By Boutros-Ghali Boutros and - -
PARIS, May 1 2005 (IPS)

The greatest environmental challenge the 21st century is water, writes Boutros Boutros-Ghali, secretary-general of the United Nations between 1992-1996. In this analysis, the author writes that the problem is not so much a lack of water on a global scale but inequities in its distribution. Brazil, Russia, Canada, the US, China, Indonesia, India, Colombia and the European Union monopolise almost two-thirds of global water resources. In the developing world, 90 percent of the water used has not been treated for impurities. In the poorest countries all of these problems accumulate and compound each other. The illnesses caused by contaminated water constitute a serious obstacle to economic development not only by causing millions of deaths but also by rendering hundreds of millions of people incapacitated In addition to the problems of pollution and waste is the fact that many countries depend for their water on sources outside of their countries. Therefore, the challenge, here as in many other areas, is to replace relations of force with relations of solidarity, cooperation, and collective administration. Education, particularly about the environment, must be made universal, for this is the only way to bring about the development of awareness and engender a sense of responsibility and commitment to safeguard the common patrimony of the earth.

The United Nations Conference on the Environment, held in Rio in 1992, was a turning-point in international relations. It demonstrated, in particular, the will of the United Nations to make a collective and solidary commitment to sustainable development, a path that is unavoidable given the fact that our common destiny is more profoundly manifested in our relation to the environment than in any other area. The air that we breathe, the water we drink, the natural resources that we exploit are at the same time common goods and a shared responsibility for all of us.

Since Rio, awareness of the planet’s environment, brought into the limelight by major international conferences, has grown steadily. However, we must admit that the concrete actions conceived to safeguard the planet and ensure a measured and equitable use of resources both within and among countries, and between generations, did not live up to the hopes raised and the commitments made. Seriously harmful practices have continued as inequalities have intensified everywhere. The frequent disagreements that have emerged around this issue are a clear sign of the difficulties that the nations of this world face in living together and together administering and predicting the future that concerns us all.

The area of environmental challenge that stands out for the 21st century and is emblematic of the overall situation is water. It should be noted that the problem is not so much a lack of water on a global scale but inequities in its distribution. Brazil, Russia, Canada, the US, China, Indonesia, India, Colombia and the European Union monopolise almost two-thirds of global water resources. In the developing world, 90 percent of the water used has not been treated for impurities. But the situation in the developed countries is far from perfect: half of the rivers and lakes in the US and Europe are seriously polluted. Moreover, immense quantities of water are wasted: 70 percent of the fresh water currently used goes to agricultural irrigation for crops with very low yields, at the same time as the demand for food, particularly in large cities, grows incessantly.

In the poorest countries all of these problems accumulate and compound each other. One of five people on the earth lacks clean drinking water; one in two lacks access to sanitation; thirty million die each year from illnesses related to contaminated water. The illnesses caused by contaminated water constitute a serious obstacle to economic development not only by causing millions of deaths but also by rendering hundreds of millions of people incapacitated

Water is without a doubt one of the major challenges for the world in this century. In addition to the problems of pollution and waste is the fact that many countries depend for their water on sources outside of their countries. Therefore, the challenge, here as in many other areas, is to replace relations of force with relations of solidarity, cooperation, and collective administration.

Although many do not want to accept it, we are all citizens of the same human family and the same earth. For this reason, human solidarity cannot be limited to compassion. It is also, and above all, a matter of awareness — awareness of the globality of destiny, whether within or between states, because the consequences of this destructive attitude towards the environment are felt beyond state borders. In the same way, the protective attitude adopted by a city, a region, or a country will be insufficient unless it can be extended and coordinated beyond borders and across oceans. What would become of a world in which each generation dedicated itself to satisfying its own needs without recognising that it was compromising those of future generations!

It is this awareness that gives rise to individual and collective responsibility — our responsibility to safeguard the common patrimony of the earth and its ecosystems as well as the cultural diversity of its inhabitants. As a consequence, in context of current globalisation, which is so favourable to freedom yet so freighted with dangers, nurturing a dialogue between cultures and civilisations is more indispensable than ever to the emergence of a universal awareness and the undertaking of a collective effort to protect the environment and support sustainable development. However, for this to happen, education, particularly about the environment, must be made universal, for this is the only way to bring about the development of awareness and engender a sense of responsibility and commitment.(END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

By Boutros-Ghali Boutros and - -
PARIS, Dec 1 2004 (IPS)

The fight against poverty must consist of a long-term policy and be monitored closely and continuously, writes Boutros Boutros-Ghali, Secretary-General of the United Nations from 1992-1996. In this article, Boutros-Ghali writes that without underestimating the importance of emergency aid, this sort of action should be avoided because it is effective only in the short term. More and more frequently, we find that once the crisis has passed and peace is restored, the area in question is abandoned to its fate and almost certain to slide back into misery. It is also necessary to take into account the profound diversity of the situations of those in dire need of assistance. The respective plights of the population of Monrovia during the civil war, the inhabitants of a favela, and a group of refugees cannot be approached in the same manner. Each situation has its own conditions and requires a specific response.

New ghettos are cropping up around the world. They differ from the old ghettos in nature and dimension, and their number grows every day. They can be as large as a suburb, a country, a region, or a continent.

They are found, to begin with, in the forty-nine so-called Less Advanced Countries (LACs), the majority of which are in sub-Saharan Africa.

Then there are the ”broken states” whose number fluctuates with the flaring and fading of violent conflicts, both between countries and within them: for example, Afghanistan, Somalia, Sierra Leone, and Liberia. In this same category are camps for refugees and displaced people, certain indigenous populations, and oppressed minorities.

Finally there are the poor sections of the megalopolis, thousands of pockets of misery that develop not only in poor countries but very wealthy ones as well and that some call the Fourth World.

But only in the Third World do these various phenomena accumulate and build up one on top of the other.

Whatever their differences, the new ghettos are similar in that they contain hundreds of millions of people who suffer and must fight every day just to survive.

The widespread belief that the amount of misery in the world has decreased is erroneus. The reduction in poverty shown in the latest official figures is due largely to the notable expansion of the Chinese economy, which grew at an average of 9 percent per year in the 1990s. But in the same period, many developing countries stagnated or even lost ground. Today, 54 developing countries are poorer than they were in 1990.

The causes of this regression are varied. When the reason was political, it was largely the result of broken states: in Somalia, Sierra Leone, and Liberia, where power became synonymous with kleptomania and corruption spread like gangrene through the machinery of the state, or where, as in Occupied Palestine, national authority was either destroyed or dismantled.

In other cases, violent conflict was the major obstacle to development. Between 1990 and 2001 there were 57 major conflicts in 45 different areas, 13 in the poorest countries on earth. Africa was hardest struck, though not one of the developing areas was spared.

In the field of economics, it is notable that during this same decade, the foreign debt of poor countries rose as the prices of the raw materials they export went into freefall. Moreover, industrialised countries cut back their foreign aid, despite the fact that the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 2626 which called on all countries to dedicate at least 0.7 percent of GDP to development aid. Thirty years later, the world’s richest countries devote a mere 0.22 percent of GDP to aid, while in the US the figure is barely 0.1 percent.

Among the health-related causes is AIDS, which in parts of the world has actually reversed the process of development in recent decades. In 1990, there were 10 million people infected with the disease; today there are almost 42 million. AIDS has caused 22 million deaths and left 13 million orphans.

Then there are social causes, like the exclusion of certain ethnic groups –as in Rwanda– or the control of territory by mafia-like organisations, as in Burma or Colombia.

I am not proposing new solutions to this plague, which is one of the greatest scandals of the new century. However, I think we should work from a clearly-stated principle. We must understand that the fight against poverty does not consist in dutifully following some model imported or imposed from abroad, nor can people achieve development when they reject their own identity.

The goal of this fight must be to reach a minimum level of prosperity, dignity, and liberty while preserving and maintaining respect for one’s own history, culture, language, and traditions.

It is necessary to take into account the profound diversity of the situations of those in dire need of assistance. The respective plights of the population of Monrovia during the civil war, the inhabitants of a favela, and a group of refugees cannot be approached in the same manner. Each situation has its own conditions and requires a specific response.

Similarly, and without underestimating the importance of emergency aid, I would argue that this sort of action should be avoided because it is effective only in the short term. More and more frequently, we find that once the crisis has passed and peace is restored, the area in question is abandoned to its fate and almost certain to slide back into misery. The fight against poverty must consist of a long-term policy and be monitored closely and continuously. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

By Boutros-Ghali Boutros and - -
PARIS, Jun 1 2004 (IPS)

The principle of peaceful co-existence has just turned fifty, and while the pessimists feel that it is out of fashion, the optimists believe that it is more important than ever, writes Boutros Boutros-Ghali, Secretary General of the UN from 1992-1996. On 29 April 1954, the China and India signed an Agreement on Trade and Communications between the Tibet region of China and India based on five principles: mutual respect for each other\’s territorial integrity and sovereignty; mutual non-aggression; mutual non-interference in each other\’s internal affairs; equality and mutual benefit; peaceful co-existence. In his article, the author writes that pessimists hold the five principles have lost their force because they are linked with the UN, marginalised since the end of the Cold War and the emergence of a single superpower. To apply the five principles there is no need to wait for an overhaul of the UN system, since the basic concepts are already in the Charter. They can be made more effective by taking into consideration the drastic technical changes brought about during the post-Cold War period, globalisation, the increasing gap between rich and poor countries, the multiplicity of internal wars, and the unilateralism of the lonely superpower\’s policy.

The principle of peaceful co-existence has just turned fifty, and while the pessimists feel that it is out of fashion, the optimists believe that it is more important than ever in this tempestuous time.

On 29 April 1954, the People’s Republic of China and India signed an Agreement on Trade and Communications between the Tibet region of China and India. It was based on five principles: mutual respect for each other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty; mutual non-aggression; mutual non-interference in each other’s internal affairs; equality and mutual benefit; peaceful co-existence.

The first four principles were not new; they were already included in the United Nations Charter. The fifth principle, ”peaceful co-existence”, was not new either, but the term was. The fact that 50 countries with different political regimes and traditions have cooperated within the United Nations proves that peaceful co-existence has existed de facto within the UN system, and the term has been adopted with enthusiasm by the international community. It now appears in many international treaties.

The pessimists consider that the five principles have lost their force because they are linked with the United Nations, which has been marginalised since the end of the Cold War and the emergence of a single superpower.

Since the end of the Cold War, non-alignment has lost its importance and dynamism. Colonialism, racism, and apartheid have been practically eradicated, the need for a mediator between the two superpowers has become obsolete, and the non-aligned movement has lost cohesiveness in terms of ideology and institutional structure. Thus, peaceful co-existence has lost the infrastructure which had sustained the concept for half a century.

The principle of territorial integrity has suffered several violations, the last example of which is the UN protectorate in Kosovo. The principle of non-interference has been severely weakened by humanitarian intervention, by the appearance of failed states and of nation states with marginal defence capabilities. Furthermore, the concept of preventive military action advocated recently by the United States has undermined the whole United Nations system, the main pillar of which was non-intervention. Another blow to the principle has been unilateral sanctions applied by member states without approval by the UN.

The principle of equality has been replaced by the concept of a hegemonic and hierarchical world order in which the sole superpower has the right to determine the destiny of the poor and the weak by intervening in their internal affairs under the pretext of promoting democracy and the free market for the sake of world peace. This concept of globalisation and uniformisation is bound to destroy the philosophical substance of the principle of peaceful co-existence.

In conclusion, for the pessimists there is little evidence that the US will accept any reform which might decrease its power within the UN system. In consequence there is little evidence that the five principles can go on playing the important role they have played for the last fifty years.

The optimists can be divided into two categories. The first are those who believe that change in favour of multilateralism and respect for the five principles will be promoted by the global and the American civil society. They believe that American democracy, which gave birth to President Wilson, the father of the League of Nations, and to President Roosevelt, the father of the United Nations, will be able to provide a leader with the transcendant vision, imagination, and generosity needed to create a new UN able to respond to the needs of humanity. The optimists add that the superpower has neither the capacity nor the political will to be the policeman of the world. They add that American public opinion does not approve of the violation of the rule of law by their government and that, sooner or later, the pendulum will swing from extreme unilateralism to multilateralism and respect for international law.

The second category of optimists reject this utopian approach. They believe that the superpower may adopt multilateralism ”a la carte” but that as long as there is no counter power, the UN will continue to be a mere extension of the foreign policy of the unique superpower. To constitute this counter power, these optimists propose a coalition of developing countries together with the two great powers of tomorrow, China and India. They believe that the five principles must be the new basis of a drastic reform of the United Nations. The fifth principle is the most important; there can be no coexistence without diversity. Thus the prerequisite for peaceful coexistence is cultural, economic, and political diversity among nations.

The dynamic dimension of peaceful coexistence implies opposition to the ‘uniformisation’ of the planet. Cultural and political diversity is a part of humanity’s heritage and must and can be protected by implementing the principle of peaceful coexistence.

To apply the five principles there is no need to wait for an overhaul of the UN system, since the basic concepts are already in the Charter. They can be made more effective by taking into consideration the drastic technical changes brought about during the post-Cold War period, globalisation, the increasing gap between rich and poor countries, the multiplicity of internal wars, and the unilateralism of the lonely superpower’s policy. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

By Boutros-Ghali Boutros and - -
PARIS, Apr 30 2004 (IPS)

The current process of globalisation is generating widespread distress, destroying traditional connections of solidarity, and marginalising entire countries and even entire regions while raising the risk of war, exclusion, hatred, and ethnic and religious conflict, writes Boutros-Boutros Ghali, UN Secretary General from 1992-1996. In this article, the author argues that the globalisation of the economy must be accompanied by the development of a global movement for democracy. Global democracy cannot be limited to a transformation of the structures of national democracy. Its objective must be a new architecture structured in such a way that it is controlled directly not by citizens but by states, multi-national corporations, non-governmental organisations, municipalities, and political parties. This will require the creation of new political institutions as well as the reform of the existing international institutions. While these ideas may seem futuristic or utopian, the author writes that peace among nations grounded in a democratisation of globalisation is a desirable, and reachable, goal.

The democratisation of globalisation is one of the great challenges of the new century.

Today even the most deeply-rooted democracies find themselves in a phase of weakness caused by globalisation.

In the economic sphere, major companies are globalising as a result of scientific advances, the rationalisation of management systems, and the optimalisation of productivity. In the financial sphere, deregulation, the elimination of currency controls, financial innovation, and telecom advances have made globalisation a reality. The universal instantaneous transmission of news has remade the information sector.

These major transformations render the problems of our time essentially transnational. Environmental protection, the campaign against AIDS, population control, the fight against hunger, and the major challenges presented by technology and genetics, for example, are all issues that exist on a planetary scale and that can be only partially addressed at the nation-state level.

The current process of globalisation is generating widespread distress, intensifying frustration, destroying traditional connections of solidarity, and marginalising entire countries and even entire regions. This situation introduces significant risks of war, exclusion, hatred, and ethnic and religious conflict, and creates a climate in which irrational and fanatical ideologies proposing false solutions to desperate people will flourish.

Today we have an obligation to reflect on a new project of collective coexistence that offers both states and citizens concrete reasons for hope.

For the nations of the South, the impossibility of participating in the shaping and steering of globalisation is the equivalent of being excluded from history. It is in this context that the term democratisation of globalisation acquires significance. Democracy has real meaning if can be practised in every area where power is concentrated, at the local and national levels, of course, but also at the global level.

In other words, the globalisation of the economy must be accompanied by the development of a global movement for democracy.

Global democracy cannot be limited to a transformation of the structures of national democracy. Its objective must be a new architecture structured in such a way that it is directly controlled not by citizens but by states, multi-national corporations, non-governmental organisations, municipalities, and political parties. This will require the creation of new political institutions as well as the reform of the existing international institutions.

Four principles should be respected in the process of initiating a democratisation of globalisation:

First, there should be a greater diffusion of democracy in the UN system, which would entail reform of Security Council and consolidation of the Economic and Social Council.

Second, transnational companies should be involved in the process of democratisation so they stop seeming like predators taking advantage of gaps in the international social order and instead act like protagonists in democratic development.

Third, the aspirations of social and cultural actors, non-governmental organisations, municipalities, universities, parliaments, political parties, religious groups, information media, etcetera, must be connected with the will of the economic and political authorities. This will not be easy, but it is not impossible: though states do not want to incorporate non-state actors in the decision-making process and the control of globalisation, they will continue to influence the evolution of the new international system.

The World Labour Organisation, in which each state is represented by delegates from businesses, workers, and government, provides an example of a solution to this challenge. Within the framework of the UN, a similar solution might consist of a second General Assembly. Or, another international organisation could be created.

Finally, if we wish to prevent yesterday’s Cold War from turning into a war of civilisations ignited by terrorism and massive migration across borders, we must defend cultural and linguistic diversity, which is as important to planetary democracy as political pluralism is to national democracy.

While these ideas may seem futuristic or utopian, I insist on believing that peace among nations grounded in a democratisation of globalisation is a desirable, and reachable, goal. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

By Boutros-Ghali Boutros and - -
PARIS, Jan 1 2004 (IPS)

While globalisation has generated great hope for much of the world, it has also given rise to numerous threats, writes Boutros Boutros-Ghali, Secretary-General of the United Nations from 1992-1996. The author writes that we must democratise globalisation before globalisation denatures democracy. To begin with, the UN system itself needs to be more thoroughly democratised, specifically the Security Council, which remains Eurocentric and does not take into account the emergence of new major powers over the last 50 years. The push to democratise risks undermining the logic that drives it if it results in the location of global power beyond the reach of the states, and if the new sites of power do not operate according to democratic principles. Only a new conception of solidarity can prevent or at least attenuate the inevitable exclusions that global society carries within itself. But solidarity cannot be decreed. It must arise out of a collective engagement, that is, the participation of states as well as the non-state actors of contemporary international society.

While globalisation has generated great hope for much of the world, it has also given rise to numerous threats.

To begin with, it threatens the nation state, as more and more of the problems facing the world today –and the solutions to them- – exist on a global scale. In the medium term this could give rise to a crisis of political representation and a weakening of the nature of citizenship within democracies — whether because people feel more like consumers than citizens or, even more serious, they feel they are no longer represented and thus excluded from the political process.

The second threat directly affects those individuals who find themselves in the jaws of a process of cultural colonisation and standardisation. There is reason to fear that these people, who feel they are no longer citizens of their village yet not yet citizens of the world, are tempted to take refuge in communities that have aggressively folded in on themselves in an attempt to assert their existence and their difference.

The third threat regards the developing world and the fact that inequalities between rich and poor countries –and within rich countries– have never been as extreme and are growing steadily worse.

It is against this background of a globalised world, a world that was unable to find a new equilibrium upon emerging from the Cold War, that the attacks of September 11 took place, catapulting us into a new phase of international relations with their brutal revelation of processes long in gestation.

To begin with, we have realised that violence is no longer the exclusive domain of states but can be wielded by any actor eluding state control in the name of any possible cause. In addition, the developed world has been brutally awakened to the fact that violence is not limited to certain zones of ”barbarism” from which it had hitherto felt excluded, but that all of us –the hyperpower included– were all equally vulnerable to the danger.

Finally the international community has taken notice of the fact that American power is accompanied very naturally by the desire to use it, whether or not it is in violation of international law and the United Nations Charter.

There is thus an abundance of factors that should spur us to subdue, regulate, and ”civilise” as fast as possible the great mutations at work in the world, and to democratise globalisation before globalisation denatures democracy. This will take time, and it is likely that there will be fierce resistance.

Where to begin? The UN system needs to be more thoroughly democratised, particularly the Security Council, the only part of the organisation with the power to authorise military force and impose sanctions yet not a truly democratic organ. Mirroring the balance of power of the time of its formation at the end of World War II, the council remains Eurocentric and does not reflect the emergence of new major powers over the last 50 years. In contrast, the General Assembly, the most democratic UN body, which operates by majority vote, is the least powerful and least able to insure the enactment of its decisions.

The second necessity is to carry forward the processes of decentralisation and regionalisation that were implemented under the aegis of the UN in recent years, since the regional organisations –such as the European Union, the Commonwealth, the League of Arab States, the African Union, to name a few– are susceptible to operating as counter-powers to globalisation.

The push to democratise risks undermining its own underlying logic if it results in the location of global power beyond the reach of the states, and if the new sites of power do not operate according to democratic principles.

In this regard, only a new conception of solidarity can prevent or at least attenuate the inevitable exclusions that global society carries within itself. But solidarity cannot be decreed. It must arise out of a collective engagement, that is, the participation of states as well as the non-state actors of contemporary international society.

In the last analysis, nothing will be possible unless the vast majority of states decide to engage themselves in the affairs of the world. Today only a small proportion of states do. In contrast, non-state actors — non-governmental organisations (NGOs), municipalities, parliaments, universities, unions, religious groups, and the media — have an increasing desire to involve themselves in the affairs of the world and should be able to play a role in the democratisation of international politics, much as businesses do.

Indeed, multinational business has become a fundamental site of global power and as such must become more closely associated with international decisions. At the same time, however, it must accept the inclusion of perspectives of the general interest and collective well-being into its economic strategies. Today it is no longer acceptable to hold forth on this or that form of general planning or to allow the law of profit to determine the economic future of the world and future generations. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

By Boutros-Ghali Boutros and - -
PARIS, Nov 1 2003 (IPS)

At the heart of the international debate is the relation between development and democracy, writes Boutros Boutros-Ghali, Secretary General of the United Nations from 1992-1996. In this article the author writes that these two concepts are inherently intertwined but have all too often been treated as separate. The achievement of both is fundamental to the future of world peace. Development is essential to complement and reinforce democracy. It represents the set of economic, social, and cultural aspirations to which all societies aspire. The right to development is a human right. It should involve all aspects of human life. Inequality, poverty, exclusion, religious fanaticism, racism, xenophobia, and lack of dialogue are all impediments to development which ought to be overcome if we are to work towards the establishment of a more global democratic culture. The mere fact that these are still common traits of modern societies highlights the need for participation and involvement in the democratic process. It reveals that freedom of opinion and expression are not only rights that are to be taken for granted, but rights that must be put into practice.

The world we share today is one of complex contrasts and differences, of conflicts and promises, a world in which we individuals play a more important role than ever before.

”While humanity shares one planet, it is a planet on which there are two worlds, the world of the rich and the world of the poor.” (Raanan Weitz, 1986). In the world of the rich, there exists an apparent unlimited abundance, the rule of law, democracy. It is a world where individuals are encouraged to have an opinion and to express it, where they can freely choose their own paths.

The world of the poor, by contrast, is characterised by its lawlessness, by the tyranny of its leaders, and by the extreme and absolute poverty of its people. It is a world in which wars and conflicts tear nations apart and the coherence of entire societies and the stability of political regimes seem to be long forgotten; a world in which the future is but tomorrow. For those of us who are lucky enough to be born on the ‘right’ side, it would be criminal not to take time to pause and reflect, and unforgivable to forget to question the order of things.

At the heart of the international debate is the relation between development and democracy — two concepts which are inherently intertwined but have all too often been treated as separate. The achievement of both is fundamental to the future of world peace.

Development and democracy contribute to the common prosperity of humanity, to the blossoming of societies where social harmony, the rule of law, the respect of human rights and dignity are indeed attainable ideals. But why do we still, despite decades of development efforts, need to ”bridge the gap” between two worlds? What are the new challenges to democracy? In this ‘multipolar’ world of ours, where states seem sometimes overwhelmed, the efforts of non-governmental actors and civil society — the actions of individuals — are rising in importance. As focus swings away from the old rhetoric, the answer to the world’s problems might be found in other hands.

What is democracy? Democracy is a system by which all the members of society can, at all levels, participate in the process of decision-making and exert control over its course. Respect for human rights is one of its founding pillars, and can only be achieved in the presence of the right institutions to ensure that laws are implemented and respected, that people are represented, and that their voices are heard. Obedience to a common rule, an appropriate electoral system, and the free participation of citizens in the democratic process are also essential elements to the realisation of civil liberty.

More than an institutional framework, however, democracy is a state of mind — a culture favouring tolerance, respect of the other and his or her differences, pluralism of opinion, freedom of expression and dialogue. It is a set of shared values which belong to the common patrimony of mankind. These are fundamental principles without which there would be no democracy, no sustainable project of development. In order to take on any true significance, however, they should be reflected in the relationships which oppose and unite all individuals — from the social, political and economic institutions to the local actors and members of civil society.

Of course, recognising the importance of those fundamental democratic values at a global level does not mean that the specific historical, religious, or economic circumstances, which contribute to make each society unique, should be discounted or ignored. But all should have, as a central objective, the respect of human rights (as presented in the 1949 United Nation Declaration of Human Rights).

Development is essential to complement and reinforce democracy. It represents the set of economic, social, and cultural aspirations to which all societies aspire. A pluri-dimensional process, it comprises all the factors which contribute to the enrichment and personal development of the individual: from the economic and the political, to the social, cultural, environmental, and the scientific, from social justice to education.

The right to development is a human right. It should involve all aspects of human life. Inequality, poverty, exclusion, religious fanaticism, racism, xenophobia, and lack of dialogue are all impediments to development which ought to be overcome if we are to work towards the establishment of a more global democratic culture. The mere fact that these are still common traits of modern societies highlights the need for participation and involvement in the democratic process. It reveals that freedom of opinion and expression are not only rights that are to be taken for granted, but rights that must be put into practice. It reminds us that our planet matters, and that it needs us. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

By Boutros-Ghali Boutros and - -
PARIS, Apr 1 2003 (IPS)

Closely following world events, I fear that unilateralism may destroy the United Nations, writes Boutros Boutros-Ghali, Secretary-General of the United Nations from 1991-1995. To a certain extent, the UN plays the role of scapegoat, the author writes. The real problem is that the UN is not able to speak up. How can it defend itself by saying that a given dispute is due to Member State A when Member State A is its boss? If it were to use diplomatic weapons, it would have to say Country A is responsible. But Country A could then retaliate by stoping paying its dues and thus marginalising the whole UN machinery. The fact that we are confronted by new problems means there is a need for a drastic change in the UN. We must prepare ourselves for the third generation of international organisations, to succeed the UN as it succeeded the League of Nations. The third generation will not come about by changing the composition of the Security Council or by revolutionising the operation of the General Assembly by through drastic change in the overall concept. The change needed is to obtain the participation of non-State actors in international affairs. We will not be able to solve certain problems without the participation of, let us say, big cities, or non-governmental organisations, or multinational corporations.

Closely following world events, I fear that unilateralism may destroy the United Nations. Then I remind myself that it was Woodrow Wilson, an American president, who pushed for the creation of the League of Nations, and another American, Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was instrumental in creating the United Nations, in cooperation with Winston Churchill. There is no reason why in the next 10 or 20 years there may not be another leader in the United States who will continue the mission that began with Wilson and Roosevelt.

But this is the optimistic view.

Today the UN is being marginalised by unilateralism. In the past, it was marginalised by bipolarism and the Cold War. But things are changing. Globalisation will have an impact on every sector of life and bring about a globalisation of democracy, or what I call the democratisation of international relations. We may at present have a dictatorship system to deal with the world but on the practical level it is so difficult that decentralisation is essential. And decentralisation is one of the elements of democratisation.

To a certain extent, the UN plays the role of scapegoat in the world today. If there is even the perception that a dispute will be solved easily, you will find the mediators, indeed many of them, because everybody wants to pretend he has played a role in solving the problem. Then there are two levels of dispute: between the parties and between the mediators.

But it can also be the case that no one is interested in the dispute because of the cost, or because people have other priorities, or because the conflict may prove very difficult to solve, and no one has either the patience or the political will to play a role. In these cases, you entrust the dispute to the UN.

The real problem is that the UN is not able to speak up. How can it defend itself by saying that a given dispute is due to Member State A when Member State A is its boss? If it were to use diplomatic weapons, it would have to say Country A is responsible. But Country A could then retaliate by stoping paying its dues and thus marginalising the whole UN machinery. Unable to defend itself, the UN then becomes the scapegoat.

As for the new world order, there are two elements to consider: one is globalisation and the other is the role of the UN. Globalisation is an irreversible process and cannot be stopped. A new phenomenon, it will bring with it new and unprecedented problems. International terrorism and the globalisation of finance are two that face us now. The lack of precedent makes the search for solutions far more difficult.

The fact that we are confronted by new problems means there is a need for a drastic change in the UN. We must prepare ourselves for the third generation of international organisations, to succeed the UN just as it succeeded the League of Nations. The third generation will not come about by changing the composition of the Security Council, or revolutionising the operation of the General Assembly, or reinforcing the Economic and Social Council. The third generation must be the result of a drastic change in the overall concept.

The change needed is to obtain the participation of non-State actors in international affairs. We will not be able to solve certain problems without the participation of, let us say, big cities, or non-governmental organisations, or multinational corporations. How they will participate, what power they will have, how they will coexist with nation states, which will continue to be the main actors in international relations? — these are the problems of tomorrow.

It may take years of hard work. It takes a generation to adopt a new concept or idea. It took two hundred years to put an end to slavery. It took half a century to put an end to colonialism. Even the Charter of the UN was based on maintaining colonialism, through the system of trusteeship. It took three decades to accept that we have a problem with the environment and to adopt the new concept of sustainable development — and even then we saw the failure of the Kyoto agreement. So perhaps this is the beginning of a process of change, and it will take 20 or 30 years until this change is integrated into the system. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt: