COMMISSION COMMUNITY

Dear Friends:

This will definitely be a productive meeting, especially our shift of emphasis from petropolitics to anthropolitics, with particular respect to Mr. Seyyid Abdulai, the representative of the OPEC fund … . I would like to thank Chief Anyaoko for having given me this privilege of making a few opening remarks. I would just like to recognise, before doing so, the magnificent work done by the working group of the secretariat of this Centre. My association with the Centre is one of the informal meetings that we held in May in Geneva … .

While I recognise the importance of the encyclopaedic approach suggested by the Secretariat, in particular the World System Review, the period of time that that would take to achieve – a minimum of two years – is too long under the present circumstances. [I personally expressed this to Chief Anyaoku … . Once again I would like to say as I said to him earlier, how sad I am that Gamini Corea cannot, for health reasons, be with us today.] I think it is hugely important that we focus on the thematic, rather than the encyclopaedic, if we are to develop a clear course of action for the South Centre and the South Commission. I refer to V.A. Pai Panandiker’s wonderful study on the problems of governance in South Asia and recommend it to those of you who are not familiar with it by saying that it carries many similarities with the problems of governance in many southern regions. Of course, I’d just like to remind you that we are still in Asia. In fact, Europe has been described as a political statement, not a geographic statement; even Europe is Asia! Turning to my African friends, of course, I would like to say if it were not for the Suez Canal, maybe we would be Africa or you would be Asia; I don’t know!

I would like to suggest that population growth, poverty and deprivation, slow economic development, high illiteracy, high infant mortality, poor health care and sanitation, inadequacy of democratic processes, poor quality of institutions of governance . . . and may I pay particular tribute to achievements in Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan . . . the concept of the Grameen Bank, the concept of the Katchi Abadis Authority, the concept in Brazil of the Bolsa Escola: politics where people matter – anthropolitics. I am delighted to receive my dear friend Manfred Max-Neef who is one of the authors of the concept of ‘barefoot economics’. When we say ‘back to basics’, I would like to suggest that the failure of political parties has largely been because they have been closer to what in the Arab world we call the positional elite than to the people, and consequently people have found it easy to go to those donors who are not interested in collateral but rather are more interested in promoting programmes, many of which are illegal, such as, most notoriously, the question of drugs and the question of the trade in children. With the work of my colleague from Egypt, Professor Cherif Bassiouni in the United States, we are tracing today the slave trade of 2.5 million children, which governments do not want to know about.

I would like to add that once again, the challenges are clear: the politicisation of the armed forces, the rise of ethnic conflict, the rise of violence, the growth of urbanization, … . If we look at the Club of Rome study Intelcity in Johannesburg we made it very clear that by 2030, 62% of humanity will be in cities over one million population. In 1953, we had 100 cities; by 2030 we will have possibly 700 cities. As I said in the European Commission, we will either deal with these people on the basis of encouraging their will to stay before they become migrants and improving their conditions more effectively, or you will end up dealing with these people in the context of the ghettos that they will form in your cities. Of course, the enmities and the antagonisms and the stereotyping – today it is Islamisist; tomorrow it may be something else … . Turning to my Sikh friend Professor Singh, I would just like to say that it was interesting the other day in Buckingham Palace at the World Faiths and Development Dialogue, one of the leaders of the Sikh community said to me, “One of the by-products of 9/11 is that Sikhs and Muslims have come very close to each other in the United States.” I would love to see intercultural ‘acculturation’ for normal and healthy reasons.

In terms of the degradation of our human environment, as Manfred Max-Neef suggests, when we go back to the Book of Genesis, to the Parables, and to the Psalms, the injunction to go forth and to proliferate on the earth – the injunction to go forth and effectively dominate – was not an injunction to dominate the weak and to destroy the environment; that would be a selective reading. It was a call effectively to bring life to this planet, and not death to it, as we see all around us.

Last, but not least, of course: the corruption in public life. May I turn to the common minimum agenda and suggest that possibly the following thoughts may be worth sharing: recognising the sovereignty of the citizen; controlling population growth; economic growth with equity; restructuring institutions of governance; redefining the role of the state; social development emphasising common culture. As I said in the committee called for by President Khatami with the response of Secretary General Kofi Annan, I do not personally believe in a conflict of civilisations in the plural. I believe there is one world civilisation. The Parables preceded Christianity by three thousand years: you find in cuneiform the book of the virtuous sufferer – the Book of Job – you find Jonah and the whale, and so on.

My French friends say, “Oh you always talk in anecdotes; this is so un-French.” I say, some of the best books were written in anecdotes.

The clash, as I see it, is not only between cultures, but within cultures. As Moderator of the World Conference on Religion and Peace, when I had the privilege of visiting Indonesia during the tragic moments of the Timor question, I met the Buddhist, Christian and Muslim leadership. I said to them, “You are the servants of the community; I am the servant of the servants: what can we do to promote reconciliation?” And they said, “After 40 years of martial law, we do not know how to speak to our neighbours.” And I think that this is something that has to be understood, particularly today, when this region is facing three wars – war in Palestine, war in the Gulf, WoT (the acronym for War on Terror).

The time has come to speak not of working against something, but working for something. I have called for many years, and I have published for many years, the thought of regional dialogue on these priorities. A moment may come where the Secretary General of the UN may become the secretary general of three security councils. Or to be more specific, I would hope to see, according to the Weizsäcker recommendations, for example: a security council, a social council, and an economic council. And in that context, maybe as with the African President of the African Parliament, just maybe in this West Asian region, we might be able to see a representation of Prime Ministers once every quarter to talk about regional cooperation and intra-regional cooperation; thus setting the agenda interactively, rather then responsively or reactively.

In that context I would like to say that it seems to me that the international agenda today has taken three speeds: the fastest, no doubt, is the agenda of the super-rich – and I am talking of states, and I am talking of individuals – and there is a characteristic of the super-rich, where in ___ (Islamic jurisprudence) we say _______, which is a difficult word to translate: public welfare is the objective of governance – the welfare of all. There’s the lovely story of the sophist Nivanos who on his grave, in Byzantine Near East of the time, had written, Il à était toucher par l’amour de bien être public. Such a strange reason to die: he was touched by the love of the public good.

I would like to suggest that the concept of a common minimum agenda based on some of the above is essential to the well-being of our South. The bulk of the agenda appears to be domestic; some of it is regional. Both are essential to take the citizens of our respective regions from the present state of unmitigated and pernicious poverty; degradation of human dignity; poor quality of life; and, most importantly, the severe problems of governance which they face. I feel that the citizens of these regions have to begin within their own countries, as well as regionally, to work towards better governance.

Now, let me explain, if I may, some of the problems. I have, since I left public office – and I call myself an NGO: a non-governmental organism – had the privilege of joining some very important clubs in the First World – and I agree with my Indian friend who said, “The Third World is my First World, my only world.” I have been invited to join the Nuclear Threat Initiative, which has spent five billion dollars on dismantling Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) in the former Soviet Union, and expects to spend another five billion from American sources, and another ten billion from the OECD. Yet, sadly, these billions will not prevent acts of catastrophic terrorism. My point has always been: please take into consideration the human factor. If you were a young man living the West Bank, just a few steps away, with your family humiliated and killed, you obviously would be one of the long queue waiting to blow yourself up or take your own life. An Israeli was telling me the other day, “One of our fears of Hamas is that they have more suicide bombers than they know what to do with.”
I was speaking with the Canadian delegation the other day and Lloyd Axworthy, who, as you recall, launched the concept of human security jointly with the Norwegian Prime Minister. I personally suggested, “Why don’t they call it human solidarity?” Countries like India, Egypt and Brazil all objected. They said, “Well, this is a new guy; he’s for intervention.” I tended to agree that it could be interpreted in that sense; but the question of human security requires a pooling of the efforts of NGOs working in the field. I make this point time and again.

I do not know if you know that NATO and the OSC spent not one penny on dismantling WMD. Not one dollar, not one euro, is spent by these organisations. I am a member of the International Crisis Group and Search for Common Ground, and these organisations are not interested when you say: “Let us pool our resources to focus on a common theme.” Selfishness is the order of the day. Many of these people, unfortunately, like myself, are has-beens in public office, or are waiting for new public office to be opened to us in the event of our being available or convenient to suit the plan of whomsoever. The other day it was suggested that maybe the Prince of Jordan would be a suitable leader of Iraq and I said, “Well, anyone in his right mind would not aspire to such a position.” In addition to which, thank God, I do not have red-carpet fever. However, if they are interested in developing a conversation over the common good, I am a good listener.

But I would like to say, what have I done about all of this complaining? Personally, I have tried to suggest two new approaches. One: a concept paper for the creation of Partners in Humanity. Though this is focused on the importance of promoting dialogue between the Islamic countries and the United States, I hope you would ignore the title and just look at the modality. I suggested in the US the other day that the time has come to talk not of an American Peace Corps, but of an International Peace Corps: a non-denominational Peace Corps of young men and women working together towards the common good. As someone once commented: not blue helmets, but blue overalls; not acquisitiveness, but altruism – caring for the other. I suggested the creation of an international media Peace Corps: young people of 28 to 35 years old, going to tell the story as it is, not affected by CNN or by the editorial policies of this one or that one. We need to dis-intermediate the media.

I say this with some feeling because, as advisor to the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) for a period of time [I’ve now said that I’ve had enough and I’m moving on], I was horrified to think that the out-flight of plant life from our Third World is equivalent in cost to over $62 billion – almost equivalent to the export of oil from this region. And nothing goes back into the promotion of the environment. When we talk about the Kalahari bushman, he eats the hoodia plant, which God gave him to suppress his hunger. This plant is taken by the pharmaceutical companies and introduced into anti-obesity drugs for well-to-do citizens of the first world.

I don’t know whether my remarks are clichéd to your ears, or whether there is any hope of progress; but I do feel that it is important to remind ourselves of the words of the twentieth-century philosopher who said, “You can freeze assets, you can freeze reserves; but if you freeze morals, then human beings are suffering.” I think we are all tending towards atrophy.

We are not allowed to talk politics, because that is done for us by our elders and betters – forgive my sarcasm. We do not want to talk metaphysics because we believe in enhancing what is universal and recognising differences. What is left for us to talk about other than human values, humanitas, and enhancing our partnership in our common humanity? In the recently-created Parliament of Cultures in Turkey – and Turkey is a crossroads between Europe and Asia – I hope that one of these conversations can engage in promoting human dignity. Indeed, I hope that we can promote the noble art of conversation. [And this is my approach number two.]

With all the emphasis on the internet in this wonderful basic working paper of the Secretariat, and limiting the digital divide, I think that creativity has been gradually restricted by the internet. I cannot imagine somebody stepping out and writing the Rubiyyat of Omar El-Khayyam on the basis of the resources of the internet. Or the Iliad, for that matter.

Providing support in relation to the current negotiating agenda, I welcome the suggestion that the South Centre is not intended to be “Secretariat of the Group of 77 and the Non-Aligned Movement or of their member states, although it is fully in their service.” If we are to conclude these meetings with a contractual understanding, leading to a consensual statement – and by contractual I would also like to add that there are representatives of serious countries who could contribute to the financial responsibilities of fulfilling the required programmes within a reasonable time – I would like to suggest that any statement of the Amman consensus, of the Sea of Life [for the Dead Sea is not dead at all!] consensus, should be based on a clear understanding of what we intend to be or to become.

It is in that context that I say the World System Review is essential. The matrix has to be developed. I would like to suggest that linking the South with the help of the internet is not a mechanical process; it is a thematic linking of the South with those issues that concern the South and enhance the importance of policy, not politics. In Arabic, we do not have a distinction between policy and politics. I want to know: what are the real issues – you all know them – that have motivated young people since 1968? I was on the bridge in 1968 in Paris, through Seattle to Genoa. Not all of them are crazy. Many of them have key issues to raise.

I think that the South Centre and the South Commission … [With all due respect to the memory of Joseph Nyere – we miss him already; with my great regard for Gamani Corea of UNIDO fame, and to all of us who are passing on – I had an early warning and a heart procedure just a few days ago, so I am still under doctor’s orders; but it is good to be reminded of one’s mortality] … . It is essential that we communicate a message of mobilisation to the youth of the world. And by that I do not mean special groups. When the Duma existed in the Soviet Union, 30 percent of that Duma was a quota for women. When the Soviet Union ended, only three percent were women. So I would like to suggest that the question of involvement is to make the larger family stakeholders in their future. It is not just a question of making children stakeholders, or women stakeholders, or the young, or the old. It is a question of a new developmental movement that focuses on anthropolitics, and the law of peace. For those of you who worked with me in the days of the call for an independent humanitarian order, you will recall that we objected to ‘conferences on moving mountains’, as I call them. We had one the other day in Johannesburg. Who remembers what was discussed in Johannesburg? We need sustainability, not only for development, but we need cultural sustainability: interdisciplinary. We must not discuss women one day and the earth the next day; but discuss in an interdisciplinary manner the importance of a new culture of compliance. Documents are here that recognise the contribution of both state actors and non-state actors, both positively and negatively.

Forgive me for taking so much of your valuable time. Once again, may I thank you all for giving your time and your resources. Thank you, Chief Anyaoko for your kindness, and all our dear friends for giving us, in a very bleak and difficult time, the opportunity to do some good things together. I welcome you all to Jordan.

HOME | BACK