AUSTRALIANS AS GLOBAL CITIZENS

International Citizenship and Global Citizenship

	13.1 Historical Background
	13.2 Concepts of Transnational Citizenship
	13.3 Australia as a 'Good International Citizen'
	13.4 Australians as Global Citizens
	13.5 Questions: Universal Values, Education and Global Governance

At the heart of claims to citizenship lie questions about which communities we belong to, what values we ought to uphold, and how may we exercise our civic rights and responsibilities. In previous Study Weeks you have examined a number of different kinds of citizenship within Australian democracy. In general, these kinds of civic rights and duties are exercised within and limited by the nation state and its sub-units. This Study Week examines how Australians have taken up and pursued ideals of citizenship and civic identity that transcend national boundaries and nationalist assumptions. That is, we examine transnational forms of citizenship and global forms of democracy, governance and civil society. In particular, we examine two distinct kinds of transnational citizenship, namely international citizenship and global citizenship, as well as a few of the issues surrounding them. A final consideration is that of how, given the processes of economic and cultural globalisation, we may protect and enhance democracy today. The week will consider three main topics:

history and concepts of transnational citizenship,

Australia as a 'good international citizen', and

Australians as 'global citizens'.

First, we shall consider the historical background of international and global ideas of citizenship. In so doing, we shall return to a number of the writers and schools of thought mentioned in Study Week 2.

1.Historical Background: Cosmopolitanism, Ancient and Modern

Although civic ideals are usually associated with participation in ruling and defending the ancient republican city state or polis, ideas of global and international citizenship may also be found in the ancient world. Universalist and cosmopolitanism ideals are evident among the stoics of ancient Greece and Rome, and in early Christian philosophy. At the heart of the stoic ideal was the 'cosmopolis' or cosmic polis. By this the stoics meant a 'city of the world', or universal society, in which all human beings could live united and in peace with each other under the universal natural law (Tinder 1986: 42—3).

The stoics argued for a common humanity uniting the different peoples of the earth, and as the citizens of the world they saw an obligation to put universal principles above their loyalties to their particular state. As Carter (1995: 14) points out, however, despite their egalitarian notions of citizenship, the stoics retained discriminatory distinctions between men and women. It is important to note that the stoics understood that, as a citizen, one had dual civic rights and duties, both as a citizen of a state and as a citizen of the world. That is, one could be both a patriot and a universalist. Nevertheless, the stoics offered no detailed political program for institutionalising cosmopolitan citizenship. Despite these limitations, the stoic philosophy still provided an elementary guide to personal moral practice.

In the modern world, and from the 17th century onwards the world citizenship ideal may be discerned in the writings of Montaigne, Immanuel Kant and Thomas Paine. In 1837, Paine's famous phrase 'My country is the World, my countrymen are Mankind' was used as the inspiration for a poem that appeared in William Garrison's anti-slavery journal The Liberator (Schelereth 1977: 203).

I love that free, that pure exalted mind
Which spurns the bounds of clime and native soil;
And in his fellow men can brethren find;
Whether a prince or child of care and toil!
In justice says–by no means prejudice confined–
'My country is the world, my country men mankind!'

All are my brethren, Why should I distain,
To own that God has made his creatures one?
Or why should I from righteous acts refrain,
To those whose features are unlike my own?
Such thoughts as these should not my conscience blind–
'My country is the world, my countrymen mankind!'

In every land, in every tribe I see
Each bears the image of a gracious God;
Jews, Greeks, Barbarians, Scythians, bond or free
Savage or tame, wherever man had trod
And if I roam from east to west, I find,
'My country is the world, my countrymen mankind!'

This poem indicates how secular universal values may be combined with Christian beliefs. Historical precedents for global values and associations are also evident in internationalist liberalism and socialism, as well as in the international peace and women's movements.

In the latter part of the 20th century, global, world or planetary citizenship has attracted renewed interest (e.g. Falk 1994). Among contemporary writers, David Held (1989: 202) has pointed out the inadequacy of theories of citizenship that focus on a citizen's relation to the nation state. He argues that the processes of globalisation, evident, for example, in the development of international law, have changed the relations between citizens and their nation states. The increasing legal, moral and symbolic recourse to UN declarations and covenants world-wide have effectively created a new category of 'world citizen' who has certain rights and obligations to others. Held (1993) argues further that with increasing global interconnectedness, the political and economic interdependence of nation states, as well as growing transnational institutional collaborations, we are witnessing the emergence of a global or 'cosmopolitan' democracy.

Both in recent and more distant times, the influence of international and global principles upon Australia has been significant. For example, changes in the High Court of Australia's interpretation of Australian common law are increasingly founded upon precedents in international law. The expansion of social, environmental and industrial citizenship rights for individuals and groups in Australia (e.g. indigenous land rights, women's rights, rights of the child, etc.) derive as much from appeals to international law or international covenants, protocols and treaties, as to particularly Australian traditions. Advocates of Australian multiculturalism, a policy that aims to foster ethnic cultural diversity, draw upon both national egalitarian traditions and universal values of toleration, cultural pluralism and social justice. Calls for Aboriginal land rights or for indigenous self-determination combine appeals to universal values as well as indigenous traditions.

In the next reading, April Carter examines the origins and various meanings of global citizenship. In so doing, she canvasses the different theoretical and practical issues that surround the concept.

STUDY EXERCISE 13.1

Read:A. Carter, 1997. Nationalism and global citizenship. Australian Journal of Politics and History. 43(1): 70—5.

Answer the following questions:

1.Briefly define and summarise cosmopolitanism. Answer

2.Briefly summarise Carter's four ways of looking at global citizenship. Answer

Carter's discussion suggests that we should try to distinguish more clearly between the two main kinds of transnational citizenship evident today.

2.Concepts of Transnational Citizenship

The first category of transnational citizenship focuses upon sovereign nation states and their actions within a system of international rules and institutions that are bound by transnational values, such as international law, justice and human rights. Called international citizenship, this type of activity is largely the province of national governments and their participation in the international and regional institutions. Central are those organisations formed under the auspices of the United Nations (UN), such as the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) and the World Health Organisation (WHO). Other international organisations include the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and its successor the World Trade Office (WTO), International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World Bank. International citizenship is also evident in regional polities such as the European Union (EU) and the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) agreement.

International activities in accord with such values may be called 'good international citizenship'. Being a good international citizen may be understood as fulfilling one's rights and responsibilities as a membership of an existing 'international society' of nation states. A state operating as a good 'international citizen' performs its international civic duty by helping establishing such international organisations, formulating their rules and, where possible, by attempting to implement them both internally and externally.

Except under the most extreme circumstances, such as those which occurred after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, and Serbian atrocities in the former Yugoslavia, international citizenship is usually limited by the mutual respect for sovereignty of other states who are members of the international society. This means that proposals for world government or federation are usually not on the political agenda, as this would tend to put stronger constraints upon the activities of nation-states. Similarly, although these international organisations usually operate internally by democratic principles, externally, their officials are only formally responsible to the constituent governments and their representatives, not to any larger electorate or voting public. In many cases, it is also the wealthier and more powerful constituent countries whose voices carry more weight.

In the next reading, Andrew Linklater examines the origins and evolution of the concept of good international citizenship.

STUDY EXERCISE 13.2
Read:A. Linklater, 1992a. What is good international citizenship? In P. Keal ed. Ethics and Foreign Policy Sydney: Allen & Unwin, pp. 21-43.

Answer the following questions:

1.Briefly summarise Linklater's three dimensions of good international citizenship. Answer

2.How does Vattel characterise good international citizens? Answer

3.Briefly summarise Kant's three axes of citizenship. Answer

4.What does Linklater conclude to be the most appropriate roles for good international citizens? Answer

5.Briefly summarise Linklater's three main defences of the notion of the good international citizen. Answer

The second type of transnational citizenship is expressed through membership of, and participation in voluntary, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and social movements, that are less constrained by the formal rules of the inter-state system and even try to shape that system (Falk 1994). Such organisations often act well beyond the borders of their original nation state in support of universal, humanitarian, ecological or democratic values that may or may not be formally codified. Such transnational political activism may be called global or world citizenship, and may be understood as fulfilling one's rights and responsibilities as members of an emerging 'global civil society' (Lipschutz 1992). That is, 'global society' is something larger and more comprehensive than 'international society' (Shaw 1992: 429).

Global citizenship is exercised through organisations such as the International Red Cross, Amnesty International or Greenpeace. In many respects these groups aim to encourage global civic responsibility among states and also among other transnational actors such as global corporations. The goals of the NGOs are often to compel governments and corporations to abide by commonly acknowledged international values such as those embodied in the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and international law. Such NGOs engage in the whole range of political activism from providing humanitarian aid to engaging in violent or non-violent protest against the policies of their own state or those of other states. Generally, these NGOs are organised democratically and the officials are responsible to the voting members of the organisation. In addition, there are various organisations, such as the Association of World Citizens or the Global Citizens' Association, that seek to establish different forms of world government above the states in international society.

Just as nationalist ideas rely upon the nation as an 'imagined community', so also global citizenship relies upon the idea of an 'imagined global community' of men and women who share a number of basic human values such as the equal moral worth of each person, mutual respect and tolerance of differences, or concern for justice and non-violence. Contemporary global citizenship is founded upon a growing sense of the importance of not only principles, values, and loyalties that transcend the nation state, but also transnational activism in support of them (Falk 1994). For all its idealism, the practice of global citizenship already exists among the various kinds of international NGOs working for humanitarian purposes, and social movements seeking social transformation throughout the world. The major difference between 'international' and 'global' forms of citizenship lies in the different priorities and power given to the nation state and national sovereignty. There are also significant differences of assumption about what is politically possible. This is of particular concern in conflicts between global citizenship and nationalism.

In the next reading April Carter surveys a range of theorists and theoretical traditions which suggest that political or liberal nationalism may not necessarily be incompatible with the practice of global citizenship.

STUDY EXERCISE 13.3
Read:A. Carter, 1997. Nationalism and global citizenship. Australian Journal of Politics and History 43(1): 75-81.

Answer the following questions:

1.Briefly summarise the 'realist' critique of cosmopolitanism. Answer

2.In what ways might forms of political or liberal nationalism be compatible with conceptions of global citizenship? Answer

3.In what ways might nationalism frustrate attempts to promote global citizenship? Answer

In her conclusion Carter explores a number of criticisms of the view that global citizenship and nationalism might be compatible.

3.Australia as a 'Good International Citizen'

Historically, Australians and their political leaders have commonly understood their role in the world as involving rights and responsibilities incurred as part of their membership in a larger community of nations. Often motivated as much by a sense of national self-interest and security as by idealism, Australian governments have assumed membership in the British Empire, and later the British Commonwealth of Nations, as well as the League of Nations and the UN. Although less committed to multilateral institutions before the second World War, Australians used the term 'empire citizenship', for example, to denote their broader loyalties, rights and responsibilities within the British Empire (Bavin 1993). Particularly in the post-war period, through the work of Dr H.V. Evatt in establishing the UN and later as President of the UN General Assembly (1948-49), Australian national governments have promoted themselves as 'internationalists'. Contrary to Evatt's initial inclination towards establishing an organisation for effective world government, the UN became a somewhat weaker forum for canvassing world opinion (see Andrews 1979: 116-21). Whereas the post-war Liberal Prime Minister R.G. Menzies (1949-1963) supported the UN, he and others such as his deputy John McEwen (Andrews 1979: 129), remained convinced that the British Commonwealth was more important both for Australia and for 'world freedom'.

One of the most familiar forms of transnational citizenship is evident in contemporary Australian foreign policies. Australian membership of and participation in international organisations such as the UN, UNDP, UNESCO and the WTO, underline the country's continuing commitment to multilateral agreements and international cooperation. The creation of institutions promoting regional free trade, such as in the APEC process, reflect official government perceptions of Australia as an active 'middle power' whose interests lie in the promotion and membership of international organisations. The policy goals of fostering international communities of peace and security, that are intended to promote human rights, justice and equity for all humanity are often couched in terms of being a 'good international citizen' (GIC).

In a number of writings (e.g. Evans 1989; Evans and Grant 1991: 40-1), former foreign minister Gareth Evans, developed the concept and initiated multilateral diplomatic action both through and outside the UN to promote it. Central among these was (Evans 1989: 12-13):

the awareness that global problems needed global solutions,

the defence of international standards of human rights, and

a commitment to the provision of humanitarian aid.

Read:G. Evans, 1989. Australian foreign policy: Priorities in a changing world. Australian Outlook 43(2): 12-13.

The key ethical idea is that Australia must be involved in pursuing policies that are inherently valuable and not simply the direct expression of our economic or security interests, and further that this foreign policy ethic reflects the basic values of the Australian people. Later expressions of this ethic are evident in the commitment to 'peace-building' as opposed to 'peacekeeping' such as in the establishment of the Canberra Commission on the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons in 1995. Australia's Cambodian peace initiatives, participation in the UN peace-keeping force in Somalia, and its contribution to the creation of a Chemical Weapons Convention are further examples of Australia's approach to good international citizenship.

Australia's exercise of international citizenship has raised two kinds of controversy regarding conflicts of principles and priorities in both its external and internal affairs. The first problem concerns the impact of the national government's use of the external affairs power of the constitution upon national sovereignty and States' rights within the Australian federation. Foreign policies that fulfil the requirements of good international citizenship have had a variety of significant internal consequences for Australian citizens. At times, multilateral economic agreements have brought lower tariffs or other changes in Australian industry policy that have resulted in greater unemployment or job insecurity. Where these trade policies have been argued for in terms of broader, internationalist, humanitarian values, others have seen the promotion of free trade and the reduction of tariff protection as bringing social and economic harm to Australians.

In addition the ratification of international treaties on World Heritage Areas and the 'International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights' have brought shifts in the balance of state power between federal and state governments that have attracted much controversy. What some (e.g. Whitlam 1995; Evans 1994) have regarded as an achievement in making international rights available to all Australian citizens and as an expression of national independence and international identity, others have seen as a dangerous and unnecessary erosion of national sovereignty (Fraser 1994; Kemp 1994b;). In the following reading, Rod Kemp, at the time a Liberal MP, provides an argument against the UN scrutiny of state legislation.

Read:R. Kemp, 1994. UN's right to meddle stifles nation's voice. Australian 8 April: 13.

Michael Lavarch who was Attorney General in a Labor Government defends the role of the role of UN bodies in scrutinising legislation.

Read:M. Lavarch, 1994. Why Canberra listens to UN wisdom on human rights. Australian 12 April: 13.

The second problem arises when there is a conflict between the norms of 'good international citizenship' and economic or security interests. Critics have pointed to the discrepancies between the advocacy of the ideals of GIC and their neglect when confronted with serious issues such as trade with China or Burma, or defence ties with Papua New Guinea or Indonesia (Charlesworth and Mathew 1995; Campbell 1996; Goldsworthy 1995). In such cases, Australian humanitarian NGOs consistently call for universal principles of human rights to be given priority.

4.Australians as Global Citizens

Since the mid 1980s, Australians have supported a number of relatively spontaneous, global humanitarian fundraising efforts based upon mass entertainment such as the 'USA for Africa' campaign (1985), and those more recent BandAid concerts organised by the rock singer Bob Geldof. It is, however, the participation of Australians as voluntary individuals in numerous national and international non-government organisations (NGOs) that mark out the more constant ethical and political responsibilities of global citizenship. By such a variety of actions Australians have undertaken what may be understood philosophically as obligations to 'distant others', and even 'future generations'. The results of social surveys confirm that a significant majority of Australians generally understand the role of overseas aid as providing 'welfare for foreigners'. Australians also accept that suppling overseas aid or 'development assistance', is a moral duty independent of pragmatic self-interest, and generally, that it ought to be the responsibility of both individuals and government to fulfil this moral obligation. There is further evidence to indicate that this moral obligation is felt more strongly among Christians (Kelley 1989: 67-8)

There are at least four categories of NGO through which Australians have exercised their global civic responsibilities. Perhaps the oldest and most well known are those such as the International Red Cross, that offer humanitarian and emergency assistance of various kinds. Such bodies have often helped shape international conventions and their assistance is accepted on the proviso that they do not interfere in the internal affairs of a sovereign state. There are, however, in Australia and elsewhere, a range of NGOs in this category that have their origins in either Christian or secular principles or both. Such NGOs are often critical of government policies and advocate social transformation of a reformist kind. Peak bodies like Australian Council for Overseas Aid (ACFOA), for example, publishes critical assessment of national government aid policies as well as criticisms of breaches of human rights in its series of Development Dossiers. Australians have supported organisations like Community Aid Abroad, the Freedom from Hunger Campaign, World Vision, and Care Australia and also by participating in such annual appeals as the 'Walk against Want'.

A second category of NGO includes organisations devoted to a limited range of objectives such as the defence of international human rights, but not the political transformation of the governments under scrutiny. Among these, Amnesty International is possibly the foremost body and its objective is 'to contribute to the observance throughout the world of human rights as set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights' (Article 1, Amnesty International 1993). Amnesty takes the Declaration as its standard of global civic responsibility which is to protect the basic human rights of others (Amnesty International 1986). Central to Amnesty's mandate is the release of 'prisoners of conscience', and the maintenance of due legal process and the rule of law. Organisations such as Amnesty International Australia and the Human Rights Council of Australia are also guided by these concerns. Participation in letter writing campaigns on behalf of selected 'prisoners of conscience', canvassing donations during public appeals such as 'Candle Day' and making regular pledges of financial support not only affirm a belief in a common humanity but also constitute an exercise of global citizenship.

The third category of NGO comprises transnational social movements of protest and social transformation based upon different kinds of universalist principles. The peace and green movements, as they are called, engage in struggles against governments and corporations, at home and abroad, 'in the interests of the survival of the human and other species' (Burgmann 1993: 187). Peace movements have long been active in Australia (see Saunders and Summy 1986). Formed in 1919, the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF), for example, has been one of the most prominent and committed of the pacifist movements (Saunders and Summy 1994). Resolute commitment by women to pacifism in the solving of human problems is an exercise of global citizenship which affirms non-violence as a universal principle (Kruse and Sowerine 1986). Public protest and demonstrations against Australian military involvement in various armed conflicts such as the Vietnam war (1964-72) and the Gulf War (1990-91) has brought citizens to express concern for the nation in which they live as well as solidarity with similar activists elsewhere in the world.

Although movements for environmental protection have long existed in Australia, their political impact has grown markedly since the 1970s. Internationally, groups such as Greenpeace have attracted not only widespread attention and support, but also violent retribution from at least one government that it has acted against (see Brown and May 1986). In Australia, environmental activism in support of universal values of ecological sustainability ranges from the reformist to the radical and include organisations such as the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF), Friends of the Earth, and Greenpeace Australia. Others include the Wildlife Preservation Society which was founded in 1909, the Tasmanian Wilderness Society and various smaller regional organisations are often devoted to the protection of the flora and fauna of specific areas. One of the most famous slogans of the green movement, 'Think Globally, Act Locally', indicates the union of global values and local activism. When linked to the tactics of civil disobedience, such a universal ideology leads invariably to conflict with sovereign states. Organisations such as the ACF have even required global corporations to recognise their global civic responsibilities.

Finally there exist a small number of national and international associations devoted to the achievement of a world federation of states with an effective world government. Australian advocates of such institutions envisage the exercise of global citizenship through a re-organisation of global politics by, for example, the establishment of a world federation of nations (e.g. Suter 1995) or other forms of global authority such as a Council of Earth for international education (Salla et al. 1995: 255-63).

Despite their obvious altruism and universalism, questions continue to be raised about the conduct and direction of these institutions of global citizenship. Critics of the humanitarian NGOs, for example, query the proportion of money spent on administration, the ruthless competitiveness sometimes evident in the raising of funds, and more seriously they have pointed to the misuse of aid funds. Others have questioned whether NGOs have become too closely aligned with, and uncritical of, the governments and agencies that provide much of their funds.

5.Questions: Universal Values, Education and Global Governance

In this section we shall consider briefly three key problems arising out of the pursuit of global values and international institutions. The first considers problems arising out of the practical impact of globalising political and economic tendencies upon Australian democracy. The second concerns the defence of universal values that give meaning to transnational forms of citizenship. The third deals with education for global citizenship as education for democracy.

The pursuit of international and global citizenship raise serious questions about the future (erosion or strengthening) of Australian democracy in particular. Both kinds of citizenship indicate the emergence of a 'global democracy' based upon the growth and influence of international institutions. Gary Sturgess introduces a number of issues surrounding the role of the nation state and sovereignty in the growing tendencies towards global governance.

Read:G. Sturgess, 1996. Who rules a world without boundaries? Australian 3 October: 13.

This expanding 'global democracy', has significant implications for the institutions of Australian democracy. For example, political globalisation has the tendency to erode Australian sovereignty and control over its affairs. Sturgess also refers to the undemocratic nature of many institutions of global governance and suggests that we need to address the problems in a national public debate. Alastair Davidson explores a few of these issues in more detail and in so doing reviews a number of the topics discussed in earlier Study Weeks. Davidson draws upon European political experiences to think about the future of Australia in a 'regional semi-polity' growing out of the attempt to establish a regional economy based upon APEC. In so doing he examines the enduring democratic problem of promoting 'power from below'.

STUDY EXERCISE 13.4
Read:A. Davidson, 1997. Globalism, the regional citizen and democracy. In B. Galligan, C. Sampford eds. Rethinking Human Rights. Sydney: Federation Press, pp. 215-33.

Answer the following questions:

1.How, according to Davidson, has democracy traditionally been defined? Answer

2.What impact might new information technologies have on the practice of democracy? Answer

3.What sort of impacts, according to Davidson, might globalisation and the development of regional markets have on democratic politics in the 21st century? Answer

4.Briefly summarise what Davidson calls the 'Singapore solution'. Answer

Davidson advocates the extension of more direct democracy of the kind where citizens regularly make use of the new information technologies to keep informed and, among other things, to communicate with others, including their elected representatives. Davidson links his proposals to debates over an Australian republic, the decline of parliamentary responsibility and reform of the constitution. Davidson is critical of liberal, representative democracy in Australia and his proposals are more closely aligned to those of civic republicanism which require more citizen participation. It is for this reason that he re-examines the history and potential for citizen's initiated referenda (CIR) in Australia and in the new regional polities, such as APEC. Davidson draws attention to the problem of material economic inequalities between the wealthy technologically advanced worlds and the difficulty of communicating between them. He rejects the 'postmodern' view that communication is in principle impossible.

Postmodern philosophical critics and others have drawn attention to the limitations of our commonly accepted assumptions about universal or global citizenship. It is claimed that such theories do not take due account of social, cultural and sexual differences, and simply reflect the priorities of dominant forms of masculinism or the values of European civilisation. Some feminists (e.g. Young 1989: 251), for example, have criticised the universalist ideal, understood as expressing a general will, because it has 'in practice excluded groups judged not capable of adopting the general point of view' and because it has tended to 'enforce a homogeneity of citizens.' Even the critics, however, usually acknowledge the importance of dual and multiple civic identities that are both local and particular as well as universal. Indigenous people, for example, commonly call upon universal values of self-determination in support of their right to retain their local culture (see Fletcher 1994). Cohen (1995) has used the term 'rooted cosmopolitanism' to describe such plural allegiances to national as well as transnational values.

An important point is that a commitment to universalist values does not carry with it any self-evident or universally agreed upon political strategy either to promote them or to harmonise differences between local and universal loyalties. There is also little agreement on the range of universal values, such as peace, economic well-being, social justice, ecological balance, or priorities among them that would be of relevance to global citizenship. It is widely recognised, however, that the values contained in the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provide the main point of departure.

For these and other reasons, many writers have queried whether there can be any broad agreement on optimum strategies to encourage the growth of democracy. Nonetheless, educationalists have often addressed the central question of what kinds of education would encourage the formation of good citizens and best fit democracy. Two kinds of response to this question are common. The first is that there is no satisfactory substitute for citizens learning about democracy by participating in it at various levels. The second response is that citizens and potential citizens can best learn about democracy by understanding more about the various kinds of conflicts and controversies, origins and solutions, that have arisen over time. This response invariably entails learning more about the history of one's nation, society and community, and comparing it with others. It is often contended that simply by discussing the merits, costs and benefits associated with such historical topics, one learns ways of dealing with difficult political issues in a democratic way.

The American philosopher, Martha Nussbaum, takes up a number of these issues regarding education and world citizenship. Although directed at an American audience, the main arguments are just as relevant to Australia. Nussbaum draws lessons for higher education from the life of Socrates in ancient Athens and that of Seneca in ancient Rome.

STUDY EXERCISE 13.5
Read:M. Nussbaum, 1997. Democracy's wake-up call. Australian 5 November: 38-9.

Answer the following questions:

1.Briefly summarise the Socratic critical method. Answer

2.What three capacities does Nussbaum claim to be essential to the cultivation of humanity in today's world? Answer

3.Briefly describe the characteristics of the education Nussbaum is advocating as essential to the practice of an informed and active citizenship. Answer

4.What does Nussbaum mean by the term 'world citizen'?

Answer

Nussbaum's (1997: 39) underlying premise is that the world around us 'is inescapably international' and that we are all 'world citizens' now. For this reason, she argues that we need to revitalise liberal education in the humanities. The three components of Nussbaum's educational proposal requires us to be able to:

critically examine oneself and one's traditions like Socrates;

cultivate an ability to see oneself as 'not simply citizens of some local region or group but also, and above all as human beings bound to all others by ties of recognition and concern.' (Nussbaum 1997: 38);

develop the 'narrative imagination', by which Nussbaum (1997: 39) means the ability to 'think what it might be like to be in the shoes of a person different to oneself, to be an intelligent reader of that person's story.'

Nussbaum sketches the kind of education that would best serve the cause of world citizenship. The task of a world citizen is essentially that of learning to live in a complex, confusing and emotionally charged world of many nations and cultures. On this view, education for world citizenship is also an education for democracy. Nussbaum's argument suggests that if we understand our selves more as citizens of the world, then our view of nation, community, and their histories will also need to change.

Conclusion

From the account above, we can say that Australia as a nation state and Australian citizens are deeply immersed in the values and practices of transnational citizenship. Political and humanitarian activities that may be classified as expressing such values are evident, not only in Australia's formal relations with other countries, but also in judicial institutions and commissions within Australia, as well as voluntary NGOs. In each sphere of activity, however, it is generally accepted that one can be both an Australian and an international or global citizen.

In external relations, Australian commitments to 'good international citizenship' has encouraged national governments to establish new international institutions for cooperation on the promotion of peace, the conduct of war, and the protection of the environment. Australian governments also make diplomatic representations over human rights abuses. As an international citizen in the world community Australia currently has rights and responsibilities arising from membership of the UN and from certain regional agreements. Nonetheless, the implementation of international treaties has brought with it political conflict over the principles of federalism and states' rights.

Australian citizens may also understand themselves as citizens of the world. As individuals, and by their membership of voluntary, non-state organisations for peace, humanitarian aid and environmental action, Australians often exercise global civic responsibilities and claim universal citizenship rights. Global values are also strongly evident in the activities of the many voluntary NGOs and social movements. Nonetheless, the exercise of global citizenship may also bring with it political conflict between sovereign nation states and NGOs committed to global values.

This unit, and this Study Week in particular, has demonstrated that Australians are members of multiple civic communities and often have overlapping civic identities. That is, Australians claim civic rights and responsibilities both within the nation-state and beyond it. Transnational citizenship demonstrates that our ideas and practices of Australian citizenship continue to evolve as our political institutions also evolve to meet new conditions. This unit also returns us to the distinction between the liberal idea of citizenship as a legal and administrative status and the civic republican notion of citizenship as participation in a community. Whatever their legal status, individuals and groups can often claim certain rights both within and outside a polity. Whereas international citizenship indicates the emergence of a kind of international liberal democracy based upon national representation, global citizenship denotes more strongly a participatory kind of citizenship in a global community. The latter often operates as a practical critique that demonstrates the political limits of the narrower concept and practice of citizenship. One of the constant challenges for Australians remains that of working out how to foster democratic values and effective participation, not only within the national state, but also in regional and global forums.

Review for Week 13

Before proceeding, you ought to review your understanding of this week's topic by:

(a) checking your responses to the Study Exercises against those supplied in the Study Guide, and

(b) reading again the documents for this week and completing the related Study Tasks in the Workbook, for which there are no answers provided.

References

Amnesty International. 1986. Voices for Freedom: An Amnesty International anthology. London: Amnesty International.

Amnesty International. 1993. Statute. 21st International Council, Boston 6-14 August.

Andrews, E.M. 1979. A History of Australian Foreign Policy: From Dependence to Independence. Melbourne: Longan: Cheshire.

Bavin, T.R. 1993. [1929] Empire citizenship. In J. Arnold, P. Spearritt and D. Walker eds. Out of empire: The British dominion of Australia. Melbourne: Mandarin, pp. 23-7.

Brown, M.H. and May, I. 1989. The Greenpeace Story. Frenchs Forest NSW: Child and Associates.

Burgmann, V. 1993. Power and Protest: Movements for Change in Australian Society. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.

Burmester, H. 1995. National sovereignty, independence and the impact of treaties and international standards. The Sydney Law Review 17(2): 127-49.

Carter, A. 1997. Nationalism and global citizenship. Australian Journal of Politics and History 43(1): 67-81.

Cohen, M. 1995. Rooted cosmopolitanism. In M. Walzer ed. Towards a Global Civil Society. Providence RI: Berghahn Books, pp. 223-33.

Davidson, A. 1997. Globalism, the regional citizen and democracy. In B. Galligan, C. Sampford eds. Rethinking Human Rights. Sydney: Federation Press, pp. 215-33.

Evans, G. 1989. Australian foreign policy: Priorities in a changing world. Australian Outlook 43(2): 1-15. [excerpt].

Evans, G. 1994. Global treaties essential to our national destiny. Australian 6 December: 11.

Evans, G. and B. Grant 1991. Australia's Foreign Relations In the World of the 1990s. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.

Falk, R.A. 1994. The making of global citizenship. In B. van Steenbergen ed. The Condition of Citizenship. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage, pp. 127-40.

Fletcher, C. ed 1994. Aboriginal Self-Determination in Australia. Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press.

Fraser, M. 1994. UN poses biggest threat to our sovereignty. Australian 17 September: 13.

Goldsworthy, D. 1995. Australia and good international citizenship. In S. Lawson ed. The New Agenda for Global Security: Cooperating for Peace and Beyond. Sydney: Allen & Unwin, pp. 171-87.

Held, D. 1989. Political Theory and the Modern State. Cambridge: Polity.

Held, D. 1993. Democracy: From city-states to cosmopolitan order. In D. Held ed. Prospects for Democracy. Cambridge: Polity, pp. 13-52.

Held, D. 1995. Democracy and the new international order. In D. Archibugi and D. Held eds. Cosmopolitan Democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press, pp. 96-120.

Kelley, J. 1989. Australian's Attitudes to Overseas Aid. AIDAB, International Development Issues # 8. Canberra: AGPS.

Kemp, R. 1994a. UN's right to meddle stifles nation's voice. Australian 8 April: 13.

Kemp, R. 1994b. International tribunals and the attack on Australian democracy. Upholding the Australian Constitution. Proceedings of the fourth conference of the Samuel Griffith Society 19-31 July, pp. 119-50.

Kruse, D. and Sowerine, C. 1986. Feminism and pacifism: 'Woman's sphere' in peace and war. In N. Grieve and A. Burns eds. Australian Women: New Feminist Perspectives. Melbourne: Oxford University Press, pp. 42-58.

Lavarch, M. 1994. Why Canberra listens to UN wisdom on human rights. Australian 12 April: 13.

Linklater, A. 1992a. What is good international citizenship? In P. Keal ed. Ethics and Foreign Policy Sydney: Allen & Unwin, pp. 21-43.

Lipschutz, R.D. 1992. Reconstructing world politics: The emergence of global civil society. Millennium 21(30): 389-420.

Nussbaum, M. 1997. Democracy's wake-up call. Australian 5 November: 38-9.

Reith, P. 1994. How we surrender sovereignty. Australian 6 December: 11.

Salla, M. Tonetto, W. and Martinez, E. eds. Essays on peace. Rockhampton: Central University of Queensland Press.

Saunders, M. and Summy, R. 1986. The Australian Peace Movement: A Short History. Canberra: Peace Research Centre, Australian National University.

Saunders, M. and Summy, R. 1994. Odd ones out: The Australian section of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom: 1919-41. Australian Journal of Politics and History 40(1): 83-97.

Schelereth, T.J. 1977. The Cosmopolitan Idea in Enlightenment Thought. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.

Shaw, M. 1992. Global society and global responsibility: The theoretical, historical and political limits of 'international society'. Millennium 21(3): 421-34.

Suter, K. 1995. Towards a federal world state. In M. Salla, W. Tonetto and E. Martinez eds. Essays on Peace. Rockhampton: Central University of Queensland Press, pp. 197-212.

Tinder, G. 1986. Should all peoples be united in a single global society? In Political Thinking: The Perennial Questions. Glenview IL: Scott, Foresman & Company, pp. 41-5.

Whitlam, G. 1995. State rights v world values. University of Western Australia Law Review 25(1): 1-20.

Young, I.M. 1989. Polity and Group Difference: A Critique of the Ideal of Universal Citizenship. Ethics 99: 250-74.

Internet and On-Line Resources

Below is a list of web-sites relevant to this week's course material. These sites should be of some use in completing the study and research exercises for this week.

AID/WATCH

Association of World Citizens
The association is an international peace organisation established to promote the practice of world citizenship. This site provides numerous documents in the field, as well as to links to facilities promoting studies in world citizenship.

Amnesty International

Centre for Global Ethics (CGE)
The CGE coordinates the work of thinkers, scholars and activists from around the world who are working to define, implement and promote policies of responsible global citizenship. This site provides numerous on-line resources including a very comprehensive series of links to associated sites.

Citizenship Education for Democracy into the Twenty-First Century
This site includes the proceedings from a conference held in Canada in May 1998 exploring the problem of rethinking citizenship in the era of globalisation. The report includes numerous references to studies in global citizenship as well as links to other sites.

Council for Education in World Citizenship (CEWC)
The CEWC is an international non-partisan educational charity promoting education for international understandings of justice, peace and citizenship. This site provides numerous on-line resources for the study of global citizenship including links to associated sites.

Greenpeace

United Nations (UN) Homepage
The UN site provides an enormous range of resources for the study of topics related to global citizenship. Links, databases, documents and histories are all provided. Very comprehensive!