Mikhail Gorbachev delivers the closing presentation on A New World Political Architecture (1)

Introduction by Nancy Roof

It was a dedicated and globally diverse group of leaders who gathered together at the beautiful old monastery in Bosco Marengo, Italy on October 27-28, 2006. These leaders had been invited by Mikhail Gorbachev and The World Political Forum to participate in the inauguration of a high level think-tank dedicated to A New World Political Architecture. This type of meeting would not have been necessary a few decades ago, when the political structure of the world was still based on the sovereignty of national states. Recognizing the political crisis that globalizaton has engendered, Gorbachev initiated this wise council of innovative thinkers to develop foundational ideas and approaches that address the new realities of the 21st century. Seasoned political figures and world leaders such as foreign ministers and ambassadors were seated at the table—tastefully decorated with seasonal flowers. But new political players graced the table, also: academic experts on global affairs, members of civil society, and journalists. I was privileged to be at that table.

As we integrate new players into global governance, we will need to develop trust between all sectors in order to move forward. The hospitality of the staff and principals of The World Political Forum created a relaxed and open atmosphere that made it easy for us to trust each other and to share deeply our concerns and hopes for positive and realistic outcomes to our efforts. Let us now turn to Mikhail Gorbachev for a summary of the deliberations at The World Political Forum’s initial meeting on

A New World Political Architecture - Edited Remarks by Mikhail Gorbachev

Today we can say that we have a world political crisis. Generally, the world is even more dangerous than the world of the mid-1980s. And the question is: What are we supposed to do? And, generally, what kind of world do we need?

We will not be able to achieve anything unless there is a sea change in the attitudes of politicians, who neglect common human interests and do not put them at the top of their agendas. One common problem is that we politicians emphasize our national interests, since we have another election ahead of us and this is our greatest concern.

Today our problems are global, and they can be addressed only through pooling our efforts. Recommendations of think-tanks and pressure from non-governmental organizations should be a basis for new politics.

The conference has fulfilled its task of productive brainstorming about the issues, revealing the scope of the endeavor, and it has laid a strong foundation for our continued efforts to build a new world order. We need to deepen our perception of the reality of today’s world and identify developing trends based on those realities. We should take an evolutionary approach to building the new political architecture. This means reforming existing organizations and adapting them to the challenges of the 21st century global world, while eliminating outdated organizations and methods. I want to illustrate this through the example of organizations like the United Nations (UN) and the World Trade Organization (WTO). We just had a meeting with the press, who asked: Is it time to eliminate the United Nations? That question floats around mostly when someone wants to get rid of international law, international institutions, the UN Security Council, and start acting without taking anyone else into account. I think everyone is aware of such ideas, and we will not dwell on them further. Need for an Economic Security Council at the United Nations There are defects in the UN structure. A very serious one is the structure of the Security Council, which does not reflect new realities. The UN is not sufficiently effective in the social and economic spheres. Many problems are rooted here, including the problems of security, stability and democracy.

For example, political scientists are attempting to provide convincing explanations for the roll-back we are witnessing in about one hundred or more countries, where big democratic changes took place in the late 20th century. Several dictators and authoritarian regimes left the world stage then; but now we see a roll-back of those processes, and authoritarian-minded politicians are again popular. We see it even here, in Europe. At the most recent congress of political scientists in Cape Town, South Africa, its participants (particularly those representing the developing countries) were clearly saying that people were unhappy with the fact that hopes for democracy proved unwarranted. They are ready to support anyone who proposes an effective social and economic program.

Some argue that the most important thing is freedom and political rights. Others try to prove that it is important to create social and economic preconditions for a normal life, worthy of a human being. In fact, both are important and need one another to function successfully.

All our efforts and projects will not be worth a penny if we do not consider that the number of poor people is increasing and the gap between rich and poor is growing. Today, half of the world’s population lives on a dollar or two a day, while well-off people engage in lengthy discussions and seem not to care much about the fate of those less fortunate.

We must pay attention to this issue, since this is potentially a delayed-action bomb. What were the origins of the Porto Alegre protest movement? At first, they wanted to portray their protest as simply a variety of almost rioting forces. Now these same forces are engaged in dialogue. We can no longer avoid addressing these urgent issues. I would probably put establishing a new organization for social and economic concerns at center stage of the new world order.

Mr. Stephane Hessel [Ambassador, France] was talking about the dangers lying within the current global financial system. Today, any country can be brought to its knees. You remember how Indonesia was praised and its experience extolled, but the country was bogged down in short loans. At the time it was enough to push a button or two, and within 24 hours Indonesia turned from a prosperous country into a backward one. The value of the national currency decreased three times.

When issues like that are not addressed, a vacuum develops. And G-8 and other organizations try to fill it. However, these organizations are like clubs, geared to the interests of their own members. For sure, they alleviate burning problems sometimes and raise billions. However, they do not operate as a system for the common good. Who authorized them to take up the functions irrelevant to their missions? G-8 members feel the lack of their legitimacy and therefore have recently invited China, India, Brazil, South Africa, and Mexico to their meetings. Life itself is forcing them to extend their representation. But still it is a club with invited guests. The danger is that it becomes an alternative to the United Nations. When they agree upon a decision there which is in conflict with the interests of the entire global community, there is a problem. And the UN is really the only legitimate universal international organization. That is why, in my view, an Economic Security Council is needed.

As for the World Trade Organization, people often ask: Can the organization created to achieve a narrow-scope objective of liberalizing the global trade meet the demand of today’s world? I think history has shown that the WTO can adapt to new objectives and the inclusion of new countries like China and Brazil. If we use such an approach, then we will be able to adapt these organizations instead of eliminating them. Adaptation is possible and may be the main direction for us to think about in moving toward a new world architecture..

Strengthening Global Civil Society.

Now about the second important idea that was also voiced here. We are witnessing the formation of a global civil society. Most notably, its influence on politics will grow, and it should have a major impact on the architecture of the new world order. Analysis shows that the main theme of protest movements, which have already become international by nature, is dissatisfaction with the social and economic situation and the state of the environment.

Furthermore, the civil society and the global civil society are already taking to the streets and airing their demands. Cooperation between the UN, international organizations and the civil society is not perfect; it does not meet the requirements of addressing new tasks, but a world architecture built solely on sovereign states is not adequate to meet the needs of a modern world.

I think our task is to think about how to integrate and fully legitimatize new international organizations into the global process. I want to support fully the idea voiced by Giulietto Chiesa [member of the European Parliament, Italy] that we should not only assess the situation and develop a vision, but also move toward a strategy and create some effective mechanisms through which the new world order can function. Otherwise, we may slip into a utopian approach.

Toward A Realistic Structure for a Global World

And now we are approaching the theme of creating a realistic structure for the world order, which would ensure effective governance in the context of the global world. Some important points to consider:

1. Global processes should not be controlled from one center. There can be no global government, nor claims by one or several states to govern the world.
2. Our proposals should be developed on the basis of the examination of real trends. In my view, a realistic new world order is a complex multi-level system based on democratic principles. Nation states will still be needed. I attended one conference at which a Japanese delegate called for doing away with borders and states. He said that multinational companies and banks should decide everything. However, they proved to be unprepared and unable to shoulder the task. I think the role of nation states will not diminish, since the complex world requires very responsible and balanced action. However, authority will be shared, and nation states will have to cede part of their sovereignty, as they have in the European Union.
3. It is important to find a proper balance between the common interests of humanity and national interests. Even the most prominent among our leaders are simply engaged in apologetics on this particular matter rather than on analysis. Addressing issues of security, creating safeguards against nuclear or bacteriological war, addressing the environmental crisis—these are common national interests. If we don’t address them also at the global level, all countries will be hard hit. Today the lack of such understanding is the cause of many serious political mistakes.
4. We should welcome the formation and strengthening of regional systems in world politics. They are sweeping across virtually all continents. They are an inherent part of the new world order, the outline of which is just beginning to emerge. Many do not operate to their full capacity yet. Nevertheless they are of great importance.
5. One should not forget about methods. I like the idea that a structure in itself is not yet a decision. You have to add political will and methods of addressing problems. Indeed, we live in a global world which is constantly changing. However, we still see the prevalence of old methods: force, sanctions, coercion, pressure, etc. As Lord Skidelsky [House of Lords, United Kingdom] reminded us yesterday, countries are all too willing to resort to instruments of force such as sanctions, although we are convinced that this should be an instrument of last resort.
6. The question of preventive politics, preventive diplomacy, dialogue, and search for consensus has never been more important. I think the United States floated an idea that stirred discord in the European Union: there is that old and decrepit Europe that should not be dealt with. It is the new Europe that we should do business with. The new Europe differs in that it very quickly bends to U.S. demands. It dances not to the tune of its own Polish mazurka, but to the tune of American jazz.
7. . We should be looking for new effective organizational forms, including forms of peoples' diplomacy. If civil society is set up under the United Nations, or even some regional organization, it can engage in settling crises at the stage of their emergence, and many potential crises can be eliminated or minimized.
8. Everything we discussed here will operate efficiently only when based solely on international law. Recently we have seen how departure from international law, even under most noble pretexts—like war on terror, spread of democracy, prevention of ethnic cleansing—leads to even bigger problems and sometimes to stalemates, such as we see now in Iraq.
   
   

The Work Ahead

So we have lots of interesting, important, and necessary work ahead of us. I once again thank you all for participating in this conference.

(1) Excerpts from translated remarks made by Mikhail Gorbachev at the World Political Forum, October 2006. Selected and edited by Nancy Roof.