Special Address by Professor Longin Pastusiak


October 24, 2003, 9.00 a.m.

Prof. Longin Pastusiak

Speaker of the Senate of the Republic of Poland

"Globalization and the New World Order"

The Address during the International conference on “Globalization and Social Stress” organized jointly by TIGER and Yale Center for International and Area Studies, Yale University, USA.


Good morning Ladies and Gentlemen.

Thanks to the ambitious changes which started in 1989 here in Poland and even to be more precise in my election district - Gdansk, where the Solidarity was born - and which covered divest area from Gdansk on Baltic See to Vladivostok on the Pacific, we have a new Europe, and a new world. Unfortunately, however, we still do not have a new European order and we still do not have a new world order. Actually as the world enters the twenty first century it is faced with the dilemma: order or anarchy. Will we sink in an abuse of case or will we be able to create a desire for international order - this is the fundamental question facing all of us today. If I use such a strong words to presets this alternative, it is only to encourage every one to seek a solution to Henry Kissinger's statement that today's world is in a state of revolutionary desire. It is a fact that the end of cold war - seen as a rivalry and confrontation between east and west or between United States and the former Soviet Union or between socialism and capitalism - did not create more stable or more secure world. On the contrary, one can say, that the end of the cold war has created more instability, more security challenges and more sources of international conflict. On the other hand it must be admitted that it also created extra ordinary opportunities for solving many problems. I would say that the feeling of fear and hope, usually the dominant feeling during the cold war period, has been replaced by the feeling of hope and fear. When the famous American political scientist of Japanese origin Francis Fukujama called the end of cold war as the end of history, nobody initially thought of challenging that, although it should be clear, however, that instead of the end of history we will actually deal with the return to the history. That is that we face the revival of tradition historical sources of tensions and international conflicts. This trend has been ironically called "return to the future".

Nationalism seems to be growing rather then diminishing in the contemporary world. Instead of one global village we have multitudes of villages on our globe. They are familiar with one another and they demonstrate their nuclear productivity, this increasing the risks of conflict. Territorial claims keep re-appearing in various places around the world. The international trade in narcotics and terrorism are thriving. AIDS, SARS and possibly other epidemics even unknown to many are spreading. The world is de-stabilized by growing number of ecological threats such as ozone layer destruction - green house effect, acid rain, air and maritime pollution, forest depletion, land erosion and others. The exhaustion of known natural resources intensifies the rivalry for excess among the principle consumers. There is a growing threat of proliferation of nuclear weapons - weapons of mass distraction becoming available not only to the larger number of states but also to the terrorist organizations. More and more countries are capable of lunching missiles. State borders are becoming increasingly permeable which in combination with instability (i.e. lack of economic prospects for poor countries) give an impetus to migration processes. These in turn may create ethnic conflicts. The rise of various types of religious fundamentalism, fanaticism becomes the source of domestic and international conflicts. The gate between rich and poof countries is widening, protectionism is flourishing, international debt is mounting, economic dependencies are deepening, and none of those factors contribute to political stability. Conflict generating occurrence and processes are taking place in international environment that is mark to the growing diffusion of power among states and its transfer from national and transnational governments and multinational corporations.

I agree that the diagnosis I have presented may sound to you pessimistic. After all both the international community and individual states are not equal, but of course they try to counter those threats. They are indeed taking certain counter-measures and in doing so they are assisted by the existing international structures like international organizations. They are also assisted by the instruments of state power such as military force. These facts remind us that the international community has not yet been able to establish a new world order following the end of cold war and disappearance of the old world system. If you studied modern history of Europe you will easily notice that the world's orders or, if you prefer, the international orders were always aftermaths or results of major international conflicts. And to give a just a very brief outline of the major conflicts, after that 30 years war in Europe which ended in the Westphalia Treaty in 1648, the established order was based on the principals of the balance of power. Then after the Napoleonic wars the victorious powers at the Congress of Vienna in 1815 imposed on Europe international order which dominated European political scene for exactly 99 years. The Holy Alliance order was destroyed by the outbreak of the world war one. And again the victorious powers introduced what historians call the Versailles international order. It prevailed only 20 years during interwar period. Adolph Hitler attacked Poland starting world war II and destroying the Versailles international order. Of course Hitler came to Poland on the promise that he will destroy the Versailles international order which Germany thought was discriminatory, as indeed it was. After World War II the victorious powers got together in Yalta in February 1945 then in Potsdam in July and August in 1945 and established an order which the historians call The Yalta - Potsdam international order. This order prevailed almost for half century, but again, the Yalta - Potsdam international order is disintegrating on our own wish today. And of course it should be replaced by a new international order but not as a result of the end of a major conflict or war but through the evolutionary way. If we compare historical development in modern history, the logic suggests that at the end of the cold war we should have had established a new international order witch unfortunately we do not have yet. The notice of the world order is not a new one, politicians and not only politicians have been using it for a long time for various purposes. The Irish archbishop Richard Trench - who I believe for the first time used the term world order - said in 1846 that there exists a nobler world order than that in which we live and move today. Fellow name Adolph Hitler also used the term "die neue Ordnung". Before the democratic convention in 1932 Franklin Roswell running for the presidency originally called his economic program recovery from the great depression a "new order" but then changed it to the "new deal". The term "new order" in Polish is called "nowy ład". The term new international order was also often used after World War II; for example in 1974 the United Nations General Assembly developed the concept of new economic order. Subsequently the international community debated over the UNESCO sponsored new information order. In 1975 there was a debate over the new maritime order. The term new international order was also used by many politicians around the world, for instance Michail Gorbaczov while delivering his speech in December 7 1989 at the United Nations General Assembly. He announced deep cuts in a Soviet military protection and he stressed that the continuing world progress is possible only by achieving a universal consensus that will embrace all mankind for a purpose of a new world order. In September 1988 the Chinese leader Deng Xiao Ping called for the establishment of a new international order based on five well-known principles of peaceful coexistence. Among contemporary politicians who have more often used or referred in their speeches and called for a new world was president George Bush the father of the current US president. I analysed his speeches in a period between summer 1990 and March 1991 and in this relativity short period I identified 43 references to establishment of a new international order. At the press conference in August 30, 1990 he asked everybody to put their hopes in the establishment of a new world order. One month later in a speech delivered to the United Nations General Assembly George Bush senior proclaimed himself in favour of the universal band of chemical weapons and supported great efforts to prevent the proliferation of a nuclear, biological and chemicals weapons. Bush announced that he would aim at creating a historical movement for, as he said, a new world order and a long era of peace. In September 1990 at the joint session of both houses of U.S. Congress president Bush explained in some more detail what he understood under the term of new world order. It would be a world, he said, free from the terrorism threats, more just and safer, it will be an era in which all nations of the world will prosper and live in harmony. None of these objectives, as you could easily see, were new. They were the reflection of goals stated earlier in the international documents such as the United Nations Charter. In early 1991 Bush called on a international community to make good on the old promise to create new world order in which brutality will not be rewarded and aggression will meet with collective resistance. When speaking on the new international order the Bush administration would stress the need to reinforce the mechanism that would prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and allow to resolve local conflicts by way of a stronger multilayer organisations like United Nations or by cooperation between major powers Russian - United States. Although George Bush senior often used the term of new world order, he never gave a detail interpretation of what the notion actually meant. The term has never gone beyond serving as a slogan or part of a political rhetoric, even though everyone was expecting American president to finally expand the notice. When I asked when he would actually transform this slogan I was told to be patient and wait for the president's second term, which, however, never came true. Bill Clinton won the elections not by supporting the ideas how to make the world saver or create new world order, but, as you remember, by emphasising economic issues.

Ladies and Gentlemen today the term new world order has two meaning: first, it is empirical description of the emerging world situation; and second, it is a normative vision of the possibility of shaping the international community after the end of cold war. In descriptive terms new world order means defining long term economic, technological, military as well as social political trends that well decide the shape of the future of international relations. It also covers all dramatic transformation that is taking places. This integration of world system is unprecedented cooperation rather then confrontation between the ideological adversaries. The term new world order also covers the emerging international system and the need to create new balance of power as well as new structures. In normative terms new world order refers to means and objectives promoted in different countries with the view to create a peaceful stable and prosperous post cold war world. An important role in a new global order should be played by the United Nations, reformed United Nations, modernised United Nations, and adapted to the new world balance of power and to the new challenges and threats. I believe there is an urgent need to modernise the whole United Nation system which was designed for different kind of world. The new world order must also be equipped with effective instruments, I should say the form of international military force. That force must be constitutionally equipped to react to any potential aggressor who might think of using his army as a tool of pursuing political objectives. Americans believe that the most effective way of insuring world peace and stability is by universal introduction of liberal free market capitalism. George Bush senior often stressed the importance of the International Monetary Fund and of the World Bank in shaping new global order. Meetings of a group of the most industrialised nations - G8 - have replaced the old super power summit conferences. The new world order also means a higher role of diplomacy and diplomatic techniques in international conflict resolution. It means shifting the emphases from military to diplomatic methods. Stability is very often mentioned as desired element of the future of the new world order. The new order is seen as a way of providing the world with more stability and security against possible upheaval. How can it be done, though? Democratisation and the growing struggle for sovereignty in various parts of the world have today contribute more to explosion of conflicts more often internal rather than international, as the cases of Balkans, Russian Federation and examples in Africa. Please remember how the character of conflicts changed: we have less and less international conflicts today and more and more internal ones. The whole United Nation system was designed to resolve conflicts, the Security Council was prepared to resolve conflicts between States and not within States. More then 90% of the conflicts during the last 15 years were conflicts of domestic nature rather then international.

If the global security system cannot be established than we should aim at establishing regional security systems. I am not so idealist and so naive to believe that all of our expectations in regard to the global world international order, will come true. Perhaps while approaching this issue we should use what Americans call the island approach. However, if you look at the world today, the only region, which really has some kind of an order or security system, is Europe. NATO is enlarging, the European Union is enlarging and although none of the security systems cover the whole of our continent, at least it covers substantial part of our continent. Europe today is relatively stable and peaceful, on a contrary to Asia, Africa or Latin America, which do not have any regional security system, any regional security order. Maybe we should press those continents, which do not have regional security system, to establish islands of regional security, which would create a sort of global system. Independently from the alternative shape that the new world order might produce, I believe that United States is the one which posses the largest numbers of assets among all countries. United States has the largest economy, most formidable military, technological and financial potential, as well as the strongest political ideological and cultural influence today. The budget and trade deficit as well as domestic tensions are factors that certainly restrict the United States foreign involvement, but no other country matches the United States in terms of the super power status today. There is no other country at present on the political horizon that can compete with the United States in terms of the national power and international influence. Indeed there is no country besides United States that can combine both the social hard and soft power that is political, economic, diplomatic, ideological, cultural, and military. I have the impression that current politicians are so busy with their everyday activities that they forgot about the need to create new world order for the futures generations. Meanwhile this ambitious task is waiting for it being given an international demotion. Indeed the issue is urgent. It lies in the interest of the international community to create model of international order that the world will try to attain. However, I would like to stress that the new order must not be a creation of one super power regardless how strong it is at the given moment of history. Obviously the question comes in mind who should and is able to take and run in political and intellectual terms that difficult task of creating of the new world order. Under democratic principles which formally govern international nations that task should be taken by all players present on the world political stage. Today, however, it is obvious that the qualitative weight of the individual states differ. Recently the attention of the world public opinion was focused on the status of the Trans Atlantic relations. Both Europe and the United States could play a leading role in establishing new international order. America stands out by its dynamism and fervour. Europe is rich in historical experience to share the burden of challenges that must be taken up. The world needs both America and Europe united in a new Euro-Atlantic partnership. The world order constitutes a type of contract agreed between international players, and not only the most powerful ones, for the purpose of working out the principles and structures that would insure long term global stability for all. However, we can observe that this ambitious task - building a new world order structure - is not an easy process. Still the process is indispensable.

Ladies Gentlemen, let me conclude. The world has changed in the last decade faster and deeper then during the whole period between 1945 and 1989. Today we know that the old world order has broken down and is disappearing. The Yalta - Potsdam international order is indeed disintegrating and on our eyes a new world order is only now beginning to emerge. The end of the cold war and the break down of the so cold real-socialism provided an opportunity to create a new better world order. However that order is emerging very slowly and I should say too slowly. Time will not work in favour of a new order if it is not component by the harmonised international efforts. Today Ladies and Gentlemen, it is not enough to think and to dream about a better, more predictable, and more secure world. Today we must act. We must act locally but we have to think globally.

Thank You.