I N T E R N A T I O N A L

Political Globalization

Kerstin Müller, Minister of State at the Federal Foreign Office, talks about the ways in which politics can shape actively the processes of globalization

Globalization is one of the central political concepts of our time. What does it mean to you?

Globalization means far more than the growing interdependence of financial markets or the worldwide trade in goods and services. Globalization is a trend towards the "dissolution of boundaries" affecting many of the relationships in our everyday lives. We are directly experiencing how boundaries are losing their significance as physical, legal and cultural barriers – but also as frameworks – for the exchange of goods, people, knowledge and ideas. This could result in a gain in terms of prosperity, freedom, plurality and life chances. Unfortunately, this is often not the case. For many countries in the world, and also for population groups within different countries, globalization has a high price. This process gives rise to an enormous pressure for change that calls into question not only traditional forms of economic activity, but also the entire basis of life within society. As a result of increasing interchange at all levels, we are becoming more and more dependent on developments outside our own borders. Nevertheless, we should also not forget the fact that globalization is not an uncontrollable force of nature like the weather, but a chain of decisions in which we were and are still involved. The OECD countries in particular are participants and active promoters of this "dissolution of boundaries," because we believe that states and societies profit from it.

Why has the term come to have such strong ideological associations?

Unfortunately, globalization’s critics and enthusiasts both have their gaze fixed entirely on the economic aspect of this phenomenon. For one side, globalization contains the source of "unlimited opportunities," for the other, it represents the danger of a new form of colonization by the industrialized nations. Where one side extols the benefits of the "global village," the other refers to "global pillage." In many places, citizens – also in the developed countries – experience globalization as interference in their personal lives. They are concerned about their jobs and their social security and they see the democratic welfare state under threat – and with it democracy and national sovereignty. We must take these concerns very seriously. It is true that in the industrialized countries, too, the gap has significantly increased between those who profit from globalization and those who do not succeed in making necessary adjustments. It is also true that globalization has tended to lead to the further marginalization of the poorest developing countries and that the increasing concentration of business corporations and crossborder mergers are resulting in a level of power that makes enterprises increasingly independent of governments. On the other hand, the greater interdependence of economies is contributing to an improvement of general living standards and, as a result of the convergence of markets, to the better use of resources, increases in productivity, and the reduction of inflation. New technologies are giving a real chance to countries that used to have none as a result of their lack of resources. In view of these different effects, it is no wonder that the globalization debate is characterized by ideology.

How can globalization be given a political direction?

The United Nations Millennium Summit in New York proposed practical steps towards solving global problems. The goal of halving the proportion of people living in extreme poverty by the year 2015 is a top-priority project for the federal government. Especially following recent experiences in connection with the war in Iraq, the federal government is emphatically supporting the strengthening of international law and binding standards, for example, with regard to world trade. The current Doha world trade round must give high priority to the interests of the developing countries. We support the global implementation of principles that have long applied in the European Union: fair competition and economic relations. Global solidarity with the developing nations also includes our enabling the least developed countries to gain extensive tariff- and quota-free access to our markets. Additionally, through our development policy cooperation, we must help them to prepare to meet the requirements of the free world market. Overall, all major organizations, including the financial institutions, should direct greater attention to the goal of poverty eradication in their policies. Personally, I would also welcome it if greater consideration were once again given to the idea of a Tobin tax. However, a foreign policy oriented towards sustainable development at a time of globalization also entails a strengthening of judicial structures and civil crisis prevention. In this area especially, the federal government has made significant additional efforts following the terror attacks of September 11, 2001. These include not only our extensive commitments within the framework of United Nations peace missions, but also the intensification of dialogue with the Islamic world. We have emphatically supported both the strengthening of multilateral development organizations and the establishment of the International Criminal Court.

A process of political globalization, parallel to economic globalization, requires a cooperative judicial and security policy. Where can you see that in place today?

In his speech before the United Nations General Assembly in September 2002, Federal Foreign Minister Fischer advocated a system of global cooperative security. Particularly against the background of the worldwide fight against terrorism, a system of this kind must be based on a comprehensive security concept that encompasses not only military security, but also the economy, human rights, democracy and culture. Shaping cooperative global security therefore also means shaping a new world economic order. It must take into account the interests of all. Resources must be distributed more equitably and poorer countries enabled to participate in international trade and the opportunities that globalization offers. This presupposes free market access for all, the implementation of political and economic freedoms, and the existence of a reliable legal system. Cooperative global security will have to be measured in terms of the binding legal framework on which it is based. It is therefore essential that the processes of globalization are accompanied by increasing international legislation. International law and the rule of law form the fundamental foundations for a peaceful and ordered community.

On the other hand, multilateral solutions take enormous periods of time – just think of the Kyoto process. Isn’t politics always going to be left hopelessly behind these rapid developments in its search for solutions based on international consensus?

Naturally, the search for international consensual solutions is always a search for the lowest common denominator on which everyone can agree. The Kyoto process does indeed prove that global coordination can be arduous, time-consuming and also – for some – disappointing in its results, but certainly not hopeless. The Kyoto Protocol represented a milestone in global climate protection. Of course, it gives us grounds for concern that the United States still does not want to sign the protocol. Nevertheless, we are continuing to emphatically support that it comes into force – for example, in relation to Russia. Russia and other countries have announced that they will sign Kyoto. That gives us grounds for hope. Many large global conferences in recent years have proven that, despite all the opposition and resistance, success can be achieved in formulating and even implementing common goals.

Germany and other industrialized countries can certainly be counted among the winners of globalization. Where then do the opportunities lie in this process for the countries of the South?

On the one hand, I’m not so sure that Germany can actually only be counted among the winners. On the other hand, you cannot really classify entire countries as "winners" or "losers" of globalization – especially as the term also brushes over genuine inequalities. Today, economic exchange and communication are by no means "global" in the sense of a network that equally involves all countries and regions. The profits and costs of globalization are currently distributed in an extremely unequal way. The greatest beneficiaries of globalization, however, are those societies in which an effective government is able to guarantee on a lasting basis the "goods" required for economic development – a free economic and social order, democracy, independent judicial institutions, access to education and knowledge, social security. The same also applies for the developing countries. If it is possible there – with support from the countries of the North – to strengthen open, pluralistic societies, women’s equality, education and the protection of human rights, these countries will have greater chances of participating in and profiting from global exchange as equal partners.

The European Union has decided to open its markets for all products from the least developed countries. What does Europe expect in return?

With the "Everything But Arms" plan, the European Union has initiated a development aid program based on market access that is exemplary in international terms. The federal government is also urging other G8 countries to implement similar policies. A commitment of this kind regarding the goal "market access for all products from LDC countries" is also found in the Monterrey Declaration of March 2002, in the Final Communique of the OECD Council Meeting of May 2002, and in the G8 Africa Action Plan. Incidentally, we do not expect anything special from the developing countries in return – for example, in the form of reciprocity for the tariff-free export of subsidized European Union agricultural products.

Globalization also has an impact on our cultural identity. How would you envisage a form of development that accepts cultural differences and respects international standards?

A special phenomenon of the globalization debate in many countries – not only in the industrialized, but also in the developing countries – involves clear, occasionally frightening tendencies towards discrimination and the return to premodern and frequently nationalistic patterns of behaviour. The terror attacks of September 11 may have further contributed to this by appearing to substantiate grounds for fears of a "clash of civilizations." Yet we must draw a clear dividing line. Terrorists such as Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda network must be fought with all our might. On the other hand, we must strengthen and intensify dialogue with the Islamic world. The important thing here – with all due respect for different traditions – is to reveal the common values shared by all world cultures. This also includes unambiguous support for human rights, especially for the right to equality of the sexes. Discrimination or even abuse of women cannot be justified by any reference to cultural traditions. Human rights are inviolable.

Does globalization demand a reorientation of democracy and technological progress, as Ernst Ulrich von Weizsäcker has suggested?

Ernst Ulrich von Weizsäcker is right. The true challenge of globalization is political in nature: when more and more decisions are taken out of the traditional framework of authority and responsibility based upon our democratic institutions, which continue to be organized around the nation state, then we must develop new forms of political control and transnational democratic "scrutiny" of decisions. Globalization must not be allowed to lead to democratic deficits. Nongovernmental organizations, and also parliaments and governments, have an important role to play here. They should not work against one another. Business, too, has a duty to make its contribution towards ensuring that globalization promotes and does not hinder sustainable development. The common goal should be: as much global democracy as possible, but without a global government! This is the basis for the federal government’s demand for a strengthening of multilateralism and a policy of dialogue oriented towards consensus and participation. And this is precisely where I see the central role of the United Nations.

( Text Courtesy: Deutschland Magazine, Germany No:3/2003).

International:

G8 Foreign Ministers met in Paris on 22 and 23 May 2003 to discuss major regional and international security issues.

INTERNATIONAL SECURITY

Fight against terrorism

G8 countries remain totally mobilized against international terrorism. We welcomed the principle of creating an action plan in support of the UN Counter Terrorism Committee. We emphasized that the various actions undertaken by the G8 regarding transport security, the financing of terrorism and institutional capacity by the countries to defend themselves against terrorism usefully supplemented the measures adopted since the Kananaskis Summit. We pledged to pursue our effort by further extending accession to the 12 UN conventions in this field and by supplementing measures relating to the financing of terrorism.

Non-proliferation

Deep concern was expressed regarding the growing dangers posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and by the risk of their use by non State actors. Ministers agreed to work towards defusing regional tensions that are often at the root of proliferation risks. They reaffirmed that the proliferation threat was to be met through a common and comprehensive approach relying on the international institutions, first and foremost among them the United Nations Security Council. Ministers pledged firmly to use and strengthen existing instruments, including the IAEA. The IAEA should be granted a budget allowing it to carry on its safeguards control missions, and have its efficiency and prioritization improved.

Ministers welcomed the progress of the Global Partnership launched at Kananaskis.

Small arms and light weapons

G8 Foreign Ministers discussed the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons. They stressed that the difficulties encountered in tension and post-conflict zones plagued with this trade could be better apprehended through a regional approach that would help achieve concrete results. They supported the Meeting of States on the illicit traffic in small arms to be held at the United Nations, in New York, in July 2003, under Japanese chairmanship.

NORTH KOREA

The North Korean nuclear issue constitutes a threat to international peace and stability. North Korea's compliance with its non-proliferation commitments is a matter of concern for the entire international community. The Security Council has been and remains seized of the matter and should play a constructive role.

Ministers called on North Korea to respect its commitments, to refrain from any action that would aggravate the situation and to embark on the full, prompt, verifiable and irreversible dismantlement of its nuclear weapons programme.

They supported the efforts made by the different parties to seek a comprehensive solution by peaceful means to the North Korean nuclear issue and to other matters including unresolved humanitarian problems such as the abduction issue.

The discussion process launched by the trilateral meeting held in Beijing on 23 and 24 April 2003 is a step toward this goal. Ministers called for this process to continue and to be opened up to the other countries most directly concerned, starting with the Republic of Korea, Japan and Russia. In this regard, they commended the role played by China in setting up a framework for multilateral discussions. They also supported the Peace Prospect Policy pursued by the Republic of Korea, and Japan-North Korea dialogue based on the Japan-North Korea Pyongyang Declaration.

IRAN

Iran's nuclear programme is a cause of concern. Ministers outlined that Iran had to allay these questions by building confidence, including by signing and implementing an additional protocol with the IAEA and by acceding to the international instruments to which it has not yet adhered. Ministers used all their opportunities to forward this message to Iran.

Ministers called on Iran to pursue its efforts on the path of reforms and expressed the wish to maintain a constructive dialogue with it. They asked Iran to uphold its commitment to the fight against terrorism and to fully implement the relevant international resolutions and conventions.

COLOMBIA

Deep concern was expressed about narco-terrorism in and from Colombia and about the risk of seeing Colombian violence and terrorism, fuelled by drugs, jeopardize the country's efforts to defend democracy, and extend it to other countries in the region.

Ministers supported action by President Uribe and the Colombian government to strengthen the authority of the State and unreservedly supported the policy of firmness towards illegal armed groups.

SARS

The problem posed by the current epidemic in Asia went beyond the regional framework. The entire international community, and especially the industrialized countries, should stand firmly against it.

Considering the global nature of this epidemic, Ministers stressed the collective responsibility of the international community, which calls for the joint management of the problem.

DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO

G8 Foreign Ministers discussed the situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo and stressed that the bloodshed currently perpetrated in the north-east of the DRC, in Ituri, which endangers the peace process, should urgently be brought to an end.

They supported the current mobilization to help the UN forces present in the area.

GEORGIA

Ministers stressed the importance of preserving Georgia's sovereignty and territorial integrity with respect to stability in the Caucasus. They supported the efforts launched by the UN and the OSCE in this respect.

Concerning the Abkhaz question, they welcomed the efforts taken by the Secretary-General of the United Nations to promote a political settlement corresponding to the wishes of the international community, and action by Russia and Georgia, with the same aim in mind, to encourage restoration of confidence between the Parties.

INDIA AND PAKISTAN

We welcomed efforts undertaken by both countries to normalize their bilateral relations, following the initiative taken by India and Pakistan's positive response. We solemnly called on the two Parties to continue on the path of bilateral dialogue and rapprochement, which they are ready to support.

Ministers expressed the hope that a political process would develop between the two countries aimed at resolving all their differences through dialogue, in the spirit of the Simla and Lahore Agreements.

AFGHANISTAN

Normalization in Afghanistan is an essential factor for regional stability.

Ministers welcomed the progress accomplished since the Bonn Agreements and the efforts of the Afghan Transitional Administration chaired by Hamid Karzai. However, they remain deeply concerned about the difficulties still confronting the country, particularly in the field of internal security. They emphasized that all local chiefs would now have to disarm and submit to the central government.

Ministers reiterated that the Bonn process was to be brought to a successful conclusion, in spirit and in substance, fully and without delay. They invited the United Nations to work towards this end, and in particular to support the organization of free, credible and democratic elections in 2004.

They invited the countries in the region to combat the activities of all radical groups that intervene in Afghan affairs with a destabilizing objective.

Ministers welcomed the Conference on Drug Routes from Afghanistan held at the French initiative. They reaffirmed their support to the Afghan Transitional Administration in its fight against poppy growing and opium production, and commended the role played by the United Nations in this respect. They stressed the need to step up the mobilization of all countries concerned by the development of drug trafficking from Afghanistan.

SRI LANKA

Significant progress has been made by the peace process for over a year now between the government of Sri Lanka and the LTTE Tamil movement.

Ministers thanked Norway for its constructive role.

Ministers regretted the suspension by the LTTE of its participation in negotiations and expressed the wish that the donor conference scheduled in Japan this June would be an opportunity for all Parties, including the LTTE, to come together.

IRAQ

Ministers welcomed the agreement that has taken place in the Security Council on the resolution lifting the sanctions on Iraq. They stressed that this resolution made it possible to undertake the reconstruction and stabilization of Iraq, after so many years of hardship and war, in a context agreed upon by the international community.

We discussed the importance of determined action by all members of the international community and by the United Nations :

- to cope with humanitarian emergencies, especially in food and health care.

- to help Iraq adopt democratic and representative institutions, respecting human rights, and to recover its full sovereignty as soon as possible.

- to help this country rebuild its economy, while ensuring that its resources benefit all Iraqis.

Ministers reaffirmed the importance of ensuring the unity, stability and territorial integrity of Iraq in order to facilitate its reintegration into its regional environment and into the international community.

ISRAEL AND PALESTINE

The path set out by the Quartet roadmap offers a historic opportunity to resolve the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians within the framework of two viable States living side by side within secure and recognized borders and to bring decades of human suffering to an end.

Aware of the efforts that this would require from all sides, Ministers called upon the Parties to confirm their acceptance of the roadmap, to begin to implement it fully and in good faith, in order to arrive at the solution of two States, under the terms defined by the Quartet, in 2005.

Ministers welcomed the courageous decisions taken by the Palestinians to reorganize their institutions, which they pledged to support, politically and economically. They expressed the wish that there would be further progress. Following the recent terrorist attacks, they reiterated their total condemnation of terrorism. They called on the Palestinians and the Israelis to bring all violence to an end.

Ministers discussed achieving comprehensive peace including Syria and Lebanon. The time had come for a resumption of talks between these countries. The Parties should take each other's concerns into consideration and initiate in good faith the negotiations leading to a lasting peace. We would fully support this process./.

Text courtesy : Embassy of France in Kathmandu.