„… people, that meet under the umbrella of the Forum 2000 attempt to cross boundaries of profession, geographic location and religion. “
Václav Havel, Former President of the Czech Republic, 2003
HomepageProjectsForum 2000 Conferences1999TranscriptsAfternoon Session, Oct. 13

Afternoon Session, Oct. 13

Takeaki Hori
We are about to open this afternoon's session, but before we do I have to apologise because we are 25 minutes late. Many people worked very hard to enable a conference with this kind of atmosphere to materialise. Just before this session, we had another meeting and concentrated on how we could wrap it up in this afternoon's session. Unfortunately, we were unable to reach a conclusion but such is reality. Now, I would like to give one of the most ardent and intelligent students - the organiser of last year's students'forum - the opportunity to express himself in this afternoon's session. He is also a coordinator for the student forum here in the Czech Republic. Mr Lebeda.

Petr Lebeda
Thank you, Professor Hori, your Excellency Mr President, Mr Nakasawa, dear ladies and gentlemen. It is a little bit of fate that instead of President Soares it is me who is sitting in front of you today, to deliver a keynote speech on the last panel of this year's Forum 2000 conference, on the common vision of humankind.

Before I start tackling this issue, let me therefore express my deepest hope that Mr Soares will soon recover, because I heard that he is suffering with flu. Also allow me to thank all of you, and especially our President and Mr Sasakawa, for the extraordinary support that they have given to the Students' Forum 2000 - and for making the world's young people feel so welcome at the autumn Forum 2000 conferences, to communicate their views on globalisation. After all, this is why could join the organisers in preparing this year's conference, and why can share my ideas with you now. I hope that my presentation, although prepared a little in haste and obviously lacking scientific rigour, will be clear and useful to you.

When we started to prepare this conference, we thought that after two rather original and descriptive conferences in previous years this year we should move to more focused, structured and output - orientated discussions. Firstly, because we felt that the structure of the whole series should be made more explicit, and secondly because at the end of the day it is practical action that is most needed. Thus, I do not intend to present a new point of view, or yet another vision of world integration. What I will attempt - with just a little of my own thoughts - is rather a synthesis of the key elements of the discussions related to the outline of the conference and shaped into a blueprint for the common vision.

The vision tries to summarise what we tend to agree upon and what seems to emerge as perhaps a new paradigm. It starts with a theory and then gradually reaches more practical aspects with the help of some examples. In fact, the conceptual responses to globalisation are meant to anticipate the values that will be debated at next year's conference, and perhaps become a component of the planned outcome of Forum 2000 in the year 2001.

So, let me for the operational purposes of our conference - I apologise for the very unfriendly and harsh vocabulary - define globalisation as a dynamic, multifaceted, unprecedentedly complex and dangerously ambiguous process towards the ever increasing interdependence of world activity. It is a terrible definition, so I will explain it right away. This overly condensed definition is supposed to sum up the main features of globalisation and its main problems. The key idea that I am trying to reach here is to break it down and respond to each of the seven problems with a counter - concept.

First, there is dynamics: the opposite concept to dynamics could be to slow down. Actually, it was Professor Hori who mentioned today his deepest desire to sit for a while in a calm atmosphere and be removed from harsher global developments. I hope that some of the concepts that I am tr ying to propose will fit into your ideas as well. There does not seem to be a global consensus on the appropriate dynamics of world evolution, which is indeed tremendous these days. A propensity towards dynamics and stability, as well as to risk - taking, turn out to be important, inherent characteristics of cultural identities. Lots of nations, indeed most non - American cultures, call for a slowing down in the pace of global development. The call takes on different forms: it can be regulation, which has been mentioned by many of you;it can be the intermediated media, which His Royal Highness the Prince of Jordan mentioned, and is the precautionary principle that was tackled by Miklós Sükösd. It is the outcry for time to react and adapt, or evaluate outside influence on one's own culture or community, and it is also a form of self-limitation, which I shall come to later on.

The second issue is complexity. I suggest that the controlling concept here is contextuality. Complex problems can be effectively addressed only in complex and differentiated ways. Complexity is perhaps the most significant feature of the topics discussed, be it economic transition, development or the promotion of democracy. All of them must be carried out in a given context. Contextuality has a careful and methodical regard for the context of a given problem and thus seems to be a vital parameter to the new paradigm. It is closely related to the problem of means and ends that has also been discussed at this forum.

The third element is ambiguity and the relativity of today's events. Perhaps autonomous identities and moralities could be the outweighing factor here: more and more questions in this world have no clear - cut answers and can be resolved only within a particular context. More importantly, however, coping with the growing moral relativity of choices requires firm roots in a set of values, in other words a strong, autonomous identity to back up the decisions.

The fourth element is the extent of globalisation. I suggest that here we might take advantage of the concepts of subsidiarity, local ownership, and Shumacher's concept of "small is beautiful". The sheer extent of the processes of globalisation makes them very difficult to manage; therefore these concepts were introduced to bring the solutions to the closest possible level to the actual problem. Small - scale improves feedback and enables a more human environment.

The fifth is interdependence, and as a countervailing factor here I suggest cooperation. The answer to increasing interdependence lies in enhanced communication and cooperation among and within societies, especially on the level of international standards. Many of the participants suggested different kinds of international architecture, for example international economic architecture, architecture for international human rights and many more.

The unprecedented nature of the processes, and the uncertainty that they give, is the sixth factor, and the countervailing concept here should be plurality. The basic law of ecology and system behaviour teaches us that systems are less fragile and more likely to survive, the more diverse they are. To increase the chance of finding the right solution under uncertain and imperfect conditions, one has to generate as many alternatives as possible. Moreover, we learn that alternatives tend to be complementary rather than exclusive. Besides plurality, a certain level of precaution is also desirable.

Finally, the seventh point is the threat. We are talking about very serious global problems here and, as I mentioned at the beginning, action is needed. The most adequate response to a threat is well thought out action. Many parts of the world and many problems desperately call for action. Of course, all problems have more than just one concept to counter, so uncertainty is approached with flexibility, variety and precaution. On the other hand, some of the concepts represent responses to more than just one problem, for example the forms of the concept of selflimitation, which were raised by Miklós Sükösd yesterday. I want to join him in this concept. I saw a little smile on his face when he talked about the rights of animals, but the concept itself is very valuable. I mean that the concept of voluntary simplicity reduces complexity and ambiguity as well as making people less dependent. Professor Fritjof Capra mentioned the ecological moment of the globalisation discussion.

So, that was - I apologise - a very general overview of globalisation, its problems and the seven concepts that I hope could help to resolve those problems and become values for the common vision:contextuality, autonomous identities and moralities, subsidiarity, co - operation, plurality and action.

Let me now turn to the more practical aspects and some examples. I would like to tackle three issues here: the different levels upon which these concepts can be applied, the different actors that may take advantage of this concept, and the institutions that lie behind these actors. So, let me start with the levels. All of these concepts apply differently on different levels: from global and international, to regional, communal and local levels. Whereas the process of slowing down is sought at a local level - because the common people are most affected by adverse impacts of globalisation - it is not as sought after at an international level. On the other hand, we need more action and more dynamics to create a truly useful international environment. While subsidiarity, local ownership and the "small is beautiful"concept are clearly bound to a local and national level, co - operation is conducted much more on the international level. Principles of contextuality, plurality and activity apply equally everywhere.

The actors - and now I hope it starts to be a little more interesting for you - basically, there are three categories of global actors who are likely to shape the future. However, the emphasis on the significance of each actor will greatly differ. Under the present circumstances of globalisation, the private sector and transnational corporations seem to thrive the most. Entire control over global economic processes is neither attainable, perhaps not even desirable, given the experience of command economies and the fact that TNCs (transnational corporations)are the strongest carriers of innovation and growth. In the near future, we will probably see an international consensus on a minimum regulation of transparency, bank surveillance and the flow of speculative capital - perhaps a global tax, as Mr Sachs mentioned today.

Despite TNCs, we will still have a large open space to explore. Since there is no one else to do the job, TNCs will have to regulate themselves and again it is the concept of self - limitation that can be well used here. They should do it in their own interest: contextualise their activities, which means internalise the externalities, maintain stability and legitimacy, and thus the concept of corporate responsibility. Some of the symptoms are already there: just consider internal codes of conduct, environmental and social audits, and I think that Hazel Henderson could talk for hours about the sexism in them. Even simple public relations and moral suasion might help enhance this kind of behaviour, so corporate responsibility is, I think, the first goal for the private sector.

No matter how economics might seem to prevail over politics - and it is my impression that most participants in the discussion here feel that way - states, at least in the developed societies, are still in many ways decisive actors retaining substantial power and legitimacy. After all, nuclear weapons are still here. As Hazel Henderson pointed out, the US market functions because of, rather than in spite of, the regulations. dare say that there would be no globalisation without the active support of the strongest states. And, similarly, the impact of globalisation on the developing countries is also fierce due to the malfunctioning state, or no state at all in some places, so - called failed states.

The state is not only regulator and competitor in today's world market;it is also a container of culture language and identity. Evidently, the state has its own flaws and suffers multiple crises; the crisis of expectation and crisis of accountability. The state proved to be ineffective, inflexible and incompetent with regard to the recent financial crisis as well. Most welfare states are being reduced - despite the support of Professor Osvaldo Sunkel for the welfare state and even welfare society. And if corporations are forced to behave more like states - because they seem to be the most powerful actors in the international arena, in the international domain - states are forced to behave more like corporations:they are privatised and liberalised. However, shrinking states do not have to be bad news, if instead they are empowered where there is a comparative advantage: providing a legal framework, education, infrastructures, enhancing communication, co - operation, environmental protection and assuring the plurality and freedom of its citizens.

Third, an equally important actor is civil society. Neither states nor markets can sufficiently deal with the problems generated by globalisation - as indeed almost all of you acknowledged. Civil society is both the bridge between, and vital alternative to, the private and government sector. NGOs are both private and flexible, as are corporations, but they also aim at public benefit and comprehensiveness in their focus, as do good states. Vibrant civil society is spontaneous order, based on the co - existence of autonomy and interdependence, co - ordination and decentralisation.

So, these are the actors, the institutions that are behind the actors: hierarchies behind the states, markets behind the private corporations and networks behind the NGOs. If Forum 2000 can contribute to a real and effective interplay between these three actors, assuring a reasonable amount of social cohesion, political freedom, economic performance and environmental protection - and if some of the concepts I mentioned here can be brought into existence - I believe that the future of Forum 2000 will be useful.

Thank you very much.

Takeaki Hori
Thank you, Mr Lebeda. I think some of the people sitting here in this hall may wonder why the two of us are sitting here, because the keynote speaker was originally Mario Soares, the former President of Portugal and the first civilian to have become President in the last 60 years of Portugal's history. Unfortunately, he became sick just before stepping on to the plane and was then hospitalised, but I think that he is now recovering, or at least that is the report I received from him. He asked me to give you his best regards and deepest apologies for not being able to be here today. That is why Mr Lebeda - who was supposed to play the role of moderator - was upgraded and has now taken over as the key - note speaker.

And I came in again, I am still playing baseball, but this time as a pinchhitter. Now, we are behind schedule, so I would like to turn to this honour able panel and ask them to present their ideas. First of all, I would like to invite André Glucksmann to speak.

André Gluksmann
Thank you. I am not a baseball player and so I don't know how to answer. I think it is very important that students are present here. For one, they showed us that they listened to us well and attentively. Second, it would be useful to ask ourselves a question about what they will think about us in twenty years' time, in 2020. And here I have some worries.

Let's imagine for a moment this fable. It is not 1999 but 1900. We have met for discussions in a beautiful chateau and, in this year 1900, we are discussing the future of the new century. We all say wise things, we are all experts in various areas, even though we are not all that sure that the others are such experts after all, but it is all part of the game. So, we discuss;and then, twenty years later, in 1920, would anyone take us seriously? Now, I am not tr ying to insinuate anything.

One great Austrian writer, Robert Musil, described the discussions of enlightened Vienna circles. n Vienna - Austria, the capital, the same way Prague is now a capital - the enlightened circles discussed, in 1914, the future. In a few months the war broke out and the future was quite different from those discussions. We are heedless to a point at all times.

Perhaps we learned something in this century:Pain and tragic experience form character. I am not all that sure about that. But let's not go back to 1900, just ten years back to 1989. What did we say then? We talked about the end of history, about the end of a big adversary, about the rule of peace and secured economic development. Now then, years after, reasonable people do penitence, are self - critical. At this very time, the Synod of European Bishops have assembled in Rome. Those who read the introductory report know its authors admitted they were wrong when they were overly euphoric in 1990. Now they are discovering a Europe which does not at all resemble the Europe they had hoped for.

We could say the same thing here, and it was heard here, too. The majority of speakers in the morning session emphasized hardships rather than rosy assurances. That's where we have to start, from our principal drawback which happens to be our proclivity to see everything as rosy.

Adam Michnik quoted my words:To get out of communism means to enter history. By those I just wanted to recommend for your attention Václav Havel's text delivered in Germany during Laudatio, when the Peace Prize was awarded in Frankfurt, and it is also a reply to Fukiyama. Fukiyama said:"It's already here, it's all over now, all that's left for now are some skirmishes in the suburbs and a new economic order has taken over. "It was not to be.

The piece of advice Salmon Rushdie gave to the six - billionth earthling - to that newborn baby who came to this world with 6, 000, 000, 000 - is meant quite seriously:Don't think there is a Paradise. This does not mean that Paradise does not exist. It means that the idea that Paradise will come with the year 2000 is perverse. It is a heedless idea. When we talk about development, we mostly ask ourselves whether it is for better or for worse. Perhaps just because we are not to think that Paradise will come, perhaps that is why there is no development but rather our deeds and strategy. There is not just one development in Eastern Europe, there are two developments:The road taken by Prague, Warsaw, Budapest, a road of peace and democracy;and, then there is a road trodden by Belgrade, a road of war, a road of a new dictatorship, a road of war against civilians, a war that claimed 200, 000 dead in the former Yugoslavia.

There are always several ways. The question is not "What kind of development? ", but rather "What strategy shall we choose? "We can select the first road or the second one. We must not dream about Paradise, since no Paradise is going to materialize all by itself. It will happen only if we combat various hells. "Don't believe in Paradise"means:don't forget that hells are real. And I think that only under these circumstances will the students present here think, twenty years from now, that something useful was uttered here in 1999.

If heedlessness is our biggest fault, let's ask the next questions, "Heedlessness in respect of what?" I think that the biggest challenge for people at the end of the 20th century is violence, bloodthirsty violence, deadly violence.

The 1992 UNICEF statistics showed that, of those killed in the First World War, a full 80%wore uniforms, in the Second World War there were 50% civilians and 50%soldiers killed and since then, 30 million people perished in all kinds of wars, 80%of them civilians, i. e. women, children. This war against civilians happens to be the violence of today. It is present on all continents, but we were surprised to see it in Europe. I want you to realize that, in the course of these 10 years of the war in Yugoslavia, there was not a single battle fought by opposing sides of soldiers. But we know a number of cities, besieged cities, destroyed cities, cities that were razed to the ground. They include Vukovar, artiller y - shelled Dubrovnik, Sarajevo (besieged for several years), Srebrenica the martyred. And there is an entire country, Kosovo, from where its population was chased. This is violence of a special kind. No longer violence between the armies, not even between the States, but violence against the civilians. It is not a brainchild of Europe. On the contrary. It appeared in Europe quite late after the Second World War, after the fall of the Wall. But this violence existed throughout the entire Cold War, somehow in parallel with the Cold War, it existed in Africa, in Asia and in South America, and it made a big swath at the end of the Cold War.

What do we mean by "the end of the Cold War". We refer to the freeing - up of individual initiative. Individual initiative for democracies (such as in Prague), but also individual initiative with respect to war and for localized war. Everything that had been blocked by the Blocks'discipline was released. The best and the worst alike. Also, there occurred a phenomenon nobody expected:A genocide was played out in Rwanda in 1994 before the very eyes of the whole world.

Violence is a challenge. But we must be aware that violence is universal. Not only the violence of weapons and mass destruction weapons, but also the violence of knives. It is also the violence of ideologies, not only Weltanschauung ideologies, but also racial ideologies, nationalistic ideologies and religious ideologies. Violence conducted by knives, machetes or Kalashnikovs.

The question of the year 2000 was asked by German writer Hans Christoph Busch, one of the few German writers who travel around the world a lot. He happened to be in Liberia where he encountered a Kalashnikov - toting 13 - year - old boy. He asked him:Do you realize at all that you can kill your father and mother with that thing? He asked him in English and he got an answer in English:"Why not". This is the 21st Century question. WHY NOT? .

The spread of violence, as corroborated by the UNICEF statistics (80%of the dead are civilians), means that it is no longer just violence between the States, it is no longer just a civil war, but it is also about an internal warfare, internal madness, a mad future for individuals. And herein lies the problem, as I see it. The European civil war, which started in 1914 as Czech philosopher Patočka saw it, became a planet - wide civil war. All taboos have been breached on a planet - wide scale. True, there are young people experiencing hardships, they are unemployed or homeless, and they found out that at the end of the barrel of their Kalashnikovs there can be had housing, wives, professions and authority. It is a shallow truth, but if sprinkled with a pinch of racial or religious ideology, then it works just as fine as all those grand ideologies of the 20th Century, and it makes the killing just as easy.

I think that the overthrow of taboos and the spread of violence as a response to hardships, no matter how real as everyone seems to have emphasized here this morning, represents a serious problem. Instead of Salmon Rushdie I will quote from Thucydides now. Thucydides showed that the Peloponnesian War was the worst war imaginable. Why? Because the war between Athens and Sparta was not merely a war between two States, but in Athens it was also a civil war and, with respect to the warriors, it was a sort of madness. It was Thucydides'consequential idea that:once unleashed, war no longer remains just a war between the States, but it soon becomes a civil war and an internal war as well. It is a plague. Not only in the physical sense but morally, too. Do you recall the famous description of the plague in Athens, where everyone slept with everyone, the dead were left unburied, all values were reversed, all the taboos were done away with?

I think this is what we have to have in mind with respect to the 21st Century. The majority of the population, which will ranges between 8 and 10 billion, is going to live in the cities in the 21st Century. Will these cities have water, electricity or housing? Or will young warriors seek water, housing and wives with their Kalashnikovs? We call it various types of terrorism, but it is a threat, a realistic threat. It is a 21st Century plague. Actually, not a plague but plagues, because plagues are not the same everywhere, but they are everywhere.

Third: If violence - taboo - destroying violence - is such a challenge, what then is our scale of values? Just one remark here: Words change at a slower pace than ideas. We talk about human rights as they were talked about in 1900, we talk about a world order and tolerance as we talked about them in 1900. What we risk, though, is that we will talk about them in the same shallow and ineffectual fashion as in 1900. I hope, however, that our experience will have enriched us on an intellectual level although our vocabulary remains the same. Perhaps, today we require human rights not in the name of a positive notion of a divine or human paradise, as in 1900, but rather as the name of a shared perception - and this was perhaps the greatest discovery of the 20th Century - of inhumanity, barbarism, cruelty. On all five continents, a concentration camp is a concentration camp, whether it is a communist one, a Nazi one, a Nationalist Serbian one, or what have you. A camp is a camp, and the people on the inside tend to think so.

For earthquakes we have Richter scale. A magnitude of 9 and 10 are reserved for the biggest, most horrible earthquakes;1 through 6 apply to smaller ones. We can say that, for the whole of humankind, we have a scale of crime, horror and inhumanity. We may quarrel about which has the topmost magnitude: some say that Auschwitz, others Auschwitz and the gulag, others will insist that the gulag is just a 9 and Auschwitz a sure 10. It does not really matter. What we agree on is that which needs to be prevented from taking place. And this agreement, as the aforementioned Czech philosopher said, is referred to as the solidarity of the shattered. The state of "shatteredness" means that we do not know what sort of a Sun should shine on everyone, but we know what being shattered means and what hell is.

The last point. There also is a scale for reality. I will show one example only since I have only two minutes left. For example: Chechnya. We are told what is going on in Chechnya, that the Russians oppress and massacre the population, or that the Islamic warriors do that. But the reality scale is proof that one can be, simultaneously, against a huge army crushing a small nation and also against those Islamic integrators. The story of Afghanistan shows that if a nation is attacked, the way the USSR attacked Afghanistan, the result need not be the army's victory but a heap of rubble, and that this heap of rubble will be held by terrorists and integrators. That is why the war in Chechnya needs to be ended. It's even in the interest of the Russians. The Russians conduct counterproductive operations with a boomerang effect. On the borders of Europe they are installing Islamic terrorism which will be born of the ruins they created themselves.

Thank you for your attention.

Takeaki Hori
Thank you very much, Mr Glucksmann. Only this morning, I was thinking: how can we base history on just the 20th century, or the 21st century:it is such a limited time. But, taking into consideration the facts that you have raised, maybe I have become pessimistic. Am I right or not? Anyway, I would like to discuss it later. Thank you very much, and now I will invite another of our panellists, Flora Lewis.

Flora Lewis
Thank you very much. will just briefly express my gratitude at being here to all of the organisers and plunge.

When I was a student - which was obviously a long time ago - I was very much in favour of the idea of "one world". There was an American named Clarence Streit, who was a great advocate of world government, of one world - and the ideas seemed to be self - evident:they were the dangers and damages, the terrible things that were either going on or quite visibly coming and were largely attributable to nationalism, to national rivalries, to ideas of how one group, one state could come to dominate another.

I am no longer at all in favour of a world government. I have learned over many years that I do not want a single world government until it is easy to commute to the moon, because if I do not like it I will not be able to get away. We have learned over this period that we cannot solve all problems with one formula: there is not one answer, and the one thing we can be sure about with just one answer is that it will be wrong - and probably bad. As many have said here in the past few days, democracy is not a simple formula, a question of an electoral system.

When the United Nations was established, I was following the meetings that made the draft and that made the charter. It was taken for granted that the sovereignty and equality of states was a democratic order, and a completely perverse idea to my mind was widely accepted and still is: that democracy means one state one vote.

One state is not a person, one state is not equal to one vote, and at that time there were 51 states in the UN, now there are 187 and growing fast. There is no way that majority rule of these 187 states can be accepted as a rule for the whole world. None of us are going to accept it because, with very little of the world's total population, you can have a majority of states probably with about - I have not done the arithmetic - less than one - quarter or one - fifth. But, neither would it be acceptable to have the majority rule of population, because you have two states - India and China - that represent one - third of the total world population, and their views and their requirements do not meet the wishes and needs of everybody else. So, it has been suggested, because there is clearly a problem with the United Nations operation, but the proposals that have been made up until now for how to make it better tend not to be satisfactory either.

One suggestion has been a People's Assembly - some kind of direct vote by people, not through governments. That, too, I think, is a false idea. Democracy requires an organised constituency, and that constituency has to be defined in some way - by geography, by ethnicity or by economics - so we cannot think that we are really making a great advance if we tr y to get rid of states. We still need states to organise our world.

What we can and do need to do is redefine the objectives of the states and monitor more adequately and in a more co - operative way how they affect each other. Corporations, on the other hand, are now organised to an extraordinary extent. The French paper, Le Monde , announced the other day that the world's 100 main corporations have an annual product equal to 1.5 times the gross domestic product of France. This megamerger phenomenon is gathering steam. Just a few years ago, corporations were shedding components and 10 - 15 years ago there was a merger period too. These things seem to come and go, and there is not really any countervailing power to limit the ways these corporations organise and work. That is needed, but not control - we have to be prepared to see the difference between monitoring, regulating, even advising, and controlling. In the end, what we have to admit is that everything is a matter of balance, of finding the best equilibrium, which is not in the middle, because the weights, the circumstances change.

I was asked, as part of this concluding session, to answer the question as to whether we can as a result of these conversations identify what we all have in common, what our real goals are, or whether the differences are more important. Well, I think either one is wrong. It is easy to agree on principles, on goals. We can do that without much difficulty but that is not the problem: here we have another inspiring, ineffective, and frustrating conference that doesn't change anything. The problems are all in the differences, the problems are in the specifics, and so we must address the concrete and specific questions. am going to jump on to another issue because I am running out of time.

I want particularly to speak in response to André Glucksmann about this question of intervention and how to go about it. Obviously, it is not possible to have a simple formula. It is true that we lack consistency, it is true that it is very difficult to say:if Kosovo, why not East Timor? If East Timor, why not Chechnya? If Chechnya, why not Sri - Lanka? The answer has to be that we must look at the cases, we must understand that we cannot do everything, but that is not a reason to do nothing. And therefore we must constantly look and do what we can, and have a very open and informed and sensitive sense of what we can do. As His Royal Highness Prince Hassan said, speaking of the late King of Morocco, "Do atom bombs deter? " and he said well: "Nobody's bombing Moscow because of Chechnya". This is true, and nobody is going to. We have to admit what the possibilities are, and look at the ones we have. Where, I think, we are failing badly now is where we come to a conclusion - yes, we can intervene; yes we must intervene, but we are not following up. We are not planning ahead.

I was shocked a few weeks ago, when I started to ask what kind of policy planning staff the Secretary - General of the United Nations had for the obligations of the missions that were clearly coming up. For example, when the United Nations agreed to monitor the elections in East Timor, it was at that moment self - evident that there would have to be a UN administration, a UN transitional government, practically like an occupation government, practically like a trusteeship, because there was nothing there.

Well, they had the election, they had the damage and, only then for the first time did anybody begin to say:"And now what do we do? "Nothing was prepared, nothing was ready and there was no excuse for that - because it was perfectly self - evident and it was easy to see coming. The reason it was not done is because these things are always left to the national states, and no national state had an interest in doing it. Where it needed to be done, at the United Nations, it had not been given the power or the funds to do it.

The second issue of looking forward is a little longer term, but I think it is perhaps even more important - and that is the question of Serbia and what will be Serbia's memory and understanding of this war. I would like to make a comparison: after World War One, Hitler said:"Germany was not defeated it was "betrayed" - there was a stab in the back and therefore it had the right to take revenge to get even. Serbia was not defeated. You read in the newspaper something about the capitulation of Milosevic but that is not true:he did not capitulate. He withdrew his troops under certain circumstances concerning which I think we do not have a complete account. I think that the Russians made him a deal which, it turned out, they were not able to deliver. Nonetheless, he withdrew his troops. The army was not defeated - even our own military accept that -a nd the vast majority of the Serbian population feel that they were victims. I think that it is a very dangerous way to leave this war.

The second example is Austria. The Austrians were told at the end of World War Two, in the vain hope of the allies that they would get out of the war and that would force the Germans to end the fighting earlier, that they were the first victims of the Nazis. Well, they always believed that, and they never had a real digestion of their war:they never faced their war in the way that Germany has done, and as a result the second party in Austria [is Jorg Haider's Freedom Party ], which now has pretty good prospects of entering the government.

The job of preparing the Serbs to accept their future is really the job of intellectuals:it is not the job of governments, and it is not the job of the military. In Germany, where it was done well, it was done well by the intellectuals, by the writers, by the filmmakers, by the educators, by the professors, by the philosophers and with a good deal of help from outside, from their colleagues in the rest of the world. And it is now time to start thinking ahead, to help the Serbs understand what happened to them, and why? So that we do not have this part of the world where history is a toxic poison that comes with mother's milk. To have the beginning of a useful change, we must start now and it is the job of intellectuals to help get that launched.

Thank you.

Takeaki Hori
Thank you very much, Miss Lewis. Now, I would like to invite Chancellor Clement Chang to speak.

Clement C. P. Chang
Your Excellency President Havel, moderator, participants, ladies and gentlemen. First of all, I would like to thank President Havel for his invitation to attend the third meeting of Forum 2000. It is also a great honour to have the opportunity to listen to the speeches and comments of so many distinguished participants. In addition to the seven concepts of globalisation mentioned this afternoon by our keynote speaker, Petr Lebeda, I would like to add the importance of exploring what the world will look like in the next 50 - 100 years. And what role genetic engineering, space travel, nanotechnology and biotechnology will play in the future? It is important to study whether we shall survive as a species, threatened by nuclear wars, totalitarian governments, human exploitation etc.

From a macro - historical point of view, we find evidence of non - linearity in history;historical change follows the pattern of a pendulum. Civilisations move backwards and forwards between ideational societies focused on the nature of truth, to sensate civilisations focused on pleasure and capital accumulation. Each one strings too far, with integrative stages appearing on occasions.

The most renowned Chinese historian, Shima Chien, saw history and future less in the context of bifurcation and more from the perspective of the harmonious cycle. When a leader follows the Tao, which is essentially natural, then civilisation flourishes and virtue reigns. However, over time leaders degenerate and move away from the Tao, then virtue degenerates and harmony disappears. Eventually, a new leader - what we call in China the "sageking" - will appear, and equilibrium is restored.

The pattern of history can change through directed leadership, directed social and technological evolution. The point I want to stress here is that the "conscious evolution"is not the Darwinian theory of evolution, which stresses that the fittest will survive and the weak will perish. We are now directly intervening with our evolution, the "conscious evolution, "which means that the future is being increasingly designed and created - that is why we meet here for Forum 2000. "Conscious evolution"is our first "common vision".

The second "common vision"that I want to mention here is the question of the "thrival", not just the survival of the human species. As our civilisation marches outwards into space, onward into creating new life - forms, and as our intelligence expands and our life expectancy may reach up to 100, or 150 years old, we should never forget the precarious nature of life. According to the findings and statistics compiled by the world's leading archaeologists, 90 per cent of the world's species have become extinct - human beings may be the next. With human "conscious evolution", we will be more capable of correcting mistakes and, I hope, human beings will survive. Since we will be creating new forms of life in the future, the world will not only be populated by humans and animals, but will also be populated by chimeras, cyborgs, robots and possibly even biologically created slaves. Our future generations may look back at us and find us as distant relatives, but not particularly attractive ones.

Is this the type of world we want to live in? It is not so much the nanotechnology or the biotechnology that will determine our relationship with others, be they aliens, clones or robots;the worst of human nature is to demonise others. We tr y to distinguish "us"from "them". The fundamental command of "love thy neighbour"has been replaced by the call of love thyself.

The past will not help us deal with the ethical problems being created by new life - forms. The fundamental theory of historical continuity cannot explain the reality of discontinuity in the global information age. More than ever, in this time of globalisation, we have not negotiated a globally agreed - upon ethical framework. On 12 November 1997, at the General Conference of UNESCO, a declaration was made about the responsibilities of the present generation towards future generations. This declaration addresses the needs and interests of future generations: freedom of choice, the maintenance and perpetuation of humankind, the preservation of life on earth, protection of the environment, human genome, bio - diversity, cultural diversity and cultural heritage, a common heritage of humankind, peace, development and education, non - discrimination, and finally its implementation. A more flexible process and future - based global ethical approach is a necessity. So the "thrival"of human species involves the boundaries of new global ethical conduct: ecological safety, political, economic, social and educational development, quality of life and human self - actualisation.

Yesterday, Dr Ashis Nandy said that the future of developing countries is the present of developed countries. Dr Nandy emphasised that the future is given, and that there is actually no vision for the developing countries. This may be true from a historical perspective and a pessimistic point of view. However, from a futurist's perspective, since human "conscious evolution" is non - linear, the concept of a discontinuous history and designed or created future gives us a more optimistic vision for developing countries. We in Taiwan, the Republic of China, follow the concept of "thrival"and "conscious evolution"set up by our Honourable President Lee Teng - hui as our guiding light in fighting against totalitarian ideologies, communism and fascism. And, at this point, I agree with the panellist André Glucksmann's point of view of fighting against the evil of totalitarianism.

In conclusion, ladies and gentlemen, the future cannot be known because there are so may unlimited unknowns. However, just as the distant past is difficult to trace, so is the long - term future difficult to predict. would like to conclude this by paying my most sincere respects to President Havel for his foresight, and I would also like to thank the organising committee and the Nippon Foundation for their wisdom and bravery in picking this topic "Process of World ntegration - Alternative Visions. " The Third Millennium, here we come!

Thank you.

Takeaki Hori
Thank you very much, Mr Chang. Mr Chang is from Taiwan, famous for being a trading country, and you saw how we can even trade in time. Thank you very much. Now I would like to invite my colleague Professor Nakazawa to speak.

Shinichi Nakazawa
I do not have much time, so I will simply remind you of last night's experience:the performance that took place in St Vitus's cathedral. The highest Buddhist monk, Kakuhan Enami, recited there. The absolute truth is not different from the phenomenal world and the phenomenal world does not differ from the absolute truth: that is a typical mode of thought for people in the East. Everything continues, the inside continues to the outside, the outside continues to the inside and transcendence continues slowly to immanence, everything is in a state. That is the way of Eastern thinking, and our political thinking is greatly influenced by this.

Recently, we have had to confront uncertainty and instability: the concept of the state because of globalisation, and the overwhelming flow of information. Money power comes in over the barrier of the states and changes everything. Globalization is frightening, as is the transcendence of states and the concept that states are changing dramatically. Transcendence and immanence connect inside and outside; nature and human beings connect. We are thinking about this difficult situation and different kind of thinking. In the 21st century, we must reconstruct a new way of thinking, a new political thinking.

Thank you

Takeaki Hori
Thank you very much, Professor Nakazawa.

Takeaki Hori
Hazel Henderson is not supposed to be on this panel, since she has already given a speech on a previous panel, yet again I have been given time so cannot complain. If you don't mind - just until everyone is seated - I will continue my nonsense story, just a short story. On my way to the Czech Republic, I thought why not visit what used to be the other half of Czechoslovakia, in other words Slovakia. I stayed there for a couple of days whilst on my way to Prague - and I just happened to visit a wine cellar in the locality where I met a young student on an apprenticeship. We went there, and started tasting local wines, and afterwards I asked this young student why are you doing a PhD in international political studies?

And he said that when he was a child his grandfather took him one day over the weekend - because his grandfather had a beautiful wine - cellar underground - so, as a child, he often stayed alone with his grandfather and during that time his grandfather invited over lots of intellectual people and they said: "well, my fellow gentleman, now are you going to taste wine as a human being or as an animal? "This upset all the intellectuals; nobody answered:"I am ready to drink like an animal. "Well, let's just behave like human beings and he started opening up all different kinds of wine, on and on well past midnight, and when the people were ready to hit the road they had to start climbing up more than 50 stairs. By the time most people were halfway, they couldn't even go up the proper way on foot, because the temperature goes up through the hard labour of exercising in going up, which accelerates the blood circulation, and everyone was just crawling up the stairs, so in the end everyone was like an animal. And the grandfather said to this child:see, I told you, animals have self - limiting regulatory kinds of genes, but human being do not. This comes back to my original idea of how to control the human mind, which is unlimited, driven by desire and materialism. This is what I wanted to say. Thank you.

Now I will open the floor to Gavan Titley, he is also from the students'forum.

Gavan Titley
Thank you very much, Mr Chairman, distinguished guests, friends. Firstly, would like to reiterate the honour that has been expressed and felt by my colleagues in the students'forum - both to be given the floor here at the forum, and also to be given the opportunity to tr y to represent the ideas that were expressed at the students'forum here in June. And I think I will begin by tr ying to present one of those debates.

One of the main debates of the students'forum was the notion of how to educate for a "global consciousness", by which mean the sociologist Roland Robertson's concept of "globality"- which is the idea that people are becoming more and more aware of the interconnections and interdependencies engendered by global processes, and that therefore a number of paradigm shifts in thought and action are demanded.

I would like to link this to the title of the session, "Common Visions", because I would argue that to consider anything as fanciful as "global consciousness"we must not only look at common visions as being what we can envisage together, but firstly we must look at how we view each other. Therefore, my argument today is that in public discourse in the West approaches to development are often framed by essentialist assumptions and disseminated through media systems, where grossly unequal patterns of access and representation - in both senses of the word - disqualify attempts at sustained critique. Allied to this, it could be argued that what Zygmunt Bauman has described as the reality of vagabonds and tourists - that is the continued growth in enforced movement, on the one hand, and leisured mobility on the other - have led to a structurisation of human contact that does little to interrogate and challenge dominant assump - tions in the West. And I would like to argue that this has consequences for three of the main concepts that have been discussed here as possible correctives:a representative media, allied to that a thriving public sphere, and a dynamic and influential civil society.

Firstly, I would like to look at the issue of the media and development because, 20 years on from the MacBride report, many countries still find themselves on the wrong end of the information imbalance. "Common visions"become clouded when one partner in that commonality has the power to choose the landscape and tell everyone what glasses they should wear when they are looking at it.

While this relates to the point that Ashis Nandy made on the first day, concerning the disentitling of the developing world to its own vision, my empha- sis here is about how the global commercial media invite us to view the developing "other". We have come to expect - and rightly so - that political and socio - economic phenomena in the West are subject to intense and rigorous scrutiny, but many development activists would argue that the news values of the body - count still apply to large areas of the world. Disasters and massacres, often with minimum context, are the main reasons for the representation of Africa and parts of Latin America on Western screens. And if you will pardon my caricatures, I would like to look at some.

How often do we see the emblematic image of the starving African child seen as the victim of nature alone, childlike in their dependency on the aidgiving west, and without the comparative socio - political context that we have got used to expecting?

While the recent wars of the West were subject to the minute and immediate analysis normally reserved for sport, how often were we told that the genocide in Rwanda was inevitable tribal slaughter and the culmination of age - old ethnic squabbles? Quite rightly, Henry Kissinger was tackled last year at this forum for applying that reasoning to the Balkans, but somehow we are being asked to accept that Rwandans behaved like so many savages from the pages of Joseph Conrad.

And, as Edward Said has so often pointed out and as his Royal Highness alluded to yesterday, how often is the very fact of Islam itself offered as sufficient explanation for random factors in complex political situations. And perhaps this is something of the ideological violence to which André Glucksmann referred so eloquently.

What these slightly polemical examples illustrate is that if we want to tackle a "common vision", where questions of development are dealt with in an informed way, then an economy of representation, where only the face of global inequality is consistently represented - without the level of analysis that is standard western practice - then the perspective of the vision is skewered from the start. On top of this, we have to ask basic questions concerning who represents whom because, even with the best intentions, speaking for the "other"is always problematic.

Now, I am not trying to suggest that there is a uniform social reality in devel- oping areas that is elusive to the western gaze. It has been pointed out that the developing discourse often homogenises the areas that it tries to describe. Rather, that a common vision can only result from a plurality of voices and visions, engaging in a sustained critique.

To return to the evolution of global consciousness, it strikes me that a key element of this must be self - regulation, allied to knowledge of the power that Western agents have within the interdependencies of globalisation, as both citizens and consumers. If we prescribe a task for the media to introduce into the public sphere - the entire complexities of development and not just conventional analysis - then activists in civil society must be aware of where they can work within that chain of complexity. Many of the issues raised here are already the subject of education and agitation by a vast network of youth and non - governmental organisations. And I would contend - if I may extend Ashis Nandy's metaphor from the first day about the expectant mother on the roadside - that we have a lot of midwifery to do for ourselves. This must be done before we can claim any right to be holding the hand of the expectant mother on the roadside and haplessly advising her to breathe.

Therefore, contend that there are many things that lie within the sphere of the agency of the individual in the West. For example, how much real pressure do we put on western governments to abandon the grotesque accountancy of the arms trade? Even if we don't look outside our own insularity, surely the fact that UN peacekeepers are menaced by their country's own weapons must strike some of us as being absurd.

There has been much discussion here of resource distribution and particular values that inform consumer society. But we must also realise that if you are constituted as a consumer then you can also empower yourself as one. There are many companies based in Western Europe and the USA that would squirm uncomfortably if consumers asked questions about their interventions in the political systems of developing countries and also the kinds of production they engendered. More and more, fair-trade networks exist in Europe as well as consumer information groups, which can begin to enable the kind of consumer literacy that I made reference to yesterday.

What of the human traffic into the West? While it is only a trickle in relation to global migration, it is so often the subject of racist policies and public apathy, or even worse, as in Austria, it is given democratic legitimacy? Riane Eisler made the point yesterday that if power relations in the family are dysfunctional, then how can we translate this to larger social relations? To extend this, if Western societies cannot deal with refugees in a normal and empathic fashion, then how can we ever translate those intercultural relations to the common vision of the minority and majority world on questions of rights and co - operation? As Trinh T. Minh - ha has observed, there is a third world in every first world and vice - versa. Our consciousness of the global, like good manners, should begin at home.

And it is at home - in the local and national sense, and in increasing networks of international co - operation - that youth are working to educate for a global world. Take the diversity of cultures, disciplines and approaches that informed the student forum. We are conscious that education needs to address development in terms of intercultural learning, that is, how we can approach co - operation with others, aware of the challenges and power relations of cultural difference, and elucidate a common vision that is comfortable with the fact that we don't see things the same way, but that in terms of rights we want to see the same thing at the end of the day. Youth is already conscious of the power of civil society as discussed here, and not only because of its disenfranchisement from other structures of influence.

Yet I must end, Mr Chairman, with a cautionary note on the idea of youth itself. Youth is a notoriously unstable sociological term and a political category that is not always constructed by the people within it. We are youth here, not only in terms of chronology, but also in terms of access to education and privileges, which blur the traditional relationships between the sphere of youth and the workforce. This same phase of development, or the same concept of youth, is not open to child soldiers in Africa, child labourers in a multitude of countries and, closer to home, to individuals who do not enjoy access to cultural and economic capital in the same way we do. Therefore, we are conscious that while the student delegates are representative regionally - at least to a degree - we cannot represent the levels of the experience of youth that exist in our societies. So, the happy dichotomy of youth and action, age and experience, must be questioned, not only because I have seen no shortage of motivation at all levels of the conference, but also because much youth is disenfranchised, disempowered and alienated.

To pick up on this morning's discussion of education, we need to educate for the job market, so that youth can acquire the skills and qualifications necessary to earn a living. As Lydia argued in the first student intervention, this is a human right. Yet we must be careful that the need to equip people with skills does not result in the market dictating the values and ethos on which we base education. Education should not try to train clients and consumers; it needs to recognise and address the wide range of social capabilities individuals need to survive and participate in the complex web of interdependencies that our keynote speaker laid out so well.

Unfortunately, in the West and increasingly elsewhere, education is dictated by the short - term demands of the market. It is a fallacy that education can keep pace with the demands of the job market, even though it is a definite consideration. We need to rethink the values and principles of education, which can stimulate engagement with the project of globality that we have mentioned. This does not entail a paradigm shift. This entails the death of the paradigm.

Preparations for the funeral, you will be glad to know, were made here this summer during the students'forum, when we engaged with the crucial importance of educating for the values of civil society. The primary realisation that resulted from this is that the artificial institutional and ideological divide between the formal and informal sectors is unsustainable. n terms of content and structures, a range of educational and socialising actors, principal among them youth organisations, non - governmental associations and the informal networks of the young, matter as much as school or university. Informal youth education can and does address civil society, but this can only be relevant to people whose survival and well - being is not at stake.

Skills in relation to culture and development, such as the values that we have tried to develop here - empathy, tolerance of ambiguity, critical engagements and the expression of solidarity - are increasingly the preserve and priority of this youth civil society. It is patently aware of its role as first aid to the deficiencies of the family and formal education. These skills address one important aspect of the vision, which is that we have to develop social actors - both citizens and non - citizens, both tourists and vagabonds - that are capable of understanding and constructing social and political realities based on values for this elusive global consciousness, if the common vision that we talk about is ever to admit perceptions and divergences other than those from the West. Youth, define it as you will, is engaged in this project regardless. Young people are not crying out for help, but asking for partnership.

Thank you very much for your time.

Takeaki Hori
Well, thank you very much, Mr Gavan Titley, it was very well done and also fascinating. Thank you very much indeed. Hazel Henderson is now back in this hall, you will notice that your name is still on my agenda. Would you like me to give you five minutes so that you can say something very briefly?

Hazel Henderson
Yes, I had the opportunity to speak yesterday. I was switched with Toni Morrison and so I didn't expect to have so much time today. But I didn't want to leave my statement yesterday unfinished, and I was just getting to the good news about my country - and so I would like to get on the record what I would have ended up saying.

There is much good news. The civic sector of US society is extremely active and these voluntary non-profit organisations now represent 8 per cent of our GNP. Some 80 million US citizens volunteer at least five hours of their time each week to community service and, if that were added into the GDP figures, we would all feel a lot more hopeful. Philanthropy is growing and becoming more of a culture, and this is also a source of encouragement.

But the field in which I work most closely - the financial field, advising socially responsible investment funds - is of course, to me the most exciting. We began these funds that invest only in companies that observe a good human rights record and meet ILO [International Labour Organisation] criteria for labour standards and environmental protection standards. When we started our fund, the Calvert Group, in 1982 there was only one such fund: it was a non - military kind of investment fund and our criteria also stipulate that they should be non - military companies. Now there are 60 funds that compete with us, which we love. They tr y to imitate us, and there are 40 more in registration with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The total amount of this kind of investment in the US is about USD 1.3 trillion. We have our index - as I may of mentioned last year - called the Domini 400 Social Index, and I'm happy to say that it is still out - performing the Standard and Poor's 500 index and has done every year for the past five years. So, we are teaching investors that eco - efficiency and social efficiency can also compete in the market place. And many investors now understand that when you conserve materials and conserve energy you tend also to be able to have a more fully employed workforce, and you can also make money doing this. There are a lot of good examples of that.

Whereas in the past we have been disliked intensely by The Wall Street Journal and many of the business magazines because what we do implies a judgment that they are irresponsible, which they don't like, but even this is turning around now. Dow Jones -you may have noticed - has brought out its own sustainability group index. Now, we don't particularly agree with the measures that they use - they are not as stringent as ours are - but one thing that is very clarifying is that it means that we now have it out on the table, that economics is not a science;it is normative. And these kind of social and environmental analysis methods and social auditing corporations are driven by human values. The important thing is that economics is normative; it is not a science.

Turning to the question of world integration, I do believe that the visions of very many diverse people in the world can be reconciled along the lines that President Havel has talked about, this "moral minimum". And this is much more visible in simple societies that are not so Cartesian and dominated by thinking in the head. This is the very simple vision of Mother Earth and the human family, which comes from all indigenous people all over the world. I would just point to the efforts of the group in Costa Rica called the Earth Council, who have been circulating a charter called the Earth Charter. Millions of people have signed this charter and I think that it is a very simple expression of all the things that we have been talking about: selflimitation, the need to be happy and work together and work within the limitations of the earth. And so I don't despair, even though sometimes being on the board of the Worldwatch Institute can be very depressing.

Thank you.

Takeaki Hori
Thank you very much. That is the end of the panellists'speeches, so I would like to open the floor. I would like to invite Mr Capra to speak.


Fritfof Capra
Thank you, Mr Chairman. I would like to make a brief comment about evolution. But before I do that I would like to take this opportunity to say that having been at the first Forum 2000 two years ago, and now again at this one, for me the most significant difference is the contribution of so many young people from the students'forum. I would like to ask you all to acknowledge our friends from Europe, Africa and Latin America for their passionate and brilliant contributions. Let us give them a round of applause.

Takeaki Hori
It is wonderful to hear that from you. Thank you very much.

Fritfof Capra
So, I have a brief comment about the creation of new life - forms that was mentioned by Professor Chang in his presentation. Over the past 20 or 30 years, there has been significant re - thinking of the theory of evolution in science. One of the results of this re - thinking has been the recognition that mutation is not the only driving force of evolution, that symbiosis is another very important phenomenon that leads in time, through co - evolution, to the generation of new life - forms in the process known as "symbio - genesis". This theory was developed in the 1970s by Lynn Margulis, a microbiologist in America, and it is now widely accepted. Now, what this means for the creation of new life - forms is that in order to do so we would need to cooperate with the existing life - forms, with existing species and, of course, what we are doing now is just the opposite. We are exterminating existing species at a frightening rate, and if we do not manage to stop this - if we do not manage to achieve ecological sustainability - then there is no chance for "conscious evolution".

Thank you.

Takeaki Hori
Thank you. Our next speaker is Miss Christina Rougheri

Christina Rougheri
Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. I would like to make a comment - you could even call it a criticism of young people - in respect to the legacy of work at the turn of the century. It is a comment about the issue of the increase in violence, or violence of another kind that we observe in today's world. A very good point was raised in this panel this afternoon. I wanted to comment on this by saying that I do not think that we have more violence today or a different kind violence because we are worse people compared with people in other eras, but because violence nowadays - and I am talking about verbal, physical and psychological violence - exists and is being tolerated, if not promoted, in a more institutionalised way. I am not talking about the way the institution was seen by Max Weber in respect to violence. To be more concrete, I mean the powerful war industry that was mentioned by Gavan Titley. I come from Greece and I can tell you that we spend more money on weapons - because of the fear of Turkey, that is the argument, and Turkey does the same - than on education. I think that is a very important point. We have Mafia, terrorist networks connected to prostitution, drugs and black markets mainly affecting women and children. n many countries, this is also connected to bureaucracy and political systems. We even have media violence. Nowadays, even cartoons are violent and we are so accustomed to this violence that we take it to be natural and, in this light, I would say that the answer that was given - "why not? "- in respect to the Kalashnikov does seem very natural. That is my point. Thank you very much.

Takeaki Hori
At the very first meeting here two years ago, quite a few people mentioned that some countries are run by the media or have been taken over by the Mafia, and I think that this is one of the issues that we have to consider. Thank you very much. Now, I would like to invite Miss Lydia Bosire to speak.

Lydia Bosire
Thank you Mr Chairman. I have three unrelated comments and they will be very brief. My first comment is about what Mr Sachs emphasised this morning about the importance of science and technology as a tool for development. What would request Mr Sachs to think about is the practicality of the suggestion. In a sub - Saharan African context, in order to foster a science culture and stop Kenyan scientists from going to practise in the United States, we need to build a conducive atmosphere.

This conducive atmosphere means establishing a state, for example, in Somalia and providing basic needs, enough for people to have a human standard of living, before they can appreciate the importation or mobilisation of the science and technology that you so eloquently talked about. So, once we are successful in feeding people and teaching them how to write, then economic growth can be next on the agenda. When I think about the realities of the African situation, retard the progress of this conference because I cannot help but feel that more basic needs should be addressed. So, to Mr Sachs's urgent list I would incorporate a very simple point and that is the provision of basic needs.

My second point. This morning, Mr Han Sung - Joo said that we cannot leave human rights to the whims of the state, and Mr Sachs later said that there are many misguided development strategies being carried out by Washington. So, basically, we discredited both the role of the state and the role of civil society in carr ying out these global responsibilities. Who then will take up this responsibility?

I am in support of Dr Stránský's idea that we can be different at this conference only if we can start by acknowledging our responsibility. We have addressed global ethics, we will not continue addressing them in the abstract, but at the end of this conference we need to acknowledge in some form that we have a duty to oversee the implementation of hu man rights, education and development.

To my third and last point, I acknowledge that all of you here are very grateful for the opportunity to be able to share your views. I would like to pass on a statement that Dr Oscar Arias, the President of Costa Rica, shared with young people at a conference in London last month. He said to the young people who are inheriting our beautiful and desperate planet, and who want to be partners in the making of the future:"Progress can be made only by those who are audacious enough to put aside their fears and imagine something better, and I am confident that even in the face of all our human weaknesses, the power of your dreams will not be overcome. "

Thank you very much.

Takeaki Hori
It is great to hear this kind of comment from you. Thank you very much. I can accommodate one or two additional comments. Now, Mr Serguey Kovalyov.

Serguey Kovalyov
Thank you, Mr chairman. I found it not only appropriate but, maybe, even necessary, to say a few words in this highly esteemed company on the dangerous developments in the Northern Caucasus. I hope I shall not contradict the opinions of most of those present if I express deep concern over the increasing number of victims amongst the peaceful populations in Chechnya. I think such concern is quite appropriate in view of the fact that the use of force by the federal authorities is totally inadequate to the dangers - including terrorism - that may develop in Chechnya. The military activities cause suffering primarily not to terrorists, but to the peaceful population.

Thank you for attention.

Takeaki Hori
Thank you very much, Mr Kovalyov. Professor Sachs would like to speak now.

Jeffrey Sachs
Thank you. I wanted to have the chance to respond to Lydia Bosire's question to me, if I could, just very briefly. First, on the question of basic needs, one of the things that I have mentioned repeatedly - but I will mention it one more time - is that the burden of external debt for most of sub - Saharan Africa is taking in current debt service payments more than the combined spending on health and education. So, if you want a very practical way forward, it would be to cancel these debts and this, I think, is an imperative first step and should be done - and I hope can be concluded very shortly. The heartening news is that President Clinton has said, at least with respect to the US debt, that 100 per cent of the claims against the poorest countries will be cancelled. He made this statement two weeks ago. He has to get congressional approval, but having the President on your side is a good start, so I think that there is some progress in that.

The second issue is the mobilisation of science, and here I would stress that it is not a matter of waiting, of doing one or the other, but tr ying to think through how this can be done, even now. There have been some important advances, for example in putting genes to help code for vitamins or amino acids into some of the staple foods in tropical environments. f one can use biotechnology effectively, it could make an extremely significant difference to nutrition, particularly in areas that lack key nutrients right now. There has been vitamin A enrichment in maize as part of recent transgenic advances which, I think, is extremely positive.

I have made a proposal that the leading countries should establish a fund that would guarantee the purchase of a malaria vaccine, or a vaccine for tuberculosis or AIDS when such a vaccine is established. Right now, we do not have the science for it, but the basic science is actually in place. It is expected that within 5 - 10 years, with a suitable effort by the pharmaceutical companies you could achieve such a vaccine, but nobody is working on it right now because nobody feels that there is much money to be made from it. So, I have made a proposal that if such a vaccine were developed, there would actually be the money to pay for it and to distribute it to those who needed it. President Clinton has called for a meeting at The White House in January, in order to discuss this proposal, and some other similar proposals, so maybe there is going to be some progress there as well.

The Gates Foundation is about to announce a very substantial gift to buy existing vaccines such as for Influenza type B, the hepatitis vaccine or measles vaccines, which are available but not used in many of the developing countries. Thus, you have needless deaths of hundreds of thousands of children because the money isn't there to purchase the vaccines, and the Gates Foundation is going to announce several hundred million dollars devoted to this effort - as a start, with more to come later on. My point is that we need to think of all sorts of institutional approaches to engage the private sector, the public sector and the foundations to address these scientific needs.

Takeaki Hori
Thank you very much, Professor Jeffrey Sachs. All the time, your recommendations and advice are excellent and ought to be taken note of. After this conference, the programme committee will give that consideration and evaluation. Thank you very much. Now, Professor Sunkel, would you like to join us for just three minutes.

Osvaldo Sunkel
Very briefly, since the subject has come back. Professor Sachs said in his reply this morning that he did not really believe that there was a problem with the power structure, that the world was in an unequal situation because science and technology were, basically, accumulated in certain countries and not in others.

I just wanted to make the comment - he has in fact made it himself now - that I could not agree that there is some sort of immaculate conception of science and technology. Science and technology happen somewhere because of the markets for science and technology. They are probably the most imperfect of all markets, and there is a tremendously important role for government in the public sphere and private enterprise. But markets just do not function:this is one of the main areas where markets do not work.

I wanted to make this point this morning but did not have the chance: now Jeffrey has made the point himself. I am not one of those who believes in "conspiracy theories" although, when a friend of mine was once asked if he believed in magic, he said: "No, I do not, but of course it sometimes works. " So I do not believe in "conspiracy theories", but maybe there is something in it - and we should tr y to get away from it.

Thank you very much.

Takeaki Hori
Thank you very much. One thing that I forgot to mention about the students' forum is the geographical distribution: we have representatives from Europe, Latin America, Africa and we also have one Asian representative, just to remind you. The first half of my session was conducted in such a hurr y that I stole some of my colleagues'time, so, Professor Nakazawa if you would like to have say four or five minutes in compensation …

Shinichi Nakazawa
I would like to express our feelings and thoughts in the most condensed expression, so a few minutes will be enough for me. The Japanese have said that they are not skilful in conferences because they are not active; the Japanese like to be passive, and passiveness has an important significance for our way of life.

To live embodied in nature and the cosmos, passiveness is a very important factor, so we Japanese tr y to live passively. After our experience in the process of modernisation, we realised that if we became too active we may make a grave mistake towards the surrounding countries. So, we decided to go back to passiveness in living. But I think that it is possible that globalisation impas - siveness, powerless power over passiveness, is a very difficult concept to understand. But when I realise the symbiosis and harmony imbalance in the world, I think that passiveness is of great importance for the future.

Takeaki Hori
Thank you very much, Professor Nakazawa. Time really goes so quickly. Just before President Havel arrives, I want to thank, on behalf of all here, the people who are involved in Forum 2000 - not only the participants, but also the people who work behind the scenes. It took so many people to make this conference perfect, and it is really appreciated.

Thank you very much for your co - operation. Over the past three days, everyone has made a wonderful commitment and devotion and really tried to find solutions for the coming 21st century. Everybody gave us such enlightening questions and comments - and we can take those back home. But before we reunite here in Prague, everyone has one year, so think about that and nurture your home. We are looking forward to coming back here some time in the autumn. We gather here under the commission of President Havel. Therefore, think that we tr y to design according to his ideas, architecturally and intellectually. We are not sure how you have done it, but this step has allowed us to build some more steps and we will continue and, of course, welcome renovation and changes as well.

The President of the Nippon Foundation Mr Yohei Sasakawa would like to say a few words.

Yohei Sasakawa
Professor Sachs has mentioned the African question - I would like to add several remarks to it.

All the countries of the West, without exemption, have recently adopted pessimistic attitudes toward Africa:"No matter what you do, the Africans spoil everything, no matter what you teach them, they don't master anything". For me, this overflowing pessimism is very disappointing. The most important thing for the Africans is to supply them with self-confidence. After the catastrophic famine in Ethiopia fifteen years ago, during which more than two million people died, in just three years I was able to change Ethiopia into a food exporting country. Now, after this Conference, I will go to African Mali. When the peasants of twelve sub - Saharan countries, who cannot read or count, see the amount of foodstuff they, themselves, produced, having grown three to five times the normal amount. Their eyes sparkle with the joyful experience, and they become really inspired with self - confidence.

The question of illnesses has been also mentioned by Professor Sachs. Through the long - running activities of our Foundation, there has been a rapid decline of such illnesses as Leber's congenital blindness, psittacosis (parrot disease) and leprosy;and this has been achieved, as you may have observed from the statistics.

Professor Sachs has also said that Africa is suffering from terrible fractionation. My position is, also, that this fractionation should be overcome. But I would ask: To what purpose has hundreds of billions of dollars been used? Was the West's help really correct? It is not only the responsibility of the African countries, we in the West should feel responsible as well;I think we are responsible for it. The West was convinced it was doing a benevolent deed when granting distinguished African students an opportunity to study in the United States or Europe. But did those students really return, back to their home countries? Most of them, after completing their higher education, settled in the U. S. or in Europe and today they occupy excellent posts there. A good intention resulted in a brain drain. This is only one example.

The peasants who cannot read, or count, find answers to the questions of how to survive in their time - honored tradition. This tradition is their source of wisdom and knowledge.

I would like to report to you how, through a merely slight uplifting of the living standard of these peasants, Africa can change into a promising Continent. But we must not impose Western logic on it. Approaches consisting of bestowing teaching or guidance from the top is - in the case of Africa - useless. It is important to adopt a different posture: Try to help the Africans to change step by step, not swiftly, the mechanism inherent in their society.

I would like everyone in this assembly to look at Africa without pessimism. I firmly believe it is a Continent with a lot of possibilities. At least in the twelve sub - Saharan countries we are now approaching a situation in which the local peasants will be capable of achieving everything independently, through their own efforts.

Democracy or law is also important but, unless people are fed, even if the law is established, it is meaningless, it is useless to teach anybody democracy. am convinced that help from the West should aim at making the Africans have regular meals, to be able to eat three times a day. If the food supply is sufficient, then even the health situation and public hygiene will improve.

My speech seems to have become too long - so I shall finish here, but wish you would look toward Africa with expectations. With meaningful co - operation from the West, the Africa of the 21st Century will be able to change into a brilliant country!

Takeaki Hori
Thank you very much, Mr Saskawa. We have found a new agenda for next year's forum. Thank you very much indeed. Now, the President is here and I would like to return to my place. All of us must concentrate our architectural effort and now everything goes back to the President, but before then Professor Musil.

Jiří Musil
Thank you, Mr Chairman, I am sitting next to Professor Nakazawa and, when he finished his speech, he said something that provoked me: you said that the Japanese like passiveness. wanted to simply ask you, would you be passive looking at somebody who is dying in the river?

I think this is a very important issue: how one interprets these things. Here, in our forum, we are very friendly, and I feel that we somehow manage to fall open in this friendly atmosphere and climate. You should understand that maybe a Westerner would tell you:My god, you have to jump into the river, you have to be active and you have to do something! And I see this perspective. However, when you then used terms such as harmony and consensus I joined you as well.

So what am tr ying to say, in such a disorganised way, is that maybe there are some moments when being active is the proper reaction. And, of course, there are some moments when we start to think about our lives in philosophical terms, about our faith. Then, of course, I know that the only solution is to try to be in harmony with yourself and with the world to find a solution. But, looking on a dying child in a river, I think there is nothing else to do but to jump into the river and to tr y to save the child. This was my short reaction.

Shinichi Nakazawa
In such a case, I would - without hesitation - jump into the river and help the child. The word passiveness has different meanings. Mr Sasakawa, in his speech, expressed one aspect of passiveness. It is very delicate.

The Japanese are very good at studying monkeys and gorillas in Africa, because Japanese scientists can recognise their identities and give personal names to the monkeys. Japanese scientists recognise that every monkey has its own personality, and this helps in this delicate science.

Mr Sasakawa said that the most important thing is to heighten the level of the eye to the object. We should not become higher than the world and higher than the object. We realise that the harmony or balance in nature and the world has to be at the same level as the object, so we apply the science of the monkeys to every field, even political attitudes. So, that is one of the meanings of passiveness - not to be higher than the object.

Takeaki Hori
Thank you very much, Professor Nakazawa. This is the end of our session and I would like to return this beautiful hall back to the President.

Václav Havel
Ladies and gentlemen,

It is a joyful duty to thank you all for your presence at the third Forum 2000;for your creative participation in our deliberations;and, for sharing the conviction that such debates have meaning. I am very grateful to you for all this, and I am no less pleased to see that this Forum, originally meant to be held just once, is turning into a standard;that people enjoy coming here and attend repeatedly;and, that there is a chance to develop this project into a lasting institution of large annual gatherings and, perhaps also, to establish some kind of a small study center, as a crossroads of impulses, thoughts and ideas, that would work on a continuous basis between the conferences. These are very good things indeed. As one of those who stood at the cradle of these Forums, I sincerely rejoice to see this happen, and I should like to share this joy with you today.

It would, of course, be foolish to expect that such intense and multicolored discussions, which exposed the various problems of our contemporary civilization to examination from diverse angles, against the background of different experiences and different professions, could be summed up in some simple conclusion. This is certainly not my ambition, so I will not even try. All that was said here will be printed in a book, we will be able to study it;to dwell upon it;and, to respond to it. I shall, therefore, limit myself now only to a few points that have seized my memory.

It appears to me that globalization is to be taken as a matter of fact - as something that has arrived and that nobody will either stop or undo; so there would hardly be any point in trying to stop it or to undo it. It is true that it may be double - edged. But this should be taken as a challenge;it should make us endeavor to establish the political, as well as the human and moral dimensions of the process. Globalization should not be a blind self - movement of a technological civilization advancing like a steam - roller and crushing countries, nations and continents along the way. It should be a process that genuinely benefits the human race.

A number of points attracted my attention in this context - for instance the idea of "global public goods"as it was mentioned here, as some kind of a transparent, simple and meaningful method of redistribution on a global scale. I was also impressed by the idea of a "global legal environment". I have personally experienced that the political structures of today's world, beginning with the United Nations, are immensely cumbersome and immensely bureaucratized. Nevertheless, their importance is growing and will continue to grow. In the century to come, various regional organisms will play an increasingly important role between nation - states and the global community, and an ever greater role will also be played by the world community as a whole. But its structures must be debureaucratized; imbued with a human spirit;and, inspired with an ethos.

Another thought that caught my attention was the idea of self - restraint, moderation and self - control, meaning not only that various dictators should restrain themselves in their power ambitions, but self - restraint in a much wider sense of the word.

The concept of unity in diversity, also frequently mentioned, remains on my mind as well. It is a matter of preserving the identity of individual religions, cultures, nations and spheres of civilization while, at the same time, endeavoring to find a key to their coexistence, to identify the lowest common denominator - a set of moral and spiritual tenets that are common to all, and that may constitute the starting point for our life together. We who attended the multireligious reflection in St. Vitus'Cathedral could observe that while the language spoken by the representatives of the different religious beliefs was different, their words always seemed to convey certain identical fundamental appeals, such as a call for humility toward the order of the world, the order of Being, and the order of nature;a call for patience;a call for solidarity;and, a call for openness.

Many speakers also concurred in subscribing to the principle that evil must be combated - preferably at the earliest possible stage, before it has had occasion to spread. I trust that I speak for us all when, in this connection, I express my appreciation for the courageous voice of Serguey Kovalyov in criticizing the actions of the Russian Federation in Chechnya. I believe that we understand his position and value it. Yes, evil must be combated and globalization has one major advantage in this respect - it lets us know of the evil being done. Who of us would be aware of what happens in Rwanda or East Timor if it were not for the modern global media?

Ten years ago the world seemed to be fairly simple. There was the First World, the Second World and the Third World, and the First and the Second Worlds were waging battles for influence in the Third. This clearly arranged world disintegrated, and while its demise was certainly a good thing, the new world suddenly appeared somewhat difficult to grasp. A wealth of problems and differences, which had lain dormant in contemporary civilization, came into view in all their nakedness. Under the previous world order - a thoroughly unnatural and artificial structure which went against the natural tendencies of life and, in fact, against life itself - all this remained hidden, as if it was covered by a cloak. Once the old order fell apart, the world appeared before us as it really is - full of contradictions. Speaking about these contradictions, and thinking about ways of dealing with them, is the mission of this Forum 2000. Time and again we are confronted with the need that something must happen in the human soul, in human consciousness, in human and societal self - awareness. A new sense of global responsibility is clearly required, while a global irresponsibility seems to prevail for the time being. We must look for resources that will enable us to counteract, and to encourage and foster responsible global thinking.

The movements that were formed, in our part of the world ten years ago, in opposition to Communist rule often called themselves forums. It was an indication that the closed world, the blocked world, the world which incarcerated the human personality was beginning to open itself. Forum means openness and dialogue, it means that truth is not hidden, but sought, described, discussed and acted upon. It seems to me that after those various forums overthrew their totalitarian regimes, and the entire bipolar world order collapsed, the world as a whole has become a new forum - a grand juncture of currents, interests, ideas, differences and debates.

I, therefore, find it a good thing that our project is also named Forum and that it has established itself as one of the many stones to be placed together in the mosaic of the quest for humanity's new approach toward itself and toward its presence on this planet. The turn of the millennium is a special occasion highlighting the significance of this historic challenge. I believe that we would all be gratified if our Forum 2000 helped, both now and in the future, to provide answers to this momentous call which faces us at the turn of ages.

I thank you once again for your participation in this undertaking.


Supported by

Jyllands-Posten Foundation


Follow us on