Extreme Final Peril Tamás Szentes

Humankind seems to run with increasing speed towards a final catastrophe, as indicated by the aggravation of various interconnected global problems caused by itself. Such as the deepening ecological troubles, frequent natural disasters, global economic crises, exodus of migrant masses, globalization of terrorism,  local and regional military conflicts, particularly the Ukrainian war risking to turn into a nuclear one. A correct diagnosis revealing their manifold causes, and finding the way and mode of solutions, have been mostly impeded by the lack of multidisciplinary holistic and historical approach and the influence of ideologies in research, while in the political practice, besides the latter, by narrow-minded party considerations or power interests and dissipation of international negotiations separating the deeply interlinked issues.

In the light of the the combination and interconnectedness of various global crises, all of which are directly or indirectly man-made, there can be little doubt that humanity is running at an ever-increasing speed towards the ultimate catastrophe, its direct or indirect self-destruction. This is indicated by such concrete “symptoms” as the globalization of economic crises, the worldwide ecological crisis and climate change, the increasing depletion of certain non-renewable natural resources, the increasing vulnerability of the planet and humanity to more frequent and more intensive natural disasters (tornadoes, tsunamis, windstorms, floods and droughts, etc.), the migration crisis linked with  globalization and international development gap, the globalization of terrorism, rise and frequent returns of pandemics, the breakdown of international, national and even personal security, the crisis of parliamentary democracy, the crisis of civilization, culture and morality, the “culture” of violence and immorality, etc., and last but not least, the war in Ukraine, which is bringing us to the brink of nuclear world war.

All of these call into question not only the path and contemporary model of development up to the present and the ability of functioning of the current international order and its institutions, including the UN, but also the relevance and interpretation of many concepts and notions. Such as international peace and security, the “equality of nations”, the “right of peoples to self-determination”, “the territorial integrity of States”, “crimes against humanity”, universal “human rights”, “social market economy”, etc., and particularly democracy, liberalism, the political Left and Right, (moreover, even the concepts of family and gender).

The concept of democracy has got an ideological interpretation more and more, in so far as the realization of the personal liberty of individuals is given priority over, and often contrary to, the rule of the social community consisting of citizens having equal rights, being active, well-informed, expressing freely opinion and voting in public affairs.  In today’s generally spread interpretation of democracy, and in the judgment  of existence or absence of democracy in countries, the basic requirement of representative, indirect democracy is fading or even disappearing. Namely, the principle that elected representatives must represent, act and vote in accordance with the interests and the known (majority) opinion of their voters, and that those who do not do so can be removed in the meantime. Where elections involve voting for parties or for ranking party lists, it is inherently more important for candidates to seek the favour of their party leaders than of the electorate, and once elected to align themselves with the views and interests of the former rather than the latter. And if any of the members of their party’s parliamentary group votes in a way that is not in line with the leadership’s expectation, has to face disciplinary action or expulsion. Moreover, success in elections (even in the most democratic countries) depends largely or decisively on the amount of money spent on the campaign and, consequently on the sponsors (unless the candidate is a multi-billionaire) who expect their interests to be prioritized after the election victory. The crisis of representative democracy manifested quite well, among other cases, in the attack against the White House after the latest election of US President, and more recently in the statement of the German Minister of Foreign Affairs, which expressed her definite intention to support Ukraine as she had promised, no matter what opinion her voters have.

Liberalism of our time, i.e. neoliberalism, has moved very far away from the original idea of liberalism. The latter which was about liberation from the shackles of the Middle Ages and the fulfilment of Enlightenment, the freedom and equality of citizens living and cooperating in a social community, and following their own interests freely in the economy, but without hurting those of the community. The original principles of liberalism included the necessity of laws and government actions to defend the society against individuals who endanger its security. Neoliberalism is more an expression of libertinism, the unlimited personal freedom of individuals alienated from and versus the social community^[1], and of the concept of the unrestrained rule of market forces. Its advocates ignore the fact that equality between unequal people actually increases inequality.

The political Left and its representation, at least in the USA and Europe, have for some time now, since about the 1980s, clearly renounced (if not in words) the original values of social democracy, and have increasingly been influenced by neoliberalism^[2]. Unlike the Left in many countries of the South, most of those parties still called leftist in the North do not represent anymore a real political Left, as they explicitly or implicitly follow (apart from a few exceptions among their leaders or rather their members) the principles of the “Washington consensus” (privatization, deregulation, liberalization), support almost unconditionally globalization, and mostly abandon the defence of the interests of the working majority of society. The political Right has also changed to some extent, by abandoning its racist viewpoint and traditional role of representing only the interests of aristocrats, landlords, the ‘upper classes’ in general, and its parties appearing as peoples parties representing national and religious conservatism, moreover taking over much from the former left in practice.

FRAGMENTATION AND IDEOLOGICAL INFLUENCE IN SCIENCE AND POLITICAL PRACTICE

The division of human science, which was originally, in ancient time, an integrate one, into different disciplines, then further into sub-branches, and even within the latter into separate specialties, has undoubtedly contributed, on the one hand, to rapid enrichment of knowledge and methodology within each, but, on the other hand, it has led to or induced narrow-mindedness, “tunnel vision”, and the disregard of broader contexts. This is as true for certain branches of natural science and medicine, as it is for several disciplines of social science. However, the causes of the serious global and interconnected problems humanity is facing today cannot be adequately analyzed, nor realistic alternatives and solutions can be found within the framework of separate disciplines, and even less by means of one or another theory or theoretical stream alone. They definitely need holistic viewpoint, broad multidisciplinary research and an objective, ideology-free, historical and all-way critical approach.

In so far as in the political practice of many governments and international organizations (including regional ones) the separate examination, discussion and management of interrelated issues prevail, and their decisions are made under the influence of overt or covert ideologies and/or political party’s interests^[3], with a neglect of broad context, contradictory effects and the historical antecedents, there is little hope only to find solutions for crises and other global problems.

The promising international reform efforts of the 1970s, now sadly forgotten, failed not only because of ‘lack of political will’ and the contrary interests of global capital. The failure followed also from the fact that the UN documents on the New International Economic Order (NIEO) contained inconsistencies and even contradictions from the outset, and overlooked not only the necessary institutional changes, but also, inter alia, the ecological problems, the risk of depleting non-renewable natural resources, several unresolved local and regional conflicts, and the effects and consequences of the arms race and militarization in general. The relevant discussions were limited in scope and even isolated from each other. The need for reform of the international institutions and the economic, political and cultural world order as a whole is even more urgent today than it was in the 1970s.

Today the lack of the required holistic, interdisciplinary, critical and historical approach and the separation of interconnected global problems both in negotiations and treatment often under ideological impact are extremely striking, as it appears not only in regard to economic and migration crises, but also and most obviously to the case of the Ukrainian war

The case of global economic crises

The problem of the cyclical economic crises as experienced since long time ago in developed market economies, and getting globalized by international spread effect, has been widely investigated and debated in economic literature (mostly, though not exclusively by Marxists). While the explanations considerably differ, one common element can be found in them, namely the link of the causes of crises with the spontaneity of market mechanism (the so-called “invisible hand” of market), i.e. the unlimited market forces, which induce not only the process leading to crisis, but also that resulting a recovery, both involving high social costs. Marxists assume that as long as capitalism exists, economic crises cannot be avoided, but at best may be mitigated only. To avoid crises and the related social or even political consequences Keynes suggested countervailing state interventions, and his followers also argue for rather “market-friendly” and also extra-market government measures.

Nevertheless, neoliberals still believe in the beneficial operation of free, unlimited market forces, and argue against state interventions in the economy. They are also inclined (as it appears in some mainstream economic textbooks and political media) to attribute the rise of economic crises to some occasional, unexpected events as causes. Such as an occasional crash in international product market or stock exchange, following from a sudden shortage of demand or supply, or a break in payment process, or to a one-sided intervention by a monopolistic organization (e.g. OPEC), or even to unexpected non-economic phenomena, for example from the present the COVID pandemic or the war in Ukraine.

However, the fact that the crises are now occurring in succession (out of a cyclical regularity, too) and that the world economy is in a state of almost permanent propensity for crisis, is a warning sign and consequence of the unresolved and still growing imbalances which are  caused, above all, by the inequalities between and within societies.

The world economy includes as its major component the international trade which is mostly based upon international division of labour. The very pattern of the latter is still burdened by built-in disequilibrium, as a consequence mainly of the colonial past. Most countries of the South, i.e. the underdeveloped parts of the world, were enforced to “specialize” in primary production. Despite many changes in it, the trade relations of the world economy is hardly more balanced, and not less unequal.

Besides unequal trade relations and division of labour there are several other relations involved in the world economy, which also manifest interdependencies between unequal partners, i.e. asymmetrical interdependencies^[4]. While the extension and deepening of interdependencies is a natural outcome of globalization, the sharp inequality (partly inherited from the colonial past, partly newly established) which are included in them is the major background factor causing disequilibrium and frequent crises.

Asymmetrical interdependencies appear in ownership relations resulting from direct investments of foreign capital, mainly TNCs, and other financial relations, i.e. creditor-debtor relations, both of the latter shaping monetary (foreign exchange) relations, too, further in the  unequal relations arising from international migration, also from technical assistance and technology transfers, from media relations and international  information flows.,^[5]All these are manifested in the very unequal access to development resources.  

Since the world economy, due to globalization, is increasingly an organic system, similar to the human body, with manifold interdependencies and interactions among its parts, it is understandable, that if any of the latter does not get sufficient “nutriment”, i.e. due revenue, or hindered in access to resources, and thus cannot develop equally with others, then such an imbalance and unequal relations necessarily lead to crisis. Despite this obvious consequence, no attention is paid to it in the neoliberal narrow-minded explanation of world economic crises.

In addition to the imbalances caused by inequalities, the lack of adequate regulation of financial markets and the issuance of securities are other important factors behind the crisis propensity of world economy. Its global crises, however, are also linked with some values, morals and social behaviour that have developed in the most advanced countries of the capitalist market economy and spreading from them via demonstrative effects to other countries. The consequence is not only an artificially increased demand (by means of advertising and promotions for extra-profit in commerce), but also the effort of many people to imitate the ostentatious lifestyles and luxury consumption of the rich, supported and facilitated by the irresponsible credit policies of the banks and their behaviour going far beyond their original function.^[6]

What may also be added to the background factors causing disequilibrium is militarization and arms production with enormous losses of resources, and also the expansion of the market operation, outside the scope of its original functions and economic territory, into spheres of basically non-economic character (public health, education, science, culture, the arts, sport).

While crises may be cyclical, the propensity to crisis is not only permanent because of the above background factors, but also growing. A crisis that erupts in a particular place for one reason or another globalizes faster and faster. Avoiding global crises requires a global solution. At the local level, i.e., within a single country, their manifestations and consequences can at best be reduced, but hardly by general austerity measures which are not only heavily anti-social but also hinder rather than help recovery from the crisis.^[7] History shows that no country succeeded in overcoming a crisis by such general measures. (If austerity measures are applied specifically, e.g. to limit the rate of profits or the increase of prices out of proportion with the rate of inflation, etc., they may be useful.)

The case of the migration crisis

Amir Jamal, a former minister of Tanzania and member of the South Committee, predicted forty years ago^[8] a “Big March from the South” unless a thorough reform of the international economic order takes place. He hardly thought at the time that this great march from the South to the North would consist of both refugees and “economic migrants”, and all would be welcomed, supported, and encouraged by some of the influential leaders of the North, nor did he assume that it would be a highly organized migration, profiteered by guerrilla groups of people smugglers, and that the migrants would be mixed with trained terrorists. Nevertheless, his warning was very much to the point, namely the need to reform the existing international economic order.

Despite the above, neither the various deep causes and manifold consequences of the current mass migration from the South to the North have been seriously and thoroughly discussed at the UN and in the EU, nor the consequent acute need for international reforms to improve life conditions and development opportunities in the South. No attention is paid to the consequence of the mass exodus of young, more or less already educated people from the countries of the South, which is in fact a disastrous blow to the development potential of the latter, or even to the maintenance of the already achieved level of development and the living conditions of those who remain in their countries.

For Africa, the current exodus is almost the third major historical disaster after slave trade and colonialism, even if the migrants’ remittances can contribute to the family’s and national income considerably. Such contributions vary, however, according to employment conditions and also to the behaviour of the migrants, while obviously manifest another asymmetrical interdependence between the emitting and the receiving countries, coupled with vulnerability of the former’s economy in regard to recession in the latter.

The reason why in the North, particularly in the most developed Western countries several politicians in leading position argue for free migration and support even the illegal flow of masses from the South to the North, particularly Europe, is their belief to solve in this way the demographic problems (the falling birth rate) and labour shortages in the latter. There may be, of course, another consideration, too, namely to meet the interests of transnational companies by creating with the inflow of large numbers of migrant workers an oversupply in the labour market, thus depressing wage levels, limiting also social benefits (thereby destroying what remained of the “social market economy”), and thus establishing favourable investment conditions.^[9]

A due critique should be addressed not only to those advocating and supporting mass illegal migration, but also those flatly condemn and wish to stop any migration.    International or intercontinental migration, which has been a natural phenomenon throughout the history of mankind since its inception, cannot be generally classified as ‘good’ or ‘bad’.  It cannot be assessed in isolation from its proportion, abstracted from whether it is sporadic and gradual or mass, concentrated in time and place, whether legal or illegal, and from its impact on both the emitter and the receiver. Accordingly, international migration should not be evaluated in mutually exclusive ways, with a one-sided approach and over-generalization. Both its positive and negative features, especially its integrating or disintegrating, cohesion-enhancing or destructive effects have to be investigated on both sides, at the level of the families, societies, regions, and continents, too.

The flow of real refugees, however, must not be subject of acceptance or rejection since not only humanism but also international law prescribes their sheltering. What follows also in this case and even more, is the need to address its deeper causes, i.e., the need to put end to local wars, and international arms trade that supports them, and to reform the existing international economic and institutional order.

The case of the Ukrainian war

In regard to the case of the (crazy, inter-brother) war in Ukraine, the narrow-minded political and ideological approach both in its explanation by many scholars and in its treatment by most of the leading politicians is almost striking. The historical background and antecedents are ignored, and so is the important question of “cui prodest“, i.e., whose benefit or interest it is to prolong this war and its protraction. More concretely: what role is played in it by the “military-industrial complex” (to use the term introduced by President Eisenhower), the arms manufacturers and exporters, and by those on both sides who are interested in testing the latest weapons and war techniques.

Even if we naively disregard the influence of the ‘military-industrial complex’, the question still arises: Why was before the Russian aggression President Putin’s compromising offer (whether it was seriously considered or not) to demilitarize and neutralize Ukraine unacceptable not only to the Ukrainian president, but also to NATO and the EU leadership? And why was the other claim of the Russian President also rejected, namely to hold referendums on which of the two countries people wish to belong in those regions populated by Russian majorities?^[10] (This is a crucial issue in the Crimean region not only because of its strategic importance but also in view of the fact that this region historically was part of Russia, and was annexed from Russia to Ukraine in 1954 at Khrushchev’s initiative.)

President Zelensky was (and still is) motivated perhaps by the aim to play the role of a national hero defending his country against Russia and thereby to regain his popularity that enjoyed as an actor before, and to make forgotten the previous international criticism on his nationality policy as well as his failure in fighting corruption.

The reason why NATO and EU leadership ignored Putin’s earlier offer was perhaps in view of the fact that the application of the right of peoples and nationalities to self-determination is very uncomfortable for several Member States as it may threaten (though not necessarily) their territorial integrity. Besides, demilitarization and neutrality of Ukraine hardly met the aim of the NATO or US leadership influenced by the military-industrial complex which after the failure in Afghanistan likely became interested in a new military conflict demanding armament, and in testing new weapons, or at least in measuring the limit of Russia’s tolerance. Before the aggression, the NATO Secretary General raised the prospect of Ukraine’s membership, thereby provoking the Russian leadership.

It is undoubtedly right and proper to strongly condemn aggression and to impose sanctions on the leaders responsible for it (but only on personally them). It was the Russian army which attacked Ukraine and is still waging a merciless war there (even without declaring it (as calling it “special military operation” only). On the other hand, it is questionable whether the ceasefire and peace negotiations depend solely on the Russian side. Anyway, it hardly serves the cause of peace negotiations and compromise solutions that not only the Ukrainian President, but also the leaders of NATO are forecasting a “victory” for Ukraine, and while NATO refraining from direct involvement in the war its several member states, particularly US, are supplying arms, up-to-date weapons to Ukraine, thereby reinforcing the rigid stand of the Ukrainian leadership against any compromise.

Ending the war in Ukraine with the victory of this invaded country is hardly a realistic assumption – not only in the light of the military power relations and particularly of the Russian nuclear arsenal, but also in view of Ukraine’s already enormous, terrible losses both in human and material resources. Therefore, even a complete withdrawal of Russian troops would not be a real victory for Ukraine.

As long as both sides hope for their own victory, and Western powers supply armament to Ukraine, while even the Russian leadership believes in waging a “just war”,^[11] there is little chance for a peaceful solution. Given the stalemate in the peace talks and the fact that the US, Britain, and some EU Member States are helping Ukraine with heavy weapons,^[12] including now advanced missile systems and ammunition, and Russia has plenty of reserves, many experts predict a prolonged war, even if it involves the threat of a nuclear world war.

The declared attempt to “isolate” Russia is surprising and even more unrealistic than the hope of victory for Ukraine. Not less shocking is the measure, already applied by several countries and international associations, of excluding Russian artists from international performances and Russian sportsmen and sportswomen from international championships (or at least banning the display of their nationality).^[13] The policy to isolate such a large country (moreover, a nuclear power) and to deprive its citizens from the right that they had before internationally, is also an obvious sign of a lack of holistic approach and of relevant historical knowledge, as well as of a neglect of the actual conditions of globalization. Discrimination based solely on nationality is contrary to the requirements of democracy and to the respect for personal rights. Moreover, the sanctions imposed on the Russian population as a whole are in fact similar to the practice, based upon collective responsibility, of collective punishment exercised by the Nazis, i.e. punishing the innocent.

It should be noted that isolation and the resulting fear of and hatred towards the outside world are particularly conducive to, and almost a precondition for, the establishment and/or the maintenance of dictatorships.

It is not only the rise of Stalin’s regime after the revolution and successful defence against foreign interventions, but also its long survival were strongly linked with isolation from and confrontation to a (really or only alleged) hostile outside world, which seemingly justified the preparation for war, the operation of the economy as a war economy, and the militarization of all spheres of social existence under the dominance of state power, the dictatorship of the party state, with the monopoly of its ideology and the restriction of freedom. Consequently, this Stalinian system under the misleading title “existing socialism”, which emerged not only in the Soviet Union but also in several other countries influenced or enforced by the former, was in fact a militarized state-capitalist dictatorial system. During the Cold War, dictatorship in such Stalinian systems was always hardened when international tensions and isolationism increased, while some softening of the dictatorship allowing even some reform efforts and improvement in international relations always coincided with a period of détente. The collapse of this system in its original home, the Soviet Union, has resulted not only from the growing social disappointment but also from opening towards and improved relations to the West rather than from the increased pressure from outside and the sharpening arms race.

In the context of the war between Ukraine and Russia, the system-paradigm, i.e. the issue of alternative social systems and their evaluation is often raised, in this case the question of what system has emerged in these two countries since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Over-simplifications are here again striking, but follow not only from assuming a basically unchanged system in Russia, unlike in Ukraine, and from qualifying the aggressor Putin, this undoubted autocrat, as a Stalin-type cruel dictator, who wants to restore the Soviet Union, but also from the rather widespread perception of the capitalist social system in developed Western countries as an emblematic example with ideal-typical characteristics that can serve as a model to be followed and copied by less developed countries when changing their system. (This is, in fact, the concept of unilinear, i.e. universally valid and linear development.)^[14] Accordingly, system change and the so-called “’transition” should be assessed in terms of the extent to which the assumed ideal-typical characteristics (which are in fact foreign in origin and need to be imported) are present in the countries concerned, regardless of their different historical past, traditions, cultures, and economic situations.

It is utterly astonishing that the leaders at the UN and other international organizations do not take a stand against the policy of isolation and exclusion, and that the UN Secretary-General simply admitted the failure of this world organization in regard to the war in Ukraine, that is, the UN’s inability to fulfil its original mission of ensuring international peace. It would be expected that the Secretary-General presents for an Extraordinary General Assembly a well-elaborated scenario in line with the UN Charter and the commitments made by the Member States, by which he could convince or even enforce both belligerent parties for an immediate ceasefire on the grounds that if any of them violates it, its UN membership can be suspended what he definitely would propose to the Assembly. To ensure peace after the ceasefire, this scenario would also include the withdrawal of all Russian troops from Ukraine and its demilitarization and neutrality under UN supervision and guarantee, followed by the realization and monitoring of an elaborated aid program for rapid reconstruction there. Furthermore, for the debated regions of Ukraine, where Russian nationality was in the majority before the war, it would also suggest referendum, but unlike the one carried out in the presence of the Russian army (and also excluding that of the Ukrainian one), such as to be strictly controlled by the UN, the participation in it to be limited only those who had Ukrainian citizenship before the war, including of course the returned refugees, too. This suggestion would perfectly be in accordance with the UN Charter, namely with its point on “the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples”, in Chapter I., Article 1. Point 2. By putting forward such a scenario or similar, even if it would not receive sufficient support in the General Assembly, would at least push negotiations which should be enforced by the latter, in the right direction, and may lead to compromises between the parties, , i.e. to the only modes of peaceful solution.

Anyway, as regards the principle of self-determination of peoples it is fairly reasonable to raise the following questions, in general: How can one disregard that the UN Charter places it before the “territorial integrity” of States (which is mentioned only in its Article 2. Point 4.)?! How can anybody forget the historical fact that in most cases, not only in the South but even in some parts of Europe and elsewhere, the state borders were drawn artificially by the colonial powers or the winners of war?! Moreover, how those claiming to be democrats and liberals who stress so much the right of freedom for individuals can doubt the same for communities of the latter, i.e. peoples belonging to the same nationality?! And how can they give priority to the right of the States (whatever they are) versus that of the peoples?! It is quite obvious that “the principle of the territorial integrity of States”, in so far as applied without historical approach and contrary to the peoples’ wishes, has become an ideological argument for all unjust status quo-s which were responsible for many wars. Otherwise, the territorial integrity of the State does not necessarily contradict the right to self-determination of peoples even in the case of a nationality having majority in a part of the territory in question. Reconciliation can be ensured by providing full autonomy (at least, such as each State as member of the USA can enjoy).

The prolongation of the war in Ukraine, which, on the one hand, provides considerable advantages to the countries producing and exporting weapons and for their military sectors (including the institutions involved in developing military technologies), has, on the other, very serious consequences not only for the countries waging the war and those supporting them, but also for all of humanity, especially the poor. It is causing a deepening global economic crisis and serious food shortages, energy supply disruptions and insecurity, rising inflationary trends and heavy impacts that are damaging the natural environment and preventing its protection.

These serious worldwide consequences of the protracted war are largely followed also from the sanctions imposed by the US and the EU on Russia. The initiators of these sanctions are therefore also responsible for them.

As it appears, neither financial sanctions, nor oil embargoes or other sanctions can bring Russia to its knees, nor can they isolate it internationally. At the same time, the sanctions already applied have hit and are still hitting the populations of the EU Member States, while the hardest effects, together with the disastrous consequences of the prolonged war on grain production and exports, have been suffered by the poor and food-insecure countries of the South, especially by children and the disadvantaged.

Jomo Kwame Sundaram, an internationally renowned Malaysian professor and former assistant to the UN Secretary General, and his co-author Anis Chowdhury, refer in their paper “Sanctions Now Weapons of Mass Starvation”, to research in 69 countries which has shown that sanctions have reduced the birth weight of babies and increased the likelihood of their death before the age of three. Consequently, the economic sanctions violate the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. In another paper “US Leads Sanctions Killing Millions to No End”, the authors describe economic sanctions against the enemy as “weapons of mass starvation” that are “silent killers”. The current sanctions against Russia and Belarus, in the authors’ view, have a much broader international impact, especially on European fuel supplies, and threaten food security not only in the present but also in the future.

Experiences show that in general the burden and consequences of economic sanctions are mainly borne by the defenceless and innocent civilian populations in both the countries applying sanctions and the countries targeted by them. International sanctions and embargoes against dictatorships are often not only ineffective, but can even have a counterproductive effect, as they can create resentment among the population of the targeted country, thereby they can even strengthen the power and dictatorship of those in government.^[15] Ignoring such consequences and effects is also an example of “tunnel vision”, narrow-mindedness and ideologically blind political choices (or even cynical expressions of power interests).

The frequency and sharpening of international conflicts and the globalization of the threat of terrorist actions, in general, and now the Ukrainian war, in particular, are strengthening worldwide the tendency of militarization and armament, the growth of the military sector and arms production, moreover the financial support also to research and development for military purposes. This tendency is in sharp contradiction to the experiences showing the generally unfavourable effects of militarization not only from economic but also social, political and cultural points of view, and especially on the environment, definitely working against sustainability of development^[16]. Moreover, even its often assumed favourable effect on technical development is questionable and debated, in view of the higher costs of applying military-oriented technologies’ products to civilian needs, than producing them with directly civilian-oriented ones.

In the light of the current state of the art of warfare and its technology, and the existence of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, it is increasingly clear that international peace in the 21st century cannot be achieved either by armed force, i.e., war, or by punitive sanctions, i.e., non-military warfare. Violence inevitably begets violence, modern heavy weapons are met with even more modern ones, and economic or other sanctions have a dubious (or even counter-productive) effect. It is, last but not least, the task of science to prove this, and to explore non-violent solutions in general.

However, in science it follows from the disciplinary separation and isolation of the technical and other, technological research, especially military research and development, even space research, too, that the social conditions, needs and consequences, as well as the ecological impacts are mostly ignored.^[17] As regards social science, most of research and publications are not only characterized by a mono-disciplinary narrow-mindedness and the lack of holistic approach, but also by ideological or even party-political bias. This is reflected in the assumption that alternatives can be either totally good or totally bad, and consequently there is hardly any dialogue between those with different views. In addition, most of social scientists also ignore the harmful effects of militarization and the “culture of violence” popularized by films, TVs and even the shops advertising military toys for children.

CONCLUSIONS AND HOPES

• The first conclusion, actually repeated only, is about the need for multidisciplinary research and ideology-free explanation on the global problems, troubles or crises, applying holistic, historical and dialectical approach, and revealing their interconnectedness as well as their links with the deep international inequalities. Consequently, neither the treatment of interlinked problems in isolation is acceptable, nor are the superficial, unhistorical, one-sided approaches and over-generalizations. (One cannot qualify migration, austerity measures or even sanctions in general as good or bad.)
• As related to the global problems discussed above, the voice of peoples can hardly be heard (if at all), their opinion is not expressed (but partly and exceptionally only) at the UN General Assembly and the European Parliament (not even within the parliaments of member states, because of the lack of a real democracy). Nor the right of peoples to self-determination is respected at all despite the UN Charter above quoted article.

The United Nations Organization, contrary to its name, is not an assemblage of the representative of nations, but of those of States, who at best represent state interests (moreover often their personal or party interests and ideologies), and even if coming from the most democratic countries, hardly the interests of society as a whole or of the majority of its citizens. As regards European Parliament, its changing membership consists of representatives of political parties of the member states, elected in party lists by the citizens, mandated in accordance with the achieved proportion of those parties having members in the national parliament. Consequently, they do not necessarily represent the interests of their State, even less those of the community of its citizens, but instead they primarily conform to the political aims of their parties at home and adjust their expressed views and votes to those of other parties in EP which share the same ideology.

If the United Nations Organization, and the European Parliament, too, had a second chamber consisting of democratically elected representatives of civil society organizations, independent both of governments and global capital, or at least they had such a tripartite structure as ILO, i.e. involving besides representatives of states also those of trade unions and associations of companies, then there would be, very likely, a much greater chance to resolve international conflicts and to achieve peace by compromising negotiations.

• Whatever options may exist for reforming the international institutions, it is obvious that the UN must be enabled more to ensure world peace, especially a general ban and elimination of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, to prevent and resolve military conflicts, to enforce demilitarization and neutralization in conflict areas; to reconcile the principle of the right of peoples to self-determination with the principle of the territorial integrity of the States, by giving priority to the former without necessarily hurting the latter in view of the proportions of population and size of territory in the cases; to make realized the agreements and decisions on environment protection; to establish a global emergency fund for and organization acting in case of natural catastrophes and pandemics; and last but not least to achieve appropriate and interrelated changes in all the spheres of the international economic order for substantially reducing the international development gap, the asymmetries of interdependencies and promoting the catching up of the underdeveloped to the developed countries.
• Even before a substantial reform could take place in the above mentioned international organizations and in the world order, some kind of global governance should be established via efficient collaboration of all Member States of UN for resolving military conflicts and mitigating the harmful consequences of global economic crises, pandemia, mass migration and natural catastrophes for the poor and other heavily effected countries.
• The rapid development of information and communication technology opens new perspectives through the almost unlimited expansion of the possibilities of interactive communication for the development of direct democracy, both within countries and globally. It can substantially enhance the cooperation also between civil society organizations, independent both of the governments (NGOs) and the major owners of capital (NCOs), as well as their abilities to represent, express and validate interests both nationally and globally. This can also be an important condition for the development of global governance, for the appropriate reform of international institutions
• Unnecessary to emphasize how urgent it is to achieve a ceasefire and peace in Ukraine. Instead of supporting Ukraine by repeated military aid, increasing arms supply, and by applying more and more sanctions against Russia, there seems only one compromising solution to end the war, namely the withdrawal of the Russian army from the entire territory of Ukraine, on the one hand, and guarantees given by UN and also NATO, on the other, for demilitarization and neutralization of this country as well as for keeping controlled referendum in those of its regions populated mostly by Russians.
• In the light of the shortcomings both in research and politics, as manifested in narrow-minded (instead of holistic) approach to global problems and in their isolated treatment despite interconnectedness, mostly under ideological influence, it is also urgent to supply the policy makers with objective scientific explanations and also to organize worldwide enlightening series in the media which would inform the general public about reality.
• For the future generations, it would be very important to develop and correct the spirit and orientation of public education, especially higher education, in such a way that the structure and content of educational material is adapted to the requirements of the survival of humanity and the Nature of the Earth. This obviously prescribes education for peace, both with other people, and Nature.
• Despite the dangerous tendencies towards an ultimate catastrophe, there is considerable hope resulting from the spread of knowledge worldwide, particularly among the young generations, about the worsening condition of Nature on our Earth and the serious global problems of the world society as a whole. This dissemination of knowledge may strongly be helped by the revolutionary development of information and communication technologies, particularly internet, which is bringing people and civil society organizations on distant continents closer together, making them to understand each other’s problems, ideas, and aspirations, as well as the common ecological troubles, and to develop a kind of global interdependency awareness and planetary consciousness.

[1] For example, some of those who reject the pandemic vaccine are considering their individual personal rights, and even their right to assemble, to be superior to the safety of the majority who are at risk of infection from the unvaccinated.

[2] Samir Amin, who was the most well-known theoretician of the South, gave one of his many books the title „The liberal virus”, and explained how due this virus (as neoliberalism – T.S.) rising in the US after the second world war, has infected Europe, and put an end to the post-war „European project” (i.e. Welfare State and „social market economy” – T.S.) in the 1980s.

[3] In the case of the COVID epidemic, the judgment of certain vaccines was often influenced by foreign policy and ideological considerations in the US and the EU, rather than by professional evaluations.

[4] Asymmetrical interdependence expresses both the mutual and the unequal nature of relations. For those partners suffering unequal position the appropriate policy should be to reduce the asymmetry, instead of breaking out of such unequal relations and attempting isolation with autarky.

[5] For detailed explanation on asymmetrical interdependencies see T. Szentes: World Economics II. The Political Economy of Development, Globalisation and System Transformation. (Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, 2003. As an e-book, made available by Mundus, Hungary.)

[6] Ten years ago several internationally renowned, respected economists, led by Sir Richard Jolly, published a booklet, a kind of joint proclamation ‘Be outraged – there are alternatives” which also criticizes the banks for their excessive activities and their influence over major sectors of the economy as well as well as government policy, and warns the banks “to serve the economy rather than dominate it”. (Published by R. Jolly, IDS.)

[7] The Keynesian recipe for crisis management is undoubtedly more appropriate, and can be more effective if stimulating investments and thereby reducing unemployment. However, as far as the general increase in consumer demand is concerned, the outcome is highly questionable and may even be counter-productive, given the aforementioned tendency to ostentation, conspicuous consumption and its demonstration effects, as well as due to the impact of commercial advertising and the banks’ irresponsible credit policies. All these point again to the need of historical and holistic view to avoid one-sided generalization in the treatment of problems. – See T. Szentes, „Global crises: Is the Keynesian recipe relevant if applied under a global governance? (Some revisited issues)” In: Miszlivetz, F. – Jensen, J. (eds.) Global Challenges – European and Local Answers: The Rise of Glocality in Europe. Szombathely: Savaria University Press. 2013. pp. 11-34.

[8] This opinion of Amir Jamal was expressed in 1992 at a multi-day round table conference organized by the Swiss Development Cooperation and Humanitarian Aid in Munichwiler Castle to celebrate the 700th anniversary of the Swiss Confederation.

[9] The complete failure of many “left-wing” European politicians to take such effects into account, just as the failure to consider the disastrous impact on the societies and development prospects of the underdeveloped countries that are emitting migrants, shows how far they have strayed from the views of the greats of the European Left such as Willy Brandt, Olaf Palme, Urho Kekkonen, Jan Pronk, Louis Emmerij, and others.

[10] The referendum, if the questions were properly formulated and all options were questioned, could have resulted in majority votes on choosing none of the two countries, but for an independent and neutral own State.

[11] The question arises whether a war that kills many people can be “just” at all.

[12] István Dobozi, formerly a lead economist at the World Bank and now a consultant, warns (Financial Times, 25 May 2022), that Western arms supplies will exacerbate the already high levels of corruption in Ukraine (second highest in Europe according to Transparency International), which have remained prevalent under Zelensky’s presidency and within the army, and that some of the weapons sent to the Ukrainian army could easily fall into the hands of enemies of the US and other NATO members.

[13] It is indeed shocking that States and international organizations that are not at war with Russia, and are very vocal about this, are punishing completely innocent Russian citizens, violating their personal rights, with no respect for general human rights and disregarding the patriotic feelings of the people punished by them.

[14] In other words, the assumption is that countries lagging behind can only advance along the same path and in the same way as those ahead of them, ignores not only the impact of the latter (especially the interdependencies between unequal partners) and the world economic conditions they have modified, but also the advances in technology and techniques that have already taken place in the meantime.

[15] Paradoxically, economic sanctions, which against countries with anti-democratic government usually fail, may be quite efficient in the case of countries where the governing parties must face a huge risk of loosing in the next democratic parliamentary election.

[16] See e.g. T. Szentes, “The economic impact of global militarisation”, Alternatives. A Journal of World Policy. Vol. 10. No. 1. Summer 1984. Delhi / New York. Pp. 45-74.

[17] There is also another general effect of the technical and technological research and product development that is divorced from social needs, such as the fact that newer and newer variants of certain products with merely different external forms, designs or with superfluous functions are replacing the earlier variants that still perfectly meet real needs. The latter are scrapped, as their components are no longer produced, and become waste, which means a loss of non-renewable natural resources and, in many cases, environmental damage. It is true that this is also due to the distortions and exaggerations of the needs of “consumer society”, to commercial interests and to advertising and promotions which mislead consumers, and which should be critically examined by social scientists.

(Tamás Szentes, Professor Emeritus, Mb. of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences)