GLOBAL ETHICS FOR THE THIRD MILLENNIUM:
a series of interviews with outstanding personalities
 
Interviews by Patricia Morales
Globus Institute, Tilburg University, The Netherlands
 
Ruud Lubbers: A Just, Sustainable, and Participatory Society

Download the word document --->here
 
Q.        What do you imagine society to be like in the Third Millennium?
 
A.        I tend to focus on the concept of a just, sustainable, and participatory society. It's good to see that at least this man, former politician and current professor, thinks it best to concentrate on those three. Why these three? Not because others are less important. Some people say we have to focus on peace. It's an old, good idea. But I think, or I tend to say: peace is a consequence of achieving a just, sustainable, participatory society; or, in other words, to prevent violence it is essential to go for a just, sustainable, and participatory society.
 
Q.        That doesn't say anything about the means but only about the goal.
 
A. What is "means" and what is "goal"? I tend to say that mobilizing people is the heart of the matter. I see this "just, sustainable, and participatory society" as a guideline, as a sort of preamble for the sovereignty of the peoples around the globe. Two hundred years ago, we had the principles of the French Revolution: LibertÇ, EgalitÇ, FraternitÇ. I think we need a new motif. The motif is to mobilize, to galvanize the sovereignty of the peoples. I shall put it in different words, like 200 years ago, when they started in America with the Declaration of Independence. What we now need is a Declaration of Interdependence. What is this interdependence about? Interdependence of the peoples: we and the globe. Only together can we realize a just, sustainable, and participatory society. If we achieve such interdependence, motivate people to do that, then peace will be the result. I do think that the culture of peace and also the culture of cultural diversity are essential. Having said that, for me this is part of this concept of interdependence. This declaration of human interdependence is about realizing together a just, sustainable, and participatory society.
 
Let me explain about justice. We have a long tradition of "pax et justitia." I think that the new generations are a little bit tired of the word "justice," because "justice" is very much related to the law-making process. The word is used so often in variations that people find it difficult to understand exactly what "justice" is about. I use the word "just," to include equity, justice, and equality. Here, equality refers to the equality of opportunities. "Just" is usually more related to "fairness."
 
For fairness, the human rights concept is a very fundamental one. I think the just, sustainable, and participatory society is a follow-up of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We need that declaration as a fundamental. But what is needed is the realization of human rights. I think we have to go beyond what you might call minimum standards. It's part of the human rights system. It's a system to promote standards all around the globe. The standards have to be filled with substance. We need an additional step.
 
Now, let me say a few more words about a just, sustainable, and participatory society. The concept of justice starts with the understanding that people who have to live together are linked to each other. This is the crux of the new challenge. What is new? That you cannot limit the obligation to have a fair relation of solidarity. If you care for others, you cannot limit it to your own family, to your own people. It has to be transboundary. That's the new thing.
 
Q.        Do you like to talk about justice in terms of social justice, economic justice, and environmental justice?
 
A.        I would make another distinction. Environmental and social justice: yes. That is very understandable. But there is another thing. Justice starts with the concept of the integrity of life. That is the basis for justice. Life and human rights are related to that. So, let us start with integrity of life and related to that, human dignity. The UDHR is very much about the dignity of each human being. And the capacity to do something with dignity. That is related to the social environment. The four freedoms of President Roosevelt play an important role here: freedom of speech and of religion, freedom from want, and freedom from fear. These are basic elements. I don't think there is such a thing as economic justice. I think an economy is about efficiency, about creativity, about the capacity to create wealth. It is good in itself. But at the very same time I would like to complement or counterbalance the market and economic efficiency; to create a society which is just, sustainable, and participatory. As I said "just" was always there, it was even called justice. That's a very well-known concept. What is new is that it now has to be global. It is now about interdependence.
 
Q.        Could you explain the meaning of "sustainable society"?
 
A.        The second word, 'sustainable', is new; it was not understood in the past. This is the responsibility in relation to generations to come: not to compromise the possibilities of living with at least the same living conditions as we have. This is intergenerational solidarity. Now, the interesting thing is that intergenerational solidarity has brought us a better awareness of nature and the environment. Nature itself in its value is recognized better today. Intergenerational solidarity is not only about relations among human beings, but also about the harmony of humankind with nature. So there where we talk about sustainability, we include in fact the concept of nature as part of our own being.
 
Q.        Why has "participation" become so important to civil society?
 
A. "Participation" is tremendously important, because we are entering a phase in history in which the global population is learning to read, to write, to participate in knowledge. This makes it possible to participate in society. I think this is very fundamental and related to modernity. Modernity is when we interpret history also the fact that the awareness of peoples increases. It is also in line also with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that is, human rights for each individual.
 
Q.        Do you believe that the Earth Charter contributes essentially to finding a complementary view between ecocentric and anthropocentric positions?
 
A.        Yes, it does. Because, as I said, there is a lot of attention for sustainability. For me, sustainability is the system that connects our cosmos in terms of nature and humanity.
 
Q.        The Earth Charter gives particular attention to the rights of vulnerable groups; for example, women. Do you believe that there is also a particular contribution of these groups to the realization of their potential?
 
A.        It is in line with what I call the participatory society. I believe that there is also a particular contribution of these groups, and women in the first place, because I think that women can achieve a holistic approach more easily than men, which is important. So, I think women will play a special role in the caring for people and the Earth. For example, one of the big problems in life is to find a harmony between paid jobs and work, the economy and other aspects of care. People caring for each other, doing things. To find the right harmony there. Women's role in the family is fundamental. When we talk intergenerationally it is very much about the next generations. By their very nature, women, because, after all, they are the mothers, bring life to a new generation, and therefore have a better understanding of thinking in terms of generations. I think that the new elements, which we emphasize in the Earth Charter, can be promoted by women themselves. I see them as playing an important role. They are not objects of care, they are really caretakers.
 
Q.        The OmCED (Ombudsman Center for Environment and Development) is a project shared by the Earth Council, the IUCN, and the University for Peace. Which priorities do you foresee for the function of this ombudsman centre and what kind of political influence would the OmCED have in relation to national interests? The OmCED is a concrete answer to the need for a new international mechanism of sustainable development and global governance. Could you explain why we need global ethics to achieve sustainable development?
 
A.        I think it is appropriate to have an ombudsman in relation with the Earth Charter, because it is an instrument that goes beyond nice words and declarations and helps us to do better on the interface of economic activities and ecological desires. That is what the environmental ombudsman is about. I think that this ombudsman function is based not only on the Earth Charter there are many valuable documents, declarations, treaties, and whatever. But it is very good to see the connection with the Earth Charter, because it is one of the important instruments on which an ombudsman should base his activities. At the same time and maybe even more importantly, I see the Earth Charter as an empowering instrument for civil society. And as an inviting instrument for governments and businesses to accept these values as relevant to the people around the globe. At the same time, the ombudsman would be a service for the national states respecting sovereignty of national states. Now the ombudsman, as I see it, is a mediating function in the first place. To be a good mediator, you have to make clear from what perspective things have to be done. I think that perspective should be international law, agreements, and treaties, but also the Earth Charter. It should include, of course, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and all documents related to it, which are considered to be beyond the sovereignty of the nation-states, as well as soft and hard law documents, including principles like the precautionary principle and the principle of biological and cultural diversity, and so on.
 
I think we need to be more operational in achieving the aim of caring for the Earth. Or, in my words, to achieve a just, sustainable, and participatory society. If there are conflicts, we do not have an international parliament or an international government that decides. So there can be conflicting interests. There the ombudsman function can be instrumental to finding ways and means for peaceful solutions solutions in line with this concept of a just, sustainable, and par ticipatory society.
 
Q.        There is a common point between you and Ingvar Carlsson, because he wants UN reforms. He wants to include the participation of civil society, and to this end he wants to improve the participation of parliament.
 
A.        Yes, that is the same. I mean that is part of the participatory society. Participatory society is about individuals, it is about groups of individuals and, in a way, it is also about participative democracy. So a representative democracy functions better if it is also a participative democracy. This is the Carlsson line, I guess. In addition, I would say that the civil society can help as well, even if the representatives of civil society are not elected by citizens. They do their work based on a different tradition that of civil society, which means not just as part of politics or as part of responsible business, but in its own right.
 
Q.        Could you give an example of the participation of civil society?
 
A.        An interesting example is the WWF. The WWF is dedicated to protecting biodiversity. Biodiversity itself is a part of the Earth Charter. Starting with biodiversity, we have a program of conservation of what we call ecoregions. We have selected the most important regions in the world. We call them the Global 200. In fact they are a little bit over 200, but it doesn't matter. So, the WWF tries to preserve, to safeguard biodiversity, by concentrating on these areas in the first place. It is impossible for the WWF to do all this work alone; it has to team up with others in the objective of the sustainability of these ecoregions with the local population, the local and national governments, and also with economic actors. They should observe what is necessary to preserve biodiversity. This is the WWF concept. Having said that, I concentrate first on what we call community sustainability. That's to work together with the local population. That is essential, and it is linked with other elements of the Earth Charter. It is not only about biodiversity, but also about the dignity of people; about equity, fair relations, respect for indigenous cultures. Without these elements, one cannot protect nature. We start with nature at the WWF, but we have to link it with other elements as mentioned and elaborated in the Earth Charter.
 
Q.        You will play a role as President of WWF International. Could you mention the major tensions between protection of biodiversity and equity?
 
A.            Biodiversity is the major topic of the WWF. We think that there are no ways to force things. But we try to solve the tensions, preserving the biodiversity. There we start. Then we try to find ways and means. For example, with what we call a certification to promote sustainable forestry. In our experience we can say that, even today, a sustainable forestry does not add to poverty, but diminishes it. Precisely because it is sustainable.
 
To give another example, if we go for sustainable fishery, you might say there are limitations on the extent when you limit yourself to catching a certain fish that still exists in limited quantities. Sometimes you have to take a decision to protect that fish. Nevertheless, when you think hard about it, sustainable fishery is not against the interests of the local people. Therefore, what we are doing with marine stewardship is another form of certification next to forestry.
 
We support sustainable production, but also sustainable consumption. At the end of the day, preservation is not only brought about by conservation and protection, but by producing more sustainably. We have to see how to do this. Therefore, I come back to my concept of a just, sustainable, and participatory society, which is relevant to the WWF as well. The WWF has al ready come to the conclusion that it will be impossible to be successful in this conservationist ambition, if we cannot find answers to things like how to protect ourselves against toxins, or how to change the system of technology in order to protect us against climate change. If we do not find ways and means to eradicate poverty, if we cannot find a way to combine attention for equity with that for the environment, then we will not succeed in our mission of conservation at the end of the day. Then the causes of degradation, both natural and resulting from humankind, will be so strong that we will lose the battle.
 
Q.        Do you see any problem with the global population and biodiversity in the coming 20 or 50 years?
 
A.        No, but I have two remarks here. First, I do think that the growth of the population itself should be a point of policy. I think that birth control, family planning, is an important element in tackling these problems. If not, we are going to run into trouble anyhow. Intelligent family planning is good. And here is my second remark. If we talk about the interdependence of peoples around the globe and about the eradication of poverty, I have the feeling that, maybe, the politicians and the people of the richer nations that is the economically richer nations, with more mature economies have become quite sensitive about global environmental problems. Environmental concern could provide instruments to transfer income from the rich North to the South, from the rich to the less-rich, to the poor. How does this work? If you feel really interested in the ecoregion in Brazil or in Russia, or wherever, you can mobilize funds to preserve them and guarantee the sustainable development of these ecoregions. In fact, you are transferring income there. Income which is very important to the local population, and can fulfil a role in diminishing poverty. So I see a positive relationship between the eradication of poverty and the conservation of nature rather than a tension, because of these instruments. But then of course, there are preconditions that the rich are not prejudiced againsr the poor and act as if they should preserve their forests as a matter of obligation. No. Rather, they should assist them in terms of money and income, to develop these countries in a sustainable way and to guarantee them access to the rich markets.
 
Q.        What do you think about priorities, when, for the eradication of poverty or other goals, tensions arise with environmental protection?
 
A.        The problem is not about priorities. The problem is, I think, the willingness to develop mechanisms. That is the challenge. The willingness to develop mechanisms to diminish the tensions. With generosity one does not only diminish poverty but also improves the possibility to protect the environment. But in any case, it is always about mechanisms to empower people to find their way.
 
Q.            Biodiversity is diminishing while humanity is growing. What do you think of the view that to preserve biodiversity, the needs of the individual are postponed?
 
A.        I disagree with that. It is true, of course, that some poor populations are damaging nature. You can turn it around. You can also say that the only way to get out of this vicious circle is through the eradication of poverty. Then the next question is: can you use conservation as an instrument to diminish poverty? And I think that yes, of course, this is possible. But it depends on the way people are included in the world economy. If it is in a fair way, than they are motivated to go on. If it is functional in terms of less poverty, can I connect this with more intelligent choices such as family planning, birth control, and so on? Is there respect for human rights? That is a basic condition. You could say the same if you have to make the choice between human rights and poverty. Of course, there is no real choice. You need human rights in order to diminish poverty.
 
Q.        I mean between human rights and biodiversity.
 
A.        That is a very fundamental point you are making, but it is essentially the same. I go back to the Earth Charter. I related it to the WWF, but I could say the same for many non-governmental institutions and for governments and business. It is an instrument to invite people to go in the same direction. In the Earth Charter itself, we see a number of values. I narrowed that down to the just, sustainable, and participatory society. In the Earth Charter it is more diversified. So people need to talk about principles: "You shouldn't do this, because it harms this or that principle." Or "You should do that in order to give substance to that other principle." And then you have a discussion. Since people come from different perspectives, dif ferent experiences, different responsibilities in life, and they will not automatically agree. So they have to talk with each other. But when the ombudsman comes into it as well, there is a need to find a way out, to combine the good things, the efforts by the institutions. That is exactly what the Earth Charter is about. I mention it with the example of me, as a WWF per son. I am judging the situation based on biodiversity. But it does not mean that it is another priority than humankind. I try to explain how they relate. This is my job. If there is a person of the international labor organization, that is the same. It is an integrating document. It is a document to invite people to think inclusively, to accept that there are other peoples, that there are other institutionsive.
 
Q.        Is it possible for sustainability to discover a complementary position between biodiversity and humankind?
 
A.        Yes, but let me add something specific. It could be that developing instruments of transfer of income will be easier to mobilize people to go for the environment than to go for poverty. This is a somewhat harsh statement, of course. There can be a win win element in such situations. If you say our global possible heritage is the ecoregions, then you also have a global responsibility to finance what is necessary to preserve them. This can be used to develop a more humane way of living there. I mean, acceptable also from the perspective of diminishing poverty.
 
Q.        Could you describe the evolution of the relationship between human rights, the environment, and development since Rio de Janeiro 1992, and which events from 1992 to the present day have been relevant to achieving global awareness on sustainability?
 
A.        It is going very slowly. Rio de Janeiro in 1992 was a very positive moment. It was comparable to being on the crest of a wave. Since then, I think, we have seen some progress but it is going slowly. As a WWF person, I can say that our membership and the capacity of the people we team up with, including the World Bank, has grown. So we see some progress. But in the world at large it goes very slowly. The last report of UNDP makes it very clear that there are some positive points, but also many negatives points. There is a lot of exclusion. Equity, especially, is not going well. You might say it is more about the eradication of poverty than equity. Nevertheless, around the globe people are better informed about the globe, about levels of income and wealth.
 
However, in some other areas you do see increasing awareness, I mention Rwanda and the whole business with General Pinochet, which ten years ago would have been unthinkable. We now also have the Criminal Court in Rome. These are positive points. The awareness that we have to protect the weak and that we have to attack those who are really responsible for atrocities has grown. In that sense, there is progress. Rio was about environment and develop ment. This is another element, a very important one: the protection of basic human rights. Tribunals, the International Court, the world of law in general provide signals that there is more justice than ten years ago.
 
Q.        If you now take stock of globalization, is it positive or negative for mankind?
 
A.        I would say it is half-time now. It is fifty-fifty. The capacity is there for it to be positive, but it really depends on the extent to which we realize inclusion and avoid exclusion. It is too simple to ask "Are we more successful at inclusion than at exclusion?" I would say, in soccer terms, it is half-time. We see some positive developments, but at the very same time, the situation is very critical. The same must be said about specifics such as birth control and family planning. In a number of countries, things are going better; in others it is still very difficult. If you talk in terms of the economy, yes, a number of countries, traditionally very poor, are now coming out. But we also have a substantial number of countries and populations where incomes have gone down. So it is really difficult to take stock. The only thing we can say is that there is no way back there is global interdependence.
 
Q.        Would you like to have more restrictions on the global free market?
 
A.        We have to make it clear that the free market, as you call it, can have a positive effect on the creation of wealth. That is a moral value in itself. It can boost creativity which is a value in itself as well. But these two things, the creation of wealth and more creativity, are not enough. They have to function in a context. So I come back to this just, sustainable, and par ticipatory society. But I want to rephrase your question a little bit. Wealth generation and creativity are also moral values, I think. But having said that, they do not suffice. So, the three elements I mentioned are very important. You need these moral "orientations"; these do's and don'ts. But you are right, morality is always involved. It always blended with limiting yourself. This is a moral aspect of life. But the limitation has no other purpose than to have a better chance of achieving certain values. If I limit myself in my behavior, the virtue is not in the limitation. The final purpose is to give room to others.
 
Q.        But with the two first values you mentioned, there is a danger of exclusion.
 
A.        Yes, if you do not complement the capacity of wealth generation and creativity with the intense effort to link people, one way or another, in terms of just relations. To link people in terms of generations, that is the thing. To link people in such a way that each single human being can live in human dignity, and that he or she can participate in society. The three related objectives have to be added to the capacity to generate wealth, which is the function of economies. This has to be added to creativity. If not, you are winning on certain points, but losing on others. That, basically, is the problem of globalization today. Therefore, the Earth Charter is needed.
 
Q.        Which kind of cooperation do you recommend between the traditional human rights defenders the humanist tradition (first and/or second generation of human rights) and the supporters of the environmentalist approach (including their third generation)?
 
A.        There are two connections. I'll repeat this briefly. One is that human dignity cannot be dissociated from the base, on which we are living, which is nature. In the past this was taken for granted. So it was always very much about human rights, about the protection of the individual against the state, against power in the first place. Then human rights developed; not only as protection against power, but as an invitation to empower to organize life in such a way that there would be more human dignity. This is the second phase. The third phase is to act in accordance with the relationship between mankind and nature. I think that ecology might be a common instrument, as I said earlier, of transfer of income and transfer of capacities, technologically and what have you, to couple north and south in a better way.
 
Q.        Civil society (including NGOs), governments, and the business sector are key players in the attempt to achieve sustainable development. How can the dialogue and interaction between these players be improved? Which role would you like to suggest for these players?
 
A.            Perhaps I should once again explain to you the two things which we have to distinguish in the world. They are both relevant. We have civil society in relation to democracies and intergovernmental organizations, that is Carlsson's line of thinking. Next to that we have NGOs to influence, to exert pressure on, transnational companies. Both are important. I'm aiming at the symbiosis of governments, business, and non-profit organizations, which is civil society. For this we need both lines. You have civil society in relation to governments and you have civil society in relation to business.
 
Q.        Which reforms of the United Nations do you suggest to achieve adequate global governance in the Third Millennium?
 
A.        We need  what I call global coordination. The NGOs should play a role as well.
 
Q.        What are the major challenges for the Third Millennium, in particular as far as care for the Earth and humanity are concerned? What is your dream for the Third Millennium?
 
A.        I'm not going to talk about the millennium; it is too much for me. Let's say the twenty- first century, the start of the millennium. In order to take the step to what I have called the declaration of interdependence, I think it is essential that we go on with democracies good governance in each nation-state and that, in a related way, we go on with intergovernmental organizations and global coordination based on human rights (developed in the different generations of human rights), then on to the Earth Charter. But, there is the link, the Earth Charter should also address old partners: governments, business, and civil society in a common enterprise to show people what interdependence means. Interdependence means once again a just, sustainable, and participatory society.
 
Q.        Do you look upon the Earth Charter as a world constitution ?
 
A.        I think that those who present the Earth Charter should be modest. There are many declarations. But what is even more important is that those who are active in the domains of Amnesty International, or the WWF, for example, in Nigeria, or the United States, or in the Unilever company or any other company, always, in their day-to-day activities, concentrate on elements not on the total, but on parts of the total. What is essential is to respect the general framework. Each has to do his or her own job, to fulfil his or her own role. But at the same time, that role is connected to many others. As Earth Charter people, we have to learn that if we address civil society people, not to be involved with everything. No, let them be practical, and do their work. But in the wider context, to relate with others with the purpose to achieve together a just, sustainable, and participatory society.