16th Annual Plenary Meeting
Message to the InterAction Council, May 1998
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
By Mikhail S. Gorbachev
I.
The contradictory, complex, and conflictive character of
the current situation in the world is widely known and
generally recognized. It is also a commonplace to
criticize politics that is, in essence, unable to predict
and forestall the development of existing problems into
crises.
Politics is always exposed to two dangers: (a) breaking
away from historical reality, running ahead of it, and
thereby confining itself to utopian projects doomed from
the outset to failure; and (b) falling behind reality,
losing track of events, and turning into fire fighters
leaving the station when the fire has already raged out of
control, which is also fraught with failures and, in any
case, with serious damage.
At present, the world, more often than not, is faced with
the second danger: politics is lagging; it is late in
responding to the course of events and meeting the
challenges of time. This is also being widely
discussed.
It should, however, be acknowledged that quite a few of
the existing and incipient problems emerge in the sphere
of politics, and not all of them can be solved by
exclusively political means. For many complex situations
of today result from economic processes and occur in the
economic sphere. The relationship between economic and
political factors has radically changed in comparison with
the 19th century and even the mid-20th century. It is
therefore no wonder that geoeconomics is being much spoken
about and even put in opposition to geopolitics. This
opposition is apparently groundless. Most likely, these
two notions and the phenomena they reflect are closely
interlaced and influence each other. Nevertheless, the
political role of economic processes is becoming
increasingly important.
But this is not all. The current problems in world
politics as well as in the politics of individual states
and group of states are closely (and perhaps to an
increasing extent) connected with the profound changes
taking place everywhere and affect the very foundation of
customary existence of different peoples and the entire
world community. What we witness here is - using a
generally accepted albeit not very precise expression - a
transition of industrial estates from the industrial stage
of development to the postindustrial, civilizational
transformation of transitional economies, and
industrialization (tentatively speaking) of a large number
of developing nations. And these are not only economic but
social and political changes in the majority of the
world's states.
All this, i.e., not only political but also economic
processes and civilizational changes, determines the
specifics of international relations at the present stage
of world development.
The world order that emerged after the end of the Cold War
is often called a world disorder or chaos. This is true
only insofar as the changes inherent in it are uncertain,
dynamic, variable, and unexpected. Nevertheless, it is
neither a disorder nor chaos but a transitional world
order, a period of shaping a truly new order in the world.
Its contours are not clear yet. Its character is still
uncertain and may be one or another, depending upon the
objective content of incipient processes and, of course,
the subjective factor, i.e., politicians and their
policies. In other words, although not all the current
problems result from politics or emerge in the political
sphere, politics play an exclusively important part in
their solution.
The transitional world order we have found ourselves in
may last rather a long time; for it comes to serious and
profound changes everywhere, affecting all spheres of
human life. And for many nations and peoples this means a
transition from one historical era to another.
The acceleration of world development is obvious. It is
practically impossible to hamper it. But urging it along
or speeding it up artificially in the hope of resolving
many issues automatically, just by virtue of economic,
social and political progress, is at least dangerous, for
this may trigger an uncontrollable explosive reaction.
Attentive politicians and policies, carefully weighed and
responsible actions, and, if you like, precaution and
farsightedness combine to resolve to advance, allowing of
no cataclysms, will play an indispensable part here.
II.
I would like to emphasize that the InterAction Council is
one of those (few) organizations that were the first to
call attention to all those complex issues in many ways
determining the future. Beginning with the Prague Session
of 1991 when it stated that neither the East nor the West,
neither socialism or capitalism had been able to
adequately meet the challenges of the epoch, and later, at
each meeting, the Council consistently called attention to
emergent problems, without confining itself to the
analysis of their external manifestations, and urged that
their deep roots be studied thoroughly, and that the
formulation of the policy be used on such a study.
In particular, the Council was one of the first to analyze
various aspects of globalization, both positive and
negative or dangerous (the latter primarily concerned the
globalization of financial markets).
Indeed, globalization has become a major process
determining in many ways numerous aspects of the
international community's life. Without repeating
banalities, I would like to single out two of them that
are directly related to world politics and the present
state of international affairs.
The first aspect is that globalization has involved the
whole world though to a different extent. The recent and
still present "Asian financial flu" conclusively proves
this. Yet the process is uneven (it mainly concerns
financial markets, the world economy in general, and
primarily, its transnational component, communications,
etc.) and largely spontaneous. Both factors bring about
serious problems, contradictions and conflicts. What the
Council has repeatedly emphasized is becoming more and
more obvious: the need for world-wide regulation, at any
rate, the regulation of major global processes.
The second aspect is that while globalization is actively
manifest in the economy, finance, and information, it is
practically absent in politics. Of course, there is G-7
(or G-8?), but the effectiveness of its decisions is not
high, especially as its participants being economically
powerful nations, are a small part of the world numbering
around 200 states. There is the UN, a multipurpose
organization. But it is still unable (regretfully) to
reach a world-wide consensus on fundamental issues.
Besides, both the UN and G-7 are organizations of states
whereas globalization is unfolding basically at the level
of private capital, transnational banks, companies,
etc.
It is true that attempts have been made recently t o work
out certain acts related to the sphere of activity of
international banks and corporations, e.g., a draft
Multilateral Investment Agreement. Yet, in this case it
does not mean regulating their activity in one way or
another but, on the contrary, providing unrestricted
freedom for them and controlling, for this purpose, the
activity of the state whose opportunities become seriously
limited.
III.
In short, we are faced with a glaring contradiction
between the spontaneous and uncontrollable aspect of
globalization on the one hand and the unsatisfied need for
an international global policy conforming to the specifics
of a globalizing world on the other. Meeting the need for
a world policy capable of controlling major world
development processes fraught with great dangers and
threats, is an urgent task of the world community on the
threshold of the 21st century.
Shaping such a policy is important the more so as without
it the emergent conflicts (and to a greater extent, future
ones) attend globalization or occur as a response to the
current forms of its implementation.
In fact, even in the most developed and stable states,
globalization instills fear of national identity, running
counter to integration tendencies. It would suffice to
look at today's Europe and to listen to the discussions
about the Euro. Yet, too many states have not passed
through the stage of national consolidation, and quite a
few of them are even at the previous level (of tribal
relations). In such conditions, globalization conflicts
with self-determination and new self-identification of
peoples. A painful collision between these two processes
objectively stimulates ethnic or religious conflicts. This
especially underscores the need for a delicate and
carefully weighed policy on the part of both certain
national leaders and the world community as a whole.
This is true the more so as globalization objectively (and
often subjectively) unfolds in the form of a kind of
partition of the world into the spheres of influence of
major financial and industrial empires and sometimes of
states. The latter is clearly manifest in the policy of
the United States. Globalization as an instrument of
taking possession, for the near and distant future, the
main natural resources and of the most promising sales
markets and investment spheres is the reality of our
time.
It would naturally be wrong to confine an assessment of
globalization to this aspect of the matter only.
Potentially, globalization creates great opportunities for
the development of both individual countries and regions
of the whole world. This should not be underestimated. As
the market in general, globalization and a global market
solving or helping to solve some problems, are unable to
solve other problems or directly impede their solution.
There is a noticeable coincidence here: neither the market
per se nor globalization per se can respond to social,
ethnic and religious problems requiring an immediate
solution. Here, politics must play its part too, in the
first place, the policy of large industrial nations. I
cannot say that this policy is up to the mark. It is not
only lagging but in some instances goes far aside from
realistic solutions to urgent problems. There are many
examples to this effect. Obviously, one cannot rely on
resolving all issues by force, but this method is still
too often used, especially by the USA. It is unnatural to
strengthen security and the absence of actual adversaries
by expanding military blocs like NATO and thereby dividing
the Europeans into the "clean" and "unclean," and so on.
These are all holdovers or heritage of the confrontational
past.
There are, however, developments of a different kind. On
the one hand, the attempts to accomplish the present and
future tasks by using the methods that repeatedly proved
to be untenable in the past, are beginning to fail,
causing unexpected consequences. For example, the recent
events around Iraq demonstrated a different and far more
essential aspect of the matter - a strong inclination of
states to seek for political solutions and patient
dialogue, which allows to find a way out of seemingly
hopeless situations.
The settlement of the Iraqi crisis, obvious advance toward
peace in Ulster, political discussions and quest for
solutions in Kosovo, all this testifies not only to the
opportunity (it has always existed) but also the
willingness of more and more nations within the world
community to seek for reasonable ways out of the most
difficult situations. The active role played in this quest
by some EU nations, the People's Republic of China,
Russian diplomacy, and many Asian, African, and Latin
American states is undoubtedly a positive feature.
And one more point. I have so far spoken mainly of the
policy of individual states. But in the conditions of
globalization when almost any major economic and political
problem assumes an international if not a world-wide
dimension, it is becoming increasingly difficult for
individual countries to find adequate solutions to them.
Hence, regional integration processes apparently speed up.
The most graphic example in this respect is the European
Union with its economic and political dimensions (though
the latter have not been fully manifest yet). Yet similar
(albeit different in format and scope of operation)
regional associations have emerged practically in all the
regions of the world - from Latin America (where political
interaction between the OAS and economic integration
processes do not coincide) to East Asia (ASEAN), the Arab
world, and Africa. In the vast expanses of the Soviet
Union, the CIS in no way conforms either to the need or
the opportunities for the member states' interaction. But
its chances for a more active role, still unrealized
owing, to a considerable extent, to Russia, are quite far
from being exhausted.
In the 21st century's global world, regional (or even
continental) entities are likely to play a significant
part both politically (including security) and
economically.
IV.
Thus, the world has been undergoing profound
transformations. In some cases, they were explosive and in
others, latent. But they have been going on. I reiterate
it is not clear yet what the finale will be like. It seems
to me that certain conditions should be fulfilled so that
the human community could finally come to truly civilized
development corresponding to Man's nature and needs and
meeting the formidable challenges of time. Aspiring to
neither ultimate nor unquestionable conclusions, I would
like to single out a few basic points.
The 21st century's global world will be a world of chaos
unless the international community learns to act
collectively, in close interaction to resolve major
issues, using both the existing coordinating instruments
and, possibly, new ones the need for which is created by
the very course of events.
It is true especially of the world economy or, more
exactly, that type of its development, which is currently
predominant and conditions the acuity of social problems.
The existing international economic organizations
practically do not deal with them; their tasks are of a
different nature. Perhaps, we need something really new,
for example, a Council for International Economic Security
with UN structures?
It is also true of such an important issue as ecology. The
Green Cross International and the Earth Council in
cooperation with prominent ecologists and spiritual
leaders are working on the Earth Charter, a kind of
ecological commandments for our planet's citizens. This
document must operate along with an Ecological Convention
and Ecological Court.
The world community's collective efforts can apparently be
put forth at different levels from bilateral relations and
cooperation between individual states, through interaction
between regional organizations, to their general
interaction with such a multipurpose structure as the
UN.
Such collective efforts built with an allowance for all
the world community nations' interests and on the basis of
their reasonable balance, will ensure a certain degree of
manageability of world processes. In particular, it will
help establish control over the activities of economic,
financial and other nongovernment protagonists of world
life, guided by private interests. This goal can
apparently be achieved only through one or another form of
participation of these nongovernment private entities.
I reiterate that this will be possible only if the
interests of each participant in the world communication
process are taken into account. Attempts to suppress these
interests and any forms of hegemony or domination of one
power or a group of powers - the so-called "golden
billion"- can only give rise to new conflicts.
It is clear that any state formulating its national
interests is bound to approach this problem realistically.
A wrong and exaggerated interpretation of national
interests, which is hostile to others, is fraught with a
great danger to all and, in the first place, to the
country that misinterprets its interests and,
consequently, tasks.
Finally, it is no less important that the future rational
policy rely fully on a thorough conscientious and
impartial analysis of not only political events but
profound development processes and emergent challenges and
objectives. From this point of view, a more important part
- apparently much more important than today - will be
played by such international centers of political thought
as the InterAction Council. I think that the role of world
scientific and cultural contacts is underestimated.
Whatever states may do at their level, a dialogue between
cultures in a broad sense of the world is indispensable.
Its role in the future may be much greater than we can
imagine today.
World policy as well as the policy of each state are faced
with a serious trial. It will be necessary to rely on
previous experience without submitting to its stereotypes,
to take into consideration present and future challenges
without falling into emotional utopianism, and thereby to
sail Noah's Ark of humankind from the turbulent
transitional world order to a zone of sustainable
development. Of course, it will never be calm and without
conflict. But if politics cope with its objectives,
sustainable development can become predictable and stable.