Nobel Laureat for Global Glasnot
April 1, 2004
Author: Mikhail Gorbachev
Source: Korea Times
Available: http://search.hankooki.com/times/times_view.php?terms=Gorbachev+code%3A+kt&path=hankooki3%2Ftimes%2Flpage%2Fopinion%2F200404%2Fkt2004040122143911550.htm
Market-driven globalization tends to enforce the notion, derived from
neo-liberal theory, that gross domestic product indicators are the only
measure of national wealth and progress. Capital accumulation and individual
consumption are given a higher status than social and spiritual values
or cultural heritage.
The cumulative results of all the individual decisions based on this
logic lead in the long run to unforeseen and dangerous consequences for
both the environment and society.
The sponsors of this ideology _ notably the United States _ benefit most from its spread across the planet.
One often comes across the argument that globalization, as we know it,
is a fait accompli, a process entirely outside our control.
Particularly vociferous with this argument, unsurprisingly, are those
who want to instill in the public mind the futility and pointlessness of
any opposition to globalization.
But globalization, like all other economic regimes, is a political choice.
That politics lies behind globalization is unquestionable. In recent
years this has been clearly illustrated by the pursuit of an imperialist
policy of force by neo-conservatives in the United States who seek to take
advantage of globalization to impose their will upon the rest of the world.
Why has the factor of force come to the fore? There are a few simple
facts.
Natural resources are finite. Their use has already exceeded a critical point. For a smaller (and decreasing) portion of humanity to capture the lion’s share of resources means depriving the rest of the world (and the growing majority) of equal access to those resources and, in many cases, to the essential means of subsistence.
By recalling the U.S. signature from the Kyoto Protocol and opening
hostilities against Iraq based on false intelligence, in breach of international
law and bypassing the U.N. system, President George Bush has demonstrated
blatant disregard for world opinion and the interests of others.
In the first two years of his presidency, under the pretext of liberating
business growth, Bush made several major changes to national environmental
policies that have substantially undermined the central pillars of ecological
legislation in America established during the previous four decades. Yet
he did not think twice before spending billions (not to mention thousands
of human lives) on the war in Iraq.
Such a course of action is fraught with danger, not only for the environment but also because it exacerbates the global conflicts between the North and the South, between the rich and the poor. The terrible events of Sept. 11, 2001, were a graphic display of what can emerge from deep disparity.
Is there any alternative? Yes.
History is not predetermined. There is room for an alternative in any
situation. It was this pursuit of an alternative model that led to the
elaboration of a sustainable development program for the world back in
1992.
Agenda 21 was supported by the United Nations and endorsed by the heads
of state and government of most states in Rio. For the first time in history,
the world community managed to map out and agree on a strategic plan designed
to address the twin problems of poverty and ecological disruption.
However, serious obstacles emerged as implementation moved forward.
By and large, the governments of the industrialized countries chose to
retract their commitments, in particular those regarding development aid
contributions, in favor of the philosophy of economic liberalism, deregulation
and accelerated economic growth.
In the meantime, opponents of the sustainable development paradigm
have spared no effort in trying to discredit the idea in the public mind.
And yet, the interest is still there. The so-called “anti-globalization
movement” (in effect, a movement against market-driven fundamentalism)
is in favor of an alternative development model. Its motto is “`Another
World Is Possible!” International social democratic parties, rural slow
food and “green” movements worldwide as well as thousands of NGOs (non-governmental
organizations) representing millions of members also stand behind the sustainable
development principle. Together, these groups and movements are a powerful
force whose pressure is being increasingly felt by the ruling elite.
So, what can we do to make a difference? First of all, we need to bridge
the gap between our moral consciousness and the challenges of our time.
Consumerism and national egocentrism continue to pose a serious threat
to achieving sustainable development goals. A turnaround will not be possible
unless the gap between the objective need to reverse currently prevalent
behavioral patterns and the subjective unwillingness of states, communities
and individuals to do so is closed. This turnaround must begin with changes
in the human spirit through a reprioritization of our value system.
Today I am convinced that the citizens of the world need a reformulated “glasnost” to invigorate, inform and inspire them to put the staggering resources of our planet and our knowledge to use for the benefit of all. We must not go back to the days of prolific military spending and fear of people whose ways are different from our own. Once they know that they have the power to change it, people cannot long tolerate living on a planet where millions of children have no clean water to drink and go to sleep hungry.
Glasnost could serve as a catchall phrase for all means and methods in the struggle for global awareness. Glasnost is a demanding, long-term process of awakening that inevitably leads to calls for fundamental changes.
Such a process is urgently needed to address the dominance of short-term
interests and lack of transparency at the level where the planet’s fate
is being decided.
I have faith in humankind. It is this faith that has allowed me to
remain an active an active optimist.
Mikhail Gorbachev, the last president of the Soviet Union, was awarded
the Nobel Peace prize for helping to bring the Cold War to an end. He is
now president of Green Cross International.