Erenlai - Michel Camdessus (康德緒)
Michel Camdessus (康德緒)

Michel Camdessus (康德緒)

Former director general of the International Monetary Fund, and an leading advocate of just and sustainable development, with special concern for water management and for the future of Africa. At the invitation of Renlai he went to Beijing in November 2005, and gave there a series of conferences that you can find on this website.

週二, 03 五 2011 12:02

靈修力量與全球挑戰

1610年5月,中西文化交流的先驅者利瑪竇(Matteo Ricci)病逝於北京,他與徐光啟等中國士大夫交流過程中展現的友誼及他對異文化的尊重,奠基於深厚的靈修力量。

週二, 03 五 2011 00:00

靈修力量與全球挑戰

1610年5月,中西文化交流的先驅者利瑪竇(Matteo Ricci)病逝於北京,他與徐光啟等中國士大夫交流過程中展現的友誼及他對異文化的尊重,奠基於深厚的靈修力量。2010年5月,上海復旦大學宣布成立「徐光啟-利瑪竇文明對話研究中心」(簡稱「利徐學社」),並舉辦「文明對話與全球挑戰」國際論壇。會中國際貨幣基金組織前主席米榭.康得緒,以〈在懸空的希望中懷抱希望〉為題發表演說,透過利瑪竇留下的智慧遺產,提出他對靈修力量在人道事業扮演角色的看法。《人籟》特別節錄其中部分內容與讀者分享。

 

週三, 01 十二月 2010 00:00

Matteo Ricci, spiritual resources and partnership

At the conference "Dialogue among Civilizations and Global Challenges" held in Shanghai in 2010, friend of eRenlai and former managing director of the IMF, Michel Camdessus, provided the starting point for a discussion on intercultural dialogue,  inspired by Matteo Ricci and Xu Guangqi. He first gave a speech on the secret of Matteo Ricci:


 

Professor Choong Chee Pang from the Oxford Institute for Asian Society and Religion gave a response to Michel's wise words, particularly focusing on the importance of China's cultural and spiritual resources in contrast to the factors economic, political and military might that are usually focused on:

週五, 21 五 2010 00:02

The lesson of Matteo Ricci and Xu Guangqi

To mark 400 years of dialogue and cultural exchange set off by Matteo Ricci, on May 11th 2010 Michel Camdessus opened the Inauguration International Forum on the "Dialogue among Civilizations and Global Challenges" held by the new Xu-Ricci Dialogue Research Center at Fudan University Shanghai. He explains to us why he is so delighted that the new institute has been jointly named after Matteo Ricci and Xu Guangqi and how they are still relevant today.

[dropcap cap="I"] rejoice in the fact that the new Centre organising our forum has been placed under the twin names of Xu Guangqi and Matteo Ricci. Through this patronage, its founders are inscribing their academic endeavour into the domain of humane friendship – and more specifically of intercultural friendship. For sure, solitude plays a part in scientific research as well as in all human pursuits. But friendship plays a role at least as important, especially in our time where most research endeavours are collective ones. I would say that, besides the quest for pure truth, friendship and rivalry – sometimes associated with one another – is another important driver – if not the most important - for humane and scientific achievements.[/dropcap]

Ricci opened a new world to the curious mind of Xu Guangqi. However, it is also true to say that without Xu Guangqi, without his welcoming kindness, his ardour to study, his questions, his patience in revealing to Ricci the Chinese ways of thought and cultural treasures, there would not have been a Ricci. Their interaction is a fascinating chapter in the history of scientific, cultural and spiritual encounters. The four hundredth anniversary of the death of Matteo Ricci, is marked by a number of celebrations – including our forum - that show how relevant and inspiring the lives of these two pioneers remain today. This anniversary has implications for the future interaction between China and the rest of the world, it helps one to reflect anew on the role of China in the era of globalisation and on the ways to develop meaningful intercultural exchanges for our times.

Universal in scope, the message given by the life of Ricci also has special implications for the way we can have intercultural encounters and conduct research projects as individuals and as teams of persons dedicated to common objectives. A fellow Jesuit, Nicolas Trigault, kept vivid for us the memory of the last days of the life of Ricci, depicting him joyfully conversing with his fellow Jesuits and the nascent Chinese Christian community.

To one of the priests asking him how they could repay the affection he always showed to his brothers, Ricci replied by asking them to do likewise for the Jesuits coming from Europe, “in such a way that they receive from you, more friendship than they could receive from the ones from outside.” Ricci’s care for his fellow Jesuits had started early, he was known for helping - with particular zeal - foreign Jesuit students arriving in Rome during the time of his studies.

Thus, from the start, the secret of Ricci’s life, spirituality and success is revealed to us: His is a spirituality of friendship, first anchored in the way he experiences his relationship with a God, to whom, according to an expression found in the Spiritual Exercises of St Ignatius of Loyola, we are able to speak “as a friend speaks to his friend.” Ricci would extend this sense of friendship to the people he met, making himself the neighbour of the ones he encountered along the way.

[inset side="right" title="MIchel Camdessus"]Ricci and Xu Guangqi’s lesson is still valid today: friendship is both the starting point and the fruit of a dialogue pursued in truth and reciprocal respect[/inset]

Of particular significance, are the subject-matter and the title of the first booklet he published in China, a booklet composed on the basis of his recollections of Greek and Latin authors: “On Friendship.” The fact that this is his first published work makes it resonate like a program; from then on, friendship would be at the root of his communication strategy.

By deliberately choosing this approach, Ricci would also prove to be a peace-builder of particular historical significance. The way he introduced Chinese classics to the West also contributed in this endeavour. Later on, relationships between China and the West would be marred by the rise of imperialisms and cultural misunderstandings. Still, the living memory of Ricci and of the first Jesuits who followed in his steps has continued to reassure the Chinese people that the message and ways of interacting they were bringing with them, could go along with respect for one’s culture and national dignity as well as equality in partnership.

As a peacebuilder, Ricci is also a pioneer of dialogue. “The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven” - the work of natural theology he wrote in his later years - is conceived as a dialogue between a Confucian scholar and a sage from the West, and this dialogical form is not only a rhetorical device but also reveals his deep-rooted confidence in Man’s ability to communicate in truth and spirit with the help of reason and of the other qualities he is endowed with. The same confidence in dialogue, communication and reason also explains his commitment to the lifelong study of the Chinese language and classics. It is not the natural gifts of Ricci, his uncanny linguistic abilities, that should draw our attention, but rather the respect for language and serious learning that he displays. In an age where communication seems sometimes oversimplified and globalised, Ricci’s example rings as a reminder: we can never stop immersing ourselves in the language and mindset of the Other, untill these somehow becomes our own. Short cuts in apprenticeship and communication eventually lead to a watering down of the quality of the exchange – sometimes with dangerous misunderstandings.

Ricci and Xu Guangqi’s lesson is still valid today: friendship is both the starting point and the fruit of a dialogue pursued in truth and reciprocal respect. And if we are not able to nurture such a spiritual attitude then we will not be able to tackle the challenges that define our common destiny.

 

{rokbox size=|544 384|thumb=|images/stories/thumbnails_video/3_thumb.jpg|}images/stories/June_2010_Matteo_Ricci/riccifocus_camdessus.flv{/rokbox}

 

{rokbox album=|myalbum|}images/stories/shanghai_Camdessus/*{/rokbox}

 

 

週一, 04 六月 2007 00:00

文化交流的新挑戰

永續發展與人類的未來:文化交流的新挑戰

各位女士、先生:

自從二○○五年十一月初次訪台,我非常榮幸能再度來到台灣。那時我曾造訪中央研究院和耕莘文教院,並與一些朋友會面,今天我們在高雄的對話是這些交談的延續。在這些交談中有一個核心話題,就是如何推動人們以嶄新的視野來理解文化交流的目的:我們此刻面臨很多挑戰,其範圍和性質都是前所未聞的,面對休戚與共、同舟共濟的重要時刻,世人擔負著良知重任,來自不同國家和文化的我們,如何能夠動員資源,重新為我們的發展路徑指出新方向?

我不知道自己能夠為如此宏大的題目提供多少貢獻。但是可以肯定,透過對話和交流,我們定會豐富彼此的思想,引發更深刻的反省。


全球化:威脅與契機
若以一位經濟學者的立場來解讀,全球化顯然是風險與契機的獨特綜合體。全球化的「風險」固然顯而易見,但我們不能因而忽視了它所帶來的機會。因為當我們思及全球化的危害,同時也表示我們必須讓它所有的「機會」都派上用場。首先,我們先檢視一下全球化的風險:
‧金融體系不穩定;
‧國家缺乏處理全球性新問題的能力;
‧文化滅絕的危機;
‧終極系統化挑戰──窮人明顯地被邊緣化,並遭受不公平待遇。

第一項風險是金融安全。近年來,曾發生幾起動搖了世界經濟的重大危機,從貨幣市場的劇烈波動,其由墨西哥延燒到亞洲、俄羅斯又回到拉丁美洲,到幾家大型金融機構的破產,以及安隆(Enron)和世界通訊(WorldCom)的醜聞,在在都指出了金融體系已經面臨崩盤。我們現在確知,在世界幾乎任一角落發生的金融危機,都可能如同一連串的火藥爆發般,導致那些最弱勢者的苦難再度加深。上世紀九○年代的亞洲金融危機正告訴我們這一點。我們此刻生活在一種從未想像過的相互依賴的狀態中,如果一個國家垮台,哪怕只是如同泰國這種經濟規模的國家,也可能陷整個世界經濟於危難。這些所有的危機導致了數以百萬計的受害者與失業人口。我們已經設法遏止這情況,但仍然需要做得更多,才能真正地使全球金融體系穩定化、合理化。
第二項風險彷如二十一世紀的化身:它是一連串問題持續累積的結果。這些問題超越國界,包括:全球氣候異變、犯罪(尤其是金融犯罪)、毒品、資訊盜版猖獗、移民、傳染性疾病等等。面對這些問題,各國顯得束手無策。這些問題就有如一條日漸擴張的鴻溝:全球化的生產體系與影響人們生活的無數個變因在鴻溝的一端;緩慢的適應腳步與因應新問題的整合政策則在鴻溝的另一端。種種的不確定與日俱增,使得我們不得不問:「當我們遭遇險惡亂流,飛機上可有領航員能帶我們度過難關?」
第三項風險直擊人類社會核心,也就是文化認同。世界就如同巴別塔(Babel)般的整合,但多元文化的可貴卻在全球化中被擊潰。當我們體認到,全球化能呈現出世界文化的豐富性,而文化滅絕卻是全球化契機所帶來的負面產品時,採取應對措施實為必要之務。
至於第四項,即為全球化進程的異質性與其共同利益中所存在的不平等,引發了某些國家及地區的邊緣化。雖然有些開發中國家已經了解如何掌握全球化的力量以加快其經濟成長,但並非所有開發中國家都有此體認。那些無力加入全球商業擴展、無法吸引可觀民營投資量的國家,正面臨被全球經濟市場遺忘的危險。而面臨此危險的國家,正是那些迫切需要全球化為其帶來市場、投資與成長的貧窮國家。這就好比在全球投資版圖上,這些最貧窮的國家並不存在。因此,貧富兩極之間的鴻溝,恐怕還在持續地擴大。
有時世界似乎也接受了現實,好比人類可以接受損失次等待遇一般。但在九一一事件之後,我們對世界有更進一步的了解。不管是暴力也好,苦痛也罷,這些都不只侷限於一地。這些邪惡的發生是系統性的,就如同傳染性疾病與環境惡化不是一夕發生,而是日漸擴散的。全球化時代中再也沒有空間可以讓我們對潛在繁榮有任何幻想。顯然的,非洲存有絕對貧窮的症狀,但是這個貧窮惡魔會影響我們整體,唯有全體共同努力,才能擺脫這個問題。
因此,假使我們無法為貧窮國家找出更好的方式以創造契機,貧窮只會日漸嚴重。在全球人口日漸增加的情況下,貧窮問題只會成為越來越大的威脅。人口統計資料顯示,二十五年後的今天,全球會多出二十億人口,這其中有90%的人會出生在開發中國家。
至於機會是什麼呢?仔細看,這些機會頗令人印象深刻。七○年代以來,國與國之間商品與勞務的交換量成長了將近三倍。境外直接投資(Foreign Direct Investment)也享有可觀的成長,目前每年超過八千億元。當今財經市場的整合盛況空前。經濟市場擴張、全球貨幣市場統一加上新興資訊/通訊科技發達已為世界經濟發展打下良好的基礎。這些機會為南半球國家提供希望,使其能加快發展,亦為其加入世界經濟的整合潮流做準備。不久之前,我們不是已成功地幫助上百萬在貧窮邊緣掙扎的人們快速進入全球經濟體系嗎?這的確是人類歷史上一項巨大且正面的成長…
總的看來,全球化的浪潮激盪出人類最傑出的特質。諸如我們的創造力、團結力以及對整體世界的那分責任感。這世界並非井然有序;反之,它充滿了許多麻煩與苦難。如今,藉由不斷地快速整合知識、增加旅行機會、擴大互聯網路及社會回應由疾苦地區發出的哀嚎,我們的世界正從中持續進步。重大事件乃至災難的發生讓人類對於全球化有更進一步的普遍認知,同時也推動了公民社會(civil society)的形成──這是二十世紀所有人類的偉大成就。簡言之,這些都是契機。

我們可以做些什麼?
當我們面對這些威脅和挑戰時,哪些原則和方向可以作為基礎,引導我們的行動?我認為,這些方向可以簡述為以下三點基本方針:
‧心懷宏夢、共同行動
‧建立全球凝聚力
‧促使人類團結一致

據此,我們可以指認出幾個大方向,它們不僅符合上述的共同信心與希望,而且更能將聚合力、個人化、全球社會的凝聚及團結的原則,加以更緊密地結合。

全球治理架構的改革
二次大戰後,很顯然地,多邊主義(multilateralism)成為全球發展的第一個走向。唯國獨尊的錯誤態度引爆了戰火,有鑑於此,多邊主義於焉形成。至今,多邊主義仍舊是面對當今新興世界性議題時的唯一解決途徑。雖然多邊主義的進步之慢不禁令人搖頭;雖然有時單邊主義似乎比較吃香;然而,多邊主義無疑地仍是解決問題的方式。事實上,有些問題往往只能以國際層次的方式才能有效解決,而多邊主義,則是提供了所有國家──不論其國家的大小──皆能肩負起解決世界性問題的責任。
然而,多邊主義雖然能激發出更好的全球管理,但夥伴關係卻是帶來進步的更好途徑。二○○一年的蒙特瑞會議,就視合作夥伴關係為處理南北關係的核心策略。目前的體系中存有眾多不平等現象。合作夥伴關係主要目的是要淘汰此體系,取而代之的新體系中,所有國家都意識到其共同責任,即為全體成員創造成功。眾所周知,世界的主要問題也就是每個人的問題,而極度貧窮則是問題的開端。這些問題必須要全體攜手共同努力才能解決。
合作夥伴關係意指的是平等雙方的對話,這是一項重要的轉變。此種關係隱含了在對話期間,你的夥伴可以自行選擇與取決優先順序。合作夥伴關係也代表了雙方要相互坦承,也就是說在己國所從事任何與對方相關的活動,你要能接受對方對其詳察。合作夥伴關係也代表了你要能打從心裡尊重他國在各方面所展現出來的獨特倫理觀、文化與傳統,但同時也要能尊重組織整體。合作夥伴關係也表示不逃避彼此對另一方的責任。最後,合作夥伴關係代表了認同雙方在全球化新興道路上的共同旅程,以及尊重對方的進步。

公民社會扮演要角
合作夥伴關係不該只停留於國與國之間,它應該要朝多面向發展。我們太過習慣於將擬定國際事務的責任丟給國家。但是,現今所要執行的合作夥伴關係不僅止於國於國之間,它更涉及到企業、金融機構及民間。聯合國祕書長安南(Kofi Annan)就提倡此類合作夥伴關係,一些大型企業紛紛予以回應。對於這些企業,我們不應太快對他們有成見,因為它們都切實體認到自身在國家發展及凝聚團結上扮演的重要角色。
除此之外,我要特別強調公民社會(civil society)的特殊地位。透過持續不斷的個人化行動,公民社會在建設未來的過程中扮演要角。世界的未來端視它的作為。你我都是公民社會的一份子,它需要更良好的組織以監督所有以其為名的活動。

永續發展是核心原則
最後,永續發展的概念以及它所激發出的政治議題,是我們在建構未來時不可忽略的另一面向。永續發展的概念是當今全球性機構的核心政策,同時也是許多全球性組織建立的宗旨。和上述的多邊主義、合作夥伴關係、全球凝聚力及團結意識相同的是,唯有藉由公民社會秉持著世界公民的精神,努力不懈地向前推展,永續發展的概念才能持續成長。「公民社會」正是全球公民權得以成長的主力。此公民權對於建立一新的、真實的民主全球治理結構相當重要。


金融和永續發展
在詳細說明剛才指出的大原則之前,讓我先與各位分享過去擔任國際貨幣基金組織(IMF)主席時所獲得的經驗。我想,這些經驗對今天的情況仍十分有參考價值。當涉及全球金融的時候,什麼樣的文化轉移的影響,是我們在面對永續發展的迫切性時必須慎重考慮的?

追求高品質成長
首先,基本經濟觀念已逐漸人性化。現今大家已經認清,市場機制也會發生重大失衡,一昧追求市場成長可能會破壞大自然環境、寶貴的社會資產及文化價值。因此只追求成長是不夠的,更必須追求高品質的成長,我們的努力才值得。那麼,何謂高品質成長?
所謂的「高品質成長」,應具持續性並經得起時間的考驗,同時不會造成國內與外部的金融失衡;「成長」應以人為本,亦即在成長的同時充分投資,尤其是在教育與健康等方面的投資,使人類資本在未來的成長上發揮極致的槓桿效用,獲取最大利益;「成長」應基於追求更大的公平及公正、減少貧窮及不平等,並為窮人爭取更多權利,不間斷努力下所創造的永續性成長。最後,「成長」應能提倡環保與尊重自然的文化價值。

倫理道德與經濟效率的整合
其次,在近期的一些解決方案中,我們在更深的層次上觀察到一種顯著與正向發展的普遍認同,亦即「尊重倫理的根本價值」與「尋找市場競爭效率」之間需要加以整合。因此人們如今對以下幾點抱有更大的認同感:

‧參與式民主。這是二十世紀的重要成就,它可讓健全的經濟體系發揮最大的效率;
‧透明化、開放與信賴乃經濟成功之本;
‧打擊貪腐、勾結及任用親人是各國際金融組織之首要任務;
‧系統性地解散國家體系並非解決當代經濟問題之道。反之,我們應把焦點放在建立一個更精簡、更有效率的國家,並能在公平的狀態下,提供私部門一個有法治的穩固架構;最後
‧一方面加強總體經濟的穩定與結構性改革兩者間的關係,另一方面兼顧經濟成長及減少貧窮與不平等的問題。

全體人民參與政策改革
強大與穩定的機構無疑是成長的要素,貧窮問題也可因而獲得減緩。但相對地,一般民眾所支持的穩定及改革政策,除非由全體人民參與制定否則是行不通的。尤其是社會中最貧窮的族群,他們不僅是處在社會邊緣外,也無法貢獻經驗,而改革必須能夠讓全民包括窮人參與,並使全民在新政策中獲益。
簡單的說,新的經濟典範正在萌生。資訊科技的革新及市場開放帶來新的成長契機,加上社會投入許多的努力,創造出更多讓人們分享成長果實的機會,這些都將增強總體經濟與貨幣穩定的正面效果。綜合上述,如果新經濟型態根植於人類的基本價值與倫理道德,那麼全球化對人類來說將是一大契機,而這也正是華人世界能夠帶來重大貢獻之處。
在此我要提及,根據聯合國「全球盟約」(The Global Compact),目前商業界越來越相信他們有能力打造一個更美好的世界。具有全球公民責任感的新一代企業領導人開始浮出檯面,他們作決策時不僅憑藉本身對原則與規範的覺知,同時堅守公平、自由、誠實、人道、包容、透明化等指導原則,總括而言就是「責任」與「永續性」。

消弭貧窮,創造和平
目前世界各地正進行的工作中,每每想到減緩貧窮的工作進展有如牛步,最是令人難以接受。窮人生活被剝奪的程度,我毋須在此描述,至少各位所了解的和我一樣多。
地區間與各國內部的貧富問題、最富裕與最赤貧國家間的鴻溝,這些日漸惡化的差異不僅令人良知震怒,在經濟上更呈現浪費,並具有引起社會暴動的潛在可能性。光是「使餅變大」是不夠的,如何分享才是關鍵。若不給窮人希望,貧窮問題將帶來對立、暴力與民間動亂,侵害我們的社會。如果要致力提倡人類尊嚴與和平,那就不能輕忽貧窮問題及其對和平所帶來的危害。因此,我們全體必須共同努力解除人類的苦難,團結的意義也於此,它是大同世界的核心價值。若要經濟持續成長及進步,進而消除貧窮,和平是不可或缺的前提,而為世界和平的奮戰與團結是密不可分的。
例如,當今非洲有些赤貧地區的情況相當悲慘,許多國家都直接或間接地飽受軍亂、民間暴動或種族部落衝突之苦。如果我們不能中止這些不幸的事,又如何能妄言人類的進步與成就?目前我們所做的都還不夠,但至少可致力於減少衝突,並防止新的戰爭爆發。如果有一套多元的提議,能創造更美好的和平前景,相信它定能打開一扇人類發展的機會之窗。然而在此之前,各種狀況必須就定位,如此才能使發展過程發揮最大的效率。

全球暖化與永續發展

下面讓我們稍為談談另一個與永續發展有關的戰場,它很清楚地說明了在我們的文化和價值系統中典範轉移的必要性──這就是「全球暖化」的危機。
二○○七年二月二日,致力於「第四次跨國間氣候變化評估報告」的專家小組,針對現實中氣候改變的成因與衝擊,作下了有史以來最精確的結論,摘要如下:

‧目前地球大氣中的二氧化碳、甲烷和氧化亞氮的濃度明顯增加,主要起因是工業革命以來的人類活動,其濃度遠遠超出一七五○年以前的數字。
‧二氧化碳含量的增加主要來自於化石燃料(如煤、石油、天然氣等)的使用,以及土地利用的改變;而甲烷和氧化亞氮則歸因於農業。
‧當前根據科學所理解的溫室現象,乃來自於一七五○年以來人類活動的實際影響,此發現具有超過90%的可靠性。
‧天氣系統的暖化現象已經相當明顯:從全球平均氣溫與海洋溫度上升、冰與雪的大規模消溶,到海平面上升等等,都是明顯的證據。
‧過去十二年中(一九九五至二○○六年),有十一年名列一八五○年以來地球表面溫度上升紀錄中的前十二名。一九○六至二○○五年的百年趨勢圖,明顯高過於一九○一至二○○○年的趨勢。而溫度變動在過去五十年幾乎是過去一百年的兩倍。從一八五○至一八九九年的時期,進入到二○○一至二○○五年的時期,地表溫度總共上升了0.76℃。
‧土地和海洋上大氣層的平均水氣含量,以及上部的對流層的水氣含量,自一九八○年代開始持續增加。
‧自一九六一年以來的觀察顯示,地球海洋平均溫度上升的範圍,已經深達海平面下三千公尺,所吸收的熱能有超過80%來自天氣系統的增溫。
‧在陸域、區域和海域等不同尺度(scale)的盆地中,許多長期氣候變動已陸續被觀察。這些發現包括北極圈溫度和冰層的變動、降雨和降雪量普遍性的改變、海洋鹽分與風向的變化,以及極端氣候的發生,包括天旱、豪雨、暴風雪、高溫熱浪,以及強烈的熱帶氣旋等等。
‧二十世紀中期所觀察到的地球平均溫度上升現象,大部分肇因於人類活動所引起的溫室氣體濃度的增加。
‧人類活動所造成的影響,已延伸到氣候的其他改變,目前可察覺出來的包括海洋暖化、大陸平均溫度上升、極端的氣溫與氣流的變化。
‧溫室氣體排放的速度若持續以目前的狀況增加,將引起地球進一步暖化,並且導致全球氣候系統的改變,其影響程度極可能超過二十世紀科學家的觀察及評估。

不過,值得欣慰的是,針對全球暖化問題,目前科學家們已有足夠能力提出精準且具備共識的評估,協助決策者擬出詳細的行動方案。並且,目前的世界治理機制已能作出具有權威性的評估並著手進行討論,使其成為條約與國際協定。人類在過去從未有過如此的經驗──同時運用科學、政治與文化的方法以因應一項決定世界未來的巨大挑戰。
然而,目前我們所擁有的國際工具,可能仍不足以有效策劃執行上述報告中所提到的「果決政策」。「京都議定書」效能的限度提醒我們,國家利益優先的狹隘觀點仍凌駕於全球視野之上。因此在技術評估之外,仍需要建立新的國際機制,將各個國家、區域組織、企業團體與公民社會的相互責任網織在一起,如此方有助於在法規、文化及消費模式上產生深層的轉變。

永續發展與水資源的挑戰
以上是我對地球暖化的意見,實際上,它們同時適用於今天人類面對水資源危機的課題之上。
最近,針對輕忽水議題將造成的嚴重後果,國際社會進行了全面性的關注與討論,其結論可謂十分驚人。這可由二○○二年在約翰尼斯堡召開的環境高峰會一窺究竟。在那之前,我們要等待高峰會召開之後,才能決定是否要將「衛生的飲水」項目納入聯合國的「千禧年發展目標」之中。不過,對各國領袖來說, 要達到二○一五年前將全球無法取得安全飲水的人口減半的宏願是一回事;然而,要籌募足夠的資金,並確定所有適當的資源被妥善地運用,又是另一回事。我在此舉出一個簡單的例子:非洲鄉村地區的三億三千萬人口當中,只有35%擁有適當的取水管道,享有基本衛生設施的人口則更少。根據世界衛生組織(WHO)的調查,因用水問題所引起的疾病及其所帶來的經濟損失,每年高達兩百億美元之譜。於此同時,非洲開發銀行(African Development Bank)統計指出,若要將獲得水資源的人口比例從35%提高到80%,所需經費約為一百四十億美元。兩者相較之下,其結論昭然可見。
再者,在聯合國「千禧年發展宣言」之中,雖然只有一項直接提及水資源,但對於達成其他發展目標如降低貧窮,改善教育以及兩性平等…等項目,「水」皆是至為關鍵的因素。例如在許多地區,學校裡是否設有男女分開的洗手間,往往是女孩們能否繼續接受教育的先決條件。另一例則是:不論是現在或是未來,要養活全球日益增加的人口,必須提高糧食生產量,而「灌溉」的重要性亦由此可見。簡言之,除非我們能夠解決這兩項水資源的問題,我們無法解決其他的問題。
第三,潔淨水源的取得、適當的衛生消毒以及污水的處理,是確保公眾健康的要件。在許多地區,婦女及孩童為了取水被迫長途跋涉,不僅浪費時間與心力,且她們在家庭活動、教育及生產工作等方面,更付出了沉重的代價。
第四,也就是最後一項:從許多方面來看,有效的水資源開發管理,乃是永續發展與減貧的根本之道。而全方位的水資源管理,包括了在國家、地區及社區等層次上,皆能使所有人民受惠的基礎建設──包括窮人。並且,全方位的水利服務,意即為了改善供水與能源使用、使用者的連結以及灌溉部門的服務,亦可使所有人民因而獲益。
未來五十年內,全球將有半數以上的人面臨「水的威脅」。不過,儘管如此,使所有人類得以享用純淨水源的夢想,仍促使我們團結在一起,朝著此一理想邁進。並且,這份報告透露了一個好消息:使全人類享有純淨水源的夢想,是有可能實現的!
在聯合國的「千禧年發展目標」中,有一項目標為「將無法獲取安全飲用水的人口減半」,若我們能再共同努力十年,將此項行動持續進行到二○一五年,此一目標就得以實現。誠然,對於這一個世代、政府、企業及公民社會來說,這項任務充滿了挑戰性。沒錯,唯有在各方共同努力的狀況下,方能克竟其功。畢竟在過去,我們已習於相互卸責。
水的問題,必須以全球的角度來面對。唯有各方皆能認清改變的必要,並真正付諸行動,問題才得以真正解決。並且,這些改變通常是根本而激進的。在這裡所指的「各方」,並非只包括南北半球各國的政府,也包括了各個城鎮、地區、非政府組織、社區、公民社會、公共服務機構、公司、銀行與多邊組織等等,每一方都得付出再加倍的努力。「加倍」一詞用在這裡,真是再恰當也不過了。根據之前的報告,全世界每天約多出廿一萬人可享用基本衛生設施;然而,若要達到「千禧年發展目標」的理想,這數字必須提升到每天四十萬人才行!目前,這差距已經縮小:每天增加二十二萬五千人使用安全水源,而所要達成的目標為二十七萬五千人。
下一階段,我們該做的不是侷限於全球策略與金錢,而是著重在「承諾」與「決心」。當事態已經如此危急,當所有重要國家都決意要均衡發展,當全球仰賴穩健的多邊機構付出努力、致力創新、制定有效規定並積極催生改革之時,只要我們能夠堅定地付諸行動,進行必要的改變,不要回到過去的行事模式,我們就能滿懷希望,期待這偉大的事業終將成功。

結論
我已向各位陳述了永續發展的迫切性如何為全球化指出一個方向和意義,我也闡明了全球金融、地球暖化和水資源各方面的嚴重危機。面對如此重大的課題,我並不是要扮演專家的角色提供技術性的解決方案,我主要做的是,為大家描述一個整合的、多向度的和文化交流的進路,其實今天當我們處理任何公共政策的議題時,也必須採取這樣的方法。
世界各地的人們正努力地投入建設充滿公義和永續的地球。我也意識到台灣處於頗為特殊的國際地位,但這不應妨礙台灣人民積極地參與世界事務。我已在上文指出:永續經營和全球管理已不須如同從前受制於民族國家(Nation-States)的龔斷權力,今天,企業家、輿論、學術界和非政府組織反而扮演非常重要的角色。如果能夠善加利用文化資源的多樣性和差異性,實現全球思維與本地運作,必能對世界產生重大的影響。弔詭的是,台灣雖然面對重重困難,反而加強了台灣的創造力,我認為這份創造力必能帶來全球性的寶貴資產。在過去,台灣已向世人展示了她如何剷除貧窮,建立民主,此刻正是時候運用相同的資源,領導整個亞洲,以改變對消費和環保的態度。未來就在我們的手中,我們深信台灣定能勝任挑戰。


週一, 09 十月 2006 19:44

Ethics and Finance in a Globalizing World

Beijing, November 2005

I - A few lessons from 13 years at the IMF

My three mandates in the IMF (1992-2000) have coincided with the time when globalization has accelerated its pace and became the dominant feature of the time.

What was taking place was -at its beginning- difficult to identify as the major phenomenon now well analyzed. The only evidence was that something was taking place which was very different from what the founding fathers of the Bretton Woods institutions in 1944-1945 had foreseen. Things were moving so rapidly nevertheless and affecting so deeply the international community that international institutions had to move, to adapt themselves and to suggest new orientations to the membership. Globalized finance was one of the features of the change going on, but not the only one by far.

One of the first things I had to perceive was that in this new world, problems became so complex and intertwined that no institution -and even the IMF, in spite of the high technicality of the problems it had to address- could remain strictly technical, trusting the markets automatism to solve the human problems of our world and in particular the “ultimate systemic threat facing humanity ”, poverty. As an unacceptable level of poverty was to my judgment also the ultimate market failure, we had to obey an ethical sense of solidarity to find the way to assist the countries in need.

A second lesson derived from the uneven success of our programs for stabilization, growth and reduction of poverty in developing countries; it became crystal clear that their effective implementation and lasting success was tightly linked to the quality of the participation of all segments of the population to their preparation, adoption and implementation. This new ethical dimension had then to be introduced in the strategies of the IMF, and indeed it was, at least each time governments accepted to go that far.

Then came the Mexican and Asian crisis -the true first crisis of the XXI century- as they were so different from the crisis of the first 40 years of existence of the IMF which were mainly external payment crisis, often exacerbated by unsustainable debt. The Mexican crisis and much more evidently the Asian crisis were unlike any seen before. Crises of this new type explode on the open capital markets, arise from complex dysfunctions, particularly in the financial markets, and are much less exclusively macroeconomic in nature. They quickly take on systemic proportions, and can be checked only through the immediate mobilization of massive financing. Take the three major Asian crises, for example: Thailand, Indonesia and Korea. Dealing with them meant dealing with a three-dimensional problem: a dimension, obviously, of macroeconomic imbalances, along with massive outflows of short-term capital; an acute crisis in the financial sector, reflecting institutional and banking practice weaknesses; and a much more fundamental crisis in the prevailing economic management model. I am thinking here of unhealthy – I would even say incestuous – relations among corporations, banks, and government. This third dimension of corruption, collusion, and nepotism was making obvious that un-ethical behaviors in such a great scale could have dramatic systemic consequences and implied that fundamental reforms were immediately required. The financial universe could no more think, at least from that very moment, that there is such a thing as sound economics and finance, without solid ethical behaviors of the main actors in the public and private sectors.

But there is more. We had soon to acknowledge that -important as they may be- there is not such a thing as financial ethics in isolation. At the moment we were discovering the importance of ethics for finance, we were de facto invited to turn our attention to global ethics for the sustainability of a world were finances were leading the globalization.

Taken together these four lessons have contributed to the progressive emergence of a new paradigm of development. Let me emphasize two of its key features.

First, a progressive humanization of basic economic concepts. It is now recognized that the market can have major failures, that growth alone is not enough and can even be destructive of the natural environment or precious social goods and cultural values. Only the pursuit of high-quality growth is worth the effort. What is such growth?

• growth that can be sustained over time without causing domestic and external financial imbalance;

• growth that has the human person at its center, that is accompanied by adequate investment, particularly in education and health, to take full advantage of the tremendous leverage of human capital for future growth;

• growth that, to be sustainable, is based on a continuous effort for more equity, poverty and inequalities reduction, and empowerment of poor people; and

• growth that promotes protection of the environment, and respect for national cultural values.

Second, at a deeper level, we observe in recent approaches a striking and promising recognition of a convergence between a respect for fundamental ethical values and the search for efficiency required by market competition. Yes, you can see now a far wider recognition:

• that participatory democracy – that major conquest of the 20th century – can maximize the effectiveness of sound economies;

• that transparency, openness, and accountability are basic requirements for economic success;

• that combating collusion, corruption, and nepotism must be a major concern for the international financial institutions;

• that systematically dismantling the state is not the way to respond to the problems of modern economies; rather we must aim for a slimmer yet more effective state, able to provide the private sector with a solid framework in which the rule of law could prevail, on a level playing field; and

• that there is a mutually reinforcing relationship between macroeconomic stability and structural reform on one hand, and growth and the reduction of poverty and inequality on the other.

Stability and strong institutions are clearly essential for growth, and hence for poverty alleviation. But the converse is also true: popular support for stabilization and reform cannot be counted upon, unless the whole population, including the poorest—and by the poorest I mean those that not only are out of the loop, but even more are unable to contribute their experience—is able to participate in the formulation of the policies and, of course, in the benefits from those policies.

In short, a new economic paradigm is emerging. The new opportunities for growth created by the revolution in information technology and the opening of markets, combined with more resolute efforts to promote opportunities for all to share in the benefits of growth, will amplify the positive effects of macroeconomic and monetary stability. All of this together can transform globalization in a great opportunity for humanity provided that the emerging new paradigm is firmly rooted in fundamental human values and ethics, and here is where the contribution of the Chinese world will be essential.
(Image: C.P.)


II - What are these basic ethical values for a world of financial globalization?

Which values must we promote if we are determined to make sense of our history? Which values to guide us as the new century unfolds? This question has been with me all along these thirteen years in the IMF and I raised it with many interlocutors. When trying to draw the conclusions of so many conversations. I end up with three values: a sense of global responsibility, solidarity and of worldwide citizenship:

- a sense of global responsibility for each countries and for all including us as enterprises or us as simple citizens, to contribute to the human success of globalization;
- solidarity to alleviate and ultimately eradicate poverty; and
- a new sense of citizenship to back a new global governance.

1. Sense of responsibility

In our globalized financial world, whether a country is large or small, any crisis can now become systemic through contagion on the globalized markets. Domestic economic policy therefore must, now more than ever, take into account its potential worldwide impact; a duty of universal responsibility is incumbent upon all. Every country, large or small, is responsible for the stability and quality of world growth. When I say large, I must add that the responsibility is in some way in proportion with the size.

This adds a new dimension to the duty of excellence that is required of every government in the management of its economy. I use the word “excellence”; I could also say “absolute rectitude”. Globalization is a prodigious factor in accelerating and spreading the international repercussions of domestic policies – for better or worse. No country can escape, and all should be fully aware of the central importance of:

- rigor and transparency in overall economic management;
- growth that is centered on human development, social justice and respect of the environment; and
- government reform, seeking public sector efficiency, appropriate regulations, emphasis on the rule of law, independence of the judiciary, anticorruption measures, etc.

All of that is tantamount to recognize that economic progress is strongly dependant on the basic value of responsibility: the sense that each is responsible for the advancement of all, and on the harmony of social relations at national level and peace internationally. This should, in the end, allow each country to play a greater positive role for the prosperity of the global economy and to accept also the responsibility to contribute to the correction of what goes wrong in the working of the international financial system, and to start with, the inadequacy of financial information, and the failure to respect the rules of transparency so central for policy credibility and market stability.

In the face of a proliferation of increasingly sophisticated forms of financial intermediation, the delays in imposing the required discipline on international markets, which have been kept at the anarchic stage that the domestic markets of the industrial countries were at a century ago, has been particularly detrimental. Reforms of course have been adopted, but here we are in a field where, beyond the initiatives of governments and regulators, the ethical sense of individual actors and private companies can and must make a major difference. They must understand that in a medium to long term perspective, there is not any better way to care for their business than to care also for society and the common good. Yes this role of other actors -frequently from the private sector: enterprises, financial institutions and all components of civil society: labor unions, NGOs, religious organizations, etc. can be decisive. All of them, by their responsible behavior, can play an important role for the success of the newly emerging paradigm in humanizing globalization.

Here I would like to mention the growing conviction in the business community -exemplified by the “global compact” of the UN- that business has the ability to contribute more and more to building a better world. A new generation of globally responsible leaders is emerging whose decisions rely both on their awareness of principles and regulations and on their determination to follow guiding principles such as fairness, freedom, honesty, humanity, tolerance, transparency and of course, embracing all the previous ones: responsibility and sustainability.

These people as good businessmen are result oriented and so attach the highest importance to key action areas through which corporate global responsibility can be nurtured and developed. They include:

- tuning into societal and environmental business context,
- overcoming key organizational, regulatory and societal barriers to change,
- developing stakeholder engagement skills such as careful listening and the ability to engage in dialogue,
- transforming the culture of the firm by changing attitudes and behaviours,
- understanding the purpose of change,
- designing change management processes, and,
- rewarding globally responsible behaviour through improved performance measures and systems.

Under such an inspiration, they see as of the highest importance every effort to initiate to business ethics of the students of business schools around the world.

2. Solidarity to fight poverty

When considering all the positive dynamics at work in our world, the slowness of progress in reducing poverty appears all the more unacceptable. I need not describe in graphic terms the extent of present human deprivation-you know them at least as well as I.
The widening gaps between regions and rich and poor within nations, and the gulf between the most affluent and most impoverish nations, are morally outrageous, economically wasteful, and potentially socially explosive. Now we know that it is not enough to increase the size of the cake; the way it is shared is deeply relevant to the dynamism of development. If the poor are left hopeless, poverty will undermine the fabric of our societies though confrontation, violence and civil disorder. If we are committed to the promotion of human dignity and peace, we cannot afford to ignore poverty and the risks it entails for peace. We all must work together to relieve all this human suffering. This is what solidarity means as an obvious central value for a unifying world. But the fight for peace in the world and solidarity must go hand in hand as peace is an inescapable precondition for durable economic progress. When considering the tragic situation of an impressive part of Africa, where so many countries are directly or indirectly involved in military or civil or ethnic tribes conflicts, how could we entertain any illusion that progress in human conditions is achievable if these conflicts are not brought to an end? At least there must be a major effort – well beyond what we see today –to reduce tensions and to prevent new wars from being started. If through a diversity of initiatives better prospects for peace can emerge, then good windows of opportunity for development could appear. But many other conditions will have to be put in place for its process to become effective.

Here, the poor countries themselves are on the front line, and we have learn that their success on the fight against poverty depend crucially on their own sense of responsibility in promoting good governance and sound policies, in making poverty alleviation the centerpiece of economic policy, together with a renewed emphasis on rapid growth led by the private sector. But for them, also, success lies in national “ownership” of the policies, through a participatory approach that engages civil society in a constructive dialogue. If this is the case, the rest of the world should then be ready to move promptly when these countries indicate that they need support. But then, how can development partners support the efforts of the poorest countries? Let me point to four areas.

First, on the trade front, by assigning the highest priority to providing unrestricted market access for all exports from the poorest countries, including the heavily indebted poor countries, so that these countries can begin to benefit more deeply from integration into the global trading system.

Second, by supporting policies that encourage the inflows of private capital, especially foreign direct investment with its twin benefits of new finance and technology transfers.

Third, by contributing financially. Here we are dealing with an issue which goes beyond – important as it may be – the simple provision of badly needed financing. It is an issue closely related to the basic fabric of a unifying world community: the mutual trust among its members which implies that giving one’s word means just that. Over the past decade, we have witnessed two rather paradoxical phenomena. On the one hand, while the industrial countries have happily been collecting their peace dividends, they have steadily reduced their official development assistance, falling further and further short of the target of 0.70 percent of GDP which all – with the exception of the United States – had pledged to achieve for the year 2000. At the same time, at one world conference after another, they committed themselves, along with developing and transition countries, to promote measurable and achievable human development objectives now encapsulated in the MDG.

Fourth, by being faithful to our pledge, in the occasion of the Monterrey (Mexico) Finance for Development Conference in 2002 to establish, from now on, our cooperation for development on the basis of partnership.

But what does such a substitution should entail: words or substance? A major change indeed. Partnership is dialogue among equals. It implies that your partner in that dialogue makes himself his own choices and defines his own priorities. It implies also total frankness on both sides and full acceptation of the critical judgment of your counterpart on your own policies; and equally a deep respect for the ethical demands, the culture and the traditions of the other, including in the organization of the public life. It requires that no one beg his neighbour and fulfill his full share of responsibilities. It means full acceptation of a join walk on the new trails of globalization, each taking care of adapting his steps to the walk of the other… Partnership as understood in Monterrey doesn’t limit itself to government’s policies. It is a multidimensional concept associating on both sides, enterprises, financial institutions and civil societies, all being invited to enter into this new kind of relations beyond their national borders.

Imagine for a moment that these pledges were actually fulfilled: what a giant step this could be toward a better world, what a giant step it would be toward improving the lot of the most disadvantaged among the poor – women and children! But many of the world’s top leaders have been losing sight of these pledges. Let’s use all our influence including as private citizens to make sure that, particularly after the New York Summit of last September, the OMD are given the highest priorities by our governments. This worldwide mobilization of public opinion will be only a small step, but it is important in view of the fragility of our collective commitments. We must make the first decade of the new century one of fulfillment of past pledges. If we allow cynicism to prevail in this area, we may as well give up the dream of progressing to a more fraternal global society. This is a matter of great urgency. Yes, we need a jolt of responsibility and solidarity.

Having touched upon the key aspects of a poverty reduction strategy, let me underline that what I am referring to here is not our obligation of generosity toward a world much poorer than ours, but our contribution to strengthening the very fabric of a world which is now one; a fabric the solidity of which is crucially dependent on the elimination of war, the respect for pledges and the active support for those who want to stand on their own feet.



3. Participatory democracy and subsidiarity in world governance

This being said and beyond the poverty problem, we know only too well that in today’s world, many people suffer from a lack of control over their own destiny and fear that there is no legitimate authority to deal with problems that are increasingly taking on worldwide dimensions, such as threats to the environment, increases in the use of drugs, widespread corruption, crime, money laundering, etc. For all these issues as for poverty, I fail to see any satisfactory solution without introducing in all places where human issues are addressed more democratic participatory governance.

In the context of globalization, the whole issue of governance must be revisited not with the view of setting up some sort of world economic government; but with two more limited ambitions:

- in the one hand, to offer to all human beings a say on their own destiny, and
- on the other, to find a global response to inescapable problems of worldly dimension.

The task is, nevertheless, formidable. We are the first generation in history to be confronted with the need to organize and to manage the world, not from a position of power such as Alexander’s, or Caesar’s, or the Allies’ at the end of World War II, but through a recognition of the universal responsibilities of all peoples and citizens and of a universal duty of solidarity and cooperation through partnership.

The challenge is, of course, primarily to introduce more and more citizens participation at all levels of national governance. It is also to find mechanisms for managing the international economy, which would at the same time (1) preserve the sovereignty of national governments; (2) help smooth the effective working of markets; (3) ensure international financial stability; and (4) offer solutions to problems which transcend the boundaries of the nation-state, and to which we are responding unsatisfactorily now by over-stretching existing institutions. A tall order indeed! To understand this, we need merely compare our world to the world in 1945. Each country has now achieved sovereignty, each wants to shoulder its full responsibility in the face of global problems, and we know that the effective participation of each country in managing the “global village” is key to the future of the village. Furthermore, while globalization has until now operated at the whim of more or less autonomous financial and technological forces, it is high time that we put in place the appropriate mechanism so that progress towards world unity can be made consistently and in the service of humankind. What is required are institutions which can facilitate joint reflection at the highest levels, whenever needed, and which are capable of ensuring that globalized strategies are adopted and implemented when it appears that those problems can be dealt with effectively at the global level. The problems are serious and many. I would like to point out just three of them: (1) lack of appropriate institutions in new fields of major global concern; (2) respect for the old principle of subsidiarity; (3) fair representation in international economic decision-making.

The founding fathers of the United Nations system made a good job in 1944-1945 to solve the problems they were foreseeing. But of course, sixty years later, we must confront issues at that time unexpected, such as environment and migrations. This calls for the creation of institutions properly equipped to help governments to face them in a proper multilateral spirit.

Whatever our reluctance to add to the bureaucratic apparatus of the UN, it is crystal clear that the world will have – the sooner the better – to face this unjustifiable lacuna, a lacuna on which public voices remain generally silent and which is only brought to our minds, but so far to no avail, when a major environmental catastrophe takes place.

Together with the environment, anti-trust and migrant-worker issues would also justify the creation of freestanding bodies at a global level. Needless to say that the cost of establishing such institutions could be offset at least partly by further streamlining the system in other fields.

This being said, multilateral institutions must be exemplary in their respect of the subsidiarity principle, formulated centuries ago we are now rediscovering. It means that the worldwide institutions must tackle and solve problems of an economic, social, political or cultural character, which are posed by the universal common good. But without intending to limit the sphere of action of the public authority of the individual state, much less to take its place. On the contrary, its purpose is to create, on a world basis, an environment in which the public authorities of each state, its citizens and intermediate associations, can carry out their tasks, fulfill their duties and exercise their rights with greater security. This suggests that the more we see the need to consolidate or to grant new responsibilities in world bodies, the more it is also necessary to let them know that their contribution can only be subsidiary. Everyone must understand that nothing can be accomplished at the global level unless it has been taken up at the grassroots level and supported by initiatives of the entire institutional chain from the local to the global level. Responsible citizenship at all levels must be one of the key values of the 21st century.

The more we recognize we must give more leverage to global and regional institutions to tackle worldwide problems, the more we must promote fair representation in their decisions-making bodies. The situation, at this stage, is unsatisfactory. Talking about the financial institutions, I would insist on the following.

The legitimacy of the Bretton Woods Institutions is increasingly questioned. The mounting universal demands for more participatory governance at all levels of governance in society, apply of course also to them and particularly to the way in which they must accommodate the growing role of new players, particularly from Asia. A lot is at stake for the international climate of the next decades, depending on whether they will be invited soon to share global responsibilities or they will have to fight for them. Progress so far has been slow, to say the least. Knowing pretty well the hesitations, I suggest four measures that could distinctly strengthen world governance in a participatory direction.

1/ Make more explicit who does bear the real political responsibilities in these institutions

2/ Reopen the debate on the size and composition of their Executive Boards

This reform would simultaneously respond to the situation newly created by the progress of the European Union toward its integration, the growing importance in world economic terms of the emerging markets and the difficult issue of “voice” for Africa which still awaits a convincing response.

3/ Reform the procedures for the selection of management

The rules and practices for the appointment of the Managing Director of the IMF and the President of the World Bank should also be changed and the new system enacted on the next relevant occasion. Both Europe and the United States should renounce their present “privileges” in 2004.


4/ Contribute to a more participatory world governance

To gain increased relevance, the G8 must continue opening itself up. Drawing the lessons of the experiences of recent years, we could propose, in this regard, that each G8 summit be coupled with an “extended meeting” to which all heads of State and Governments from the countries represented in the new Council should be invited. This would be a way to put in place a “global governance group”, whose orientations would carry much more credibility, legitimacy and influence than the G8 and G-20 today.

These few remarks on participatory governance, including at world level, are in my view another illustration of the mutually reinforcing character of the initiatives for making ethical principles to prevail and of the efforts to make national and international institutions more efficient, while promoting a needed climate of partnership.



Ethics in a globalizing world where international finances are gaining so much importance: what is needed is to identify the values that men and women today can use to make sense of their history. Our history has not yet been fully written -it is still in our hands- and notwithstanding its risks, globalization is an opportunity to move toward a world economy that is more worthy of the human race. This implies that we take action on the three values to which I have been referring and that many around the world can recognize: responsibility, solidarity and at all levels, participatory citizenship. Thanks to them we could go a long way:

- from disorderly and instable markets to better regulated ones,
- from a world dominated by self-interest to one where gratuitousness would be recognized,
- from a world exclusively nations-centered to a multilaterally-oriented one,
- from a world where governments see themselves as exclusively in charge of the common good to one where a dense network of partnerships would associate enterprises and civil society to the common objective of the humanization of the world.


捐款

捐款e人籟,為您提供更多高品質的免費內容

金額: 

事件日曆

« 十一月 2019 »
星期一 星期二 星期三 星期四 星期五 星期六 星期日
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30  

目前有 2749 個訪客 以及 沒有會員 在線上