In Search Of A Common Ground
For Peace And Development

Club of Rome President His Royal Highness Prince El Hassan bin Talal of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan gave an address at the global organization’s annual meeting held in Amman on Oct. 10, 2003.  The Following are excerpts.

In the lacuna that exists in our conflict-ridden world I think that the least that we can do as citizens of this global village with whatever experience we have been blessed, or acquired over the years, is to search for common ground for peace and development in the context of our common humanity.

Three categories come out of that brilliant book by my friend, Jean-Francois Rischard of Luxembourg at the World Bank. Incidentally he aptly called the book High Noon.

The high noon of which he speaks includes Category One of problems involving the global commons, such as global warming, bio-diversity, deforestation and water deficits.

Category Two includes problems requiring a global commitment such as the fight against poverty, conflict prevention and combating terrorism, education for all and global infectious diseases.

Category Three consists of problems needing a global regulatory approach. Former South African President de Klerk has stated that the reconstruction of institutionalized multilateralism, or the United Nations, is not enough if there is no will to develop multilateral conversations. German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer said very clearly that we do not want a uni-polar/multi-polar world, but we want a multilateral world.

In Category Three, Rischard lists global financial architecture, bio-technology rules, illegal drugs, and intellectual property rights. Incidentally, I was chairman of the advisory commission for the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and one of the reasons why I did not regret leaving that body as much as I enjoyed the exchanges, was that it put me between the developing countries that asked “What’s in it for us?” with over $60 billion worth of plant life leaving the developing world largely into the pharmaceutical companies. The hosts of the WIPO reassured me regularly that they will reach out to the local environments. They said, “We will put back what we have taken.” I’m afraid the suffering of the individual who receives less then one dollar a day in this local village is one of the reasons for the conclusion that their must be limits to world domination.

By this we mean domination in politics, economy and security. The only way to put this into context is to refer in my humble opinion to culture, human dignity, international legislation and international solidarity. We at the Club of Rome have attempted over three decades to refer to the limits to material growth of the finite planet. The Club of Rome, since its inception, has spoken of the astronomic population growth outpacing growth in food supply. And I would like to suggest that both of these problems, as Dean Carter suggested yesterday, cannot be left to governments, as there are too many vested interests in governments. They are problems that should be addressed by governance, by a versatile society and by a participation of a greater number of concerned individuals on this globe.

I therefore look at this fora not as an independent fora, not as active in the lacuna, but as fora that contributes in the process of change, and I think that the change will come when the dayto-day existence of “ad-hocracy” yields some space, even some light to the possibility of speaking of global strategies and regional strategies inter-regionally to complement them.

Poverty and a lack of education and opportunities lie at the heart of human insecurity. If I were to take you on a twenty-minute drive from here to a spontaneous urban settlement—the World Bank euphemism for slums — you will probably find that the questions are far more direct, far more focused as “When and will I be able to find a square meal for my children?”

We have spoken today about the fact that development, poverty, and equity are words that need further reflection. I would like to thank one of my distinguished colleagues for pointing out the importance of equity in that equation. I was asked by the Arab press among other questions, “What is economically beneficial to Jordan after this meeting?” And I said to them the value added of this meeting is that we’re discussing “anthropolitics”— policies where people matter.

I would like to suggest that we move in the Club of Rome, this global organization, to further networking and increase activity around the world including the participation of the number of thoughtful and constructive people of countries including the United Kingdom, the United States and the Third World. I hope that the State of the World Forum will assist us in that endeavor.

In terms of the partnership for peace on the idea of an Eastern Mediterranean Treaty Organization, our swift breakdown of the development agenda should include a need for a weapons of mass destruction (WMD) resolution. I am not unrealistic, but I will say to the camera and again that I have met with terrorists, the Iranians, Pakistanis, the Indians, Israelis, Egyptians, collectively and individually in the presence of representatives of the international community that do possess and declare WMD capability. We have actually gone as far as signing, figuratively speaking and in a Track Two facilitating context, hypothetical agreements on reaching a code of conduct. But when each one of us comes out into the broad light of day it is the unilateral relationships, in particular with the United States, that makes us more concerned about how we look in Washington and in New York, than the concern we express for developing a critical mass within the region.

Americans think that we are an enormously individualistic, terribly unruly and extremely strident people but the reality is that our strident rhetoric belies a deepfelt insecurity that the sands of time are running against the established order.

However, I would like to say that it is the narrow agenda of the nation-state that makes it impossible to speak about a regional critical mass. The 15 million people inhabiting Israel, Palestine and Jordan share an extremely tight neighborhood both spatially and socio-politically. They are close neighbors to 25 million Iraqis. This combined population can provide adequate human and natural resources for a new democratic and prosperous region. But the guidelines have yet to be recognized.

I continue with my call for a regional order, a clear definition of terrorism for both states and non-states. I spoke at a conference on terrorism in Israel to an audience of more than 500 participants representing many different nationalities from the world and region. The reason why I did this is because a gentleman from Israel had the moral courage and intellectual vision to present a study on terrorism titled, “No prohibition without definition.”

This region is deprived of a single regional policy analysis capability. I believe that it was Don Popper who said, “Any meeting that exceeds 18 people is not a meeting.” I think the time has come to recognize that 18 people should not be suspect when they meet after Sept. 11, 2001, as potential terrorists. Why is it that we always speak of some sort of New World Order?

Why is it that we can’t recognize human beings as the vectors of stability or instability? As for interactive citizens’ media and citizens’ conferencing, I would like for “we” the people to talk to each other. I don’t believe in the “West and the Rest.” I do not believe in the “clash of civilizations.” I believe there is a clash within our cultures between exclusionism and inclusionism. I would like to point out that the time has come with all the wizardry of the Internet, to develop citizens conferences to let people speak to each other with able moderators facilitating these conversations.

Last, I would like to say it’s up to the community of people of the book — the Christians, the Jews and the Muslims. Can we pick up the Bible, the Torah, or the Qur’ran to conceive of an analytical concordance of meetings to stop demonizing the other. I don’t want to tolerate you, and I don’t want you to tolerate me. I would like to respect what you stand for and would like to ask you to respect me for the same. Religion was based not on closing our intellectual capital and our mind but on opening our mind to others. I would like to suggest that this concept of openness to the other, enhancing what is universal and respecting the other is the only way, before it is too late, that we can begin to speak about mustering our resources to address our threatened community.