Key-Note Speech by the President of the Republic of Slovenia, Dr Danilo Türk, at the Conference on the Role of Law and Ethics in the Globalized Economy

Munich, 22.5.2008  |  speech

The Challenge of Globalization and the Response of Politics
Key-Note Speech by Professor Danilo Türk, President of Slovenia
Munich, 22 May 2008
Check against delivery!


Introduction

Ten years ago, in 1998, book shops in New York reported an interesting phenomenon: The list of bestsellers included an unexpected entry - the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, a booklet published originally in London in 1848, exactly a century and a half earlier.

Why did this happen? The answer is really quite simple. Late 1990s were the time of unrest generated by the debate on globalization and, therefore, readers were increasingly looking for explanations, new and old. The following lines from the Communist Manifesto became fashionable:

»Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all the previous ones…..« And, a few lines down we read: »The need for constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the whole surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexions everywhere. The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country.«

The dramatic nature of that narrative corresponds well to the contemporary excitement with globalization. The realization that the drama of globalization is not nearly as new as it was felt in the 1990s was an important element of the contemporary discourse.

Obviously, the quoted Marxist text is not the only text of the nineteenth century which reminds us that globalization started much earlier and received one of its earlier surges with the industrial revolution. The difference between the globalization of today and its earlier periods is that the processes of today affect a much larger number of people around the world and that effects are felt immediately. Therefore, the nineteenth century definition, while still relevant, has to be amended.

The debate on the nature of globalization continues. There are globalization optimists like Thomas Friedman who believe that the world is flat and that modern technology is creating a situation in which the playing field is being levelled. This, according to optimists, provides comparable opportunities to everyone in the world and a great future to all.

But there are many sceptics, especially among the historians, who warn against technological optimism and point out that a century ago, electricity brought more dramatic change into the daily lives and into modes of production than computers have done in our era. However, that great technological change did not secure prosperity for all and did not prevent the political upheavals which took place in the 20th century. The world has learned, time and again, that new technologies and economic opportunities do not automatically translate into greater freedom or more durable peace. The optimism of the end of the 19th century was followed by the disaster of World War I, which, among other things, effectively ended the era of the global domination of Europe, hitherto the undisputable leader in technology, economics and diplomacy.

The political management of the world at the time was clearly inadequate and that inadequacy had to have consequences, rather severe, as it turned out. Political decision making is autonomous.

Obviously, this is not a new realization. In every historical period the political responses to a new technological and economic have been autonomous. While over a longer period of time, politics may also change, it neither becomes absolute nor loses its autonomy. Therefore it is natural that the organizers of this conference look for political responses to globalization as an independent question.


The awareness of globalization in the politics of today

Following the period of globalization enthusiasm, more recent analyses include the realization that globalization creates new or exacerbates some of the old dangers and that the fruits of globalization are distributed unevenly, which again creates new problems. Policy makers have to take these realizations seriously. Which dangers have to be given priority and tackled immediately? What can be done to remedy the injustice accompanying the process of globalization?

Setting the international agenda on the issues of dangers and injustices of globalization is an important task involving both international and national leaders. And it is, essentially, political in nature. Should the issue of global warming enjoy the status of supreme priority? What are the nature of and the remedies for the rising food prices? Which of the ongoing armed conflicts should be resolved immediately so as to prevent their spreading or their generally corrosive effects? Which among them are ready for solution? These are some of the difficult questions which need to be decided at the international level.

The national leaders have worries of their own. The perception in the public, meaning among the voters in democratic societies, that globalization brings threats and risks, is often stronger than the perception of opportunities arising from globalization. Hence the need to persuade the people that globalization is here to stay and that it calls for adjustment.

Often such efforts to persuade need to be accompanied by acts of demonstration that national needs and interests will be protected. Protection, obviously, does not mean isolation, but it can imply fairly strict measures such as restrictions on import limitations, restrictions on export of food products or limitations on immigration of people. Protectionist impulses in international trade are never very far away from the minds of voters and, therefore, from the minds of policy-makers.

One can distinguish two approaches to protection of national interest in the era of globalization. The first could be described as »negative protection«. The policy maker defines those objects, situations or consequences which are deemed undesirable and have to be prevented. Given its defensive nature, this approach is obviously far from optimal. It limits the choice of the measures to be taken to prohibitions and passive posture. Defence is rarely an optimal strategy – either in war or in peace. A more active, albeit not necessarily »aggressive« approach, is frequently called for.

The second approach could be described as one relying on »active protection«. In those policy areas where active approach is possible it should certainly be encouraged. That approach focuses on the identification of criteria of acceptability and desirability and builds policy measures around them - encouraging certain types of exchange while implicitly rejecting others.


The example of decision making, in particular within the EU, with regard to migration

Migration – a feature of globalization - provides ample examples of both types of policy making. In some countries of immigration the prevailing policy approach rests on prevention of immigration. The phenomenon of migration is seen as undesirable or dangerous and can be tolerated only under strict conditions.

The positive approach taken in other countries derives from the realization that immigration is needed and that it should be encouraged and managed as a matter of principle, allowing for a negative or preventive approach in a minority of cases. The positive approach presupposes that new skills, new knowledge and new labour force can contribute to further development for all.

In the European Union countries the immigration policies differ from country to country. This is not an ideal situation and does not correspond well to the need for a coherent political and policy response of the European Union in the era of globalization.

Why does the EU need a coherent policy of immigration?

Migration is a necessary part of globalization. Policy making and political preparation of decisions has to be taken at several levels. In addition to the national level decisions, there is a need to strengthen the EU policy making. The objective to develop a common European system of asylum by the year 2010 seems indispensable. The European Union should be able to present a coordinated set of policies to the UN bodies, such as the UN High Commissioner on Refugees and overcome the current situation in which the High Commissioner has to complain about the lack of a coherent EU policy and a wide variety of divergent national policies. The EU should also strengthen its role in the UN High-Level Dialogue on Migration.

Europe as a whole is ageing and will not be able to play its global role without effective population policies in its entire area. These policies will include the need for management of immigration. Europe needs newly arrived people, positive in their spirit and capable to do their part in the creation of prosperity for all. Obviously, management of immigration will have to include a mix of measures to assist in the process of integration of immigrants. Economic prosperity and upward social mobility of immigrants are important in this context. Integration will also require access to good quality education, including linguistic education, and access to universities.

Migration is an example of the sensitivity to be taken into account in the political response to an issue characterizing globalization. It also points to the need for realism, another fundamental requirement of politics. Policy approaches need to mature and in sensitive areas this may take time.

This brings me to two further examples from the work of the European Union at present. The European Union is often confronted with demands for decisions on immediate action and others which require persistence. Often both types of decisions must be taken simultaneously and have global impact. EU is increasingly a global player. And in some cases it is expected to be a global leader.


The EU as a global player and a global leader: two examples

Global warming

Few will dispute the need for international actors to demonstrate a sense of urgency in action intended to mitigate the effects of global warming. It is also accepted that the EU as the major economic engine of globalization and the most sophisticated economic player should be in the lead. Earlier this year the European Commission has defined specific objectives for the reduction of green house gas emissions in the EU countries. Let me remind that the Commission proposed to achieve, by 2020, a 20% green house gas reduction compared to the levels of 1990. This should be achieved as an independent commitment. A more ambitious objective has been proposed as a part of a global agreement to be concluded by the end of next year, 2009. In that case, the EU would be prepared, according to the proposal by the European Commission, to achieve as much as a 30% reduction in the same time frame.

Here we see an ambitious objective, a serious challenge to politics and policy making in our era of globalization and a genuinely ethical question. The ambitious nature of the proposal of the EU Commission is welcome because it offers a clear and transformative vision of global policy making in the matters of environment, accepting the premise that incrementalism is no longer sufficient. Transformative policies are called for. Making such policies means taking leadership.

However, suggestions are already heard that the quoted objectives are not entirely realistic, that one needs to listen to major industries, as they may lose their competitive edge if exposed to severe obligations, and that especially now when the global growth is slowing down and competition is becoming harsher a more gradual approach is called for. These are all valid considerations. However, they leave us with an ethical dilemma: What kind of arguments should dominate decision making in such a fundamental area as global warming? My answer is that all involved have to make a fundamental choice: transformation or incrementalism. If incrementalism will not do and transformation comes with a price, we need to discuss the price and see how to make it acceptable.

This, obviously, is not a technical issue. It is deeply political and ethical, one which calls for moral and political leadership. Will the EU be able to mobilize itself for such a leadership? This will be clear within a year or so. What makes this case particularly interesting is the fact that the entire world, the globalized world of today, looks towards the European Union and its challenge of leadership. Let us hope that the EU will respond with a sense of vision and ambition worthy of a world leader.


Human rights

Another area of globalization where the EU leadership is being tested, albeit – rightly or wrongly - with a lesser sense of urgency, is human rights. EU's commitment to human rights is beyond doubt. With the expected entry into force of the Lisbon Reform Treaty the whole spectrum of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of EU citizens and residents embodied in the Charter of Fundamental rights of the European Union will become also legally binding.

At the same time, the global picture is not encouraging. Massive, systematic and persistent violations of human rights continue in many parts of the world. Some among these violations are a result of ruthless pursuit of economic gain, irrespective of the needs of the local populations and environment. The poor and the indigenous peoples are especially placed at risk of dispossession, starvation, and, in some cases, even extinction. Armed conflicts in parts of Africa and Asia continue to produce atrocities amounting to crimes against humanity.

These features, too, are among the characteristics of the globalized world. Which are ways to real improvements? The international action in the field of human rights has hitherto focused on the creation of legal norms and procedures, which have already established a tightly knit web of legal regulation. But implementation does not depend solely on legal norms and procedures. The world needs effective models of sustainable growth, committed diplomatic and political action in favour of human rights and, wherever necessary, appropriate humanitarian assistance.

Political responses to globalization cannot be complete without action in the mentioned areas.

EU bodies should devote more energy to global issues of human rights. In particular, the European Parliament provides an opportunity for regular hearings, discussions and policy advice directed towards global improvement of human rights. It is to be understood that after the disappearance of cold war motivations for human rights action the world awaits more- not less – vigorous action. This is simply because human rights have become the critical test of development in almost all societies in the world.

In addition to direct action in favour of human rights, the EU member states and EU bodies have to do more to strengthen the United Nations and its mechanisms. The recently established Human Rights Council is still developing its modus operandi. Its effort to establish a system of universal periodic review of human rights is promising, but still at an initial stage and its effectiveness remains to be seen. Its action in the face of massive and systematic violations of human rights is not sufficiently comprehensive. This may be remedied over time. But this will happen only with the leadership of those UN member states which are committed to human rights and prepared to invest expertise, diplomatic skills and financial resources in the appropriate UN programs. In reality, this cannot happen without the EU and its member states.

International action in the field of human rights will also require further creative thinking about the concept of human rights. The existing legally defined concept does not cover the entirety of needs of the realization of human rights. Instruments such as good governance programmes and programmes for the strengthening of the judiciary are important for the implementation of human rights and must be supported where they exist and designed where they have not been established yet. The process of implementation of human rights has to become more sensitive to the collective context of the rights of the individual, such as the family and the ethnic or religious community to which the individuals belong. Proper contextualization of the international decision-making in the field of human rights will be an essential task of the implementation effort in this field in the coming decades.

And finally, no international programme of action for human rights can be complete without resolute support for international criminal justice. The legal evolution of the past two decades has made international criminal justice its newest and most ambitious chapter. In a globalized world even criminal jurisdiction cannot be fully monopolized by states. In the future one can visualize expansion of international criminal jurisdiction from war crimes and crimes against humanity to encompass also drug trafficking and certain types of terrorism. But this expansion will not happen without prior success in the existing areas, related to the most heinous crimes committed in the course of armed conflicts.


In Conclusion

A thought on the international criminal justice seems appropriate as the final theme of this statement. The quality of globalization can and should be measured and human rights represent one of the measurements that should be applied. Globalization will be considered as good if it helps spreading prosperity and improved standards of human well being and freedom.

The challenge for politics is also there. Will the international community - in the form of the UN – and other international actors, including the EU, be able to generate enough support so that the instruments of implementation of human rights and international criminal justice will become effective? If this happens, we shall know that the process of globalization has reached a mature stage. If it does not, we shall know that globalization relates mainly to technological evolution and economic integration. But that is not really new. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were writing about that aspect of globalization more then a century and a half ago.