„In nowadays world there is a great need of such conferences and discussion workshops and Forum 2000 has been playing an important and unique role in that respect.“
Ana Martinho, Ambassador of Portugal, 2004
HomepageProjectsForum 2000 Conferences1999TranscriptsMorning Session, Oct. 13

Morning Session, Oct. 13

Jiří Musil
Good morning and welcome to this third session. It is planned as a session that will tr y to arrive at some conclusions, to define the interactions between different concepts of the common life in our shrinking world. Allow me to express the opinion of many people in Central Europe. We are deeply aware - thanks to our histories - of the need to combine, in the real and deep sense of the word, the concept of the local, the regional and the universal. I think that the main idea that has been discussed here, from the beginning of our conference, is how to be universalistic, how to find the common rules, the common base, a kind of global - I don't know if I should use the term "vision" - awareness, a global responsibility, and at the same time not to be uprooted, not to lose our deep feelings and beliefs.

In this region, I think we are starting to understand that these things can be combined and must be combined, because without the ability to do so it may be that we will face difficulties, if not disasters. I am extremely glad to start this panel with a keynote speech by Jeffrey Sachs. We are looking forward to your words; The floor is yours.

Jeffrey Sachs
Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. We have a big agenda today and I have been given a big topic, I hope that I can make a small contribution to it. I think our work today is interestingly framed by the news of yesterday. On the one hand - for those of you who had the chance to catch some television - you saw the UN Secretary - General, Kofi Annan, cradling the 6 billionth person on our planet. According to the UN's population estimates yesterday, of course this is not so precise, but yesterday was chosen as the day when the world population reached 6 billion people. Let's say, for purposes of discussion, that there are 6 billion plus or minus a few hundred million because we can't be sure how many people there are, but there's no doubt that one of the conditions that we face is a vast demographic and material challenge, the challenge as to how the world can provide both a stable biological system and an economic system that can provide material well - being for this vast, and still fast growing, population.

The next story on the television news last night was the military coup in Pakistan, a sure setback to the very hopes we've been discussing in the past couple of days about the democratisation of the world. Because what - ever one might say about the preceding government - and I do not think that we would necessarily say a lot of positive things - the military takeover is a further setback to any hopes of institutionalising the processes of human creativity and human freedom. Military governments come to naught; they waste time, they waste precious time.

These are the frames that I want to talk about this morning: on the one side, the material challenge - after all I am an economist so I have to put a material base to the discussion;and on the other hand, the governance challenge, because I think that the material challenge suggests the governance challenge. But I want to take a step beyond that and suggest the third link, which is, of course, the ethical challenge, because I think that the importance of this meeting is the quest for a global ethic that can be a basis for global governance, and that can be a basis for the material well-being of humankind and the environment in which it lives. So, I will describe the chain from a material description of the world, to the governance problems that it poses, to the challenge of global ethics that I think are raised by the governance challenge.

Let me start with the very schematic view of the material conditions of humanity 10 weeks before the new millennium, and of course, in a 10 - minute description. We are, of course, 6 billion people, but we are 6 billion people living in conditions of material inequality that are the greatest in human history. In one sense, that's not saying much because 200 years ago it is true that material conditions were far more equal, but mainly because the entire world was poor by the standards of today. What has happened in the world of economic development in the past two centuries is that a small part of the world became rich, and much of the rest of world remained frustratingly poor. It is crucial for us to understand not only the reality of that gap but, of course, the deeper causes. And I'd like to put forward some basic propositions about that as a way to move to the questions of practical politics and global ethics.

As a rough schema, would propose that you think about the material world in three broad divisions. This is not the first, second and third worlds of the past, the world divided between socialism and capitalism and the "third way"; I'm not talking about an ideological division but a material division. And I see it in the following manner: first, there is the world of the wealthy nations, which are roughly 900 million people, almost entirely in the temperate zones, the world of North America, Western Europe, north - east Asia and Oceania. This is a world that has distinguished itself - in my view - in one fundamental way in the past 200 years, and that is in the harnessing of science and technology for material improvement.

The average income of this part of the world - this one - sixth of humanity - is about USD 30, 000 per capita. The model of economic development of this world, which is complex and would need more than a minute of description, is a model in which markets and non - market institutions harness the crea- tion of scientific knowledge to the purpose of technological advance. And would say that this system, in this part of the world, is working more dynamically than ever before. This part of the world is not in material crisis, we shouldn't spend a lot of time worrying about material well - being in this part of the world, or the dynamism of the system. Because the creations of science and technology today are so remarkably productive, I think its fair for us to acknowledge the broad success of the institutions in this region and their continuing dynamism. There are more patents, more technological advances; more advances in information technology, in biotechnology, in many areas there are new and remarkable cures for rich - country diseases. In other words, it is a world of remarkable fruitfulness in its ability to harness innovation and to translate it into material advance.

There is a second part of the world, which I'll characterise as the near periphery of this advanced core. The near periphery is not strictly speaking a geographical identity, although geography is hugely important. The near periphery are the regions of the world that are much further behind in income levels, but that are connected to the production systems of the high - technology, knowledge - based societies. Geography plays a role here. If you look at the transition process, as we discussed yesterday, it is precisely the border states of Western Europe;countries like Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia, Croatia and Estonia, that are part of the near periphery in both a geographic sense as well as an economic sense. The Skoda - Volkswagen works exemplify the transfer of technology that fuels economic change in the near periphery. Likewise in Mexico, the US automobile industry or the US high technology firms are coming in with foreign investment in search of lower wages, thus bringing technology and bringing export growth.

What is the basic economic character of the near periphery? Well, first of all, incomes tend to be around USD 3, 000 to USD 10, 000 per capita - so it is much further behind. These are regions that tend to experience successful economic growth - Ireland, Spain and Portugal are examples from a generation ago. Mexico, the Czech Republic and Poland will be the examples in the next 10 years. They are not, in general, sources of technological innovation themselves, except on the margin, but rather users of the technology by becoming intimately integrated in the production networks and production systems of the high - technology regions I first described.

There are many things to say about the near periphery, but I think that the basic thing is that economic integration with the advanced economies is the core of the economic strategy. And, in general, it works;it doesn't solve all of the problems, it does not by itself create an indigenous, home - grown technological base, as it needs to for full economic development. But the strategy exists and, especially for countries that are geographically in the near periphery, whether in East Europe or North Africa (for example, Morocco, Tunisia and Egypt, which also grow on the basis of their manufactured goods exports to Europe), or in Mexico and Central America, or in Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia, Singapore and so forth, they do have a broad model of economic development that has a proven track record - though with many difficulties, the main one of which currently is financial. There is great instability in the financial linkages of the near periphery with the core regions, and that financial instability is the source of the kind of crises that we've seen in recent years, which are short - lived but very intense.

For example, this has been seen in East Asia - Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia - or Mexico in 1994, or in the Czech Republic today, which is essentially experiencing, I would say, a financial crisis, although many other difficulties as well. Then there is the rest of the world which, for want of a better name, will call the "distant periphery." The distant periphery is really quite different from the near periphery. It is not integrated into the production structures of the rich countries;it lives in a different ecological world. The distant periphery is, by and large, the tropical world, and almost everybody in the tropical world is poor. Almost everybody in the tropical world is exposed to ecological strains of disease and low agricultural productivity, which pose very different challenges from our temperate - zone world. The far periphery tends not to grow;it has almost no indigenous science - not because it does not produce scientists, but because it produces scientists who tend to work in the United States and Europe, solving wonderful problems for rich countries.

We have an incredible dearth of underlying economic mechanisms for the development of the distant periphery. But the distant periphery is at least one - third of the world, if not 40 per cent of the world's population. It has a lack of science, a lack of investment from the rich countries, a lack of mechanisms of development:when you look at this distant periphery, it tends to live almost exclusively on the export of raw materials - and the same ones you would have noted 50 or 100 years ago:coffee, tea, cocoa, hydrocarbons, diamonds, gold, tin, copper.

No country develops on this basis any more. Maybe, 100 years ago, such resource - based economies had a chance for development, but by our standards today they don't stand a chance. Without a knowledge - based and technology - based development, these countries will simply fall farther and farther behind. And as technology continues to find substitutes for primary commodities, synthetic materials to substitute for hemp or fibre - optic cables to substitute for copper wires, the continuing long - term decline in the terms of trade that the distant periphery has suffered for a century will continue.

That is, I think, a useful framework because it exposes the fact that we do not have in the world a realistic model of development that can really incorporate a large part of the world right now. Let me turn to the model, as it is perhaps seen from the capital of the core economies, Washington, D. C. and the centre of the core, which I put at 15th Street to 19th Street along Pennsylvania Avenue. 15th Street is the US Treasury, 16th Street is the White House, 17th is the restaurants where they eat, 18th Street is the World Bank, and 19th Street is the International Monetary Fund. And there is a kind of hegemonic hubris that the world is run between 15th Street and 19th Street. Certainly the MF, the World Bank and the US Treasury think so, and they have 60 or 70 country programmes to prove it. But they don't work, because they don't really address the underlying material realities of the world.

These Bretton Woods institutions have had no success in the distant periphery, which remains resource - based without science, with a high prevalence of disease, with poor agricultural productivity, and with the demographic stress represented by the 6 billionth individual that joined us yesterday. This will rise to about 8. 5 billion people by the year 2040, with all of the increase coming within the distant periphery, where essentially 100 per cent of future demographic growth is going to come.

So, we have international institutions that don't have answers and that increasingly don't have legitimacy, because institutions that tr y to run the rest of the world without answers can't maintain their legitimacy. Everybody has recognised the exposure of the IMF as simply lacking the instruments to do the job it pretends to do. This is a very serious indictment of our international institutions. At the same time, the 15th Street to 19th Street corridor has emasculated other international institutions that might have played more of a role. The United Nations is not seen kindly in the capitals of the rich countries, in part, of course, because it threatens the political control of those countries. So the UN institutions that might play a role - like the World Health Organisation, UNICEF, and the Food and Agricultural Organisation etc. , which are charged with (although not functioning very well in)tr ying to help the technological and scientific base of the far periphery - barely function today.

Let me turn, very schematically, to how I would translate this material vision into a set of challenges. What are the implications of this kind of global ecological and human division? I listed four very broad challenges that think are needed to create a more equitable and prosperous global community. The first challenge is one that is already underway in this region, and I would call it the full integration of the near periphery.

What do I mean by that? I mean that countries like the Czech Republic or Poland really have all that it takes to achieve higher income levels. This country is not plagued by malaria, it is not plagued by tropical disease, and it is not plagued by poor agricultural productivity, except from what was left behind by the socialist system. But it finds itself far behind without the vibrant technological indigenous base it would have had had the 1920s smoothly continued to the 1990s. And so, it faces the challenge of full integration. This is mainly a political and institutional challenge, not a science and technology challenge. So, as we were saying yesterday, the full return of this region to European institutions is the highest priority. And the highest barrier is the "rich club"mentality of Brussels, or of other rich country institutions, which tr y to maintain exclusivity by delaying the integration of the region or hindering it through protectionist policies.

There is a whole agenda we could talk about in terms of full integration, and I know that time is short, but let me just mention a few:for example; joining the European Union, fostering once again the superiority of universities and scientific institutes in this country and its neighbours, and avoiding financial fragility. This is the greatest short - term risk of the near periphery, because a lot of money pours in and then a lot of money pours out of a country such as this, and the financial agenda is a technical and complicated agenda as well as a political agenda.

The second challenge, which I think is a much tougher challenge and a much more urgent challenge, is what I would call the stabilisation and incorporation of the far periphery. Please understand that one - third of the world is not even part of the game right now, and it is falling further and further behind. It lacks science, it lacks the presence of the rich - country technological systems even through foreign direct investment.

For the distant periphery, the challenges, as I see it, are as follows. First, there needs to be the mobilisation of global science to address the problems that are distinctively those of the ecologies of the distant periphery - essentially, tropical development in agriculture and health, and the spread of information technology to this region so that the distant periphery, often very far away geographically, can instantly be part of the international scientific, technological, social, political and cultural dialogue.

Secondly, demographic control, through the education of women and girls and through gender equality, to allow countries that are under extraordinary demographic stress to gain control of their futures - because we are talking about places where the arable land per capita is shrinking so fast that nutrition levels, which are already at desperately low levels (2, 100 calories per day in such countries), have been falling in recent years to levels that are producing malnutrition among up to 40 per cent of the children under the age of five. Another goal is the dignity of these countries in the international system, and that means an end to the intrusive and incompetent programmes of the Bretton Woods institutions, which are hegemonic in spirit and design, and incompetent in their implementation.

A third major challenge that I want to mention is that of the common global challenges, also represented by the 6 billionth children. We face not just the threat of collapse in the distant periphery, but threats to the global eco - system as well - as everybody knows. These are threats that are not mere hypotheses: already underway is the fifth great biological extinction in geological history, but this is one that is anthropogenic, man - made, not one coming from geological causes. So, we are destroying species at a greater rate than ever before in history. Long - term climate change is another anthropogenic factor, which is going to desperately hurt the tropics. Global public health and global fisheries are further examples of the common global challenges under stress by adding to the human population at unprecedented rates, alongside the threats to the global ecology through misguided development strategies.

Here, the challenges are designing new institutions, creating concern and cognisance of these problems in the hegemonic centres, like the United States, that view global warming as some esoteric issue brought by dogooder Greens from outside, threatening the US way of life. We have not reached a situation where even the United States understands or appreciates these problems, and we lack effective instruments.

The fourth challenge, I would say, is the challenge of global governance, of creating effective international institutions. The international system is in imbalance. The Bretton Woods institutions have reached the limits of their legitimacy. The UN system is emasculated, the European Union acts like a richcountry exclusive club. The World Trade Organisation is also at risk of legitimacy even in its early years, because the developing world already feels that rich - country interests have hijacked it, for example in the area of intellectual property rights. So, we have a very serious and unfulfilled challenge.

I have a deficit of about six minutes to tell you what to do, and I am going to take one more minute of deficit, and then I promise that I won't say anymore. I think the most urgent problem in the world is of the poorest of the poor, although let me put above that the question of war and peace, which - I always think - takes priority over everything. But I think the most urgent material problem in the world is the problem of the poorest of the poor. I think we have 80 days to show that we have some dignity in this world by cancelling the debts of these countries. I have only modest hopes that the US Treasury and others - and the US Congress even more - will hear the call. We need, as I said, to mobilise science and technology on behalf of the poorest of the poor. Solutions to malaria, the HIV - AIDS epidemic and so forth won't come purely from goodwill: they require science and technology.

Below the urgent I would stress the important, and that is progress on incorporating the near periphery. It's long past time that the European Union simply accepts as members the countries of Central and Eastern Europe that want membership. We are 10 years into this ridiculously bureaucratic process, and it is both too long and very disheartening to watch.

Then, we have the long - term challenge of crucial importance, but one that is not going to be solved overnight - and that is to re - constitute the system of global governance. This requires the democratisation of international institutions, and permanent funding sources for international institutions. I believe that we will have a global tax in the future:this would mean that the needs of the global society would not be fulfilled by good will and aid, but by the shared contributions of the world - and it would eliminate the sense of hegemonic control that Washington somehow thinks will solve world problems, but are not solving world problems right now.

The final thing I wanted to say is that this will not happen without a greater advance towards a global ethic of the kind we have been discussing. This will not result from practical politics alone. This has to result from an enhanced vision of a shared ethic of humanity, and that is why find this meeting so important and so fascinating - and why am so pleased to be part of it. I hope that this group can, over time, make concrete proposals and suggestions that can be shared with the world via the internet and other forums - so that we can engage this discussion of the global ethic in concrete terms, specific terms and operational terms, because that, I think, would be the greatest result of this wonderful gathering.

Thank you very much.

Jiří Musil
Thank you very much, Jeffrey Sachs. We appreciate your linking of global ethics to the concrete challenges you mentioned before. I should like to ask William Pfaff to take the floor, please.

William Pfaff
Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. I would like to go with this problem of visions of the future, of conceptions of the future on which to base policy in a different dimension from the admirable and challenging analysis of material problems and policy choices that we have just had.

I would like to offer not only a political, but also a historically grounded reflection on what is in fact a very short historical period of democracy, from which we today make our projections and in which we frame our policy prescriptions. Because it was only 70 years ago that much of the world considered democracy to be a failure. Parliamentary democracy, dominated by the middle classes - which was the model of progressive government before 1914 - was widely regarded after World War One as having failed. Its parliaments were thought to provide an illusion of popular rule while powerful interests were at work behind the scene, manipulating international relations and arranging profitable wars - as it was thought at the time.

Fascism was fashionable in many Western circles, while the Bolshevik model of society was extremely influential among the Western intelligentsia and would become even more so in the later 1930s and 1940s. The Swedish filmmaker, Ingmar Bergman, described in the memoirs he published in 1987 the attraction that he felt towards Nazism during the 1930s and 1940s. He later commented that it was not the programme of the Nazis that interested him;he said that he was impressed by the idealism of the Germans. And there were many such idealistic sympathisers of Nazism until its true nature was revealed.

Seventy years ago, women lacked the vote in nearly every Western country, property qualifications limited the franchise in Britain and other countries, and race effectively limited the franchise in the United States. The colonial societies of Asia and Africa were entirely subjected to the disposition - paternalistic or otherwise - of the imperial powers. And, indeed, colonialism was considered to be a progressive institution, by which backward people could be introduced to a modern way of life, and only then - if then - allowed selfdetermination. The idea of Imperialism was scarcely questioned in Europe, even in idealistic circles. ndeed, great exhibitions were held in the 1920s and 1930s to celebrate colonialism. The British Empire expanded by virtue of World War One so as to reach its territorial zenith in the 1930s.

World War Two, of course, discredited fascism. And colonialism was no longer sustainable after Japan had destroyed the empires in Asia;it was over, even though France, Portugal and the Netherlands all tried to preserve their empires. But, today, the universal norm is democracy. Political respectability demands that states present themselves as democracies even when they are not - and that is real progress, even though it may be that the effective practice of democratic government has not greatly advanced. There has been a consolidation of international opinion to press governments and societies everywhere to move towards more representative politics. And it is not a negligible development that even despotism now considers it necessary to sail under the colours of democracy.

But there is a central question which is: how enduring will this change in the global political consciousness prove to be?

Few of those in official positions in Western countries - and certainly in my own, the United States - would even recognise that much doubt could exist about this. They take it for granted that the change is permanent: this seems to be the conviction of nearly everyone in public life, as well as people in the universities and the political policy community. But all of this seems to me - suspiciously - an expression of what the British historian, Herbert Butterfield, described as the Whig view of history, which is to say that history has been a progression whose meaning has been to lead up to us - and that we now establish the terms on which the future will go forward.

It is also argued, in support of this, that there has been a structural change in political society, a kind of positive mutation in political evolution from which there can be no permanent retreat. This really is the conventional wisdom on both sides of the ideological debate, or all sides of the ideological debate. It provides the intellectual foundation for the policies of not only the present American government but also, as Jeffrey said, of the institutions that dominate the modern economy.

An argument is also made that technology - the technology that is a given in the globalised economy - has broken down cultural and national isolation, radiating democratic values throughout the world, and within warring ethnic groups, as well as elsewhere in Europe and the rest of the world. The Tiananmen Square liberty demonstration in China in 1989 has also been cited as another spontaneous reaction to internationally communicated ideas and values of democracy. As I said, this is widely presented as a qualitatively new development in the relations of people and nations as a kind of new internationalism.

Now, I would argue to the contrary, that while the increased internationalisation of liberalism and democratic values is an extraordinarily welcome development of our times, it is none the less a provisional development and a reversible one. The claim that democracy's triumph is permanent generalises from the experience of less than half a century. It forecasts the future by a supple projection of a 20 - year trend in politics that began with Mikhail Gorbachev's inaugural attempts to reform the Soviet system from within - a reform which, so far as Russia itself is concerned, remains eminently reversible.

Democratic values owe their present eminence to the extraordinary evils of industrial war and genocide in the recent past. Fifty years ago, the developed nations themselves were at war with one another over these same democratic values. The new humanitarian and democratic consciousness owes its existence to Hitler and two world wars, so I think that it may be a naive historicism or cultural parochialism for us to believe that democracy has won the competition of historical existence.

The additional claim is that the globalisation of trade and the contemporary transformation of economic and productive exchanges have been caused by technological progress in communications and information management. The suggestion hat these are integrally related to democracy also seems to me to be a complacent assumption and an unhistorical one, and hence a disservice to the defence of democracy, because the technology of globalised communications and markets could easily be mobilised in the service of some new ideology that was anything but liberal: it could be elitist, eugenicist, a technocratic despotism, politically manipulative, neo - colonial, or on the other hand, demagogic, racist, populist or aggressively nationalist in a style of which we have had ample demonstration in the past few years. All of these forces lie dominant now, as the 21st century approaches. But I would argue - well I won't argue it, it is a statement of fact - that modern means of global communication are as adaptable to the propagation of hatred as they are to enlightenment - as the Balkan wars have clearly demonstrated.

It also seems to me a conceptual error to identify democracy, which is an affair of elections in the popular will, with the just or liberal society. The "liberal" society, as it historically evolved, is one in which there are checks on the abuse of power, and individual liberty is preserved through law, through a guarantee of rights and through representative constitutional government. The "just"society is one in which, as Aristotle argued, individuals are rendered their due, which is to say what is theirs by right, which is to assume that they possess an unalienable doom or right. This principle, I think, is prior to democracy. Democracy merely concerns the opinions of people - and mass opinion is probably more often wrong than right, by the ethical or philosophical standards most would independently apply. Thus, the widely held conviction in the past that democracy was or is potential tyranny.

There is a crucial distinction between "democratic government"and "constitutional government", meaning the "rule of law". There were constitutional governments and the rule of law before there were modern democracies. While Britain didn't have universal suffrage until after World War Two, it did have disinterested justice, private property, the separation of powers, and free speech: it had them in the 18th century. It put limits on monarchical power as early as 1215, with the Magna Carta. The Western political tradition has more to do with law, constitutions, property and international law than with universal suffrage. The tragedy of Russia, and of the other states of the former Soviet Union since 1990, is due to the failure of its own lead- ers, and also, alas, from many of us telling it what to do from the West, with an inability to understand this distinction and its implications.

Democracy empowers public opinion, which is, in principle, an excellent thing. However, in practice, public opinion is frequently uninformed, biased, emotional and open to demagogic exploitation. Genocide in Rwanda was democratic: the Hutu majority committed it and approved it. Lynching is democratic in that the impersonal mob willingly commits it. The person to be lynched can only be saved by law, by the application of a constitutional order, the defence of the right to be heard, the facts of one's crime impartially ascertained, and punishment applied if punishment is appropriate in a legal and disinterested manner. Thus we have the existence of illiberal democracies today, of societies despotically or unjustly ruled by individuals or parties elected or ratified by free elections. In recent years, Serbia has provided the most dramatic example of this, but many others exist.

The question of the future of democracy is, therefore, of less moment than questions of constitutionalism and the rule of justice. Democracy can be promoted without promoting justice, as the Western democracies have tended to do in their relations with the former communist bloc countries. Elections and the privatisation of state property were exported to Russia after the collapse of the USSR - but not law or concern for civil society. The underlying error in the current approach to the question of democracy's future and its extension is, I would say, the widely held assumption that democracy is the natural mode of human government. It is believed to spring up automatically when artificial obstacles to democracy are removed and elections held. This is one more case of the romantic fallacy - applied to politics, in this instance. Speaking of Russia, the director of the IMF [Michel Camdessus] told a newspaper last August: "We did not see that dismantling communism meant dismantling the state."

Well, anyone familiar with the Soviet political system could have told him that. That was why Mikhail Gorbachev tried to reform the party and not the state. It is the same romanticism as shared by those economists who held that once communism had collapsed and the property of the state was sold off a free - market entrepreneurial system would automatically arise.

The belief that it is the natural condition of man to be governed by the will of the majority, as expressed in free elections, and to possess a market economy unfettered by regulation, lies behind the notion that trade globalisation and the present prestige of democracy confirm that history is in its culminating state, even if it is not ended.

At every stage in political existence, there is ordinarily one system elites take as the most advanced, the one towards which everyone else is held to be evolving - and to which they should evolve. Until 1914, this was the liberal representative republic or the constitutional monarchy, notwith - standing the ideological challenge that had been issued at that time by utopian or Marxist socialists, and the essentially cultural accusations of bourgeois complacency or materialism that were heard from a certain vanguard of literary or philosophical or religious critics. Following the catastrophic wars, democracy did not re - merge as a compelling model of government, until World War Two and the Cold War had combined to reveal the nihilism of the fascist and Soviet alternatives. Democracy was given a populist cast by the ascendants of the United States, and Western democracy presented itself to the world as the most authentic and humane form of representative government history has ever known.

It enters the new millennium, the new century, with that reputation in tact, but once again, as before 1914, it is under attack for its spiritual sterility. The Swedish writer, Goran Rosenberg, cites the great trilogy of the German novelist Hermann Broch, The Sleepwalkers , suggesting that Americans and Europeans might consider whether they recognise themselves today in Broch's description of a European society, where he said the value system of "business is business"was overpowering all other values, where genuine human and moral problems and choices have been transformed into tactical and scientific issues, where human judgment has been replaced by "objectivity", and where everyone could blame the system but few could take responsibility. Broch's novel was published in 1932.

The claim that we are near the end of the high road to universal democracy, with a liberal international system firmly installed, is one then, as have argued, upon which the historical record imposes scepticism. The triumph of republicanism in Rome was followed by empire and decadence, and the so - called "age of barbarian rule". The history of China - as the Chinese themselves tell us - is cyclical, not progressive. Possibly, the unprecedented nature and influence of electronic communications in today's world has changed all that. I myself remain a historical pessimist, even a believer in original sin, viewing history as a chronicle of tragedies as well as triumphs. But that then allows one to be an optimist about man, whom history has also shown is ennobled by tragedy.

Thank you.

Jiří Musil
Thank you very much, William Pfaff. Could I now ask Takeaki Hori to take the floor. Professor Hori.

Takeaki Hori
Thank you very much, Mr Chairman, for giving me the time to express my own personal experience based on so - called "globalization". When I received an invitation from Forum 2000, asking me to participate as one of the panellists talking about the globalisation process, I was very excited - just because this is one of the rare opportunities given to me to speak as a real person, to express my own ideas about globalisation.

It is one thing to give lectures at the university, but another addressing a civic hall, therefore my anxiety was accelerated. Then I spent a great deal of time wondering how I could make this a good presentation in front of such distinguished, world - renowned scholars, philosophers, politicians and statesmen. The more I thought about it, the more nervous I became because, all of a sudden, my mind was not really fully tuned or geared to tackle this grandiose subject. My mind swayed all the time: how can make a good presentation to such a big audience, everybody better than am? I don't have any knowledge about the world. I am Japanese. If I can talk about the village where I was born, then I am fully conversant. I can tell you about that life, but globalisation is above my imagination: that is why lost my confidence.

And then I also thought about how could I deliver the speech. So many cameramen. Maybe they'll take a picture of me? The more I thought about that, the more nervous I became. Although I have been living on this earth for over 50 years, my mind is still just like a child's, trembling all the time.

The first day was easy. I wasn't involved at all. On the second day, I started to get nervous, therefore I started drinking hard liquor instead of beer; strong liquor to calm my nerves. Now, this is the third day, so what can do? And I came to my own personal conclusion - globalisation, in my case, is to globalise my mind. How can we establish good communication living in an antipodal society: we never establish this kind of communication and this is, I think, my mind. And, all of a sudden, I remembered a very famous philosopher, Pascal, who once said that people move too much: we became a world of travellers but as far as the travellers move along they cannot find happiness. Confine yourself in a small chamber or room, and there you can live happily for the rest of your life.

All of a sudden I realised: calm down, don't worr y about it, forget it, you can always play baseball: you can hit the home line and everyone will come up clapping with appreciation, but this won't happen. See, none of us go back to one, single, egocentric person. Egocentrism is always my inner problem; still, I am centring on my egocentric attitude and, whenever I see the globalisation process, I think of that.

Consider the automobile, even the mobile phone. When you get a mobile phone, the first thing you think is: well, now I can have lovers and a wife. If I have a digital phone, my wife may pick it up on my behalf, and then she might be upset, but if you carry a mobile phone, then you can have a secret life. This is still, I think, an egocentric attitude.

How can we get around this situation? That is my problem. But, finally, came to a conclusion: when we go to the toilet, the church, even the mosque, people stop moving;people always sit properly, people take their shoes off and sit properly. If you go to the mosque, you can lie down, if you go to a Christian church you can kneel down, in other words people stop moving. This is the kind of momentum we need to think about. So, used this to calm down my mind: let's stop moving; maybe less language is necessary.

Maybe this is a kind of mind control, not in the way of a cult - we had a cult recently killing people by poisoning, so not on a cult level - but every single human being living on this earth has to find their own mind control, not necessarily to reach the top level like a religious leader, but we need to sit back and think about it. This is maybe a starting point for me to encounter globalisation.

Once I find this kind of solution, I think I will dare to accept this invitation. As a European sponge ball, I can monopolise for three days, always sitting, and maybe next week, if everybody comes here - but nobody could come. Do you know why? Because we are selected people just coming for this millennium conference, so we are special but only for a short while, only for three days. If we come back next week, there will be no chance for me to talk with His Royal Highness El Hassan bin Talal. There is no way: he is always supported by bodyguards, and they would just grab me and throw me out. That is the situation.

This is my conviction. I tr y to approach globalisation by thinking of what it means to me. Professor Sachs has already approached it from a materialist view. For me, globalisation has really given me an illusion. Globalization is so obvious in the field of technology, in the economic and financial world, when you pick up a high - tech gadget, perhaps produced by Sony:mobile phones are everywhere, in every corner of the world. In the Deep South of America, about six months ago everybody was carrying a mobile phone to go to the golf course, people from isolated communities.

Whenever I made a phone call from New York, my friend said: "OK, Hori, where are you?" I said: "New York." She said:"Give me the number. I'll call you back." She cut it off straight away after only ten seconds. Every time I made a phone call, she said: "Wait, I'll call you back," and I puzzled why. But, now that I've visited her place - she's married of course, don't worry about that - and when I visited her place, she said it was because the phone number I have is a cellular phone number. The villagers living in my neighbourhood live such boring lives that their most stimulating hobby is to monitor conversations being held on mobile phones, therefore it is dangerous for me to continue my conversation. Therefore she cuts off the phone and calls me back. That is the kind of situation we have. People are mobilised by mobile phones, so mobile human beings are driven by mobile phones even in isolated communities.

Therefore, globalization is taking place. When you look at society, the local community is full of gadgets. They enjoy their life and are gossiping all the time. On the golf course, everyone is talking about golf and how much he is spending on his hobby. If this is globalisation, globalisation comes with localisation. And one of my colleagues - he was an Indian sociologist, think - always repeated this about globalisation. He was an ardent supporter of the theory of "glocalisation", a cross between global - and localisation. So everything seems to be orthodox. It may be that America is the centre, and others may be on the peripheries, so we always try to victimise the people living on the edge or the periphery. Everything has a contradiction - and how can we solve this situation facing globalisation?

People have contributed - and we have had lovely discussions about how to solve the problems of globalisation, but no solutions yet. Of course, we cannot find them in one short conference:it takes time;just like bricklaying, it is built one step, two steps, four. That is why think that the committee members decided to go beyond this five - year commitment: this is great news. So therefore, for me it is still a puzzle which way to go, how to explain all the phenomena taking place all over the world. Thank you very much, Mr Chairman.

Jiří Musil
Well, dear Takeaki, as you see, the applause should tell you everything you need to know. As I looked around during your speech there were so many smiles of sympathy that I think you enabled us to start speaking like humans in something of a pub atmosphere, something that you mentioned in your first words. Thank you very much, I think we need such words. Let me now ask the next speaker, Han Sung - Joo, to take the floor.

Han Sung-Joo
Thank you very much. As I was looking at the programme, the expression "Common Visions"intrigued me, and the more I thought about it, the more I came to the conclusion that "vision"is a very important and appropriate term - in the sense that it is more than a simple forecast or prediction;it contains aspirations, hopes and dreams, and yet vision is different from dreams in the sense that it has to be based on reality. I think it is as important to know about how to bring visions into reality as it is to know what the visions are and should be. This brings me to my focus, which is the relationship between state sovereignty and intervention. Because although we may have global visions, we have states that either stand in the way or have to work together in order to bring about the visions.

My starting point is my recent visit to New York. I just came from New York after working in connection with a commission that is looking into the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, and there is of course the question of whether the United Nations did enough or not. Since the inquiry is still going on, I think it suffices to say that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction on the part of Rwandans that not enough was done at the time of the genocide. Close to 1 million lives were claimed in the course of 100 days, a record in the history of human massacres.

The second issue of interest at the United Nations was the speech made by the Secretary - General, Kofi Annan, where he emphasised the need to deal with what he called "human sovereignty"and to deal with "state sovereignty", and how the international community can intervene in the suffering of humans in areas within so - called "state sovereignty". I think that common visions and their realisation make the issues of sovereignty and intervention crucial in all the areas of economy, governance and ethics that Professor Sachs talked about.

The World Trade Organisation is trying to bring about free trade and therefore has to impinge on what many countries consider to be sovereignty. The IMF tries to bring about greater transparency, greater accountability, and therefore sometimes has to confront those who are claiming "state sovereignty". The United Nations has to deal with issues of human rights, genocide and crimes against humanity and, in the course of doing that, again it has to confront the issue of state sovereignty. So, it is a question of both the willingness on the part of the global community represented by the UN, or other organisations and mechanisms to deal with these issues of human security, human sovereignty and also the resistance met in the course of dealing with those issues.

This problem cuts through all the experiences from Somalia to Rwanda, Bosnia, Kosovo and now East Timor. Whether the United Nations is involved in a peace - keeping operation, or whether an operation is carried out under its auspices with the sanction or blessing of the United Nations, as was the case in Iraq or in East Timor, or outside of the United Nations framework as was the case in Kosovo, these International actions do conflict with what is considered to be "state sovereignty".

Now, what does the intervention do? Intervention used to have a bad name - the Soviet intervention in Hungary, Poland and Czechoslovakia, the US intervention in Vietnam and so on during the Cold War years. But now, intervention has another meaning, which is closely connected with what we are talking about here at this conference:common visions. This intervention tries to protect basic rights, what Timothy Garton Ash called the "moral minimum", something that I would call basic human rights, such as freedom from random death and from dislocation, the right to self-rule and the right to have good governance.

The international community is trying to prevent international crimes. The International criminal tribunal of Rwanda and the International criminal court are all intended to punish crimes committed within state boundaries. They do it in the course of peace - keeping, as in Cyprus, where I once served as the UN representative, peace - making as in East Timor right now, peace - building as the UN is trying to do in some other places, but these are not settled issues yet. Just today, we read in the newspaper that nine people were killed in Burundi, some of whom were UN officials. Hundreds of thousands of people are dislocated there, and what if something happens in that region, just as something happened in Rwanda back in 1994? We are not sure. Despite the apology President Clinton gave last year in Rwanda that the world community was derelict in dealing with the issue, we are not sure whether the International community will intervene next time.

The issue of dealing with human sovereignty, which Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary - General, emphasised, is still being debated in the United Nations now. There are many countries, including China, but also other countries, that have internal problems of conflict and dispute the idea that the international community, represented by the United Nations, has the right to intervene in what they call basically internal affairs. And so, we have to deal with these issues. This idea of inter vention is very much challenged, in fact, not only in the area of peace - keeping and the area of security, but also in the area of economic management. Certain countries and individuals, for example, would charge the IMF with tr ying to bale out international financiers;they argue that the IMF or even the World Bank are tr ying to create a business atmosphere that would be of benefit only to international capitalists and financiers.

So, these are the issues that we have to deal with, and the question is: how can we get out of this dilemma? I think that we have to combine reality with our dreams;let me just suggest a few possible ways of doing that. I, for one, do not think that this is a very realistic proposal but without dreams we really can't talk about visions.

First, I think we have to define intervention broadly - and this is the idea that Secretary - General Kofi Annan had to include prevention as much as reaction to crises. Second, we have to persuade the big powers especially to define national interest broadly, so that national interest includes promoting global interest - and this is something to which meetings of this kind can probably make some contribution. Third, we should work to foster a culture of tolerance, reconciliation and peace. Now, is this simply pie in the sky? I don't think so; otherwise, there is not much point in all of us sitting here. We should cultivate this global culture, and this means a culture of peace, reconciliation and harmony among ethnic and religious groups, nations and cultures. And this means building a pluralistic society, where different human groups can live in mutual respect, harmony and peace.

I think we have to believe in the universality of basic human rights - we have already talked about the so - called "moral minimum"of basic rights - and also be prepared to deal with gross and systematic violations of basic human rights. We have to recognise the fact that the fight for human rights is inherent in human nature, regardless of the place and circumstances, because human dignity and human fulfilment are the inherent right of all humanity.

Now, in practical terms, it is necessary - and this moves us to the next point - to deal with these issues in a multilateral, hopefully multicultural and multiracial way. It does not look good to see only Australian and New Zealand and white soldiers fighting the militia in East Timor. And right now, at least so far, South Korea is the only country that has sent combat troops and other Asian countries are being very ambivalent about the situation. It would be very helpful to see that this is a multicultural, multinational, multi - regional effort.

Finally, I would say that we should strengthen the architecture for building an international community, including the United Nations and other mechanisms that transcend states and national boundaries and deal with the issues of peace, prosperity and human rights. Human sovereignty, human security and basic human rights are too precious to be left to the whims of state sovereignty alone. That means we should build a global community with common values, common visions, so that human rights and democracy will prevail.

Thank you very much.

Jiří Musil
Thank you very much, Han Sung - Joo, for your words, and now we have Fritjof Capra. The floor is yours, Fritjof.

Fritjof Capra
Thank you Mr Chairman. I would like to bring an ecological perspective to our conversation, expanding on the third challenge mentioned by Jeffrey Sachs. As our century draws to its close, we are facing a whole series of global problems that are harming the biosphere and human life in ways that may soon become irreversible. Concern for the environment can no longer be one of many single issues;it has to be the context of everything else - of our lives, our businesses and our politics.

The great challenge of our time is to build and nurture sustainable communities, that is a social, cultural and physical environment in which we can satisfy our needs and aspirations without diminishing the chances of future generations. Now, since its introduction in the early 1980s, the concept of sustainability has often been distorted, corrupted and trivialised by being used without the ecological context that gives it its proper meaning. What is sustained in a sustainable community is not economic growth or development, but the entire web of life on which our long - term survival depends. In other words, a sustainable community is designed in such a way that its ways of life, its businesses, economy, physical structures and technologies do not interfere with nature's inherent ability to sustain life.

The first step in this endeavour, naturally, must be to become "ecologically literate", that is to understand the principles of organisation that eco - systems have developed to sustain the web of life. To do so, we must learn to think systemically, that is in terms of connectedness, context and processes. When this systems thinking is applied to the study of the earth household - which is the original meaning of ecology - we discover that the principles of organisation for eco - systems are the basic principles of organisation for all living systems, the basic patterns of life.

For example, we observe that an eco - system generates no waste - one species'waste being another species'food - and that matter cycles continuously through the web of life. We observe that the energy driving these ecological cycles flows from the sun, that diversity increases resilience and that life, from its beginning more than three billion years ago, did not take over the planet by combat but by co - operation, partnership and networking. These principles of organisation are not only the principles of ecology but also the principles of community; indeed, ecological sustainability is the foundation of security and human rights.

The main task in the next century will be to apply our ecological knowledge to the fundamental redesign of our technology and social institutions, so as to bridge the current gap between human design and eco - design. Design, in the broadest sense, consists in shaping flows of energy and matter for human purposes. Eco - design is a design process in which our human purposes are carefully meshed with the larger patterns and flows of the natural world; in other words, eco - design principles reflect the principles of organisation that nature has evolved to sustain the web of life.

For example, the principle "waste equals food"means that all the products and materials manufactured by industry, as well as the waste generated in the manufacturing process, must eventually provide nourishment for something new. A sustainable business organisation would be embedded in an ecology of organisations in which the waste of any one organisation would be a resource for another. In such a sustainable industrial system, the total outflow of each organisation - its products and its waste - would be perceived and treated as resources cycling through the system. Such ecological clusters of industries have been initiated recently in several parts of the world and, by the way, those are the best ways to boost the distant periphery that Professor Sachs mentioned.

Eco - designers now speak of two kinds of metabolisms:a biological metabolism and a technical metabolism. Things that are part of the biological metabolism - agriculture, food systems, clothing, cosmetics and so on - should not contain persistent toxic substances. Things that go into the technical metabolism - machines, physical structures and so on - should be kept well apart from the biological metabolism. Eventually all products, materials and waste will either be biological or technical nutrients. Biological nutrients will be designed to return to the ecological cycles to be literally consumed by micro - organisms and other creatures in the soil, whilst technical nutrients will be designed to go back into technical cycles. This means that customers will not own these products but will merely buy their services. When they have finished with the products the manufacturers will take them back, break them down and use their complex materials in new products.

Today, the obstacles that stand in the way of ecological sustainability are no longer conceptual or technical;they lie in the dominant values of our society and, in particular, in the dominant corporate values. Now, corporate values and choices are determined today, to a large extent, by flows of information, power and wealth in the global financial networks that shape societies today.

And here I come to an issue that has been underlying our conversation, but has not yet been addressed directly. During the past three decades, the information technology revolution has given rise to a new type of global capitalism, which is structured around a network of financial flows. Manuel Castells, professor of sociology at Berkeley, has extensively analysed and documented this new economic system, which he calls "informational capitalism". Because of the ability of financial capital to relentlessly scan the entire planet for investment opportunities and to move from one option to another in a matter of seconds, the profit margins are generally much higher in the global financial markets than in most direct investments. And so, profits from all other sources ultimately converge into a metanetwork of financial flows.

The movements of this electronically operated global casino do not follow a market logic:the market is twisted, manipulated and transformed by a combination of computer - enacted strategic manoeuvres and unex - pected turbulence caused by the complex interactions between capital flows in a highly non - linear system. Information technology has played a decisive role in the rise of networking as a new form of organisation of human activity that goes far beyond economics.

In our "network society", as Castells calls it, the core processes of knowledge generation, economic productivity, political power, military power and media communication have been deeply transformed by information technology and are connected to global networks of wealth and power. The dominant social functions and processes are increasingly organised around networks; and presence or absence in the network is a critical source of power. In these global networks of financial flows, money is almost entirely independent of production and services, and so labour has become disaggregated in its performance, fragmented in its organisation and divided in its collective action. Consequently, the rise of informational capitalism is intertwined with rising social inequality, polarisation and social exclusion.

At the close of this century, then, we can observe two developments that will have a major impact on our well - being and ways of life in the next century. Both of these developments have to do with networks, and both involve radically new technology. One of them is the rise of global capitalism and the network society; the other is the creation of sustainable communities involving eco - literacy and eco - design processes.

Whereas global capitalism is concerned with electronic networks of financial and informational flows, eco - literacy and eco - design are concerned with eco - logical networks of energy and material flows. The goal of the global economy is to maximise the wealth and power of the elite in the network society; the goal of eco - design is to maximise the sustainability of the web of life. These two scenarios, each involving complex networks and special advanced technologies, are currently on a collision course. The network society is destructive of local communities and is thus inherently unsustainable; it is based on the central value of capitalism - money - making for the sake of making money, and at the exclusion of other values.

Human values can change: they are not natural laws. The same electronic networks of financial and informational flows could have other values built into them. The challenge of the 21st century will be to change the value system of our network society so as to make it compatible with the demands of human justice and ecological sustainability.

Thank you very much.

Jiří Musil
Thank you very much indeed. I am convinced that one of the future themes of our forum will be a discussion between economists and ecologists, and hope that we will manage to organise this.

Victoria Pereyra Iraola
President Václav Havel, Your Royal Highness, ladies and gentlemen, distinguished guests, I am very honoured to be able to be here with you today. It is remarkable that the Forum 2000 Foundation, Mr President and the Nippon Foundation are giving young people the opportunity to be included in such interesting discussions, discussions that focus on the future of all the students here in this room today.

I have been listening attentively to the dissertations that have been presented here in the past three days. The dichotomy of the developed and the developing world has been constantly mentioned in the sense that the developed world is the actor who creates globalisation, rules and standards, and the developing world the one who struggles, tr ying to survive. However, believe this view can be questioned.

I cannot talk about the developing world as a whole, for I do not believe that countries such as China, ndia, Cuba, Guatemala, South Africa, Lebanon and Kenya can all be put together and analysed as one group. The disparities are such that even between countries in Latin America similarities cannot be drawn without a great level of generalisation and abstraction. I will be talking about my views as an Argentinian. I am here to ask for more globalisation. n the past two days, throughout the speeches there has been a constant reference to the rules implied by globalisation:democracy and human rights in the political arena, and open economies and free markets in the economic arena. However, the same actors that force these rules upon us, demanding democracy, open economies and less intervention of the state in economic matters, do not reciprocate with the same actions.

By this, I am referring to the subsidies, quotas, and other commercial tariffs in the Common Agricultural Policy of the European Union. Together with the USD 91, 000 million the United States spends on agricultural subsidies every year, the USD 114, 000 million the European Union spends on agricultural subsidy lowers the price of cereal and other agricultural products to a point below efficiency and below marginal cost. This causes major distortions to our economies, our international commerce, and prevents agriculturally ef ficient countries such as ours developing according to the rules of globalisation. We are demanding more globalisation, real open markets, the end of tariffs, and a reduction of subsidies.

If you think about it, the same money that is wasted on subsidies every year could be used to pay a large amount of the debt of many of the developing countries, or used for education, health and social problems in Africa, Asia and Latin America. But even if this money is not used for this purpose, and is instead reinvested in productive enterprises in the West, it could still permit the development of healthier economies in the developing world. It is time to develop a model for growth that includes us all, the developing and developed worlds, with a group of responsible politicians who act, taking into account the international equilibrium. As Riane Eisler said, there is a need to think in terms of partnership models where the fate of every individual depends on the others, instead of the dominator model.

Having made my point on the need for fairness in the rules of globalisation, and accepting globalisation as a fact that cannot be stopped, I would like to go on to state the need to smoothen the negative effects of this trend. I believe we can agree that the genesis of globalisation lies in the Western world, with the invention of new technology and modes of production. This new technology led to a new dynamic, which led to a contradiction between the role of the modern state and the increasingly globalised economies. In becoming integrated into the globalised world, the developing world is facing the same dilemma:the state is not efficient enough to secure the provision of basic public goods needed for the development of more equal societies. This goes together with the fact that developing societies are, to a large extent, experiencing very poor conditions. However, it cannot be assumed that this fault in institutions in the developing world can be improved by directly copying the institutions of the West.

In the students'Forum 2000 last June, I had the opportunity to discuss issues that related to a new educational paradigm with students from all around the world. My discussion group consisted of 10 young students, out of whom I was the only one who was non - European. We all agreed on the failure inherent in the educational systems of our respective countries. However, whilst most of them were thinking of ways to improve their relatively good systems, I was thinking how could we possibly create a system where all children could learn how to read and write and have their daily meal in school. These were different visions about what changes should be made to improve the same type of institutions;we cannot assume that the same institutions and values of the West can be applied perfectly to different cultural, historical, political and religious backgrounds.

There is a need to create a place where we can analyse, discuss and find new solutions for the developing world in accordance with the particular social, political and religious characteristics - taking the Western model as a model that can be adapted, but not directly imported. Young people have an important role in these matters, although this is often ignored. As a great majority of the developing world's population, young people should have the right to participate in actions that will condition their futures. However, this is very difficult in a world where there is little hope: young people in Argentina perceive little hope. It is thought that hope is only possible if we copy the West in all its characteristics. The constant corruption found in Latin American politicians, the difficulty found in forming international relations into more comparative relations, the constant oasis image of the world we could achieve due to our rich resources, but that we can't achieve, together with our recent history in the 1970s, where young people with high ideals were killed and tortured - these are all constant threats to idealistic youth. Still, there are ways this is being, and can be, improved.

Non-profit organisations play a major role in this. Non - governmental organisations permit greater participation for young people, with new ideas and enthusiasm, where they have greater contact with the real problems of the communities they work with, enabling a more fluent communication between markets, civil society and government. A more fluent comparative communication between countries with a similar background is also of extreme importance. It is time for the developing world to find solutions to their own problems, and this can only start happening if they work in co - operation with each other, and later ask and demand co - operation from the developed world. After all, to use His Royal Highness El Hassan bin Talal's accurate analogy, shepherds need sheep to survive, and this cannot happen without co - operation. We need to think of long - term solutions that include the future actors of these decisions, that is the young people.

Jiří Musil
Thank you very much, Victoria. I already have four people who would like to take the floor. Please, Professor Jařab.


Josef Jařab
Thank you, Mr Chairman. Victoria has just mentioned the importance of education, and asked how we could use educational systems for building the global and open society that we want to build. Where are we, indeed, with the educational situation, let's say, in Europe?

The Association of European Universities, also known as CRE, brings together about 650 universities from the whole continent. A few years ago, it started a campaign under the title "The Public Role of the University". "The Public Role of the University"was also a vision called "Vision 2010", something that should cast some light on our illuminations here.

Now, my feeling from the whole campaign, and from this effort, was that universities were being pushed out of the ivory - tower sort of isolation and being asked to join societies and assume a public role. It also felt as if the public role was very much limited to the immediate needs of the market. That means terms like "client sustainability"and "material sustainability"of the institutions were key words. This means that universities should in fact provide education that would give the young generation - and not only the young generation, because there is also retraining and life - long learning - and people in general, a chance in the job market. That, no doubt, is a very important role for the university, the public role of the university or of the whole educational system.

However, Timothy Garton Ash spoke yesterday about short and longterminism. I am concerned that we might focus too much, if we focus too narrowly, pragmatically and materialistically on the public role of education, on providing people with the skills that are needed today, without knowing what skills will be needed tomorrow and the day after tomorrow. The short answer is to educate people with critical thinking, and here I come to the other requirement - and that is education in fields we would call, let's say, civic education, humanist education, education as a human being.

The first category, provided many people, especially in the countries of transition, is what I would call "economic literacy". Ver y often, however, it was how to write a proposal for a grant, how to write a proposal for money and resources, which is important, but is that all? Fritjof Capra mentioned yesterday that literacy was needed in ecology - "ecology literacy". I would add others: democracy literacy, human rights literacy or, having listened to our dear friend Dr Hori, I would also say commonsense literacy. How do we do that? Should we forget about it? Should we not start a global effort for this kind of education? I mean for literacy in all the fields that I have mentioned - and I could go on.

Working for some time as a member of the Assembly in Strasbourg, I was working on a resolution called Media and Democratic Culture, and there we spoke about the need for media literacy. I won't go into it now, but it seems to be very important not only to appreciate what the media can do but also to take some active attitude towards the globalisation that seems to be drifting. As Zygmunt Bauman says, people should be trained and ready to somehow counterattack being drifted passively into something that is happening.

I would like to mention one thing here, and that is education based on human rights, individualism, respect for individuals, and that means breaking stereotypes. A few people here have mentioned stereotypes:you can fight stereotypes with counter - stereotypes but that will not get us out of the situation. I think we have to go into the curricula of educational systems every - where and try to introduce this human rights literacy, which means individualisation. This is the only way of breaking this situation of stereotype against stereotype. Now, of course, there is often a very fine line between stereotypes and the education of what we call traditions:traditions are sometimes nothing but fossilised institutionalised stereotypes. This has already been mentioned a few times and these are, I think, the challenges that educational systems everywhere have to face in order to take a step forward towards an open society.

Thank you.

Martin Jan Stránský
I shall be brief. I would like to thank Mr Jeffrey Sachs for his very insightful speech, and I would like to take this opportunity to briefly expand on something he said. We have been exploring various forces of social and political identity and their possible solutions, their inequalities. Why should one part of the world gain whilst another drifts? What is the common denominator of decision - making?

I submit that if there is a readily discernible common area, then it is indeed human suffering - through disease, illness and death. Societal welfare is underpinned by the factors of life expectancy, live births. Perinatal death occurs against the stark paradox of globalisation and increased global access to knowledge of care and delivery in some areas, but not in others. Timothy Garton Ash spoke of a "moral minimum", and Mr Sachs spoke of "a global ethic for humanity". To what extent, then, is the denial of a full life - of giving both infant and adult a reasonable chance to live and survive - on the basis of passively, and sometimes actively, denying access to medical care, a denial of those values? And to what extent should developed nations be held accountable for providing and ensuring the right of those in the distant periphery to simply survive? How do we justify our actions in places like Kosovo on the basis of alleviating suffering caused by political systems that have gone wrong, when on a daily basis more people, in Africa alone, die of HIV than did in the entire Kosovo conflict?

Mr Chairman, I submit that - rather than thinking of new and imaginative solutions - we turn back and perhaps take a stance, and think about issuing a declaration either at the end of today's forum, or perhaps in future forums, in which we fully and firmly declare that first and foremost developed nations acknowledge and assume their moral responsibilities to address and alleviate the massive increase in suffering and disease that is being inflicted on hundreds of millions of people each year. As a physician, have seen the wonders of providing comfort and care, regardless of the result. And, as Riane Eisler has told us, that care and that touch can extend from, and transcend from, family to society to envelop our entire planet.

Thank you.

Jiří Musil
Thank you. Now Professor Sunkel.

Osvaldo Sunkel
Mr Chairman, I think it was very wise of the organisers of this meeting to organise the whole meeting around the notion of "visions" - visions from the developing world, visions from the transitional countries, visions from the developed countries. "Visions", of course, is a concept that Josef Schumpeter developed many, many years ago, as the notion of what he called a pre - analytic vision, a way of approaching the understanding of reality in a diffuse sort of way, so that different visions could mesh, coincide and reconcile each other.

I think I have to congratulate Jeffrey Sachs for a very valiant and rather successful attempt to provide us with a common vision, having heard the visions from various corners of the world and tr ying to put this together. must say didn't know Jeffrey. I only met him at this meeting. I had a vision of Jeffrey Sachs as a conventional macro - economist, and I now have a vision of Jeffrey Sachs as approaching something like a classical political economist - which is meant as a compliment.

Nevertheless, I have some difficulties with his vision. I think the way he presented us with a view of the world in terms of the core, near - periphery and the distant - periphery countries is a good way of providing a snapshot, a picture, a standstill picture of the world at a certain moment. My problem is that if you had taken that picture 50 years ago, even 100 years ago, it would have been more or less the same picture. History has been reproducing this picture in spite of the fact that the world as a whole, in particular members of the OECD countries and small minorities, particularly the near - periphery countries, have become people with levels of living of USD 20, 000, or USD 30, 000, or USD 40, 000 per capita, including minorities in the near - periphery countries.

So, the next step Jeffrey, is to tr y to work out the analysis of what holds this system together over time, over history? I suggest that what we have is an international hierarchical power structure that reproduces itself over time. There have been times when this international hierarchical power structure has broken down. As Mr Pfaff mentioned, it broke down during the inter - war period after World War One - the great depression of the 1930s and the flourishing of all sorts of different types of political systems to try to deal with a world that didn't work, where everyone was unemployed and everyone was starving and so on, and then came socialism, fascism, Nazism, democracy, everything. Fortunately, what came out of the void was democracy, but we can't be sure that this will go on - because we may have another new crisis.

At a meeting of the World Bank and the IMF last week, people were dealing with the problems of the crisis we have, but they will probably still be dealing with that crisis when the next one arrives, because the system is highly unstable. So, I think that what we need to do is try to look more into the nature of this power structure. I think what Fritjof Capra just gave was a glimpse of a very interesting way of looking into that.

I have several things that would like to say here, but I will finish by saying that perhaps the greatest void in the international system, with which we are beginning the 21st century, is the lack of democratic world government. We have a kind of executive government, particularly in the economic sphere, the 16th to 19th street complex - what was called the Wall Street - Treasury complex - and we have a military centre of the world, but we don't really have a political one, and we don't have a legislative one. People are not represented at the world level, there is no world parliament, there is something of a judiciary, but not much. So, perhaps, what we should concentrate on in the future is how to bring about democratic representation at the world level.

Thank you.

Jiří Musil
Thank you very much indeed. You touched one of the issues that has been at the heart of this gathering from the very beginning. I would like to ask Riane Eisler to take the floor.

Riane Eisler
First of all, I want to say that don't usually come to all the sessions at conferences because it gets to be too much, but I am so glad to have been at most of them here, because this is an exceptional, really extraordinary group of people - and some of the ideas that have been presented today speak to an area that I have been working on very intensively. It usually takes me about a 40 - minute address to just begin to cover it. I am going to tr y to cover this in just a few minutes.

What I think we are really talking about is a new economic vision - but vision, my friends, is not really just a question of an ideal:we all share the same ideal. Vision is a question of new institutions and new rules of the game. Now, I think that the picture that you so brilliantly painted, Jeffrey, about many of the things that we still need to do, to a large extent took place within the existing economic rules of the game. Not to mention the fact that we are now moving into a new technological era, we are also moving into a new era of consciousness. We are beginning to understand that there are some very dramatic problems with all of the world's economic systems, whether they were feudal, whether they were capitalist, or socialist etc. So, what I would like to propose is a new economic approach that takes the best elements. Yes, I mean a real free market, which we don't have and, yes, some of the measures of the welfare society, but not the bureaucratic ones, an approach that moves beyond this to address some very vital questions. I will talk about only one of them.

At our present level of technological development, it is becoming very clear that we have to address the question of what productive work is. If we simply continue integrating within the present system, exporting information, economy, biotechnology, our automation and eventually robotics, what, my friends, are the people of the world to do? We will see this complete - but much worse - polarisation that we are already seeing today. I mean, how many people can work at McDonald's, which is really the so - called service job base for the economically disenfranchised?

There is a basic flaw to all the world's economic systems. The work that really needs to be done, the work of caring, of care - giving, has not been given economic value under the present rules of the game, whether they are capitalist, communist or before that time goodness - knows - what? We know that we can change this through a number of things. One solution to this problem, with the vast masses of the discontented, was what [Robert] Theobald suggested, a proposal you know from the left and from the right: a guaranteed income. Well, I think that is nonsense: people need to do meaningful work, so we don't want to do that. But what it does indicate is that we have a small window of opportunity - we may never have it again - to fundamentally change the rules of the game.

What can we do? Well, of course, there is education - changing consciousness - but what I would really like to talk about now is whether we can move towards a caring economy, a real partnership economy. We need new economic inventions, and I mentioned one of them yesterday. All economic institutions are inventions - slavery is a dominator economic invention, parental leave happens to be a partnership economic invention that does give value to caring and to care - taking. But, let me just give you one example, and then I would like to challenge all of you - you are so brilliant - to think about the economic inventions that we can develop.

Let me end with an example of what is possible. We know from neuroscience that the first three years of life are decisive years in terms of the care that children receive. Neural pathways are laid that really ef fect our capacity to learn, to care, whether we are violent or non - violent, because the brain keeps developing outside of the womb. And we know this not just from psychology, but from neuroscience, so logic dictates that if we are to have the "human capital" we need for the post - industrial age and even beyond that, if we are to have a more humane society, we have to focus on that.

And yet we have government - funded, community-funded training for people to kill - they are called soldiers, and we give them pensions, which is an economic invention that recognises the value of their work. But we do not have it for teaching people how to care for others;we do not have it for nurturing for caring. The single poorest segment of American society are women of all races and ethnic groups who have been traditional mothers. I will stop now;I would like to put this challenge before you and thank you for indulging me.

Jiří Musil
Thank you. Now, Hazel Henderson.

Hazel Henderson
Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. I must say it is wonderful for me to have here my dear friend, Riane Eisler, and I want to underline everything she just said. I would like to engage Jeffrey Sachs regarding a mechanism that helps to keep these three spheres in place in the world economy. It relates to the paradigm of the old traditional economics, really a sort of industrial paradigm, and it relates to Jeffrey's discussion yesterday of the importance of geography and transportation.

The problem with transportation - which, of course, is at the basis of all world trade - and with the free trade model we practise today under the WTO, is that there is no recognition that all world trade is heavily subsidised;it is below full cost prices. The energy underlying the transportation system is below full cost prices, not taking into account the social and environmental costs. This kind of free trade is also heavily subsidised by the citizens in all countries who contribute their taxes to create the infrastructure, the roads, the ports etc. And so, economists today, I would have to say, know nothing about efficiencies of scale, although they talk about this a great deal. The problem is that if you really calculated the full costs of trade, and the transportation underlying world trade, you would find that most economies of scale in trade are actually local.

I have actually been tr ying to get economists to debate with me about this for 30 years. I wrote my first article about this in the Harvard Business Review , and it was called "Economists versus Ecologists". Nature's food webs are local, and nature's eco - system efficiencies are local, but you can also look at this from the point of view of thermodynamics. If economic models of efficiency were ever to map thermodynamic models of efficiency correctly, you would find that most world trade in goods would disappear, and that regional and local distribution of goods is just fine.

So, where does that leave us with world trade? Well, my vision of world trade has always been the shift from hardware to software, and the exchange of the experiences of all of our cultures in managing our affairs and the ex - change, one might say, of recipes, not cakes. It is pretty stupid to ship cakes and biscuits around: we want to ship the recipes around. This is what I spend most of my life doing, exchanging the technologies, the cleaner, greener, more efficient, ecologically efficient technologies, and I would like to hear what Jeffrey has to say about that.

Jiří Musil
Thank you very much, Hazel. Timothy Garton Ash is next.

Timothy Garton Ash
Thank you, Chairman. I have a question to put to Jeffrey Sachs, which takes up a little of the seasoned old world scepticism of William Pfaff, but also links to something said by Fritjof Capra. Jeffrey, I think you gave us a compelling, and actually moving, presentation, something one can't always say of economics - but in this case I really found it so. It ended with what seemed to me essentially a moral appeal, that the most urgent thing for the beginning of the next millennium is to do something for the poorest of the poor, in the far periphery - and I totally support that.

But we do occasionally meet politicians who are not immediately responsive to moral appeals, and indeed electorates in modern democracies who are singularly unresponsive to moral appeals. In fact, it is a characteristic of the wealthy core that you described, so it seems to me that the rich few will really have the electorates trembling in their shoes. As you know, it was famously remarked that revolutions happen not when things are getting worse but when things are getting better;this is a case where things are clearly getting worse, where it is a case of sheer human misery. How does that translate into a threat to the developed world that could actually galvanise us into action?

Jiří Musil
Thank you. Now Mr Qasrawi, a delegate of the student forum from Palestine. Please, the floor is yours.

Zafir T. Qasrawi
Good morning. Thank you, Mr Chairman. First of all, I would like to thank our distinguished speakers for their fascinating and insightful speeches. I would like to comment on a point raised by one of the distinguished speakers on global communication, and I would like to add that non - governmental organisations, whether youth organisations, ecological or other forms of non - governmental organisations, do play a very important role in promoting global communication. Based on our previous experience, I believe that non - governmental organisations all over the world, and especially in the developing world, have made considerable achievements in improving people's lives.

I think it would be appropriate if non - governmental organisations were given the chance to play a leading or a complementary role in this trend. In some cases, they must be more efficient than governmental performance or political orientations or any kind of theoretical approaches. think that they are more practical, therefore I think there should be a call for governments all over the world, especially in developing countries, to give more assistance to, and allocate more funds for, these organisations, so that they can play a very significant role to achieve what we are talking about here, and to transfer words into deeds.

Thank you.

Jiří Musil
Thank you very much. Now, the panel has seven or eight minutes in which to respond to what has been said. I assume that Jeffrey would like to start.

Jeffrey Sachs
Thank you very much, and thank you all for your reactions, questions and also, of course, important independent commentary. Osvaldo Sunkel asked a question: what holds this system together? And the fact that you can look back 50 years, as he said, or a 100 years, and see something similar to this is very important. It means that these observations are not a transitory and fleeting phenomena, but something quite real, socially and on a global scale.

I want to make a point, which I am sure everybody knows but I want to be very clear. When I use terms like "periphery", these are very harsh, nasty terms; they are not moral judgments. This is meant to be very "in your face". They are also not very original from me, but it is a kind of "in your face", real description of our global landscape. That is why use terms that I think have a very ugly ring to them. But I want to stress that these are not moral judgments about who is peripheral and who is core; quite the contrary, this is a statement about the nature of the system.

There are two visions here, or there is a vision that many of you share, which I do not share - and I want to be explicit about this. I do not think that at the core the issue here is the global power structure. If you look deeply at this issue, I think that at the core it is the nature of the social mobilisation of knowledge, and how scientific communities and the reproduction of science and technology has evolved over the past three centuries. The distinguishing characteristic of the core, in my opinion, is not its military exclusivity or dominance or pretensions to suppress the rest of the world. It is its continuing, now two centuries long, scientific and technological pre - eminence that is fuelling the continuing reproduction of this system.

I cannot stress to you enough the reality of last year's patents, something that have already mentioned. There were 140, 000 patents in the United States and there was one patent application from Zimbabwe and one from Kenya; there were 119 from Argentina and 17 from Chile. This is an underlying reality that you must comprehend if you want to understand the economic base of these divisions. I do not believe that this is essentially an issue of a political power structure, although I have dissatisfactions, which I stressed, about the lack of vision of the core.

I also do not believe that we have a crisis of the centre countries, that we are living in a world of terrible economic crisis that engulfs us all. I think that is too glib. I think that this machinery, this social machinery of creating and mobilising science, is an almost miraculous human invention, which has brought incredible human well - being to that small part of humanity that is able to partake of it. I do not think that that well - being has come at the expense of the rest of the world;I think that the rest of the world has not been able to share in it, and that is quite a different matter.

I think that the advanced countries have not acted with enough vision to enable the rest of the world to share in it, but do not believe that it is basically an exploitative or power relationship that has kept the rest of the world repressed. There are some deep market mechanisms: scientists move to rich countries;this is how it works. Look at our US Nobel Prize yesterday, an Egyptian working in California. This is how global science works, because it obeys its own market forces and its own logic, and I think that this is extremely important to understand about the reproduction of the international system.

Why is Argentina still where it is 50 years later? Because it is still stuck with natural resources. I agree with [Victoria Pereyra Iraola's] sentiment about the unfairness of trade, but Argentina's future is not in ending agricultural subsidies. Argentina's future is in moving beyond 100 patents a year and getting the universities and science to work properly in Argentina and not to rely on natural resources any more. Let me finish - I know you would like to interject or disagree - but the point of the matter is that countries like Chile - another success story - is still a copper exporter or an agricultural exporter:it has not harnessed global science.

All of this leads me to Professor Capra's very important observations, which I know I have benefited from enormously over the years, and I think that his observations about systems thinking and sustainable communities are extremely important. I disagree with one point, and I question another one. The point I disagree with is to see this so - called global capitalist system as the opponent of the "other system", rather than that the social mobilisation of knowledge has failed to extend to other parts of the world. I have my own complaints about financial organisation. Financial crisis is my speciality and, although I would agree with a lot of the diagnosis, I do not agree that it is the core problem.

Global capitalism is an amazingly successful social system - unprecedentedly so in human history. The problem is that it doesn't reach most of the world, and in particular the science and technology component doesn't. I ask the question, therefore, about our real ability not to replace one by the other, but to harness science and technology effectively in very different ecologies from where they are developed right now. It seems to me that we do not know enough in the core ecology about the tropical ecology, for example about disease systems, tropical agriculture and tropical energy problems, to solve the problems, not because they are insurmountable but because science is not directed towards those challenges.

So, I do not think that it is simply a matter of wanting sustainable communities and local environments, but I think we come back to the question of the mobilisation of global knowledge in an effective way. I am actually rather pessimistic in the short term about simply thinking that the solutions are really at hand.

So, let me finally conclude with [Timothy Garton Ash's] question: how to frighten the world electorate? You know, there is a kind of strategy of frightening the world electorate, or appealing to self - interest. We have West Nile fever afflicting Manhattan citizens, we have various emerging and re - emerging infectious diseases, and we have the picture of an expanded global market place as good for everybody. But I don't think that any of that is really going to be enough, and I don't think that it is really going to work. I think that is why take the appeal to global ethics at the core.

I believe we have problems that have not been thought through, that a lot of the world does not understand or hasn't reflected on. Only within the last 70 years, we have had an increase of four billion people, so the whole notion of man - made climate change or the population pressures from a social point of view are really new. We discussed them 10, 20, 30 years ago among the elite, but in broad society think that the real implications of the nature of the world are not well understood. And I believe that the politicians in the end respond to electorates that hold moral values - and I think that is an extremely important route above the self - interest route.

I know that in the rich countries, right now, people are easily wealthy enough to be able to see a world of greater fulfilment at very little cost to them - and I believe that it would not be hard to make that connection. They don't see it now. The mechanisms and the problems are highly complex, but I actually find the notion of going from global ethics to global governance to global solutions not an overly idealistic path, but maybe the most practical and hard - headed path right now.

Jiří Musil
Thank you. Now I think that I will give Fritjof Capra the chance to speak, although we are incredibly short of time. I propose that in the future we should devote an entire session to this very topic. The topic of ecology has featured highly in this year's forum. So, Fritjof.

Fritjof Capra
Well, Mr Chairman, I have a great deal to say about these issues but the perspective that I represent - the perspective of ecology and systems thinking - is one that deals primarily with relationships and patterns and is singularly resistant to one - minute statements. However, I applaud your idea of dedicating an entire session of a future Forum 2000 to this dialogue and would be delighted to participate in it.

Jiří Musil
Thank you very much, and I do hope that you understand my situation in being bound to a schedule. I would like to thank the speakers on behalf of all here: this was very exciting. I thank all the panellists and invite you to the next session, which in fact will continue in the same direction.


Supported by

Jyllands-Posten Foundation


Follow us on