world without removing the danger of new imperialism. The gap between the
poor and the rich remained as wide as ever. The differences in political and
military power were so different that the danger of imperialist domination
remained. Of course, it would be imprudent to suppose that imperialism might
return in its old colonial forms or to the time of the Cold War. Although
the wealth of the world is divided as unequally as 150 years ago, many
things have changed. The colonial model has been rejected by history.
Anti-monopoly legislation has put down deep roots, major changes have taken
place in peoples' awareness and the infrastructure of the UN and other world
non-governmental organisations have expanded guaranteeing the rights of all
the citizens of the earth. Thus the old type of coercive, belligerent
imperialism has for ever been consigned to the past.
I ask myself, however, whether imperialism as a method of domination of
certain nations over others has finally died. I do not think so. In fact,
the opposite may even be true. Together with the globalisation of the world
there are now new pre-conditions for a new type of imperialism, of a new
type of domination by one people over another. This, without doubt, is one
of the greatest dangers facing world development and the establishment of
new relations within civilisation. The most powerful modern force for
globalisation is the trans-national corporations. Their roles can be as
positive for development as they can lead to its deformation. At the
beginning of the 1980's the trans-national corporations accounted for one
third of the world's industrial production. Their appearance in Russia and
China after the democratisation of their regimes made them, especially in a
number of specialised branches, the absolute rulers of world production. As
a rule the trans-national corporations take national legislation into
account but in global terms they are uncontrollable. This allows them to
redistribute enormous funds and to exert influence in all spheres of social
life. In recent years the trans-national corporations have tended to
decentralise their activities and adapt them to the conditions of the
countries in which they are operating. A typical example of this are the
European operations of Ford and a number of Japanese corporations.
This, however, is insufficient. If the present state of the
distribution of global production and products is allowed to persist then
the imbalances in world development will worsen. If the status quo remains
without significant changes in the world economic order then the rich will
become richer and the poor even poorer. International imperial power in this
case will not be guaranteed by armies and conquests but via financial
operations, technology and the structures of the trans-national
corporations. The finances and management structures will remain in the most
developed countries of the world. The countries which provide cheap labour
(predominantly in Asia) will manufacture products without seeing any
significant improvement in their life while a groups of other countries
(equatorial Africa) will remain for some time to come in the grips of
poverty.
It seems as though the imperialism of the 20th century and the
domination of the super powers is on its way out. Or does it only "seem" so?
If the structures of the old civilisation are preserved for any longer this
will not only serve to delay the reform processes but it may also lead to
serious new local and world conflicts. Imperialism which was the main cause
of the crisis of the Third Civilisation might simply mutate its form.
Imagine a world in which 80% of the news, 70% of the technology, 60% of the
films and 50% of all profits are created in two or three countries. Imagine
that all other countries are dependent on those news broadcasts and that the
awareness of their peoples is modelled by a group of media magnates. Does
this not closely resemble some of the predictions made by George Orwell?
Will it not lead in the long term to reactions from the majority of
countries and peoples?
I would call this phenomenon electronic or media imperialism. By this I
mean the monopolisation of the world's media and culture by individual
nations and trans-national groups. The danger of such a system dominating
the world is evident. If globalisation proceeds in this way, if the global
world does not turn into a world of mono-truths and mono-cultures
disseminated by one or a number of centres than this will lead to a mutation
of human development and will render us dependent on new empires. Today the
ambitions of empire are not manifested through wars of conquest and battles
for resources but in the endeavour to dominate as many sectors of markets,
cultures and media regions as possible. There are only a few countries and
corporations in the world which can afford the development of world-wide
television networks. Only few can survive in the sphere of super
investments. National legislation is powerless. This allows for unbelievable
global power. It can make people accept standards, buy goods and accept
truths broadcast from the screen by a group of media magnates. I do not
think I am oversimplifying the situation. I am convinced that the majority
of the owners of the world media are conscious of their responsibilities to
the citizens of the world. I believe that Ted Turner the founder of CNN is
one of these. His company promotes respect for the culture of all the
countries of the world. However, despite the efforts of such people the
consequences of media imperialism can be dramatic. The danger is that the
television and radio channels of the world are monopolised by the
representatives of those countries who have the historical advantage over
the rest of the world. The USA, Europe and Japan are the leading countries
in this respect. Russia, China and a number of other countries are
relatively well protected because of their scale and their capabilities. But
what about the rest? What will happen to the culture of the smaller and the
poorer nations, their culture and their identity?
If the trend of the 1980's and early 1990's continues and if global
media continue to express the positions and the cultural policies of but a
handful of countries this will strike a serious blow to many other countries
and peoples and will have a general delaying effect on the processes leading
to the advent of the new civilisation.
To begin with a large number of small cultures will disappear taking
with them the identity of many peoples. As can be seen in a number of
countries this will cause defensive reactions and lead to protective
nationalism. In the end this will cause complex political conflicts and will
turn the world into a world of a small group of dominant nations. Electronic
or media imperialism is the remnants of the Third Civilisation, reborn into
its final possible form of the domination of one people over another.
I see the solution to media imperialism in pluralism and the gradual
construction of national electronic media in the poorer countries and in
multicultural policies of the world television media. For at least the next
20--30 years cultural and media production will be concentrated in the hands
of a small group of countries. During this period it will be necessary to
form a new attitude which takes into account the interests of the smaller
and poorer nations and cultures. The problem does not end here. It also
concerns the cinema, video, cable television networks and satellite
television. Clearly the new media technology can be used to stimulate world
development, but at the same time it could lead to the destruction of the
traditions of many peoples. A major question, especially in the conditions
of the transition, is how will we use the new technologies and what will be
the consequences for world development.
3. POST-MODERN NATIONALISM
Nationalism as we knew it in the 20th century is the antipathe of the
new civilisation, the global world, the intermixing of national cultures.
Its chances of survival depend on it changing its limits and forms.
T
he Fourth Civilisation will be a time of openness hiterto unseen in the
world. However, it will also involve a difficult, sometimes painful
combination of different cultures and economics. We would be completely
naive, however to believe that this "intermixing" will come about
automatically simply because culture and economies are becoming globalised.
If the processes are left to blind chance, the world will find itself beset
with many local and regional conflicts, local wars between ethnic groups,
religions and cultures.
In practice this means the artificial blocking of globalisation, new
contradictions and in the long run, the restoration of confrontationalism.
Although such a danger is also posed by the "march of the poor" and by the
reaction against media imperialism, the major resource of such a gloomy
prospect is undoubtedly nationalism. John Lukac defined nationalism as the
greatest political force on the planet. Although I doubt whether this
conclusion is absolutely precise, I find myself concurring that nationalism
is still very stubborn and persistent especially when one takes into account
the inertia of the political thinking of the past. For the whole of the 20th
century nationalism has been the driving force, notwithstanding the official
"domination" and propaganda of communist, liberal, socialist and other
ideologies. Very frequently these ideologies have been but a facade for
nationalism. Stalinism and Nazism are perhaps the best examples of this.
Can globalisation and nationalism be reconciled? This appears possible
only if we equate nationalism with something new, if it changes from what it
was in the 20th century and does not stand in the way of globalisation.
Otherwise nationalism will find itself in very serious conflict with
objective trends in the development of the modern world. On the other hand,
globalisation will either be a bridge leading to the resolution of total
poverty of billions of people or it will stimulate the most mutated forms of
nationalism. Let us think for a moment about this important mutuality.
Globalisation which unifies the world by destroying local customs and
traditions and by killing small cultures cannot avoid causing mutation and
reaction. Consequently, only globalisation based on and stimulates diversity
can be an alternative to reactionary nationalism and stimulus for the
structures of the Fourth Civilisation. At the end of the 20th century after
the collapse of the Berlin Wall, the dominant factor of world development is
openness. There is now only a small groups of states (e.g. North Korea)
which maintain policies of isolation and the absolutism of their own
traditions.
At the end of the 20th century, nationalism might reappear as an
ideological movement protected by culture and religion. Ideological
nationalism is a relatively rare phenomenon in the modern world although in
a certain number of poorly-developed countries of Africa and Asia it might
seen as a panacea for the resolution of serious problems. North Korean
communism, for example, is ideological nationalism wrapped in a mask of
dead-end ideology. A more widespread and typical form of nationalism at the
end of the 20th century is defensive nationalism. This may appear in any
country which feels under threat, for the survival of its economy from the
invasion of imported goods, its culture -- from the invasion of foreign
information and cultural products. Defensive nationalism is not necessarily
cultural or religious. It often appears as a result of economic reasons or
is linked with historical and political aims of particular nations. The
question is not whether this is the "defence" of an individual small culture
from the invasion of foreign media or "protection" against an undisputed and
powerful culture from the presence of foreign immigrants. In both cases this
leads to conflicts, isolation, blocks the processes of globalisation and
gives rise to chimera and xenophobia. Ethnonationalism is similar in
character and is also widespread. The explosion in ethnic self-confidence
and self-determination is a direct and explicable reaction in the struggle
for survival in the conditions of globalisation. When, however, this
self-awareness has specific historical, cultural and religious roots it can
give rise to serious conflicts.
Why is nationalism on the rise? Why has this happened despite the
continuing intensive processes of globalisation? Why in many places has
nationalism taken on extreme forms and lead to military conflicts?
The reason is that the surge of nationalist feelings is a reaction to
informational and cultural imperialism, to the invasion of the world media
and trans-national coporations. In such conditions is has become convenient
and fashionable for politicians and ordinary people to re-identify
themselves as the members of a regional family. In the poorer countries the
rise in national self-determination is a result of former humiliations and
repressed ethnic awareness. Before the fall of the Berlin Wall the new
nationalism was less important than the struggle between the two world
systems. Today, however, this is not the case. National survival and
self-determination has replaced Marxist and Leninist teaching in the East
and the liberal-conservative doctrines in the West. They have filled the
emotional, spiritual, economic and political vacuum almost totally
unhindered. Finally, self-identification and its consequent nationalism
within modern conditions has become possible as a result of the reduced
authority of the nation state as a consquence of globalisation.
Nationalism is not the only, but undoubtedly the major reason for the
possible new division of the world into opposing economic or military and
political blocs. The regrouping of countries into new economic alliances is
a part of the geo-political restructuring of the world. Here the danger is
in the trend for the divisions to turn into confrontation and the bi-polar
model to be replaced with a new bi- or tri-polar oppositional structure.
What will predominate in the future the global prospects for the Fourth
Civilisation or new regional isolation? Nationalism, combined with regional
autarchy or forms of the new open world society? I believe that the answer
to this question will still be unclear for the next few decades. There is an
undisputed trend towards global integration and the advent of the new
civilisation. It is inevitable and it will continue. However, the question
whether this process will involve a new phase of world conflicts and
collapses, whether there is a danger of evil egoism dominating the world
will depend to a very great extent on the means and forms of globalisation.
4. THE EGOISM OF POLITICIANS
The responsibility of politicians is not to incite conflict but to
resolve them, not to serve the people of the past but to open up the
potential for the future.
T
he advent of the New Civilisation is indisputably irreversible.
However, when it will come and what controversies it will bring with it
depends to a large extent on the modern political leaders. There is grounds
to speak of the possibility of the formation of new global elites in
accordance with the great structural changes on a world scale. They will be
above all the leaders of the trans-national corporations and other
international companies, international traders, representatives from the
world of show business and intellectuals who identify their lives with the
progress of the whole world.
Would it be correct to say that the majority of contemporary world
politicians are the defenders and advocates of the Fourth Civilisation?
Hardly. The mass of people seem to be conservative defenders of the Third
Civilisation. There are exceptions, of course, such as Jacques Delor, Hans
van der Bruk, Leo Tindemans and other architects of European integration.
Other exceptions include those politicians who have contributed much to
world peace such as Bill Clinton, Itsach Rabin, Edward Shevardnadze and many
others whose world view is more global than local.
Unfortunately, the majority of modern politicians are influenced not by
global responsibilities but purely local and national interests. This local
egoism is above all a product of the political structures themselves. In
every country where there is a pluralist structure the party leaders have
the responsibility to their own parties or at best to their countries while
members of parliament are responsible to their constituents. Even when the
level of education and intellect of the politicians makes them aware of the
interests of others their dependency on the national and local systems
renders them powerless before the challenges of the New Civilisation.
Minimal efforts are necessary to bring a halt to infant mortality all over
the world and the funds needed to finance this are less that 1% of the
budgets of the industrialised world. Young people at universities are more
interested in the resolution of environmental problems than the elected
representatives of the nations. However, the egoism of politicians is a
product of the electoral systems and the necessity for each politician to
defend first and foremost the current interests of his electors. In this way
the richest countries and peoples of the world are protecting their own
interests above all and the problems of the starving and childrens'
illnesses remain in the periphery of their thoughts.
The political forces which should work to establish the Fourth
Civilisation are not yet clearly identified. They are somewhere amongst the
different interests and competition of the trans-national corporations,
amongst the group of leaders of the major nations and the representatives of
the intellectual community and environmental movements etc.. Despite the
successes of the New Civilisation, despite the growing global awareness,
these forces are insufficient. Clearly, for an indefinite period of time the
majority of politicians will play a conservative, rather than a progressive
role in the furtherment of global relations. Today the political awareness
of the majority of people involved in such activities goes as far as
agreeing to inter-state positions almost exclusively on the basis of
national interests. The expansion of global problems is still in no-man's
land.
There is a clear need for changes in the culture and the awareness of
the political elite as well as changes to the political systems. One has to
admire the majority of modern European politicians for their constancy and
stubborn resilience with which they have built the European Union. It is not
customs mechanisms nor the development of a prototype European parliament
which should serve as shining examples to the rest of the world but the
gradual development over a period of forty years of the dynamic processes of
the European idea. However, even here there are a number of examples where
the European idea has been compromised by national ambitions and prejudices
or has been used demagogically for local political interests. British,
French and German members of the EU parliament acknowledge the interests of
those who do not want to give up its privileges and to accept their
challenges of economic and political integration. Analyses have shown that
these are people who put priority on the interests of the manufacturers in
their constituencies or a simply victims of limited political thought.
The main reason for the egoism of politicians is inherent the nature of
the political systems, in the national limitations of the concept of
political responsibility, in the weakness of the link between the electoral
mechanisms and the concern for future generations.
5. MILITANT RELIGIONS
When a shell exploded in the market place in Sarajevo and killed dozens
of people, a young woman cried out, "Allah, have revenge for me..." A friend
of mine from Serbia told me how a detachment of Muslims in Bosnia raped a
group of women and them murdered them... The hatred which he spoke was
enough to last him for the rest of his life.
T
he ethnic war and cleansing in Bosnia, the religious attacks in
Algeria, the fundamentalist attacks in Egypt, the victory of the Islamic
party in Turkey, ethnic and religious problems in Iran, Iraq, Northern
Ireland, Israel and Palestine, India and dozens of other places all over the
world are all steeped in the blood of continuing religious conflicts. They
are sometimes referred to as the militant religions. Perhaps this is
correct. Religion and faith is the greatest unifying principle, the
strongest mass feeling overwhelming emotions, traditions, indignation and
interests and unites them under a common will. Whoever captures this will
shall be victorious. It is true that there is no life without faith just as
there is no matter without spirit. No-one can deny that the major
traditional religions have survived for many thousands on this earth and
they will clearly survive for many more. Religions have learnt how to adapt
to new processes and phenomena, to demonstrate flexibility and to
acknowledge the needs of the people. Some call this pragmatism, others call
it hypocrisy.
The great challenge of the modern day which faces all world religions
is should they adapt to the global world or should they continue to fight
over their old conquests. The dilemma is either to adapt to the open and
modern world or to defend the life and traditions of the past, to integrate
religious symbols into a modern, open economy or isolation and a war of
cultures. Another great challenge is tolerance between religions. Will they
continue to fight with each other or will they allow co-existence with other
faiths and the free choice of people?
The militant isolationist and totalitarian religions are in opposition
to the New Civilisation. They and their representatives form part of the
obstacles to the advent of the new. There is little doubt that the conflicts
arising from the conflict of open societies and cultures will frequently be
based on religious principles. I and inclined to think, however, that the
role of the militant religions will grow only if this is allowed for by
certain preconditions such as poverty and nationalism and the spread of new
utopian ideas.
When in 1991 President George Bush and his aides unexpectedly halted
the American invading force en route to Basra and Baghdad many people could
not understand why he did this. Five years later it is now clear that the
Americans had to choose between the consequences of religious conflicts or
the preservation of the regime of Saddam Hussein. Militant religions can
take power, as they did in Iran or they can halt the processes of
modernisation of entire regions. However, they can do little more since for
the same reasons for which I reject the thesis of S.Huntington I believe
that religious modernism will prevail over fundamentalism.
6. A CUP OF COFFEE IN APENZEL
The defenders of the Third Civilisation do not only live in the poor
countries. A large number of them live in resplendent luxury and comfort or
in conditions of social harmony alien to four fifths of the world. These
people live in the West and do not want global change...
H
ave you ever been to Apenzel? It is a Swiss Canton with a capital of
the same name on the road from the lake of Boden to Liechtenstein. It is the
smallest, best ordered and quietest of all the cantons in the Swiss
confederation. There are no large factories as there are in Basel or the
vanity of the financial centre of Zurich. There are none of the bank
employees forever in a hurry or the limousines of the major banks. Apenzel
has the the cleanest cows in the world, the most beautiful green fields
merging in the distance into the majesty of the Alpine peaks. It is a land
of peaceful, almost invisible work where everyone knows what to do and when
to do it. If you get the chance to go to the capital of the canton, take a
walk across the bridge and a stroll through the little town and you will
feel as though you are in a fairy story. The flowers in the windows, the
decorated roofs of the houses and the hidden little backstreets.
My reason for writing about this is because Apenzel is not only the
smallest and most comfortable canton in Switzerland but also the most
conservative. Here the majority of the people do not want any form of
change. For them Switzerland's membership of the European Union is a
dangerous event with unforeseeable consequences. I stopped in Apenzel for a
cup of coffee and a cake in the summer of 1993 and my contacts with the
local people made a strong impression on me. This was not only because they
had voted against Swiss membership of the EU but for the reasons which they
explained to me.
The people passionately and convincingly did not want to become part of
the united Europe since they were afraid that the underdeveloped European
countries would hold back their development and their towns "would be
invaded by immigrants" and that they were "getting on very well without the
Common Market" etc.. I would not have bothered to mention this event if this
attitude was not repeated in other wealthy parts of the world. One of the
main sources for the rising xenophobia in Germany, France and Austria is
this unwillingness to share their wealth with others and to experience the
risk of cultural intermixing.
In contrast to the supporters of Zhirinovski in Russia who admire his
defence of traditional Russian values or Erbakan in Turkey who advocates the
traditions of Islam against the modern processes taking place in the West my
experience in Apenzel has completely different origins. I could call it
result of "resplendent comfort". Millions of people in Western Europe and
North America are entirely satisfied by their lifestyles and do not want to
jeopardise the status quo. Employment, security, mistrust of other cultures
are reasons for which they prefer nationalism to the open world and the
advent of the New Civilisation.
Do not be angry with the conservatives of Apenzel. This is not an
emotional but a widespread cultural and political phenomenon. It manifests
itself in many forms of protective nationalism and is the social basis for
potential serious conflict against the Fourth Civilisation. About ten years
ago the French Nationalist, Le Pen, seemed a political curiosity, now,
however, he is accepted as something real and necessary by many
intellectuals. Such is the case with the Austrian Nationalist J.Heider whose
party categorically won third place in the country and has even greater
political ambitions.
Thus the defenders of the old civilisation come not only from amongst
the ranks of the fundamentalists, the supporters of Islam or the
ultra-nationalists from the lesser developed countries. They also come from
the West, from its more conservative circles, from people who are frightened
of losing the luxury which they have achieved. Undoubtedly the New
Civilisation will involve the intermixing of cultures and economies, the
global redistribution and harmonisation of resources, production and
benefits. This will also lead to structural changes and even cause
difficulties in the most developed countries of the West. Will the people of
these countries be prepared to concede some of the privileges which their
current state of economic and political advantage allows them?
This "drowning in luxury" will continue to hold back the progress of
the New Civilisation and lead to a variety of conflicts and other hitherto
unknown phenomena. Together with the slow and gradual opening-up of the
world and its cultural intermixing we will also become witnesses to
processes of temporary "closing-up" and the victories of nationalists and
fundamentalists. If in the richer countries of the world those who live in
states of "resplendent luxury" win this battle imperial or neo-colonial
thinking and fundamentalism will inevitably increase.
Section Three
The Alternatives to the Fourth Civilisation
Chapter Eight
THE NEW ECONOMIC ORDER
1. THE ECONOMIC HEART OF THE GLOBAL WORLD
Throughout the whole of the 20th century the economic dependence of
nations grew to become what is the now the nucleus of the New Civilisation.
One essential part of the modern infrastructure is the supra-sovereign
control of nation states. The main question is whether this will lead to a
new economic order or will it revive the familiar conflicts...
T
he economic interaction of countries and peoples is at the basis of
each human community. "Economic interaction" is not always the leading
factor but is does always dominate. It challenges not only the autonomy of
particular communities but also their unification into nation states. The
new elements of the 20th century is that the modern global economy is
becoming less and less an object of control of national governments and is
tending to form its own, independent relations.
This process has been taking place throughout the 20th century. Between
1870 and 1913 world trade increased by 6% annually. Between 1918 and 1938
there was practically no growth. This can be explained by the slow processes
of reconstruction after the First World War, the Great Depression
(1929--193) and the self-imposed isolation of the USSR, Germany and a number
of other countries. After the Second World War international economic
exchange reached it highest level of progress. This was mainly driven by
Western Europe, America and Japan. Between 1946 and 1973 world trade was
increasing on average by 10% and doubled n volume from 1980--1995.
Notwithstanding wars, political confrontation and the accompanying
protectionism, the entire period of the 20th century was a time of expansion
and global economic strengthening. By resolving their conflicts countries
began more and more to see or were forced to see the advantages of the
"open" economy and to accept bi-lateral and multi-lateral customs and trade
unions. The Genoa conference in 1922 and the World Economic Conference in
1927 are of great significance despite the non-implementation of their
decisions as a result of the crisis of 1929 and the Second World War.
On the 30th of October 1947 the General Agreement of Trade and Tariffs
(GATT) was ratified. This was a milestone leading to the removal of trade
discrimination, the consolidation of the principle of "most-favoured nation"
status and the formation of customs unions. Between 1964--1967 the "Kennedy
round" of talks in which 54 nations took part lead to a 35% reduction in
trade tariffs. A further round of talks held in Tokyo in 1979 helped to
further develop this process.
Together with progress in trade there was also significant progress in
economic integration: the complete economic opening of the American states
with each other; the German customs union (1871), the Belgium-Luxembourg
economic union (1921), the European Iron and Steel Agreement and the Rome
Treaty of 1957 on the creation of a Common Market within Europe; the
Committee for Economic Cooperation (COMECON) in Eastern Europe (1949) and
the European zone for free trade (1960). Despite the political, class and
military confrontation of the 20th century there has been a constant process
of opening-up and a reduction in the significance of national borders. This
has expanded with the ratification of the Latin American Association for
Free Trade (LAFTA) in 1960 the Caribbean Common Market (CARICOM) in 1973. At
the beginning of the 1990's a new stage in European integration began with
the reatification of the Maastricht treaty. The NAFTA agreement on free
trade in North America was also signed in 1993.
I mention these facts in order to show once again the constant increase
in the integrational processes taking place within the entire world. As a
result total world trade has grown from 1635 billion USD in 1979 to 1915
billion USD in 1984 to 3667.6 billion USD in 1992. Through the exchange of
goods and services the entire world has become linked within a single
system. The major factor for integration is the exchange of goods in the
area of:
-- communications, including satellite television, international
telephone links and electronic mail, these advances are particularly
significant;
-- petrol which despite a marked decline has continued to account for
one third of world energy consumption;
-- food and raw agricultural products .-- trade with grain, sugar and
coffee are amongst the most important factors;
-- metals and ore;
-- transport and machine building -- planes, cars, ships etc.. the
production of which is continuing to increase.
A significant new phenomenon in recent decades has been the linking of
the financial systems of practically all the countries of the world into a
unified system. In the 16--18th century world trade was carried out on the
basis of national currencies, gold and silver. During this same period
international trade was also based on trade credits and exchange of goods
for goods. It was only in the second half of the 19th century that the most
industrialised countries accepted the gold standard and the predominance of
the British Pound Sterling. Up until the 1930's this system remained, in
general terms, in force.
Later it was replaced by the Brenton Woods agreement and the domination
of the American dollar. At the beginning of the 1970's the Brenton Woods
system gave way to floating exchange rates and open financial and currency
markets. The predominance of the British Pound was undermined as a result of
the reduced importance and the collapse of the British Empire. However, the
reason for the changes which took place in the 1970's was the impossibility
of any single national currency to monopolise international markets. This is
a further demonstration of a common phenomenon, globalisation does not
stimulate monopolies but, on the contrary, it creates the conditions for
their destruction.
In recent decades the world has witnessed the hitherto unseen linkage
of countries and nations via currency and financial mechanisms. The
replacement of the Brenton Woods system was in fact the removal of the last
barriers to the multi-directional fusion of national currencies and exchange
rates and to banking and stock exchange operations. Floating exchange rates
served as a shock absorber for the resolution of differences and a bridge
for overcoming global economic imbalance. During the last 20 years the trade
in securities reached previously unknown levels. The trade in international
bonds has increased from 76.3 to 167.3 billion dollars[54]. In
practice this has meant the growing mutual dependency of capital markets. We
can add to this the enormous increase in Euro-dollar markets. After the fall
of the Berlin Wall the processes of linkage of the capital markets in all
the countries of the world has become undisputed and to a large extent
irreversible.
Another particulary important indicator of this are the currency
policies of practically all the countries in the world. Through a system of
mutual convertibility, the maintenance of official reserves in varying
currencies and the greater independence of commercial banks, the national
economies of countries over the world have become more dependent on each
other. After the beginning of the 1970's the international role of the
dollar began to subside slowly. This could be seen in the reduction in the
size of the official dollar reserves of the industrialised countries to be
replaced in the main by the German mark and the Japanese yen.
Perhaps the clearest indicator of the economic growth of the Fourth
Civilisation is the level of direct investments and the development of
trans-national corporations. In the world today there are 37,000
trans-national corporations with over 170,000 branches. Of these, 24,000
corporations are based in the developed countries, 2700 in the developing
countries (mainly, South Korea, Hong Kong, Brazil and China) and less than
500 in Central and Eastern Europe. In 1992, the global volume of direct
investments reached 2 trillion dollars accounting for a level of sales by
the foreign branches of the trans-national corporations of 5.5 trillion
dollars.[55]
As each year goes by the internationalisation of industry increases
which will lead to the intermixing of cultures, manufacturing structures and
changes in the awareness of billions of people. Everywhere in the world, the
USA or France, Russia or Rumania, Kenya or Ruanda people are becoming more
and more aware of the influence of the world economy on their day to day
life. Most significantly the houses in which we live and the services which
we use are becoming more and more internationalised. I do not know whether
it is an exaggeration to say that the modern citizen of the world is a
"product of the world". Everywhere in the world, even in the most isolated
of countries you will come across cars from the USA, Japan and Germany,
household goods from Italy, coffee and fruit from Latin America, electrical
goods from Hong Kong and Japan, carpets from Iran or Bulgaria and clothes
from China and India etc.. If you take a look at the raw materials used in
the production of the finished goods then you will see the labour and the
talents of millions of people from many countries.
All this might be summed up as two basic phenomena which show the end
of one human civilisation and the beginning of another.
The first of these phenomena is that the mutual dependence of countries
has reached a level at which nation states, autonomous religions and
cultures can no longer historically dominate the processes of integration
and universal human interests. It is true that the danger of new class,
cultural and religious divisions is still possible but the trend towards
world integration is becoming more and more irreversible.
The new factor is that the most integrated regions in North America,
Europe and Japan have created sound economic and financial links with each
other. This has also lead to the involvement of all the remaining countries
in the world in the global economy. If we take foreign investments as our
criteria, we will see that at the beginning of the 1990's the three main
economic centres of the world had direct influence over about 50 other
satellite countries which accounted for over 3/4 of the world economic
product. Today, there is not a single country which can exclude itself from
the world economy without causing serious damage to its own development. The
attempts by North Korea, Iraq and in the recent past, Albania and Cuba to
develop independently in conditions of self-sufficiency have lead to their
economic collapse. The huge level of economic inter-dependence in the world
has lead to more than just closer integration. When different systems grow
closer they form a common, more universal community which is more vital than
any individual national or regional, economic or political force.
The second phenomenon is the formation of economic forces for which
national identity is more formal than essential. Not only in terms of
behaviour, interests and structures these forces belong more to the world
than to any particular nation state. Above all, these are a part of the
trans-national corporations whose economic activities are spread throughout
a number of countries and whose connections and dependencies upon national
governments are of less significance than, for example, the state of the
London Stock Exchange. We could also look at the large number of financial
institutions who operate on a global level not as the citizens of any
particular country but as citizens of the world.
I believe that both the level of mutual economic dependency of
countries as well as the several thousand trans-national manufacturing and
financial corporations form the economic nucleus of the new civilisation. At
the end of the 20th century these structures which control the majority of
world manufacturing and trade are the most powerful globalising force in the
world. The 20th century was a time when the global world was born but also a
time of the creation of supra-national economic structures and the essence
of a new civilisation.
When I speak of the economic nucleus of the Fourth Civilisation, I mean
the influence it has on all areas of life and that the objective changes
brought about by the integration of manufacturing and finances have imposed
profound changes in the world economic order.
2. NEW GROWTH AND NEW STRUCTURES
The trend of the 20th century towards the constant opening-up of
national economies will continue at an increasing rate for the next few
decades. This will cause the wide-scale redistribution of manufacturing
forces and their re-structuring on a branch level. The dynamics of national
and world economic growth will be determined more and more by international
exchange...
T
here is not doubt that the globalisation of the world economy is
accelerating. According to the predictions of the World Trade Organisation
the volume of goods traded in 1995 will increase by 8%. In 1994 this figure
was 9.4%. The fact that during the past ten years, world trade has grown
faster than the annual global domestic product (see table 8) shows that the
integration and opening-up of national borders continues to be a dominant
process.
Table 8
% annual growth
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
World Trade
8,0
2,5
4,1
5,3
7,9
6,5
4,5
3,5
4,0
3,5
9,5
World GDP
6,0
2,4
2,8
2,9
4,9
3,4
0,5
-2
-0,5
0,2
2,4
Source: World Trade Organisation.
How can this phenomenon be explained? Why for the greater part of the
20th century has world trade been greater than manufacturing? My brief
response to these two questions is as follows: the constant growth of world
exchange has been caused not only by the growth of manufacturing but also by
the cultural and political opening-up of countries, the laws of human
progress and technological development. The vast majority of the governments
in the countries of the world realise that the effectiveness of their
efforts and the wealth of their citizens depends on export and their
successful involvement in the international distribution of labour. It has
become beneficial not only to exchange newly manufactured products but also
those products created in the recent past as well as knowledge, services and
personnel.
Of particular significance is the difference between the growth of
trade and the growth in World Gross Product over the past six years
(1990--1995) or since the collapse of the Berlin Wall. There has been a rise
in the levels of export from the most developed nations to Eastern Europe
and Russia and a continuous increase in the exchange of trade with China. In
1984 alone the progressive Asian economies, including China but with the
exception of Japan, achieved a 20% increase in their services trade. There
is a simultaneous related increase in Eastern Asia and Central and Eastern
Europe. There is no doubt that we are witnessing a new rise in world trade
and a reduction in the significance of national borders. If we exclude
Africa and the Near East, there is evidence almost everywhere of a growth in
world trade and the resulting economic revival.
The growth of export is a feature of future change in the structure of
product manufacture. The most dynamic group of new products in recent years
has been telecommunications and office equipment. I believe that
poor and the rich remained as wide as ever. The differences in political and
military power were so different that the danger of imperialist domination
remained. Of course, it would be imprudent to suppose that imperialism might
return in its old colonial forms or to the time of the Cold War. Although
the wealth of the world is divided as unequally as 150 years ago, many
things have changed. The colonial model has been rejected by history.
Anti-monopoly legislation has put down deep roots, major changes have taken
place in peoples' awareness and the infrastructure of the UN and other world
non-governmental organisations have expanded guaranteeing the rights of all
the citizens of the earth. Thus the old type of coercive, belligerent
imperialism has for ever been consigned to the past.
I ask myself, however, whether imperialism as a method of domination of
certain nations over others has finally died. I do not think so. In fact,
the opposite may even be true. Together with the globalisation of the world
there are now new pre-conditions for a new type of imperialism, of a new
type of domination by one people over another. This, without doubt, is one
of the greatest dangers facing world development and the establishment of
new relations within civilisation. The most powerful modern force for
globalisation is the trans-national corporations. Their roles can be as
positive for development as they can lead to its deformation. At the
beginning of the 1980's the trans-national corporations accounted for one
third of the world's industrial production. Their appearance in Russia and
China after the democratisation of their regimes made them, especially in a
number of specialised branches, the absolute rulers of world production. As
a rule the trans-national corporations take national legislation into
account but in global terms they are uncontrollable. This allows them to
redistribute enormous funds and to exert influence in all spheres of social
life. In recent years the trans-national corporations have tended to
decentralise their activities and adapt them to the conditions of the
countries in which they are operating. A typical example of this are the
European operations of Ford and a number of Japanese corporations.
This, however, is insufficient. If the present state of the
distribution of global production and products is allowed to persist then
the imbalances in world development will worsen. If the status quo remains
without significant changes in the world economic order then the rich will
become richer and the poor even poorer. International imperial power in this
case will not be guaranteed by armies and conquests but via financial
operations, technology and the structures of the trans-national
corporations. The finances and management structures will remain in the most
developed countries of the world. The countries which provide cheap labour
(predominantly in Asia) will manufacture products without seeing any
significant improvement in their life while a groups of other countries
(equatorial Africa) will remain for some time to come in the grips of
poverty.
It seems as though the imperialism of the 20th century and the
domination of the super powers is on its way out. Or does it only "seem" so?
If the structures of the old civilisation are preserved for any longer this
will not only serve to delay the reform processes but it may also lead to
serious new local and world conflicts. Imperialism which was the main cause
of the crisis of the Third Civilisation might simply mutate its form.
Imagine a world in which 80% of the news, 70% of the technology, 60% of the
films and 50% of all profits are created in two or three countries. Imagine
that all other countries are dependent on those news broadcasts and that the
awareness of their peoples is modelled by a group of media magnates. Does
this not closely resemble some of the predictions made by George Orwell?
Will it not lead in the long term to reactions from the majority of
countries and peoples?
I would call this phenomenon electronic or media imperialism. By this I
mean the monopolisation of the world's media and culture by individual
nations and trans-national groups. The danger of such a system dominating
the world is evident. If globalisation proceeds in this way, if the global
world does not turn into a world of mono-truths and mono-cultures
disseminated by one or a number of centres than this will lead to a mutation
of human development and will render us dependent on new empires. Today the
ambitions of empire are not manifested through wars of conquest and battles
for resources but in the endeavour to dominate as many sectors of markets,
cultures and media regions as possible. There are only a few countries and
corporations in the world which can afford the development of world-wide
television networks. Only few can survive in the sphere of super
investments. National legislation is powerless. This allows for unbelievable
global power. It can make people accept standards, buy goods and accept
truths broadcast from the screen by a group of media magnates. I do not
think I am oversimplifying the situation. I am convinced that the majority
of the owners of the world media are conscious of their responsibilities to
the citizens of the world. I believe that Ted Turner the founder of CNN is
one of these. His company promotes respect for the culture of all the
countries of the world. However, despite the efforts of such people the
consequences of media imperialism can be dramatic. The danger is that the
television and radio channels of the world are monopolised by the
representatives of those countries who have the historical advantage over
the rest of the world. The USA, Europe and Japan are the leading countries
in this respect. Russia, China and a number of other countries are
relatively well protected because of their scale and their capabilities. But
what about the rest? What will happen to the culture of the smaller and the
poorer nations, their culture and their identity?
If the trend of the 1980's and early 1990's continues and if global
media continue to express the positions and the cultural policies of but a
handful of countries this will strike a serious blow to many other countries
and peoples and will have a general delaying effect on the processes leading
to the advent of the new civilisation.
To begin with a large number of small cultures will disappear taking
with them the identity of many peoples. As can be seen in a number of
countries this will cause defensive reactions and lead to protective
nationalism. In the end this will cause complex political conflicts and will
turn the world into a world of a small group of dominant nations. Electronic
or media imperialism is the remnants of the Third Civilisation, reborn into
its final possible form of the domination of one people over another.
I see the solution to media imperialism in pluralism and the gradual
construction of national electronic media in the poorer countries and in
multicultural policies of the world television media. For at least the next
20--30 years cultural and media production will be concentrated in the hands
of a small group of countries. During this period it will be necessary to
form a new attitude which takes into account the interests of the smaller
and poorer nations and cultures. The problem does not end here. It also
concerns the cinema, video, cable television networks and satellite
television. Clearly the new media technology can be used to stimulate world
development, but at the same time it could lead to the destruction of the
traditions of many peoples. A major question, especially in the conditions
of the transition, is how will we use the new technologies and what will be
the consequences for world development.
3. POST-MODERN NATIONALISM
Nationalism as we knew it in the 20th century is the antipathe of the
new civilisation, the global world, the intermixing of national cultures.
Its chances of survival depend on it changing its limits and forms.
T
he Fourth Civilisation will be a time of openness hiterto unseen in the
world. However, it will also involve a difficult, sometimes painful
combination of different cultures and economics. We would be completely
naive, however to believe that this "intermixing" will come about
automatically simply because culture and economies are becoming globalised.
If the processes are left to blind chance, the world will find itself beset
with many local and regional conflicts, local wars between ethnic groups,
religions and cultures.
In practice this means the artificial blocking of globalisation, new
contradictions and in the long run, the restoration of confrontationalism.
Although such a danger is also posed by the "march of the poor" and by the
reaction against media imperialism, the major resource of such a gloomy
prospect is undoubtedly nationalism. John Lukac defined nationalism as the
greatest political force on the planet. Although I doubt whether this
conclusion is absolutely precise, I find myself concurring that nationalism
is still very stubborn and persistent especially when one takes into account
the inertia of the political thinking of the past. For the whole of the 20th
century nationalism has been the driving force, notwithstanding the official
"domination" and propaganda of communist, liberal, socialist and other
ideologies. Very frequently these ideologies have been but a facade for
nationalism. Stalinism and Nazism are perhaps the best examples of this.
Can globalisation and nationalism be reconciled? This appears possible
only if we equate nationalism with something new, if it changes from what it
was in the 20th century and does not stand in the way of globalisation.
Otherwise nationalism will find itself in very serious conflict with
objective trends in the development of the modern world. On the other hand,
globalisation will either be a bridge leading to the resolution of total
poverty of billions of people or it will stimulate the most mutated forms of
nationalism. Let us think for a moment about this important mutuality.
Globalisation which unifies the world by destroying local customs and
traditions and by killing small cultures cannot avoid causing mutation and
reaction. Consequently, only globalisation based on and stimulates diversity
can be an alternative to reactionary nationalism and stimulus for the
structures of the Fourth Civilisation. At the end of the 20th century after
the collapse of the Berlin Wall, the dominant factor of world development is
openness. There is now only a small groups of states (e.g. North Korea)
which maintain policies of isolation and the absolutism of their own
traditions.
At the end of the 20th century, nationalism might reappear as an
ideological movement protected by culture and religion. Ideological
nationalism is a relatively rare phenomenon in the modern world although in
a certain number of poorly-developed countries of Africa and Asia it might
seen as a panacea for the resolution of serious problems. North Korean
communism, for example, is ideological nationalism wrapped in a mask of
dead-end ideology. A more widespread and typical form of nationalism at the
end of the 20th century is defensive nationalism. This may appear in any
country which feels under threat, for the survival of its economy from the
invasion of imported goods, its culture -- from the invasion of foreign
information and cultural products. Defensive nationalism is not necessarily
cultural or religious. It often appears as a result of economic reasons or
is linked with historical and political aims of particular nations. The
question is not whether this is the "defence" of an individual small culture
from the invasion of foreign media or "protection" against an undisputed and
powerful culture from the presence of foreign immigrants. In both cases this
leads to conflicts, isolation, blocks the processes of globalisation and
gives rise to chimera and xenophobia. Ethnonationalism is similar in
character and is also widespread. The explosion in ethnic self-confidence
and self-determination is a direct and explicable reaction in the struggle
for survival in the conditions of globalisation. When, however, this
self-awareness has specific historical, cultural and religious roots it can
give rise to serious conflicts.
Why is nationalism on the rise? Why has this happened despite the
continuing intensive processes of globalisation? Why in many places has
nationalism taken on extreme forms and lead to military conflicts?
The reason is that the surge of nationalist feelings is a reaction to
informational and cultural imperialism, to the invasion of the world media
and trans-national coporations. In such conditions is has become convenient
and fashionable for politicians and ordinary people to re-identify
themselves as the members of a regional family. In the poorer countries the
rise in national self-determination is a result of former humiliations and
repressed ethnic awareness. Before the fall of the Berlin Wall the new
nationalism was less important than the struggle between the two world
systems. Today, however, this is not the case. National survival and
self-determination has replaced Marxist and Leninist teaching in the East
and the liberal-conservative doctrines in the West. They have filled the
emotional, spiritual, economic and political vacuum almost totally
unhindered. Finally, self-identification and its consequent nationalism
within modern conditions has become possible as a result of the reduced
authority of the nation state as a consquence of globalisation.
Nationalism is not the only, but undoubtedly the major reason for the
possible new division of the world into opposing economic or military and
political blocs. The regrouping of countries into new economic alliances is
a part of the geo-political restructuring of the world. Here the danger is
in the trend for the divisions to turn into confrontation and the bi-polar
model to be replaced with a new bi- or tri-polar oppositional structure.
What will predominate in the future the global prospects for the Fourth
Civilisation or new regional isolation? Nationalism, combined with regional
autarchy or forms of the new open world society? I believe that the answer
to this question will still be unclear for the next few decades. There is an
undisputed trend towards global integration and the advent of the new
civilisation. It is inevitable and it will continue. However, the question
whether this process will involve a new phase of world conflicts and
collapses, whether there is a danger of evil egoism dominating the world
will depend to a very great extent on the means and forms of globalisation.
4. THE EGOISM OF POLITICIANS
The responsibility of politicians is not to incite conflict but to
resolve them, not to serve the people of the past but to open up the
potential for the future.
T
he advent of the New Civilisation is indisputably irreversible.
However, when it will come and what controversies it will bring with it
depends to a large extent on the modern political leaders. There is grounds
to speak of the possibility of the formation of new global elites in
accordance with the great structural changes on a world scale. They will be
above all the leaders of the trans-national corporations and other
international companies, international traders, representatives from the
world of show business and intellectuals who identify their lives with the
progress of the whole world.
Would it be correct to say that the majority of contemporary world
politicians are the defenders and advocates of the Fourth Civilisation?
Hardly. The mass of people seem to be conservative defenders of the Third
Civilisation. There are exceptions, of course, such as Jacques Delor, Hans
van der Bruk, Leo Tindemans and other architects of European integration.
Other exceptions include those politicians who have contributed much to
world peace such as Bill Clinton, Itsach Rabin, Edward Shevardnadze and many
others whose world view is more global than local.
Unfortunately, the majority of modern politicians are influenced not by
global responsibilities but purely local and national interests. This local
egoism is above all a product of the political structures themselves. In
every country where there is a pluralist structure the party leaders have
the responsibility to their own parties or at best to their countries while
members of parliament are responsible to their constituents. Even when the
level of education and intellect of the politicians makes them aware of the
interests of others their dependency on the national and local systems
renders them powerless before the challenges of the New Civilisation.
Minimal efforts are necessary to bring a halt to infant mortality all over
the world and the funds needed to finance this are less that 1% of the
budgets of the industrialised world. Young people at universities are more
interested in the resolution of environmental problems than the elected
representatives of the nations. However, the egoism of politicians is a
product of the electoral systems and the necessity for each politician to
defend first and foremost the current interests of his electors. In this way
the richest countries and peoples of the world are protecting their own
interests above all and the problems of the starving and childrens'
illnesses remain in the periphery of their thoughts.
The political forces which should work to establish the Fourth
Civilisation are not yet clearly identified. They are somewhere amongst the
different interests and competition of the trans-national corporations,
amongst the group of leaders of the major nations and the representatives of
the intellectual community and environmental movements etc.. Despite the
successes of the New Civilisation, despite the growing global awareness,
these forces are insufficient. Clearly, for an indefinite period of time the
majority of politicians will play a conservative, rather than a progressive
role in the furtherment of global relations. Today the political awareness
of the majority of people involved in such activities goes as far as
agreeing to inter-state positions almost exclusively on the basis of
national interests. The expansion of global problems is still in no-man's
land.
There is a clear need for changes in the culture and the awareness of
the political elite as well as changes to the political systems. One has to
admire the majority of modern European politicians for their constancy and
stubborn resilience with which they have built the European Union. It is not
customs mechanisms nor the development of a prototype European parliament
which should serve as shining examples to the rest of the world but the
gradual development over a period of forty years of the dynamic processes of
the European idea. However, even here there are a number of examples where
the European idea has been compromised by national ambitions and prejudices
or has been used demagogically for local political interests. British,
French and German members of the EU parliament acknowledge the interests of
those who do not want to give up its privileges and to accept their
challenges of economic and political integration. Analyses have shown that
these are people who put priority on the interests of the manufacturers in
their constituencies or a simply victims of limited political thought.
The main reason for the egoism of politicians is inherent the nature of
the political systems, in the national limitations of the concept of
political responsibility, in the weakness of the link between the electoral
mechanisms and the concern for future generations.
5. MILITANT RELIGIONS
When a shell exploded in the market place in Sarajevo and killed dozens
of people, a young woman cried out, "Allah, have revenge for me..." A friend
of mine from Serbia told me how a detachment of Muslims in Bosnia raped a
group of women and them murdered them... The hatred which he spoke was
enough to last him for the rest of his life.
T
he ethnic war and cleansing in Bosnia, the religious attacks in
Algeria, the fundamentalist attacks in Egypt, the victory of the Islamic
party in Turkey, ethnic and religious problems in Iran, Iraq, Northern
Ireland, Israel and Palestine, India and dozens of other places all over the
world are all steeped in the blood of continuing religious conflicts. They
are sometimes referred to as the militant religions. Perhaps this is
correct. Religion and faith is the greatest unifying principle, the
strongest mass feeling overwhelming emotions, traditions, indignation and
interests and unites them under a common will. Whoever captures this will
shall be victorious. It is true that there is no life without faith just as
there is no matter without spirit. No-one can deny that the major
traditional religions have survived for many thousands on this earth and
they will clearly survive for many more. Religions have learnt how to adapt
to new processes and phenomena, to demonstrate flexibility and to
acknowledge the needs of the people. Some call this pragmatism, others call
it hypocrisy.
The great challenge of the modern day which faces all world religions
is should they adapt to the global world or should they continue to fight
over their old conquests. The dilemma is either to adapt to the open and
modern world or to defend the life and traditions of the past, to integrate
religious symbols into a modern, open economy or isolation and a war of
cultures. Another great challenge is tolerance between religions. Will they
continue to fight with each other or will they allow co-existence with other
faiths and the free choice of people?
The militant isolationist and totalitarian religions are in opposition
to the New Civilisation. They and their representatives form part of the
obstacles to the advent of the new. There is little doubt that the conflicts
arising from the conflict of open societies and cultures will frequently be
based on religious principles. I and inclined to think, however, that the
role of the militant religions will grow only if this is allowed for by
certain preconditions such as poverty and nationalism and the spread of new
utopian ideas.
When in 1991 President George Bush and his aides unexpectedly halted
the American invading force en route to Basra and Baghdad many people could
not understand why he did this. Five years later it is now clear that the
Americans had to choose between the consequences of religious conflicts or
the preservation of the regime of Saddam Hussein. Militant religions can
take power, as they did in Iran or they can halt the processes of
modernisation of entire regions. However, they can do little more since for
the same reasons for which I reject the thesis of S.Huntington I believe
that religious modernism will prevail over fundamentalism.
6. A CUP OF COFFEE IN APENZEL
The defenders of the Third Civilisation do not only live in the poor
countries. A large number of them live in resplendent luxury and comfort or
in conditions of social harmony alien to four fifths of the world. These
people live in the West and do not want global change...
H
ave you ever been to Apenzel? It is a Swiss Canton with a capital of
the same name on the road from the lake of Boden to Liechtenstein. It is the
smallest, best ordered and quietest of all the cantons in the Swiss
confederation. There are no large factories as there are in Basel or the
vanity of the financial centre of Zurich. There are none of the bank
employees forever in a hurry or the limousines of the major banks. Apenzel
has the the cleanest cows in the world, the most beautiful green fields
merging in the distance into the majesty of the Alpine peaks. It is a land
of peaceful, almost invisible work where everyone knows what to do and when
to do it. If you get the chance to go to the capital of the canton, take a
walk across the bridge and a stroll through the little town and you will
feel as though you are in a fairy story. The flowers in the windows, the
decorated roofs of the houses and the hidden little backstreets.
My reason for writing about this is because Apenzel is not only the
smallest and most comfortable canton in Switzerland but also the most
conservative. Here the majority of the people do not want any form of
change. For them Switzerland's membership of the European Union is a
dangerous event with unforeseeable consequences. I stopped in Apenzel for a
cup of coffee and a cake in the summer of 1993 and my contacts with the
local people made a strong impression on me. This was not only because they
had voted against Swiss membership of the EU but for the reasons which they
explained to me.
The people passionately and convincingly did not want to become part of
the united Europe since they were afraid that the underdeveloped European
countries would hold back their development and their towns "would be
invaded by immigrants" and that they were "getting on very well without the
Common Market" etc.. I would not have bothered to mention this event if this
attitude was not repeated in other wealthy parts of the world. One of the
main sources for the rising xenophobia in Germany, France and Austria is
this unwillingness to share their wealth with others and to experience the
risk of cultural intermixing.
In contrast to the supporters of Zhirinovski in Russia who admire his
defence of traditional Russian values or Erbakan in Turkey who advocates the
traditions of Islam against the modern processes taking place in the West my
experience in Apenzel has completely different origins. I could call it
result of "resplendent comfort". Millions of people in Western Europe and
North America are entirely satisfied by their lifestyles and do not want to
jeopardise the status quo. Employment, security, mistrust of other cultures
are reasons for which they prefer nationalism to the open world and the
advent of the New Civilisation.
Do not be angry with the conservatives of Apenzel. This is not an
emotional but a widespread cultural and political phenomenon. It manifests
itself in many forms of protective nationalism and is the social basis for
potential serious conflict against the Fourth Civilisation. About ten years
ago the French Nationalist, Le Pen, seemed a political curiosity, now,
however, he is accepted as something real and necessary by many
intellectuals. Such is the case with the Austrian Nationalist J.Heider whose
party categorically won third place in the country and has even greater
political ambitions.
Thus the defenders of the old civilisation come not only from amongst
the ranks of the fundamentalists, the supporters of Islam or the
ultra-nationalists from the lesser developed countries. They also come from
the West, from its more conservative circles, from people who are frightened
of losing the luxury which they have achieved. Undoubtedly the New
Civilisation will involve the intermixing of cultures and economies, the
global redistribution and harmonisation of resources, production and
benefits. This will also lead to structural changes and even cause
difficulties in the most developed countries of the West. Will the people of
these countries be prepared to concede some of the privileges which their
current state of economic and political advantage allows them?
This "drowning in luxury" will continue to hold back the progress of
the New Civilisation and lead to a variety of conflicts and other hitherto
unknown phenomena. Together with the slow and gradual opening-up of the
world and its cultural intermixing we will also become witnesses to
processes of temporary "closing-up" and the victories of nationalists and
fundamentalists. If in the richer countries of the world those who live in
states of "resplendent luxury" win this battle imperial or neo-colonial
thinking and fundamentalism will inevitably increase.
Section Three
The Alternatives to the Fourth Civilisation
Chapter Eight
THE NEW ECONOMIC ORDER
1. THE ECONOMIC HEART OF THE GLOBAL WORLD
Throughout the whole of the 20th century the economic dependence of
nations grew to become what is the now the nucleus of the New Civilisation.
One essential part of the modern infrastructure is the supra-sovereign
control of nation states. The main question is whether this will lead to a
new economic order or will it revive the familiar conflicts...
T
he economic interaction of countries and peoples is at the basis of
each human community. "Economic interaction" is not always the leading
factor but is does always dominate. It challenges not only the autonomy of
particular communities but also their unification into nation states. The
new elements of the 20th century is that the modern global economy is
becoming less and less an object of control of national governments and is
tending to form its own, independent relations.
This process has been taking place throughout the 20th century. Between
1870 and 1913 world trade increased by 6% annually. Between 1918 and 1938
there was practically no growth. This can be explained by the slow processes
of reconstruction after the First World War, the Great Depression
(1929--193) and the self-imposed isolation of the USSR, Germany and a number
of other countries. After the Second World War international economic
exchange reached it highest level of progress. This was mainly driven by
Western Europe, America and Japan. Between 1946 and 1973 world trade was
increasing on average by 10% and doubled n volume from 1980--1995.
Notwithstanding wars, political confrontation and the accompanying
protectionism, the entire period of the 20th century was a time of expansion
and global economic strengthening. By resolving their conflicts countries
began more and more to see or were forced to see the advantages of the
"open" economy and to accept bi-lateral and multi-lateral customs and trade
unions. The Genoa conference in 1922 and the World Economic Conference in
1927 are of great significance despite the non-implementation of their
decisions as a result of the crisis of 1929 and the Second World War.
On the 30th of October 1947 the General Agreement of Trade and Tariffs
(GATT) was ratified. This was a milestone leading to the removal of trade
discrimination, the consolidation of the principle of "most-favoured nation"
status and the formation of customs unions. Between 1964--1967 the "Kennedy
round" of talks in which 54 nations took part lead to a 35% reduction in
trade tariffs. A further round of talks held in Tokyo in 1979 helped to
further develop this process.
Together with progress in trade there was also significant progress in
economic integration: the complete economic opening of the American states
with each other; the German customs union (1871), the Belgium-Luxembourg
economic union (1921), the European Iron and Steel Agreement and the Rome
Treaty of 1957 on the creation of a Common Market within Europe; the
Committee for Economic Cooperation (COMECON) in Eastern Europe (1949) and
the European zone for free trade (1960). Despite the political, class and
military confrontation of the 20th century there has been a constant process
of opening-up and a reduction in the significance of national borders. This
has expanded with the ratification of the Latin American Association for
Free Trade (LAFTA) in 1960 the Caribbean Common Market (CARICOM) in 1973. At
the beginning of the 1990's a new stage in European integration began with
the reatification of the Maastricht treaty. The NAFTA agreement on free
trade in North America was also signed in 1993.
I mention these facts in order to show once again the constant increase
in the integrational processes taking place within the entire world. As a
result total world trade has grown from 1635 billion USD in 1979 to 1915
billion USD in 1984 to 3667.6 billion USD in 1992. Through the exchange of
goods and services the entire world has become linked within a single
system. The major factor for integration is the exchange of goods in the
area of:
-- communications, including satellite television, international
telephone links and electronic mail, these advances are particularly
significant;
-- petrol which despite a marked decline has continued to account for
one third of world energy consumption;
-- food and raw agricultural products .-- trade with grain, sugar and
coffee are amongst the most important factors;
-- metals and ore;
-- transport and machine building -- planes, cars, ships etc.. the
production of which is continuing to increase.
A significant new phenomenon in recent decades has been the linking of
the financial systems of practically all the countries of the world into a
unified system. In the 16--18th century world trade was carried out on the
basis of national currencies, gold and silver. During this same period
international trade was also based on trade credits and exchange of goods
for goods. It was only in the second half of the 19th century that the most
industrialised countries accepted the gold standard and the predominance of
the British Pound Sterling. Up until the 1930's this system remained, in
general terms, in force.
Later it was replaced by the Brenton Woods agreement and the domination
of the American dollar. At the beginning of the 1970's the Brenton Woods
system gave way to floating exchange rates and open financial and currency
markets. The predominance of the British Pound was undermined as a result of
the reduced importance and the collapse of the British Empire. However, the
reason for the changes which took place in the 1970's was the impossibility
of any single national currency to monopolise international markets. This is
a further demonstration of a common phenomenon, globalisation does not
stimulate monopolies but, on the contrary, it creates the conditions for
their destruction.
In recent decades the world has witnessed the hitherto unseen linkage
of countries and nations via currency and financial mechanisms. The
replacement of the Brenton Woods system was in fact the removal of the last
barriers to the multi-directional fusion of national currencies and exchange
rates and to banking and stock exchange operations. Floating exchange rates
served as a shock absorber for the resolution of differences and a bridge
for overcoming global economic imbalance. During the last 20 years the trade
in securities reached previously unknown levels. The trade in international
bonds has increased from 76.3 to 167.3 billion dollars[54]. In
practice this has meant the growing mutual dependency of capital markets. We
can add to this the enormous increase in Euro-dollar markets. After the fall
of the Berlin Wall the processes of linkage of the capital markets in all
the countries of the world has become undisputed and to a large extent
irreversible.
Another particulary important indicator of this are the currency
policies of practically all the countries in the world. Through a system of
mutual convertibility, the maintenance of official reserves in varying
currencies and the greater independence of commercial banks, the national
economies of countries over the world have become more dependent on each
other. After the beginning of the 1970's the international role of the
dollar began to subside slowly. This could be seen in the reduction in the
size of the official dollar reserves of the industrialised countries to be
replaced in the main by the German mark and the Japanese yen.
Perhaps the clearest indicator of the economic growth of the Fourth
Civilisation is the level of direct investments and the development of
trans-national corporations. In the world today there are 37,000
trans-national corporations with over 170,000 branches. Of these, 24,000
corporations are based in the developed countries, 2700 in the developing
countries (mainly, South Korea, Hong Kong, Brazil and China) and less than
500 in Central and Eastern Europe. In 1992, the global volume of direct
investments reached 2 trillion dollars accounting for a level of sales by
the foreign branches of the trans-national corporations of 5.5 trillion
dollars.[55]
As each year goes by the internationalisation of industry increases
which will lead to the intermixing of cultures, manufacturing structures and
changes in the awareness of billions of people. Everywhere in the world, the
USA or France, Russia or Rumania, Kenya or Ruanda people are becoming more
and more aware of the influence of the world economy on their day to day
life. Most significantly the houses in which we live and the services which
we use are becoming more and more internationalised. I do not know whether
it is an exaggeration to say that the modern citizen of the world is a
"product of the world". Everywhere in the world, even in the most isolated
of countries you will come across cars from the USA, Japan and Germany,
household goods from Italy, coffee and fruit from Latin America, electrical
goods from Hong Kong and Japan, carpets from Iran or Bulgaria and clothes
from China and India etc.. If you take a look at the raw materials used in
the production of the finished goods then you will see the labour and the
talents of millions of people from many countries.
All this might be summed up as two basic phenomena which show the end
of one human civilisation and the beginning of another.
The first of these phenomena is that the mutual dependence of countries
has reached a level at which nation states, autonomous religions and
cultures can no longer historically dominate the processes of integration
and universal human interests. It is true that the danger of new class,
cultural and religious divisions is still possible but the trend towards
world integration is becoming more and more irreversible.
The new factor is that the most integrated regions in North America,
Europe and Japan have created sound economic and financial links with each
other. This has also lead to the involvement of all the remaining countries
in the world in the global economy. If we take foreign investments as our
criteria, we will see that at the beginning of the 1990's the three main
economic centres of the world had direct influence over about 50 other
satellite countries which accounted for over 3/4 of the world economic
product. Today, there is not a single country which can exclude itself from
the world economy without causing serious damage to its own development. The
attempts by North Korea, Iraq and in the recent past, Albania and Cuba to
develop independently in conditions of self-sufficiency have lead to their
economic collapse. The huge level of economic inter-dependence in the world
has lead to more than just closer integration. When different systems grow
closer they form a common, more universal community which is more vital than
any individual national or regional, economic or political force.
The second phenomenon is the formation of economic forces for which
national identity is more formal than essential. Not only in terms of
behaviour, interests and structures these forces belong more to the world
than to any particular nation state. Above all, these are a part of the
trans-national corporations whose economic activities are spread throughout
a number of countries and whose connections and dependencies upon national
governments are of less significance than, for example, the state of the
London Stock Exchange. We could also look at the large number of financial
institutions who operate on a global level not as the citizens of any
particular country but as citizens of the world.
I believe that both the level of mutual economic dependency of
countries as well as the several thousand trans-national manufacturing and
financial corporations form the economic nucleus of the new civilisation. At
the end of the 20th century these structures which control the majority of
world manufacturing and trade are the most powerful globalising force in the
world. The 20th century was a time when the global world was born but also a
time of the creation of supra-national economic structures and the essence
of a new civilisation.
When I speak of the economic nucleus of the Fourth Civilisation, I mean
the influence it has on all areas of life and that the objective changes
brought about by the integration of manufacturing and finances have imposed
profound changes in the world economic order.
2. NEW GROWTH AND NEW STRUCTURES
The trend of the 20th century towards the constant opening-up of
national economies will continue at an increasing rate for the next few
decades. This will cause the wide-scale redistribution of manufacturing
forces and their re-structuring on a branch level. The dynamics of national
and world economic growth will be determined more and more by international
exchange...
T
here is not doubt that the globalisation of the world economy is
accelerating. According to the predictions of the World Trade Organisation
the volume of goods traded in 1995 will increase by 8%. In 1994 this figure
was 9.4%. The fact that during the past ten years, world trade has grown
faster than the annual global domestic product (see table 8) shows that the
integration and opening-up of national borders continues to be a dominant
process.
Table 8
% annual growth
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
World Trade
8,0
2,5
4,1
5,3
7,9
6,5
4,5
3,5
4,0
3,5
9,5
World GDP
6,0
2,4
2,8
2,9
4,9
3,4
0,5
-2
-0,5
0,2
2,4
Source: World Trade Organisation.
How can this phenomenon be explained? Why for the greater part of the
20th century has world trade been greater than manufacturing? My brief
response to these two questions is as follows: the constant growth of world
exchange has been caused not only by the growth of manufacturing but also by
the cultural and political opening-up of countries, the laws of human
progress and technological development. The vast majority of the governments
in the countries of the world realise that the effectiveness of their
efforts and the wealth of their citizens depends on export and their
successful involvement in the international distribution of labour. It has
become beneficial not only to exchange newly manufactured products but also
those products created in the recent past as well as knowledge, services and
personnel.
Of particular significance is the difference between the growth of
trade and the growth in World Gross Product over the past six years
(1990--1995) or since the collapse of the Berlin Wall. There has been a rise
in the levels of export from the most developed nations to Eastern Europe
and Russia and a continuous increase in the exchange of trade with China. In
1984 alone the progressive Asian economies, including China but with the
exception of Japan, achieved a 20% increase in their services trade. There
is a simultaneous related increase in Eastern Asia and Central and Eastern
Europe. There is no doubt that we are witnessing a new rise in world trade
and a reduction in the significance of national borders. If we exclude
Africa and the Near East, there is evidence almost everywhere of a growth in
world trade and the resulting economic revival.
The growth of export is a feature of future change in the structure of
product manufacture. The most dynamic group of new products in recent years
has been telecommunications and office equipment. I believe that