Contents

Globalization Needs Global Ethic

for the Benefit of All

Dr. Reijo Heinonen(*)

1- Not every discussion is dialogue

The theme of ISESCO conference in Tunis 2005 “Human civilizations and culture. From Dialogue to Alliance” poses the question how to implement good minded goals reached through international and intercultural dialogues into practice. The problem is realized also in the UN as we read from the reports of the general assembly in September in New York. Since the end of the 1990's it has been pointed out in the UN the necessity of intercultural dialogue. The year 2001 was pointed out as a year of dialogue of cultures and civilizations initiated by the President of Iran Khatami 1998. The results of these endeavours have not been so encouraging as it was anticipated. (Der Spiegel 39, 2005, 188-192). The year ended with the catastrophy of September 11, and some terrorist organizations have declared, that those who aim at an intercultural dialogue are their enemies. There are also many steps of progress especially on the local level and in the NGO’s. Schools are working hard to diminish prejudice and increase tolerance and mutual understanding. But the situation as a whole is still difficult. “We have an increasing global economy but we are far from being a global community”, states the ILO report “Fair Globalization ...” from 2004. (51)

The problem of the UN lies perhaps not so much in its organization as in the lacking capacity of its member states to resolve their differences. Although a renewal of the organization of the UN is needed, it hardly can lead to any constructive concretization of the declarations, if the values implemented in the declarations have not been realized and analyzed.

In this paper, we try first to point out the necessity of the study of the basic values implemented in declarations in order to be able to predict the possibilities of their realization in practice. We use here the categories of the sociologist Erik Allardt which he derived from the Maslow’s construct of hierarchy of needs. The having-values concern with the material, physical preconditions of life. The second group loving-values deal with the social values necessary for a human life in communities and third group, being-values concern the self loving-values deal with the social values necessary for a human life in communities and the third group, being-values concern the self realization of a personality and its higher spiritual aims. In this paper, we try secondly to ask the impact of the quality of communication on the realization of mutually agreed declarations. What kind of dialogue has an option to lead to an alliance and to realization of the aims ? What kind of dialogue is in the beginning so superficial and pretentious, that it is not to anticipate any concrete, positive results ?

2- Towards fair globalization

It is often stated that the reason of our difficulties in global governance is not to be found in our values but in the inability to put them in practice. In this way also Tony Blair in his speech at the end of September 2005 (Channel 1 of Finland TV 27.9.05). But how is it ? What does it mean to “put values in practice” ? Does it mean that the concrete deeds must follow immediately ? Or does it mean that theoretically the international community is agreeing the values, but those who commit themselves with these values are very few ? Do we assess the ethical commitment to values as one kind of practice also, if we don’t see the results immediately ? To put it very simple : what means “practice” and what means “our values” ?

What could then be criterium of the commitment to the accepted values ? Could it be firstly the quality of our dialogue and secondly the manysideness of the values basis ?

Let’s see the important report of the “World Commission on the Social Dimension of Globalization” of the ILO, “A fair globalization creating opportunities for all”. (ILO 2004). It states the problem in the following way :

The problems lie in bridging the gap between principles and practice. The international community makes more commitments than it is prepared to implement. Nowhere is the gap between declaration and practice more glaring than in the record of Official Development Assistance (ODA) to the World’s poorest countries (44). How does this gap between theory and practice correspond with the widening gap between rich and poor, between educated and non-educated people of the globe ?

Layers tend to think that the bridging of the gap can be realized through sanctions of the international law and new agreements. Is the international legal control after the difficulties of the UN too weak ? To this we must state, that not the existence of a law as such has been able to create a righteous society, if the spirit in which the law is interpreted does not promote an ethical responsibility.

From the history we have learned that in totalitarian states the laws have been on the paper but they have not been used for the benefit of the individuals. The commitment to the international law should proceed both as juridical and ethical process, complementing each other.

In the case of global economy the implementation of the agreements cannot be realized in a responsible way, if the ethical commitment of individuals is not there. ILO-report states :

“Action to realize values in a global economy must come from both individual actors and from institutions.” (45). It means that the having-values of the international economy cannot be realized and implemented, if the being-values of individuals and the loving-values of societies are not fitting to each other.

The increasing role of NGO’s as local and international actors may point out the lacking commitment of politicians to the social, loving and to the individual, being values. The NGO’s are also invited to the international discussions on global issues. Significant was for instance the appearance of many NGO’s in the general assembly of the UN in September 2005. Human rights organization and Amnesty international were invited from Finland although they had to pay their costs themselves. Since the Rio summit of 1992, in which the NGO’s had an important impact to the ethos of the conference, their role as partners with the official authorities has increased remarkably.

Important in the activity of the NGO’s is that they try to convince the average people about the possibility to have an impact in solving global problems. They are touching the individually experienced being-values of citizens. So as ILO-report stated the individual values are necessary for the implementation of great goals of international community stated in declarations. In democratic societies, individuals are finally responsible for the success or the failing of these goals.

The moral growth of individuals can be attained in societies which have their collective ways to appreciate and neglect old and new values. How much easier it is to challenge societies to global responsibility, in which the individuals have been trained to mutual help and cooperation, in which the loving-values are alive.

The great problem for the implementation of the first goal of the millenium declaration of the UN to halve poverty until 2015 is the way, which the globalization process has taken in the 1990s. ILO report points out its onesidedness and economic orientation.

“Globalization has developed in an ethical vacuum, where market success and failure have tended to become the ultimate standard of behavior” (37). What kind of international development lays behind this globalization process ? How this “ethical vacuum” has developed in our time of many social reforms and progress ?

3- Return to the goals of Rio summit 1992

The collaps of the Soviet system in the beginning of the 1990s ended the cold war and created idealism for a new global responsibility. In the opening statement of the UN Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro, Brasil 1992, the Secretary General of the conference Maurice Strong emphasized the necessity of a change on basic ethical values as a precondition for a sustainable development.

“The change in behaviour and direction called for here must be rooted in our deepest spiritual, moral and ethical values. We must reinstate in our lives the ethic of life and respect for the earth, which must be companied by a revitalization of the values central to all of our principal religions and philosophical traditions.” (Ethics & Agenda 212 1994, 188).

Indeed, the emphasis of the interdependence between ethical commitment and sustainable development was the message of the Rio conference. Although everybody is aware about the difficulty of the needed change of consciousness, it seemed to be the only righteous way. It was clear that the concentration on the economic growth could not be the solution. As a sign of this new attitude the critic on the concept of “sustainable development” can be taken. It was said that this concept - may be its interpretation in the beginning of the 1990s - evokes too much trust on business as solution on international big problems. Also today, we can realize how much the effects of economical decisions and everyday business depend on the values basis on which they have been created. The having values seem to be the only realities noticed by the international community.

One of the critical minds assessing the concept sustainable development is Ronnie D. Lipschutz stating : “For the Brundland Commission, sustainable development was clearly sustainable economic growth, and this does not seem a likely answer to global environment damage to those who have given thought to the issue”. And he goes further : “Growth was not sustainable, and no amount of rhetoric would make it so. Today, there is little conceptual difference between sustainable development and sustainable growth”. (Lipschutz 2004, 70). Important is although the concept provides a platform for discussion on the global development.

May it be just this economic orientation of the concept which lead the preparation of the next summit conference in Johannesburg 2002 to the concentration on the practical organization of the market through various partnership programmes. No doubt, that they are important but in this activity the challenge to the change of ethical consciousness was forgotten. The director of the UNEP stated in 1994 : “Agenda 21 lays out the tasks. It is now up to the world community to move beyond the Rio consensus to the commitment necessary for implementation. And a commitment is a moral act, perhaps the missing element in the global equation.” (Brown, 1994, 2).

We ask, why the ethical commitment is so difficult ? It is much easier to do something, which does not challenge the whole personality. To change ourselves and overcome our superficial orientation belong to the most difficult task of human beings. The moral new orientation of a person or from the Muslim perspective the great jihad of heart belong to the decisive spiritual powers contributing to the ethically sustainable development of humankind.

The difficulty of this change of consciousness comes out in the implementation of Agenda 21. Noel J. Brown states : “After all, the scientific debate has started and has yielded considerable data which are continually updated and referred to, thereby alerting the world to clear and present dangers. The political debate has likewise started and despite the many polarizations of confrontations it has spawned, it has indeed succeeded in forging a framework for global cooperation and partnership in action. The economic debate has also begun and governments are now seriously wrestling with the estimated 600 billion dollar a year that would be required for effective earth restoration and the care and maintainance of our planetary home. Even the social debate has begun, in which the issues of poverty has been elevated to a global political claim and part of the World Social Summit in 1995. But after this comprehensive overview on the encouraging result he states : “Still to begin, however, is the ethical debate on the moral implications of Agenda 213 (Ibd.)

What this lacking debate on ethical implementation of Agenda 21 would bring more than what has been done ?

From our theoretical point of view it could improve the individual commitment making the personal existential, being-values conscious. Secondly, it could activate local movements and societies to assess their basic loving-values. If we follow the discussion on sustainable development, it is possible to state that the Johannesburg summit 2002 inherited the ethical challenge of Agenda 21 in an unripe form. Although in the Article 5 of the implementation plan of the WSSD it was stated, that the aims of Agenda 21 should be realized and there is no description how to deal with the ethical challenge.

In the paragraph 17 of the declaration of Johannesburg there are some issues which could have been essential in the ethical debate. The concept of “human solidarity” could have released the discussion on common universal values. But it remains on the very general level. “Recognizing the importance of building human solidarity, we urge the promotion of dialogue and cooperation among the world’s civilizations and peoples, irrespective of race, disabilities, religion, language, culture and tradition.” (Johannesburg Decl. 2002, 2-3). The means of implementation of this aim suggested in this paragraph is the dialogue among civilizations. Unfortunately, this concept is presented in a very diffuse and misleading way.

The problem seems to lay on the presumption, that a genuine dialogue can be realized “irrespective of ..., culture ...”. In fact, they just consist of key elements for a dialogue. What the text intends to say is, that religion and culture should not hinder the dialogue, but this is an impossible assumption. If a genuine dialogue is established it concerns these key realms of human activity. They hold alive the basic individual being-values and the social, loving-values. Without them the dialogue can hardly concern more than economic, having-values. This unlucky formulation of the article 17 point unintended out the exclusion of those values realms, which are necessary in combatting the onesided economic orientation of globalization.

The proposed return to the values of Rio summit would mean a re-evention of the necessity of the change of basic values. In this process of ethical debate the interdependence of being, loving and having values should be exposed as vital for the implementation of the goals of Agenda 21. But how could we find enough common values although the world cultures seem to represent amount of different codes for behaviour ?

4- Different and common values

Since the 1990s, there have been two great discourses opening avenue for a new world orientation. The global ethics discourse has pointed out, what is common in all religions and cultures. The discourse, according to the theses of Samuel Huntington about the possible clash of civilizations, has emphasized the differences in religious and cultural heritage and values basis. Both have an impact on a new definition of the concept of the international well-being and security.

If the clash of civilization would take place, it would hinder also the implementation of the economical globalization. That’s why ILO report of 2004 sees quite right, that defining the common ethical frame of reference is necessary.

Common ethical norms are necessary for individuals as basis for mutual trust. But according to to the global ethics discourse after Chicago declaration 1993, it is not necessary to try to constitute a new set of values. They are already to be found in the cultural heritage and in the historical texts of great religions. Following four principles of Chicago delcaration pursue to define, what is now essential for awakening of ethical awareness of individuals and societies : 1. Respect for life, 2. Righteous economic order, 3. Tolerance and truthfulness, 4. Equality and partnership between men and women. Hans Küng, who is the main architect behind the Chicago declaration states : “These four ethical imperatives, which can be found by Patanjali, the founder of Yoga so as in the Canon of Buddhism, in the Hebrew Bible so as in the New Testament and also in the Qur’an, have two ethical principles as their basis.”

The Golden Rule : “What you don’t want to be done to yourself, don’t do to others”, points out the reciprocity in moral behaviour and can be assessed as leading principle for any ethical behaviour.

The rule for humanity may sound trivial and tautological in many societies but in reality it is globally a far distant goal : “Every human being must be treated humanely”.

Trying to realize these principles we have enough ethical basis for an average common endeavour. But there is a critical question, how to tackle with all the unknown and fearing cultural and religious heritage, which we are encountering in the dialogue with foreign civilizations ? Shall the differences in worldviews destroy our common understanding of central values. Or shall the common principles promote and motivate to understand and tolerate the differences ?

From phenomenological and symbol theoretical point of view this depends on two things. First, the result of dialogue depends on the intensity of ethical commitment. Anne-Marie Schimmel has point out the dialogical power of deep spiritual and mystical way of life. Individuals committed to such kind of striving or great jihad in every culture and religion recognize, what is common in deeper level of human understanding.

Secondly, the level of symbolizing the key religious and cultural concept contributes to the result of dialogical encountering. There is a great difference on results of a dialogue, if we interpret the concepts on fundamentalistic or on the fourth, symbol critical or on the post critical fifth level according Fowler/Biehl taxonomy.

The ethical commitment should include all the main realms of values. Without being values in personal commitments on ethical principles and norms of global ethic no real individual responsibility can be attained. Without reciprocity in partnership by societies and by the third sector actors, based on loving-values, no social responsibility by companies can reached.

It is not difficult to realize the limitations of the globalization process from an ethical point of view, but what could be the means of its improvement. In order to combine the global ethical perspective to this process we cannot only delegate the task for the political decision makers. We know that in parliaments the majority is delegating the ethical issues to some single persons. It happens in a way I realized in an interview. Pointing out the necessity of everyone’s contribution to global ethical discourse, the journalist, without making any notice on the very issue, said : “Oh, we have already in the parliament a parliamentarian, who is caring about global ethical issues !”. Globalizations and global ethic are not a special interest of some individuals. They are important for us all. We cannot forget our possibilities. The globalization can be improved in such a way, that it brings benefit for all. This needs solutions with great ethical responsibility. More or less individuals can have a contribution to it. The result depends on the ethical sensitivity and intensity of commitment. Globalization needs global ethic. Its implementation needs sincere communication on a level which promotes responsible acting. Citizens, societies and all political decision makers are challenged by the word of Gandhi repeated by the NGO group of India in Rio summit : “We have for everyone’s need but not for anyone’s greed”.

(*) Professor at Joensun University in Finland.

Publications of the Islamic Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

-ISESCO- 1428H/2007 A.D