Former Swedish Prime
Minister Ingvar Carlsson, who succeeded
Olof Palme in 1986, led Sweden through
a time when the famous welfare state
was cracking at its seams. But now
he says he still believes in the Swedish
model as an example for the rest
of the
world. As chairman of the Commission
on Global Governance (1994-2001)
he proposed a set of means for reformation
and strengthening
of global institutional arrangements.
The report of the commission, "Our
Global Neighborhood," is one of
those "living" UN reports;
it has been frequently used by governments
and universities and is now translated
into more than 20 languages. Excerpts
from an interview:
.
What
has happened to the Commission on Global Governance
since it issued its report?
The Commission has continued its work, trying
to push governments and the UN to take actions
in the proposed directions. In some areas we've
gained a hearing, but far too much remains to be
done. The process toward establishing a permanent
international criminal court is satisfying. We
also succeeded in initiating a discussion about
changing the composition of the Security Council.
At the moment there is a quite intense debate going
on about the absurdity of the victorious powers
of World War II constituting the permanent members
of the Council. But of course it's a challenge
to decide which new members should be chosen and
under what conditions.
Since you wrote the report, are you disappointed
about anything?
Yes,
the fact that the process is so slow. We do need
a more effective
and more vital UN‹and
the member states are even failing to pay their
membership dues on time. I think that is incredibly
poor. That is my major disappointment.
You still feel very strongly about more efficient
global governance. Why?
When it comes to the survival of mankind, so many
decisions are global: the ozone layer, climate
change, the nuclear weapons threat, the extreme
poverty, etc. These questions concern young people,
and that makes them come to meetings like the one
[held recently] in Gothenburg. One of the reasons
I was chosen to lead the official reporting on
the protests in Gothenburg was that I am so deeply
involved in global issues. It's been very easy
for me to talk to these young people since I feel
frustrated too about many of these things. A direct
discussion comes naturally: Shall we use violence?
No, there are no shortcuts! In a democracy there
are certain basic principles and one is that you
cannot use violence. But you do have the right
to demonstrate and you have the right to hold meetings.
And the rules must allow both protesters and governments
to have meetings. That's a very important debate
and that is what we discuss now.
What role should the UN play?
I
think that the UN should be more than just cooperation
between
governments. It should be extended so more
groups can raise their voice. This is the reason
why we used the word "governance"; the
word refers not only to governments and parliaments
but a broad spectrum of measures that aim, for
example, to protect human rights. In the commission's
report we suggested that there should be some sort
of right to petition, a way to end-run the government.
Minorities or oppressed groups should be able to
turn directly to an institution connected to the
Security Council when important human rights are
at stake. Another suggestion we had was that nongovernmental
organizations (NGOs) should be able to meet in
NY in September and prepare to bring up their viewpoints
and put issues on the agenda before the General
Assembly.
In the follow-up report of the Commission you
focused on civil society and the world economy.
Why was that?
During the Commission's operative years, the national
economies became more interdependent and the management
of capital flows across borders emerged as a problem.
We decided that the world economy was one area
that we wanted to focus on.
In the Swedish paper Arbetet, you once described
how it felt to lead Sweden in the 1990s.
I said that it felt like being in a boat trying
to steer with the steering oar, but the undercurrent
was so strong that the boat didn't follow but went
with the stream instead. That was when Sweden had
been borrowing so much money that we were dependent
on the international granters of loans. And, as
we know, many countries are in extreme debt and
permanently dependent on these powers.
The Commission also proposed an economic security
council, did it not?
We
decided that we need a forum to discuss international
economic
issues, especially in crisis situations.
Today there is the G7/G8 group, but it has no poor
member countries‹which does not correspond
to the reality. If one is to discuss the world
economy, there have to be representatives from
the poor countries; otherwise it becomes a rich
man's club. The person who pushed that question
was former EU President Jacques Delors. So it wasn't
a fanatic third-world advocate; it was an actual
member of the G7/G8 group who thought that the
group wasn't enough. Unfortunately, no actions
have come out of this suggestion.
Do you feel like a third world advocate when you're
out traveling?
Talking
about domestic or international problems, I'm
a social democrat.
In Sweden, we would never
tolerate such economic differences between people
that there are in the world today. I am not so
naive as to believe that we can change it very
quickly or easily, but I do believe that one should
use the instruments available such as debt depreciation.
I was one of the first to state that I think we
should at least try some sort of "Tobin tax" [on
international currency transfers]. And finally
I really think that every [donor] country should
be able to set aside the 0.7 percent of GNP for
development assistance that we have agreed on.
None of these are radical ideas; they are quite
obvious measures to take.
Are
you still for the "Tobin tax"? Many
politicians and economists have said it's impossible.
I've heard so many times that economists and experts
in different areas say that things are not feasible
but then when the political will is there it turns
out that it works. It's possible that there are
complicated practical obstacles, but I do think
it's worth a thorough investigation. Then we can
dismiss it and discuss new means. Right now the
discussion is blocked.
Do we need better instruments for countries to
manage the 0.7 percent of their GNP for development
assistance?
No, I think that's such a small share that it
could be done within the normal budget work. Every
industrialized country can manage to give that
much. When Sweden was in its deepest crisis, we
lowered our development aid, but that was from
a level that was above 0.7 percent of GNP. So even
during our deepest crisis, when the government
had to make very difficult decisions and cut heavily
in the social security system, we were still among
those five countries that gave what we should.
I think it's a matter of political will.
You have worked with national politics since 1958.
But you don't seem bitter and disappointed, like
many people who have worked with these questions
for a long time.
If you give up it's really dangerous. I feel hopelessness
at times when nothing is happening, but after a
while it disappears and I set about doing another
speech and I try again. I often give speeches about
global issues at universities and youth organizations
because there is an enormous interest. And that's
what one should encourage. I can never oppose engagement:
If you don't criticize the older generation that's
a bigger problem.
What
do you think about "anti-globalization"?
Under that same umbrella there are so many different
views and suggestions. The majority of the protesters
that I've met are very interested in global issues.
They want to change the conditions of trade and
they have opinions on how the globalization should
go about. And that's what I have too!
You were close to Prime Minister Olof Palme and
you worked with him for many years. In what way
do you feel that you have continued his work?
Palme worked in his time, and hence his global
concern was mainly about the process away from
the nuclear weapons war and a struggle for the
poor African countries. I've been devoted to issues
of my time such as the consequences of the fall
of communism and the increasing cooperation in
Europe. In one way, I dealt with totally different
issues, but it's also a direct continuation of
his interest in global solidarity and security.
In your last years of politics is there anything
special that you wish for?
More support for Secretary General Kofi A. Annan
and his adherents is my advice. I hope that during
his second term of office he'll be able to push
through in a quicker pace the UN reform that he
has initiated. He is an excellent secretary general.
|
