„Forum 2000 has become a very good place for meetings, where it is possible to reach a consensus.”
Frederik Willem de Klerk, Former President of South Africa, 2003
HomepageProjectsForum 2000 Conferences1997TranscriptsMorning Session, Sept. 5

Morning Session, Sept. 5

Oscar Arias Sanchez
I am going to give the floor to John Silber. John Silber is a highly respected intellectual in the United States and all over the world. He is the president of Boston University and he is currently the chairperson of the board of education in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Dr. Silber.

John Silber
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Timothy Garton Ash aptly said that the peaceful liberation of Czechoslovakia was distinguished by its speed, its improvisation, its merriness, and the absolutely central role of Václav Havel who was all at once director, playwright, stage manager and leading actor in this his greatest play. The achievement of this peaceful liberation gives us hope even as we contemplate the darker moments in the history of this century.
Humanity or its history has veered constantly between optimism and pessimism. In any age assessment of the dangers and opportunities is inevitably constrained by perspective. Most citizens of Periclean Athens would have looked to the future with confidence. But the Syracusan misadventure and the Peloponesian disaster were just over the horizon. Under Augustus Romans looked forward to a Golden Age yet Caligula, Nero and Domitianus were waiting in the wings. In 476 the last emperor, Romulus Augustus, fell. In that year the only optimistic Romans belonged in madhouses. Yet within three centuries the so-called Barbarians had produced a Charlesmagne. And within three centuries later the Renaissance of the 11th century was under way. After three more centuries, however, Europe experienced the prolonged bloodletting of the 100 years' war, the scandal of the religious schism and the unimaginable horror of the black death. And yet, at the same time, another renaissance was born. Perspective is the key for, although the 17th century was the century of the Thirty Years' War, it was also the century of Galileo, Kepler, Rubens and Monteverdi.
The savants of the age might well have coded Shakespeare's Miranda. "Oh what a brave new world is this that hath such wonders in it." But a Schwabian peasant, his farm and crops burnt and his wife raped and killed, his children starving, would have brooded in hopeless despair or looked to religion for solace.
I will cite only one more example. In 1910 the British Empire and the old order of Europe stood at their peak, a fact seen in the pageant at Edward IV's funeral. "When emperors and kings rode peacefully down Piccadilly to honour the king they called: 'Uncle of Europe'." Four years later a bullet in Sarajevo started the war that would destroy that order and waste an entire generation of European males. Sarajevo has come back to horrors.
As we in the present await the new millennium, how should we mix pessimism and optimism, hope and despair? First of all, we must realise that this is a contingent world. At any time and place, a perspective that seems as clear and faded as the vanishing lines in a well constructed painting may dissolve into chaos. In one moment the Archduke Franz Ferdinand was riding happily next to his beloved wife, the next moment they were both dying - and the order they represented had received its death blow. This is the consequence of contingency, a constant factor not only in human affairs but in nature. Witness Monserrat and the volcano there. That can alter perspective in an instant. We should bear it in mind in viewing the optimistic and influential scenario posited by Francis Fukuyama: the end of history. Looking at Africa we can find evidence to support both optimism and pessimism. In South Africa democracy appears to be taking hold. But in Zaire the dreadful consequences of kleptocracy are more apparent by the day. In Burundi and Rwanda we see reciprocated genocide and in Burma democracy is not even an idea of any significance.
A second factor that can alter our perspective is a constant that multiplies the contingencies of life - human nature itself. The notion of human perfectibility has been thoroughly discredited. Original sin from which the cardinal sins follow has been more than amply confirmed, empirically in the history of this century - in brutalising world wars, the holocaust and other genocides, in ethnic wars of extermination, in widespread starvation in a world with sufficient food for all, and in the growing disparity of the rich and poor exacerbated by the global market economy in which multinational corporations shamelessly exploit the workers in developing countries concerned with only one value - an increase in the profits of their own stockholders.
William Golding in the Lord of the Flies convincingly illustrated mankind's innate capacity for evil in the story of the children marooned on an island and left to govern themselves. They did not need television, drugs or any other degenerate influences to become cruel and murderous.
A third factor increasing the uncertainty of our future must be borne in mind. All ethical, legal and moral codes are normative, not descriptive. Human beings may know their duty but fail to perform it. Several speakers yesterday spoke of the importance of developing a secular moral code that would encompass the moral perspectives of the major world religions. We can easily imagine what is necessary by a simple thought experiment - put oneself in the position of Moses. What rules would one have to legislate in order to insure the cohesion of the community and its survival. One would have to prohibit murder, theft, adultery and most of the other behaviour prohibited by the Decalogue. But these prohibitions would not be universally obeyed, any more than the golden rule is universally obeyed, even though it appears in similar formulations around the world.
Confucius was asked: Is there one word that may serve as a rule of practice for all of one's life? He replied: "Is not 'reciprocity' such a word? What you do not want done to yourself, do not do unto others." About the same time the Buddha said: "Hurt not others in a way that you would find hurtful". And a little later Socrates expressed himself in almost identical terms: "Do not do to others what would anger you if done to you." The great Jewish tenet puts it this way: "What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man". That is the entire law. All the rest is commentary. Jesus stated the law affirmatively: "Whatsoever you would that man should do to you, do also unto them."
Finally, this law was given a definitive theoretical formulation by Immanuel Kant in the three formulations of the categorical imperative, a formulation that is valid in any country or among any ethnic group without recourse to divine providence: "So act that the principle of your act can be a universal law". In addition we now have a universal declaration of human responsibilities to support and supplement the universal declaration of human rights. Chancellor Schmidt presented it to us yesterday.
But here we have the golden rule, the universal declarations of human rights and human responsibilities and the commandments for a peaceful and cohesive global community. But is there any guarantee that any of these will be observed? Where is the motivation, that essential element of which the Dalai Lama spoke?
Despite ample evidence of human depravity, human beings have immense inventiveness and resilience and the capacity for exulted idealism - and goodness. The history of the Czechs and Slovaks in this century is a remarkable account of those qualities. Putting aside the wisdom of their separation, the fact that they could part in peace and in good spirit demonstrates the nobility of our species. It is an example of humanity's response to its better angels.
When yesterday President Havel talked about the importance of finding meaning in life, he came to the heart of the matter. It is not enough that we exist. It is not enough that we seek happiness. It is not enough that we seek some satisfaction. It is not even enough that we be healthy. There has to be meaning and purpose in life. Professor Capra objected that an order of intelligence without purpose but with science is enough. He dismissed the concern for purpose as an example of anthropocentrism. But he seemed to overlook the anthropocentric nature of science. It is a glorious human achievement, an expression of human creativity and anthropocentric to the core. It is an anthropocentric distortion and limitation of human concerns if it is taken as the full and true account of all that is. President Havel rightly said that there is no one to judge between Professor Capra and himself. But each of us must judge for ourselves.
We may not know the purpose of life but we feel the need for purpose. And many scientists forget about the fact that their theory offers no purpose while they purposely seek new theories. Torquil anticipated President Havel's conclusion when he stressed the importance of transcendence and the belief in another world in order to understand the meaning of this one. He said: "People learn by imperceptible degrees in ages of faith to repress a crowd of petty passing desires in order ultimately to best satisfy the one great permanent longing which obsesses them. When the same men engage in worldly affairs, such habits influence their conduct. That is why religious nations have often accomplished such lasting achievements. For in thinking of the other world they have found the great secret of success in this. But in sceptical ages the vision of life to come is lost - a problem that is exacerbated in democracies where people are set free to compete with each other to improve their situations. In such a combination of circumstances the present looms large and hides the future so that man does not want to think beyond tomorrow."
If mankind is to respond to its better angels in a world increasingly informed by what Torquil called "petty passing desires", we need to start thinking once again beyond tomorrow and beyond the next millennium. Motivation may be found in transcendence that is not based on revealed religion but on our common awareness of concern for the unknown and perhaps unknowable ultimate which reveals the vanity of our quotidian concerns. We may experience transcendence in the presence of great art, music, painting, sculpture, poetry, or just as possibly in moments of solitude when, to use Spinoza's phrase, "we contemplate our lives, our plans and our deeds under the aspect of eternity". Thank you.

Oscar Arias Sanchez
Thank you very much, Dr. Silber, for your profound remarks. I offer the floor now to Mr Tze-Chi Chao. He is president of the World League for Freedom and Democracy.

Tze-Chi Chao
Mrs. Chairman, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of the World League for Freedom and Democracy I would like to express my deepest gratitude for the honour of participating in this Forum. This international gathering, which is taking place in the heart of Europe at the onset of a new millennium, holds profound significance for the advancement of human well-being and world peace. Together we will discuss the important moral, ideological and spiritual issues as we prepare to enter the 21st century.
As we prepare to pass into a new millennium we must also look back upon the human tragedies and human suffering which occurred over the course of the 20th century as the results of two World Wars and the long period of the Cold War. Within the past 50 years, however, the international situation has witnessed a gradual shift to greater regional co-operation, the termination of bipolar ideological conflict and a steady increase in living standards. Such developments are truly a cause for joy and we intend to continue our common struggle and pursuit of further gains.
We understand very well that the essence of both eastern and western cultures embraces the ideals of freedom, democracy, human rights, equality and fraternal love as central themes. The tradition of Chinese moral concepts, of its Confucianism with its emphasis on the path of benevolence and universal love, thus present a universal model for mankind in establishing a peaceful and harmonious society. Politically, this means responsible government on the basis of the people's will. In the Book of History it is written: "Heaven observes what the people sees and heaven listens through the people's ears." This aptly explains that the way of heaven or benevolent rule within the harmonious society has no concrete definition or limitation. Rather it is founded upon the spirit of respect for the people's will, for the popular will. And in the Four Books a formula for good governance has been succinctly stated: What is good for the people is good, what is bad for the people is bad. Thus the eastern political ideal of social stability and fair government is also a common political aspiration of western societies. This is sufficient proof that East and West can join together in a joint contribution to human well-being.
The great thinker and revolutionary Dr SunYatsen relied on traditional Chinese culture and aspects of western culture to formulate his well-known three principles of the people, in which he put forth three fundamental conditions for achieving world peace. First, there must be equality for all people of the world, minorities must be protected and the spirit of brotherhood must be enhanced. Second, all citizens must be treated equally under the law. Power must rest with the people and their rights and interests must be safeguarded within a fully democratic system. Third, there must be economic equality within a free market system. People and nations must work together for their benefit. Excessive concentration of wealth must be avoided and people must have security in their material lives. Dr Sun recognised that all human disputes originate from inequality and ignorance, and that the world will not know peace until these factors are eliminated. Dr Sun also introduced a theory on the fundamental nature of peaceful morality. He emphasised that only with morality can nations survive, only with morality can there be peace. This not only corresponds to the traditional eastern culture; it can also provide inspiration and serve as a contribution to the advancements of peace throughout the world.
Almost 3,000 years ago eastern culture had already developed a deep respect for values of morality, peace and human well-being. As reflected in the lofty ideal of the universal brotherhood contained in the Asian book of rights, the great principle that prevails in the common world is a commonwealth in which rulers are selected according to their wisdom and ability. Mutual confidence is promoted and good neighbourliness is cultivated. Hence men do not regard as parents only their own parents, nor do they treat as children their own children. Provision is secured for the aged until death, employment for the able-bodied and the means for growing up for the young, helpless widows and widowers, orphans and the lonely as well as the sick and the disabled are all well cared for. Men have their respective occupations; women their homes. They do not like to see wealth lying idle, yet they do not keep it for their own gratification. They despise indolence, yet they do not use their energies for their own benefit. In this way selfish scheming is repressed, robbers, thieves and other lawlessness cease to exist. And there is no need for people to shut their doors because this is called the great harmony. This offers a comprehensive summation of the essence of human aspirations and it is entirely consistent with the modern day spirit of the global village.
As for human necessities, none are more important than the need for spiritual enrichment, material comfort and freedom from fear. As we face the advent of a new century it is our hope that enlightened people of the world can join together in pursuit of the ultimate ideals of eastern morality - a world which is the domain of all in a spirit of universal brotherhood. Let East and West seek harmony through the continuous advancement of science and technology, the upholding of human freedoms and political democracy, and the consolidation of forces to create a better and more prosperous future for all mankind.
Ladies and gentlemen, I have come all the way from Taiwan, a place where after 40 years of hard work we are well on the way to economic prosperity and political democracy. It is another proof that these values do work regardless of time or space, East or West. President Havel, the person who has been credited most during the past decade for his efforts in this direction, believes that there is no difference in essence in this regard, be it East or West. The only difference rests in the degree of achievement. Therefore, before I conclude my remarks, I wish to extend to you on behalf of the World League for Freedom and Democracy, to you all my most sincere invitation to come to Taiwan as my honoured guests so that you will be able to see first hand for yourselves what we have done and what are true characteristics of eastern culture. It will undoubtedly help to enhance the mutual understanding and future co-operation between East and West. Thank you and God bless.

Oscar Arias Sanchez
I offer now the floor to Mr. Joshua Lederberg. Mr. Lederberg is the recipient of the Nobel Prize for medicine in 1958. He is also a member of The US National Academy of Sciences and a recipient of The US National Medal for science.

Joshua Lederberg
Thank you. I think my task was to open a small window on to the horizons of science and technology in the next millennium. Considering that the doubling rate of scientific accomplishment occurs about every 12 years, to look ahead even two or three times to a number halfway into the next century would already mean the overturning of almost all the familiar foundations that we recognise today. One can use the disciplined exercise of the imagination to get some outlines of what lies ahead of us but those would still sound so fantastic that I hesitate to even place them on the table. But certainly, in the fields that concern us the most - like that of health - there are prospects of continued revolutionary changes just as this last century has altered the very framework of human existence: from the life expectancy of forty something to that of around 80, to the reduction of infant mortality in advanced countries so that it is no longer the dominant expectation on the birth of a child - you expect it to survive rather than expect it not to - and the ageing of our population and many other ways, in which human nature has already been profoundly altered by these inescapable facts.
But there will hardly be times to compress all of that in ten minutes. I am going to focus on one particular aspect of our interface with biological science and medicine and I am going to talk about knowledge and about disease, because these have the most to do with how we establish ourselves in society. That applies especially to communicable disease. A communicable disease is not the major source of mortality in advanced countries at the present, but throughout the world it remains so.
Worldwide, people are killed much more by malaria and tuberculosis and other communicable infections than they are from the diseases of the excessively advanced countries where cancer and heart disease have taken their place. Another major reason for that displacement has simply been the ageing of the population, and the removal of infectious causes of early death - which has left the way for more age-dependent infirmities like cancer and heart disease to achieve prominence. But there are even more accelerations than that in the lifestyles of advanced countries. Heart disease, in particular, is connected with diet and other aspects of lifestyle. Cancer has much more of a genetic component - it is much more already in our genes but even there lifestyle has an effect. For example, the deferral of pregnancy on the part of women is a major risk factor with respect to breast cancer. And, above all, the continued use of tobacco in various forms is probably the major insult that we do to our genes with respect to cancer.
But I will talk about communicable diseases because - more than any other aspect of disease - when someone else is sick it really does matter to you, not merely out of compassion, not only out of the fact that there may be some common environmental causes but because communicable disease is catching. It can move form one individual to another, and it can move readily across international boundaries just as well as from one place to another on this table. In fact, the two are conflated at the present time: we here together are illustrative of another unique phenomenon of the current stage of human development, which is the total breakdown of geography. We have today a world situation in which every day more than one million people cross national boundaries by air alone. This takes no account of forced migrations, of wars, of refugees, or of other kinds of traffic.
There is an exaggeration of the globalization of the economy in the face of a banal statistic of that kind and, of course, this has enormous implications for the rapidity with which in fact this agency can be readily transmitted from one place to another. If you think this is mere speculation, consider the AIDS epidemic which has become pandemic throughout the world, slowly developing into a chronic situation and in the course of 15 years it has moved from being a regional problem to a highly multifarious global one. It really is several diseases because there are different forms of the virus, the virus is itself evolving very, very quickly and while there is some medication from current therapeutic approaches it is still a problem we are far from having solved and it will progress much, much further before it can be turned around. Perhaps during the next century it will be, but the prospect of its eradication is a very dubious question, indeed.
But I mentioned that just to illustrate the reality underneath the complacency we had 20 and 25 years ago, that owing to the development of good sanitation, of antibiotics, of vaccines - we did have the conquest of polio, we had the eradication of small pox there was a deeply ingrained complacency that at least the advanced countries no longer needed to worry about communicable infections. We are paying a heavy price throughout the world today for that complacency. We hear reports of meningitis, of new forms of disease - a monkey pox in Zaire, of severe epidemics of cholera and I could go on with page upon page of the emerging infections, some of which have emerged in our consciousness, some of which have emerged as the realities of contemporary existence that really put us to shame when we talked about having achieved the conquest of these diseases.
Even some of the most important instruments that we have developed for the control of infection, particularly antibiotics, are beginning to fail notoriously because the bacteria themselves are in a constant process of further evolution, having been subjected to the selective pressures that our very heavy use - very often overuse and abuse - of antibiotics has generated to the point where they are used for trivial purposes and spoil their applicability for the most serious ones. We are finding examples of one infection after another where our existing antibiotics are no longer up to the task. So in New York city at our finest hospitals and medical centers we have people who are dying of intestinal infections because there is simply no longer any antibiotic available for their treatment.
And there is a real fear that the same phenomenon is emerging with respect to staphylococci, the most common source of wound infections during and after surgery. We have become quite complacent with penicillin and thought that through the most recent antibiotics, vancomycin, that we could always take care of it. But now there are even vancomycin-resistant strains emerging and popping up in staphylococcus at several places around the world and this will make hospitals very dangerous places to go to. You will not be able to avoid it but there will be serious hazards to being in an environment where there has been focused selection because of the very short term perspective with which we use our hard earned advances in science for that treatment. So what is all this? It is a complacency about what we have got, it is a nonchalance about the troubles of others that we make token gestures with regard to the health of the people beyond our borders and we are now beginning to pay the price in purely selfish terms for taking such a narrow view of the problems around us.
Let me be very concrete about what I view as the most tangible threat - and that is influenza. You may be surprised to hear about that. We think of that as being just a bad cold. I do not know if there is anyone in this room who would have been a survivor of the 1918 pandemic of flu but we have all had relatives and ancestors and perhaps only need to be very gently reminded that this event was the major demographic event in the vital statistics of the 20th century in the western world. 25 million people were killed in the space of one year by this pandemic, a number equal to that of the causalities from combat in World War One, and yet we seem to have totally forgotten about it. The genetic mechanisms, by which new influenza strains are being generated, continue to operate all the time.
There can be absolutely no question that the same process that generated that particular strain of influenza in 1918 will recur again. And the preparations that we have made for this inevitability are pitiful and grossly inadequate to the circumstances. And, while we have better supportive care and hospital care, I do not think we will have the same mortality rate as we did if it is the same strain as the one we had at that time: the sheer numbers of the population, the crowded condition of the world and the speed of transport of people from one to another means that in many aspects we are not less but more vulnerable today than we were at the time of that circumstance. So we have a common cause, there is an enemy, that is the enemy of all humankind, and we should be mobilising together.
There should not be the least question about a shared common interest in this sphere and we should pay attention to it. We do have the World Health Organisation, which is occasionally distracted from its political embroilments to get back to its basic business of trying to protect the health of the world. It is still a pitiful token indeed in relation to the actual scope of the problem.
And then, if that were not enough, I have to just mention a further complication. While infectious disease represents a common threat against the species, there are those who would commit treason against that common bond and intentionally use infectious agents for malicious purposes. I am speaking of biological warfare, I am referring to a condition which has been dealt with as well as such things generally are - through diplomatic channels in the negotiation of treaties. There has been an absolute prohibition on the possession, use, development and application of such weapons in war, and it is a prohibition which is systematically violated in many parts of the world.
The country we know the most about is Iraq, because we have had the opportunity since the Gulf War to have an on-site inspection and the exposure of a major programme of the development of anthrax and biological weapons. But we know there are dozens of other countries who are doing much the same. I worry less than about the rogue states than I do about rogue individuals since we have a circumstance whereby it is possible for individuals to make war against society and against the world community with the use of weapons of this kind. And in that arena our treaties do not do very much good, and we are so preoccupied with other disputes that we are very poorly organised to cope with that threat. It is probably the most severe threat of civil society that can be imagined. If you can just visualise the circumstances in which it becomes habitual for people to work out their grievances with one another by poisoning with the use of infectious agents that are readily available from people who are already diseased. You could see how civil society could in fact be destroyed if we do not reinforce the existing moral norms and existing moral prohibitions, which I think have operated in some measure - it is the only way that I can account for the fact that we have not seen major use of these agents in recent history to the degree that is technically possible.
So I would appeal to you also to try to imagine the ways in which our moral revulsion against the possibility of invoking those kinds of forces of darkness - given that we have to devote so much scientific and medical effort to protect against diseases from natural sources - can ensure that those moral norms are very widely shared throughout the world, that people will not dare to think of using those weapons. And if they do, they will have no other friend whatsoever, no matter what their grievance or what the cause that promoted their application.

Oscar Arias Sanchez
Thank you, Dr. Lederberg. I offer the floor now to Mr Jack Lang. Mr Lang is the president of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the French National Assembly, and he also the former French minister of culture, minister of state and minister of national education.

Jack Lang
Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, dear friends, what we have heard from Dr. Lederberg has really sent a shiver up our spine listening about the true threats. Since Dr. Lederberg is a renowned scientist, I hope that he and his colleagues will help us find some tool or weapon against such epidemics. We have convened here today to speak on the topic of the year 2000. The year 2000 is a notion which concerns us very much but I have to admit it is a very abstract notion. It is actually just one second or even less than one second and it is a moment which has been arbitrarily chosen as the point when we pass from one millennium to another.
What does this third millennium mean? It is very difficult to imagine within the span of one human life what is one century. How to imagine what is one millennium? And that is why I think that the manner in which Elie Wiesel and the organisers have challenged us to reflect on this matter was a challenge to think about it in a more specific manner, so we should not think about one particular moment X but about more interesting things relating to the third millennium, that is the universality of the progress and also the universality of retreat. And I think that we have a choice of both the best and the worst. If we look back into the past, especially this 20th century which is coming to the end - a century which has brought a lot of bloodshed but also a lot of miracles, of destruction and also a lot of liberation but also a lot of enslavement. This is a certain vision of progress, both intellectual and technological, which needs to be specified.
We understood that even the best technology can be used for a good purpose to build something but also to destroy, as we learned from the French Noble Laureate, Francois Jacob. Look at a knife. A knife can either serve to peel potatoes or an apple, or can be used to stab our neighbor in his back. So we are going through a transient period.
The Italian communist intellectual, Antonio Gramsci, spoke of periods of crisis, of periods when the old are dying only with great difficulties and the new is clearing its way also with great difficulties. And I believe that the saying of Saint Augustine that we should work for the uncertain is a very interesting quote. I apologize if I am not quoting it correctly, I hope that I am not going to say something silly now. Cardinal, if I speak about Pascal in the context of Saint Augustine, he said that if we work for the future and for what is not certain we are acting wisely. I am of course drawing on rational points of departure. I think we should narrow this concept of the unsure. I have no ready answer to give you but - maybe for the very young - I would like to provide a more solid moral and intellectual structure. I believe that only such common moral values can restrict the unsure, that which is unsure, uncertain - or at least make it productive. And excuse me for going back to basics but I would like to mention solidarity and justice.
Inequality is on the growth between countries and within individual countries. One billion people live on a budget of one dollar a day. Mr. Lederberg spoke of the situation in health and if we talk about trying to treat diseases like AIDS, then the wealthiest countries today have therapies available while the poor countries with larger incidence of AIDS are decimated in enormous numbers. I will not speak too long on this topic but we could mention hegemony, dominance of one nation over the other, one system over the other, but I would like to focus on another thing which was brought up yesterday by Chancellor Schmidt, and that is freedom and democracy. I found what the Chancellor said very interesting. We, of course, know him from the times when he was Chancellor as a person who implemented economic transformation. But what he said about the necessity to demand responsibility is fundamental, in my view.
The states that signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights do have responsibilities. And that means the citizens of the countries also have the responsibility to see to it that these words do not remain only on paper. And I think that now we are capable of feeling both enchantment and disappointment because democracy has made progress. Look at this country, look at the country of Mr. Geremek - and I apologize for not naming all of them. These countries have decided to get rid of dictatorship. We can also be happy with the situation in South Africa. You, Mr President, are an excellent example. And also elsewhere in the world democracy has conquered new territory.
We daily oppose abuses of human rights and, of course, I can speak best on behalf of my own country and the EU. I am often shocked when I find that - due to indifference - a member-state only a couple kilometers from our border allows abuse of human rights. I will not speak about Bosnia because we heard about that yesterday, but in the European Union we trade with Turkey, a large country with such military power that allows the destruction of Kurdish villages, a country where torture occurs regularly. And yet the EU averts its gaze.
We heard of the situation in East Timor. I hope that my country will change its stance in that respect. Indonesia is of course a source of a large economic profit and of course the arms trade plays an important role, but it is not possible for European countries based on human rights to continue in trade with such countries. I am not speaking of our relations with Iran. Although there has been a certain progress there, the ambassadors have not returned to Teheran. But still I would expect a more marked gesture against the fatwa, against our colleague Salman Rushdie. There are a number of other examples, I will not speak of all of them. The Council of Europe, for instance, is helpless or inactive on human rights abuses in the countries of the Council of Europe.
And to say a few words about artists on the question of censorship and freedom, it is not only a question of censorship. There are economic tools, which totalitarian regimes can use. We had an important Czech film director here yesterday, and if we think of the financial assistance directed into cinematography - how that was abused - we can ask about the freedom of a film director and this leads me to the third item. That is the spirit, our intellect, our perception, culture, education, research. I think that all of us, and especially you who are active in that sphere, must demand a central position in our societies, which must invest more into the brain, into the work of the brain. That is an important task for the future. It is true of culture, it is true of science. I do not know whether you know the well-known quote of Nietzsche in the introduction to The Origin of Tragedy where he speaks of how the ruling class feels that artistic work is a small kind of ornamental decoration. Culture and science are considered to be something very minor. It should not be like that. I think they should have a central position and we must exert more endeavour in the education of our citizens to be more resistant to hegemonic rules.
There is one more thing in which we have to be more active, and that is in the revolution of education in most countries. Let us state openly that the educational systems devised at the end of the last century have not been adapted to the modern world. We must invent a school, an educational system, which would prepare and develop the intellectual abilities of man. That is not just the accumulation of encyclopaedic knowledge, it is more than that - and in this respect we have to make more progress. We have to support individual competition, mental work, and we want thinking and experimentation to substitute the accumulation of theoretical knowledge.
So, to conclude, what I have said so far relates to young people because young people are the vectors of the new harmonious society to which we aspire. Many politicians are cut off from young people in their countries - for instance, on our territory, what does the concept of the European Union mean for the young generation, which would participate in the building of this new Europe. I believe that any politician who does not keep asking the question: How does my decision affect, and how useful will it be for, people who in 10-15 years will become adults. So what we experienced in Paris a couple of days ago and what you probably saw on your TV screens - I am a doubting Thomas a bit, but what we experienced in Paris, this beautiful meeting of thousands and thousands of young people on the occasion of the Pope's visit, should also have some impact on how politicians form relations with young people. There were many people also from remote parts of the world, proving by their presence that they prefer co-operation to conflict and that they prefer a spiritual to a material oriented society. If we want to build the society of the future together, then this should be a collectively perceived need. If you want to restrict the unsure or the uncertain, or if you want the uncertain to be constructive, creative, productive, I believe then that our motto should be: To globalize solidarity, to globalize freedom and to globalize democracy, to respond at the global level to this need for spirituality and in this country, where we find ourselves today, which conquered force with poetry, there is proof that we should be able to achieve this goal.

DISCUSSION

Oscar Arias Sanchez
Thank you, Mr Lang, for your inspiring remarks, and now I offer the floor to Mr. Ivanov.

Vyaceslav Vsevolodovic Ivanov
I would like to add some remarks to the very stimulating speech of Joshua Lederberg. Among the very important problems pointed out, I would like to stress still the problem not only of biological warfare, but in general of the possibility of the misuse of modern science and scientific technology. Yesterday Sergey Kovalyov was speaking about the necessity of some kind of world government. It seems to me that one of the reasons that makes some world regulation necessary is the development of modern science. Modern science should become independent of any particular government. We should find some way to develop modern science without the necessity of the dictates of government. You know, you all have the belief that things in Eastern Europe have changed. Possibly, it is so but I am quite sure that what used to be true about Russian biological research still holds: there are some indications of the continuing secrecy, even of some secret cities that still exist in the areas where the military use of biology was practised 10 or 20 years ago. So I think that something should be radically changed. Otherwise we will enter the next century with the possibility not only of biological warfare but also of the misuse of the growing science of brain research. But many important discoveries in this field are tremendously important and very dangerous.
The spirit is endangered by the possibility of a totalitarian or any other government trying to control it and to influence it using future scientific technology. So I think that this is quite a practical and a very important and urgent question - a question that should not be discussed only by scientists. And the problem of terrorists, of individuals who may lead warfare against society - that was also an interesting remark from Joshua Lederberg.
That problem was widely discussed in Russia by Andrei Sacharov. He thought that this was the main danger connected with the technology of modern nuclear research. So I think that without discussing this we cannot believe that we may make the near future safe. Thank you.

James Lovelock
Joshua Lederberg's sombre words moved me also, and I approved and agreed with everything he said. But I wonder if I could add to his wise advice the thought that similar force applies to the problem of diseases among farm animals - some of the bizarre consequences we have only recently seen in Europe with the BSE disease and the possibilities of transfer from animals to us are very much in my mind. I also feel that this is not just a matter for medical experts but it does really concern all of us. It is the responsibility of all of us when we come to dealing with this problem of disease. Thank you.

Raimon Panikkar
I am a leftover of yesterday's discussion but I think I can also connect with the present one. I would like to make an intercultural remark which has in my opinion been rather absent on this floor regarding globalization. An Indian scientist was boasting of what in India is called "a forceful natural integration" to a group of peasants and saying: "We have sent a man to the moon." And a peasant retorted: "Sir, but you don't know whom you sent." What is man? Do we really know what man is? We still have the persistence of the colonial syndrome of speaking for all times, all humanities, all cultures. If I would like to call my friend Cornel West a "nigger", he would find himself insulted - although we have a nation which is called Nigeria. The world will not develop an underlying anthropology, which is mechanistic and which worships linear time-like progress, like advancement. I would plea for a little more humility, especially among intellectuals. We have the best intentions just as all the colonisers have the best intentions; we are not all exploiters. They wanted to bring one civilisation, one world, they had the best intentions.
Imagine, for a moment, the change of theme if, instead of using the term "peoples on the way to development", we would use "on the way to enlightenment". The panorama changes. This is a delicate question because obviously I could not agree more that today we need a working ethical declaration upon which all peoples agree. But without discussion to universality transcending space, time and everything, are we going to say that Socrates, Thomas Aquinas, the popes, everybody until a couple of centuries put up quite comfortably with slavery and some of them tried to defend it by even invoking the Bible? Time changes. We have to be concrete in our times - but not to extrapolate, scientifically speaking, when we have these good intentions of declaration of human responsibilities for our present world, here and now.
And one final point. A quandary was prompted by me, and by Shimon Peres, who is not here I think. It is very sincere quandary because I am totally for human rights, for human responsibility, but intercultural caution called me to say another thing. I put it as a quandary. Technocracy and technology, it was said, do not need frontiers. Technocracy and also technology do not need a majority. I feel an incompatibility between democracy and technocracy. If you go for the world of technocracy, technocracy will be in command irrespective of what the people want or do not want. And we like to think we know what is good for the people and the people will simply listen. This is a word of caution we should hear for the next millennium. President Havel spoke of a change of civilisation. In one sentence, this change of civilisation is not cosmetics. Thank you.

Oscar Arias Sanchez
Thank you, Mr. Panikkar. Mr. Sato.

Seizaburo Sato
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I personally do respect the importance of ideas, and I do acknowledge the importance of the region and so on. Now, having said that, I have some reservations about democracy, basic concepts of democracy, equality and human rights. Not because I don't like democracy - I do believe that democracy is the best form of government. But we should be careful. Democracy does not guarantee good government. A famous British writer, George Bernard Shaw, once said: "Democratisation means the change from the political system in which the leaders are chosen by the corrupted few to the political system in which the leaders are chosen by the foolish majority." This is a very cynical comment about democracy but there is a truth indeed, some truth indeed. And more than that, democracy has its own state boundaries. I do think that people living in poor countries should have a chance to enjoy the much worthier living standard. In order to attain that the people coming from the worthy countries including Japan, from which I am here, should devote much more resources to help the development of these countries. But under the democracies, almost without exceptions, the government expenditures on aid cannot be so popular - especially when these governments have to deal with serious deficits. And that demonstrates the limits of democratic government.
The second point I'd rather desist are the human rights. Yesterday someone pointed out that there is a lot of hypocrisy in preaching about human rights. Very few political leaders are brave enough to criticise the human rights abuses in China or Saudi Arabia, but they are ready to attack Burma or Indonesia. As many undemocratic countries were colonised in the 19th and 20th centuries by Western parts, so the people from these countries tend to react negatively when westerners try to preach the importance of human rights. I personally do believe in the importance of human rights but I understand their sentiment, their reactions when they are preached to by westerners about human rights. Easterners try to say: "What did you do to us when you colonised us?" Thank you.

Oscar Arias Sanchez
Thank you, Mr. Sato. Mr. Ramos-Horta:

José Ramos-Horta
About a year ago I was in Japan, and one deputy in the Japanese parliament argued with me along the same lines that Mr. Sato has argued. He said that in Asian culture, when there are disputes the parties involved in the dispute refer to the confrontation between the enterprises and the workers, the government and the people. But then I asked him: Then how do you explain that in Kiangling there was no dialogue, that in the streets of Rangoon there was no dialogue, in the streets of Bangkok there was no dialogue. It is probably very nice for the Asian governments to lecture the rest of the world about consensus building but then when it comes to their own people they forget consensus building, in the case of the millions of those in Burma, in Thailand, in the Philippines, in China who want human rights, fundamental freedoms and rule of law.
I would like to address another point raised yesterday by Professor Polanyi, which is whether in addressing human rights issues there should be public confrontation or constructive engagement. I think the two can go hand in hand. In some countries there can be dialogue. Even a country like Indonesia, where I would probably be the first to argue for total sanctions, there are certain sectors in Indonesian society and in the regime itself that are amenable to dialogue. Yes, you should use dialogue with them. And my friend, the honourable Gareth Evans, was in the past for many years on the receiving end of my criticism because he shunned public and private discourse in Indonesia and I thought at that time that he did not do anything at all.
And, in fact, it was a lovely Canadian diplomat who once in Osaka, of all places, over a beer, not a sake, told me that yes, in fact, the Australian Embassy in Jakarta, of all the western embassies, was the most active in making private demarches. Since then I have been embarrassed and changed my mind about Gareth Evans' approach. But the public often never know whether the government is presenting private demarches or not. And the public must be satisfied at some point about how that particular government is standing up for the values to which the people in that society adhere. There comes the dilemma for the governments to sort out - between the dimness from your own constituency for accountability on this front and the need for polite but firm engagement of the country that violates human rights.

Oscar Arias Sanchez
Thank you. Mr Castoriadis.

Cornelius Castoriadis
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have three remarks on what has been said. The first and the most urgent coming to my mind for the whole of this conference is that there is a tremendous deficit here in the distinction to be made between words and deeds, between theories and facts. Hypocrisy is universal in the field of pragmatic politics, of realpolitik as Germans say, and nobody is entitled to give lessons to others in this sense. The only slight difference that exists is the one which I am going to insist upon in my third remark, between internal versus external politics. In internal politics it is very difficult for the US government, for the French government, for the British government - when the question is not about Ireland, Northern Ireland, etc. - to be as hypocritical as they can be in external politics, for one simple reason. In these countries over the centuries some institutions have been developed as a result of a century-long struggle which put some check on the arbitrariness of those holding power. But the same is not true in international politics, so we can see the hypocritical spectacle of a great power screaming about violations of human rights in small cases, but keeping silent when countries like China or Indonesia or others with billions and billions of contracts are hanging in question. I think that if we are not to appear as pitiful intellectuals, we have to take into account what could be used as a truthful anatomy of political society and the discourse over the distinction between discourse and deeds.
Now, my two other remarks. First to John Silber, coming back to yesterday's discussion between President Havel and Professor Capra concerning intentions. What Václav Havel said and what Professor Capra rightly, to my mind, objected to, is the notion that there must be an intention in whatever there is in human history, a guiding purpose in human history as well as in the universe and so on. As an amateur cosmologist I certainly cannot share this point of view. The big bang possibly took place 15 billion years ago, there is going to be a big crunch in perhaps 100 billion years from now, or a sort of universal dispersal of matter, and I find it really anthropocentric to speak about the intentions of the universe unless, of course, you are a religious man, and you believe that there is a hidden intention. But this is impossible for the feeble human mind to discover. Therefore you have to take refuge behind the mystery of revelation, and the end of the world in this, of course - I hope Cardinal Lustiger will not give me the lie - is that there are mysteries in the ways of providence, and that has been said in another discussion five years ago, concerning the presence or absence of God from Auschwitz. This should not be confused with refraining from purpose. Purpose is not the same as a transcendental, transcendent or metaphysical intention ruling the whole universe including human history. Purpose is a human attribute, it is the thing without which we cannot live. We live giving to ourselves ends and purposes, and the more worthy among us and among our ancestors have attempted to give to themselves purposes that transcend their narrow lives and that cover future generations, that cover the future of this planet, which we have not inherited - nobody gave it to us - where we found ourselves and which we are happily destroying now. These purposes are worth being discussed and we have to discuss them.
My third point rather comes back to the first, the discussion between East and West and morals and politics in the noble sense of the word. As we search eastern philosophies as well as western philosophies, eastern religions as well as western religions, we shouldn't confine ourselves to East and West. If we look at African wisdom, traditional African wisdom and this wonderful phrase, "When an old man dies it's like a library burned", which is an African proverb, or to American Indian wisdom - both Northern Indians and Southern Indians - we find that in every culture there has been developed a moral inside about what are the highest purposes of human life or the highest norms. In some cases religions have invoked a transcendent origin of norms, in some others it is just popular wisdom with no invocation of a transcendent source. But the difference with the West is a very slight and a very important one. In all these cases these injunctions have remained religious or ethical injunctions, and have not prevented human misery, exploitation, slavery and so on and so forth. There is one case where a slight difference has been made, and this is the case of the West. The West has attempted to embody some of the principles in worldly secular sanctions or rules, and that is the meaning of Western declarations of rights, or Western constitutions and so on and so forth. This has remained a halfway house, for reasons that I'll try to explain tomorrow. But there is a difference and it is the step from morals to politics.
Politics does not mean, as Mr. Peres said yesterday, just the struggle for power. This is of course the affair of politicians who only care to grab power and are ready for any demagogy for this purpose. But politics, truly as the word created by the Greeks and taken up again by the American Revolution, the French Revolution, the movements of the 19th century and so on, is about the just and proper institution of society. It is not about collecting votes through bribing, and TV and so on and so forth. This politics of course is woefully absent from today's world, and therein lies the demise of the West. For this reason the West can no longer propose itself as an example for the rest of humanity. At most it can point to the fact that it attempted to give some sanction to what practically the best people of all countries, of all religions, of all creeds have agreed to and which is mentioned perhaps by other colleagues as the golden rule. That is the fundamental difference, and I think that the main problem today is to re-animate the West in this direction and to help the rest of the world make some reality of these norms about which we have all agreed, whether we agree or disagree on their transcendent origin. Thank you.

Oscar Arias Sanchez
Thank you very much, Mr. Castoriadis.

Oscar Arias Sanchez
I'll give the floor now to Mr. Gareth Evans. Mr. Evans is the former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Australia, and he is also very well-known for his role in developing the UN peace plan for Cambodia and also for founding the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation forum known as APEC. Mr. Evans.

Gareth Evans
Thank you, Chairman. When it comes to peace and security and protection against political violence, this century has been very tough on optimists. There is a lot of optimism around at the beginning of the century after years of comparative peace and unprecedented economic advances, but, as so many people have already said at this Forum, the 20th century proved to be the most ugly and destructive in all human history, with armed conflicts taking the lives of more than 100 million people and political violence responsible for the deaths of another 170 million people. With the end of the cold war, hopes rose again that the madness was over, that not only could we stop worrying about the nuclear holocaust, but that a new era of cooperation between the Great Powers on the Security Council would at last allow the United Nations to come into its own, not just as a voice but as a force for peace. But since the fall of the Berlin Wall more than 4 million people have been killed in violent conflict throughout the world and worldwide there are currently more than 30 million refugees or internally displaced persons. The initial success of the UN, reborn, against Iraq and in Cambodia, was followed rapidly by demoralising failures in Bosnia, Somalia and Rwanda. Should there be another breach of international law and morality as outrageous as was Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, I guess it might again be possible to quickly mobilise an international response. But, when it comes to intrastate conflicts, occurring within rather than across national borders - which is a far more prevalent source of death and destruction as we approach the new millennium - the international community just keeps shuffling and looking away. I don't blame the UN leadership for that. The UN can't act when its member-states don't want to act. So what can we do in the international community to shake ourselves free from the habits of millennia past, to break out once and for all from this awful, endlessly recurring pattern of deadly conflict, and to regenerate some capacity to act collectively and co-operatively for peace? Well, I had eight years of experience as Australia's Foreign Minister from 1988 until democracy did its work last year, trying with various degrees of success to build international coalitions, to make things happen in the Asia-Pacific region and occasionally in the wider global community. I say varying degrees of success advisedly, because there were certainly many failures and barely half successes, but I have to say I was very comforted by the generous description of a slightly less than totally impossible failure in Indonesia - this coming from a man, it must be remembered for the record, who used to call me the world's greatest hypocrite on matters of human rights. So I was deeply touched, but I also say building coalitions very advisedly, because a country the size of Australia, 18 million people in a world of 5.5 billion, simply hasn't got the economic or military clout to go it alone, and be taken seriously like other small and medium-size guys around the place. Our only power is the power of persuasion, to be creative and imagine solutions, and be effective and argue and organise for them. So some of the bigger things that we tried to do were things like bringing peace to Cambodia, building a new regional and security architecture in the Asia-Pacific, working with France in particular, the stock mining and oil drilling in the Antarctic, bringing the chemical weapons convention to a conclusion, getting the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty done better, and also trying to achieve some fundamental changes in the structure and the functioning of the UN, particularly so far as its peace functions were concerned.
What I learned from all those sorts of efforts, which had varying degrees of success, was that if things are to happen, if the international community is to become mobilised around an issue, and if major change for the better is to occur, then it's only going to be as the consequence of things coming together in harmonious conjunction at three quite different levels: at the level of ideas, at the level of strategies, and at the level of implementation. At the level of ideas, what I am talking about is a measure of intellectual consensus among decision makers and those who influence them, about basic principles, about what's worth doing, worth attempting, and why. At the level of strategies, I'm simply talking about carefully thought through specific practical proposals for a treaty on this, or a structure or reform on that, or a peace plan somewhere else. At the level of implementation, I'm simply talking about hands-on activity to get results, a lot of it simply old-fashioned, diplomatic argument and persuasion by ministers and officials - a good deal more of it these days, it must be acknowledged, is second-track, third-track activity by non-governmental organisations working away at their governments, at their publics.
I'm not saying anything at all original here, but sometimes the obvious needs saying. And, in particular, I thought, as a practising politician, that is worth saying to this group that ideas do matter. This forum and other groups and gatherings like it - diverse in makeup, transient in existence - may not be able to add much value when it comes to crafting detailed strategies, or implementing them in practice, but we can certainly generate support for ideas of a kind that will really help to make the world a better and safer place. Practising politicians in most countries are usually thought to be about as receptive to ideas as dogs are to cats, but my own strong view - for what it's worth - is that ideas are just as powerful motivators and stimulators of human action, including political and diplomatic action, now as they have ever been. Without big sustaining, organising ideas, we tend to flounder and lose our way. We have difficulty in even finding a common vocabulary at international meetings, we can't persuade our publics, we drift into impotence or worse. So let me suggest - necessarily very superficially in the time I have - some important sustaining ideas which I believe must gain or regain international currency if we are to break out of that cycle of deadly recurring human conflict, which seems otherwise distant, to haunt us into the new millennium.
First of all, there is the idea of community. We all use the expression in talking about the international community, or this or that regional community, but we have to mean it. It's not a matter of sentimentally asserting that we're all brothers and sisters under the skin, and hoping that such a perception will somehow banish conflict. Family feuds are, after all, often the ugliest of all. But it is a matter of getting a better understanding, not least in places like the US Congress, that what happens almost anywhere can have an impact almost anywhere else, whether it's health pandemics of the kind that Joshua Lederberg was talking about, spreading internationally from very small beginnings and faraway places, whether it's the fact that a failed state in central Africa or central Asia or anywhere else can become a haven for international terrorists or criminals, whether it's the fact that drugs grown in Burma do in fact kill people in Europe and north America and Australia. In the age of the Internet, of mass travel, of globalised business and the creeping universalisation of the English language, it really is easier than it has ever been before in human history to give content to the idea of a single human community, existing across cultural and ethnic and national lines. And I believe that the task for international opinion leaders is to ram that message home at every available opportunity. Its acceptance may not be a sufficient condition for the avoidance of deadly conflict, but it is close to being a necessary one.
The idea of community needs to be accompanied by a new way of thinking about international security, which might be called cooperative security. Three particular ideas about security have had a lot of currency in recent decades. One of them is collective security, essentially a military idea that a group of states should renounce force among themselves and come to each other's aid in the event of an attack. Another is common security, promulgated in particular by Olof Palme, the core theme of which is to achieve security with others rather than against them. More recently a fashionable concept has been the idea of comprehensive security, which holds that security is multidimensional in character, demanding attention not only to traditional political and diplomatic disputes, but also to factors such as economic underdevelopment, trade disputes, and human rights abuses.
The virtue of the idea of co-operative security seems to me that it effectively captures the essence of all three of those perhaps more familiar ideas and it also emphasises the process virtues of consultation, of reassurance, of transparency and prevention. There may be some continued attraction in a little residual realpolitik, for example in preserving a stable power balance in East Asia, but co-operative solutions to security problems, and by extension co-operative solutions to economic, environmental and other sensitive problems, are simply bound to be more productive, more durable, than confrontational responses. The third important idea is, I think, universal and indivisible human rights - not just any old claims to rights, but human rights that are culturally non-selective in their application and embrace economic and social and cultural rights with just as much fervour and relevance and resonance as the familiar political and civil rights with which Westerners are traditionally more preoccupied. There is a lot of debate these days, particularly in my part of the world, about how universal human rights fit in with so-called Asian values. The most robust answer I have heard in response to that issue, in fact comes from the deputy prime minister of Malaysia, N.W. Ibrahim, who said in a recent speech, and I quote him:
"If we in Asia want to speak credibly of Asian values, we too must be prepared to champion those ideals which are universal and which belong to humanity as a whole. It's altogether shameful," he says, "if ingenious, to cite Asian values as an excuse for autocratic practices and a denial of basic rights and liberties".
We in the West equally have to understand that nothing grates more patronisingly in Asian or African ears than to hear political and civil rights being promoted without any sense of the equal importance of economic and social rights. This habit of talking about political and civil rights as the only relevant rights is one into which Western political leaders slip all too effortlessly, all too regularly. On the particular question of democracy, I don't think there is anything intrinsically patronising at all in emphasising the virtues of democracy as a political system. After all, even the most authoritarian communist regimes appropriated the terminology of democracy. But the important thing is to do so in a way which emphasises that democracy, in the crucial sense of participation in the choice of one's government, is a subset of universal and indivisible human rights reflecting the worth and dignity of the individual. It's not a gift from the West to the benighted. The fourth sustaining idea that I think needs to be emphasised is the related one of legitimate intervention: that some so-called internal matters are legitimately everybody's business. There should be nothing sacrosanct about national borders when human rights and human security are at stake. Nobody, other than some white South Africans, had much difficulty in accepting this when the fight was being waged against apartheid. But that idea has become less fashionable since less overt forms of racism and other forms of conflict have moved to centre stage.
There is one section of the UN charter that may seem to elevate to pre-eminence claims of national sovereignty, but I believe it is strongly arguable that references to security in the UN Charter should be taken as extending to human security that can be put at risk by major internal as well as purely international conflict. Equally, and perhaps more obviously, the UN Charter obligation to protect human rights would appear to justify intervention when the most basic right of all, that of life, is being violated on a massive scale in intrastate conflict. I think an additional point worth making here is about group rights: this can be a very helpful way of dealing with a great many claims for self-determination by ethnic or national or religious groups. Those claims would be characterised as claims for the recognition or protection of group rights within the states rather than as necessarily amounting to challenges to state sovereignty. Understood in this way, external support for claims for group rights may well be seen as less confrontational and threatening and be less dangerous as a result.
The last idea I want to mention - probably the most important one of all - for which I think it is necessary to now build an international constituency, is the idea of prevention. How often do we say in our daily lives that prevention is better than cure? And how often do we ignore that principle in public and international affairs? How often do we misapply scarce resources by meeting huge bills for political disasters that could much more cheaply have been averted? For example when preventive diplomacy failed to prevent Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the dollar cost, leaving aside the human cost, of fighting the Gulf War for the UN coalition partners alone was 70 billion billion US dollars, and that's about ten times the annual cost for administering the United Nations and all its core related programs and organs. It was about 175 times the UN's total peacekeeping budget that year. And it was almost 7,000 times what the UN spent that year on preventive diplomacy. Successful prevention involves initiatives in many different dimensions. It means being better able to cope in the face of looming crisis by strengthening the preventive diplomacy role of the UN and many other organisations around the world. It means working on the underlying causes of conflict by giving new priority to the concept of peace building. It means, as far as nuclear weapons are concerned, arguing for the necessity and achievability not just of major reductions in the world's nuclear arsenals, but of their complete and outright elimination. Above all, prevention means educating new generations, and especially new generations of leaders, about both the sterility and the horror of deadly conflict, and how it might be prevented. All of us here have a responsibility in our own ways with our own audiences to carry forward that educative process - I hope with not only a common commitment, which I am sure we all have, to make the world a better place, but with a common bank of sustaining, readily communicable ideas. Thank you.

Oscar Arias Sanchez
Thank you, Mr. Evans. I offer the floor now to Bishop Belo. Bishop Belo shared the Nobel Peace Prize last years with José Ramos-Horta for his work towards a just and peaceful solution to the conflict in east Timor. He will be speaking in Italian.

Carlos Felipe Ximenes Belo
Mr. Chairman, honourable guests, ladies and gentlemen, because of my poor English I will deliver my speech in Italian.
It is in history that we try to answer some of the questions that are faced by humankind. By these questions I mean those situations and those events, that have an impact on cultural trends. Nowadays we are facing a major crisis. Our generation is not only approaching the end of this millennium, but what we are seeing also is chaos in the world around us. Our current generation is in fact losing the very foundations of values upon which we have built. It is not just one value or another as was the case in major historical events. Today what is at issue, are values per se, and very often their existence, i.e. the existence of these values is not endorsed at all. Hans Jonas says these words: "I am frightened when I think about this situation around us. Today we have enormous powers - but it seems to me that all values have lost their meaning. In science the capacity of man has reached its climax, but that's only in science. Relativism has been everywhere around us, there are no well-founded values, no value seems to be strong enough to be permanent enough and this in fact is regression from the very meaning and purpose of life."
I notice here that we see subjectivism being promoted, and this subjectivism is then projected to all walks of our life, including international life. But within this context, within this crisis, there are three issues, three challenges that we need to face. The first challenge is economic. It is a result of the gap between the North and the South, which have been pursuing goals using two different speeds.
On the one hand, what we are seeing developing is the world of wealth as against the world of poverty and misery. At the same time nature is being exploited, human resources are being not only used but also misused, and all this has an impact on the environment. What is at stake is maximum profit for minimum cost and these two parameters are used as a basis for the further build-up of a neo-capitalist system that derives its behaviour from these foundations. The second problem was environmental, the third is the question of information and the information technology. Today it is very easy to communicate ideas and information. We all know that to know means also to be powerful, but very often this information is also controlled by economic and political powers - and information will always support the capitalisation of data which will reassess neo-capitalism but will repeat its mistakes and will reuse its structures. We should move from the problem of analysis to truly ethical questions. It is therefore important to focus on ethical and anthropological questions. Today's conscience needs to build on such values that will not be changed or eliminated. It is important to identify, to define all the problems, to look for a correct therapy. It is also important to respect all the diverse situations and expectations of peoples living in different parts of the world - all this in the name of equity.
This also is the basis of Emanuel Mounier, when he speaks about communitarianism. What is at stake is the need to bring together the pole of the individual and the pole of community. An individual should not think of himself only; each individual should remain open, should pursue a certain purpose in the future and should be also ready to accept all the values that are essential for a community. A community should be something tangible. It should be a diverse community, where one can live next to the other and where one also works for the benefit of everybody else in the community. This will then help to distribute all the assets available according to the merit and the needs of every individual.
I know that I am short of time and therefore I would like to focus now on some spiritual values and also on the hope that we are discussing here today. All religions should see to it that we have a form of solidarity built in the world that would lead to securing peace for the world of today. Religions at this time should be based on some of the fundamental principles we are talking about. Ten tasks or ten issues that could be summed up like this: the first is love for God, which is a guarantee of authenticity and stability of love for our neighbors. It is important that religious moments become a factor of unity and peace building in the world. All the errors, all the mistakes of the past should not be seen as something committed by religious leaders, or people who believed, who had some religion, but these mistakes were made by people who did not understand the very fundamentals of religion. Religion can enrich us but it can also be misused. What is important is that man has a purpose, has an intention, and no scientific research can generate this purpose.
Religious thinking, religious research, is extremely topical, extremely urgent, especially today, when this question of how we should live leads us to another question: that is, why do we live? Man is by nature restless, and very often he is full of nostalgia for something different, for something other. God is presence, something from which one cannot be alienated, something which supports our existence and something binding. Different religions that accompany churches on their way to the third millennium can play a very important role in the world today, which is characterised by materialism, by a lot of selfishness. On the basis of different cultures full of narcissism, individualism and other characteristics, religion must help us promote the feeling of openness, at the same time guaranteeing self-reliance for each of us, but we should always understand the transcendentalism of God. Is God within the framework of Abraham's faith - be it in Judaism, Christianity, Islam - the only creator, the only creator of the unique mankind? Our return to this transcendentalism should always respect the dignity of all other people.
In conclusion, I should like to say that reconciliation, co-operation and the very patient building of a constituency by dialogue is absolutely essential. We need to mobilise everybody, we need to change humankind to be able to cope with such threats as nuclear weapons, but not only for the bad, also for promoting some very fundamental human values. We are at a crossroads of history: to be or not to be? There is still a very dangerous possibility: we would be no more and yet we need to be more. And being more will also mean getting rid of all oppression. The question is whether we shall manage to be this "more" as I call it, or whether we shall not be at all. In other words, we need to get out of this pile of death, we need to make use of the operative capacity that is available to us for further development. To be more than we are or not to be at all.
Feelings of anxiety, anxiety of death, for example, create a culture of death, that leads to the destruction of authentic culture; instead an empty culture develops this idea of emptiness. In Moses we read: "I call Heaven and Earth to witness against you this day and I have set before you life and death". It is up to man to decide now what will be the best, not only for himself, but also for his offspring. There are certain rights that have not yet been born but are absolutely vital. Man is called upon to wake up, is called upon to get rid of the anaesthesia of non-values and to rise to greatness. He is responsible before God and before History. His conscience is then linked to the collective conscience. Hope is the soul of history and it is also the responsibility .

Oscar Arias Sanchez
Thank you very much, Bishop Belo. As you are aware, Leila Shahid is not with us this morning, so our last panellist is Professor John Polanyi. Professor Polanyi is the recipient of the 1986 Nobel Prize for Chemistry, and he is currently a professor of Chemistry at the University of Toronto.

John Polanyi
Thank you, Mr Chairman, and I'd like also to thank the organisers of the meeting for including me in this remarkable gathering. I'm an oddity here, in that I am a scientist, with a lot of young people in my laboratory, who are waiting for me to finish my holiday in Prague and get back to work. I've listened attentively to the two previous speakers and been stirred by both of them. Gareth Evans spoke of the need for ideas and the power of ideas, and gave us an exciting ray of them. Bishop Belo spoke of values and did so with eloquence. And now I am going to talk not about the subject matter of science, but about what science is. And I am going to claim, following the previous two discussants, that science is of course an embodiment of ideas, but also an embodiment of values. And so let me start by saying where science came from. I think it is terribly important that we scientists do talk about what science is, where it comes from. Misunderstandings about the nature of science have lead to disastrous consequences. Where did science come from? Well, from the liberation of the intellect that took place five centuries ago and of which we see the fruits around us here in paintings and in buildings. The idea became evident that the Creator, in giving us free will, had also intended to that we exercise our intellect in support in that free will and so instead of the tree of knowledge being off limits as it was in the old testament it became desirable that we eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge and that gave results of a staggering sort, particularly evident to you here in the arts, but also evident in one particular art, which I think became the greatest art after that, and that was the art of science: an art which deals with shapes, an art which we think of when we are here in connection with Tycho Brahe and Johannes Kepler who worked a few kilometres away from here. Kepler thought of the shape of the orbit in which the planets move, and the shape that he came upon, and it was a dazzling moment, was the shape that we see in these lunettes, these windows around us here that the architect chose the ellipse. So the question is, how does science advance? My simple mind answers that it gradually persuades people that the shapes it has identified are shapes that one can readily believe to be part of creation. Just as we accept those shapes up there as being fitting, we accept the shapes that the physicists come upon. Now that sounds like a sort of flabby statement, but I think it's an important statement because what I am saying is that science advances by persuading and so I am saying just the same thing that Gareth Evans said in the realm of structuring a world in which we can hope to survive.
Science advances by persuading. There are no particular birthdays for scientific discoveries, because in fact what is happening is a sort of diminuendo of doubt and eventually reasonable people become persuaded of something and it becomes conventional to say it has been proven. But that is a very dangerous description, one that scientists unfortunately accepted because they found it very flattering, I suppose, or they were busy with their students in their laboratories and paid no attention. But to say that something is proven opens the way for a misunderstanding of science, namely that scientists are in possession of some sort of machinery of proof that is not available to other people who discuss other things. That is not true. Science is done by human beings, is subject to human error. Scientists must persuade other human beings and therefore use just the same thought processes. So, I wanted to move on from this to the dire consequences of casually accepting the notion that there is a machinery of proof. Those dire consequences take us from a period which in this paper I am presenting here I have called not the liberation of intellect, but the enslavement of intellect.
The Nazis, I hardly have to remind you, came up with some trashy science, which was a part of biology, they thought, and the communists came up with some trashy scientific history, a science of history. Now, the fact that those were bad science, that is not unusual, I've done a lot of bad science too. But the fateful moment came when they said that it was science and therefore it had been proven and therefore it could not be contested. If you want to contest that two and two equals four, you have no right to live, they said. Now, I know of two particles physicists in this audience, who will tell you that two particles and two particles don't in fact necessarily make four. And science requires that every new discovery is examined and re-examined. Science advances by questioning, not by stating that this fact has been proven and that you as a human being have no right to live if you contest it. So, it was that misunderstanding of what science is that led from a glorious period of the liberation of the intellect to a horrible period of the enslavement of the intellect, which had such dire effects around us here for decades and decades.
I have a third heading, which I want to say something about because I don't want only to talk about the nature of science. I want to talk about the responsibility of scientists, which is a big subject, and in this paper I have talked about looking ahead, about the responsible intellect. What did I have in mind under the responsibility of the scientist? Well, two responsibilities. One should be patently obvious, but it's taken the scientific community a little while to embrace it, is that scientists are human beings, scientists are citizens and scientists have the responsibility to use their education in science as citizens. So where a topic under debate has a technological aspect to it, scientists are required to - if you like - pay a tax on their specialized knowledge, by devoting some time to participating as educated citizens, something everybody in this room does, whatever their education. Scientists have to do this to a special degree and have only in recent decades been doing it in connection with armaments - that is, the control of armaments - in connection with the environment, in connection with the technological impact of all sorts of knew discoveries. They enter the debate, they do not dictate the answers, they do not know the answers, but they must be part of that debate and take part conscientiously. That is one responsibility. The other one that I want to mention, and with that I will close, is a good deal more subtle, and it really ties in with comments we heard in this room yesterday about the fact that we live in a single world. Whatever we may pretend about our national boundaries, we do live in a single world.
And a question then arises: How do we feel a sense of community within that world? If we lack that sense of community, then there is a danger that we will lapse into ethnicity or fundamentalism, some good deal less desirable forms of partisanship. So this is a problem with which we have to grapple, and we should use those international communities that have a moral basis and that do exist and they include guilds - meaning people who have a common profession - and professions, and notable among those professions is science. The international community of scientists should provide a sense of belonging and should, I think, reach out as a non-governmental organisation if it is to do the things that go beyond the discussion of topics that are technological, to topics that have a moral dimension. This sounds very airy, but it isn't. In fact, it's already happening and has been happening for decades. Scientists have become involved wherever human rights are threatened. Well, let me explain, I mean Linus Pauling in the United States, Kovalyov, Sacharov, and so on.
These are all people who belong to that community and who naturally get involved in the defence of human rights and should be vigorously supported by the scientific community in doing so. Why, what authority does science bring there? It's not a technical question. It brings the authority of its values. Science has to respect minority views, because without dissidence, without heterodox views, science is dead. The only way new ideas ever come about is by the challenging of old ideas by minority groups. Science is international, science is tolerant; otherwise science is dead. And I would only link that up with a wider area, where I think that scientists, as an international community, should be active. That is contained really in Gareth Evans' remarks. In one of his categories of ideas he moves smoothly, and without adding an additional number, from human rights to democracy. Democracy after all rests on the foundation of human rights. If scientists are seen now at last as natural defenders of human rights, and they should be, they should also be involved in building democracy and supporting and assisting in every country where democracy is threatened. So, with that, I end. Thank you.

DISCUSSION

Oscar Arias Sanchez
Thank you very much, Professor Polanyi. I offer the floor now to Mr. Jostein Gaarder.

Jostein Gaarder
Thank you. I would like to make a comment on the statement by Dr. John Silber and many comments around the table. We are talking about pessimism or optimism towards the future and the new millennium. We are talking about ethics, morals, human rights, and I would like to add some words combined to these questions about identity. First I would like to say that I firmly believe in the progress of humanity, the progress of human standards of behaviour. When we had the signing of the Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, its principles were not taken out of that era, but were based on human reflection, philosophical reflection, on Locke, Voltaire, Kant and so on. I actually think that these declarations may be the most important achievement of philosophical reflection. OK, the Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, then we had the Declaration of Women's Rights, and some years ago we had a new declaration in the frame of the United Nations of Children's Rights, and I certainly believe and will fight for the emergence of some declarations for Animals' Rights in the coming years. Actually, it is a shame how, for instance, we in Europe treat cattle.
I believe in the progress of human reflection, the human mind, so the other question is the practice. I think that international conventions are really important. Without these conventions we couldn't have had the Nuremberg Trials, we couldn't have any Hague Trial. We need the conventions before we can have the trials. We need the prescriptions to be launched before the practice; they always come before the practice. So, I also think, as a philosopher, that it is important to learn from history. The Chinese wise man, philosopher Confucius said that learning without thinking has no value - and thinking without learning is dangerous. We are talking about the Golden Rule. Many have mentioned the Golden Rule and Dr. Silber also mentioned the more precise formulation or extension of the rule formulated by Kant. That the principle of your act should become a universal law. In what you are doing you should follow a universal law. Now, this sentence of Kant needs today another extension or application, or at least a new footnote. According to Kant, I would say: "You should do to your grandchildren what you would have wanted your grandparents to have done to you." Now only one example: Would I have wished that my ancestors had put a lot of nuclear waste in, say, mountain caves or at the bottom of the sea? Would I have wished that they put nuclear deposits in mountain caves 100 years ago? 500 years ago? 5,000 years ago? 30,000 years ago? Obviously not.
Actually, I am happy that I shall not be worried when I walk in the Norwegian mountains that somewhere 2,000 or 5,000 years ago some people were pouring out some dirt that is really dangerous even today? Now, railways. We often see a sign at the toilets, asking us to leave the toilets in the same state that you would wish to find them. I was in Bangkok and I met my editor from Thailand. She was an elderly woman, and she told me she was brought up in Bangkok, and I asked her: how was it to be a girl, here in Bangkok, to grow up as a young girl? And she actually started to cry. I thought that maybe she could see that everything was much better now, but actually she was weeping because she told me that everything was actually much better for her in her society when she was a young girl. For me it's important to emphasise that what we are now discussing is very much a question of identity. We are actually discussing and debating the question: Who are we? Who am I?
Now who am I? I am not just this physical body. That is a misunderstanding. And I am a part of, and I certainly also take part in, something that is bigger and even more important than myself. I have a deeper and more profound identity than this human body. If not, I would be a hopeless person. But I have hope, because I identify with something more than myself. That is why I am not only angry, but it hurts when I feel that the rain forest is being cut down in Amazonia, for instance. I am not only on this planet: I am this planet. The former president of India, Radhakrishnan, put it this way. He said: "You shall love your neighbour, because you are your neighbor."
It's an illusion, or a misunderstanding, that your neighbor is different from you, or separated from you. I think I am the planet earth. It's a major challenge to try to internalise this wisdom. It's especially important towards today's consuming individualism. And it's not a new wisdom. Something was wrong, let's say, from the 16th century in Europe. But, for instance, just 50 years ago, when a Norwegian farmer - we have these very small farms - was dying, he knew that he should leave the farm in a more proper state, more developed, more cleaned than the farm he inherited. Now it was sad that the farmer was dying, but it would be even more sad for the farmer if the farm was burning. So the Norwegian farmer was thinking exactly the opposite of the father of the character Peer Gynt by Henrik Ibsen. The father of Peer Gynt was destroying the farm, before he left it to his son. We are today challenged by quite a new civilisation, I would say, talking about the global village.
Fifty years ago, answering the question "who are you?", people related to their local environment, to their local village. Today we talk about the global village, and I think that more and more people start to feel today that, well, my identity is not any more my local neighborhood: it's actually the planet Earth. We do today see some, I would say, Copernican turning point concerning human self-understanding through, for instance, the Internet. I believe it's possible to fight for the Internet and the new global civilisation to increase a more global identity.

Norbert Greinacher
I would like to address some remarks to Mr. Lederberg. I admire very much what he has shown us, what the results of medicine and medical research are. I myself, and probably many of you here in the room, took advantage when I went to see a doctor. But, and that I want to add in a critical way, many doctors were corrupt. They were corrupt like scientists and artists. I am saying that especially based on German history. According to my opinion, one of the great philosophers was Martin Heidegger. In 1933, he publicly said: "When the Führer Adolf Hitler starts to speak, then the philosopher stops thinking." And I want to mention an example from culture: a question that is being discussed a lot in Germany is the corruption of the Bayreuth festival of Wagner by Adolf Hitler. But I want to come back to doctors and to medical research. Most of us will know how much medicine and medical research were corrupted during the time of National Socialism and that scientific research was carried out on dying people, children, and cripples. I am very, very much ashamed that these experiments were carried out by doctors who remained in their profession after the year 1945, and continued in their research even at my university in Tübingen. I would also like to say something about the biomedical convention of the Council of Europe. This convention was very much influenced by the medical associations and the pharmaceutical industry. I would like to give just one example of why I am protesting against this convention. I am doing this partly for egotistical reasons. According to that convention, it is allowed, in the case of people under a coma, for experiments to be carried out with such people without their consent. Can we imagine what it is going to be like in the future? I can imagine what it would be like if something like that happened to me in a couple of years' time and I know what kind of impact that would have on the ethical principles of medicine and the whole of society.

Oscar Arias Sanchez
Thank you. I offer the floor now to Professor Claude Jasmin.

Claude Jasmin
I want to come back to the very important point Jack Lang has brought up, which is children. We all know that infancy is a period which is very important, in which the personality and behaviour of the future adult is built. And we know even today that this process is starting during the time of pregnancy. So it's a very important stage of the life of a human being, and Jack Lang has insisted on the very important positive aspects I would say of the education of the youth. Young children are bearing creativity, renewal. They are the deposit of this second worldwide revolution in which someday maybe human rights will be respected all over the world.
But my point is that in fact we are always thinking in terms of a positive future, but it is very important also to think about how we can protect children, because in the world children are exposed to very important risks. In my field of cancer, I would take the example of tobacco. I don't know if the assembly here knows, but big American tobacco companies target children by putting advertisements at no higher than one meter from the ground in order that when the young children enter a shop, they will see the advertisement, and will be tempted. Also, they mix the cigarettes with candies in order that a young child will be somehow attracted to see this cigarette, this package of cigarettes, and they send people to control that everything is set in good order in these shops. Well, when we know the importance of tobacco in mortality of a human being, that's a very important thing.
Now, if we speak about violence, we know that children replicate what they lived through when they were young, when they were children. It is the beaten children who themselves beat other children. It is the raped children who in later times will be the rapers of other children, so at that stage we have to break that kind of vicious circle. We have to try to educate both the children and the parents. Even in the field of risks of infectious diseases Joshua Lederberg has spoken very well of this very important epidemic risk all over the world it is very important how we teach the children about the prevention of diseases. Maybe if we had known before, we could have restricted the epidemics of HIV just by rules, by very simple rules. We are not really investing in this field, and this is very important. I fully agree with Gareth Evans, for example, who stressed the notion of prevention in the political field, and I guess that health prevention may also be a very important field, which might have to learn from political prevention of war in which strategies have been devised previously. I also agree with the point that many people have stressed here, that is the importance of responsibility.
Well, to end, I would like to say that I am a little anxious for the future, because I fear that education will be in danger for the coming 21st century. When I see the prediction of the OECD, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, that the share of education in the national budget in economically developed countries will decrease very substantially, I ask: Why? Because our world will have to carry this wave of longevity. There will be a great part of the budget devoted just to pay the pensions of old people, and one of the budgets that will be sacrificed in the near future will be the budget of education. So I believe that we really have a duty to target education, to fight for education, put all our hopes, as Elie Wiesel has put it. In one interview, Elie Wiesel stressed this point and in Paris he had a great meeting with young people at the Sorbonne. I think the way Elie Wiesel has started to try to attract the young into this reflection is very important.

Michael Novak
Thank you. Three brief comments, please. When looking ahead into the 21st century, I sometimes find myself much more pessimistic than we are being, particularly because at the end of the 18th and 19th centuries so many people were so optimistic. But also because I see, and have frequently the experience, of how separate the worlds are: worlds of mind, of culture, among believers and among non-believers. It sometimes splits along the lines of elites and population; it sometimes splits along the lines of science and religion. If we are going to help the free society to survive in the 21st century, and there is no guarantee that it will, we are going to need everybody. One small warning. The term "fundamentalist" is often being used as though it were a religious term. This is a great offence to many Islamic groups I have spoken with in the last three years, for whom the turn toward violence is an abomination, and who argue that most of those called "fundamentalists" are moved by politics, not by religion. I want to pick up on the second point, a point raised by John Silber this morning, citing De Tocqueville about the importance of the dimension of eternity in democracy. De Tocqueville said that religion is the first political institution of democracy. And he argued further that this is so because it is in religion that humans get their sense of human dignity, and of truth and the role of truth: that no matter how rich or how powerful you are, you will be subject to the bar of truth, subject to the bar of judgment. This was extremely important in the American revolution. I don't have time to develop this, but I need to mention that, 1776, and thereafter.
The third point I want to come to is the prediction that in the 21st century and in the next millennium we are likely to see a rearrangement of the way in which science and religion regard one another. Over the past three or four centuries there has been a sense that science arose out of rebellion against religion, and that the two are on opposite sides. If I understand what is going on in modern physics at all, there is a rebirth of natural theology, a rebirth of speculation about origins, meaning, purpose, God, who we are, of the most fascinating kind. It's one of the periods of greatest fruition in natural theology for some centuries. And I see that this is occurring in other dimensions of science too. I think that John Polanyi himself performed a very valuable service in showing - the connections between science and politics on the one hand, democracy on the one hand, and values and morals on the other. I think we will see more such attempts to link the various fields among us - politics, science, and religion - and to draw out of them around the core of human dignity as Professor Geremek suggested yesterday: reflections, mutual reflections from different points of view on what it is that gives us our dignity, our value, our hope, and what it is in us that is our danger to ourselves. Thank you very much.

Helmut Schmidt
Thank you, Chairman. I want to come back to the several interventions we have heard on the subject of democracy and politicians. Politicians have to feel responsibility. Also, are they to be held responsible for what they say or do not say, for what they do or what they do not do, for the effects of their speech and their actions, not just for their good intentions? Also for the unforeseen side-effects of their speech and actions, and for the aftereffects as well? Democracy is a category of governance in which one can hold rulers responsible. As a devoted democrat, I of course understand that there do exist several types of democracy. But in none of these democracies is it the people who govern. Instead, it is a few rulers who govern. This is unavoidable. Unavoidably any type of democracy does need responsible leadership by politicians. But then state and society may also be misled by insufficient politicians or even by corrupted leaders. Having this in mind, it seems to me that the one great advantage of all types of democracy over all other forms of governance is this: that a majority of the ruled can do away with the government of their rulers without bloodshed and without violence. This is maybe the only great advantage of democracy over other forms of governance. One should therefore not concentrate too great expectations on democracy.
So far, culturally advanced parts of mankind have existed for over 5,000 years. Five thousand years of creative culture, but without much democracy in all these 5,000 years. Even in the democratically governed ancient Athens, at the time of Pericles, they did practise slavery, and even Thomas Jefferson had his slaves. What I am trying to say is this: Do not put too much emphasis on institutions. Instead spread education about the conscience of responsibility of leaders, whether leaders in governments and parliaments, or leaders in schools and in universities, or whether leaders in financial or commercial corporations. And teach them that responsibility does necessitate the ability and the will to put oneself into the shoes of the other guy - the neighbor, the opponent - or as a Westerner to put oneself into the viewpoints of the Chinese and the Indians, and the black Africans, and the Muslims.
I would like to close by quoting two sentences from Mahatma Gandhi. Gandhi listed seven so-called social sins and in this catalogue of seven social sins, number one was politics without principles. Number two was commerce without morality. And I would like to add to Gandhi's list, at least to these first two social sins, politics and commerce without responsibility. I am convinced that no democracy and no open society, neither in Britain nor in Texas, nor later on in Shanghai, can afford to do without the principles of duties and the principles of responsibility. An open society cannot do without these principles if it is to secure its own survival. So whether we will have a better shaped United Nations, or even have the so far utopian World Government, of which we heard somebody talk yesterday, I think we have to strive to educate ourselves in all the five continents towards a consensus on a minimum code of ethics which would have to include not only rights but also each individual's responsibility. Thank you very much.

Oscar Arias Sanchez
Thank you, Chancellor. Now I offer the floor to Dr. Silber.

John Silber
I'd like to refer back to the issue raised by Mr. Castoriadis, and Mr Capra, concerning science and its goals and in particular in relation to what President Havel had to say. I think it's important that we do not emphasise every single detail of what President Havel had to say, because his general idea has great validity and force even if some of the formulations he offered of it seem less convincing. Just take for example his statement: "Could not the crisis of responsibility and accountability for the world as a whole and for its future, be but the logical consequence of the modern conception of the world as a complex phenomenon controlled by certain scientifically identified laws, formulated for God knows what purpose."
That is a conception that does not question the meaning of existence, and renounces any kind of metaphysics or any kind of metaphysical roots of its own. He went on to say: "The crisis of the so necessary global responsibility is in principle due to the fact that we have lost the certainty of all and every humility towards what reaches beyond us and surrounds us. This loss is accompanied by the loss of a feeling that whatever we do must be subjected to the regard for a higher order of which we are a part, and to respect the authority of that in whose field of vision every one of us is permanently present." Now, what he is talking about is a sense of transcendence in which we work. Now what happens when you undertake a scientific enterprise forgetting the dependence of science on ethical principles and on metaphysical principles.
Scientists offer no scientific proof for the principle of induction on which much of their work depends. They offer no scientific proof for the principles of scientific method on which the validity and integrity of their work depends. They function as human beings, with purposes, and they devote their lives to these purposes often with great courage, sometimes even with great sacrifice. This does not demonstrate the indifference of science to purpose, but the parasitic dependence of the scientist on purpose. And we have to recognise that. I don't believe that the validity of what President Havel had to say depends upon our knowing those mysteries of this transcendent domain of which we are aware, but the importance of our awareness of it cannot be denied. When the scientist forgets this sense of mystery, loses this sense of mystery, and loses the profound sense of his limited perspective - the limited perspective offered by scientific research - he runs the risk of either absolutism, absolutising something that is clearly finite, something that was pointed out by John Polanyi, or he also runs the risk of being exposed as a very shallow naive person.
Consider what Sagan and many other cosmologists have done with regard to extrapolations concerning the Big Bang, treating it as a scientific explanation of creation, advanced far beyond the limitations of the poor religionists who talked thus: "In the beginning God said let there be light, and there was light". He went on at great length and many of the cosmologists have gone on to suggest that the Big Bang explains something. What bangs, where did it come from? Did God suddenly create stuff, so that it could bang, or was there a prior collapse of a previous universe into a black hole, which then compacted the energy that allowed for the Bang. I asked Sagan once. I said: "You know, as a cosmologist perhaps you read the work of Immanuel Kant who along with Laplace developed the nebular hypothesis."
I said that one thing that Kant pointed out was that every first cause can be reduced to an infinite regress and consequently, "why do you think you offered an explanation of the creation when you came up with the Big Bang?" This is, I think, the important point that Havel was making: unless we have some humility even in the scientific undertaking to recognise this transcendent dimension of mystery of which we know nothing, and to which we are subject, and which has the final judgment over the adequacy or inadequacy of our work, even though we will never know the answer. I think that was his point, and the one that we have to take seriously.
I want also to compliment Mr Polanyi for stressing the nature of scientific method. In doing so he reminded me of the work of his splendid father, Michael Polanyi, who in my opinion has done the best work on the philosophy of science, when he seized on the notion of concertare, the exercise of artistic judgment in the fulfilment of one's work as a scientist. He has demonstrated, as his father did before him, the community of the artist and the scientist. The artist is not a species, and the artist is not the only one who sacrificed his life in the pursuit of truth. There have been theologians, Jan Hus for example, and many scientists who made the same sacrifice. We are all in the same boat and we all share this responsibility for creativity and creative work and creative thought, and for concertare.

Khotso Makhulu
Mr. Chairman, what I wanted to say is that, first of all, I think we all come from different worlds. And when some of you get carried away with your postulations and your presuppositions, understand that we have a different experience of life from the one that you have come from. I want to make the following points. One, I was enthralled by Mr Gareth Evans' s description of various types of security which were very impressive but, having to deal with human nature, we have overlooked one thing that governments often do, and what some people come to recognise as state security, for their own self-preservation, but which has nothing to do with the good of the whole community. This is just a warning that we must not get too carried away, even in our desire to see a better tomorrow. I spoke about the conventions that have been passed including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
If there is one complaint that has to be made, it is that many heads of states go to summit after summit and accept these conventions, but the adoption and accession to these conventions probably takes ages and ages and ages before they are adopted for action. It is only recently in my own country that the action plan on the convention on the child has been adopted. And finally, the anticipation of the cuts in education in the 21st century, or in the next millennium, is a little late. Those cuts are already taking place under the structural adjustment programmes when heavily indebted countries are being forced to make choices, choices about what to provide in terms of social services, and have to choose between servicing debt and paying for social services. Thank you.


1997

Supported by

International Visegrad Fund

 

Follow us on