The year 2012 may see some comings and goings among familiar world leaders.
U.S. President Barack Obama is seeking re-election. In China, Xi Jinping, currently a high-ranking member of the Politburo Standing Committee of the Communist Party of China, is expected to become party secretary-general. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin is aiming for a presidential comeback, and French President Nicolas Sarkozy is expected to seek another term. And in South Korea, where presidents may serve only one term, voters will be electing President Lee Myung-bak's successor.
Each country has its own set of complex issues.
Pitfalls of turning inward
Polarization between conservatism and liberalism is accelerating in the United States. Economic disparities are growing in China. The Russian public is becoming increasingly critical of authoritarian government of the last 12 years.
In France, the deteriorating economy is giving rise to xenophobic tendencies, while citizens' groups are gaining political prominence in South Korea, poised to sideline the nation's established political parties that are fast losing popular support.
The waves of reform are lapping in each of these countries. Serial economic crises have destroyed traditional social ties, and the Internet has opened up a whole new forum of discourse. With the existing order now standing on shaky ground, no incumbent can be certain of re-election, while a change of government may spell further political chaos.
In an election year or when a leadership change is imminent, politicians focus on domestic issues, and the whole nation tends to turn inward. We are concerned that this tendency may become even more pronounced this year because of the generally unstable state of the world.
Twenty years have passed since the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union. Seen from the economic and information-related perspectives, the world has become one.
As is obvious from global warming and the European debt crisis triggered by Greece, our world is saddled with problems that cannot be resolved by any single country. Even economic recession and unemployment, which used to be domestic issues just for the nations concerned, now require collective action. Traditional policy packages are no longer viable today.
An era is definitely ending, but we cannot see a new era at all. We are caught in a deep historic crisis.
We must first understand that there are no simple solutions to the problems confronting us now. And this is just the sort of time in history when political forces coalesce to create and attack an easy-to-identify "enemy."
New philosophy of coexistence
In the United States, the federal government is the target of attack of the conservative and populist Tea Party movement that is gaining support in certain sectors. In China, there are young people who go wild with excitement when the government or the military play hardball on territorial and naval issues.
Hate-filled words fly. "Nationalism" is used as an excuse for taking people's attention away from domestic problems. Hatred and fear are contagious. We must guard against this sort of negative chain reaction.
The world does not need to hear irresponsible words that only appeal to the emotional masses. What the world does need to hear is a philosophy of coexistence that is appropriate to this transitional period in history.
How has humanity overcome crises in the past?
The world's great imperial powers clashed in World War I. Toward the end of this "war to end all wars," U.S. President Woodrow Wilson delivered the "Fourteen Points" address, in which he presented a postwar blueprint for ethnic self-determination, the establishment of an international peace organ, and so on.
During World War II, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt co-drafted the Atlantic Charter, which called for no territorial aggrandizement, reduction of trade restrictions and other ideals and became the basis of the postwar global order.
History proves that a new order cannot be brought into being by armed force alone. A philosophical blueprint of the world is indispensable.
Steve Jobs, co-founder of Apple Inc. who died last year, was called a "visionary" for his extraordinary foresight and ability to create a future. He captured the hearts of people by giving form to his innovative ideas.
Ability to realize ideals
World leaders should be visionaries, too.
All over the world, there are certain things people seek, wherever they may be living. They include the minimum standards of life to maintain human dignity, freedom of speech, freedom from racial and religious discrimination, and not being killed in war or acts of violence.
People in all countries know that these goals cannot be attained by their efforts alone, and that they share their fate with the entire world.
Their collective yearning must not go unanswered, and a blueprint for a new international community must be drawn up.
Specific steps have already been shown.
One is to bolster a framework for multilateral coordination to better deal with today's new realities, and there are signs that the G-20 is addressing this.
Another is to set up a crisis control system that will prevent the eruption of international animosity over nuclear proliferation and territorial disputes.
Many countries concur that such steps must be taken.
But what is lacking is the ability of world leaders to communicate the need to seek these goals in easy-to-understand words and in a well-reasoned manner, and convince people in their countries.
A political visionary is someone who can do this.
We would like the incumbents and challengers alike in this year's elections or planned transfers of power to compete with one another on their visionary ideas.
--The Asahi Shimbun, Jan. 4
- « Prev
- 1
- Next »