Theme

The conference was divided into three working days with six panel discussions. At the first political panel, entitled “The World of Co-operation and Conflicts (Institutions and Instruments)”, there was general agreement on the need for the old global institutions to be adapted to new challenges and to seek a new international order, although notions of what it should mean seem to be more divergent now than immediately after the collapse of the bipolar system. Henry Kissinger pointed to the main dilemma of international politics - the relationship between aims and means - as well as to the supremacy of technical and economic instruments over moral goals and the difficulty of understanding the different degrees of importance of today’s problems. Throughout the conference the continuing lack of political leadership at international level was to surface repeatedly as a major issue.

The discussion group on the topic “The New Partners of Globalization (Actors or Subjects?)” sought to reflect on the role and scope of new actors in the post-bipolar system. Globalization was seen as a reality that had to be accepted, but all actors had to strive to ensure that its effects should be as acceptable as possible for each of them. Rational national economic policies, support for civil society and the development of people’s spiritual and creative potential were all ways of achieving a more humane form of globalization.

A similar message was brought by Hillary Clinton to the second morning panel “Global Markets vs. Local Identities”, when she pointed to the fundamental importance of relations between the state, the market and society. Discussion on the nature of globalization then focused on its negative aspects and alternative approaches. Globalization did not simply comprise actual processes, it also constituted a specific ideological construct promoting specific interests. The unequal distribution of the advantages derived from globalization was giving rise to polarization and disintegration within and between societies. The recent experience of the Asian economies demonstrated the need for a differentiated approach. Each country had to have the option to choose the appropriate method, pace and manner of its integration into the global system.

The fourth discussion block dealt with the ecological aspects of globalization. It emerged clearly from the discussions that the issue of ecology was closely bound up with the question of economic rules. Although the economy was part of the wider environment, environmental considerations were still not taken sufficiently into account by the international financial institutions, national budgets, tax structures and large firms. The truly imposing amount of information available had yet to be reflected in individual or collective action. The participants voice their hope for greater activity on the part of independent local and international groups of which Forum 2000 could serve as a good example.

The conference also included a multi-religious gathering at the Cathedral of St Vitus, where leading representatives of world religions delivered a brief spiritual message. The opening discussions on the third day were a continuation of the inter-religious dialogue. It was agreed that religion had to play a role in a globalized world as it answered the many needs of people living on the planet, helping to create everyday security and a sense of integrity, offering spiritual unity and transcendence and constituting an appeal for responsible and moral behavior.

The cultural aspects of globalization were dealt with in discussion on the topic: “Global Civilization and Cultural Identities”. As the contributions of all the panelists confirmed, the significance of traditional cultural identity was not diminished by the continuing process of globalization. On the contrary, it could be seen as a fundamental reality not only in societies suffering from domination by Western models and concepts, but also in the markedly globalized societies of the North, which offered many other identities. Ashis Nandy, representing the first group of countries, pointed out that while the dominant countries had indeed learned to tolerate different cultures, they had yet to accept them as equally valid and sovereign modes of existence.

The final panel - “Universality or Plurality of Human Rights?” - was also rich in controversial contributions by leading figures with theoretical and practical experience of these issues. It served to demonstrate that there were still many areas of disagreement regarding the concept of human rights, although their importance was universally accepted (and this was recognized as one major achievement of globalization). It would be up to future inter-cultural discussions to reconcile universally-accepted moral demands for the observance of basic rights on the one hand with diverse cultural practices on the other. It would also be necessary to divest the present concept of human rights of the political and economic interests that were often parasitic on it. In addition, any consensus on universal human rights would have to be matched by an appropriate concept of universal responsibilities.

The conference was preceded, for the first time, by a one-day Students' Forum 2000 held in June 1998. Six delegates from that event subsequently made a constructive contribution to all the panels in October. Future student conferences should become a traditional feature and offer young people of all continents an opportunity to come together to discuss problems of globalization and forward their views to the personalities participating in the main conferences of the Forum 2000 cycle.

Although questions still outweighed answers, a number of conclusions were reached at this second Prague conference. First and foremost there was agreement on the need for closer attention to be paid to the growing marginalization of extensive areas of the planet. They remained on the fringes of globalization not only in terms of their institutional capacity, technological and economic integration and possible threats to their cultural and political sovereignty, but because their views were not even heard in the debates about global solutions. The countries at the heart of the globalization process faced a major challenge: how to lead or direct that process so that its dynamic would be consistent with the need for stability, its unprecedented complexity with the need for effective action, and its instrumental rationale with the needs of spirituality.

All in all, the second conference enabled a deeper and more thorough analysis of the nature of current global concerns. Globalization remains an extremely widespread phenomenon that is perceived in many different ways and will necessarily be the subject of future discussions. However, there is a specific concept of globalization emerging at the Prague Forum that is preparing the way for defining the basis of global change in a critical interdisciplinary spirit and with an awareness of common responsibility.