In this light the end of the 20th century can be characterized in the following way:
The so-called “world system of socialism on the basis of Marxism and its regional modifications” doesn’t exist any more. As a result the global confrontation of states alliances that emerged on the basis of bourgeois ideology (in its liberal and dictatorial modifications) – on the one hand, and on the basis of Marxism-socialism ideology on the other hand disappeared on its own. It seemed that there was the green light for the UN to become efficient if not in the role of Federative Government for the whole Humankind, but as the coordinator and responsible advisor of the states governments.
But this didn’t occur because of the fact that by the end of the century some ex-colonies of “great powers” in the 19th century and some “undeveloped” formally independent states reached the same level of development that characterized so-called “developed countries” in the middle of the 20th century. Most of these states were oppressed and robbed by “developed countries” of the West topped by Great Britain (at first), and by the US later. The “developed states” still insisted on their predominance over the “newly-developed” states, so dismissed and oppressed states started to establish their own international organizations for their common problems resolution. The post-soviet states stepped in this process after the Soviet Union collapse[9]. And as a result occurred such organizations as Eurasian economic community and Shanghai Organization of cooperation.
As a result:
The difference of historical cultures of the regional Western civilization and especially its leaders, “newly-developed” and post soviet states lead to the change of the world system and to the creation of alliances, not defined by the state ideologies of the member-states. And such cultural difference dooms the Organization of United Nations to be inefficient[10].
According to the mentioned above circumstances the G8 Summit in Strelna is incredibly important not because of those documents signed during the meeting, but because of the tendencies and prospects, reflected in the last day of the Summit – when even the heads of the states (not G8 members) such as China, India, Brazil and Kazakhstan took part in the meeting. This means that G8 is not the detached community of the most rich and irresponsible states any more.
If the subsequent summits ruin this tradition, that was put in pledge during the Summit in Strelna that will lead to the G8 degradation and the closure of some possibilities for the humankind to overcome biosphere-ecological and social crisis that occurred in the end of the 20 th century.
The support and development of this tradition in the future will contribute to the UN’s efficiency and will help it to become consulting organ responsible for its recommendations (if not the Federal Government for the whole humankind).
The thing is that the UN doesn’t have any administrative rights in regard to the states. What’s more the heads of the states and ministers outrank the UN officials. That’s why they have to look back at officials of their own countries of higher ranks. That explains the UN inefficiency as the Federal government for the whole humankind, its inability to be the world parliament and its vainness to be coordinator, responsible for its recommendations (but however the international officials of the UN have pretensions for supranational power).
In case the G8 is not the detached community of the most rich and irresponsible states any more, and the heads of other states (not G8 members) take part in the future Summits, and discussions are devoted to real problems resolution, this will help the heads of the states taking part in summits to understand the global problems better and to see regional problems conditionality by global ones and vice versa.
In this case the cultural singularity of different regions and nations will develop in combination with the cultures of other nations. As a result all the states will have a single strategic concept of multinational humankind development and finally there will be worked out a consent concerning the best ways of its realization.
This process will undoubtedly take some time for double ethical-moral standards perception and their denial. There will certainly occur some political groups against it. But at present day it’s beyond any doubt that the G8 Summit in enlarged format in Strelna opened the gates for this process.
That gives the possibilities for the UN officialdom subordinated to the governments of the UN member-states and primarily to the high-end group of states - enlarged G8 –to work in behalf of the whole humankind more effectively, rather than the Organization of United Nations did it in the past.
[1] Officially Summit opened on July, 15, but factually on July, 14 taking in consideration the fact that the Russian and American presidents came to Strelna exactly on July, 14.
By the way, July, 14 – is the day of Bastille’s capture: Western countries consider that the development of democracy and civil society has started since that day. It’s quite possible that this very day will signalize the end of the western form of democracy that has been propagandized for the last 2 centuries.
[2]
[3] This is an excellent example showing how “Times” distorts events. Literally the leaders said the following:
George Bush: “Today I’ve told Mr. Putin about my will to develop institutes of democracy all round the world. Let us say, as in Iraq, where there is a freedom of speech and religion. I know, that many people think that there should be the same situation in Russia. But I personally think that the democracy in Russia should have some distinctions from that we have in the US”.
Vladimir Putin: “We certainly wouldn’t want to have the same kind of democracy as they have in Iraq”.
Pay attention to Mr. Bush’s phrase: practically it shows that he agrees with “sovereign democracy”, the concept of which asserts Mr. Putin.
One of our analytical notes was devoted to “Sovereign democracy”, ser. “About the current events” #7 (55), 2006 y. This note along with other works are published in the Internet on different sites, such as:
, , .
Later in the day Mr Putin took a swipe at Mr Blair over his links to Lord Levy, the Labour party fundraiser[3].
Asked by a British reporter how he would respond to Mr Blair’s concerns about Russian democracy, Mr Putin said he was always glad to hear fellow leaders’ views.
Then, after a long pause, he smiled and added: “There are also other questions; questions, let’s say, about the fight against corruption. We’d be interested in hearing your experience, including how it applies to Lord Levy.”
American and British officials yesterday brushed off the remarks as harmless jokes between old friends that would neither disrupt the main work of the summit nor affect bilateral relations.
“We think he has a little joke for every leader,” said a spokesman for Mr Blair. “We have not lost our sense of humour.”
The issue did not come up again in a bilateral meeting between the two men yesterday. But political analysts said that Mr Putin’s remarks reflected his irritation at recent criticism of his own democratic credentials — especially from London.