By Yulia Tymoshenko

12.06.2002

Translated by Yevhenia Tymoshenko and edited by Voices of Ukraine

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I am confident that you, as do I, often participate in various roundtables and conferences and are aware in advance that when politicians meet, they usually talk about how to divide up power. If it is a businessmen’s meeting, then the language as a rule, is about how to divide up money.

Even meetings of intellectuals are often devoid of intrigue. They talk about how the world is moving towards a catastrophe and about how everything will be significantly worse in the future.

I came to this conference with special expectations and special feelings. Nowadays, competent and influential people do not often gather anymore in order to speak not on the redivision of power, the redivision of money, or worldly horrors, but rather on moral problems and, moreover, moral obligations.

And I would like to thank all the organizers of the conference for this opportunity for a frank and, I hope, fruitful interaction.

When my press-secretary found out about the topic of my talk today, he remarked ironically that to speak with politicians about morality is the same as speaking with cannibals about vegetarianism. This is the way morality in politics is perceived in the public mind. And we all know that grounds exist for this.

It is indisputable that moral principles and moral obligations in the politico-economical spheres today are in fact absent and have been fundamentally substituted with other generally recognized “values,” such as national corporate interest, profit, success, political and economic expediency, career advancement.

The “World Order” until now has been understood by many as a certain status quo, as a certain balance of interests between different countries that is sustained mainly according to power. Whether it be  military power, financial-economic power, or the like.

I think that the time arrived long ago to reexamine such an understanding. There exists, for example, the order of the barracks, which is supported by the power of command and the fear of punishment. And there is the order of the church choir, in the foundation of which lies a common understanding of spiritual and esthetic values.

The “World Order” in its contemporary sense should, clearly, mean such a state of global comradery in which all the basic relationships and balances between countries and their leaders, as well as the elites inside these very countries, would rely less on force and more than ever on those common values, common ideas, and a common reaction to these or other events.

When we oust force and violence as the main instruments and dominant means of sustaining order, then something will emerge that we will be able to, by all rights, call a “New World Order.”

Why is the world, which has such a filigreed, cumulative intellect and decides pragmatic questions on a planetary scale, not able to accomplish a vitally important task–to make morality and spirituality the basis of a world order?

The main reason for this lies in the fact that the leaders and elites over the past centuries did not seriously set this task before themselves. Of course, an assemblage of the right words and spells was always uttered; however, this goal was never treated in an honest and adequate manner. So, the time has come to set this goal in the right way. However, the question arises: who is able to set this goal before the world? Such spiritual leaders as Gandhi, Schweitzer, King, Mother Theresa, and the like all have disappeared somewhere. Have they stopped being born and raised in our cruel, crazy, and more than ever aggressive world? It seems that their activities are simply of no need today.

I think that such bright personalities are being annihilated by new fetishes–success, expediency, gain, and interests. The world must find, unite, and protect such leaders, give them the opportunity to discover new strategies and paths for their people, to lead their nations to success and prosperity.

One more thing, let us consider this one fact: over the past decades, the civilized world has not produced any beautiful utopia in terms of an “ideal world,” “ideal country,” “ideal polity” for human life, no striking mega-project of global reconstruction on the basis of some high principles–whether they be moral, aesthetic or social.

(When I refer to the necessity of a beautiful utopia in the twenty-first century, I mean its significantly more perfect form and structure, the “utopia” that sets goals which are correct, moral, spiritual, and close to the humanistic ideal, while at the same time, takes into account innovative, effective, and realistic ways of realizing these goals.)

I will venture to use the golden rule of the Sermon on the Mount by Jesus Christ, “But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes’ and your ‘No’ be ‘No.’ Whatever is more than these is of the evil one,” [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_5:37]  and to suggest the basic goals which could be set today for the conception of a moral and spiritual starting point in the world order as well as the ways to reach them.

Reflecting on how to make the world order more humane, moral, or simply more beautiful, I see altogether five key steps of the first and most complicated stage as well as one new methodological approach which I shall present right now.

The new methodological approach assumes that all traditional ideologies well known to the world, in our opinion, are based on certain extremes such as communism, capitalism, market fundamentalism, and so on. Those ideologies have performed their function by presenting the world with generally accepted and time-tested values that are no longer disputed: democracy, the fundamental rights and freedoms of an individual, equality of all forms of property, social guarantees.

Currently, these ideologies no longer generate any progress, cleansing or improvement of societal existence. Evidently, the world has passed through the period of extreme ideologies, the period of absolutism, the period of youthful radicalism. The time has come to determine the “golden middle-of-the-road.” This demands a new method that would not hide inner conflicts beneath the usual ideological clichés but would step forth with a driving and purifying force.

This is the method of perceived harmonization. It foresees the revelation of a destructive conflict in the heart of society and its exposure to the public. After this, the development of an effective concept of its regulation, bolstered by righteous acts, becomes possible. The world, which has become significantly more mature, must discover for itself a new epoch of harmonization.

And now about the five steps toward morality as the basis of the world order.

The first step is the elimination of the contradictions between state expediency and personal freedom. State expediency constantly imposes a logic of its own, and it sounds something like, “The greater the violence, the more order.”

However, any recognized injustice is itself violence. The state controls, oppresses, dispirits, and demeans the soul and body of a human being in the course of a person’s life. The state as a contemporary institution works not so much “for” but “against” the principles of justice.

There is no need to eliminate or weaken the state in order to overcome this situation. It is necessary to identify and eliminate all of the elements of violence aimed at the individual and to mercilessly debunk the rooted dogmas, traditions, and stereotypes.

Special attention should be devoted to the maximal leveling of the inequities between people by birth, which cannot be excused via the concept of familial merit; to the elimination of the paradoxical poverty of people who work honestly and with utter devotion even at economically successful enterprises; to the elimination of lawful idiocy that allows the owners of commanding shares in a company to control the profits that belong to the minor shareholders, who as a rule are honest, rank-and-file citizens.

There is a significant layer of violence aimed at the individual in the sphere of taxation. Because a person can pay taxes at the moment of acquiring material goods and services, there is no need to maintain a colossal tax service for daily inspections.

The time has come to turn our attention to the inadequate severity of punishment for people that have committed violations of a civic character and which are not related to crimes against an individual. This is systematic violence raised to the rank of justice that should be totally transformed into principally different forms of punishment and compensation for damages.

And is it not violence aimed at an individual to use insurmountable monetary barriers to restrict a person from making use of the newest achievements in medicine, from the most effective educational systems, from the services of justice? No, this is not about making things free. However, the time has come to create principally new models of financial support for services of vital importance to a person.

A comprehensive inventory of violence by the state against the individual is so convincing that it goes beyond the limits of my talk.

Everyone has their own destiny, a higher purpose. According to the will of God, this is always the path of improvement, goodness, clear mission. Whenever an individual loses his higher purpose, when the meaning of his life on Earth is not even revealed to him, his destiny becomes ruined, and he plunges into the abyss of no escape, fear, and perplexity. As these phenomena become massive in character–this is the sign of immorality, a state without a soul, and the signal for beginning immediate, conscious transformations.

The second step is a systematic separation, a delimitation, between authority and capital. It is necessary to stop the order whereby capital forms its own authority and authority is converted into commercial super-profits. Even in democratic countries themselves, a candidate for an elected state office is no longer evaluated according to the humanism of his views but exclusively according to the magnitude of his election campaign fund.

The nature of money, which wins the elections, is such that it does not know sympathy, mercy, or morality–but the money, which has won, knows what power is necessary for its preservation and accumulation.

Is it possible to set a boundary between power and capital? Yes, it is. I can say this as a person who has built significant capital and then exchanged this occupation for the cultivation of morality in politics. Believe me, reliable technologies for such a separation have already been worked out, but bringing these technologies to life is only possible once they are in a position of power. But the presence of the will for self-purification among an acting authority is something quite rare, it is practically exotic.

The third step is the separation of mass media from authority and from capital, which, as I have already said, has itself become authority. It is remarkable that even in many democratic countries, no one particularly hides the fact that the mass media serves the interests of the ruling oligarchy. The American press king H. Luce (founder of Time, Life, Fortune, and many other magazines) while addressing associates of Time magazine in 1972 stated, “The alleged journalistic objectivity…is modern usage–and that is strictly a phony… So when we say, ‘The hell with objectivity,’ that is what we are talking about.” I will not argue with Mr. Luce. However, the urgency in separating the mass media from power and capital is quite evident to me personally. [Editor’s note: Luce is incorrectly quoted here as is the date. Luce died in 1967, so he did not say this in 1972. The original quote reads: “The alleged journalistic objectivity, a claim that a writer presents facts without applying any value judgement to them (is) modern usage–and that is strictly a phony…So when we say, ‘The hell with objectivity,’ that is what we are talking about.” http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1755&dat=19721008&id=NRAzAAAAIBAJ&sjid=mGYEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6487,2801441. His argument is in fact that some kind of complete objectivity on the part of the journalist is not possible, rather than deliberately rejecting objectivity in journalism (whether possible or not) as Tymoshenko implies here].

This is possible, and I can explain my opinion while answering your questions.

The fourth step is the separation of the justice system from other branches of power and from capital, which has become the authority. Here exist the following methods. A substantial increase in the personal responsibility of judges for unlawful decisions. The introduction of additional elements into the judicial structure which would exclude the preservation of  incompetent, unscrupulous, lobbyist court decisions.

The fifth and final step is the removal of money as the decisive factor of the present order from the inappropriate spheres of its circulation, that is, out of the spiritual, political, personal, and so on. It is with the help of the all-encompassing role of money that  people and states are sorted into the successful and unsuccessful. The triumph of the monetary regime, its influence and ambition to become an absolute measure of human virtue bears witness to the exhaustion of the spiritual energy of the contemporary world.

Money has acquired the uncharacteristic function of not only being a fully generalized exchange equivalent, but also claiming the role of a higher goal, of the eternal absolute. This monetary fundamentalism can and should be destroyed–consistently, evolutionally, and persistently.

I have endeavored to single out only the most basic of actions.

However, I want to point out that the new world order, if it indeed aspires to be new, must be based on what type of individual it brings to life rather than what type of economy, political rule, management, and market relations it produces.

We know quite a few examples of “strong” western economies and democracies where financial systems work effectively, where high quality goods and services are being produced, where there is a high GDP, and where, at the same time, the number of suicides is rising rapidly. Some citizens become more and more depressed and apathetic, while others become more and more aggressive. Children are brought up to be cruel and heartless.

It can be reasonably argued that the proposed fundamental transformations contradict the rules, order, and traditions ingrained in the world and that to change them is impossible and pointless. But here I would like to cite John Rawls and his “Theory of Justice” where this problem has been characterized very concretely, “A theory however elegant and economical must be rejected or revised if it is untrue; likewise laws and institutions no matter how efficient and well-arranged must be reformed or abolished if they are unjust.” [Editor’s note: original here http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/classes/econ362/hallam/readings/rawl_justice.pdf ].

It seems to me that life and time have presented us with new opportunities for the transformation of economic and political orders. And I, representing Ukraine, believe that my country will be capable of creative contributions for the birth of new political, economical, social, and standard orders for the civilized world and its own citizens.

Ladies and Gentlemen!

Maybe the time has come for intellectuals, prominent thinkers of the world to think about the creation of a World Constitution that undoubtedly will assign spirituality, intellectual-moral development, and protection of all people of the world civilization as the main values of the civilized world.

Maybe the time has come to create fundamentally new global international institutions. The present international institutions, even the much respected UN, protect and lobby for the interests of individual, strong states, but we need international institutions that would represent, protect and lobby for world harmony.

Maybe the world no longer needs the United Nations, but rather the Union of Prominent Individuals of All Nations, namely those people from the entire world who have demonstrated an exceptional intellect, unparalleled morality, and remarkable humanism. It is these people who would be able to assume the moral obligations for the worthy future of our humanity.

I am absolutely convinced that in the future such organizations and institutions will be created and will fundamentally change the world order.

What would overcome aggressive immorality and a complete incapacity for any sort of moral obligations? In my opinion, economic sanctions and political notes are powerless here. Immorality can not be overcome by economics or even by the law; it can only be overcome by morality.

The time for this work has come.

Source: in English
https://www.facebook.com/ashnar.lynx/posts/483315848469744
  “Archives of Women’s Political Communications”.

Source: in Ukrainian
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=729421137097368&id=635416686497814