D+C Development and Cooperation (No. 3, May/June 1999, p. 23-26)

The final countdown to the 21st century has started. When I spoke before this Forum in 1995, the theme was still that of globalization. We are now already speaking of globality. The process has become the situation. Globalization is shaping the transition into the next century. Its effects are evident in politics, the economy, culture and society.

You will be dealing over the next few days with the tension between globality and responsibility. The emphasis here is on the consequences of economic globality, as you would expect at a World Economic Forum. After all, many of the drastic changes which the world is undergoing are economic, economically motivated or processes with an economic effect ­ technical breakthroughs, the industrial revolution towards the information society, the global integration of markets and competition of locations for investment.

If, however, capital and investment focus too much on chasing factor prices around the world, what, if anything, is left for politics, society and culture? Will they be dwarfed by global economic processes? Will politics degenerate into a mere repair shop for economic developments which are damaging in human or social terms? If this were the case, globality would have robbed politics of its essence: its orientation towards people, who stand at the centre of and define any community. Globality forces us to seek not only a new economic and financial order, but also a worldwide social order. How can people reconquer centre stage? Is it possible to turn around the pressure to conform, which globality exercises on politics and to turn it to constructive purposes and thus to the aim of global social justice?

Many people hope that global justice will emerge from a world consensus on minimum standards. But how can this consensus be achieved? Do we need a global institution to fulfil these hopes? Hasn't the dream of centralist control just proved elusive? There is, however, something that we can do. We have a good chance of regaining control if we also globalize politics, and by this I mean politics in the broadest sense, including the economic, social and cultural areas. Globality forces a foreign policy dimension upon all these areas of politics. In order to control globality, instead of being controlled by it, we must activate these foreign policy dimensions.

Foreign policy must change

Classical foreign policy, on the other hand, which for 350 years has been conceived as politics of nation states towards other nation states, must change its self-perception. If it does not wish to become irrelevant, it must adapt to the new world. It needs a conceptual retooling. In order to do justice to the world of the 21st century, it must catch up with the process of globalization, it must radically expand and diversify its targets and instruments.

Some had calculated that after the dissolution of the bipolar system the future would belong to the nation states again, with 189 states as independent players in the international system instead of the two superpowers. They were wrong! Whilst it is true that the process of globalization went hand in hand with processes of fragmentation, it was not only the two ideological blocs which became fragmented. Other major collective entities also started to crumble, including the nation state itself. In addition to national governments, countless transnational players in the economy and in society, science and culture, technology and ecology had long since started to assert their interests and spread their messages at global level. CNN, the Red Cross, Yehudi Menuhin, political scientists at Harvard University, the Internet and Greenpeace, not to mention the multinational corporations, now bring their influence to bear on foreign policy in a decentralized, autonomous manner. World citizens and global civil societies already exist, even if we do not yet have a World Constitution.

Limits to veto power
incase of genocide

At the same time, the end of the bipolar system opened up new possibilities for action for old and new players above the nation state level. Multilateral initiatives still frequently fail in the UN Security Council, but they no longer automatically fall foul of the self-interested veto of one or other major power. The intervention in Bosnia was based on a mandate from the Security Council. Those in Kosovo and Iraq took place without a mandate, but in the spirit of resolutions of the United Nations to prevent genocide and on the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Those who accuse NATO and the USA of not having a mandate in these cases must at least face up to the question whether they wish to tolerate genocide or the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction whenever a permanent member of the Security Council sees fit to use its veto for reasons of national interest.

Moreover, a new body of international criminal law is emerging. War criminals and perpetrators of genocide can no longer count on escaping unpunished. The WTO has been founded, NATO and the EU are enlarging to the East. With the euro, the first supranational monetary union since the end of the gold standard has been formed. People in Asia and America are wondering how the exchange rates of the euro against the dollar and the yen will develop. Who can doubt that all of this is far beyond the horizon of nation states' classical foreign policy.

Then, however, we have to ask: What will be the results of the uncontrolled interaction of foreign policy interests of subnational, national and supranational communities? Is "Responsible Globality" not a contradiction in terms? Do we have to reckon with chaos? Or can we rely on all concerned to realize that communication and cooperation are in their own best interest?

A world government may still be a vision of the future. I believe, however, that ­ even without such a government ­ international politics has already evolved into world domestic politics: the sum of the work of the countless bearers of foreign policy messages that I have just described. In nation states, too, at least the democratic ones, politics is by no means a matter for governments alone; rather, it relates to thousands of concerns and interests. The question is simply whether or not we can be satisfied with the results of such world domestic politics.

And we can only be satisfied if we manage to make the transition from the centuries-old politics of national interest to an era of responsible global politics. At present, I see only a very few who are willing to take on global responsibility. The USA is occasionally accused of taking on the role of a world policeman. But let me ask you, what would we do without the USA when the Security Council is paralyzed? We would have to invent it, or rouse ourselves to act. Apart from the USA, I can see almost no one on the world stage willing and able to assume global responsibility. Just think about the necessity of taking the lead in human rights issues, or in seeking peaceful solutions to conflicts, for instance in the Middle East. What would we do without the USA? International politics relies on the American ability and willingness to take decisions, just as the world economy relies on American dynamism. If only more nation states showed such responsibility!

World domestic policy could produce excellent results if as many participants as possible were to follow certain maxims in their foreign policy. For lack of a world government, foreign policy maxims cannot be ordered into being, but, to use a phrase coined by the philosopher Hans Jonas, they would reflect an "imperative of responsibility". It would be in the long-term interest of all concerned for each individual player to follow them on a voluntary basis, and hence participate in a predictable manner in what I would like to call the community of global responsibility. Maxims of decentralized action can lead to concerted strategies of a preventive global foreign policy. Preventive foreign policy would nip crises in the bud by creating an awareness of mutual interests, instead of waiting to try to heal them when they have already broken out. It would lead to greater international coordination and to closer-webbed global cooperation.

Eight maxims for foreign policy

I would like to name eight such maxims, hoping that this Forum will offer support in disseminating them among all concerned.

Firstly, each foreign policy player should regard it as being his responsibility to promote the global spread of democracy as a strategy for peace. Whilst Kant's dictum that democracies do not go to war against one another may not be entirely true, it has been impressively confirmed in Europe since 1945, and has assumed central significance since the 1970s in Africa, Asia and Latin America as well. There can be no lasting peace without democracy, either domestically or with one's neighbours.

Secondly, let me make a case for the protection of fundamental human rights as a worldwide minimum standard, since it is the first step on the path towards democracy. We did after all celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1998.

Thirdly, we have to renounce nationalism, the arms race and traditional power politics. All of these arise from ways of thinking which belong in the 19th century and which we have largely left behind us in Europe. Making these historical European mistakes all over again would spell disaster for the entire world.

My fourth maxim is not to replace the ideological confrontation of the Cold War, which we have just overcome, with scenarios of global cultural wars ­ as if the human race could not do very well without the law of the jungle. Of course we experience fundamentalist violence ­ and attempts are made to justify it on cultural and religious grounds ­ on a daily basis in Europe, America, Asia and other parts of the world alike. If we take a closer look, however, all this ultimately boils down to a clash with one's own civilization. We must prevent them becoming global conflicts.

My fifth maxim aims at foregoing "beggar thy neighbour" politics in the globalized economy. Compitetive devaluations, social dumping and protectionism have turned out to be unsuitable attempts to solve one's own problems to the detriment of one's trading partners. We would fall into a downward spiral in the world economy, even a depression comparable only with the world economic crisis of seventy years ago, if such political patterns won the day. Thus, going against this maxim would be utterly irrational.

Sixth, we should actively pursue a strategy of communication as a means of confidence-building. With the OSCE, a process of communication beyond ideological and geographical borders, we in Europe have supported and cushioned the historical breakthrough towards overcoming the division of Europe and Germany. I am of the opinion that this pattern could be repeated in many places in the world.

As a seventh maxim, I propose global, intercultural learning and research in order to solve practical problems. We need a global learning and research community to meet the major challenges of our time, which are global in nature, such as the stabilization of the world economy, the restoration of the ecological balance or the fight against international crime. This is also true of the tasks of peacekeeping, conflict prevention and settlement of disputes, which concern us all.

Let me just point out two impressive examples of the possibility of learning in economic policy, which are certainly intercultural. In the 1980s the USA learnt very actively from Japanese models of pre-competitive research cooperation in microelectronics, and Japan and Europe have every reason in the 1990s to take a lesson from the American model of budgetary discipline, monetary pragmatism and knowledge-based growth.

Regional Cooperation

With my eighth and final maxim, I would like to call for improved use of existing instruments of international and interregional cooperation. I am thinking here particularly of regional integration above nation state level. And I am of course thinking of the European Union, which has just taken a decisive step towards integration with the euro, a step that will at the same time dramatically change the global monetary system. Having said that, NAFTA, SADC, ASEAN, Mercosur and other groupings demonstrate that the idea of regional integration has taken root everywhere.

It is up to us to translate these maxims into concrete strategies for preventive foreign policy. "Good governance" should guide us as our aim and standard in international political action. We should also clarify together what we understand by "good governance" and how we are to measure it. Let us develop a new, clear understanding of the requirements of preventive action, of the means and resources needed for this purpose, and let us try to win domestic support for this endeavour.

This will be simpler in our societies once the fact of their being affected by global risks has taken root in the public awareness. In some areas this awareness has already developed. I am thinking here of the environment, where conduct in one part of the world has massive consequences in other parts. I am also thinking of cross-border crime, which can no longer be effectively contained by national politics. Above all, however, I am thinking of the world economic system, which witnessed a great deal of capital market turbulence last year, a turbulence seen as equally threatening everywhere.

There are other developments that concern us all, the consequences of which we have not yet understood. How, for instance, are we to solve the problems arising from demographic developments - rapid population growth in the developing countries on the one hand and a growing number of pensioners in the mature industrialized nations on the other? How are we to deal with the dissolution of social cohesion and the omnipotence of competitiveness at the cost of solidarity?

The first precondition for preventive action is for us to give our societies the freest possible structure. Open, free societies have unique sources of strength. They provide access to all decentralized sources of ideas in the fields of politics, economics, science and culture. Some may still find this paradoxical, but I believe that European history is the most conspicuous proof that free societies, in spite of all the democratic disputes, all their creative unrest, are more stable and peaceful in the long term than unfree, regulated and administrated societies. We therefore need to refute policies that thwart reforms because of cowardice, opportunism or fear of a loss of power. Citizens are perfectly aware that it is they who, in the end, have to pay the price for such failings. We therefore have to put a stop to political pettiness.

Crash barriers for markets

We need only think of the crises of the past few years in order to reflect on the advantages of preventive strategies as opposed to subsequent damage control, e.g. the currency and capital market crises in Asia, Russia and Latin America. There is a need here for "crash-barriers" around the markets to prevent panic reactions and to create confidence in the reliability of the markets. One key to greater stability and predictability would be international coordination of the economic policies of the leading industrialized nations. Such coordination should not be condemned as an unutterable "C word", but should rather be used as a pattern of responsibly dealing with globalization. If, as is the case at present, the danger of worldwide deflation cannot be ruled out, it is the responsibility of those governments and central banks which still have scope for action to help stimulate the world economy. This is also the case if one's own national economy does not yet appear to have been infected by deflation. In this area as well, preventive action is more efficient than crisis management after the fact.

The European and Japanese concepts proposals for stabilizing the exchange rates between the euro, the dollar and the yen should not be discarded as mere heresy, either. May I recall that coordinated management of exchange rates played a role in the agreed devaluation of the dollar under the 1985 Plaza Agreement, and again in shoring up the dollar in the summer of 1995. Why should something like this not be possible in the future as well?

The latest crises on the financial markets in South East Asia or in Russia are undoubtedly also due to inadequate banking supervision in these countries. Would it not be possible for, say, the IMF, the World Bank and the EBRD to jointly develop rules for maintaining of solvency and assessing credits for banks and to enforce and safeguard these rules internationally through effective controls?

The long-term strategic aim should be worldwide adherence to rules of a social market economy which combines welfare gains offered by the markets with protection against severe social disruptions. By developing the social market economy after the War, Germany was able to increase the ability of the capitalist system to produce social integration. Some proponents of "laissez-faire" criticize this as heresy This accusation, however, does not invalidate the idea of a social market economy. To be sure, Germany does not intend to teach anyone a lesson, and indeed there is no need for this. For Adam Smith, too, was a moral philosopher for whom the invisible hand of the market was not an end in itself, but a means to eliminate "barbarian circumstances". A frequently overlooked fact is that he, too, called for public infrastructures in education, health care and the protection of workers against social hardship.

If we are to have a world domestic policy, it must be founded on a world social order. Performance, efficiency and social balancing must be integrated the world over if we are to achieve not only social, but also political and economic stability at global level.

Finally, as far as the relationship between the levels of decision-making is concerned, ranging from subnational, through national and supranational to multinational, a transculturally convincing ordering principle is readily available. Decisions should be taken at the level where the best information flows together and where they can be best implemented. Switzerland has been practising this principle for 700 years, the USA for 200 years, Germany since 1949 and the European Union since 1957. This treasure chest of experience is open to everybody.

I am particularly keen on seeing the dialogue between cultures intensified in order to prevent the much-quoted "clash of civilizations". As was the case with arms control in the time of the ideological confrontation between East and West, the dialogue between the cultures is now taking on a confidence-building and hence peacekeeping role. Globalization, as well as the constant technical breakthroughs and the amplifying role of the media, lead to the various cultures affecting one another more rapidly and more intensively than ever before in history. This brings opportunities: The freedom to exchange information makes it possible for cultures to enrich one another, keeping them alive and preventing them from collecting dust in a museum. Greater transparency would, by the way, also facilitate more truth.

Human beings need
sense of belonging

But make no mistake: Our aim should not be a global mass culture. It also provokes contradictions, not so much between the major world cultures as between the forces of modernism and the forces of tradition within cultures. Our world without borders does not always lead to useful integration, but can also lead to a painful loss of identity and the sense of belonging. As human beings, we need to feel securely rooted in history and culture. Resentment and stubbornness, on the other hand, can result in intolerance and rejection.

This is why intercultural dialogue is so important. Politicians must lead and promote this process. If they fail to do so, the danger arises that conflict-minded sections of society might manipulate tradition, culture and religion in order to use them as tools in the interest of power politics or in economic competition. This we must prevent. Our thinking in this field should extend beyond material things. Aung San Suu Kyi, the champion of democracy and human rights in Myanmar, considers that some of the less palatable aspects of Western societies are due not to democracy, but to modern materialism which ignores cultural and human values, and where money reigns supreme. She is quite right. We must not forget the human soul.

I also feel highly encouraged by the Iranian President Mohammed Chatami. He has called on the Islamic societies not to hide inside the fortress of tradition, but to open up to the modern world, without falling prey to unbridled materialism. His call for a dialogue between the religions and his initiative for an "International Year of Cultural Dialogue" deserve every support. They appear to me to herald a policy of building confidence through greater knowledge of and greater respect for one another.

So you can see that what I am advocating is no less than a fundamental change in our thinking. Globalization in thinking must replace the intellectual status quo, and people must be made the focus of all political activity. Only then can we see globalization not as a threat, but as a challenge with a high potential for a new quality of cooperation, aimed at giving a positive shape to the 21st century. It would be wrong to close our eyes to globalization.

Secretary General Kofi Annan envisages a dialogue of a worldwide civil society for the next millennium. The United Nations therefore sees the world community as a worldwide community of responsibility. Let us even go one step further and see the world community as a community of opportunity! Let us leave behind the anarchy of nation state politics. Let us use the interplay of globalized foreign policies as world domestic policy. The international system of nation states can thus develop into a global political system. Let us pin our hopes even today on the citizens of this world community. In this way, the century of wars can be followed by a century of peace.

We all know that so far this is only an opportunity. Nevertheless, it is an opportunity of which we should never again lose sight.