The G7 summits, nowadays G8, have never really been an institution of global governance, although it may appear otherwise, which misconception is due to their overloaded agendas, their pompous statements and their ridiculous public relations- and TV-circus. They will also in oncoming decades not become a powerful institution, unless they come back to the original practice, namely meeting far away from press and television, at a secluded valley or island, just the chiefs

37

[Y]

plus their foreign and finance ministers.

Such rather personal and intimate exchanges are indeed useful – because none of the heads of government is a seasoned diplomat, all of them will speak plainly, all will be left on their own. They will learn thereby and understand, especially those who are new in office. Of course it is highly desirable to include China, also India and as well Brazil.

V.

38

Summit-meetings do nowadays abound,
whether as UN, G8 or WTO or NATO or
every six month EU, a waste of effort.

Even
Much greater is the waste, the gap
between costs and effectiveness, in
most permanent global institutions.

They abound of bureaucrats and
bureaucratic red tape and are
characterized by the absence of
democratic control. The democratic
deficit of any global body is in fact
unavoidable. Therefore anybody who
favors more powerful institutions for

39

global governance, ought to be aware of
the lurking Leviathan, namely the
evergrowing selfish and tyrannical but
de facto uncontrollable bureaucracy.

But still, many people do believe in
additional global controls lest otherwise
<u>globalized capitalism</u> will emerge as the
ultimate regent of the whole world.

Such fear is indeed plausible. In my
view there are three areas in which
<u>potentially dangerous effects of</u>
<u>transnational capitalism</u> are obvious:

40

1. The spread of the <u>ridiculous ideology</u>
that elevates „shareholder value“ into
the one and only principle of
entrepreneurial behaviour can lead to
deep going cultural changes. Mergers
and takeovers normally lead to cutting
jobs. Raiders do not feel guilt to put off
tens of thousands of employees. The
ideology of a managements natural right
to hire and fire is indeed spreading. It
goes against ingrained cultural
traditions in Europe, in Japan and

41

elsewhere. In the end at least the
European democracies will resist a de-
routing of our inherited principles of
social civilisation. But the results in
parts of Asia and Latin America and in
most of Africa may be quite different.

2. The global financial markets are an area in which private corporations may become too powerful at the expenses of democratically elected governments.

We have already seen, about one decade ago, how a privately owned,

42

highly leveraged speculative investment
fund could force the British government
to devalue sterling. We more recently
have witnessed how another highly
leveraged fund could force the U.S.
Federal Reserve System to come to its
rescue in order to avoid a domino effect
of collapses. The financial markets and
particularly the traffic in short term
money do need globally applied
regulations – otherwise some big
private financial houses and
corporations may acquire too much

43

political power. The big banks do not presently govern the world, but they do have the potential to bring a heavy political weight to bear on their national governments.

3. As a European I am also worried about the present advances and spreading of influence of privately owned and managed global information systems, from TV to the internet. We have witnessed f.i. how they created the global psychosis that made millions of

44

people to believe in the wrongly so-
called „new economy“ and buy new
technology stocks at ridiculous prices.
We are also witnessing an owner of TV-
channels becoming the political head of
60 million Italiens.

Global information and propaganda-
systems are indeed capable to exert
economic and political and cultural
influences / far beyond their home
country. There is a looming potential for
usurption of parts of global governance.

45

Not so much capitalism as such but
specifically TV- and information-
capitalism may become a global
challenge. It may even develop into a
challenge to democracy.

VI.

One might ask: *What kind and what
degree of global governance appears
desirable?* The answers might differ due
to one's national and cultural
background. As a European I would

46

mention seven points:

1. The desirability to maintain any nations ability to determine its constitution and to decide its own affairs by themselves. Only so far as their national means are not sufficient to solve a problem, due to the transnational specifics of that problem, only in so far is *subsidiarily* transnational or even global governance desirable.

47

2. Any kind of international and of global authority _should be based on consensus_ and _treaty between sovereign states_.

3. The UN is to be maintained and also _strengthened_. Its Security Council ought to be _the one and only authority that has the right to legitimate the use of military force outside national borders_ - except in cases of self-defense.

48

4. Among the most urgent of new or improved treaties and agreements is a new concept for the World Bank and Official Development Aid: O.D.A. ought to be made conditional on a recipient countries efforts to efficiently establish planned parenthood and on the countries limitation of its military armaments and budget.

5. A new concept for the IMF also is desirable; its main future task should be to maintain efficient rules of behaviour

49

and fair order in global financial markets.

6. A *global compact* is desirable in order to limit the *emittance of greenhouse gases* and also other human activities that contribute to global warming.

7. A *worldwide system* of new or of improved treaties is desirable in order to limit *armaments*, This ought to embrace nuclear weapons and other means of mass destruction, also means

50

for warfare in outer space, also land
mines, and – most important of all –
curtail the export of weapons,
particularly of small weapons etc. etc.

VII.

So far for the desirable goals. But what
will happen in reality? It is an eternal
problem of mankind that there always is
a great gap between our wishes and
hopes and on the other hand the ugly
reality. Also in the oncoming decades
will the desirable only to a very limited

51

degree become reality. What is likely to
<in reality> happen during the next 30
years?

My guess is, that we will see many
geographically limited wars. Neither the
UN nor NATO will be able to prevent
them. In the contrary the charter of the
U.N. will many times be violated by U.N.-
member states. The afore mentioned
desirable agreements will <u>partially</u> be
realised but it will take long years, and
several crises will occur along the road.

52

And Sally enough, any

Any sweeping limitation of arms exports
is unlikely.

The population explosion will go on.
Unsufficiently governed overpopulated
developing countries will suffer as
hitherto. Well organized countries will
gain from globalization, as far as they
enable themselves to adapt their
economies to new technologies and new
competitors. The Americans will in
effect dominate in many fields.

53

**America** will for quite some time remain to be more equal than the other world powers. One cannot exclude the possibility that Americans willfully try to exert control over other countries. A cold war between the U.S. and China is becoming thinkable; in such case the EU would be faced with a difficult decision.

**The EU** has created one major crisis for itself by offering membership to a dozen countries without sufficient structural

54

and financial preparation;
disappointments are due to happen. It
will probably take more than the next
three decades until the EU develops into
a world power – but this must not let the
Europeans shrink back. After all the
European integration process, starting
with Jean Monnets Schuman-Plan, has
so far taken 50 years – its completion
might alltogether take 100 years. Don't
be too impatient!

VIII.

My last remark is addressing you, the highly intelligent young women and men at the Summer School. It is you, who will be faced with growing future problems of global governance. Many of you will become leaders, be it in manufacturing or commerce or financing, be it in academia or in the political arena. You will need a good overview/prior to make decisions which will affect others. They may affect others even beyond your national borders. You may be confronted with the tension

between the interest of your corporation
and on the other hand the interest of the
community or the society or country.

You may even be confronted with the
dilemma of national sovereignty versus
global governance.

Growing interdependence means a
growing potential for conflict as well as
for compromise. Nobody is entitled to
exclusively pursue his or her rights and
claims. Every human also does have

57

responsibilities and moral duties. No
leadership without accountability!

And please, do not ever forget the
ancient Roman wisdom which was
relayed to us by Cicero: Salus *publica*
suprema lex.