GLOBAL ETHICS FOR THE THIRD MILLENNIUM:
a series of interviews with outstanding personalities
 
Interviews by Patricia Morales
Globus Institute, Tilburg University, The Netherlands
 
Ingvar Carlsson: Civic Ethics and Global Governance

Download the word document --->here
 
Q.        You did a wonderful job as co-chairman of the UN Report Our Global Neighborhood,providing a moral vision to the world politics. On the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the United Nations, this Report has proposed a significant vision for the Third Millennium. Could you explain what the complementary character is between the global civic ethic with shared values and global governance?
 
A.        The human civic ethic adds values to global governance. My opinion is that if you want to have good and efficient global governance, you have to start by agreeing on some common shared values. By shared values I mean freedom of speech, freedom from poverty, the right to education, the right to work, and basic human rights. Even if you come from different countries or have different backgrounds, it is possible to agree to a large extent, in theory, about these values. But you might say that it is different in practice. Still there is a good basis. If you want to have global governance, you need to have a discussion about shared values. That was my experience at the Commission of Global Governance, and we should now come back to the discussion of what kind of world we want to live in and what kind of values the government should lead the political decision-making.
 
Q.        What is the basis of these common values?
 
A.            Common values should be based on political democracy. During the last twenty years, democracy has been successful in Eastern Europe, in Latin America, and in Asia. Political democracy means the right to freedom of expression, the right to secret vote, and freedom of the press. That is a very substantial part of common values. But it is not enough. I think you also have to have shared values on some basic human issues. You should fight poverty, you should fight corruption, which is an enormous problem in the world today, you should have a right to education, and you should have a fair chance to a decent living through your own work. So, there are some very basic principles and the majority of people in the world would agree on them as a matter of fact.
 
Q.            Several UN documents refer to the "human family." Your report is about the "global neighborhood." Could you explain this notion?
 
A.        Well, in the 1930s, we had a Prime Minister in Sweden who said: "I want Sweden to be like a good family, a home for the people." The basic word was solidarity. If you come from a good family it is natural for you to take care of your grandmother or, if somebody gets sick, for you to take care of the sick person, or to support your brother if he is unemployed. He developed this into a principle for a good society, where we care about each other. Today I think we could have the same principles for the global neighborhood. That would provide some kind of basic safety.
 
Q.        How do you see the evolution of multicultural societies and how can the situation of vulnerable people be improved?
 
A.        I will give you the example of my country. In Sweden today we have what we call neo-Nazis who are afraid of immigrants, who are afraid of new cultures. I don't underestimate them in Europe. Unemployment is one factor. For young people, who very early become friends with people with different colors, different backgrounds, different religions, it is much easier to understand and accept these different qualities of life than if you are older. In a world, where there are many minorities with different languages and with different cultural traditions, it is extremely important to have the right to use your language, to develop your culture. There are two important conditions. First, you should have the right to do it, to not be oppressed. Second, in most cases it is important that you have some kind of moral and economic support to develop your cultural rights. I think that we should support pluralism in the cultural sector as part of a democratic society. In Sweden, we have definitely not suc ceeded in giving immigrants equal rights and we have definitely not integrated them into Swedish society in an acceptable way. Unemployment among immigrants is much higher thanamong Swedes who were born in our country. However, it is true to say that immigrants are more successful in defending their cultural lives than their social lives.
 
Q.        What are the major moral challenges in the Third Millennium to achieving global democracy and empowerment of people?
 
A.        I think that, for the young generation, empowerment of the peoples is enormously important. I don't think it is correct to say that young people are not interested in politics. My experience is that they are very interested in politics, but not interested in party politics; their interest is democracy. That is about sharing power and controlling power, and young people are enormously interested in that. Democracy is threatened when young people feel that they will not be given a fair chance to participate. So for me, the future of democracy depends on our keeping and developing real participation. And the old methods will not work as an itinerary. We must try new ways. With the new ITC techniques you can speak to a Member of Parliament directly. I am optimistic about the chances for democracy and for the future.
 
Q.        Are you focusing on the young generations?
 
A.        Yes, the risk is that there are new winners and new losers. The young generation could be the winner, the older generation the loser. The rich countries will also have a good chance to be the winners. The poor countries run the risk of being the losers. If you look at research and development today, an enormous majority of all the investments in research and development are made in the rich countries and a small percentage in the poor countries. This situation increases the risk of new classes in the world, based on generations, and based on knowledge. It will produce a generation gap and a new risk of a gap between rich and poor countries. This is not just a nightmare for the future: it is happening now, as we are sitting here.
 
Q.        Have you any suggestions for change, especially for the poor countries?
 
A.        We must stimulate and increase knowledge. You should stimulate old people, giving them a fair chance to use the new techniques. The poor countries must have more development aid to build universities and high schools, and be given a chance to use new techniques. A global "knowledge bank" could be part of the solution.
 
Q.        I see a bigger danger for poor countries. When the old people have the means, they can be assisted. But what solution is there for the poor countries?
 
A.        I am also more afraid for the poor countries than for the old people in Sweden. I don't have a very simple solution for the poor countries. I only know that if you don't, in one way or another, transfer knowledge to these countries, later compensation is not possible. You must give them a chance and the younger generation, in particular. They must have a chance to compete at an equal level. We must also understand that nations today are not isolated. That is why we need to understand that if people in southern parts of the world do not have a good life, that it is not just their problem. It is also a problem for their northern neighbors because we all, in many different ways, will be affected. That is one reason why we need solidarity.
 
Q.        How do you connect "global neighborhood" with sustainable development and environmental protection?
 
A.        The planet has become smaller because of technical development. We can easily go from one part of the world to the other. The global neighborhood is a neighborhood you cannot escape. You can move from a village, you could move to a city. You can move from a nation-state to a new country. But in the global neighborhood, you cannot escape. Therefore we share a responsibility and an interest in building a kind of society where we can be good neighburs. If China does not solve its environmental problems, they will affect the United States. If there is not a solution to the ozone layer problem, we run the risk of cancer. We have to decide whether we like to be good or bad neighbors. One of the tests of global governance is whether it can rise to the challenge of genuinely global environmental problems: management of the global commons and cross-border pollution.
 
Q.        What role do you expect the United Nations to play in the Third Millennium, in particular, for the full realization of human rights in the future?
 
A.        I think there are three possibilities. One is that you believe in the United Nations and in some kind of global democratic governance. Then you support the United Nations. At the very least you must pay your fees, which a number of countries are not doing today. You must have a global organization that is sufficient and democratic. That means that you have to have a Security Council that does not reflect the situation that existed after the Second World War, but rather the world of today. Every democratic country would have a law system. But at the global level, there is international law. Although we have the International Court of Justice in The Hague, a number of countries do not accept it. We have taken a step forward towards a Criminal Court. We have Criminal Courts for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda. But we need a standing Criminal Court. That will have a preventative effect. But today, unfortunately, I see a threat that we are going towards the following options:
 
The second possibility would be that we say to the United States and, maybe, in the future, to China and a few other countries: "Please, we are not able to have any kind of democracy at the global level. So, would you please be the policeman of the world?" My position here is that I respect the United States, but I don't think they should govern the whole world.
 
The third possibility would be the worst: there would not be any leadership at all. That would mean anarchy. I don't want my young children to live in that kind of world.
 
Q.        Do you really think that?
 
A.        Yes. There is no real reform process in the United Nations. We could move suddenly in the direction of anarchy, without really wanting it. Every sensible human being would say this is a dangerous alternative.
 
Q.        In regard to the law system, do you think a kind of world constitution is feasible? What is needed?
 
A.        I mean if you take the UN law system with its convention on the rights of the children, or on the environment, the evolution is notable. But you have problems when you look at the International Court of Justice in The Hague, where so few countries have accepted authority of the Court. The problem is that the majority of the countries will not accept the jurisdiction of the Court.
 
Q.        The original endeavor of the United Nations was to secure peace and security around the world. What suggestions do you have for realizing these goals in the Third Millennium?
 
A.        Now we must care not only about the security of nations but also of individuals and the planet.
 
Q.        Could you explain the right of petition of non-state actors for the security of people?
 
A.        The right of petition of non-state actors is for the security of people. The majority of wars today are civil wars, conflicts within states. We must expand the whole world's security to include the security of indigenous peoples or minorities. That means an enormous increase of responsibility for the UN. It means that you have to consider one of the basic principles, that is national sovereignty. You must recognize that national sovereignty is important, but, in exceptional circumstances, when human rights are seriously violated, you should have the right to overrule national sovereignty.
 
Q.        That is no longer exceptional, but unfortunately very common.
 
A.        Yes. Unfortunately, you are right. There are severe threats to human rights in the world today. But the governmental meetings at the UN today will not bring up all these issues because the governments are the oppressors. Therefore you must find new possibilities. In our report on global governance we discussed the formation of a group of five or seven persons, very close to the Security Council, giving to the minority of a country the right to appeal to this eminent group of people. That is one way to do it. Another way, which we proposed, is that non-governmental organizations should be allowed to meet once every year at the UN. It is important that the UN is not only an organization for cooperation between governments. It should be, as it says: "We, the peoples of the world." I would also like to include a third security issue: the planet. I want to include it because we, the human beings of the world, are a threat to our own planet; because of nuclear weapons, because of environmental consequences. Without global agreements, I don't think we will solve the problem.
 
Q.        What role do you suggest for the civil society in the United Nations, following the people-centered vision of Our Global Neighborhood?
 
A.        We need to build a closer and more sustainable working relationship between the United Nations and civil society. Both the UN and civil society would benefit. The civil society contributes in shaping both the conditions for, and the results of, global governance. Increasingly, it noted, people with common interests irrespective of their national or other identities are coming together in an organized way across borders to address these. Five years after the completion of Our Global Neighborhood, on the eve of a new millennium, the challenges and opportunities presented to the United Nations by the increasing activism of civil society loom even larger.
 
Q.        What are the major achievements of Our Global Neighborhood, and what suggestions do you have for its realization in the Third Millennium?
 
A.        Well, we have had some improvements, but, unfortunately, not nearly enough. The forces against reforming the UN have so far won out. I hope that the fact that we are now moving into a new millennium will somehow give the reform process a chance. I hope that we will make use of that possibility. If not, I think there will be a decline in the authority of the UN. People will lose their faith in the UN, and that will have very negative consequences.
 
Q.        What kind of evolution do you imagine for the UN?
 
A.        I believe in a democratic reform process. That is the only chance.
 
Q.        Would you like to have a kind of global constitution? And who would be the major actors?
 
A.        That depends on what you mean by global constitution. I don't believe in a world government and I don't believe in a world parliament, but I believe in principles for global governance. So, if that's what you mean by world constitution, yes, then I am in favour of it. A world constitution should give people legal rights, it should have principles for human rights, as well as some kind of principles for how joint decisions should be made in the new world. I don't believe in a kind of world community where there are not different countries or nations. I still believe that the nation-states are the most important political actors. I also argue for new actors. Although international capital today is moved over national borders, and the nation- states cannot decide on a number of important issues which they did twenty years ago, still the governments will be the most important actors. But they will not be alone and they will not have the same powers they had before. I believe that democracy must work on four levels:
 
            At the local level, there will be very different ways of developing democracy through new actors with decisions taken by the people.
            At the nation-state level, I still believe in party democracy. I believe that parties will be the cornerstones of democracy.
            At the regional level, I am not sure that we should have the same democratic institutions as in the nation-states.
            And at the global level, I'm sure that the democracy of the nation-states does not function. We have a number of countries that don't accept democracy. But still, that does not mean that there is no way of having democratic principles and defending human rights, and therefore that we have to find new ways to defend minorities and new ways to protect human rights.
 
Q.        Our Global Governance asserts that the principle of humanitarian intervention must complement the principle of sovereignty.
 
A.            Absolutely. That's an important part of democracy. People defend their human rights. They want to belong to a certain organization, political, religious, or otherwise. The whole time they are pushing in the right direction. That's also democracy.
 
Q.        Could a global constitution strengthen the realization of global human rights?
 
A.        Well, it would be an enormous step forward if the principles that are already in the UN Charter were really respected. There are changes I would like to make, but most of the Charter of the United Nations is excellent. Basically, the problem is not the Charter or the UN instruments, but that a number of countries don't live according to these principles.
 
Q.        Do you think this will ever be universally accepted?
 
A.        No, not universally. I'm an optimistic person and therefore I believe it is possible to get people to understand that these are important principles and you have to push for that. Sometimes you lose, sometimes you win. But if we look back at the last fifty years, we see there has been considerable progress.
 
Q.        Your report on Rwanda has significantly contributed to clarifying that genocide should be dealt with not only in a corrective way, but also in a preventative way. What is your message after the genocide of Rwanda?
 
A.        You need reconciliation after genocide. In the future we must react early and with strength when there are signs of genocide. Early warning is the best prevention and you need very basic ideas in society: democracy, solidarity, equality, and respect for human rights.
 
Q.        What is your dream for the Third Millennium?
 
A.            Peace, security, and equality for the people of the world.