Wells's motivation for writing The New World Order was based upon the outbreak of World War II.[3] Wells was concerned that the Allies had no clear statement of aims for fighting in the war and that this would lead to the continuation of the pre-existing balance of power.[4] In The New World Order, Wells writes that without a revolution in international affairs and the establishment of human rights, then further destructive wars were inevitable.[5]
The New World Order received praise for its imagination but was also criticised for its lack of technical detail and emphasis on collectivisation.
The science fiction works of H.G. Wells reached a broad popular audience and covered the big ideas that were emerging at the start of the 20th century.[7] His utopian exploration of concepts like technological change, evolution, identity and new forms of global governance has seen scholars describe him as 'the father of science fiction'.[7] The British author George Orwell, a harsh critic of Wells, said that no one writing books between 1900 and 1920 influenced the young as much as H.G. Wells.[8] Orwell also expressed that 'thinking people who were born about the beginning of this century are in some sense Wells's own creation'.[8]
Wells's non-fiction works[lower-alpha 1] mainly analysed the issues of his time and in these works he consistently urged that a socialistic and cosmopolitan world government would solve modern social issues.[7] Wells believed that technological innovations were making the world a smaller place, and this presented an opportunity to unify the world.[10] The scholar John Partington has argued that Wells 'promoted, years ahead of his time, many of the internationalist policies and realities of the post-1945 period'.[11] Partington also argues that Wells is the first to form a theoretical account of international functionalism.[11] Whilst Wells became more insistent with his support of international functionalism throughout his career, the publication of The New World Order was the first time he began to condemn other models of transnational government.[12]
Wells's contemporaries mostly disregarded his insistence for forming a world state, with his proposal being considered as too unrealistic to be politically possible.[13] His utopian fiction was also the subject of parody in Aldous Huxley's Brave New World and George Orwell's Coming Up for Air.[8]
In the inter-war period, Wells was one of the first members of two civil society organisations, PEN and the National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL).[14] Both organisations primarily advocated for the human right to free speech and expression.[15] However, with the rise of the Nazi Party in Germany and fascism in Spain, both organisations became increasingly political in promoting humanist and pacifist causes.[15] In The New World Order, Wells urged his readers to join the NCCL, pressing that it 'is your duty as a world citizen'.[16]
In October 1939, one month after Britain declared war on Nazi Germany, Wells initiated a public campaign to make human rights a point of international concern.[3] Wells wrote a letter to The Times calling for a 'Great Debate' into establishing the aims for fighting in World War II,[lower-alpha 2] arguing that the formulation and acceptance of human rights should be at the forefront of these aims.[18] The Times declined his proposal for a national debate into the subject,[lower-alpha 3] but the Daily Herald gave Wells one page a day for a month to host the discussion.[20] Wells's work in the Daily Herald served as the foundations for his human rights declaration in The New World Order.[20]
Publication
The New World Order was published in January 1940 by Secker & Warburg in London and by Alfred A. Knopf in New York.[21] Beginning in November 1939, before the official publication of The New World Order, The Fortnightly Review magazine began serialising the book in four monthly instalments, ending February 1940.[22]The New World Order would go on to be re-issued in 1942 by being bounded with another book by Wells, The Fate of Homo Sapiens.[23] The re-issued twofer received a new title, The Outlook for Homo Sapiens.[24]
Synopsis
H.G. Wells starts The New World Order by setting out the aim to provide a 'nucleus of useful information for those who have to go on with this business of making a world peace'.[25] After introducing the objective of the book, Wells admits that people of his generation 'thought that war was dying out'.[26] For Wells, 'disruptive forces' were building up in civilised society, but in the years before World War I, these forces were operating at the margins of civilisation.[27] These forces included an arms race, economic stress, social upheaval and the continuation of the pre-existing balance of power.[27] Wells argues that these forces caused World War I and World War II and are the symptoms of intertwining patriotism and enterprise with the world system.[28] Wells declares that a revolution must occur to replace the world system, as otherwise, humanity faces extinction.[28]
Wells goes on to insist that 'free speech and vigorous publication' are at the forefront of working towards world peace.[29] He points out that the conditions of war lead to the suppression of free speech which would harm his wish of a 'great world debate'.[29] For Wells, a free and open discussion about reconstructing the post-war order was 'something much more important than warfare'.[30] Next, Wells identifies that technological innovations had caused the 'abolition of distance' and a change in the scale of production in modern society.[31] Wells expresses that an out-dated mode of thinking has met both of these new facts of global life, leading to unnecessary destruction in economic, social and biological life.[31] Wells goes on to argue that the era of nationhood was obsolete, and only a 'rational consolidation of human affairs' would ensure human survival.[32] Before progressing his argument further, Wells distinguishes his vision of global collectivisation from Marxism and Soviet communism.[33] He firstly defined collectivisation as such:
Collectivisation means the handling of the common affairs of mankind by a common control responsible to the whole community. It means the suppression of go-as-you-please in social and economic affairs just as much as in international affairs. It means the frank abolition of profit-seeking and of every device by which human beings contrive to be parasitic on their fellow man. It is the practical realisation of the brotherhood of man through a common control.[34]
—H.G. Wells, The New World Order (1940)
In the case of the Soviet political system, Wells argued that its form of socialism lacked respect for individual freedom.[35] Wells asserted that the Soviets forgot that 'the more highly things are collectivised, the more necessary is a legal system embodying the Rights of Man'.[36] Wells also goes on to state that Marx's concept of class conflict is 'an entanglement and perversion of the world drive towards a world collectivism'.[37] Later in The New World Order, Wells assails the Vatican for being against socialism and free speech.[38] He also criticises Clarence K. Streit's version of world federation, arguing that it 'seems hopelessly vague', 'confused' and 'hopelessly optimistic'.[39] Wells then goes on to advance that the outbreak of war was bringing about socialism across the world.[40] For Wells, the historical process was bringing about changes in society without revolutionary intervention.[22] Wells provides Great Britain as an example, saying that it has 'in effect gone socialist in a couple of months'.[22] From here, Wells begins to formalise how to achieve the collectivisation of world affairs:
The new and complete Revolution can be defined in a very few words. It is (a) outright world-socialism, scientifically planned and directed, plus (b) a sustained insistence upon law, law based on a fuller, more jealously conceived resentment of the personal Rights of Man, plus (c) the completest freedom of speech, criticism and publication, and sedulous expansion of the educational organisation to the ever-growing demands of the new order.[41]
—H.G. Wells, The New World Order (1940)
To protect an individual's liberty under global socialism, Wells asserts that a set of human rights must become universal law and be the primary motive of peace negotiations at the conclusion of the war.[42] Wells drafts his version of a Declaration of the Rights of Man with the following ten human rights:
8. The right to be free from any misrepresentation that may cause distress or injury.
9. The right to not be tortured.
10. The right to be subject to the universal laws of human rights.[43]
Wells concludes The New World Order by saying that the remaking of world order will come into being similar to the process of science and invention:
There will be no day of days then when a new world order comes into being. Step by step and here and there it will arrive, and even as it comes into being it will develop fresh perspectives, discover unsuspected problems and go on to new adventures. No man, no group of men, will ever be singled out as its father or founder. For its maker will be not this man nor that man nor any man but Man, that being who is in some measure in every one of us. World order will be, like science, like most inventions, a social product, an innumerable number of personalities will have lived fine lives, pouring their best into the collective achievement.[44]
—H.G. Wells, The New World Order (1940)
Critical reception
For the American poet T.S. Eliot, The New World Order was indicative of a resurgence in H.G. Wells's career in public discourse.[45] Eliot responded to the conclusion of The Fortnightly Review's serialisation of The New World Order by writing an article for the New English Weekly.[45] In this article, Eliot compared Wells to Winston Churchill, noting that both men shared a returning 'glare of prominence' once found earlier in their respective careers.[45] Despite this tribute from Eliot, he would end his remarks on The New World Order by highlighting that Wells 'is walking very near the edge of despair' by wanting rapid change.[45]
The English priest William Inge, who was a close rival of Wells,[lower-alpha 4] wrote a review of The New World Order in the scientific journal Nature.[lower-alpha 5] For Inge, Wells's utopian vision in The New World Order was 'utterly unrealisable' but admired Wells's 'earnest longing for a better world'.[48] Inge agreed with Wells that 'frenzied nationalism’ was a great danger to Europe and that the war engulfing Europe was a 'ruinous folly'.[48] However, notwithstanding these agreements about World War II, Inge would go on to criticise The New World Order for espousing a ‘Fabian collectivism’ that would extinguish the 'strongest passions and instincts of human nature'.[49] Further, Inge thought that Wells was too sympathetic towards socialist causes, remarking that Wells 'sees Red' when concerning his thoughts with society's elite.[50] Also, despite Inge being an Anglican priest, he defended the Roman Catholic Church against Wells's criticisms that the Church was anti-revolutionary.[48]
The American political scientist Charles E. Merriam reviewed The New World Order, stating that the book was 'well worth examination'.[51] Merriam noted Wells's 'good intentions' for drafting a set of human rights in the book, but did 'deplore his somewhat feeble execution'.[51] In his review, Merriam insisted that political experts should cultivate a more 'bold and venturesome Wellsian spirit' to solve 'the great problem of modernising the large sections of our social institutions now demanding intelligent reconsideration and re-adjustment'.[51]
The Times Literary Supplement (TLS) remarked that if The New World Order aimed to provide solutions to contemporary problems, then the book 'may seem jejune'.[52] The TLS praised Wells for his analysis of world issues but thought that his recommendations to solve these problems were 'so general and vague that they are of little practical use'.[52] Further, the TLS expressed that whilst the book intended to provide solutions to world problems, what Wells unintentionally provided was 'an attitude of mind which must be adopted if the search for a remedy is to succeed'.[52] For the TLS, The New World Order outlined 'simply another utopia' that 'keeps alive the vision and the dream' of achieving world peace through 'the destruction of the sword'.[52]
One of the harshest critics of H.G. Wells's world state idea was the British author George Orwell.[8] Whilst both writers considered socialist alternatives to their shared political climate, Orwell complained that Wells had no interest in the realities of politics.[53] Orwell derides Wells's idealism in his essay Wells, Hitler and the World State,[54] saying that, 'what is the use in pointing out that a world state is desirable? What matters is that not one of the five great military powers would think of submitting to such a thing'.[55] Another point of contention for Orwell was the role of science in Wells's world state. Orwell argued that Wells confused scientific advancement with progress in societal values.[56] For Orwell, this flaw in thinking made it hard for Wells to reconcile the order, planning and scientific encouragement found within Nazi Germany and his vision of a world state run by a scientific elite.[57]
Dr Or Rosenboim, an academic at the School of Arts and Social Sciences of City, University of London, provided a contemporary evaluation of Wells's conception of world order. In her book, The Emergence of Globalism: Visions of World Order in Britain and the United States, 1939–1950, Rosenboim highlighted that Wells's new world order was 'limited by a conservative conception of statehood' and was 'grounded in a monistic conception of order'.[58] Rosenboim further argued that 'under the auspices of the universality of science, the world state extended on a global scale the specific historical experience of Western civilisation, leaving no space for diversity, pluralism, or dissent'.[58]
Page 3 of the document 'Analysis of Various Draft International Bills of Rights', which was conducted in 1947 by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. The document states that Wells's preamble to his declaration could serve as 'metaphysical' inspiration for the preamble of the UDHR.
Impact on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)
The New World Order was one of 18 advisory texts used to prepare the first draft of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).[6] The United Nations Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR)[lower-alpha 6] noted that the preamble to Wells's declaration in The New World Order was a point of 'metaphysical' interest for drafting the preamble of the UDHR.[60] Specifically, the UNCHR highlighted the phrases 'a man comes into this world through no fault of his own' and that 'he is manifestly a joint inheritor of the accumulations of the past'.[61]
Scholars have suggested that the totality of Wells's campaign to author and proliferate works on human rights,[lower-alpha 7] like The New World Order, needs to be considered when measuring his impact on the UDHR.[63] Australian human rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson suggested in his book Crimes Against Humanity: The Struggle for Global Justice that Wells was the principal reviver of human rights promotion in the twentieth century.[64] The socialist academic Peter Richie-Calder, who worked with Wells on the Sankey Committee, also commented that the UDHR had 'contained the substance and meaning of the Wells debate'.[6]
Related Research Articles
Herbert George Wells was an English writer. Prolific in many genres, he wrote more than fifty novels and dozens of short stories. His non-fiction output included works of social commentary, politics, history, popular science, satire, biography, and autobiography. Wells' science fiction novels are so well regarded that he has been called the "father of science fiction".
Human rights are moral principles or norms for standards of human behaviour and are regularly protected as substantive rights in substantive law, municipal and international law. They are commonly understood as inalienable, fundamental rights "to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being" and which are "inherent in all human beings", regardless of their age, ethnic origin, location, language, religion, ethnicity, or any other status. They are applicable everywhere and at every time in the sense of being universal, and they are egalitarian in the sense of being the same for everyone. They are regarded as requiring empathy and the rule of law, and imposing an obligation on persons to respect the human rights of others; it is generally considered that they should not be taken away except as a result of due process based on specific circumstances.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is an international document adopted by the United Nations General Assembly that enshrines the rights and freedoms of all human beings. Drafted by a UN committee chaired by Eleanor Roosevelt, it was accepted by the General Assembly as Resolution 217 during its third session on 10 December 1948 at the Palais de Chaillot in Paris, France. Of the 58 members of the United Nations at the time, 48 voted in favour, none against, eight abstained, and two did not vote.
The right of return is a principle in international law which guarantees everyone's right of voluntary return to, or re-entry to, their country of origin or of citizenship. The right of return is part of the broader human rights concept freedom of movement and is also related to the legal concept of nationality. While many states afford their citizens the right of abode, the right of return is not restricted to citizenship or nationality in the formal sense. It allows stateless persons and for those born outside their country to return for the first time, so long as they have maintained a "genuine and effective link".
Freedom of thought is the freedom of an individual to hold or consider a fact, viewpoint, or thought, independent of others' viewpoints.
The Open Conspiracy: Blue Prints for a World Revolution was published in 1928 by H. G. Wells, when he was 62 years old. It was revised and expanded in 1930 with the additional subtitle A Second Version of This Faith of a Modern Man Made More Explicit and Plain. In 1931 a further revised edition appeared titled What Are We to Do with Our Lives?. A final version appeared in 1933 under its original title. Many of its ideas are anticipated in Wells's 1926 novel The World of William Clissold.
A fair trial is a trial which is "conducted fairly, justly, and with procedural regularity by an impartial judge". Various rights associated with a fair trial are explicitly proclaimed in Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights, in addition to numerous other constitutions and declarations throughout the world. There is no binding international law that defines what is not a fair trial; for example, the right to a jury trial and other important procedures vary from nation to nation.
Human Rights Day (HRD) is celebrated annually around the world on 10 December every year.
Peng Chun Chang, commonly known as P. C. Chang, was a Chinese academic, philosopher, playwright, human rights activist, and diplomat. He was born in Tianjin, China, and died at his home in Nutley, New Jersey.
The situation of human rights in East Asia varies between the region's countries, which differ in history and political orientation, as well as between contexts within each country. Issues such as refugees fleeing East Timor, the Cambodian killing fields and freedom of speech in Singapore are just a few of the well-known human rights conflicts that have arisen in East Asian countries. The subject of human rights in East Asia is still highly topical at the present time.
The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam (CDHRI) is a declaration of the member states of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) first adopted in Cairo, Egypt, on 5 August 1990,, and later revised in 2020 and adopted on 28 November 2020. It provides an overview on the Islamic perspective on human rights. The 1990 version affirms Islamic sharia as its sole source, whereas the 2020 version doesn't specifically invoke sharia. The focus of this article is the 1990 version of the CDHRI.
While belief in the sanctity of human life has ancient precedents in many religions of the world, the foundations of modern human rights began during the era of renaissance humanism in the early modern period. The European wars of religion and the civil wars of seventeenth-century Kingdom of England gave rise to the philosophy of liberalism and belief in natural rights became a central concern of European intellectual culture during the eighteenth-century Age of Enlightenment. Ideas of natural rights, which had a basis in natural law, lay at the core of the American and French Revolutions which occurred toward the end of that century, but the idea of human rights came about later. Democratic evolution through the nineteenth century paved the way for the advent of universal suffrage in the twentieth century. Two world wars led to the creation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was drafted between early 1947 and late 1948 by a committee formed by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. Further discussion and amendments were made by the Commission on Human Rights, the Economic and Social Council and the General Assembly of the United Nations. Representatives of the UN Commission on the Status of Women participated in the meetings of the UN Commission on Human Rights, debating for a gender inclusive language in the Declaration.
Nineteen Eighty-Four is a dystopian novel and cautionary tale by English writer George Orwell. It was published on 8 June 1949 by Secker & Warburg as Orwell's ninth and final book completed in his lifetime. Thematically, it centres on the consequences of totalitarianism, mass surveillance, and repressive regimentation of people and behaviours within society. Orwell, a staunch believer in democratic socialism and member of the anti-Stalinist Left, modelled the Britain under authoritarian socialism in the novel on the Soviet Union in the era of Stalinism and on the very similar practices of both censorship and propaganda in Nazi Germany. More broadly, the novel examines the role of truth and facts within societies and the ways in which they can be manipulated.
The Declaration of Human Duties and Responsibilities (DHDR) was written for reinforcing the implementation of human rights under the auspices of the UNESCO and the interest of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and was proclaimed in 1998 "to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)" in the city of Valencia. Therefore, it is also known as the Valencia Declaration.
A Short History of the World is an account of human history by English author H. G. Wells. It was first published in 1922 by Cassell & Company (London) and The Macmillan Company. The book was preceded by Wells's fuller 1919 work The Outline of History, and was intended "to meet the needs of the busy general reader, too driven to study the maps and time charts of that Outline in detail, who wishes to refresh and repair his faded or fragmentary conceptions of the great adventure of mankind."
H. G. Wells (1866–1946) was a prolific English writer in many genres, including the novel, history, politics, and social commentary, and textbooks and rules for war games. Wells called his political views socialist.
Baháʼu'lláh, the prophet-founder of the Baháʼí Faith, called for global agreement on human rights protection nearly eighty years before the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in 1948. He taught that "an equal standard of human rights must be recognized and adopted.” Baháʼu'lláh called for governments to protect the human rights of their populations and to ensure their welfare. To safeguard human rights, Bahá'u'lláh urged global leaders to establish a world commonwealth that would include a system of collective security to protect populations against tyranny and oppression.
Lyndsey Stonebridge FBA FEA is an English scholar and professor of humanities and human rights at the University of Birmingham. Her work relates to refugee studies, human rights, and the effects of violence on the mind in the 20th and 21st centuries. She is also a regular radio and media commentator, writing for publications such as The New Statesman,Prospect Magazine, and New Humanist.
Human rights in the Kingdom of Denmark are protected by the state's Constitution of the Realm (Danmarks Riges Grundlov); applying equally in Denmark proper, Greenland and the Faroe Islands, and through the ratification of international human rights treaties. Denmark has held a significant role in the adoption of both the European Convention on Human Rights and in the establishment of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). In 1987, the Kingdom Parliament (Folketinget) established a national human rights institution, the Danish Centre of Human Rights, now the Danish Institute for Human Rights.
References
Notes
↑ Even though Wells was well-known for his science fiction works, he published more non-fiction than fiction after 1915. One account of Wells makes the point that the highest point of his literary output 'coincided with his temporary withdrawal from political advocacy and campaigning, as if Wells were trying a different form of advocacy for his ideas'.[9]
↑ This was the second time in Wells's life in which he asked for a clear set of post-war aims. During World War I, Wells wrote about the need to establish viable post-war aims that prevent the potential of future violent conflict. In 1918, Wells wrote In the Fourth Year that he supported the establishment of a 'League of Free Nations' which would maintain peace through centralising world power and diplomacy. Wells would go on to be disappointed with the establishment of the League of Nations in 1920 as he felt its hierarchy maintained conventional diplomacy and the pre-existing balance of power.[17]
↑ A debate into war aims was happening at a national level in the short time prior to Neville Chamberlain declaring war on Nazi Germany. Around one thousand books were published in Britain on the subject of war aims over the course of World War II, despite a shortage in paper across the country. Most of these publications were concerned with defeating Nazi Germany and recognising the inadequacy of the pre-war system of international relations. Because of these debates, the British government appointed a select committee to define its war aims.[19]
↑ William Inge published an essay in The Fortnightly Review entitled The End of an Age, during The New World Order's serialisation. The End of an Age knocked The New World Order off the front pages of The Fortnightly Review.[46]
↑ Following the publication of Inge's review, H. G. Wells wrote a letter to Nature to dispute Inge's review and statements surrounding the Spanish Civil War. Wells thought that a reputable journal like Nature should require its contributors to cite credible documentation for any controversial claims. Inge responded to Wells via a letter providing his sources. Nature subsequently published Wells's correspondence with Inge two weeks after Inge reviewed The New World Order.[47]
↑ It is important to note that the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR) was a part of a collaborative process in drafting the UDHR. Being the first director of the UNCHR, John Peters Humphrey was given the task by the UN Secretary-General to be the principal author of the UDHR. Under Humphrey's guidance, the declaration underwent multiple revisions by different individuals and groups to weed out any individual influence or bias.[59]
↑ Wells made a concerted effort to share his human rights declaration amongst world leaders like Franklin D. Roosevelt, Mahatma Gandhi, Jan Masaryk, Chaim Weizmann, Edvard Benes, Jan Christian Smuts & Jawaharlal Nehru. During World War II, his human rights works were published as cheap paperbacks by Penguin Books and translated into multiple languages. Wells's declaration achieved syndication in newspapers around the world, received a lengthy personal attack by the Nazi minister of propaganda Joseph Goebbels, and reputedly had thousands of people respond to the call for comment on the declaration. Additionally, his campaign throughout his career for robust global institutions, and his fictional works associated with promoting this idea, also contributed towards the proliferation of the human rights idea.[62]
Bell, D. (2018). "Founding the World State: H. G. Wells on Empire and the English-Speaking Peoples". International Studies Quarterly. 62 (4): 867–879. doi:10.1093/isq/sqy041.
Ellis, S. (2012). "HG Wells, World War II and the New World Order". The Wellsian: The Journal of the HG Wells Society. 35: 5–15.
Gentry, K.; Mason, V. (2019). "The Invisible Man: H. G. Wells and Human Rights During the Interwar Period". Human Rights Quarterly. 41 (3): 620–645. doi:10.1353/hrq.2019.0046. S2CID201388866.
Hensel, D.G. (2003). "10 December 1948: HG Wells and the Drafting of a Universal Declaration of Human Rights". Peace Research. 35 (1): 93–102.
Partington, J. (2004). "The Pen as Sword: George Orwell, H.G. Wells and Journalistic Parricide". Journal of Contemporary History. 39 (1): 45–56. doi:10.1177/0022009404039883. S2CID154475836.
Rosenboim, O. (2017). In the Emergence of Globalism: Visions of World Order in Britain and the United States, 1939-1950. Princeton; Oxford: Princeton University Press. pp.212–216. JSTORj.ctt1q1xrts.10.
Wells, H.G. (2007). The New World Order: Whether It Is Attainable, How It Can Be Attained, and What Sort of World a World at Peace Will Have to Be. Fq Classics.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
