The multipolar world must become more human

How can one endure this? Once again war and destruction in the Middle East! Hundreds of thousands of dead already in the Ukraine war! The exodus of tens of thousands of Armenians from Nagorno Karabakh! And then there is the suffering of the people that almost no one talks about anymore. In the east of the Democratic Republic of Congo! In Syria! In Afghanistan! ... Which country can be left out when talking about injustice and its consequences?
  Enduring this is possible only by contributing towards making the living together in this world better, making it more humane. And by first listening to those striving for such a world. Are the considerations serious, reasonable, and humane towards many small steps uphill?
  To do this is not a matter of course. And it takes courage. Powerful, influential forces have so far “profited” from injustice and from a lack of equality – in quotes because it is an unnatural, one could also say: sick “profiting”. It contradicts the social nature of man, the survival imperative of compassion, of a sense of community.

One world view and many phrases

It is no surprise that the profiteers fire sharply when they see their “profits” in danger. They do not want the world to be shaped differently from the way they want it to be. And if you look more closely, the underlying world view assumes an eternal above and below between people: Life as a struggle for power and money, in which there are only winners (above) and losers (below) …
  The profiteers do not say this openly. They put forward high “values”: In the West, “democracy”, for example. In recent years they have agreed to speak of a “rules-based international order” (RBIO). They have defined the rules themselves. Those who want a different world are pilloried. They are said to be “autocratic” and “aggressive”, a danger to “peace” and to “democracy”, a danger to RBIO. They are demonised. Almost every day. Blocking contact in every respect is the goal. The propaganda wave is in full swing. Many media have put themselves entirely at the service of the RBIO profiteers.

Why not also listen to the other

But why should it be wrong to listen to the other side as well? Couldn’t it be, for example, that the Russian President Vladimir Putin, demonised in our country, says quite reasonable things, makes statements that can be helpful in working towards a more humane world?
  I am trying to read as much as possible of what Vladimir Putin says in the original language. Now I have read his speech at the annual conference of the Valdai Club, the International Valdai Forum, which took place in Sochi on the Black Sea in early October. An authorised English-language version can be found on the Russian president’s website¹.

Vladimir Putin is
speaking of an “era of change”

At the outset, Vladimir Putin speaks of an era “when the entire world order is crumbling,” stating that “it was major changes that dictated the fundamental transformation of the very principles of international relations”. At the beginning of the 21^st century, everyone had hoped “that states and peoples had learned the lessons of the expensive and destructive military and ideological confrontations of the previous century, saw their harmfulness and the fragility and interconnectedness of our planet, and understood that the global problems of humanity call for joint action and the search for collective solutions,”. But, regrettably, “[Russia’s] interest in constructive interaction was misunderstood, was seen as obedience, as an agreement that the new world order would be created by those who declared themselves the winners in the Cold War. It was seen as an admission that Russia was ready to follow in others’ wake and not to be guided by our own national interests but by somebody else’s interests.”
  Once again, the Russian president explains his criticism of the West’s policies, as he has done repeatedly and ever more clearly and pointedly since his speech to the Munich Security Conference in February 2007², since 24 February 2022 also regarding the consequences of Western policies for the Global South.
  Once again, he explains why Russia intervened militarily in Ukraine on 24 February 2022. And he adds: “The Ukraine crisis is not a territorial conflict, and I want to make that clear. Russia is the world’s largest country in terms of land area, and we have no interest in conquering additional territory. We still have much to do to properly develop Siberia, Eastern Siberia, and the Russian Far East. This is not a territorial conflict and not an attempt to establish regional geopolitical balance. The issue is much broader and more fundamental and is about the principles underlying the new international order.”

A lasting peace

He adds: “Lasting peace will only be possible when everyone feels safe and secure, understands that their opinions are respected, and that there is a balance in the world where no one can unilaterally force or compel others to live or behave as a hegemon pleases even when it contradicts the sovereignty, genuine interests, traditions, or customs of peoples and countries.”
  And further on: “Clearly, commitment to bloc-based approaches and the push to drive the world into a situation of ongoing “us versus them” confrontation is a bad legacy of the 20^th century. It is a product of Western political culture, at least of its most aggressive manifestations. To reiterate, the West – at least a certain part of the West, the elite – always need an enemy. They need an enemy to justify the need for military action and expansion. But they also need an enemy to maintain internal control within a certain system of this very hegemon and within blocs like NATO or other military-political blocs. There must be an enemy so everyone can rally around the leader.”
  For centuries, this had led to the replication of one thing: “big wars, with various ideological and quasi-moral justifications invented to justify these wars.” Today, when the existing weapons systems can destroy the whole world, this was particularly dangerous. It is therefore necessary to look for a way out of this vicious circle. This is also a task of the International Valdai Forum.

Many different
civilisations in one cohesive world

In the second part of his speech, Putin takes up the concept of civilisation. He rejects the equation of civilisation and the West, which makes the West alone the yardstick, and articulates instead: “First, there are many civilisations, and none is superior or inferior to another. They are equal since each civilisation represents a unique expression of its own culture, traditions, and the aspirations of its people. For instance, in my case, it embodies the aspirations of my people, of which I am fortunate to be a part.”
  And he continues: “The essential characteristics of a civilisation-state encompass diversity and self-sufficiency, which, I believe, are two key components. Today’s world rejects uniformity, and each state and society strive to develop its own path of development which is rooted in culture and traditions, and is steeped in geography and historical experiences, both ancient and modern, as well as the values held by its people. This is an intricate synthesis that gives rise to a distinct civilisational community. Its strength and progress depend on its diversity and multifaceted nature.”
  He is convinced, “that humanity is not moving towards fragmentation into rivalling segments, a new confrontation of blocs, whatever their motives, or a soulless universalism of a new globalisation. On the contrary, the world is on its way to a synergy of civilisation-states, large spaces, communities identifying as such”.
  But many in the West, as Putin continues, seem to have “forgotten the notions of reasonable self-restraint, compromise and a willingness to make concessions in the name of attaining a result that will suit all sides”.

Six objectives of Russian policy

At the end of his speech, Vladimir Putin summarises the objectives of Russian policy in six points: “First. We want to live, in an open, interconnected world, where no one will ever try to put artificial barriers in the way of people’s communication, their creative fulfilment and prosperity. We need to strive to create an obstacle-free environment.
  Second, we want the world’s diversity to be preserved and serve as the foundation for universal development. It should be prohibited to impose on any country or people how they should live and how they should feel. Only true cultural and civilisational diversity will ensure peoples’ wellbeing and a balance of interests.
  Third, Russia stands for maximum representation. No one has the right or ability to rule the world for others and on behalf of others. The world of the future is a world of collective decisions made at the levels where they are most effective, and by those who are truly capable of making a significant contribution to resolving a specific problem. It is not that one person decides for everyone, and not even everyone decides everything, but those who are directly affected by this or that issue must agree on what to do and how to do it.
  Fourth, Russia stands for universal security and lasting peace built on respect for the interests of everyone: from large countries to small ones. The main thing is to free international relations from the bloc approach and the legacy of the colonial era and the Cold War. We have been saying for decades that security is indivisible, and that it is impossible to ensure the security of some at the expense of the security of others. Indeed, harmony in this area can be achieved. You just need to put aside haughtiness and arrogance and stop looking at others as second-class partners or outcasts or savages.
  Fifth, we stand for justice for all. The era of exploitation, as I said twice, is in the past. Countries and peoples are clearly aware of their interests and capabilities and are ready to rely on themselves; and this increases their strength. Everyone should be given access to the benefits of today’s world, and attempts to limit it for any country or people should be considered an act of aggression.
  Sixth, we stand for equality, for the diverse potential of all countries. This is a completely objective factor. But no less objective is the fact that no one is ready to take orders anymore or make their interests and needs dependent on anyone, above all on the rich and more powerful.
  And he adds: “This is not just the natural state of the international community, but the quintessence of all of humankind’s historical experience.”
  Can it be a bad thing to think about all this thoroughly?  •

¹ http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/72444 of 5 October 2023
² http://www.en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/24034 of 10 February 2007