New millennium to unlease man's moral, political imagination
New millennium to unlease man's moral, political imagination
Dr. Herbert Feith, a visiting lecturer in the Faculty of
Social and Political Sciences at Gadjah Mada University in
Yogyakarta talked about various topics including globalization
and the Soros phenomenon in a recent interview with The Jakarta
Post.
The topics have earlier been touched on by Dr. Richard Falk,
an American professor from Princeton University, during his
various talks when he visited Indonesia last month.
Falk believes that globalization creates opportunities for the
growth of civil society since the global society will lack
independent sources of wealth and will not rely only on military
capabilities, allowing a new set of orientations toward politics
to take shape.
Question: When Falk visited Indonesia last month he described
the power of Soros as a phenomenon of globalization. Do you have
a comment on this?
Answer: It is important to see three distinct dimensions of
world politics at present: the state, capital, and citizens'
organizations. Falk described those symbolically in terms of
three people: South African President Nelson Mandela, financier
George Soros and the American political scientist Huntington.
Those three names stand for three worlds: the world of states,
the world of capital, and the world of civil society or non-
governmental organizations (NGOs). States project power across
boundaries, capital operates very freely across boundaries, and
NGOs are increasingly capable of mobilizing influence across them
as well.
Q: Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad has come out strongly against
Soros. He charged that Soros' moves against Southeast Asian
currencies are politically motivated. But Falk sees no political
agenda in what Soros did. What do you think?
A: Falk emphasized that global capital has enormous power vis-a-
vis the states -- that power has been growing very rapidly. But
he does not see Soros as acting according to his personal
political preferences. Those are a relatively minor factor.
Financiers like Soros are operators in the world of mobile
capital.
It's not Soros personally, but a group of financiers who are
looking around for the most profitable opportunities in various
countries. They compare countries and currencies with each other
regarding their longer term strength.
Q: But Mahathir argues that the U.S. government supports Soros to
punish Southeast Asian countries for accepting Myanmar into
membership of ASEAN...
A: It is true that Soros is a sympathizer of the Myanmarese
democratic opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi. But I doubt
whether that is much of a factor in his financial operations. As
a philanthropist, Soros gives money to a variety of political
causes including ones to do with democracy in Myanmar. But as a
financier, he can't afford to be too influenced by his personal
sympathies.
Q: Some people say the American government is only too happy to
see the ASEAN countries punished for being assertive on issues
like Myanmar.
A: It may well be that a lot of people in the American
administration are happy to see Mahathir having economic
troubles. Whether they are happy to see Soeharto having troubles
is more doubtful. I suppose some elements of the U.S.
administration are happy to see that and others unhappy. But the
important actors here are global firms rather than states. Soros
does not operate by state logic. He operates by the logic of
capital.
Q: Falk seems to believe that fast globalization creates
opportunities for the growth of civil society. Is there any
evidence of that?
A: It's a question of challenge and response. It's not only
states in Southeast Asia which are responding to the turbulence
which financial movements have generated in the last two months.
It is also being done by NGOs. For instance, there was an
important conference on globalization in Kuala Lumpur in July
held at the initiative of Professor Chandra Muzaffar (from the
University of Malaya). As I see it, there needs to be many more
initiatives from universities and other non-government groups
relating to the extraordinarily fast globalizing changes whose
principal engine is capital. And there needs to be greater
cooperation between NGOs in the different ASEAN countries.
Q: But what is the evidence that a global civil society is
emerging?
A: Falk talked about Mandela as a symbol of the power of ideas
and values in global affairs. People in many parts of the world
respond to Mandela as they did to Princess Diana and Mother
Teresa. People throughout the world feel that they know public
figures such as these three -- in much the same way as they know
leaders and celebrities in their own countries.
As a result of the way the mass media operates, a large number
of people in both rich countries and poor ones see themselves as
having a capacity and right to pass judgment on prominent people
outside their own country.
Some of them have actively criticized the role of the
papparazzi in forcing themselves onto Princess Diana and Dodi
while others have expressed anger about the attitude of the
British Queen towards Diana. Those are signs that the world is
becoming a single moral stage -- as well as a single market.
Q: Is there any relation between globalization and democracy in a
country like Indonesia?
A: Globalization has negative consequences and positive ones. One
powerful negative consequence is that mobile capital can dictate
governments. That is happening all over the world, and especially
in Third World countries. That means that governments are under
great pressure to spend less on education, health, and other
welfare areas and are reluctant to increase their contributions
to the United Nations.
The positive side is that fast and cheap long-distance
communications -- via the internet, the fax, satellite
television, and so on -- makes it possible for us to become more
empathetic to people who live in faraway places, and to people of
different religions, nationalities, or race in our own
communities. That is not creating democracy, but it may be
helping to create the conditions for it.
Q: Are you saying that global communication generates more space
for dialog?
A: Yes, by creating a new capacity for empathy. It makes people
say: I get angry when I see people starving in Africa (or in
Gunung Kidul). I get angry because I know that there is more than
enough food in this world. That heightened sense of human
solidarity is a positive thing.
Q: But has it made military force any less important? Most Asian
governments are spending billions of dollars on arms purchases.
And many of them are getting worried about the growth of Chinese
military power...
A: It is certainly too early to say that armed forces are a thing
of the past. States are continuing to spend huge sums on weapons
-- often on weapons capable of projecting power a long way beyond
their own borders. But there do seem to be long-term trends
operating to make weapons less important in world affairs.
Q: Falk says that the turn of the millennium is an opportunity to
exercise our moral and political imagination. Do you agree with
him?
A: As he sees it, we are all less adventurous than we should be
in relation to the moral and political options we face. He is a
great admirer of the way Gandhi developed new kinds of political
strategies and tactics, including new forms of disciplined and
morally exemplary civil disobedience.
In Indonesia, morally exemplary political protest has
repeatedly proved effective. When Romo Mangunwijaya threatened to
go on a hunger strike in defense of the people of Kampung Kali
Code here in Yogyakarta, the government eventually agreed that
the developers should not be allowed to destroy the kampong.
And Abdurrahman Wahid's threat to fast on top of Mount Muria
against the plan to build a nuclear power plant there may well
have helped persuade the government to put off its nuclear power
plans.
Happily, more Indonesian NGOs are becoming interested in
training their members to engage in disciplined non-violent
political action in defense of their supporters. Women's and
labor organizations seem to be in the lead in that respect.
Q: But it would be hard to deny that these powerful globalizing
trends are a sign that capitalism is triumphant, don't you think?
A: It is certainly true that globalization has strengthened the
power of big business. States have been put into a position where
they need to give top priority to attracting mobile capital and
keeping it within their own borders. That has made it harder for
workers, consumers, environmentalists and local communities to
get governments to attend to their needs. But it has also given
those groups incentives and opportunities to organize
transnationally in support of their interests. (asip agus/swa)