M.S.N. Menon

LET us not fool ourselves to believe that the world has changed. It has not. The game is the same — hegemony — and the principal actors are also the same. Only one actor — Russia — has taken a short leave.

But this Western civilisation and its goals based on Judeo-Christianity cannot be a teleological model for the rest of the world, though European thinkers had held on to such pretensions. Europe might have thought that it was leading a procession of humanity, with the unregenerate non-whites on the tow. But it was only a short nightmare in man’s history. In any case, Marxism tried to chart a new course, although it came to grief. The world is back to the old game.

If capitalism and communism are irrelevant — the first because it breeds crises and economic inequality, and the other because it breeds political slavery, then mankind has only one option — it must opt for a global system that is managed by the entire world community (that is by the UN members). It must provide a framework of security, both political and economic, within which nations can work out their destinies according to the genius of each. Above all, the UN system must provide order against the chaos of the free market. India must follow this objective in its interest.

Western civilisation has never been committed to a world democratic system. Creation of veto power within the Security Council, monopoly of nuclear power to a few, weighted decision-making in multilateral financial bodies — all these are anti-democratic. Today the West is engaged in creating an unjust society on a global scale with little option for those who think otherwise to opt out.

When the UN was given a special role in the development of the poorer countries, the West agreed to this not because it approved of UN interventions in economic matters, but because it was anxious to use the UN system to promote its neocolonial strategy. The fact that it had control over the financial institutions of the UN made the West bold.

But when the demand for a New International Economic Order arose in the seventies, it must have become clear to the West that the UN was creating a “planned” global system — with its active involvement in the maintenance of peace, economic development, trade, finance, currency, transfer of technology, information, etc. In short, a world under UN management.

This was a challenge to Western hegemony over the world. This was not what the Western ruling class expected of the UN, when they agreed to set it up.

It was this realisation that led the West to create a major crisis in the world — by reducing official development assistance, by manipulating an oil crisis, by demanding the winding up of certain UN agencies, and by forcing indigent nations to seek financial help from the rapacious private banks. Perhaps it was the Third World demand for a code of conduct to regulate the MNCs operating in the Third World, which was the last straw for the rich. The developing countries wanted powers to regulate the activities of MNCs touching national sovereignties, employment, working conditions, technology transfer, consumer and environmental protection and others. The MNCs which controlled the levers of power in the West, were not ready to make any such concessions.

It must have been clear to the West by then that the UN system had outlived its usefulness to the West. Hence its decision to paralyse it. The first step in this direction was to take the North-South negotiations outside the UN and impose new institutions (WTO) for this purpose. UNCTAD, UNIDO and UNESCO were reduced to nominal departments of the UN. And had it not been for the debt crisis, Washington had every intention to reduce the power and role of the IMF and World Bank, and enhance the role of commercial banks. Today, however, the IMF and World Bank are playing a major role in the globalisation of world economies — a task which has already seen two major crises.

The tragedy of the Third World is that it is never united. Looking at this disunity, Prof Galbraith had once said that if the local leadership of the Third World was strong, effective and well-regarded, it would not tolerate foreign exploitation or domination. Unfortunately, such leaders are no more than three or four in the world. The others are generally sold out to the West in order to perpetuate their power.

But after having opted for market economy and capitalism, we have no ground to complain against the West. It is part of the game if we lose. The rich are rich not because of better management or technology, but because they were able to create favourable global conditions for themselves. The UN tried to help the poor countries to create such a framework, but the poor failed the UN. Today, a country like Japan — second in the world — has no real say in how the world economy is ordered! It is busy picking up the crumbs that is thrown down to it.

Many Western economists and others have warned the Third World not to imitate the West. Galbraith had said that Third World countries should “challenge” the belief that what is right for the advanced industrial countries is right for all. But how easily they fell for “globalisation” and the new round of trade negotiations! In no developing country there is unanimity among political leaders, the bureaucracy and the business community on what goals to pursue. So they pursue their sectarian interests.

India tried to lead this disparate flock and suffered in consequence. It must avoid this mistake. It must follow its own national interest. Perhaps not at the expense of the developing countries.

Those who make the decision today to cast our lot with the Western ruling class — and they are growing by the millions — bear a great responsibility to the future generations, for they may be fettering the fortunes of the poorer countries for centuries.

The point is: can we ask the rich to be more generous to the poorer nations when the poorer nations themselves are not willing to make any concessions among themselves? What step have we taken in this direction? This is what Prof Gunnar Myrdal advised the poorer nations to do. But even our intellectuals fail to understand the logic of his stand.

India cannot go back to the Nehruvian days. Nonalignment has proved to be ineffective in the absence of unity among the nonaligned. India must, therefore, follow its own self-interest. But India is also a great power, with global responsibilities. That is why it must prepare a framework for the pursuit of its own foreign policy objectives. It must create favourable conditions, first of all for itself, and for all the needy countries.

DISCLAIMER:

The views expressed in the Article above are Author’s personal views and kashmiribhatta.in is not responsible for the opinions expressed in the above article.

Courtesy: The Tribune: 7 August, 1998