The New Policy Forum launched its activities in Luxembourg on May 21, 2010 by holding the first meeting of the Academic Advisory Council. President Mikhail Gorbachev addressed members of Council, sharing his views and suggestions about the Forum’s agenda and work program for the coming year. The Council discussed and agreed on the priority areas on which the Forum will focus in accordance with its Mission Statement and the broad agenda outlined by the President.
Mikhail Gorbachev held a press conference and spoke more than 300 members of the Executive Club of Luxembourg, a leading organization of the country’s political and business communities. The meeting was attended by members of the government, prominent political, cultural and business figures and Ambassadors accredited in Luxembourg. Following a
Mikhail Gorbachev’s remarks at the meeting of the
Academic Advisory Council of the New Policy Forum
Our meeting launches the work of the New Policy Forum, which is a new phase in the work of the World Political Forum that was born in Italy a few years ago.
With the support of the public, think tanks, bankers, Piedmont authorities and the government of Italy, this project was on the whole successful, as evidenced by its recognition by the United Nations.
The World Political Forum was a truly international project. Its founders and active participants included political and intellectual leaders, and many of its events were prepared and conducted in interaction with governments.
This experience is important for us and we are grateful to the Italians.
The recent crisis made the financing of the Forum in its previous form more difficult; what is more, we felt the need to adapt it to the new realities.
Hence the new name of the Forum, which has now been registered in Luxembourg. We have been met here with understanding and support, and are hoping that this will continue as we develop this project.
The name — the New Policy Forum — is of course not a random phrase. I think we must be intensely aware of the new realities that are gaining momentum in the world, which I believe will define global development in the years to come. Our mission is to understand them and offer our vision and our proposals as to the shape of international politics now and in the future.
Let me share with you some of my suggestions in this regard as a start to our discussion.
I don’t want to take too much of your time describing the current situation. It is becoming increasingly complex and alarming. The opportunities opened up after the end of the Cold War have not been seized and the new world order has not emerged. A major reason is the euphoria in the West after the breakup of the Soviet Union.
Practically every day we see a deficit of new, action-oriented ideas. This means that we are facing, among other crises, an intellectual crisis.
As members of the non-governmental community, this is a serous challenge to us. Our duty is to generate ideas, to think responsibly and, at the same time, in unorthodox ways.
Let me suggest some of the areas at which our thinking could be directed.
The first concerns the mechanisms of regulation and governance in the global world.
The world is chaotic and is ruled mostly by blind political and economic processes that have been running out of control. Decisions and programs adopted at the global, regional and national levels have made little or no difference. To me, this appears to be the number one problem.
People have lost faith in the effectiveness of the political process. But without people’s trust the world system cannot function normally, and that is one reason why the key problems of security, poverty and the environment remain unresolved.
The crisis has given us a potentially important tool for global decision-making — the G-20. This was, of course, an improvised solution spurred by extreme circumstances. Yet, one can say that something positive has happened.
Indeed, the G-20 is a body that better reflects the line-up of the main players in international politics and economics whereas until recently the G-8, a self-appointed body of what’s called «the golden billion,» assumed the function of making key decisions. A more fully-fledged dialogue has now started.
But serious questions must still be answered.
Could the G-20 turn out to be just a «fire brigade,» or a debating society that will be conveniently forgotten and set aside in favor of the old ways of doing things? Such doubts are not without foundation.
The major powers continue to prefer to work things out among themselves. The latest example are the developments with regard to the Iranian nuclear program.
What was the response to the initiative taken by Brazil and Turkey and the agreement they reached with the Iranian leadership? The US State Department immediate reaction was to dismiss it and insist on a new round of sanctions against Iraq. The draft resolution on sanctions has now been supported by Russia and China.
I have noted that some observers have questioned this reaction of the permanent members of the UN Security Council. As I see it, it is proof more of jealousy than of a real intent to move toward a solution. Let’s recall that Brazil and Turkey are members of the G-20 — yet they are in effect being told to mind their own business.
More questions: What are the working methods of the G-20? Are they sufficiently democratic and transparent? Is its membership definitive, given the absence of countries like Egypt, Nigeria or Iran?
What is relationship of the G-20 and the United Nations?
Finally, there is the question of whether the G-20 will confine itself to a role, as yet not fully defined, in the financial and economic sphere or whether it will be assuming some political functions.
These questions were raised at the inception of the group but they have remained without answer. Even in the intellectual community there has been no vigorous debate about problems related to this new body. We could take the initiative to energize the debate on this issue.
Another problem is that of state sovereignty. Of course, by now we should have abandoned the illusion of minimizing the role of the state in a global world.
No one has released governments from their political responsibilities, from their key social functions, their responsibility for the environment and their role in building a world order. We have seen ample proof that these are tasks for the state that cannot be taken over by markets or by the business community.
Nevertheless, it has been generally recognized that in the modern world states must cede part of their sovereignty to international organizations and legal systems.
Today, however, there is a new edge to this problem.
One of the reasons is the existence of failed and irresponsible states that are causing an increasing number of problems in an interconnected global world. Let’s recall how Afghanistan became a breeding ground for international terrorism or how Somalia turned into a base for international piracy.
And what about Pakistan? Decades ago, the United States, prompted by its geopolitical interests, chose to support military governments in that country, and later, as part of the confrontation with the Soviet Union, nurtured Islamic extremists in the region. The result is that today Pakistan is an unstable state that has nuclear weapons while not fully controlling its own territory.
Another example is a country in Russia’s neighborhood, Kyrghizstan, in which for a second time in a few years we have seen a threat of the collapse of the state. This has happened in a region where everything is so intertwined that the fire could easily spread to neighboring countries.
I would mention in the same breath the chaos in the Middle East, to which, regrettably, we have grown used.
But it is not just a question of third world countries. The recent turmoil that has threatened the Euro, the EU and even the prospects of global financial stabilization grew out of the economic and fiscal policies pursued for years in Greece (though I think we must not blame just one country). The EU format failed to prevent this, and it is not yet clear whether the proposed solutions will ultimately work.
Those are of course very dissimilar examples. But they are diverse forms of the same problem.
There are no simple solutions to it. Military interventions do not work, as we have seen, for example, in Iraq after the US invasion. Nor has the military solution worked in Afghanistan, because the political aspect was not thought through.
So, what’s to be done? We have seen in a variety of situations that attempts to impose «external administration,» whether political or economic, can do more harm than good.
It appears, nevertheless, that some mechanisms are necessary to influence those decisions of states that can have far reaching global consequences.
How will this affect sovereignty? Where is the line that must not be crossed? This is a very complicated and intellectually challenging problem.
Let me now point to the third problem that deserves intense analysis. It concerns the role and prospects of Europe. We have been faced with the real danger that it may lose its role as the political, economic and cultural engine of global development.
Europe has been stressed by problems caused by the rapid enlargement of the European Union, the decoupling of political and economic processes, migration, aging of the population, and loss of its industrial and technological leadership.
Europeans made a big mistake by not engaging in full-scale integration with Russia, which is and regards itself as an inalienable part of Greater Europe.
As a result, there is a prospect of the command heights in the world community being taken over by other power centers, which many Europeans regard with respect but also with apprehension.
So what can be done? What kind of Europe could regain a position of leadership in the world? It is my view that we need to start thinking about building a transcontinental Euro-Atlantic community with full participation of Russia and the United States. This is the only chance for Europe to be an influential, stabilizing force in the world.
I have raised these issues as an example and in order to stimulate the debate. If you support focusing on these areas we shall prioritize them in the preparation of the report of the Forum that I suggest become the main annual product of our work together.
The format of our work should be interactive to the maximum extent possible, using the electronic media such as the Forum’s website. Its first version will be presented to you today. We want it to become a platform for our discussions and for shaping our position on major issues. Among other things, it could be used for creating discussion groups with the participation of members of the Academic Advisory Council as well as other experts.
So, those are the suggestions I wanted to share with you at this important moment when we are making a new start. You might say that I mentioned problems like terrorism, poverty and the environment only in passing. But my aim was not to provide a full review of the problems but to stimulate a debate in which I am sure you have a lot to say. I look forward to a fruitful discussion.