< Back - Article List - Next > 4.2. INTERVIEW WITH KERSTIN MULLER – she explains the stakes
involved in global political governance. Globalization is one of the central political concepts of our time. What does it mean to you? Globalization means far more than the growing interdependence of financial markets or the worldwide trade in goods and services. Globalization is a trend towards the "dissolution of boundaries" affecting many of the relationships in our everyday lives. We are directly experiencing how boundaries are losing their significance as physical, legal and cultural barriers - but also as frameworks - for the exchange of goods, people, knowledge and ideas. This could result in a gain in terms of prosperity, freedom, plurality and life chances. Unfortunately, this is often not the case. For many countries in the world, and also for population groups within different countries, globalization has a high price. This process gives rise to an enormous pressure for change that calls into question not only traditional forms of economic activity, but also the entire basis of life within society. As a result of increasing interchange at all levels, we are becoming more and more dependent on developments outside our own borders. Nevertheless, we should also not forget the fact that globalization is not an uncontrollable force of nature like the weather, but a chain of decisions in which we were and are still involved. The OECD countries in particular are participants and active promoters of this "dissolution of boundaries," because we believe that states and societies profit from it. Why has the term come to have such strong ideological associations? Unfortunately, globalization's critics and enthusiasts both have their gaze fixed entirely on the economic aspect of this phenomenon. For one side, globalization contains the source of "unlimited opportunities," for the other, it represents the danger of a new form of colonization by the industrialized nations. Where one side extols the benefits of the "global village," the other refers to "global pillage." In many places, citizens - also in the developed countries - experience globalization as interference in their personal lives. They are concerned about their jobs and their social security and they see the democratic welfare state under threat - and with it democracy and national sovereignty. We must take these concerns very seriously. It is true that in the industrialized countries, too, the gap has significantly increased between those who profit from globalization and those who do not succeed in making necessary adjustments. It is also true that globalization has tended to lead to the further marginalization of the poorest developing countries and that the increasing concentration of business corporations and crossborder mergers are resulting in a level of power that makes enterprises increasingly independent of governments. On the other hand, the greater interdependence of economies is contributing to an improvement of general living standards and, as a result of the convergence of markets, to the better use of resources, increases in productivity, and the reduction of inflation. New technologies are giving a real chance to countries that used to have none as a result of their lack of resources. In view of these different effects, it is no wonder that the globalization debate is characterized by ideology. How can globalization be given a political direction? The United Nations Millennium Summit in New York proposed practical steps towards solving global problems. The goal of halving the proportion of people living in extreme poverty by the year 2015 is a top-priority project for the federal government. Especially following recent experiences in connection with the war in Iraq, the federal government is emphatically supporting the strengthening of international law and binding standards, for example, with regard to world trade. The current Doha world trade round must give high priority to the interests of the developing countries. We support the global implementation of principles that have long applied in the European Union: fair competition and economic relations. Global solidarity with the developing nations also includes our enabling the least developed countries to gain extensive tariff- and quota-free access to our markets. Additionally, through our development policy cooperation, we must help them to prepare to meet the requirements of the free world market. Overall, all major organizations, including the financial institutions, should direct greater attention to the goal of poverty eradication in their policies. Personally, I would also welcome it if greater consideration were once again given to the idea of a Tobin tax. However, a foreign policy oriented towards sustainable development at a time of globalization also entails a strengthening of judicial structures and civil crisis prevention. In this area especially, the federal government has made significant additional efforts following the terror attacks of September 11, 2001. These include not only our extensive commitments within the framework of United Nations peace missions, but also the intensification of dialogue with the Islamic world. We have emphatically supported both the strengthening of multilateral development organizations and the establishment of the International Criminal Court. A process of political globalization, parallel to economic globalization, requires a cooperative judicial and security policy. Where can you see that in place today? In his speech before the United Nations General Assembly in September 2002, Federal Foreign Minister Fischer advocated a system of global cooperative security. Particularly against the background of the worldwide fight against terrorism, a system of this kind must be based on a comprehensive security concept that encompasses not only military security, but also the economy, human rights, democracy and culture. Shaping cooperative global security therefore also means shaping a new world economic order. It must take into account the interests of all. Resources must be distributed more equitably and poorer countries enabled to participate in international trade and the opportunities that globalization offers. This presupposes free market access for all, the implementation of political and economic freedoms, and the existence of a reliable legal system. Cooperative global security will have to be measured in terms of the binding legal framework on which it is based. It is therefore essential that the processes of globalization are accompanied by increasing international legislation. International law and the rule of law form the fundamental foundations for a peaceful and ordered community. On the other hand, multilateral solutions take enormous periods of time - just think of the Kyoto process. Isn't politics always going to be left hopelessly behind these rapid developments in its search for solutions based on international consensus? Naturally, the search for international consensual solutions is always a search for the lowest common denominator on which everyone can agree. The Kyoto process does indeed prove that global coordination can be arduous, time-consuming and also - for some - disappointing in its results, but certainly not hopeless. The Kyoto Protocol represented a milestone in global climate protection. Of course, it gives us grounds for concern that the United States still does not want to sign the protocol. Nevertheless, we are continuing to emphatically support that it comes into force - for example, in relation to Russia. Russia and other countries have announced that they will sign Kyoto. That gives us grounds for hope. Many large global conferences in recent years have proven that, despite all the opposition and resistance, success can be achieved in formulating and even implementing common goals. Germany and other industrialized countries can certainly be counted among the winners of globalization. Where then do the opportunities lie in this process for the countries of the South? On the one hand, I'm not so sure that Germany can actually only be counted among the winners. On the other hand, you cannot really classify entire countries as "winners" or "losers" of globalization - especially as the term also brushes over genuine inequalities. Today, economic exchange and communication are by no means "global" in the sense of a network that equally involves all countries and regions. The profits and costs of globalization are currently distributed in an extremely unequal way. The greatest beneficiaries of globalization, however, are those societies in which an effective government is able to guarantee on a lasting basis the "goods" required for economic development - a free economic and social order, democracy, independent judicial institutions, access to education and knowledge, social security. The same also applies for the developing countries. If it is possible there - with support from the countries of the North - to strengthen open, pluralistic societies, women's equality, education and the protection of human rights, these countries will have greater chances of participating in and profiting from global exchange as equal partners. The European Union has decided to open its markets for all products from the least developed countries. What does Europe expect in return? With the "Everything But Arms" plan, the European Union has initiated a development aid program based on market access that is exemplary in international terms. The federal government is also urging other G8 countries to implement similar policies. A commitment of this kind regarding the goal "market access for all products from LDC countries" is also found in the Monterrey Declaration of March 2002, in the Final Communique of the OECD Council Meeting of May 2002, and in the G8 Africa Action Plan. Incidentally, we do not expect anything special from the developing countries in return - for example, in the form of reciprocity for the tariff-free export of subsidized European Union agricultural products. Globalization also has an impact on our cultural identity. How would you envisage a form of development that accepts cultural differences and respects international standards? A special phenomenon of the globalization debate in many countries - not only in the industrialized, but also in the developing countries - involves clear, occasionally frightening tendencies towards discrimination and the return to premodern and frequently nationalistic patterns of behaviour. The terror attacks of September 11 may have further contributed to this by appearing to substantiate grounds for fears of a "clash of civilizations." Yet we must draw a clear dividing line. Terrorists such as Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda network must be fought with all our might. On the other hand, we must strengthen and intensify dialogue with the Islamic world. The important thing here - with all due respect for different traditions - is to reveal the common values shared by all world cultures. This also includes unambiguous support for human rights, especially for the right to equality of the sexes. Discrimination or even abuse of women cannot be justified by any reference to cultural traditions. Human rights are inviolable. Does globalization demand a reorientation of democracy and technological progress, as Ernst Ulrich von Weizsäcker has suggested? Ernst Ulrich von Weizsäcker is right. The true challenge of globalization is political in nature: when more and more decisions are taken out of the traditional framework of authority and responsibility based upon our democratic institutions, which continue to be organized around the nation state, then we must develop new forms of political control and transnational democratic "scrutiny" of decisions. Globalization must not be allowed to lead to democratic deficits. Nongovernmental organizations, and also parliaments and governments, have an important role to play here. They should not work against one another. Business, too, has a duty to make its contribution towards ensuring that globalization promotes and does not hinder sustainable development. The common goal should be: as much global democracy as possible, but without a global government! This is the basis for the federal government's demand for a strengthening of multilateralism and a policy of dialogue oriented towards consensus and participation. And this is precisely where I see the central role of the United Nations < Back - Article List - Next > |