Gorbachev: U.S. needs help as a world leader

Saturday, April 3, 2004 | 6:49 a.m.

Editor's note: On March 22 Mikhail Gorbachev, the former president of the Soviet Union, delivered a speech at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas as part of the Barrick Lecture Series. The Las Vegas Sun is excerpting his remarks, which covered a wide range of important international issues, including globalization, the environment, the war on terrorism, the Iraq war and the fate of democracy in Russia.

Globalization

The success of the democratic process during the 1980s, when in more than 80 countries of the world the dictatorial and authoritarian regimes left the arena of history, when the democratic process was very powerful in the former Soviet Union and in Central and Eastern Europe, in Asia and in Latin America, this was a great time and a great achievement and it opened up tremendous possibilities for the creativity of people in different countries to address the challenges of human society.

But these processes -- the democratic processes -- are currently going through a difficult phase, and there's been even some talk that there has been a rollback of democracy in many countries.

At a recent conference in Quebec there was a congress of political scientists, and the political scientists noted that the world is living through a new wave of authoritarianism. They said that globalization, which is the dominating trend in the world today, has made the situation so complicated because globalization contains both great opportunities and great dangers.

Globalization has put forward challenges and tasks that have not yet been answered by democratic means, and the serious problem here is that as a result of this, people, when they go to the polls, have now begun to elect more authoritarian leaders. People in this way, ... in many countries, have shown disappointment in democracy.

It is very important to defend freedom and the democratic institutions. But unless democracy addresses the social and economic problems of the people it fails, and it is very important therefore to address those problems of the people, and sometimes people will even favor authoritarian methods because they are concerned about their problems.

Let me also speak about another concern that many people have in this time of globalization. I am referring to the impact of globalization on the world order. It is becoming increasingly clear that a stable and just world order is not possible unless we find a way for a coexistence of different cultures. ...

Terrorism

A world order is not possible if different civilizations and cultures cannot coexist and interact. If they don't interact then we have a clash of civilization(s). ... I think that it is also here that we should look for the keys to the problem of terrorism -- the problem of terrorism that is a tragic problem in our 21st century. ...

It is quite clear I believe, ... (that) the problem of terrorism really cannot be solved through military means. That does not mean that the states and the governments should not in certain situations deal with the terrorists by military means, that you cannot solve this problem. You have to address the problem in a different way.

And I have been thinking recently, more and more coming to this conclusion, the roots of terrorism lie of course in the problems of backwardness and poverty. They lie in the existence of failed states that become incubators of terrorism. The roots of terrorism also lie in political and religious fundamentalism.

In addition to that, the roots of terrorism lie in the humiliation of whole nations and cultures, where in many regions of the world people are very, very emotional when they feel injustice. You see this for many, many decades in the Middle East and in other regions of the world.

Among the various reasons for alarm and concern today are also new threats to security. Dangerous conflicts more and more often emerge within states -- not between states but within states -- and then they extend to neighboring countries and affect the security of nations that may be far, far away from where the conflict emerges and from where the terrorists acts are done. Extremist movements penetrate thousands of miles from where they emerge.

The new conflicts may emerge as a result of epidemics, as a result of natural disasters, as a result of water shortages, as a result of mass migrations and commercial wars. All of this today is a real threat, and we can see how this affects noy only the everyday life and order of certain countries, but also of the world of the international community. And this in addition to the old threats that still exist. Experts and scholars in the United Nations and other international organizations have emphasized the increasing urgency of the threat of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

And of course one of the sources of our concern continues to be the global conflict between man and nature. And this is happening in a time when the problem of poverty is still with us, when the problem of poverty is not being solved and the gap between the rich and the poor is widening even after the Cold War, when we were hoping that we could use the resources at least as a result of the end of the arms race in order to overcome backwardness and poverty. This did not happen.

Environment

Globalization has unfortunately increased the gap between the rich and poor. Think about this: Only one-third of the population of the world lives in decent condition; two-thirds of the population of the world survives living on $1 or $2 a day. If this problem is addressed by traditional means, by business as usual, then we could ruin our environment completely. Today the problems such as global warming ... fresh water, the pollution of seas and oceans, the pollution of forests, the advance of desert, all of these problems show extremely dangerous processes.

Recently a very serious observer, Hans Blix, who was the head of the inspectors of Iraq, he recently said that his main concern is the environmental crises -- not even the problem of war and peace. It's the environmental crises -- the environmental threat that will be critical and that we are very close. Within maybe a decade or two we will come to a critical point as a result of the deterioration of our environment.

You may know that a group of experts presented a report to President Bush. It was a secret paper but it leaked to the media and apparently in that paper the experts have told the president that the environment is in really bad shape. During the coming decade or two we might see processes that will become irreversible and we will have to handle this. We cannot delay action.

Nevertheless, unfortunately -- both at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janiero and the Summit on Sustainable Development -- no really important results were produced. Even the decisions that were taken, good decisions that were taken, are not being implemented.

If we continue like this, we will find ourselves in a real trap. This is all manmade. Man is overloading nature and this overload is the kind that will affect the environment for years to come.

What is happening today in the world is a process of unprecedented complexity. I think we cannot wait. Political leaders -- we cannot fault political leaders for this situation.

We are paying for what we were doing when we thought that man was the king of nature. We, I think we were too boastful.

We thought too much of man, but we should subtly demand that political leaders and scientists should do something. They should finally talk about the environment in a dramatic way because the problem is dramatic. Political leaders, citizens, institutions of civil society, they should all act.

New world order

Let me also say that another problem that we are facing is the problem of governments. I am not speaking about government, I am speaking about governments.

Of course there can be no world government, and the idea of world government is a utopia. But we should create a system that will make the world more stable, that will assure cooperation between nations -- a complex system that would include the United Nations and other international organizations, regional organizations and nations. This is the task we are all facing.

Reject those things that no longer work, but those things that worked during the confrontation of the Cold War will again work now, and all of this should be preserved -- if necessary it should be reformed. Or we should create new institutions. We should do all of this, but we should not destroy or we should not reject international law, because if we reject international law we will have chaos.

What we saw, what we have seen in recent years, in recent months, that is to say the rejection of the United Nations and the U.N. Security Council, the attempts that are being made to circumvent those organizations, to circumvent international law and to act in defiance of the opinion of the people of the world, of the democratic majority of the world, this is something (for) which we may pay a price. A very big price. And, therefore, what we should do is start building a new world order.

No one yet knows the details of this future world order, but there are some ideas, there are some statements, there are some requirements, there are some approaches on which this new world order should be built. In many of my talks and lectures I quote the works (of) Pope John Paul II, and I would like to quote him again. In speaking about the new world order, he said, "We need a new world order and it should be different from the old order. It should be more just, it should be more stable and it should be more humane."

Iraq war

I believe that these are very important goals. And so we should consider the crisis that we have seen in international relations, the crisis that became particularly severe as a result of the Iraq conflict. Let us call things by their own names. This is a crisis. This is not just a little accident. It shows the crisis in international relations.

During this crisis we saw the effects of what had been accumulating over many years. On the eve of the war in Iraq and right after the beginning of that war, I called it a mistake. Because the possibilities that were available to find a political, a diplomatic, solution to use dialogue, those possibilities were not fully used. Weapons were used before those possibilities were used.

It is not always possible to find a quick solution. This is exactly the case in point. But nevertheless, I would like to emphasize, to make the point that this is important, and this is something that is new in relations between great nations. Those nations -- and I am referring to the U.S., France, Germany, Russia, China -- maintain dialogue, a situation that is very difficult. There was a real difference of opinion but, nevertheless, these nations maintain that dialogue.

This is important today when we are addressing together -- and then with the United Nations and with the participation of all sides -- we are addressing the problem of trying to find a way out of this crisis. I think that cooperation should continue and it should help us to find a way out of the situation that the world is facing.

As was to be expected, the Iraqis reject occupation and they are not persuaded by those who support occupation. Therefore the decision of the U.S. administration to accelerate the process of adopting the constitution and transferring sovereignty to the government of Iraq is the right decision. I think that it should be implemented. It's a serious decision -- let's implement it. I believe that it is necessary and that it is possible to accelerate the peace process in the Middle East. ...

U.S. leadership

In the world today we are also facing the problem of the relationship between national interests and universal interests, the interests of all mankind. Of course it would be pointless to reject the existence of national interest.

Every country -- big country, small country, medium country, rich country, poor country -- has national interests. Those interests suddenly exist in the modern world, which is interrelated and interdependent. Those national interests can be successfully realized only if we fully take into account the universal interest of all mankind. And this is not happening in the policies of those who claim leadership in international affairs.

When I speak in the United States of America, when I speak in this country, I very often say the world is not rejecting U.S. leadership. The world will reject U.S. leadership if this leadership is not done by partnership and cooperation with other countries. But the world will reject the claim by any country to become a global policeman.

I must say that I have spoken to very large groups of people here in this country -- the crowds in this country are the biggest in the world. When I spoke to these audiences and when I asked, "Do you want America to be the global policeman?" or I said, "I don't think you want America to be a global policeman," there was always applause, just like now. The political role, the economic, military and cultural power of the United States are obvious to everyone.

The democratic potential of the great American nation is widely recognized throughout the world. But should this power, should this tremendous power -- the superiority that modern America has in the world -- should this be used in order to create an American empire? To read some of the writings in the U.S. media, you might be amazed.

We are still facing the consequences of the previous empires, of the previous colonial empires. The second half of the 20th century was the time when empires fell, when people started to be free, when they created their own nation, and here again we are talking about an empire, an American empire.

I would like to ask all Americans and all of their friends and partners -- and I regard myself as a friend of America -- to give a lot of thought to this. Let us stop this kind of action, this kind of thinking that results in a propaganda of a new empire, of an American empire. ...

The conclusion that I draw from all of this is that today we must focus on governments. And once again, let me repeat that I am not calling for a world government, I am just recognizing the real need to create a complex system that would make the world more sustainable, to make sure that we are not just part of some blind destructive process.

Russia

And now let me say just a few words about Russia. Russia is going through a difficult transition from totalitarianism to democracy to a socially responsible market economy. And for our country, the experience of democratic countries is very important.

But I have to say that the democratic process will be successful only if they emerge, they are conceived and implemented, taking into account the weakness, the history, the culture, the mindset of nations. They should not be implemented by tanks and missiles. That is not the way to promote democracy.

During the recent election, President (Vladimir) Putin received a mandate from the people, from the voters. People believe that this is the way to go. They accepted Putin because they believed that he did something to stabilize the country that he did something to improve life but mostly they voted their hope that Putin will continue along a path of democratic change in Russia and believe that this new term President Putin will be a big test for himself and for our country.

If we just continue with business as usual as under Yeltsin then we're in for a lot of trouble. If, however, we increase democracy, if we expand democracy, if we give opportunities to the people in the economy, in business, if we give a chance to the small and medium-size business, if give a chance to the middle class, that would be right for Russia. That would be the right way for Russia.

When last fall I was asked again by the United States what is happening, is there perhaps a problem with democracy in Russia -- perhaps democracy is not working is Russia -- I said in reply to that question something I would like to repeat now. I said, "Do you want us to have a democracy similar to yours? We want that too. We want that more. We want one day that our democracy to be even better than your democracy."

Russia has had such a difficult history. So many difficult times. We had 250 years of Mongol domination, we have had more than 200 years of slavery, we had 70 years of communist monopoly and total control over our society and over people's minds. It is clear that that history has impacted the nation and impacted its mentality. Economic and other problems can be solved.

But how do you change the minds of people, the values of people, this is the most difficult task. I said, "You probably think that we are very talented. Well, we may be talented and maybe more talented than you Americans, but not as talented as you think. What you created over 200 years you want us to create over 200 days. That is utopia that cannot be done."

There is a way to go, there is a road to travel. New generations must come ... the generations that are entering now. Those who were born in 1985 voted for the first time in this elections, so this new generation and also the old generation will re-think our experience and we hope they will continue the democratic process. It will take a tremendous effort. I think that our society is very firm on this path of democracy and it will continue along this path.

To conclude my remarks I would like to say something. Despite all the problems that I see, despite all the problems that we are facing today in the world, despite all the complexities and difficulties of the world in which we live, I am not a pessimist. We should not panic, we should not refuse to act. We should act nationally and internationally, uniting our efforts for a better future.

archive