Mr Martti Ahtisaari

Towards a New Balance of Informed Global Politics

Distinguished Chair of the Club of Rome Prince El Hassan bin Talal,
Minister Kikwete,
Distinguished participants,
Ladies and Gentleman,

It really is a great pleasure for me to be part of this important conference and I thank the Club of Rome for inviting me to give this speech. As all of us present here today know, the Club of Rome has become a concept. All the efforts undertaken by the Club, since the groundbreaking report "Limits to Growth", has been remarkable. During the last 30 years, its analysis and work has contributed a lot to international discussion and policymaking. And choosing a thought-provoking title for this conference "Limits to Ignorance", shows clearly that the Club is still very much on the edge of our times.

I´ve been asked to address this meeting on the topic "Towards New Balance of Informed Global Politics". I have to confess that the topic is extremely challenging but it also illustrates couple of problems of this new millennium.

Whether we accept different definitions of globalization or not, it is quite easy to agree that profoundly changed information flows are at the core of globalization processes, whether cultural, economical or political.

Ladies and gentlemen, I find it difficult to discuss with you on the above-mentioned topic without mentioning the name of professor Manuel Castells, who defines the emergent global economy in the context of new communications and information technology as a "network society". For Castells globalization involves both capitalist markets and sets of social relations and flows of commodities, capital, technology, ideas, forms of culture, and people across national boundaries via a global networked society.

At the same time it needs to be emphasized that the network society is by no means a concept without problems. According to Castells, network society is structured in its dominant functions and processes around networks and its current manifestation is capitalist. Putting all this into the global context, the evident question is, do these networks and different forms of information work for the people in the south as well.

Some theorists argue that while the current globalization is a model that organises globalization from above, the existing information technologies could be fundamentally meaningful tool to strengthen globalization from below. This is an argument that deserves to be dealt with seriously.

One of the very interesting theories regarding the possibilities of global information society comes from Douglas Kellner. Kellner advocates a globalization-from-below, which supports individuals and groups using new technologies to create a more multicultural, egalitarian, democratic, and ecological globalization. Of course it is also possible that new technologies might exacerbate existing inequalities as well, and give major corporate forces powerful new tools to advance their interests. In this situation, it is up to people of good will to devise strategies to use new technologies to promote democratization and social justice. Still, the possibilities of globalization-from-below result from transnational alliances between different groupings working for common goals, such as social and political justice, environmental protection, transparent democracy and many others.

We still have a long way to go, but it was already in 1973 when Unesco launched a debate on the establishment of a New Information and Communication Order, aimed at reverting the trend by which 80 percent of the world's information flows were controlled by the industrialized countries of the North. The emphasis was then to create and reinforce domestic structures, in particular national news agencies.

This, ladies and gentlemen, was 30 years ago. Now we are in the middle of the UN process on the World Summit on Information Society. As computers and the Internet have transformed the economy and society, the role of information and communications technology in development has become more and more important and generally recognized. According to UN ICT Task Force, which was established by the Secretary General, harnessing the power of ICTs can contribute substantially to realizing each and every Millennium Development Goal, either directly (e.g. through greater availability of health and reproductive information, training of medical personnel and teachers, expanding access to education etc.) or indirectly, through creating new economic opportunities. Future technology can open huge possibilities in areas such as a new generation of wireless communication that could enable areas of the world that do not even have electricity to participate in the communication and information revolution of the emergent global era. All this requires significant investment and programs to assure that everyone receives the training, literacies, and tools necessary to properly function in a high-tech global economy and culture.

Our challenge is to ensure that the global information flows are not one-sided. The question is how to ensure well balanced and fair, open information flows which allow us to have a fair understanding of the nature and consequences of local and global problems. Having that understanding gives us the preconditions to solve these pressing global problems in a just and more equitable manner.

When building preconditions for global politics, information sharing is at the core. At the same time we need to understand that information can also be misinterpreted, manipulated, distorted or controlled. Information is nearly always incomplete.

The Club of Rome states, quite rightly, in its statement to the World Summit on Information Society that the emergence of a networked knowledge society in the next twenty to thirty years is a major paradigm shift from the industrial model of the nineteenth and twentieth century. It is easy to agree with this. At the same time, we need to keep in mind that knowledge is not the same as information, but a sense that people make of information.

So ladies and gentlemen, this brings me back to the original question I was going to address. If information can be a powerful tool for developing countries in reaching for development, what kind of role could it have in the northern societies when building stronger sense of responsibility, or setting limits to ignorance, as the organisers of this meeting put it.

It is my experience that when societies are going through fundamental changes, for example during state-building processes, freedom of expression and open flows of information are keys to development, societal stability and economic prosperity. This requires ethical and well balanced media, which is often the key tool to ensure that the conflict does not escalate, reconciliation is possible, hunger crises can be avoided and active citizenship exercised.

The same argument can easily be put in the global context. Building global politics requires open flows of information, which is necessary precondition for knowledge and understanding. That in return leads to a more democratic way of sharing power.

The organisers of this conference claim that there is a lack of vision of global responsibility. Their specific question is that how can we motivate the middle-classes and other responsible actors to make the commitment to achieve global change?

Ladies and gentlemen, I have to say that I agree with those who strongly argue that the changes our global society is facing in terms of information are fundamental. Small part of the population of the world lives off the fat of the land and through the ever-growing flows of information the poor of the world are very much aware of this. Societies have become more complex, partly because of increased information flows. So when one tries to use information as a tool fore greater social awareness and responsibility, the challenge really is one, how to build up a picture of something that could be called "reality". As we all know, information can be contradictionary with some other information, it can be false and in most cases it is an interpretation of reality by someone, somewhere.

Ladies and gentlemen, let me explore this issue on two levels: the consequence of information flows on citizens and the consequences of information flows on politicians and decision-makers.

There is a contradiction when we say that it is information that creates understanding and knowledge, and at the same time when we look at the present world, we see a serious information fatigue. The basic contradiction seems to be that at the same time that we know more than ever about the world and its ingredients, the more confused and complex the world seems to be. As Vaclav Havel has crystallized this; "it sometimes seems that the more we know the less we understand".In all this, is it really the information itself to be blamed? Of course not.

Even in the northern societies the information content of knowledge cannot be separated from questions of who produces and controls it. Who decides which knowledge is right or wrong, useful or not? Who has the will and the capacity to act on it? To my mind, knowledge as such is only as useful as its recipients' ability to use it. And this is by definition shaped by many economic, political, cultural and other factors. These are the questions that need to be dealt with in all societies when trying to use information for political changes. And of course, this is not just a question of sharing or delivering information, the final responsibility still lies with the individual citizen, who decides whether he or she uses it or not.

The question of controlling and sharing information has always been in the interest of ruling classes in different societies. And when these societies face crisis in form or another, the question of information becomes even more relevant. This is the case with the citizens of the respective countries, but also with the decision-makers and possible outsiders; negotiators or reconciliators that are trying to help in putting the pieces of these crisis-torn societies together.

I have had a privilege of participating in and contributing to into quite a number of interesting state building processes in different parts of the world, and almost always I find the question of information-sharing to be in the core of these processes. In these processes, it has been my task to try to see the big picture behind the huge amount of information produced by different actors. In many cases the misuse of information and information channels obscures the premises of the public decision-making and makes the reconciliation processes even more challenging.

It is obvious that this is most clearly visible in the societies that are trying to recover from historical totalitarian burdens with many devastating effects. Building and bringing justice into conditions like this is probably one of the most difficult tasks there can possibly be. But bringing justice in has also something to do with the decision-making here in the northern liberal-democratic countries as well.

Politicians and decision-makers often get accused of simplifying issues they are dealing with - that they have not been keen to find and understand the truth at all. Yes, the truth matters, the truth is important and being honest is pivotal to all politics. But finding a truth, defining it and legitimising one's decisions based on these findings and ingredients of truth does produce arguments that claim that this poor politician has not taken all the facts into consideration. Sometimes one can also hear arguments that one doesn't understand the truth at all, or doesn´t care about it. At the same time, on the other hand, the very same speaker might emphasize that there really are different truths and that it is not even possible to reach a single point of view. This kind of deeply reductionist approach to politics doesn't understand the nature of societies´ transformation processes.

As the Finnish researchers Tuomas Forsberg and Teivo Teivainen state in their recently published book by my organisation, Crisis Management Initiative, "the purpose of finding the truth may be contested by postmodernists, because it is seen an impossible and also dangerous goal in a complex world that consists of different and often clashing interpretations". And still: "… it is possible to find truth, at least to a degree, and that truth is either a value in itself or closely linked to other important values such as justice and reconciliation". My approach to the problem of finding truth is pragmatic; politicians and decision-makers must be able to find and define it in all circumstances, even though it might carry some different interpretations. In order to progress societies and their politicians cannot be only truth-seekers, they must be capable of finding truth as well.

Ladies and gentlemen, the organisers of this meeting claim that ignorance in the world has reached a limit where it has to end. What logically follows from this claim is a question; who is being ignorant and respect to what? And if we are able to identify these ignorant people, we need to ask, what is the reason for their - or maybe our - ignorance. And more; what are things needed with to change this ignorance.

I find the concept of ignorance a bit complex. I´m sure that we all agree that the world is not fair, it is not safe and it certainly isn´t equal. It is also easy to agree that we don't care and we don't act as much as we should. In other words, the minority of the world is being ignorant of the vast majority. Still, we need to go further than just blaming people and urging them to be less ignorant.

I know that I have sometimes been blamed for being too optimistic. But I still firmly believe that ignorance is not something that is an intrinsic part of each one of us, it is always a result of something else.

When looking at the world in a perspective of, let's say the last 15 years, I actually do see quite many promising signals emerging around the globe. Democracy prevails in many societies where it was considered as impossible just a few years ago. Human rights have gained new ground in many areas, where it has been totally absent for decades. Transparency in global politics has been under a serious transformation process. A series of global conferences in the 90´s did open a door for that and now there is no going back. The role of civil society has become more and more important.

Many of these fundamental and encouraging changes have taken place because of information flows that have shaped the world dramatically. Still, we do have many challenges ahead of us. But if we agree with those, who consider the future as a sum of past and present, and not just some undefined and uncontrolled destiny ahead of us, we can take a relatively positive stance on the future.

Dear participants, one of the problems we face today in the world is that of sector-oriented information. Information is more specialized than ever and sometimes it is difficult to see the forest for the trees. What kinds of processes can bring about a shared view between different parties? In different sectors, we have plenty of groupings and constituencies working on the same problems and challenges; governments, business, civil society, inter-governmental organisations etc.

Building a new balance in global politics requires that these sectors and well-informed global actors meet with one another in order to debate and discuss about joint policies and preferences. We need to have an unprejudiced mind in launching efforts where different groupings can come together, have serious dialogue and try to find ways of working together. This is a responsibility for governments, but also for civil society, business and other organisations and constituencies all around the world.

One of the ways of promoting for a more balanced and equitable world can be, for example, the Helsinki Process on Globalisation and Democracy, a joint initiative of the Finnish and Tanzanian governments, which aims to launch a proactive effort to find new solutions to the dilemmas of global governance by bringing together individuals from all major stakeholder groups. While Helsinki Process is but one model, it is my sincere wish that this process could become a well-functioning model for global inter-sectoral efforts that are deeply needed today in a networked global society.

Ladies and gentlemen, I thank for your attention.