SPEECH BY FORMER PRESIDENT F W DE KLERK TO MCENDREE COLLEGE

27 October 2004

 

BRIDGING THE GAP: GLOBALISATION WITHOUT ISOLATION

 

“The Policeman’s lot is not a happy one.”

(Gilbert & Sullivan)

 

Next week the people of the United States will elect their President for the next four years.  The coming election will be one of the most important in recent history for the United States – and for the world.  This is because it will help to define the role that the United States will play in a globalising world during the critical period that lies ahead.

We are living through one of the most profound developments in human history, the process that we have come to call globalisation – or world integration.  During the past decades we have begun to lay the foundations of a new supranational global community:

• mass jet transportation has brought every corner of the earth within the reach of a single day’s travel – not only for businessmen but for hundreds of millions of tourists.
• satellite telecommunication now makes it possible to communicate with anybody, anywhere at any time and has enabled us to view breaking news and sports events on the other side of the world at the very moment they occur;
• the internet and the world-wide web – which are only fifteen years old – have given every person with a modem instant access to information on any subject from sources all over the world.  They have expanded the speed and facility of international communication beyond our wildest dreams only a few years ago.  In 1990 less than half a percent of the population in first world countries had access to the internet: by 2002 this figure had jumped to 45%.
• Economies throughout the world are becoming more interrelated and more interdependent. Between 1995 and 2002 world trade grew by over 40%.
• All this is reflected in the emergence of a new global consumer culture: the whole world wants the most up-to -date electronic gadgets from Japan; the newest cell phones from Scandinavia; the latest fashions from Paris and Milan; luxury cars from Germany and new and more powerful computers and software from the United States. The malls we shop in; the office towers where we work; the homes in which we live; now look very much the same whether we are in Dallas, Manchester, Marseilles or Shanghai.  We eat the same breakfast cereals; drink the same soft-drinks and watch the same movies and TV shows regardless of where we find ourselves in the world.

 

At the same time,  globalisation is eliciting increasingly vocal opposition from labour, conservationist, cultural and religious groups around the world – as we have seen in mass demonstrations from Seattle to Prague.

• Trade unions in first world countries reject globalisation because it means that they have to compete against lower paid workers in developing countries. As a result, millions of jobs are being exported from Europe and North America to Eastern Europe, Latin America and Asia.
• Non-governmental organisations are opposed to the increasingly dominant global role of transnational companies, many of which now dwarf the majority of national economies. For example, Ford’s annual sales are greater than the combined gross domestic products of 38 Sub-Saharan African countries, excluding South Africa and Nigeria.
• Conservationists are concerned about the threat to the environment that they believe is posed by globalisation’s unrestrained drive for economic and industrial growth.
• Cultural communities around the world ask themselves how their cultural identity will be able to withstand the English-based movie and media onslaught from southern California.
• Religious groups fear that the materialism and rationalism that underlie globalisation pose mortal threats to their faith. Indeed, ‘the clash of civilisations’ between globalisation and Islam is currently one of the main underlying causes for deteriorating relations between Moslems and the West.

 

How should the United States – as the world’s last surviving super-power –  respond to the emerging reality of globalisation?

Throughout its history America has oscilated between isolation and active involvement in the world.

 

At present, the United States is in a phase of active engagement in global affairs.  In fact, if the world has become a globalised village, there can be little doubt that the United States is its Mayor and  – its Chief of Police.   America holds these positions – not because it has been elected to them – but because of its unchallenged  military, economic and IT pre-eminence.

 

America’s role as de facto global leadership bears with it heavy burdens and responsibilities:

• The United States has to spend a disproportionate share of its national wealth on the upkeep of its global military capability; it currently has 500 000 troops stationed overseas and has so far committed $ 200 billion dollars to its activities in Iraq.
• The United States pre-eminence also makes it a target for disaffected groups all over the world. Osama bin Laden would not have targeted the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon if they were not military and commercial symbols of the richest and most powerful country in the world;
• The price of pre-eminence is, and always had been, unpopularity. America must endure the jealousy of some of its oldest allies, many of whom delight in taking pot-shots at her policies, while sheltering beneath her strategic umbrella;
• the United States is likely to be criticised, whatever it does. If it acts to enforce United Nations resolutions on Iraq, it is accused of imperialism.  If it fails to intervene in other crises – such as the present conflict in Dafur – it is slated for being insensitive to the plight of Africans.

 

As Gilbert and Sullivan observed over a hundred years ago “the Policeman’s lot is not a happy one”.

 

Unfortunately, this is the price that must be paid for being the only remaining super-power.  It is a price that was well understood by other pre-eminent powers throughout history  – from the Romans two thousand years ago to the British during the nineteenth century.

 

The temptation under these circumstances will be great for America to withdraw once again into a new period of isolation.  It might well argue that it is self-sufficient and is much less dependent on the rest of the world than most other countries. After all,  America’s imports and exports  amount to less than 15 %  of its GDP compared to over 35% for a country like Germany or more than 90% for Ireland.

 

I believe, however, that the key reality of  globalisation is that isolation is simply no longer an option.

 

One of the implications of the globalising world  is that no country – and particularly no leading power – can any longer withdraw from the international community.   Involvement in the globalised economy will increasingly be the key to growth.  No country will be able to withdraw from the commercial, cultural and technological opportunities that globalisation presents.

 

Neither can countries any longer ignore problems and grievances in other societies.

• Non-performing economies cannot be side-lined and relegated to a basket-case category outside of the mainstream of global commerce; and
• bloody crises and conflicts in distant societies cannot be dismissed with thirty-second segments on the evening news.

 

In the new millennium it will be less and less possible to ignore the stark reality that a large part of the human population still lives in unacceptable poverty, misery and repression.

 

Some will argue that there has been progress; that the portion of the world’s population living in absolute poverty has declined from two thirds to one third in the past forty years.  However, fact is that the total number of people living below the poverty line has stayed about the same – at about 2 billion – because the world’s population has doubled since 1960.  The reality is that in 2002 the per capita income of Americans was more than fifty times greater than the per capita income of people in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

 

In a shrinking world, the problems of one region will inevitably become the problems of other regions and ultimately of the whole world:

• Diseases like AIDS – which first appeared in Africa – do not observe international boundaries. Today more than 1.5 million Americans are HIV positive.
• As we saw a few years ago, economic crises in emerging markets can have serious negative consequences for the whole of the global economy;
• Conflicts and instability in distant societies can reverberate throughout the whole international community. The attacks on New York and Washington on 11 September three years ago have brought this fact home with chilling clarity.  Who would have thought that religious fanatics hiding in caves in distant Afghanistan could possibly pose a threat to the hi-tech nerve centre of the world’s most powerful economy in down-town New York?
• Whether we live in the first world or the third world, we all share the same fragile global environment. The decimation of tropical forests and the extinction of animal and plant species will have long-term consequences for the whole planet.

 

In our globalised society such problems and conflicts will sooner or later breach international borders and affect the interests of us all.

 

It is equally true that the problems confronting a globalised world can no longer be dealt with unilaterally by any single country – regardless of how powerful or rich that country might be.  Problems of global development, global security and protection of the global environment can be dealt with only if the international community works in concert.  The United States can – and must – play a pivotal leadership role in this process – but it cannot achieve success alone.

 

How then should America react to this burden?  What challenges will confront it as global Mayor and chief of police?

 

When the United States first ascended the stage of world power at the beginning of the last century, President Teddy Roosevelt’s approach was to ‘speak softly and carry a big stick.’  He said that by so doing America would go far.  He was right.

 

The big stick is undoubtedly necessary.

 

After the terrorist outrage of 11 September 2001 it was essential for the United States to use its big stick against international  terrorism.

• It was right and proper to overthrow the Taliban regime which had provided the main operational base for the terrorist attacks against America.
• It was essential to put extreme pressure on any country providing a safe haven for Al Qaeda;
• It was equally important to launch a global campaign to track down terrorists wherever they might be hiding.

 

In this, America’s ‘big stick’ played an essential role.

 

There can also be no doubt that had the United States not decided to invade Iraq,  Saddam Hussein would still be in power in Bagdad;

• he would still be coniving at every turn to outwit the United Nations weapons inspectors;
• he would still be circumventing UN sanctions; and worst of all,
• he would still be repressing and brutalising his own population.

 

All these things are true.

 

But it is equally important to remember Teddy Roosevelt’s advice ‘to speak softly’. Military force has an essential place in international affairs – but at the end of the day it cannot create lasting solutions.

 

Military force also carries with it immense risks.

 

It is much easier to start wars than to end them.  Also, the outcome of war is always uncertain.  Wars seldom turn out the way they were planned.   The Austrians, the Russians and the Germans did not think at the beginning of the First World War that the result would be the destruction of their ruling dynasties.  When Napoleon marched his Grand Army into Russia in 1812 he did not foresee the disaster that would soon befall him.  History is full of similar examples – which have persuaded wise leaders to resort to war only as the very last option.

 

In the same way, leaders should think very carefully about launching military actions far from their shores with few sure allies in very volatile neighbourhoods.

 

In these circumstances leaders should consider the advisability of ‘speaking softly’.

 

‘Speaking softly’ requires a multilateral approach to international crises.  It does not mean that the international community must forgo the option of using the big stick; but it does mean that if it is finally used there will less criticism and a greater chance of success.

 

The ‘Speaking softly’ option also recognises that long term solutions can be achieved only by addressing the root causes of conflict –  poverty, repression; ignorance and fanaticism .

 

This is because poverty, repression; ignorance and fanaticism are the oxygen that enables conflict and repression to burn out of control; they are the oxygen that enables organisations like Al Qaida to breathe and survive.

 

It is not by accident that the country that Osama bin Laden chose as his refuge was also one of the poorest, most tyrannical, repressive and conflict-ridden societies in the world.

 

The long term way to combat terrorism must then include tackling the roots of poverty, repression and conflict.  The challenge to world leaders is to address the following priorities:

• the first is the scourge of poverty – poverty arising from the failure of some parts of the world to join in the global march to prosperity;
• the second is the promotion of democracy and human rights; and
• the third is the peaceful resolution of the conflicts that continue to lie at the root of so much instability and human suffering.

 

The United States – acting in concert with other prominent countries in the international community –  should develop the policies, the resources and the will to tackle the root causes of global problems.

 

We need to recognise the symbiosis between stability, prosperity and freedom:  Economic prosperity creates the environment in which democracy and free institutions can grow – and they, in turn, help to promote the stability and peace that are essential for economic growth.

 

There is an undeniable link between peace,  economic development and democracy.  Only a handful of countries with per capita incomes of less than US $ 1,000 are full democracies, while nearly all of the twenty richest countries – those with per capita incomes above US $ 15 000 – are democracies.

 

There is also a link between levels of development and peace.   Eleven of the thirty poorest countries – including Afghanistan – have in recent years been wracked by devastating civil wars.  On the other hand, none of the twenty richest countries have experienced serious internal conflict – with the exception of Northern Ireland.

 

How then can we achieve this symbiosis between economic development, peace and democracy?  Once again I only have time for a few guidelines.

 

In the sphere of the economy, the developed countries must ensure that developing countries are treated fairly in the globalisation process:

• More attention needs to be given to the debt burden of the world’s most highly indebted poor countries – most of which are in Africa. Some steps are now being taken by the IMF to address this problem, but more needs to be done.
• Steps should also be taken to increase the third world’s share in global trade. For example, Africa, with almost one-sixth the world’s population accounts for only one fiftieth of global trade.
• Third World exports need more favourable access to first world markets. The unacceptable reality is that the world’s most developed nations spend eight times as much in subsidies to their own farmers as they do on foreign aid.
• The poor countries also require higher levels of foreign and domestic investment. They have to achieve at least 5% per annum growth levels if they are to break out of the grip of poverty.  And they are simply not getting the investment required to achieve this.

 

The international community also needs to continue its efforts to promote democracy and the rule of law in third world countries.

 

Twenty of the 45 countries of sub-Saharan Africa  have  been involved in wars or internal conflict during the past ten years.  Much of this instability can be ascribed to the lack of democratic mechanisms and protection of the law.

• The international community should do more to encourage third world countries to proceed with democratic reforms and to protect the basic rights of their citizens.
• It should also not hesitate to act against regimes that grossly violate human rights and that subvert democracy. The Government of Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe is a
• It needs to adopt a much more proactive stance in defusing potential conflicts and in promoting the peaceful resolution of disputes.

 

One of the fundamental causes of conflict throughout the world lies in the inability of different ethnic and cultural groups to coexist peacefully within the same societies.   In the post Cold War world, conflict seldom takes place between countries.  In 2000, the first year of the new millennium, only two of the 25 significant conflicts that afflicted the world were between countries:  the rest were within countries – primarily between ethnic, cultural and religious communities. The present or recent conflicts in the Middle East, former Yugoslavia, southern Asia, Rwanda, Burundi, Sri Lanka, East Timor and Kashmir all bear bloody testimony to this fact.

 

The simmering conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians is, unfortunately, a good example of both the challenge that the international community faces in this regard and of the risks that such conflict can hold for the entire world.

• The Israeli/Palestinian conflict threatens the stability of the entire Middle Eastern region with its critically important oil reserves;
• It is causing enormous strains in relations between Moslems throughout the world and the West – and in particular, the United States.
• The passions that it has unleashed have created the environment in which fanaticism and terrorism can flourish.

 

For all of these reasons the United States, as the pre-eminent world power, cannot allow the conflict to spiral further out of control.  Just as war is too important to be left to the generals, peace in the Middle East is too important to the key interests of whole international community to be left solely to the Israelis and the Palestinians.

 

The Israelis and the Palestinians are simply going to have to find some way of learning to live together.  This means that both sides will have to take risks; both sides will have to make painful compromises; both sides will have to accept that military force, and suicide terrorist bombings will only accelerate their downward spiral into deepening conflict.  At the end of that conflict, after immense and unnecessary suffering, they will still have to negotiate.

 

Although the situation looks desperate, I do not believe that it is hopeless.  I recall the dreadful period that South Africa went through between 1984 and 1987.  We,also, were confronted by our own version of the intefada; we also resorted to draconian security measures to restore order; we also experienced growing international isolation and condemnation.

 

But we pulled back from the brink.  We discovered that there was another way: that it was possible to solve our long-standing and bitter dispute through peaceful means.  In the process, we learned the following lessons:

• We could not dictate with whom we would negotiate. Whether we liked it or not we had to sit eye-ball to eye-ball with people and parties that had been our bitter enemies;
• We found that the negotiations should be as inclusive as possible. For that reason we invited all parties with significant support to join the process.
• All sides had to take enormous risks;
• All sides had to make very painful compromises;
• All sides had to accommodate the reasonable concerns and interests of others.

 

Finally we emerged with a new constitution that guarantees the individual and collective rights of all our people and that is enabling us to live together with one another in peace and co-operation.

 

If we could do it, the Israelis and the Palestinians should also be able to do it.  The United States and the rest of the international community can play a major role in this process

• by urging the parties to cease all violent acts and to return to genuine negotiations;
• by insisting that both sides should make the concessions that will be essential to reach a just and last peace; and
• by giving cast-iron guarantees that the agreement that the parties reach will be honoured by all.

 

The most eloquent response to the terror attacks of Al Qaida and Hamas would be to achieve a settlement that would ensure the security of Israel, living in harmony with a viable Palestinian state.

 

I believe that it would also be prudent for the United States, its global allies and multinational energy companies to embark on a major initiative to develop alternatives to oil.

• It would make good sense for the West to reduce its dependence on oil imports from the volatile Gulf region.
• As we currently see, fluctuating oil prices can have a destabilisind effect on the global economy.
• Also, from a purely environmental point of view, we urgently need to reduce polution caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

 

These, I believe, are the priorities that confront the United States in its global leadership role.   The United States should take the lead in

• tackling the problem of under-development and continuing third world poverty;
• in promoting conditions in which democracy and basic human rights will be enjoyed by all mankind;
• in finding peaceful solutions to the conflicts that continue to afflict the world – and particularly inter-community conflicts and the impasse between Israel and Palestine, and
• in reducing the world’s dependence on oil.

 

The United States, as the last remaining super-power, will inevitably have to play a disproportionate role in addressing these challenges.  It is part of the burden of world leadership.  However, Americans should consider that there is, perhaps, only one thing more burdensome than being the most powerful country in the world – and that is, no longer being the most powerful country in the world!

 

World leadership is a difficult business:

• it requires huge expense and will to maintain a military capability with global reach;
• it requires patience to endure the jealousy and criticism of much of the rest of the world; and
• it requires perseverance to address the underlying causes of global conflict.

 

Above all, it requires firm and continuing belief in, and commitment to, the ideals for which your country stands.

 

It should be remembered that most of the great civilisations declined and disappeared from the world stage because they lost belief in the ideals that inspired their birth and growth.  In shouldering the burden of world leadership Americans should not forget why their country became so pre-eminent in the first place.  The key to addressing its global role may be for the United States to resist the temptation of becoming absorbed with what it is accused of doing wrong.  It should perhaps redouble its commitment to the things that it has done right:

 

• the reality is that the United States is one of the freest and most democratic countries that the world has ever seen. Many other countries have liberal democratic constitutions, but the freedom of their citizens is hemmed in on every side by bureaucratic and ‘nanny-state’ restrictions.
• in the United States there are few restrictions on individual entrepreneurs to pursue their dreams and, by so doing, to contribute greatly to the common wealth of the country.
• your country still nurtures a healthy spirit of free competition – not only between individuals and companies, but also between cities and states competing for investment.
• You have an excellent constitution with a well entrenched bill of rights that is enforced by an independent judiciary.
• all this has contributed to your excellence in scientific discovery and technological innovation and to your economic dynamism.

 

The United States can best play its global leadership role by remaining true to the values on which it is based and by working together with the international community to.

• promote the ideals of freedom, democracy and basic human rights throughout the world;
• help other societies to generate wealth by following its example of sound economic policies, free enterprise and hard work;
• work tirelessly for peace by helping to defuse existing conflicts; and
• to tackle the darkness of ignorance and fanaticism by promoting education, communication, understanding and toleration.

 

If the United States can do all these things there will ultimately be no place for the terrorists to hide.

 

A return to isolationism is simply not an option in a globalising world: the question is not whether, but how, the United States should carry out its historic global leadership role.  This is the question that the voters of America will have to decide when they cast their ballots next Tuesday.