Social Science Research Council

SECURING GLOBAL COOPERATION IN THE AGE OF GLOBALIZATION: REFLECTIONS ON SOME CONCLUSIONS FROM THE WORK ON GLOBALIZATION AT THE GORBACHEV FOUNDATION
By Ngeta Kabiri

Introduction

The Gorbachev Foundation was established in December 1991 as an international intellectual organ to, inter alia, "inspire the usage of scientific knowledge towards strengthening humanistic, moral principles in individual and social life, [and] to bring up scholars and politicians of the new generation" ("The International Foundation for Socio-Economic and Political Studies," hereafter "International Foundation"). The Foundation, as its documents aver, "is actively working for the benefit of modernization and flourishing of Russia, for the success of democratic transformation" ("International Foundation"). Among the issues the Foundation has been grappling with is that of globalization, an initiative of former Soviet President, Mikhail Gorbachev. The initiative aims to engage the question of globalization, initially under the theme of "Globalization: Challenges and Responses," but the endeavor has now resulted in a volume entitled Facets of Globalization: Difficult Issues of Contemporal Development (forthcoming). The Foundation's other projects are described on the Gorbachev Foundation website (www.mikhailgorbachev.org (GF) Website).

Institutional Ideology and Actor Autonomy

We make reference to the Foundation while discussing the work originating there merely as a matter of convenience. We know, perhaps too well, that it is commonly acknowledged by the academy that the output of intellectual endeavors executed under the aegis of a given organization need not necessary reflect the blessings of that organization to the ideas so expounded by individual participants. Nevertheless, it is significant to note that the supporters of the Foundation are expected to adhere to the ideas of reforms initiated during perestroika (see the GF website). This, however, need not imply that divergence of opinion is precluded.

Indeed, as a perusal of the discussions taking place within the Foundation does indicate, there is a healthy disagreement among the experts taking part in this examination of diverse issues. Mikhail Gorbachev himself, for example, explicitly says, while giving the closing remarks after a roundtable discussion, that "the value of today's discussion consists, first of all, in the confirmation that the report provides a good basis for debate" (Gorbachev Foundation, 2000) and, a little later, while commenting on an aspect of the discussion that concerned the question of Russia's self-determination, he proceeds as if he is (re)opening, rather than closing, the debate. He states: "I therefore disagree with those who criticized the step-by step approach proposed in the report" (Gorbachev Foundation, 2000). This thereby signifies the fact that the Foundation is a venue for a vibrant intellectual communion where an intellectual endeavor with a normative dimension is nevertheless purposeful. The Foundation, as remarked previously, seeks to mould a certain kind of society. What is the nature of society in this age of globalization as characterized by a range of presentations made at the Gorbachev Foundation? In responding to this question, two issues are striking. These are namely economic activity and environmental challenges.

Marketing Regulation of Open Economic Activity?

While one would have expected that an inquiry into globalization that is based in an institution associated with the movers of perestroika would be sympathetic to economic openness and enviro-capitalism, the doctrine of regulation seems bent to assert itself as a possible exit from the predicaments occasioned by globalization. In a contribution to the processes of economic globalization and the crisis of the world economic order that it has brought about, Oleg T. Bogomolov and Alexander D. Nekipelov come to a conclusion that calls for tampering the classic mechanisms of market self-regulation with purposeful regulatory activity by states, international and supra-national structures (Veber, n.d). This is certainly an attention-capturing conclusion.

Apart from this proposition not being what some would expect from those who would otherwise be expected to serve as the signposts of openness, I found it interesting because it reminded me of the confrontations between the state (in Kenya, for instance) and its critics as it battled with the Bretton Woods institutions that were calling for the de-regulation of the currency market. But, no sooner had the state acquiesced and de-regulated the currency market that the local currency went through the roof against the hard currency (read the dollar) and, immediately, the local critics of the state started complaining that the government is not intervening to save the local currency. Here was a call for re-regulation, to which the state could not have wished for a better challenge! (I do not, however, intend to be understood as implying that the attachment to regulation that drove the state in Kenya is the same as that driving the exponents of re-regulation at the Gorbachev Foundation. In one respect, the former were operating within the state, while the latter are operating outside the state, so to speak. The former carried with it the specter of self-interest, while the latter can easily claim innocence of the same. But then, is there an identity of interest that can be discerned in the call for re-regulation by both the state's critics in Kenya and some of those working at the Gorbachev Foundation?)

The notion of regulating self-regulation is quite interesting and thought provoking. It would be equally interesting to see how states can negotiate openness and what appears like neo-protectionism. Is this a case of re-opening protectionism or protecting openness, or in fact is it both, re-opening protectionism to protect openness? How would states secure the cooperation of other actors in an enterprise where the source of inspiration is each state's self-interest or determination while remaining open to others? And, we encounter a similarly intriguing case at the realm of environmentalism.

In Search of the Greens

The Foundation has given the environmental issue under globalization the attention that it truly deserves. This question seems to have commanded more attention than any other issue that was discussed in conferences and round tables by the turn of the century under the project "Globalization: Challenges and Responses" (see the GF website). In one such contribution, Victor I. Danilov-Danilyan and Kim S. Losev, like Oleg T. Bogomolov and Alexander D. Nekipelov, seem to eschew the market and point to regulation as a possible mechanism of resolving environmental problems, one of the main global challenges of the 21st century. What I find interesting in their contribution is the apparent contention that the regulatory regime they call for is to be spearheaded from the top (by the world's scientific community and the ruling elites), with the qualification of those at the top being their awareness of environmental perils which should thus prod them to introduce global planning and regulation systems (Veber, n.d.). This appeared to me as inconsistent with the emerging orthodoxy in global environmental governance whereby the approach from the top is being de-emphasized in favor of a bottom-up approach, with the local, instead of the state or the global, being the new focus.

Those who have counseled the case for a bottom-based approach to global environmental governance have based their case on the exact opposite of the claims seemingly advanced by the Foundation. They contend that the ruling elites and the scientific community are, unlike the locals, those at the bottom, far removed from the ground as to be aware of the environmental perils taking place there. It is, therefore, argued that the ruling elites and the scientific community are ill-positioned to be relied on to steward the global community from the environmental challenges besetting it. Thus, if the work at the Foundation now points otherwise, this then is another challenging twist to our understanding of the environmental question under globalization. To what extent does this represent a call to a return to the past?

Isolating Openness

In one respect, this could translate to precisely that in practice. Opponents of globalization in one of the roundtable discussions clearly asserted that Russia, for example, is not yet ready for openness (Krasin and Palazchenko, 2001). One speaker (Kara-Murza), for instance, called for a way of protecting the country through a system he called "closing off without isolation." (By extension, can other states adopt this formula?) This entailed a regulation of the borders to let pass what a country needs while not allowing what should be stopped. "Compromises will sometimes be necessary," he asserted, "but that is not the same as opening up and allowing free diffusion"(Krasin and Palazchenko, 2001). Now if this is adopted as the mantra of every state, it may be unlikely that the checking of openness and free diffusion will be limited to economic activity. Some global actors will think that "closing off" should also apply to the sphere of culture, politics, and control of natural resources. In the run-up to political democratization in Africa, for example, those with vested interests in the status quo opposed introduction of pluralism by taking cover under the question of national uniqueness, arguing that some forms of political arrangements are unsuitable for certain countries. Thus it is not inconceivable that the notion of "closing off" could breed unintended consequences. The eventuality of such a scenario would imply that the difference between the new dispensation and the past will be visibly thin.

Conclusion

Looking at this from the environmental question, the evolution of mankind to a global entity now crucial for the management of the environmental challenge referred to by Gorbachev (Gorbachev, 2000) and by Danilov-Danilyan and Losev (Veber, n.d.) could become elusive. Thus, if tampering with openness might help at the realm of economic activity, it is likely to prove to be tricky in the area of environmental governance that is calling for an eclipse of the state as a sovereign actor in environmental matters and for the onset of a regime of global appropriation of the environmental sector. In a system of closing off (even without isolation), this would be a difficult terrain to navigate. The question of how to secure the cooperation of states in environmental governance under such a system could prove to be a daunting one.

References:

Gorbachev Foundation. 2000. Summary of the discussion of the report Russia's Self- determination. Final report of the research project Russia in the Emerging Global System conducted by the Gorbachev Foundation, Gorbachev Foundation, Moscow, 19 October. Gorbachev Foundation (GF) Website.

Gorbachev, Mikhail. 2002. An Appeal for a Different Globalisation. Le Figaro Magazine, 27 January.

The International Foundation for Socio-Economic and Political Studies (Gorbachev Foundation), 2002. Email from Alexander Veber to GSC, 2 September.

Krasin, Yuri and Pavel Palazchenko. 2001. Globalization and Russia. Summary of the Roundtable Discussion, Gorbachev Foundation, Moscow, 5 January.

Veber, Alexander, ed. n.d. Facets of Globalization: Difficult Issues of Contemporal Development. Moscow: Gorbachev Foundation, forthcoming.


Ngeta Kabiri is a Kenyan national who is currently working on his PhD in Political Science at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. His major area of concentration is in comparative politics, with special research interests in environmental politics. In the past, however, he has conducted various research projects in areas such as religion, education, and demography. His membership of professional associations includes the African Studies Association, the International Association for the Study of Common Property and the American Political Science Association. As a 2002 GSC dissertation fellow, he is conducting training and research in Tanzania and Kenya for his project entitled "Global Environmental Governance and Community-Based Conservation: Comparative Perspectives of Kenya and Tanzania."