l market.
This requires changes in the international economic order and global
regulation which I will mention at a later stage. Balanced development
presupposes the creation of an environment for intermixing, cohabitation and
development within the universal market and legislative frameworks of
different cultures. Instead of cultural imperialism there will be a
muliticultural society, instead of enmity between countries with different
political and economic regimes, there will be rapprochement and a reduction
of the multiplicity of economic sectors. There will also be an new trend in
geo-politics: instead of imperialism and the domination of one or a group of
states there will be a gradual process of policentrism.
In the next chapters I will attempt to prove that the trends emerging
at the beginning of the Fourth Civilisation and its main outlining feature
-- balanced development -- are irreversible. At the same time I realise the
strength of the inertia inherited from the past and the strength of other
factors which want to delay global change. When I set out my views on
balanced development before a mixed Bulgarian political auditorium I
received two profoundly different reactions. The representatives of the
former communist party said, "You've gone too far to the right." The other
half of the auditorium occupied by members of the anti-communist groups
commented, "This is left-wing babble".
In reality balanced development is neither one nor the other. It is not
me who has gone to the right or to the left but time and human progress
which have gone forward.
Chapter Seven
OBSTRUCTIONS
1. THE DEFENDERS OF THE THIRD CIVILISATION
During the entire period of the 20th century, the representatives of
different classes, nations and blocs have battled with each other. They
created the industry of confrontation and the belief in its eternity. Today
these same people are the defenders of the Third Civilisation.
E
very historical phenomenon has its own driving forces as well as its
own obstacles. The advent of any phenomenon on the historical scene does not
come as an overnight victory -- this is the illusion of revolutionaries --
but as the result of the gradual propulsion of the driving forces against
the obstacles which always exist to the new. This is also true for the
Fourth Civilisation. The Fourth Civilisation could be accelerated or
hindered by a series of political, economic and moral factors. Although we
are living through the last years of the Third Civilisation, it still has
many adherents. The inertia of the past is alive and its advocates
constantly refer back to the old formulae, "How good it used to be in the
past." I once discussed this issue with one of the initiators of the process
of perestroika in the USSR, A.Yakovliev.[53] I asked him what was
the reason for the conservatism of the older population in Eastern Europe.
He joked in response, "Well, their wives were younger then!"
There is perhaps something a element of truth in this joke.
Conservatives in principle support the regimes and systems for which they
have struggled all their lives. They always tend to over-dramatise the
difficulties of the transition and consider any changes a deviation from the
true belief. Moreover, conservatives are not only divided according to age
or to party membership. There are pensioners who support the coming of the
new and young conservatives with opinions set in concrete. In Eastern Europe
the conservatives are concentrated mainly amongst the former communists, the
former security forces but also amongst many members of the old bourgeois
class who are involved in the struggle for political revenge and the
re-establishment of the political status quo from the time before the Second
World War. In the West the defenders of the old civilisation recognise only
the collapse of communism as a symbol of change and their own thoughts do
not go beyond their own privileges and global domination.
This is an historical paradox. The defenders of the Third Civilisation
are not divided into countries and ideologies. They are all enamoured to a
greater or lesser extent of the structures of the bi-polar model and the
cold war. Masses of anticommunists and anticapitalists, Liberals and
Marxists, capitalists and party bureaucrats, generals and spies piously
believe in their correctness and their way of life. Of course, it would be
improper to reject their past, or the struggles they waged, not the fact
that each one of them in his own way may have been an honourable defender of
his native land. However, this is not the most important element. The most
signicant thing is that they are defending models and attitudes which have
crippled the 20th century and transformed it into the most bloody century in
the history of mankind.
The 20th century will be the last century of belligerent nationalism,
imperialism and the domination of one nation over another. However, albeit
with weakened authority, those political forces who advocated such phenomena
have not disappeared. There are still insufficient guarantees that
globalisation will not give rise to imperialism or that the reaction to this
will not provide more opportunities to nationalism and autarchy. While
thought and ideological criteria remain within the framework of egoistical
national iterests, while global awareness is still undeveloped, the
conflicts of the passing century are still possible.
The question is whether we are for or against the structures of the old
civilisation -- for or against the emerging structures of the new time.
Those who dream of the renewed domination of one nation over another, of
imbalanced international economic conditions, of party and nomenclature
leaders, of media monopolism, of the eternalisation of differences in living
standards are on one side of the barricade. Yesterday the party bureaucrats
and the capitalists were opponents. Today they might even become allies in
the struggle for survival and the survival of the structures of the Third
Civilisation. Still prisoners to their old ideologies and international
confrontations they maintain those ideas and structures which could still
return us to the time of the Cold War or grant us a period of Cold Peace.
Fighting with each other, the proponents of the Third Civilisation can only
renew fears, thoughts and activities which leave us in the grips of the
past.
In Spain there is a monument to the memory of both the supporters of
Franco and the Republicans. In one and the same place, under one and the
same cross are gathered the honour and the debt, the errors and mistakes,
the greatness and the perdition of people who killed one another. The names
of the killers are illumiated by those of the victims, whatever side they
may have fought for, whatever side of the barrier they may have belonged to.
In Spain the reconciliation of history is already a fact. In Bulgaria, the
former Yugoslavia and partially in Poland there are still many people who
believed that Gorbachev was a CIA agent while in the USA there are those who
consider Clinton an American communist.
The sooner such thinking disappears, the sooner we shall become awards
of the problems and the greatness of the new civilisation. In order to
understand the new, we must forget the old language, the old categories of
division, the old enmities and prejudices. The Cold War is over but the Cold
Peace and mistrust could unknowingly lead us back to it. Unfortunately this
is not all. The life of the Third Civilisation could be prolonged via the
maintainance of the economic and political structures which were typical of
the 20th century. In most general terms, these structures can be united into
two mutually conditional phenomena, which albeit in different forms have
supported the current world conflicts. These are imperialism and nationalism
and their modern manifestations. As paradoxical as it might seem, these two
satellites of the 20th century are supported by one common culture -- that
of violence and confrontation. The alternative to violence and confrontation
is tolerance -- the recognition of differences, respect for the problems of
others, responsibility to help those who are worse off. Perhaps, it is
indeed tolerance as an alternative to violence which is the most important
feature of the political culture of the Fourth Civilisation.
2. THE GREAT THREAT -- MEDIA IMPERIALISM
With the passing of the Third Civilisation it is also possible that the
imperialist dependencies between nations will disappear. However if the
abstract liberal trends of the past continue to develop this may lead to new
forms of imperialist domination -- less overt but with equally dangerous
consequences.
T
he first manifestations of the global world were inseparably linked
with the ambitions of empire and the growing power of the most developed
countries of the time. The colonial system, international trusts and
cartels, the redistribution of the world into zones of influence and two
world wars was an expression of imperialist domination. The division of the
world into two systems and the cold war was also a form of international
imperialism.
The main slogan used by Lenin, Stalin and their followers was the
"struggle against imperialism". They, however, created a system closely
based on imperial allegiance. If Gorbachev with his power had begun a
process of the gradual reconstruction of Eastern Europe and the world,
imperialism could have been replaced by the agreed establishment of a new
world economic, informational and legislative order. I am convinced that
such a policy would have found support amongst the majority of the political
and intellectual circles in the West.
Gorbachev's failure was to allow the Eastern European regimes to
collapse without any dignity opening the way for the globalisation of the
world without removing the danger of new imperialism. The gap between the
poor and the rich remained as wide as ever. The differences in political and
military power were so different that the danger of imperialist domination
remained. Of course, it would be imprudent to suppose that imperialism might
return in its old colonial forms or to the time of the Cold War. Although
the wealth of the world is divided as unequally as 150 years ago, many
things have changed. The colonial model has been rejected by history.
Anti-monopoly legislation has put down deep roots, major changes have taken
place in peoples' awareness and the infrastructure of the UN and other world
non-governmental organisations have expanded guaranteeing the rights of all
the citizens of the earth. Thus the old type of coercive, belligerent
imperialism has for ever been consigned to the past.
I ask myself, however, whether imperialism as a method of domination of
certain nations over others has finally died. I do not think so. In fact,
the opposite may even be true. Together with the globalisation of the world
there are now new pre-conditions for a new type of imperialism, of a new
type of domination by one people over another. This, without doubt, is one
of the greatest dangers facing world development and the establishment of
new relations within civilisation. The most powerful modern force for
globalisation is the trans-national corporations. Their roles can be as
positive for development as they can lead to its deformation. At the
beginning of the 1980's the trans-national corporations accounted for one
third of the world's industrial production. Their appearance in Russia and
China after the democratisation of their regimes made them, especially in a
number of specialised branches, the absolute rulers of world production. As
a rule the trans-national corporations take national legislation into
account but in global terms they are uncontrollable. This allows them to
redistribute enormous funds and to exert influence in all spheres of social
life. In recent years the trans-national corporations have tended to
decentralise their activities and adapt them to the conditions of the
countries in which they are operating. A typical example of this are the
European operations of Ford and a number of Japanese corporations.
This, however, is insufficient. If the present state of the
distribution of global production and products is allowed to persist then
the imbalances in world development will worsen. If the status quo remains
without significant changes in the world economic order then the rich will
become richer and the poor even poorer. International imperial power in this
case will not be guaranteed by armies and conquests but via financial
operations, technology and the structures of the trans-national
corporations. The finances and management structures will remain in the most
developed countries of the world. The countries which provide cheap labour
(predominantly in Asia) will manufacture products without seeing any
significant improvement in their life while a groups of other countries
(equatorial Africa) will remain for some time to come in the grips of
poverty.
It seems as though the imperialism of the 20th century and the
domination of the super powers is on its way out. Or does it only "seem" so?
If the structures of the old civilisation are preserved for any longer this
will not only serve to delay the reform processes but it may also lead to
serious new local and world conflicts. Imperialism which was the main cause
of the crisis of the Third Civilisation might simply mutate its form.
Imagine a world in which 80% of the news, 70% of the technology, 60% of the
films and 50% of all profits are created in two or three countries. Imagine
that all other countries are dependent on those news broadcasts and that the
awareness of their peoples is modelled by a group of media magnates. Does
this not closely resemble some of the predictions made by George Orwell?
Will it not lead in the long term to reactions from the majority of
countries and peoples?
I would call this phenomenon electronic or media imperialism. By this I
mean the monopolisation of the world's media and culture by individual
nations and trans-national groups. The danger of such a system dominating
the world is evident. If globalisation proceeds in this way, if the global
world does not turn into a world of mono-truths and mono-cultures
disseminated by one or a number of centres than this will lead to a mutation
of human development and will render us dependent on new empires. Today the
ambitions of empire are not manifested through wars of conquest and battles
for resources but in the endeavour to dominate as many sectors of markets,
cultures and media regions as possible. There are only a few countries and
corporations in the world which can afford the development of world-wide
television networks. Only few can survive in the sphere of super
investments. National legislation is powerless. This allows for unbelievable
global power. It can make people accept standards, buy goods and accept
truths broadcast from the screen by a group of media magnates. I do not
think I am oversimplifying the situation. I am convinced that the majority
of the owners of the world media are conscious of their responsibilities to
the citizens of the world. I believe that Ted Turner the founder of CNN is
one of these. His company promotes respect for the culture of all the
countries of the world. However, despite the efforts of such people the
consequences of media imperialism can be dramatic. The danger is that the
television and radio channels of the world are monopolised by the
representatives of those countries who have the historical advantage over
the rest of the world. The USA, Europe and Japan are the leading countries
in this respect. Russia, China and a number of other countries are
relatively well protected because of their scale and their capabilities. But
what about the rest? What will happen to the culture of the smaller and the
poorer nations, their culture and their identity?
If the trend of the 1980's and early 1990's continues and if global
media continue to express the positions and the cultural policies of but a
handful of countries this will strike a serious blow to many other countries
and peoples and will have a general delaying effect on the processes leading
to the advent of the new civilisation.
To begin with a large number of small cultures will disappear taking
with them the identity of many peoples. As can be seen in a number of
countries this will cause defensive reactions and lead to protective
nationalism. In the end this will cause complex political conflicts and will
turn the world into a world of a small group of dominant nations. Electronic
or media imperialism is the remnants of the Third Civilisation, reborn into
its final possible form of the domination of one people over another.
I see the solution to media imperialism in pluralism and the gradual
construction of national electronic media in the poorer countries and in
multicultural policies of the world television media. For at least the next
20--30 years cultural and media production will be concentrated in the hands
of a small group of countries. During this period it will be necessary to
form a new attitude which takes into account the interests of the smaller
and poorer nations and cultures. The problem does not end here. It also
concerns the cinema, video, cable television networks and satellite
television. Clearly the new media technology can be used to stimulate world
development, but at the same time it could lead to the destruction of the
traditions of many peoples. A major question, especially in the conditions
of the transition, is how will we use the new technologies and what will be
the consequences for world development.
3. POST-MODERN NATIONALISM
Nationalism as we knew it in the 20th century is the antipathe of the
new civilisation, the global world, the intermixing of national cultures.
Its chances of survival depend on it changing its limits and forms.
T
he Fourth Civilisation will be a time of openness hiterto unseen in the
world. However, it will also involve a difficult, sometimes painful
combination of different cultures and economics. We would be completely
naive, however to believe that this "intermixing" will come about
automatically simply because culture and economies are becoming globalised.
If the processes are left to blind chance, the world will find itself beset
with many local and regional conflicts, local wars between ethnic groups,
religions and cultures.
In practice this means the artificial blocking of globalisation, new
contradictions and in the long run, the restoration of confrontationalism.
Although such a danger is also posed by the "march of the poor" and by the
reaction against media imperialism, the major resource of such a gloomy
prospect is undoubtedly nationalism. John Lukac defined nationalism as the
greatest political force on the planet. Although I doubt whether this
conclusion is absolutely precise, I find myself concurring that nationalism
is still very stubborn and persistent especially when one takes into account
the inertia of the political thinking of the past. For the whole of the 20th
century nationalism has been the driving force, notwithstanding the official
"domination" and propaganda of communist, liberal, socialist and other
ideologies. Very frequently these ideologies have been but a facade for
nationalism. Stalinism and Nazism are perhaps the best examples of this.
Can globalisation and nationalism be reconciled? This appears possible
only if we equate nationalism with something new, if it changes from what it
was in the 20th century and does not stand in the way of globalisation.
Otherwise nationalism will find itself in very serious conflict with
objective trends in the development of the modern world. On the other hand,
globalisation will either be a bridge leading to the resolution of total
poverty of billions of people or it will stimulate the most mutated forms of
nationalism. Let us think for a moment about this important mutuality.
Globalisation which unifies the world by destroying local customs and
traditions and by killing small cultures cannot avoid causing mutation and
reaction. Consequently, only globalisation based on and stimulates diversity
can be an alternative to reactionary nationalism and stimulus for the
structures of the Fourth Civilisation. At the end of the 20th century after
the collapse of the Berlin Wall, the dominant factor of world development is
openness. There is now only a small groups of states (e.g. North Korea)
which maintain policies of isolation and the absolutism of their own
traditions.
At the end of the 20th century, nationalism might reappear as an
ideological movement protected by culture and religion. Ideological
nationalism is a relatively rare phenomenon in the modern world although in
a certain number of poorly-developed countries of Africa and Asia it might
seen as a panacea for the resolution of serious problems. North Korean
communism, for example, is ideological nationalism wrapped in a mask of
dead-end ideology. A more widespread and typical form of nationalism at the
end of the 20th century is defensive nationalism. This may appear in any
country which feels under threat, for the survival of its economy from the
invasion of imported goods, its culture -- from the invasion of foreign
information and cultural products. Defensive nationalism is not necessarily
cultural or religious. It often appears as a result of economic reasons or
is linked with historical and political aims of particular nations. The
question is not whether this is the "defence" of an individual small culture
from the invasion of foreign media or "protection" against an undisputed and
powerful culture from the presence of foreign immigrants. In both cases this
leads to conflicts, isolation, blocks the processes of globalisation and
gives rise to chimera and xenophobia. Ethnonationalism is similar in
character and is also widespread. The explosion in ethnic self-confidence
and self-determination is a direct and explicable reaction in the struggle
for survival in the conditions of globalisation. When, however, this
self-awareness has specific historical, cultural and religious roots it can
give rise to serious conflicts.
Why is nationalism on the rise? Why has this happened despite the
continuing intensive processes of globalisation? Why in many places has
nationalism taken on extreme forms and lead to military conflicts?
The reason is that the surge of nationalist feelings is a reaction to
informational and cultural imperialism, to the invasion of the world media
and trans-national coporations. In such conditions is has become convenient
and fashionable for politicians and ordinary people to re-identify
themselves as the members of a regional family. In the poorer countries the
rise in national self-determination is a result of former humiliations and
repressed ethnic awareness. Before the fall of the Berlin Wall the new
nationalism was less important than the struggle between the two world
systems. Today, however, this is not the case. National survival and
self-determination has replaced Marxist and Leninist teaching in the East
and the liberal-conservative doctrines in the West. They have filled the
emotional, spiritual, economic and political vacuum almost totally
unhindered. Finally, self-identification and its consequent nationalism
within modern conditions has become possible as a result of the reduced
authority of the nation state as a consquence of globalisation.
Nationalism is not the only, but undoubtedly the major reason for the
possible new division of the world into opposing economic or military and
political blocs. The regrouping of countries into new economic alliances is
a part of the geo-political restructuring of the world. Here the danger is
in the trend for the divisions to turn into confrontation and the bi-polar
model to be replaced with a new bi- or tri-polar oppositional structure.
What will predominate in the future the global prospects for the Fourth
Civilisation or new regional isolation? Nationalism, combined with regional
autarchy or forms of the new open world society? I believe that the answer
to this question will still be unclear for the next few decades. There is an
undisputed trend towards global integration and the advent of the new
civilisation. It is inevitable and it will continue. However, the question
whether this process will involve a new phase of world conflicts and
collapses, whether there is a danger of evil egoism dominating the world
will depend to a very great extent on the means and forms of globalisation.
4. THE EGOISM OF POLITICIANS
The responsibility of politicians is not to incite conflict but to
resolve them, not to serve the people of the past but to open up the
potential for the future.
T
he advent of the New Civilisation is indisputably irreversible.
However, when it will come and what controversies it will bring with it
depends to a large extent on the modern political leaders. There is grounds
to speak of the possibility of the formation of new global elites in
accordance with the great structural changes on a world scale. They will be
above all the leaders of the trans-national corporations and other
international companies, international traders, representatives from the
world of show business and intellectuals who identify their lives with the
progress of the whole world.
Would it be correct to say that the majority of contemporary world
politicians are the defenders and advocates of the Fourth Civilisation?
Hardly. The mass of people seem to be conservative defenders of the Third
Civilisation. There are exceptions, of course, such as Jacques Delor, Hans
van der Bruk, Leo Tindemans and other architects of European integration.
Other exceptions include those politicians who have contributed much to
world peace such as Bill Clinton, Itsach Rabin, Edward Shevardnadze and many
others whose world view is more global than local.
Unfortunately, the majority of modern politicians are influenced not by
global responsibilities but purely local and national interests. This local
egoism is above all a product of the political structures themselves. In
every country where there is a pluralist structure the party leaders have
the responsibility to their own parties or at best to their countries while
members of parliament are responsible to their constituents. Even when the
level of education and intellect of the politicians makes them aware of the
interests of others their dependency on the national and local systems
renders them powerless before the challenges of the New Civilisation.
Minimal efforts are necessary to bring a halt to infant mortality all over
the world and the funds needed to finance this are less that 1% of the
budgets of the industrialised world. Young people at universities are more
interested in the resolution of environmental problems than the elected
representatives of the nations. However, the egoism of politicians is a
product of the electoral systems and the necessity for each politician to
defend first and foremost the current interests of his electors. In this way
the richest countries and peoples of the world are protecting their own
interests above all and the problems of the starving and childrens'
illnesses remain in the periphery of their thoughts.
The political forces which should work to establish the Fourth
Civilisation are not yet clearly identified. They are somewhere amongst the
different interests and competition of the trans-national corporations,
amongst the group of leaders of the major nations and the representatives of
the intellectual community and environmental movements etc.. Despite the
successes of the New Civilisation, despite the growing global awareness,
these forces are insufficient. Clearly, for an indefinite period of time the
majority of politicians will play a conservative, rather than a progressive
role in the furtherment of global relations. Today the political awareness
of the majority of people involved in such activities goes as far as
agreeing to inter-state positions almost exclusively on the basis of
national interests. The expansion of global problems is still in no-man's
land.
There is a clear need for changes in the culture and the awareness of
the political elite as well as changes to the political systems. One has to
admire the majority of modern European politicians for their constancy and
stubborn resilience with which they have built the European Union. It is not
customs mechanisms nor the development of a prototype European parliament
which should serve as shining examples to the rest of the world but the
gradual development over a period of forty years of the dynamic processes of
the European idea. However, even here there are a number of examples where
the European idea has been compromised by national ambitions and prejudices
or has been used demagogically for local political interests. British,
French and German members of the EU parliament acknowledge the interests of
those who do not want to give up its privileges and to accept their
challenges of economic and political integration. Analyses have shown that
these are people who put priority on the interests of the manufacturers in
their constituencies or a simply victims of limited political thought.
The main reason for the egoism of politicians is inherent the nature of
the political systems, in the national limitations of the concept of
political responsibility, in the weakness of the link between the electoral
mechanisms and the concern for future generations.
5. MILITANT RELIGIONS
When a shell exploded in the market place in Sarajevo and killed dozens
of people, a young woman cried out, "Allah, have revenge for me..." A friend
of mine from Serbia told me how a detachment of Muslims in Bosnia raped a
group of women and them murdered them... The hatred which he spoke was
enough to last him for the rest of his life.
T
he ethnic war and cleansing in Bosnia, the religious attacks in
Algeria, the fundamentalist attacks in Egypt, the victory of the Islamic
party in Turkey, ethnic and religious problems in Iran, Iraq, Northern
Ireland, Israel and Palestine, India and dozens of other places all over the
world are all steeped in the blood of continuing religious conflicts. They
are sometimes referred to as the militant religions. Perhaps this is
correct. Religion and faith is the greatest unifying principle, the
strongest mass feeling overwhelming emotions, traditions, indignation and
interests and unites them under a common will. Whoever captures this will
shall be victorious. It is true that there is no life without faith just as
there is no matter without spirit. No-one can deny that the major
traditional religions have survived for many thousands on this earth and
they will clearly survive for many more. Religions have learnt how to adapt
to new processes and phenomena, to demonstrate flexibility and to
acknowledge the needs of the people. Some call this pragmatism, others call
it hypocrisy.
The great challenge of the modern day which faces all world religions
is should they adapt to the global world or should they continue to fight
over their old conquests. The dilemma is either to adapt to the open and
modern world or to defend the life and traditions of the past, to integrate
religious symbols into a modern, open economy or isolation and a war of
cultures. Another great challenge is tolerance between religions. Will they
continue to fight with each other or will they allow co-existence with other
faiths and the free choice of people?
The militant isolationist and totalitarian religions are in opposition
to the New Civilisation. They and their representatives form part of the
obstacles to the advent of the new. There is little doubt that the conflicts
arising from the conflict of open societies and cultures will frequently be
based on religious principles. I and inclined to think, however, that the
role of the militant religions will grow only if this is allowed for by
certain preconditions such as poverty and nationalism and the spread of new
utopian ideas.
When in 1991 President George Bush and his aides unexpectedly halted
the American invading force en route to Basra and Baghdad many people could
not understand why he did this. Five years later it is now clear that the
Americans had to choose between the consequences of religious conflicts or
the preservation of the regime of Saddam Hussein. Militant religions can
take power, as they did in Iran or they can halt the processes of
modernisation of entire regions. However, they can do little more since for
the same reasons for which I reject the thesis of S.Huntington I believe
that religious modernism will prevail over fundamentalism.
6. A CUP OF COFFEE IN APENZEL
The defenders of the Third Civilisation do not only live in the poor
countries. A large number of them live in resplendent luxury and comfort or
in conditions of social harmony alien to four fifths of the world. These
people live in the West and do not want global change...
H
ave you ever been to Apenzel? It is a Swiss Canton with a capital of
the same name on the road from the lake of Boden to Liechtenstein. It is the
smallest, best ordered and quietest of all the cantons in the Swiss
confederation. There are no large factories as there are in Basel or the
vanity of the financial centre of Zurich. There are none of the bank
employees forever in a hurry or the limousines of the major banks. Apenzel
has the the cleanest cows in the world, the most beautiful green fields
merging in the distance into the majesty of the Alpine peaks. It is a land
of peaceful, almost invisible work where everyone knows what to do and when
to do it. If you get the chance to go to the capital of the canton, take a
walk across the bridge and a stroll through the little town and you will
feel as though you are in a fairy story. The flowers in the windows, the
decorated roofs of the houses and the hidden little backstreets.
My reason for writing about this is because Apenzel is not only the
smallest and most comfortable canton in Switzerland but also the most
conservative. Here the majority of the people do not want any form of
change. For them Switzerland's membership of the European Union is a
dangerous event with unforeseeable consequences. I stopped in Apenzel for a
cup of coffee and a cake in the summer of 1993 and my contacts with the
local people made a strong impression on me. This was not only because they
had voted against Swiss membership of the EU but for the reasons which they
explained to me.
The people passionately and convincingly did not want to become part of
the united Europe since they were afraid that the underdeveloped European
countries would hold back their development and their towns "would be
invaded by immigrants" and that they were "getting on very well without the
Common Market" etc.. I would not have bothered to mention this event if this
attitude was not repeated in other wealthy parts of the world. One of the
main sources for the rising xenophobia in Germany, France and Austria is
this unwillingness to share their wealth with others and to experience the
risk of cultural intermixing.
In contrast to the supporters of Zhirinovski in Russia who admire his
defence of traditional Russian values or Erbakan in Turkey who advocates the
traditions of Islam against the modern processes taking place in the West my
experience in Apenzel has completely different origins. I could call it
result of "resplendent comfort". Millions of people in Western Europe and
North America are entirely satisfied by their lifestyles and do not want to
jeopardise the status quo. Employment, security, mistrust of other cultures
are reasons for which they prefer nationalism to the open world and the
advent of the New Civilisation.
Do not be angry with the conservatives of Apenzel. This is not an
emotional but a widespread cultural and political phenomenon. It manifests
itself in many forms of protective nationalism and is the social basis for
potential serious conflict against the Fourth Civilisation. About ten years
ago the French Nationalist, Le Pen, seemed a political curiosity, now,
however, he is accepted as something real and necessary by many
intellectuals. Such is the case with the Austrian Nationalist J.Heider whose
party categorically won third place in the country and has even greater
political ambitions.
Thus the defenders of the old civilisation come not only from amongst
the ranks of the fundamentalists, the supporters of Islam or the
ultra-nationalists from the lesser developed countries. They also come from
the West, from its more conservative circles, from people who are frightened
of losing the luxury which they have achieved. Undoubtedly the New
Civilisation will involve the intermixing of cultures and economies, the
global redistribution and harmonisation of resources, production and
benefits. This will also lead to structural changes and even cause
difficulties in the most developed countries of the West. Will the people of
these countries be prepared to concede some of the privileges which their
current state of economic and political advantage allows them?
This "drowning in luxury" will continue to hold back the progress of
the New Civilisation and lead to a variety of conflicts and other hitherto
unknown phenomena. Together with the slow and gradual opening-up of the
world and its cultural intermixing we will also become witnesses to
processes of temporary "closing-up" and the victories of nationalists and
fundamentalists. If in the richer countries of the world those who live in
states of "resplendent luxury" win this battle imperial or neo-colonial
thinking and fundamentalism will inevitably increase.
Section Three
The Alternatives to the Fourth Civilisation
Chapter Eight
THE NEW ECONOMIC ORDER
1. THE ECONOMIC HEART OF THE GLOBAL WORLD
Throughout the whole of the 20th century the economic dependence of
nations grew to become what is the now the nucleus of the New Civilisation.
One essential part of the modern infrastructure is the supra-sovereign
control of nation states. The main question is whether this will lead to a
new economic order or will it revive the familiar conflicts...
T
he economic interaction of countries and peoples is at the basis of
each human community. "Economic interaction" is not always the leading
factor but is does always dominate. It challenges not only the autonomy of
particular communities but also their unification into nation states. The
new elements of the 20th century is that the modern global economy is
becoming less and less an object of control of national govern