Taiping Inaugural Peace Lecture
Doing Peace Globally and Locally
by Tan Sri Razali Ismail
on the Occasion of UN Day, 24th October 2002
I am honoured to have been invited by the United Nations Malaysia to deliver the inaugural Taiping Peace Lecture on the Occasion of United Nations Day. I am also delighted to be associated with The Taiping Peace Initiative, the objective of which is to involve the community, the private sector and government agencies in promoting ‘inner peace, peace with other people and peace with the environment’.
2. I am particularly pleased at being offered the opportunity to address the subject suggested by the organizers: ’ Doing Peace – Globally and Locally’ on the occasion of United Nations Day. Rather then using this opportunity to praise the United Nations for its many achievements in the years since its establishment, I hope in the context of my talk not only to address the matter at hand, but also to try to use the little time I have available what the UN means to all the world’s citizens in today’s context. Of course, in order to sensibly assess what the UN’s role should be it is necessary to first delve a little deeper into history and mechanics of international society, and the changing patterns of interaction between all global actors.
The Changing Face of International Relations and Diplomacy
As I was taught when I was a diplomat, conflict tended to be seen as a product of competition between nation states for geopolitical supremacy, geopolitical influence, access to natural and human resources, and to access to markets. In the latter half of this century relations between states came to be seen through the larger prism of the Cold War. This pitted the United States and its allies and the former Soviet Union and its allies against one another, in competition, not only for geopolitical, but also for the ideological supremacy. Strangely the world was largely peaceful because of the threat of nuclear destruction. When conflict did occur, it tended to be on the geopolitical periphery of the two superpowers’ influences, in places such as numerous African countries, Afganistan and Vietnam.
4. Of course, as Henry Kissinger reminds us in his masterful work ‘Diplomacy’ this conception on the world essentially is grounded in the emergence of so-called ‘balance of power’ politics in Europe in the eighteenth century. This primary accorded to the nation-state in such concepts of international relations, meant that the influence of other factors, such as culture, religion, the environment, different levels of historical and economic development, either were overlooked, or were interpreted through this prism. This contributed at the UN to the divide between North and South, developed and developing countries with debates on important issues divided into 2 camps. The United Nations is a relative new comer to this world order. It was founded following the conclusion of the Second World War, out of a common desire to ensure that the society of nation states never again allowed such a destructive conflict to occur. However, while it was imbued with such moral authority, real authority continues to reside with the nation states themselves.
5. Now, scholars and pundits are insisting that the world is changing, and the way in which we conceive international relations is changing with it. Broadly speaking, the defining feature of this so called new- world order is the growing dichotomy fragmentation, on the one hand, and growing globalisation on the other. In his latest book: The Paradox of American Power the eminent scholar and diplomat, Joseph Nye describes the likely emerging situation thus: Geopolitical communities and nation states will continue to play the major role in world politics for a long time to come, but they will be less self contained and more porous. The will have to share the stage with actors who can use information […] and press governments directly and indirectly.
6. Interestingly, there can be no denying the fact that at one level since the end of the Cold War both notions of the nation state and the corresponding notion of ‘balance of power’ politics between nation states or more accurately power itself seems to be re-asserting itself. Consider the example of US supremacy under President Bush and that country’s awesome global reach. But the nation state itself as a form of organization is nevertheless under siege from many sides. Across the globe, the traditional economic, political, social and cultural boundries of the nation state are steadily being undermined by the myriad forces of the latest phase of the globalisation, defined by the spread of information and communications technologies. In some areas, such as Europe, which has formed the European Union, a degree of genuine political globalisation is also occurring. At the same time, other actors are growing in relative importance: it is an often quoted fact that some multinational companies now have revenues greater than some small nation states. International communities of activists, scientists etc. who regularly exchange views and information with each other are also growing in importance. The existence of different ethnic, religious and other groups within nations, some of whom share differing political aspirations to the nation of which the are a part, is another major challenge to existing nations.
7. This process has had both positive and negative consequences. On the credit side, the 1990s saw a significant decline in death from inter-state conflicts, while 38 ‘peace-keeping’ operations have been established since 1990, compared to 16 between 1946 and 1989. Globalisation has also meant that more people have access to enabling technologies, such as telephones and the internet, which in turn have helped to reduce in some cases levels of poverty. On the debit side, ethnic wars have left 200,000 people dead in Bosnia (1992 – 95) and 500,000 dead in Rawanda (1994). Furthermore, nearly 3.6 million people were killed in wars within states through the 1990s. Over the same period, the number of refugees and internally displaces people grew by 50 percent. International terrorism has also become an increasing threat to national and international security. In many cases, terrorists, along with criminals, drug producers and drug smugglers have used the same technologies that have facilitated greater globalisation, to further their own ends. It is also true that globalisation has not benefited people equally. For example, the ratio of incomes of the 20 percent of people living in the world’s richest countries to those of the 20 percent of living in the world’s poorest countries has grown from 30:1 in 1960 to 74:1 in 1997. These paradoxes are increasingly evident at every level of political, social and economic inter-action, from the nation state down to the smallest village.
Understanding the Global and Local
8. Naturally enough, as the world has changed, so too have our conceptions of what is local and what is global. The line between them has always been something of a grey area; however, in recent years, it has become even more blurred; or in the parlance of the business community, it has become ‘glocal’.
9. What do I mean by this? Back in the good old days of the Cold War, ‘local’ was thought of as being anything that existed within geographical and intellectual boundries of the nation state, although of course this conception tended to shift depending on the level of economic, social and political development. To residents of some valleys on Myanmar, for example, the prospect of visiting a neighbouring valley is akin to a trip abroad. Local today is a very different concept. The growth and spread of information and communications technology, the migration of people, the spread of the global financial architecture, and the growing reach of multinational corporations, are exposing previously closed localities to a sometimes daunting array of new influences (both positive and negative) from well beyond their traditional boundries. For example, here in Malaysia we are in the process of pioneering an e-learning system that allows children in rural areas to receive schooling over the internet. When we last met, the UNDP’s Resident Coordinator in Malaysia, Ms. Maxine Olson, also explained to me about a UN funded project in Cambodia in which villages use computers connected to the internet and powered by solar power to advertise their textile products in global market-place. This is mind-blowing, to be celebrated, blurring the local venue with a global setting. Imaging attending lectures in Yale while sitting in Alor Setar. New communities are developing whose identity is not simply a product of their village, province or nation. In the environmental context, since Rio 1992, many of us, regrettably though with limited results have been promoting “think globally act locally”.
10. The growth in the anti-globalisation protest movement in the West and environmental movements the world over are good examples of the dualism of the local and the global. A more negative example is that of Osama Bin Laden’s Al Qaeda network, which draws people from a number of countries with its message of desperation and vendetta. A horrible action that started in New York is now at our doorstep. This challenging menace must be fought at all costs, at all levels; local and global.
11. Conceptions of the global are also changing. How does a country like Malaysia now define its national interests? I would hope our national interests are defined also in the context of our international interests. Policies like “Enrich your neighbour” indicate steps it that direction. The US, at the moment seems to be bulldozing all in its way, even the UN. Ideas like pre-emptive strikes or going it alone makes the rest of the world nervous affecting stocks and investments globally, as well as long term progress.
12. For sure, the United States is now the world’s preponderant military power. However, at the level of international economics, its power its not more significant that that of the European Union. Japan and increasingly China are also major players in the economic front. Hence the fact that Washington has not been able to have things all its own at global trade negotiations. Likewise, not all the world’s major multi-national companies are American. Some of the new communities of which I spoke a moment ago are also becoming increasingly influential at the global level. For example, although one can not condone their often violent methods, the anti – globalisation protestors have done much to ensure that the negative as well as positive aspects of this process are discussed. International business also wields considerable (and at times unchecked) influence. While these ‘groups’ may not possess military power, their ability to influence the global agenda is significant nonetheless.
International Responses
13. The UNESCO Constitution states that: ‘Since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defenses of peace must be constructed’. How can we interpret this excellent piece of prose as we gaze into the 21st century?
14. I am firmly of the view that nation-state will continue to be the main form of political organization both locally and globally – this is largely because no better replacement has yet to be found. Consequently, nation states are likely to be at the forefront of those operations (particularly with significant military component) designed to ‘keep the peace’ or to ‘make the peace’. At the same time, lasting and sustainable peace also requires states and their leaders not only to be aware of but responsible to the changes in the international system outlines above.
15. Arguably, national leaders need to accept that in this ‘new-world’ it is no longer realistic or indeed beneficial to try to control everything and everyone that comes across over their borders. This is not to say, of course, that nations should give in to the forces of globalisation and fragmentation. Rather, it is to argue that they should find ways to try to turn these forces to their advantage. And more importantly to the advantage of the people that they represent. Similarly, national leaders, can no longer assume that power is theirs by right. Rather they must accept that in order to stay in power they need to earn the respect and trust of the people. In that context, national leaders need to be aware of the responsibility they have to ensure that all their people benefit from national economic, social and political development. After all, it may be a cliché buy it is undeniably true that peace and development go hand in hand! Governments that do not adopt such an approach, will be susceptible to the vagaries of the negative aspects of globalisation and fragmentation, than those that do. This is not to say that I support neo-liberal elements of globalisation but quintessentially the final determinants are the people, their rights, welfare and potential to maximize their possibilities in life, a cardinal principle guiding the UN.
16. In my role as the UNSG’s Special Envoy to Myanmar, I have talked about the importance of seeking the help and advice of regional partners as Myanmar proceeds with its homegrown process of democratization and national reconciliation. Such an approach does not, to my mind, contravene the organisation’s doctrine of ‘non-intervention in another country’s internal affairs’, and reminds (if you will) a very Asian way of addressing and solving problems. Likewise, I have stressed to Myanmar’s partners in ASEAN, the responsibility that they have not only to Myanmar, but to ASEAN collectively, to ensure that Myanmar goes in the same overall direction and experiences the same benefits that they do.
17. The challenge for the United Nations – which after all is the sum of all its parts – is equally serious. Of course, the UN still has a role to play. However, the President of the United States has recently reminded us, the UN needs to make important choices if it is to remain relevant. Of course, his conception of relevance is based on the notion of supporting the desire of the United Kingdom and the United States to take unilateral military action against Iraq in the event that it does not comply with the UN led inspectors of its alleged nuclear, chemical and biological weapons facilities. On the other hand, one could make an credible case that maintaining the relevance of the United Nations, requires the organization to stand firm in the face of such pressure, if it believes that doing so is indeed for the global good. Likewise, should we as global citizens, submit weakly to the Western contention that the way to deal with the challenge of terrorism is to strike at the terrorists. Or, are we not duty bound to remind these nations that terrorism is the product of other factors, more deeply rooted factors, and will continue until these root causes are addressed. How these debates are resolved will in part determine how the UN is perceived not only in London and Washington and other capitals, but on the streets of Beirut, Beijing, the Gaza Strip, Jakarta and elsewhere.
18. In ensuring that the UN continues to articulate the voice of world opinion, not simply the views of its strongest members, we also need to ensure that the UN begins to truly reflect the complexity and ‘inter-connectedness’ of today’s international society. I for one have always advocated the expansion of the Security Council, which is in effect a relic of the end of the 2nd World War. Other structural changes, which promote co-operation between the various organs that make up the UN need to be effected directed towards the UN having more access to funding.
19. Arguably, the political side of the United Nations (the bit that most people see on TV) needs to change to take greater account of the fact that nations comprise not only of governments and politicians, but real people, who in turn are represented by the companies the work for, NGOs and so on. While good governments can – perhaps – adequately articulate their views they cannot necessarily represent them. Bringing such groups into the mainstream UN arena would be one way to do reflect this reality – although the mechanics of their participation would have to be worked out in such a way that it does not make the operation of what is already an extremely unwieldy format even more complicated!
Conclusion
20. In concluding this short presentation, I would like to turn my thoughts, albeit briefly, to the question of leadership. In addressing this subject, I am reminded by the words of Robert Galvin of Motorola. He said: ‘The real test of quality in the large part of the next century is going to be the quality of leadership’.
21. To my mind, a great leader, such as Dr. Mahathir, is somebody who is not only able to lead from the front, but also senses and understands the currents of history and is able to harness them for the general good. More then ever before, such leaders, as distinct from managers, are needed at the local, the global, and dare I say the ‘glocal’ level. In extolling the virtues of leadership, we must nevertheless accept that leaders of such high caliber and quality are rare. It is there for equally important the economic, political and social systems from the level of the village, to the Headquarters of the United Nations and companies like Microsoft, are able to continue to operate sensibly and effectively when such leadership is no longer with us. Good leadership and enduring and responsive structures are the foundation stones on which doing peace, locally, globally and dare I say it ‘glocally’ are undeniably built.
Tan Sri Razali Ismail
Special Advisor to the Prime Minister, YAB Datuk Seri Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, Panel member of the Board of Advisors for National Unity (2000 – 2002), Chairman of Yayasan Salam ( the Malaysian Peace Corps) since its inception in July 1977, Pro Chancellor of University Sains Malaysia (2001 – 2006), among many other distinctive honorary positions.
In the course of his long and distinguished diplomatic career, Tan Sri Razali servered as the Permanent Representative of Malaysia to the United Nations for 1988 – 1998. Form 1989 – 1990, he headed the Malaysian delegation to the UN Security Council and served twice as its President – in June 1989 to 1990, he headed the Malaysian delegation to the UN Security Council and served twic as its President – in June 1989 and again in July 1990. In 1989, he was Chairman of the Group of 77. He was elected Chairman of the Commission on Sustainable Development in 1993. Tan Sri Razali was President of the Fifty-First Session of the United Nations General Assembly, 1996/1997.
Most recently, as UN Special Envoy he has won international acclaim for successfully bringing about the process of reconciliation between the government of Myanmar and the opposition party led by Nobel Peace Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi.