for dominion or power struggle.

This approach has created the Unified Identity Theory (UIT) which states that the

world is made up interdependent systems where every system consist of distinct

name variables within separate name classes, which can be differentiated within

its own name class and integrated to the whole in the entire name class space. In

world affairs, every society consist of distinct civilization variables (identities and

values) within separate continental classes, which can be differentiated within its

own continental class for identity recognition, and integrated to the whole in the

entire continental class space for the formation of an IcS.

Figure IV The Global Union (The Built Intercontinental System)

Global Keys

AU = African Union Group

ISU = Islamic Union Group

AMU = American Union Group

EU = European Union Group

ASU = Asian Union Group

GU = Global Union or The future United Nations (UN)

IU*

AU*

GU

AMU* ASU*

EU*

*88*I

UUU

UUU

EEE

U

21

* = Containing States with geopolitical freedom of movement across

borderless Regional Organizations that are = or > World Region by

geography and becomes intercontinental by spread.

Diplomatic Channels or Routes

5. From Openist perspective, the equality of mankind, nation states and

civilizations is morality in the IcS where all options of diplomacy can be explored,

as weapons to defend these views in all its ramifications. Hence, war is inevitable

but a means to common universal goal.

6. Every society situation is dependent on the character of its occupants (most

especially, the greed factor that leads to corruption, gambling, selfishness, tyranny,

wickedness and other social vices). This implies that character building is a major

input for improving the socio-economic condition of man. Hence, special global

education and institutions with credibility shall be commissioned to regulate and

administer built systems, as man is expected to survive, reason above self, and be

contributory in larger proportion to global society development.

Features of the Built Intercontinental System

• Each of the Union group shall have its own chartered Institution for the creation of

world identity and value based systems called Continental System or Regional

Organization (RO).

• The inter-linking of the five Continental Systems is collectively referred to as Open

International System or the Intercontinental System for the study of

Intercontinental Relations.

22

• Citizenship is open and based on the choice of individuals, or self preferred

civilization. Such beings shall have regard, respect and recognize the identity and

values inherent in any of the Union or States where they may reside without

undermining the core values inherent in their host civilizations.

• Relational value dependencies of disparate civilizations for enhancing Inter-

regional and global peace, security and justice towards social, political, economic

integration, cooperation, sustainable development, and the protection of the

environment.

• Both regional hegemony and a global benevolent hegemon are required to build a

common Value, Destiny, Currency (EU=Euro, AU=Afro, AMU=Dollar, IU=Islo,

ASU=Aso), Economy, Transparent Government, Market, Language and others for

each of the Regional Organizations.

• The Seats for Global Peace, Security, and Justice, Global Science and

Technological Advancement, Global Trade, Cooperation and Integration, Tourism,

Global Economy, Health, Education, Inter-continental Monetary and Currency

Exchange for global trade negotiation and promotion.

• Disparate State value systems [at national, sub national or supra-national] are

possible for adoption on the foundation of open confederation (or open federation

in the case of a State within a nation state) where States belonging to one Union

group can freely adopt other beneficial value systems of other Union groups, as

long as they are published. In the extreme case, State belonging to its initial Union

group can tear itself away to become a member State of another Union group for

survival quest.

23

The new art of Diplomacy and Open globalization

Traditionally, the term diplomacy is simply a negotiation or communication among two

parties, or states. In practice, diplomacy involves the conduct of nations in IR which may

include the following; trade, financial aid, peace and defense, food, technology, health

and other development support. But ‘diplomacy implies more than bilateral relations

between sovereign states and multilateral relations between members of International

Organizations (IOs)’44. It also involves polylateral relations ‘between states, IOs (ROs),

and Non-state actors,’45 in order to make multilateralism and regionalism flexible,

responsive to change and effectiveness of governance on linear scale, as shown in

figure XI.

However, the word Polylateralism was first coined in 1999 by Geoffrey Wiseman

as ‘the conduct of relations between official entities (States, several States acting

together or state-based IO) and at least one unofficial non-state entity in which there is

reasonable expectation of systematic relationships, involving some forms of reporting,

communication, negotiation and representation’46. The following are examples of non-

state actors; NGOs, multinational firms, think tanks and universities, trade union,

religious and private groups, political parties, international media, and individuals or civil

society.

On the scale of negotiation dynamics there are two types of negotiations namely;

44

Geoffery Wiseman, “Polylateralism” New Modes of Global Dialogue, Discussion paper No. 59. (1999), 39.

http://www.un-ngls.org/orf/pdf/polylateralism_and_new_%20modes_of_global_dialogue.pdf

45 Wiseman, Polylateralism, 39.

46 Polylateralism, 41.

24

‘integrative and distributive’47. Integrative negotiation simply ‘involves a more

collaborative approach where both sides work together in the hopes of achieving the

greatest possible benefit for both sides’.48In so doing, ‘both parties communicate their

real interest, share information, create and claim value’49.

While ‘distributive negotiation is a way of dividing up a single, fixed quantity where

a gain to one side results in a loss to the other’50. In other words, ‘both sides may benefit

from the deal as one side will definitely benefit more than the other’51. Therefore, ‘it is a

fixed value negotiation where getting most value by one party is all that matter’52 and

information is not shared.

In reality, the negotiation space swings along the two extremes; integrative and

distributive values as, there are no pure integrative and distributive negotiations but a

proportional blend of the two. In relations to the built IcS, every Union group is dominated

by integrative than distributive values for regional integration and cooperation, whereas

the interaction among the Union groups are characterized by greater distributive values

for competition to strive. Meanwhile, nation states in one Union group shall drift beyond

their common boundaries for survival, when the conditions for exit from one Union group

47

Skillsoft Online Course, United States, Course on Negotiation Essentials: What is Negotiation?, ”Types

of Negotiation”.2010.

Http://learningmanagement.zenithbank.com/file.php/60/moddata/scorm/28/content/cca/comm_24_a01_bs_

enu//output/Html/jobaids.html.

48 Skillsoft, Negotiation.

49 Ibid., Negotiation

50 Ibid.

51 Ibid.

52 Ibid.

25

are met, and/or entry into another Union group of interest can be met.

Theoretically, the hegemon will provide for integrative cost where common

regional interest supersedes national interest or nations foreign policies in the overall

world system. On this premise, it is suffice to say that a benevolent hegemon will be

required for this formation to occur.

The Interdependence of Diplomacy on Open Globalization

The term Open globalization is simply the spatial connection among nations and people

within and outside of their common value systems or fronts for continental,

intercontinental and transcontinental relations in the economic, social, political and

environmental spheres. It can also be defined as ‘the inter and intra-connection of nation

states socially, politically, economically, and culturally without undermining the intrinsic

values of their major civilizations toward a borderless or universal social formation'53. In

other words, it is the integration of dissimilar major civilizations into separate (or

continental) common market places while co-existing as one global market place without

undermining their intrinsic identities for value exchange.

In another dimension, Open globalization is viewed as the electronic integration of

major civilizational networks of social, economic, political and cultural systems for

borderless identity propagation that allows for the exchange of goods and services in

order to create competitive open market places, where all people and nations have their

choices of entry and exit for equal survival and prosperity.

In other words, it is the web integration of different civilizational networks of social,

53

The Open, 96

26

economic, political and cultural systems on global digital media (or ecosystem) for

identity propagation and the creation of competitive open market places, where people

and nations have their choices of entry and exit for mutual survival and prosperity

matrixes that allow for the preservation of environment. In respect of this evolutionary

phenomenon where different value system converges, the behaviors of IOs, States and

citizens mobility shall be driven by its fluid dynamics, or fluidity of Open globalization

that is expected to bring about the desired change in diplomacy, and global governance.

Consequently, similar societies convergence in terms of their respective major

world civilizations (otherwise known as African, American, Asian, European and Islamic

Union groups) shall begin with integrative negotiations, while dissimilar societies

convergence shall be more distributive than integrative negotiations in the realm of

building a competitive IcS. Therefore, nation states belonging to one Union group can

seamlessly fragment, or tear itself away and belong to another Union group.

Arising from these patterns of survival or drift are different forms of diplomatic

frames of references that are dynamically derived for possible diplomatic interactions

among nation states, citizens or peoples and Union groups in three reference levels

namely national, international and intercontinental.

On the one hand, it is noteworthy to know that all member states or Union groups

are flexible enough to drift to share other values at intercontinental level while on the

second hand, nation state are allowed at international level to fragment from its

geographical Union group, or boundary to join other Union groups. Hence, this implies

that different States at national level are also flexible to adopt other known Union group

values, and still carries their local (or geographical) identities.

27

Furthermore, these processes of seamless integration and fragmentation complex

are the driving forces of open globalization over diplomacy, the behaviours of nation

states and citizens’ mobility. This kind of phenomenon thus, translates to free entry and

exit of citizens and nations within the IcS.

In the same wise, fragmentation and integration are the twin processes for

creating complex web relationship among nation states within and outside of the known

Union groups. Hence, fragmentation can therefore, be defined as the process by which

nation state breaks away from the civilization (ideology) of their common geography, or

boundary for interconnection with other values. While integration is the process of uniting

nation states within and outside of their common boundaries, or Union groups for value

interconnections.

Critical to these processes are the complexities involved in the fragmentation and

integration which can gradually erode the Westphalia sovereignty (territorial integrity and

powers) of nation states, as individuals and nation states can drift partially into other

boundaries or completely out of their common boundaries for values intrinsic to them.

Consequently, the behaviours of individuals, nation states and Union groups are largely

dependent on the fluid dynamics of open globalization over diplomacy.

In general, the dynamism of these twin phenomenal processes of open

globalization will put an end to global economic crisis, and wars associated with forceful

disintegration of states from their common boundaries regardless of their geography.

This attempt will allow free citizens mobility, and further integrate poor-poor, poor-rich,

rich-poor and rich-rich nations based on their shared common boundaries in terms of

identities and values.

28

The extremism of fragmentation and Integration Complex

In both phenomenal processes of extreme fragmentation and integration complex, where

tolerance is not admissible for value interconnection among peoples of same state or

society, it is more likely to lead to the formation of a new political state (whether

nationally, or internationally) for value independence and harmony.

Derivation of Diplomatic Channels

In order to analyze the stability of member States in the built IcS, diplomatic channels are

derived to establish possible forms of multi-regional diplomatic (or geopolitical) relations

among nation states from different Union groups or continents. These channels can be

used to describe or predict the future behaviour/ trends of States in various multi-regional

(inter-continental) frames in the IcS as in the BRICS countries, G 20, G8 and others

towards future political and socio-economic integration, relations or union. For example;

it is analytically feasible in the future for BRICS countries to freely form economic union

for common currency, Israel in middle-east as a proxy State is free to join either the

borderless EU or AMU, or shared in both values; Ukraine is free to join EU and Donetsk

is also free to seamlessly tear itself away without war for survival, and the rich Western

countries to have equal monetary weight of currency (as in One US Dollar = One Euro).

Below are three forms of diplomatic channels that are derivable from the

Bakarean World namely; bilateral, multi-lateral and poly-lateral channels (these consist

of non-state actors involving civil society) which are defined or possible communication

paths for diplomatic (or geopolitical) relations. The multilateral channels are further sub

divided into three types; split or fragmented web (Type A and B), and Plenary web.

29

For clarity of purpose, it is essential to note that a diplomatic frame as expressed

in this article is assumed to have a source and a receptor, which are interchangeable in

concept. However, the orders of Union group relations are ignored whereas the

uniqueness of their combinations is prioritized viz

1 The Bilateral Channel

By using a side by side view to the world star pentagon as a framework of

reference in figure III, where the African Union is assumed to be the initial

or first referenced group, as well as its diplomatic source that radiates (or

talks) to possible receptors in order to form bilateral relations as follows

African-American, African-European, African-Islamic, and African-Asian

Union relations.

Following the first referenced group in a clockwise direction, it is the

European Union group that connects directly to other receptors with

exceptions of previously connected bilateral relations to the African Union

group namely; European-Islamic, European-Asian, and European-

American Union relations. While the third referenced diplomatic source is

the Islamic Union group that connects directly to Islamic-Asian and Islamic-

American Union relations with exceptions of Islamic-African, and Islamic-

European Union relations that are previously connected.

Finally, the fourth referenced diplomatic source is the Asian Union

group with direct relations with only Asian-American Union relations, and

without the Asian-Islamic, Asian-European and Asian-American Union

relations that are previously connected in other references viz a viz:

30

Asian-American*

Islamic-Asian*, Islamic-American*

European-Islamic*, European-Asian*, European-American*

African-European*, African-Asian*, African-American*,African-Islamic*

Figure V The Bilateral Triangle / Channel

2 Multilateral Channel

a. Split or Fragmented Web

By considering a web perspective to the world star pentagon as a

framework of reference, where the African Union group is assumed as the

initial frame of reference and its diplomatic source in order to draw-out

possible split diplomatic web triangles, which is then followed by the next

Type A

E* E* E*

A* A A*

AS*

AM* A* I*

A* I* A * A* I*

AM* AM* AS* AS*

Figure VI First Type A Frames of References

31

referenced Union group in a clockwise direction.

Hence, the following complex diplomatic web triangles are derived

African-European-American, African-European-Islamic, African-European-

Asian, African-Islamic-American, African-Asian-American and African-

Islamic-Asian Union frames viz a viz in figure VI.

In the same clockwise direction or order, the second frame of reference

and its diplomatic source is the European Union group where triangles in

the first diplomatic frame of reference (also known as Referenced African

Union Group) are all excluded to form the following complex diplomatic

web triangles; European-Asian-American, European-Islamic-Asian,

European-Islamic-American Union frames in figure VII.

E*

E* E* I*

I* AM*

AM* AS* AS*

Figure VII Second Type A Frames of References

Thirdly, the next diplomatic frame of reference and its source is the

Islamic Union group where Islamic-Asian-American Union frame is the only

complex diplomatic web triangle available, excluding other triangles that

32

are already present in the previous Union frame of references (in African,

European and Islamic Union groups). Finally, the American Union group is

not applied as reference, as all possible complex web triangles are already

present or used up.

I *

AM * AS *

Figure VIII Third Type A Frame of Reference

Type B

Similarly, Type B Split Web is derived from using AU group as the

initial frame of reference (or as diplomatic source), and then followed by the

E*

E* A*

A* I* A* I*

I*

AM* AS*

AM* AS* AS*

E*

I*

AM* AS*

Figure IX First and Second Type B reference frames

33

second frame of reference (the EU group) in a clockwise direction

excluding the complex diplomatic web of trapeziums present in the first

frame of reference viz a viz in figure IX.

b. Global Plenary Web Channel – is the diplomatic relations that

consist of the five known Union groups for universal interest with wide

spread negotiations and global concern. This diplomatic frame is used to

derive a 5-member Security Council (the multi-regional and multi-polar

world order), as protectors of civilizational values for all people and nations

(belonging to AU, EU, IU, ASU and AMU) and when all the member States

and non-state actors are present, it is otherwise known as the General

Assembly in figure X.

EU*

AU* IU*

AMU* ASU*

Figure X Global Plenary Web Frame (Global Plenary Matrix)

34

3. Polylateral Channel

P ∑ S

Political Value/Union (P) D Social Value/Union (S)

+ -

C

Figure XI The Linear Socio-political economy Space (The Greed Control System)

From figure XI, transfer function (T) is the ratio of Output to Input, which implies

that, T (E) = S/ D …. Equation 1 where Input D = P – C or P + C ….. Equation 2

for controlling greed in the socio-political economy space.

For negative feedback control, it is assume that D = P – C for stability of system

hence, equation 1 becomes;

T (E) = S/ (P – C) ………. Equation 3 and T (PC) = C/ S ………..Equation 4

Hence equation 4 becomes C = S T (PC) ………Equation 5

T (E) = S/ P – S T (PC) by substituting equation 5 into equation 3

T (E) (P – S T (PC)) = S by expansion T (E) P – S T (E) T (PC) = S

T (E) P = S + S T (E) T (PC) = S (1 + T (E) T (PC))

T (E)/ (1 + T (E) T (PC)) = S/P which can be simplified as

S = P [T (E)/ (1 + T (E) T (PC))]. Therefore, the condition for overall system

stability is when T (PC) = 0; which implies that S = P T (E) as Social output

space is dependent on the product of the will, or the value of Political space

and the efficiency of Economic space.

Economic

Value

/Union

Polylateral

Channel (PC)

35

The Grand System and Stability Theory or Greed Control Theory (GSST/GCT)

Assumptions

1. The world is represented below as a unit circle and assumed to be occupied

by people of different major civilizations that are geographically scattered to

form into different societies or States.

2. In every major civilization, greed is present as all occupants and societies are

commonly affected by greed. The second assumption is that greed can be

controlled or measured by the degree of convergence of the three inter-

dependent systems, as depicted in a drawn unit circle above where economic

space is assumed to be a base for the given societies. Therefore, a unit

political value along y-axis that is applied on a unit economic value along x-

axis at a given angle θ, will translate to a resultant social value, or as a chord

within the first quadrant 0° ≤ θ ≤ 90°.

Political space

C Social space

B

A

Economic space

Figure XII

36

C

Political 60° Social B

60° 60° A O A

O Economic Figure XIII

Figure XIV

By using the GSST method where θ is equal to 60°, a unit political value

over a unit economic value will generate or produce a unit social balance or

value. Hence, the condition under which this will occur is when all the three

interdependent values converges and becomes equal while environment

remains favorable and stable (that is no large scale man-made and natural

disasters like , tsunami, hurricane, nuclear disaster, famine, earthquake etc).

In other words, it means practically that greed is equal to zero or not

present when convergence occurs within any of the Union groups. This type of

equilibrium is called the Grand System and Stability Theory (GSST), which

signifies the physical evidence of the absence of greed in the built civilization

based systems and can be measured by the socio-economic gap between the

rich, and the poor as determined by who gets what, when and how.

The Construction of Greed Dependencies:

Refer to figure XIV, and by using Pythagoras theorem in figure XIV, (where O is the

centre of the unit circle above)

CA 2 = CN2 + AN2

37

CN = √ (CA 2 - AN2 = √ (1 - 1/4) = √3/2

Since OC = OA = AC = 1 (an Equilateral triangle)

Angle COA = OCA = OAC = 60°

C

1 √3/2 1

60°

O 1/2 N 1/2 A

Figure XV

From triangle OBM

Sin θ = BM ⁄ OB = BM ⁄ 1; hence BM = Sin θ

Likewise Cos θ = OM /OB

OM = OB Cos θ where OB = 1

OM = Cos θ

Hence, Cos2θ + Sin2 θ = 1 (fundamental trigonometrical identity)54

But Triangle CAN is similar to Triangle ABM

AC ⁄ CN = AB ⁄ BM

Refer to figure XIII B

1 Sin θ

θ Cos θ A

O Figure XVI M

Hence 1 ⁄ √3/2 = AB⁄ Sin θ; Generally AB = AC = 2 Sinθ ⁄ √3; where 0° ≤ θ ≤ 90°

54

K.A.Stroud with additions by Dexter J. Booth,”Engineering Mathematics”. Palgrave Macmillan, 2007, 266.

38

Note in reality that point A is fixed whereas, point B and C are discrete social

values on social space that shifts and dynamically dependent on the different values of

θ, hence social value can shrink to zero when θ = 0 and increases to 1 when θ = 60°,

which implies that GSST has occurred. The physical significance of when social value

shrinks towards zero under GSST, and stable climatic conditions means economic

recession has set in, financial and banking system has collapsed, highest rate of job loss

has been recorded, sovereign debt is on its highest ebb and other social decays. The

situation is therefore a recipe for social tension, and eventually may lead to social

revolution. In general, social value, system or union which is equivalent to social space

= 2 Sinθ ⁄ √3; where 0° ≤ θ ≤ 90° for Grand System and Stability Theory.

Hence, the Grand System and Stability Theory (or The Greed Control Theory)

states that stability and control of the entire Unified World System is dynamically

interdependent on the degree of convergence of social and political systems over its

economy, or any of the given economic system or Union. The expectation is that the

political and social values meet within the zenith of its economy, which can be used to

check or regulate greed. Consequently, greed is equal to zero when social, political and

economical values are the same. Therefore, the political value, system or union

becomes an input to the economy, or economic union whereas social value, system or

union is the output performance on linear scale as well as to check, influence and

regulate the political using the polylateral channel in figure XI.

39

The Open Global Economy

Based on the perspective of ‘open world framework’55, it is notably common to observe

in reality that every society (or member state of the Continental System/Union group) in

the Intercontinental System is characterized by unequal distribution of power, wealth,

natural resources, knowledge and unlearned population.

However, the quality of redistribution of these unequal variables are on-going

concern in global governance, which can be measured by the fairness, listening abilities

and leadership performance of their respective regional hegemons in both competition

and cooperation, in order to improve the overall socio-economic well-being of their

respective occupants, as well as the state of their infrastructural development.

Arguably, the flaws of the contemporary global economy is noticeable by the

devastating effect of the contagious, 2008' global financial crisis'56 that led to global credit

crunch and economic meltdown with the following indicators; closure of global

corporations, crashing of banks, the sub-prime market and the world’s stock exchange,

the looting of public funds, social infrastructure deficit and massive unemployment.

Others are sovereign debt crisis, budget deficit, hyper-inflation, fiscal fraud and waste,

interbank lending and interest rate manipulation and fraud to mention but few.

In this paper, greed has been identified as a common attribute of man that is

present in varied proportions in all developed or developing economies of the world.

Somehow, these burgeoning plagues have infected the political class, bureaucrats, and

55

The Open, 98 56

Sapphire Website Designers, “Global Economic Crisis”.

http://www.globaleconomiccrisis.com/.

40

largely the stakeholders of the financial, economic, banking, regulatory and monetary

sectors, treasury, budget and the debt management offices at the expense of the social

economic and infrastructural development. This expanding greed phenomenon is as a

result of failed governance system from its inability to create and recreate values, or

activities that will redistribute global wealth. In the end, these plagues have led to

systemic slow down of the world’s economy and leading to worst social disorder in

recent times.

EFS

AFS IFS

AMFS ASFS

Figure XVII The Open Global Economy (Financial System)

Global Keys

AFS = African Financial System AMFS = American Financial System

ASFS = Asian Financial System EFS = European Financial System

IFS = Islamic Financial System

Consequently, these rising global issues can be contained by the combined

theories of Unified World System, the Bakarean Political economy and fine tuned by the

Greed Control (GCT/GSST) system; where the web integration complex of similar and

41

dissimilar economic, political and social systems within and beyond their common

boundaries are critical for the survival of global economic system, or union.

. The implications are that similar value system (belonging to same Union group)

shall be governed by common regulations in terms of banking, budget, fiscal actions and

others, while different value systems must be allowed to interplay across nation states

and Union groups, to steer up healthy competition and offer citizens’ value choices.

Furthermore, the aggregate rate of global competition among different value

systems will eventually cancel out the greed factor for stability, and as well act as firewall

against next global economic recession, that is now imminent see figure XVII.

Consequently, this sort of theoretical solution to global economic crisis will open up the

engine of global economic system to self recovery alongside with cancellation of debts

and provisioning of a long term, zero interest ‘financial facility and stability fund,’57as

either contributory or bailout fund option from rich nation states, and central banks of any

member of the affected or non affected Union groups for speedy recovery.

Discussion of Results/ Testing

The Dynamics of Intercontinental Relations

For analytic understanding of the Multilateralism 2.0 ecosystem, every political State in

the IcS as in poly-lateral channel in figure XI is created by the people, for the people and

thus run on people’s choice of systems (law, banking, economic and others) otherwise

known as Open federalism. The ROs are Open confederates as each are free to form a 57

European Commission, “European Facility and Stability Fund”.

http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/eu_borrower/efsm/index_en.htm.

42

Charter of their respective value systems in the IcS. Therefore, the States are free to join

any of the Continental Systems, as either a member State or proxy member State.

A proxy member State can be defined as a State that is situated outside the

geography of its local Continent like for example; if a poor country like Liberia shares the

same value with the rich America Union as proposed in this paper. As they become fully

aligned to form economic, social and political union; Liberia becomes a proxy State of

AMU. In this case Liberia has the right to use the common currency under the same

geopolitical space in order to build same social system and infrastructure to eliminate

poverty.

In another dimension, countries like Mexico, Jamaica, Haiti, Cuba, Panama and

others may join the AMU based on common geopolitical interest and value to form either

social union or economic union and/ or political union in order to stop illegal migration,

reduce poverty, avert humanitarian crisis, human and drug trafficking and others into the

rich United States of America and Canada.

To this end, States are free to adopt values of their choice from any of the above-

stated ROs and free to trade or store a value of trade in all of the continental currencies,

in order to avert the impact of global economic crisis as enumerated in the framework for

Open global economy. With these forms of flexibilities taken place in the UN of version

Multilateral 2.0 and the ROs as star players; transnational and geopolitical issues are

eliminated as all people and nations of different civilizations are stakeholders in the UN

ecosystem.

For example, the sectarian crisis in Libya, Iraq, Nigeria, Syria, Yemen, Somalia

and elsewhere, terrorism and Islamist insurgency and radicalization of Islam are solvable

43

using the conceptual framework of Unified Identity theory. Critical to ending these crises,

the universal call for the formation of the Islamic Union as an Islamic civilization charter

with socio-political economy existence that is formed on the basis of common Islamic

values (Islamic financial, banking, economics, law, governance systems and others), and

to further become global via the integration of OIC and Arab League).

Meanwhile, a country like Nigeria that is prone to ethno-religious crisis, a call for

different local states to freely adopt value systems that they so desire by its people, (as

in Open federalism) in order to share and tolerate other value systems (read further “the

Interdependence of Diplomacy on Open globalization” and “The extremism of

fragmentation and Integration Complex” above).`` In the event of disasters like war,

famine, Tsunami, Earth quake, Hurricane, desert encroachment, flood, Nuclear and

many more people and nations under the same geo-political boundary or value system

(see various diplomatic frames in figure v - xi) - it is easy to avert humanitarian crisis, and

to further integrate migrants/ survivals.

Following the interconnection of different financial systems, a State may be linked

with more than one financial system within its economy in order to build firewall against

total shutdown when a shocking wave of the like that of 2008 financial crisis reverberates

again. By this kind of framework, all countries are structured to have side by side other

banking system/ financial system to offer choices for their citizens and nations; in order

to avert greed in the world financial system, reduce interest rates and eliminate

manipulation of inter-bank rates, prevent subprime market crisis for healthy global

competition and the growth of their economies.

For example, Greece in reality is free to leave the EU if the debt owed cannot be

44

re-negotiated or canceled to join another value system that is ready to pay-off Greece’s

debt. On the contrary, Greece is free to stay in the EU based on common value, mutual

benefits and survival as the debt can be restructured over a long term bilateral

repayment plan with zero interest rate or be written off or cancelled by the European

Central Bank or the Central Bank of rich nations, or sold as a bond within the same value

system in order to get the Greece economy going, the decision is up to Greece to

decide.

Finally, the BRICS is now challenging the hegemony of dollar as postulated in

Bakarean political economy and ‘collectively, BRICS account for nearly $16 trillion in

GDP and 40% of the world’s population.’58Therefore, there is greater possibility for

emerging economies like the BRICS (Brazil, Russian, India, China, and South Africa) to

move towards hegemony of a common currency (which may transformed into Asian

Union if integrated with ASEAN), as they have enormous economic power in global

trade.

Conclusion

Today, ‘the UN is the symbol and core of global governance but lacks the attributes of

world government.’59By amending ‘article IV’60 and ‘Chapter VIII’61of the UN Charter, an

58

Jordan Totten, “BRICS New Development Bank Threatens Hegemony of U.S. Dollar”.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/12/22/brics-new-development-bank-threatens-hegemony-of-u-s-

dollar/. 59

Ramesh Thakur. “The United Nations in Global Governance: Rebalancing Organized Multilateralism for

Current and Future Challenges”.(Viewed 2015), 1.

http://www.un.org/en/ga/president/65/initiatives/GlobalGovernance/Thakur_GA_Thematic_Debate_on_UN

_in_GG.pdf

45

Open World Order is set in motion for a multi-regional and multi-polar world arrangement

for starting-up the integrating process of different civilizations.

Consequently, this form of International System’s upgrade can only occur under

the influence of a listening, kind and global hegemon, as the UN ‘rests on a network of

treaties, regimes, IOs and shared practices that embody common expectations,

reciprocity and equivalence of benefits’62. In the future of global politics, the entity RO is

same in sovereignty as the State and behave as if they were States to emulate the

global order of arrangement as postulated in Open World System Theory.

In synchronizing with the debates of Thomas Weiss and Rorden Wilkinson on

“saving IR from the abyss of irrelevance, [the granting of statehood right to RO is a

gigantic] pursuit for a better and fairer world order. [As part of the proposal for UN

transformation, the Bakarean world view is proffered to as a solution to the world’s

problems in a bid] to rescue global governance.”63The IS is however, upgraded into a

newly built Open IS via the fluidity of Open globalization phenomenon (that is otherwise

known as the Intercontinental System) for realizing the Multilateralism 2.0 vision.

Further to the setting up of Multilateralism 2.0, the next form of multi-regional and

multi-polar world order (that is the hegemonic role of ROs: AU, AMU, ASU, IU and EU) is

the pursuit of Unified World Order that is suppose to trigger the evolution of the final

60

United Nations.“The Charter of the United Nations and the statute of the International Court of Justice,”

http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter2.shtml.

61 United, The Charter,

http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter8.shtml.

62 Ibid., “The United Nations in Global Governance”.

63 Thomas G. Weiss and Rorden Wilkinson.”Global Governance to the Rescue: Saving International

Relations?” Global governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations. Vol. 20, no.

1, (Jan. – Mar. 2014), 19.

46

phase of world arrangement for the intensification of borderless integration and

cooperation, as postulated in the Unified World System and Bakarean Political economy.

Consequently, the Intercontinental System is here built with other dependency systems,

as unlocked by the following theories; the Open Global Economy, Diplomatic Channels,

Open Global Financial System and its Stabilizing and Regulatory Systems (the Grand

System and Stability theory or the Greed Control Theory).

In this version of Multilateral 2.0, ‘States are not necessarily the lowest level and

in some cases sub national entities can have their own direct relations with the regional

or global level without passing through the state level. The result is a complex web of

relations between four types of actor with statehood properties (global institutions, ROs,

States and sub national regional entities) together with non-state actors such as NGOs

or transnational policy networks’64.

In the future of the built IcS, Bull had already imagined such a ‘more regionalized

world system’65as the world we live in would better be managed when the behaviours of

citizens, States and IOs are governed by the fluidity of open globalization; a

phenomenon that is most likely to occur when ROs have gained hegemonic role beyond

independent sovereign States side in the UN Governance System which will ultimately

change diplomacy for the stabilization of the globe.

64

The Transformation, 268. 65

H. Bull.“The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics”. New York: Columbia University

Press. (1977, reprinted 1997), 261.

47

In conclusion, the Multilateralism 2.0 vision has come true from the Bakarean

world view to build the Intercontinental System, and contain or resolve global,

transnational and regional issues emanating from the contemporary world. As such, the

theoretical global governance solutions and practice as presented in this paper will

however go a long way, to move global governance to the next level by offering all

humankind an alternative global social interface at the UN, at seventy.

Therefore, I hope that all Heads of Government, Diplomats, IGOs and Non-state/

Civil Society actors which also include the academia will institutionalize the much

expected Multilateralism 2.0 and beyond, for guaranteeing Security and Justice in the

governance of the globe.