Squeezing the state out of various areas of business and finance led to many organizations functioning entirely without regulation. Bubbles followed one after another: the dotcom bubble, the stock market, mortgage lending and financial bubbles. Although sooner or later all these bubbles burst, in the process a small group of individuals succeeded in accumulating fabulous wealth while the living standards of the majority, at best, stagnated. The obligation to assist poorer countries was simply ignored.
Weakening of the role of the state has fostered rampant financial fraud and corruption and facilitated the invasion by organized crime of the economies of many countries, as well as disproportionate growth in the role of corporate lobbies. Lobbyists are in reality a gigantic bureaucracy outside the state with huge resources at their disposal and levers for influencing politics. This distorts the democratic process and has serious consequences for society.
The crisis brought a period of sobering up. It was states and their leaders who were obliged to take over responsibility for rescuing the economy from the most dangerous deadlock in decades. Unfortunately, world leaders have not so far gone beyond firefighting measures, but sooner or later they will have little option but to return to doing their duty by society and the environment.
Only the state can lay down the ground rules in such matters, aggravated by the crisis, as equitable sharing out of the tax burden, stimulating economic growth, and ensuring the necessary level of social welfare safeguards. Only the state can deliver access for everyone to education and healthcare, and the development of fundamental science. Only the state can mobilize the resources and tools to promote and implement innovative technologies. Only the state is capable of establishing the robust standards and regulations without which there is no hope of effectively combating the ecological disaster threatening the world.
And, of course, only through the efforts of states, constantly driven on by the active involvement and unrelenting pressure of global civil society, will we find our way to a new political framework for international security and world governance. This must be based on repudiation of confrontational thinking, of the urge to dominate international affairs, on respect for freedom of choice and a plurality of cultures and models of development, a willingness to engage in dialogue and extensive cooperation. Which again brings us back to the ideals and principles of New Thinking.
Over the years, I have pondered how relations between states will evolve in the foreseeable future, and what role in building a new global architecture will be played by the countries that bear the greatest responsibility for good order in the world. Let me say at once that all nations, large, medium and small, can and must contribute to the process. The principle of sovereign equality of states, set down in the UN Charter, remains as valid today as ever it was. There is, however, also no doubt that the world’s major powers, and Russia among them, must play the leading and most demanding role. It is they who have most to answer for to history.
The unipolar world, with one country invariably having the last word, did not come to pass. In the last two decades we have witnessed a gradual shift in the global balance of power. The ‘collective West’, the United States and the European Union, have increasingly to consider the opinions of other players on the stage of world politics. Primarily, that means Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, all of whom are seeking to coordinate their policies within the new and, in my opinion, promising association of BRICS. At the same time, the centre of gravity of the global economy is increasingly shifting towards the Asia-Pacific region, where Japan remains prominent, but where other powerful countries are appearing: not only China, but also the countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and, on the other side of the ocean, the countries of Latin America. All this is, of course, certain to have political repercussions.
In the past decades I have visited almost all the countries mentioned, met their leaders, representatives of civil society, scientists, artists and young people. I feel very fortunate to have had that opportunity. Nothing can replace seeing the world for yourself, sensing through personal contact what people are feeling, and entering into dialogue with them.
Meetings in America
George Shultz and Ronald Reagan
Remembering my first trips after relinquishing the presidency, rereading my speeches, press reports and interview, I can see that much of what was said is still relevant today. I hope that my reflections on the part played by the principal actors on the stage of world politics in the movement towards a new, more secure and just world order will be of value to those who take the responsibility for peace on our planet upon themselves.
In all the changes that have taken or will take place in the world, the United States remains the most important player, in politics, the world economy, science and technological innovation. To attempt to deny that would simply be unrealistic. Much in the world depends on how the United States uses its potential, whether constructively through cooperation and dialogue, or by imposing its will on others. I took that as my starting point in preparing for my first ‘post-presidential’ visit to America.
I had no shortage of invitations, and was able to accept about a dozen of them. Then there was the question of when to go. I even had a visit from the US ambassador to Moscow, Bob Strauss. He conveyed President Bush’s request that my trip should not take place until after an official visit by Yeltsin. The ambassador made it clear that this was being done at the insistence of the Russian side. I found such touchiness rather surprising, but Yeltsin and his entourage were already trying to isolate me and went to great lengths to avoid all contact. In practical terms there was no problem, because Yeltsin was going to the United States in February 1992 and my visit was scheduled for the first half of May.
It has to be said that later, during my trip, there were occasional, well, hiccups, caused by the eagerness of the Russian authorities of the time to cut Gorbachev down to size. The Russian ambassador to the United States, Vladimir Lukin, was instructed not to take part in any activities related to my visit. He was absent from the dinner to which President George Bush invited me at the White House, but then asked for a meeting at the hotel where I was staying in Washington, DC. Frankly, I found this silliness distasteful, and it did nothing to enhance the reputation of the Russian state authorities.
For me, the main thing was for the visit to be conducted in a way that would maximize its benefits for Russia and relations between our two countries. An extensive programme of meetings and speeches was arranged, and in two weeks we travelled 14,000 kilometres. I and my companions visited 11 of the greatest US cities: Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Atlanta, New York, Boston, and others. There were many speeches and meetings, including a speech to leaders of the US Congress. Former Secretary of State George Shultz, who headed the committee preparing my visit, did a great deal to achieve this result.
I would like to single George out. I remember our first meeting in 1985 very well. It occurred during his visit to Moscow to attend the funeral of General Secretary Konstantin Chernenko. Of course, we already knew that he belonged to the realists in Ronald Reagan’s administration and advocated looking for a way out of the current deadlock in Soviet–US relations. From that first acquaintance it was difficult to tell how well we might be able to cooperate.
At the time, there were not a few among the leaders and our experts who believed we would get nowhere with Reagan and would just have to wait for a different, less conservative, less anti-communist president. I disagreed. I felt strongly there was no time to lose. I said that to George Shultz when we met, and it seemed to me I had found someone interested in continuing that conversation.