It is quite obvious that if we manage to avoid a planetary catastrophe, people on Earth will still have to somehow find a way to coexist, preferably relatively peacefully, comfortably, and even – this sometimes happens – happily. People have dreamed about this throughout the ages, it only remains to somehow clarify the parameters of this human dream.
Over the last few years – one can argue 5, 10 or 20 years – tension in the world has been growing. Moreover, it continues to grow, and at such a rate that the most catastrophic scenarios of the future seem possible. Nevertheless, simultaneously with this obvious increase in conflict, we are also seeing amazing progress. The most fantastic technology is being developed, making humanity more powerful than ever before. Engineers can build almost anything, communications allow all inhabitants of the Earth to feel connected to the whole world, computers and digital technology have inspired many to believe in the possibility of the emergence of genuine artificial intelligence, and medicine and biology offer new universal methods of healthcare, prolonging human life while maintaining its quality.
The search for such a solution is further complicated by the fact that the world is in dire need of some kind of regulatory system. Without this regulation, the further progress of humanity is simply impossible, since it is the growth of technological power that makes the world more and more connected and interdependent, in almost all spheres of human activity. It is clear, for example, that no country can solve the problems of climate change and environmental protection separately. The state of affairs in the information and communication sphere, which transcends borders, requires some universal international agreements, uniform rules for everyone and mechanisms for their observance. Achievements in biology and medicine raise the issue of social justice, humanism, and compassion with extraordinary urgency. It cannot be that the right to life, health, and care continues to depend on one’s place of birth, the thickness of one’s wallet, or citizenship. In general, common standards, universal rules, and the like are required everywhere and in everything. But, I repeat, the situation with regulation, the coordination of interests and plans, and the development of common security principles is quite poor and, to some extent, getting worse.
The lack of universality in the world, combined with glaring contradictions, as already mentioned above, has led to an increase in conflict and a split in the world. The lines of this rift run in the most bizarre way: there are conflicts between countries, but there are also ethnic, religious, cultural and even, as it turns out, gender hostilities (however, there is no end to the types of hostility). Interestingly, one can say with confidence that the boundaries between internal and external conflicts have been erased for almost all countries. External contradictions instantly lead to civil confrontation, and the latter can easily change foreign policy and give rise to a series of conflicts that go far beyond the country itself. A fairly typical illustration of this is the events in the Middle East, the development of which may well lead – under certain circumstances – to a worldwide clash and the highest degree of violence. To complete the picture, it is worth noting the extraordinary abundance of information, the turbulent oceans of inaccurate news, gossip, malicious lies and dense ignorance. The impact of this new information and communication world is so great that even our enlightened elites fall into the trap of their own ignorance and, when making decisions, they are guided by, in a certain sense, confused considerations, not logic – by an inconsistent and motley series of thoughts, often simply emotions. By the way, many researchers, including the Western ones, have caught onto this. I’ve even come across the term “emocracy” in one article.
It is clear that “emocracy” in a certain sense has always taken place. Even in Periclean Athens, many decisions were the result of excitement and emotional outbursts. But that was a long time ago, and somehow gradually the conviction was established that politicians are still guided by reason.
Unfortunately, in many cases, the elites, for example, the Western ones, have begun to arrange their world in such a way as to have a confident advantage over others, to create a situation in which they can manipulate almost all of humanity. However, recently, perhaps over the past 15-20 years, it has become clear to Western elites that this trick does not work. As a palliative, a decision was made to divide the world into at least two parts: a certain “Western” continent and a scattering of other adjacent countries, located nearby, but not “inside”. In fact, the West has begun to fence itself off in its own way, accepting into NATO or some similar organisations those suitable to them. These include, for example, many countries in Eastern Europe, Japan (although it is worth making reservations here) and Australia. It is clear that the contours of the “Western” continent are not entirely stable, but the leading elites of the West are trying to close the circle, clearly separate “us” from “them”, and trying to worsen and make dependent the situation of the aforementioned “foreigners” as much as possible.
In general, the West, through money, manipulation, and sometimes weapons and blood, builds its own rigid hierarchy, in which it has all the levers of pressure to coerce other countries. These include financial platforms, armies, communications management, and much more. However, as we can see, it is impossible to say that the West has achieved any sensational successes in this area. In many ways, in my opinion, the main hypothesis of Western elites regarding good and evil in our world is incorrect. But this is a topic for a separate conversation about how to understand the nature of modern states, how appropriate, for example, is the division of countries into democratic and non-democratic, or what the foundations of the socio-political structure of modern states may be. But let’s return to the remaining, larger part of the world: to countries such as China, Brazil, India, Pakistan, Russia and many others. From the point of view of political geography, these countries, with some differences, have made a different choice. They believe that the world is rather a universal archipelago, in which all countries are islands, regardless of size, and they are all equal and should have equal access to all systems of interaction in which countries are involved.
In this regard, the Global South (or the greater part of the world) quite clearly defines the formula for the future, and is ready to discuss the parameters of humanity’s dream of a stable and developing global community.
Of course, the distance from today’s situation to the desired future is very large. It is not obvious that it will be possible to achieve it at all.
Anyway, one can dream. And dreams sometimes come true.
In general, these, as well as many other issues, will be discussed at the 21st Annual Meeting of the Valdai Discussion Club, titled “Lasting Peace on What Basis? Common Security and Equal Opportunities for Development in the 21st Century”, in Sochi, November 4-7, 2024.
