Towards a New Civilization
Mikhail Gorbachev
I will speak today as a politician, and not so much as the chairman of the Gorbachev Foundation. My public life is connected in so many ways to politics, and I feel it is best if I address you from that perspective. Indeed, politics is an area of vital concern in the world in which we live, and we will not be able to solve the world’s general problems without solving its political problems.
To begin, I would like to draw your attention to the imperative nature of today’s topic: “Creating a New Civilization.” For me, it is a very familiar theme, and yet it still raises a number of questions. What do we mean by this? What is that we are calling for? Are we attempting to push the historical process forward artificially? Anything that sprouts from the soil of a particular social setting has a prospect for the future and progresses naturally. However, if that prospect is imposed by force, it would not be very successful.
The theme “Creating a New Civilization” has a touch of subjectivism in it—a suggestion of overturning or slowing down the historical process, or perhaps altering it in a dramatic way. It gives rise to some important questions. What will be the fate of existing civilizations? Are they to be gotten rid of in the course of creating the new civilization? Or will they quietly leave the stage of their own accord?
I believe that the organizers of this Forum, by choosing this theme, intend to draw attention to the fact that currently, right before our eyes, civilization is undergoing a process of profound change. New ways of life are emerging, and studies of these new trends are being made in the field of social science. The findings of these studies are probably most relevant to politics. Furthermore, it is important to arm civil institutions and ordinary citizens with knowledge of this new emerging world. And from that point of view, I support the idea of “creating a new civilization,” as expressed by the theme of the Forum.
The velocity of history has increased apace in recent years, and because of that there is an increased danger that we might fall behind, in terms of our consciousness, and this can lead, and already has led, to mistakes being made in how we arrange and manage our world. The historical process is not set in stone; a significant role is played by individuals. A great deal in the historical process depends on people and their actions. I think most researchers would agree that history is not a behemoth that cannot be affected or altered. There is room for alternative decisions to be taken and different pathways can be traversed. And that is exactly where we need leadership. Through my own experience traveling around the world and participating in discussions with people from many nations, I understand that the problem of leadership is of paramount concern. Many people believe that there is a serious lack of leadership in the world today.
We cannot overturn the historical process or stop it, but we can strive to understand the essence of that process as it unfolds, uncovering the creative character of some trends and the destructive character of others; and then, bolstered by that knowledge, we can act accordingly within the framework of the process, doing what we can to effect a positive path. Certain people hear the rumble of history and understand the underpinnings of world development during a particular stage of the process, and those people are the true leaders.
When we understand the process and its direction and act accordingly, we have the potential to save ourselves from catastrophe. We must not side with those who panic in the face of the difficulties of the modern world. Sone knowledgeable scientists who simply suggest that we should take a laissez faire attitude, that everything should be allowed to progress on its own, naturally, because there is just too much to be understood of the world at large to make any difference in the path of its progress. Their idea is to let the world take its course; let the weak perish and the strong prevail. This is, however, a dangerous assumption. In political parlance, this is known as social Darwinism.
Where will such an attitude lead us? I believe we are being vouchsafed a glimpse of that destination by the spontaneous character of the current strain of globalization. I don’t think we will like where just “letting it happen” will take us.
One of the dangerous inevitabilities of such spontaneity is the sharpening of ethnic conflict and the intensification of similar problems in international relations. Globalization is having a powerful influence on society. Sadly, that means not only pluses for the world, but a lot of minuses as well. It is clear that a protest movement against that particular aspect of globalization already exists. Our aim should be to preserve all the diversity — ethnic, cultural, and natural — that the world has to offer. By so doing, we will be able to create a sustainable and prosperous world.
The world today faces three main global challenges. The first is the challenge of security, including threats connected with weapons of mass destruction and international terrorism. The second is the challenge of poverty and backwardness, with half the world’s population currently forced to exist on less than two dollars a day. They suffer from malnutrition and a multitude of diseases. Billions of people do not have adequate access to clean water, and some two billion of the Earth’s citizens live in unsanitary conditions. And the third challenge is the threat of ecological catastrophe, the scale of which has now reached global proportions. Modern day “civilization,” which sees one-third of the world’s population living in conditions of plenty while many of the rest go without, has brought the world community to the brink of a global ecological crisis. Some 60 percent of our natural systems are now undermined and it is difficult to say at this point whether they can be rehabilitated.
Indeed, there is significant doubt in the scientific community that the environmental ship can be righted before it crashes on the rocks and founders. The world is confronted by many significant problems, and we need to establish conditions that will allow us to overcome the fractures that separate us so that we can unite our efforts and solve those problems. And that is the topic I would like to address now.
This year marked the 20th anniversary of the introduction of perestroika. On March 11, a large press conference was held to mark that milestone, and I answered questions from reporters for more than three hours. After I had said everything that I wanted to and had explained all that I could about the subject, a young female journalist asked one final question: “Mikhail Sergeyevich, do you believe that perestroika was a victory or a defeat?” My answer was unambiguous. Perestroika, I said, has won a resounding victory.
Yes, it has had some setbacks along the way, but they have never been enough to stop it. It has led a process of transformation that has progressed to the point where there is no longer any possibility of turning back to the past.
That is the historical importance and achievement of perestroika. It not only influenced the Soviet Union but also the world at large, particularly in the area of international relations. It still plays an important role today, and it will no doubt continue to have significant influence far into the future.
Having said that, however, it is important to remember that it is still too early to make any final judgment or conclusions about perestroika. When Zhou En Lai was premier of China, he received a French delegation in Beijing and one of the visitors asked his opinion about the French Revolution, specifically, what influence the French Revolution had had on China. Zhou En Lai said it was too early to draw conclusions about the French Revolution. When he said this, the revolution was some 180 years in the past, but he still wasn’t willing to draw any conclusions about its impact. And so, to those who are now attempting to draw final conclusions about the importance of perestroika, I would say that they should not be in such a hurry. Perestroika will continue to play its role, while its true meaning and significance remain cloaked in the future.
The achievements of perestroika were possible because our decision to introduce it was based on an accurate analysis of the situation in the Soviet Union and in the world as a whole. We decided that the country needed a massive change. And in the second stage of perestroika, we determined that the old system had to be eliminated, and a new one substituted in its place. We knew we could not limit ourselves to half measures. We concluded that, apart from class, ethnic, and state interests, there were also the interests of the whole of humankind. And in that regard our main priority was to rid the human race of the threat of self-destruction. We live in a highly interdependent world, and no country can ensure its own security and prosperity alone. That was the foundation for our main strategic decisions. We chose in favor of freedom, democracy, and a law-based state, opting to bring a halt to the arms race and the culture of global confrontation. And the lessons of those times are applicable in these times.
The world changes very quickly today, and in some ways it has altered so dramatically that is nearly unrecognizable. But just as it was 20 years ago during the days of perestroika, so it is important today that mistakes not be made when analyzing the main peculiarities and prevailing trends in the world. At the Institute of Ethnography in Russia we have been studying globalization for seven years, and we have observed a very controversial, rapidly changing world. And for us, the most important issue in this emerging world is the fate of human beings. What are the main characteristics of this new world?
There is a heightened level of interdependency; and yet, billions of people are excluded from the process. They simply don’t participate.
New giants have taken to the world stage — China, India, Brazil — and they are making their economic and political presence very well known.
The United States has assumed a special place as the sole superpower.
Europe is uniting and expanding, which I believe is a very important development.
Russia and the nations that comprised the former Soviet Union are undergoing a dynamic transformation.
And finally, the Islamic world is trying to adapt to the challenges of the modern world and all the problems associated with that process.
That is the world we live in. That is the setting in which humankind is striving to find answers to the main challenges of the 21st century. In the mid-1980s, new thinking was suggested as an alternative to the old approaches. That new thinking did not come out of thin air; rather, it corresponded with the most important principles of international law and international relations. Today, we need more new thinking for the new century. We live in a different world than the one that existed 20 years ago, and yet we are trying to solve the current problems of globalization and interdependency based on old approaches. That misguided effort has created a lot of problems and has resulted in the waves of instability that currently batter the Earth. We need a new vision to serve the new and varied interests of politics, business, and civil society, and that new vision can only be formed on the basis of study, research, and the work of great centers of learning.
When we stop to listen to people we hear the majority of the world today criticizing globalization in its current form. In fact, they reject it. Most of the world wants to see globalization with a human face. I share that point of view, and I support the movement that aims at a new globalization that believes it is possible to create a different world, a better world.
What kind of a world, then, should we strive to create? Let me remind you of what U.S. President John F. Kennedy said in 1963 when speaking at an American university. He stated that the most important theme of all is that of peace. What kind of world, then, should we strive to create? It is not a Pax Americana imposed by American weapons. It is not a world of grief. It is not a world of slavery. Rather, I hope it will be a world of quality, a world worth living for, a world that offers the chance for every individual and every nation to grow, to build a better life for their children and their citizens. It is not a world for Americans only, but for all the Earth’s people—a world not only for today, but for tomorrow as well, and for all the days that follow.
President Kennedy’s words of peace were obviously relevant when the world was under the real threat of nuclear conflict. But those words are perhaps even more appropriate today than they were in 1963. Let us not forget that JFK also said that any society that cannot take care of its most vulnerable members will not be able to defend forever its prosperous members. I believe that such a sentiment is applicable on both the global and national scale and is as meaningful today as it was in 1963. The future will have to be for all of us or it won’t be for any of us.
More than 40 years have passed since JFK said those important words. Sadly, those years have been wasted. They have perished, as has the man who spoke the words. We should do everything in our power not to squander the years to come. It is important today to look backwards for clues about how we overcame hurdles in the past as we try to evaluate the new realities of the world and arm the human community with new knowledge, new thinking, and a new vision. Without that, we will find it very difficult to rise to the challenges that confront us.
Michael Gorbachev / Former President of the Soviet Union, Nobel Peace Prize laureate (1990). During his leadership of the Soviet Union from 1985 to 1991, Mr. Gorbachev brought about the fundamental transformation of the nation and society through his policy known as “perestroika” (restructuring) and played a prominent role in ending the Cold War. He is currently the President of the Gorbachev Foundation and the Chairman of Green Cross International, and continues to be a global voice for the environment and for a new, more equitable international order.