SPEECH BY F W DE KLERK TO THE ROTARY REUNION CONFERENCE, CAPE TOWN, February 4 2011

WHAT THE WORLD NEEDS NOW - SEEKING PEACE

I have been asked to address you this afternoon on the challenges that the world now faces in seeking peace.  It is a fascinating question- which should be addressed within the framework of the rapidly changing power relationships and global realities of the 21^st century.

These include a number of salient facts:

• The first is that we are living in one of the most peaceful eras in human history.    According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute there were no wars between countries in the five years preceding 2008.
• The second reality is that all fifteen of the major conflicts that occurred in 2008 were within countries and were primarily between religious, ethnic and cultural communities.  Three of these internal conflicts - those in Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia - had become internationalised.
• Thirdly, we are witnessing major shifts in global economic power - with East and South Asia increasingly threatening the former dominance of Europe and the United States.   These shifts in economic power will ultimately be reflected in shifts in strategic and geo-political power.
• Finally, all this will be taking place within the framework of growing environmental challenges and growing demands for food and natural resources  arising from unsustainable global population growth.   In a world that is increasingly resource and food hungry, more attention will inevitably be focussed on Africa.

The simple reality is that in the 21^st century, the main threat to peace no longer comes from the possibility of wars between countries: it comes from the growing threat of conflict within countries between ethnic, cultural and religious communities.  I believe that it will continue to be the main threat to peace for the foreseeable future.

One of the inescapable implications of globalisation is an enormous increase in the interaction between people from different backgrounds, cultures, languages and religions.   The management of the resulting cultural, language and religious diversity will be one of this century's greatest challenges.

Nearly all the world's conflicts have their roots in the inability of countries to manage diversity.  Examples are the recent civil war in Sri Lanka between Tamils and Sri Lankans; the ongoing tensions between Israelis and Palestinians; the current dismemberment of Sudan and the ongoing conflict in Darfur; the present impasse in the Ivory Coast and recurrent tensions between Moslems and Christians in Nigeria. Chechnya, Dagestan, Georgia, Kashmir and the Philippines have recently - or are still - experiencing ethnic and religions conflicts.   On the global stage deep and unresolved differences in the worldviews of conservative Moslems and the West are among factors that lie at the root of global terrorism.

Throughout the world populations are becoming more cosmopolitan:  the world's 200 countries now include more than 6 000 different cultural communities.  More than two thirds of the world's 200 countries have cultural minorities comprising more than 10% of their populations.  Cultural diversity is being augmented by new waves of migrants seeking economic opportunities and freedom.  Everywhere people are on the move - and everywhere they are confronting once homogenous societies with new challenges.

The preservation of cultural diversity is also one of the central issues in the debate on where globalisation is leading us.  Many people believe that the identity, purpose and dignity that they derive from their cultural heritage are being threatened by the global tidal wave of English-language mass culture.  The pervasive media, entertainment and communication influences that it broadcasts are brashly consumerist and often respect few boundaries or traditional values.

The management of diversity is also an increasingly important challenge and reality in countries throughout the world.  There are now more than 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States.  The 40 million Hispanic Americans are now the country's largest and fastest growing minority.  By 2050 they  will include more than 100 million people - or one in four Americans.

The accommodation of diverse immigrant groups has become one of the most controversial issues in Europe.  It has played a decisive role in recent elections in a number of European countries.  In 2007 it led to some of the worst riots that France has experienced since the Second World War - and even in tolerant Britain it is fuelling a resurgence of far-right nationalist sentiment.  Recently, the European Union's Justice Commissioner said that issues of migration should be at the top of the EU's agenda. 

According to the Commissioner, the European Union needed to strike a balance between facilitating immigration of sorely-needed skilled workers and controlling illegal immigration and trafficking.  The present work force is expected to decline by 20 million people by 2030 - and the only way of replacing most of them will be through immigration.

Our own country, South Africa, is one of the most culturally and ethnically diverse societies in the world. The future success of our own society will also be determined by our ability to manage diversity and to promote multiculturalism. Our Constitution provides space for all our communities to practise their cultures; to speak their own languages and to be educated in the language of their choice.  Unfortunately, the language and cultural provisions of the Constitution are increasingly ignored by government as it moves inexorably toward a de facto unilingual dispensation.

Our rich heritage of indigenous languages and cultures will not survive if government does not take seriously its constitutional obligation to nurture and develop them.  Afrikaans, although still a vibrant written and spoken language, is under huge pressure at the university level.

The Constitution also requires non-racialism and prohibits unfair discrimination of any kind.  Despite this there is an increasing tendency for white and black extremists to revert to the damaging racial rhetoric of the past.  In 2009 we observed ugly outbreaks of xenophobia against immigrants from other countries.

Effective management of diversity in line with the Constitution must remain one of our core national priorities.  We simply cannot afford ethnic conflict.

All of this is, however, part of the broader challenge of managing cultural and religious diversity in a world in which inter-communal conflict is by far the greatest threat to peace and stability.

We are witnessing major shifts in global economic power.

We have moved into a new era that is still reeling from the economic crisis of 2008 -2009 and that is characterised by increasing doubt about the ‘Washington consensus' and the accepted wisdom of the ‘nineties.  A number of western democracies are experiencing serious problems with their social-democratic model.  They are discovering that countries simply cannot keep on pumping out social benefits without producing the wealth to finance them.  The result, as we see in Greece, is inevitably bankruptcy.  The larger the role of government in catering to the social needs of the people, the less scope there is for the productive sectors of the economy.  To what extent will the European Union with its unwieldy and bureaucratic mechanisms be able to remain a credible player on the world stage?

The key question during the coming decade may well be whether the US and European models will be able to hold their own against the increasing global economic challenge of China and India?  This will not be a violent competition between armies and air forces: it will be an equally and deadly competition in world markets for customers and resources. Once again, the outcome will identify the social system that is best able to prevail and to achieve the interests of its people.

After three decades of stagnation in the dead-end street of Maoist communism, the Chinese leadership must finally noticed that their countrymen in Hong Kong and Taiwan were out-performing most of the rest of the world in achieving spectacular economic growth.  They must have seen that Hong Kong had one of the freest economies in the world with minimal state interference and maximum decision-making in the hands of producers and consumers.  They must also have noted that although it was economically free, Hong Kong was not politically free.   It was still a British Colony.  So maybe it would be possible for the Chinese Communist Party to stay in control while liberalising the economy at the same time?  The rest is history. 

Similarly, after four decades of independence, India finally managed to break free from the straight-jacket of Congress socialism.  It is also reaping the benefits in dazzling economic growth. In the 18^th century China and India accounted for more than 40% of global GDP.  They are rapidly resuming their pre-eminence after a long period of decline.

Interestingly enough, the big loser in the international economic stakes is the fifteen core countries of the European Union.  In 1975 the core EU countries accounted for 36% of the global GDP; the United States' share was 26.3% and that of Asia was 16.5%.  By 2009 the EU core countries' share had had declined to 27%; the US had remained virtually constant at 26.8% - and Asia had increased to 22%.  According to projections, the EU core countries' share in 2030 will be 18.6%; the US will have declined to 23%; and Asia will have soared to 36%.

So what are the Europeans doing wrong?

Shifts in economic power will almost inevitably be reflected in shifts in military power. The United States will in all likelihood remain the preeminent military power - but it is unlikely that it will project its power in distant regions where its core national interests are not at stake. 

It is increasingly difficult for Western democracies to sustain lengthy campaigns in foreign countries in the full glare of the omnipresent media.  Local civilians will inevitably be killed - so will Western soldiers.  Each British death in Afghanistan now receives more media coverage than the deaths of thousands of men in the battles of the First World War.  The Western experience in Iraq and Afghanistan also points to the difficulty of trying to establish Western-style democracy in complex societies with very different histories and levels of development. 

After the United States and its allies extricate themselves from Iraq and Afghanistan they would be wise to consider other strategies to combat terrorism and to deal with the volatile states in the region.  Such strategies might include

• the gradual lessening of dependence on oil from the Middle East;
• an intensified search for lasting peace between Israel and Palestine; and
•  serious repercussions for any state that provides help to terrorists. 

Inevitably, there will be a military dimension to the emergence of China and India as economic super powers.  If the United States wishes to protect its Pacific flank, it will have to retain a strong position in the East Asian periphery - in Japan, Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines and South East Asia.  It will have to do so in the face of growing assertiveness of China whose economic prosperity will inevitably be translated into a much more formidable military capability.  

All this is presenting the United States and Europe with a seminal challenge:  will their social and economic models be able to compete with the challenge from India and China?  If not - what will the consequences be?   If the West decides to take on the challenge what will it have to do to ensure the success of its system?  It is unlikely that there will be any painless solution.  The question is: will western democracies be able to take the pain of competing with the new Asian giants?

I  believe that the developments during the coming decades will take place within the framework of the struggle for environmental sustainability.  Any serious or prolonged environmental crisis would dramatically change our future.

Secondly, many of the security issues that we will confront during the next twenty to thirty years will centre on the management of diversity in our rapidly globalising world.  Central to this will be the need to develop some kind of modus vivendi between people from different faiths - and in particular between radical Moslems, Jews and Christians.  The struggle against terrorism will continue.  At the same time, advanced countries will be increasingly challenged by the implications of their greying populations and by legal and illegal immigration from third world countries.

Thirdly, the world in fifteen years will be dominated by new technologies - the impact of which will change our lives as radically as the internet has during the past ten years.  These technologies have the capacity to accelerate fundamental changes that have been taking place in society - regarding, how we work, how we are entertained, how we live - and for how long we will live.

Fourthly, we will see whether the American and European political and economic models will be able to compete successfully against the growing economic and strategic challenge from Asia.

There is no end to history. 

As my compatriots in the ANC like to put it - the struggle continues - and always will.

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute there were 19 serious conflicts in the world in 2004, nearly all of which were cultural and religious conflicts inside countries.  Six of these conflicts were in Africa and six in Asia.  Three were in the Americas and three in the Middle East and one was in Europe. 

A deep sense of cultural, religious or ethnic alienation lies at the root of many of the nasty little wars throughout the world - most of which seldom impact on the evening news.  Who, two years ago had ever heard of South Ossetia, a break-away province of Georgia, where local forces supported by Russia are ranged against Georgian forces trained by the United States and Britain?  Yet the recent attempt by Georgia to reassert its control over the region and Russia's subsequent invasion, have raised serious tensions between Russia and Nato. 

Similar problems exist in many other parts of the former Soviet Union, where large Russian minorities were incorporated into newly independent states.  As I speak, huge tensions are also developing between Russia and the Ukraine over the continuing use by the Russian fleet of the harbour of Sevastapol.  The Ukrainians want the Russian fleet to leave the Sevastapol naval base - but Russians comprise 71% of the city's population.  In large parts of Eastern Ukraine Russians make up a sizable and increasingly discontent majority of the population.

Nearly all the conflicts in countries around the world have their roots in the failure to manage diversity.  Too often, minority communities feel that they are not sufficiently accommodated, politically or culturally, in the processes by which they are governed.  They feel that their governments are insensitive to their languages and cultures; that they are subject to discrimination, repression and efforts to integrate them forcibly into the majority culture. 

This sense of alienation often breaks out in conflict, rebellion, demands for secession and sometimes in acts of terrorism.  Present or recent conflicts in Bosnia, Kosovo, Chechnya, Sri Lanka, The Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia and Turkey and in many countries in Africa provide more examples of this phenomenon.

Religious diversity also lies at the root of some of the ongoing conflicts in the world.  The recent terrorist attacks in Mumbai had their roots in the unresolved conflict between Moslems and Hindus in Kashmir.  Differences between Hindus, Moslems and Sikhs in India; and Moslems and Christians in Nigeria and Sudan all create volatile situations that can explode into violence and terrorism at almost any time. 

Religious and cultural alienation are also some of the main underlying causes of international terrorism.

Many terrorists are motivated by a deep sense of religious and cultural grievance.  The rampant advance of globalised consumer culture with its attendant political and social ethos, poses a fundamental threat to conservative societies and particularly to fundamentalist Moslems.  They fear it with every fibre of their being precisely because their people find its shiny consumer products, its flashy, free-wheeling life-style and its amoral pop culture so alluring. 

They regard the unrestrained freedom, sexual emancipation, abortion on demand, gender equality and materialism that they see in Western media as a mortal affront to the austere piety of Islam.

The result is often fanatical rejection of western culture and its chief exponent, the United States. 

One of the great challenges of the new millennium will be to address cultural and religious alienation and to devise norms and approaches that will enable different communities to live together in peace.

In our shrinking and globalised world, different cultural, religious and ethnic communities will inevitably be brought into greater proximity with one another.  As communities feel themselves increasingly threatened by the emerging global culture it is likely that they will place an even greater emphasis on their cultural identities.  The international community will have to pay far greater attention to this question than has thus far been the case.    Few states welcome international scrutiny of their relationships with minorities within their borders.   On the other hand, more than 900 million people throughout the world - one in seven of the human population - belong to ethnic, cultural or religious minorities.  Many of them experience alienation and discrimination.

There is an urgent need for more intense and informed debate on how the international community should deal with ethnic, cultural and religious diversity.

For some, the obvious solution to inter-communal conflict is partition - particularly where communities constitute clear majorities in definable geographic areas.  This was accepted as the solution in the case of Slovakia and the Czech Republic and was the basis for the fragmentation of the Soviet Union and the old Yugoslavia.   But would it be practical or desirable in other cases?  What would the position be if the Inuit - the native inhabitants of much of the north of Canada - wished to establish their own state, or if the Navajo were to decide to do so in their homeland in the south-western United States?  Clearly we would open the door to chaos if every such community decided to opt for partition.

In South Africa, from 1960 onwards, we tried to achieve a solution to our complex problems on the basis of ethnic territorial partition.  We failed - because economic and demographic forces had already integrated the country to such an extent that separation was impossible.

In our shrinking and increasingly inter-dependent world, the challenge is not how different communities should best go their separate ways.  It is, rather, how they can best learn to coexist in a spirit of harmony and mutual respect.

The challenge is to devise approaches and to establish norms that will enable different cultural and ethnic communities to coexist within the same states.  To achieve this, we must reach broad agreement on the cultural, linguistic and educational rights that such communities should enjoy.  However, we also need to reach agreement on underlying values that can provide a basis for co-operation and unity. 

The main international conventions and agreements dealing with minority rights have gone some way toward establishing a global approach to the management of diversity.  

• In general, the international community rejects the idea of secession as the solution to the problems of minorities - although it depends very much on circumstances.  The United States and the European Union generally support the right of Kosovo with its Moslem majority to secede from Serbia - but they oppose the right of the people of South Ossetia to secede from Georgia.  The Russians, on the other hand, oppose the secession of Kosovo and Chechnya - but support the right of Abkhazia and South Ossetia to secede from Georgia.
• The forced assimilation of the melting pot is also unacceptable - not only because of the resistance and conflict that it is likely to cause, but because it does not work and is inconsistent with democratic norms and notions of basic justice.
• There is also a generally accepted norm that states should not discriminate against their citizens because of their ethnic, cultural or religious affiliations.

However, there is less unanimity regarding

• the right of cultural minorities to mother tongue education and the responsibility of states to provide such education;
• the right of communities to a voice in decisions affecting their own communities; and
• the degree to which special provision should be made for the inclusion of minorities in broader national decision-making processes and in the national identity.

We need to strengthen international conventions to entrench the right of cultural communities to education in their own languages and traditions.   The reality is that without appropriate education , there is little likelihood that cultural, religious and linguistic minorities will be able to survive.  Many believe that minorities should not only have a right to such education - others argue that it is a fundamental right.

The need to promote multicultural approaches in diverse societies is increasingly recognised by the international community.  According to the United Nations's Development Programmes 2004 Human Development Survey multiculturalism is the most effective response to the challenge of diversity.  It points out that

"Cultural liberty is a vital part of human development .... People want freedom to participate in society without having to slip off their chosen cultural moorings.  States face an urgent challenge in responding to these demands.  If handled well, greater recognition of identities will bring greater cultural diversity in society, enriching people's lives.  But there is also a great risk.  These struggles over identity, if left unmanaged or poorly managed, can quickly become one of the greatest sources of instability within states and between them - and in so doing can trigger conflict that takes development backwards."

The report goes on to deal with - and dismiss - various myths relating to the management of inter-communal relations and concludes that "policies recognizing cultural identities and encouraging diversity to flourish do not result in fragmentation, conflict, weak development and authoritarian rule.  Such policies are both viable, and necessary, for it is often the suppression of culturally identified groups that leads to tension."

As I have pointed out above, the key to the maintenance of peace and harmony in our shrinking global community is the management of diversity:

• We need to do much more to define and protect the rights of cultural, ethnic and religious minorities throughout the world.  
• We need to establish an international norm for these rights, just as we have already done for individuals, for women and for children.
• We need to promote acceptance of the role that education can and must play in the preservation of religious, cultural and language diversity.  We also need to establish the principle that states have a duty to support and finance such education.
• We need to measure the behaviour of governments against these norms.  If we do so, I am confident that we will soon discover that the societies that are the worst afflicted by inter-communal violence are also those that have the least respect for the rights of their constituent communities.  

In our rapidly changing world, the accommodation and protection of diversity will be a key requirement for the success of countries, companies and communities.

In the final analysis, managing diversity is about accepting the need for freedom of choice, toleration and common values: 

• people should be free to be themselves and to maintain the many concentric identities that make them individuals;
• managing diversity is about promoting a culture of toleration and respect for difference;
• but it is also about reaching agreement on core values and approaches that bind people together.

We have entered the global village.  It is exciting; it is often very confusing; and sometimes a little frightening.    Increasingly, people from different cultural backgrounds will be rubbing shoulders in the streets, market places and international companies that make up our global village.  The presence of people from so many different cultures is one of the most enriching aspects of our new world.  But it will also require us to observe new codes of behaviour and to acknowledge the multidimensional rights of people - as citizens, as members of organisations and communities, and as individual men and women. 

Issued by the FW de Klerk Foundation, February 4 2011

Click here to sign up to receive our free daily headline email newsletter