l  market.
This  requires  changes  in  the  international  economic  order and  global
regulation which  I  will mention  at  a later  stage. Balanced  development
presupposes the creation of an environment for intermixing, cohabitation and
development  within  the  universal  market  and legislative  frameworks  of
different  cultures.  Instead  of  cultural  imperialism  there  will  be  a
muliticultural society, instead of enmity  between countries with  different
political  and economic regimes, there will be rapprochement and a reduction
of the multiplicity of economic  sectors. There will also be an new trend in
geo-politics: instead of imperialism and the domination of one or a group of
states there will be a gradual process of policentrism.
     In  the  next chapters I will attempt to prove that the trends emerging
at the beginning of the Fourth  Civilisation and its  main outlining feature
-- balanced development --  are irreversible. At the same time I realise the
strength of the inertia inherited from the  past and  the  strength of other
factors which  want  to delay  global  change. When I set out  my  views  on
balanced  development  before  a  mixed  Bulgarian  political  auditorium  I
received two profoundly  different  reactions. The  representatives  of  the
former communist party said, "You've gone  too far to the right." The  other
half  of the  auditorium  occupied by members  of the anti-communist  groups
commented, "This is left-wing babble".
     In reality balanced development is neither one nor the other. It is not
me  who has  gone to the right  or to the  left but time and  human progress
which have gone forward.

     Chapter Seven
     <B>OBSTRUCTIONS
     1. THE DEFENDERS OF THE THIRD CIVILISATION</b>

     <i>During  the entire period of the 20th century, the  representatives  of
different classes,  nations and blocs  have  battled  with each other.  They
created the industry of confrontation and the belief in its eternity.  Today
these same people are the defenders of the Third Civilisation.</i>

     E
     very historical  phenomenon  has its own  driving forces as well as its
own obstacles. The advent of any phenomenon on the historical scene does not
come as an  overnight victory -- this is the illusion  of revolutionaries --
but  as the result of the gradual propulsion  of the driving forces  against
the obstacles  which always  exist  to  the new.  This is also true  for the
Fourth  Civilisation.  The  Fourth  Civilisation  could  be  accelerated  or
hindered by a series of political, economic  and  moral factors. Although we
are living  through the last years of the Third Civilisation, it  still  has
many  adherents.  The  inertia  of  the  past  is  alive  and  its advocates
constantly  refer back to the old formulae, "How good  it used to be in  the
past." I once discussed this issue with one of the initiators of the process
of perestroika in the USSR, A.Yakovliev.<sup>[53]</sup> I asked him what was
the reason for  the conservatism of the older population  in Eastern Europe.
He joked in response, "Well, their wives were younger then!"
     There  is  perhaps  something  a  element  of  truth  in   this   joke.
Conservatives in  principle support the  regimes and systems  for which they
have  struggled  all  their lives.  They always tend  to over-dramatise  the
difficulties of the transition and consider any changes a deviation from the
true  belief. Moreover, conservatives are  not only divided according to age
or to party  membership. There are pensioners  who support the coming of the
new and young conservatives with opinions set in concrete. In Eastern Europe
the conservatives are concentrated mainly amongst the former communists, the
former  security  forces but also amongst many members  of the old bourgeois
class  who  are  involved  in  the  struggle  for political revenge and  the
re-establishment of the political status quo from the time before the Second
World War. In the West the defenders of the  old civilisation recognise only
the collapse  of communism as a symbol of change  and their own thoughts  do
not go beyond their own privileges and global domination.
     This is an historical paradox. The  defenders of the Third Civilisation
are not  divided into countries and ideologies. They are all enamoured to  a
greater or lesser  extent of the structures  of  the  bi-polar model and the
cold  war.  Masses  of  anticommunists  and  anticapitalists,  Liberals  and
Marxists,  capitalists and party  bureaucrats, generals  and  spies  piously
believe in their correctness and their  way of life. Of  course, it would be
improper  to  reject their  past, or  the struggles they waged, not the fact
that each one of them in his own way may have been an honourable defender of
his native land. However, this is not the  most important element. The  most
signicant  thing is that they are defending models  and attitudes which have
crippled the 20th century and transformed it into the most bloody century in
the history of mankind.
     The 20th  century will be the last  century of belligerent nationalism,
imperialism and the domination of  one  nation over another. However, albeit
with weakened authority, those political forces who advocated such phenomena
have  not  disappeared.  There   are  still   insufficient  guarantees  that
globalisation will not give rise to imperialism or that the reaction to this
will  not provide  more opportunities  to  nationalism and  autarchy.  While
thought and  ideological criteria remain within the framework  of egoistical
national  iterests,  while  global  awareness  is   still  undeveloped,  the
conflicts of the passing century are still possible.
     The question is whether we are for or against the structures of the old
civilisation  --  for or against the emerging  structures  of  the new time.
Those  who dream of  the renewed domination  of one nation  over another, of
imbalanced  international  economic  conditions,  of party  and nomenclature
leaders, of media monopolism, of the eternalisation of differences in living
standards are on one side of the  barricade. Yesterday the party bureaucrats
and the capitalists  were opponents. Today they  might even become allies in
the struggle for survival and the survival of the structures  of  the  Third
Civilisation.  Still prisoners to  their  old  ideologies and  international
confrontations they  maintain those ideas and structures which  could  still
return  us to  the time of the Cold War or grant us a period  of Cold Peace.
Fighting with each other, the proponents  of the Third Civilisation can only
renew  fears, thoughts and  activities which  leave  us in the grips of  the
past.
     In Spain  there is  a monument to the memory  of both the supporters of
Franco and  the  Republicans. In one  and the same place, under  one and the
same cross are gathered the honour and the  debt, the  errors and  mistakes,
the greatness and the perdition of people who  killed one another. The names
of the  killers are illumiated by those of the  victims, whatever  side they
may have fought for, whatever side of the barrier they may have belonged to.
In  Spain the reconciliation of history is already a  fact. In Bulgaria, the
former  Yugoslavia and partially in Poland there are still  many  people who
believed that Gorbachev was a CIA agent while in the USA there are those who
consider Clinton an American communist.
     The sooner such thinking disappears, the sooner we  shall become awards
of  the  problems and the  greatness  of  the new civilisation. In  order to
understand the new,  we must forget the old language, the old categories  of
division, the old enmities and prejudices. The Cold War is over but the Cold
Peace and mistrust  could unknowingly lead us back to it. Unfortunately this
is not all.  The life of  the Third  Civilisation could be prolonged via the
maintainance of the economic and political  structures which were typical of
the 20th century. In most general terms, these structures can be united into
two mutually conditional phenomena,  which albeit  in  different forms  have
supported the current world conflicts. These are imperialism and nationalism
and their modern manifestations. As paradoxical as it might seem, these  two
satellites of the 20th century are  supported by one common culture --  that
of violence and confrontation. The alternative to violence and confrontation
is tolerance -- the recognition  of differences, respect for the problems of
others, responsibility to  help those who  are  worse  off.  Perhaps, it  is
indeed  tolerance as an alternative to violence which is the most  important
feature of the political culture of the Fourth Civilisation.

     <B>2. THE GREAT THREAT -- MEDIA IMPERIALISM</b>

     <i>With the passing of the Third Civilisation it is also possible that the
imperialist dependencies between  nations  will  disappear.  However  if the
abstract liberal trends of the past continue to develop this may lead to new
forms of  imperialist  domination -- less overt  but  with equally dangerous
consequences.</i>

     T
     he first manifestations  of the global  world  were inseparably  linked
with  the  ambitions of empire  and the growing power of  the most developed
countries of  the  time.  The  colonial  system,  international  trusts  and
cartels, the  redistribution  of the world into  zones of influence and  two
world wars was an expression of imperialist  domination. The division of the
world into  two  systems and the  cold war was also a form of  international
imperialism.
     The  main slogan  used by Lenin, Stalin  and  their  followers  was the
"struggle  against  imperialism".  They, however, created  a system  closely
based  on  imperial  allegiance.  If Gorbachev with his  power had  begun  a
process of the gradual reconstruction  of  Eastern  Europe  and  the  world,
imperialism could  have been replaced by the agreed  establishment of  a new
world economic,  informational  and  legislative order.  I am convinced that
such a policy would have found support amongst the majority of the political
and intellectual circles in the West.
     Gorbachev's  failure  was  to  allow the  Eastern  European  regimes to
collapse without any dignity  opening  the way  for the globalisation of the
world without  removing the danger  of new imperialism.  The gap between the
poor and the rich remained as wide as ever. The differences in political and
military  power were so different that the danger  of imperialist domination
remained. Of course, it would be imprudent to suppose that imperialism might
return in its old  colonial forms  or to  the time of the Cold War. Although
the  wealth  of the world is divided as  unequally  as  150 years ago,  many
things  have changed. The  colonial  model  has  been  rejected by  history.
Anti-monopoly legislation has put down deep roots, major changes have  taken
place in peoples' awareness and the infrastructure of the UN and other world
non-governmental organisations have expanded guaranteeing the rights  of all
the citizens of  the  earth.  Thus the  old  type  of  coercive, belligerent
imperialism has for ever been consigned to the past.
     I ask myself, however, whether imperialism as a method of domination of
certain nations over  others  has finally  died. I do not think so. In fact,
the opposite may even be true. Together with the  globalisation of the world
there  are now new  pre-conditions  for a new type of  imperialism, of a new
type of  domination by  one people over another. This, without doubt, is one
of  the  greatest dangers facing world development  and the establishment of
new  relations  within  civilisation.  The most  powerful modern  force  for
globalisation is  the  trans-national  corporations. Their  roles can  be as
positive  for development as  they  can lead  to  its  deformation.  At  the
beginning  of  the 1980's the trans-national  corporations accounted for one
third of the  world's industrial production.  Their appearance in Russia and
China after the democratisation of their regimes made  them, especially in a
number of specialised branches, the absolute  rulers of world production. As
a  rule  the  trans-national  corporations  take national  legislation  into
account  but in global terms they  are uncontrollable.  This allows them  to
redistribute enormous funds and to exert  influence in all spheres of social
life.  In  recent  years  the  trans-national  corporations  have  tended to
decentralise  their  activities  and  adapt  them to the  conditions of  the
countries in  which they are operating. A typical  example  of  this are the
European operations of Ford and a number of Japanese corporations.
     This,  however,   is  insufficient.  If   the  present   state  of  the
distribution  of global production  and  products is allowed to persist then
the imbalances in  world development will worsen. If the  status quo remains
without significant  changes in the world economic order then  the rich will
become richer and the poor even poorer. International imperial power in this
case will  not  be  guaranteed by  armies  and  conquests but via  financial
operations,  technology   and   the   structures   of   the   trans-national
corporations. The finances and management structures will remain in the most
developed countries of the world. The countries which provide  cheap  labour
(predominantly  in  Asia)  will  manufacture  products  without  seeing  any
significant  improvement in  their life while  a  groups of other  countries
(equatorial  Africa)  will  remain  for  some  time to come  in the grips of
poverty.
     It  seems  as  though  the  imperialism  of  the  20th century  and the
domination of the super powers is on its way out. Or does it only "seem" so?
If the structures of the old civilisation are preserved for any longer  this
will  not  only serve to delay the reform processes but it may  also lead to
serious new local and world conflicts. Imperialism  which was the main cause
of  the  crisis  of  the  Third  Civilisation might simply mutate its  form.
Imagine a world in which  80% of the news, 70% of the technology, 60% of the
films and 50% of all profits are created  in two or three countries. Imagine
that all other countries are dependent on those news broadcasts and that the
awareness of their peoples  is modelled by a  group of media magnates.  Does
this  not  closely resemble  some of the predictions made  by George Orwell?
Will it  not lead  in  the  long  term  to reactions  from the  majority  of
countries and peoples?
     I would call this phenomenon electronic or media imperialism. By this I
mean the  monopolisation  of the  world's media and  culture  by  individual
nations and trans-national groups. The  danger  of such  a system dominating
the world is evident. If globalisation proceeds in  this  way, if the global
world  does  not  turn  into  a  world  of   mono-truths  and  mono-cultures
disseminated by one or a number of centres than this will lead to a mutation
of human development and will render us dependent on new empires.  Today the
ambitions of empire are not  manifested through wars of conquest and battles
for resources  but in the endeavour to dominate as many sectors of  markets,
cultures and media regions as possible.  There are  only a few countries and
corporations in the world  which  can afford  the development  of world-wide
television  networks.  Only  few  can  survive  in   the  sphere   of  super
investments. National legislation is powerless. This allows for unbelievable
global power.  It can  make people  accept standards,  buy goods  and accept
truths  broadcast  from the  screen by  a group of media magnates. I do  not
think  I am oversimplifying  the situation. I am convinced that the majority
of the owners of the world media are conscious of  their responsibilities to
the citizens  of the world. I believe that Ted Turner the founder of  CNN is
one  of  these. His company  promotes respect  for  the  culture of all  the
countries of the world. However,  despite  the  efforts  of such  people the
consequences of  media  imperialism can be dramatic.  The danger is that the
television  and  radio  channels  of   the  world  are  monopolised  by  the
representatives  of  those countries who have the historical advantage  over
the rest of the  world. The USA, Europe and  Japan are the leading countries
in  this  respect.  Russia,  China  and  a  number  of other  countries  are
relatively well protected because of their scale and their capabilities. But
what about the rest?  What will happen to the culture of the smaller and the
poorer nations, their culture and their identity?
     If  the trend of  the 1980's and early 1990's  continues and if  global
media continue to express the positions  and the cultural policies of but  a
handful of countries this will strike a serious blow to many other countries
and peoples and will have a general delaying effect on the processes leading
to the advent of the new civilisation.
     To begin with a large  number of small  cultures will  disappear taking
with them the identity  of  many  peoples. As can  be  seen  in  a number of
countries  this  will cause  defensive  reactions  and  lead  to  protective
nationalism. In the end this will cause complex political conflicts and will
turn the world into a world of a small group of dominant nations. Electronic
or media imperialism is the remnants of  the Third Civilisation, reborn into
its final possible form of the domination of one people over another.
     I see the solution  to media imperialism  in  pluralism and the gradual
construction  of  national electronic media  in the poorer countries  and in
multicultural policies of the world  television media. For at least the next
20--30 years cultural and media production will be concentrated in the hands
of a small group of countries. During this period  it will be  necessary  to
form a  new attitude which  takes into account the  interests of the smaller
and poorer nations and  cultures.  The problem  does not  end  here. It also
concerns  the  cinema,  video,  cable  television  networks  and   satellite
television. Clearly the new media technology can be  used to stimulate world
development,  but at the  same time it could lead to the destruction  of the
traditions of many peoples.  A major  question, especially in the conditions
of the transition, is how will we use the new  technologies and what will be
the consequences for world development.

     <B>3. POST-MODERN NATIONALISM</b>

     <i>Nationalism as we knew it in the 20th  century is the  antipathe of the
new civilisation, the global world,  the  intermixing of national  cultures.
Its chances of survival depend on it changing its limits and forms.</i>

     T
     he Fourth Civilisation will be a time of openness hiterto unseen in the
world.  However,  it  will  also  involve  a  difficult,  sometimes  painful
combination of different cultures  and  economics.  We  would be  completely
naive,  however  to  believe  that   this   "intermixing"  will  come  about
automatically simply  because culture and economies are becoming globalised.
If the processes  are left to blind chance, the world will find itself beset
with many local  and regional conflicts, local  wars between  ethnic groups,
religions and cultures.
     In  practice this means  the artificial  blocking of globalisation, new
contradictions and in the long  run,  the restoration of confrontationalism.
Although such  a danger is also posed by the "march of the poor" and by  the
reaction against media  imperialism,  the major resource  of such  a  gloomy
prospect  is undoubtedly nationalism. John Lukac defined  nationalism as the
greatest political  force  on  the  planet. Although  I doubt  whether  this
conclusion is absolutely precise, I find myself  concurring that nationalism
is still very stubborn and persistent especially when one takes into account
the inertia of the political thinking of the past. For the whole of the 20th
century nationalism has been the driving force, notwithstanding the official
"domination"  and  propaganda of  communist,  liberal,  socialist  and other
ideologies.  Very  frequently  these ideologies have been  but a facade  for
nationalism. Stalinism and Nazism are perhaps the best examples of this.
     Can globalisation and  nationalism be reconciled? This appears possible
only if we equate nationalism with something new, if it changes from what it
was in  the  20th century and does not  stand  in  the way of globalisation.
Otherwise  nationalism  will  find  itself in  very  serious  conflict  with
objective trends in the development of the modern world. On the other  hand,
globalisation will either  be  a  bridge leading to  the resolution of total
poverty of billions of people or it will stimulate the most mutated forms of
nationalism.  Let us  think  for a moment about  this  important  mutuality.
Globalisation  which  unifies  the  world  by  destroying local  customs and
traditions  and by  killing small cultures cannot avoid causing mutation and
reaction. Consequently, only globalisation based on and stimulates diversity
can  be  an  alternative  to reactionary  nationalism and  stimulus  for the
structures of the Fourth Civilisation. At  the end of the 20th century after
the collapse of the Berlin Wall, the dominant factor of world development is
openness. There is  now only a  small groups of  states (e.g.  North  Korea)
which  maintain  policies of  isolation  and  the absolutism  of  their  own
traditions.
     At  the end of  the  20th  century, nationalism  might reappear  as  an
ideological  movement  protected  by   culture   and  religion.  Ideological
nationalism is a relatively rare phenomenon in  the modern world although in
a  certain number of poorly-developed countries of Africa and  Asia it might
seen as a  panacea  for the  resolution of  serious  problems. North  Korean
communism,  for example,  is ideological nationalism  wrapped  in  a mask of
dead-end ideology. A  more widespread and typical form of nationalism at the
end of the 20th  century is defensive  nationalism. This  may appear in  any
country which feels under threat,  for the survival of its economy  from the
invasion  of  imported  goods, its culture --  from  the invasion of foreign
information and  cultural products. Defensive nationalism is not necessarily
cultural or religious. It often appears as a result of economic  reasons  or
is linked with historical and  political  aims  of particular  nations.  The
question is not whether this is the "defence" of an individual small culture
from the invasion of foreign media or "protection" against an undisputed and
powerful culture from the presence of foreign immigrants. In both cases this
leads  to  conflicts, isolation, blocks  the  processes of globalisation and
gives  rise  to  chimera  and  xenophobia.  Ethnonationalism is  similar  in
character and is also  widespread. The  explosion in  ethnic self-confidence
and self-determination is a  direct and explicable reaction  in the struggle
for  survival  in  the  conditions  of  globalisation. When,  however,  this
self-awareness has specific historical,  cultural and religious roots it can
give rise to serious conflicts.
     Why is  nationalism on  the rise?  Why has  this happened  despite  the
continuing  intensive processes of  globalisation?  Why in  many  places has
nationalism taken on extreme forms and lead to military conflicts?
     The reason is  that the surge of nationalist  feelings is a reaction to
informational and  cultural imperialism, to the invasion of the  world media
and trans-national coporations. In such conditions is  has become convenient
and  fashionable   for  politicians  and  ordinary  people   to  re-identify
themselves as  the members of a regional family. In the poorer countries the
rise in national self-determination is a result of former  humiliations  and
repressed ethnic  awareness.  Before the  fall of  the  Berlin Wall  the new
nationalism  was  less  important  than the struggle  between the  two world
systems.  Today,  however,  this  is  not  the case.  National  survival and
self-determination has  replaced Marxist and Leninist teaching  in the  East
and  the liberal-conservative doctrines in the West.  They have  filled  the
emotional,  spiritual,  economic   and  political   vacuum   almost  totally
unhindered.  Finally, self-identification  and  its  consequent  nationalism
within modern conditions has  become  possible as  a  result  of the reduced
authority of the nation state as a consquence of globalisation.
     Nationalism is not the only, but undoubtedly the major  reason for  the
possible new  division of the world  into opposing  economic or military and
political  blocs. The regrouping of countries into new economic alliances is
a part of the  geo-political restructuring of the world. Here the danger  is
in  the trend for the divisions to turn into confrontation  and the bi-polar
model to be replaced with a new bi- or tri-polar oppositional structure.
     What will predominate in the future the global prospects for the Fourth
Civilisation or  new regional isolation? Nationalism, combined with regional
autarchy or forms of the new open world society?  I believe that  the answer
to this question will still be unclear for the next few decades. There is an
undisputed trend  towards global  integration  and the  advent  of  the  new
civilisation. It  is inevitable and  it will continue. However, the question
whether  this  process  will  involve  a  new  phase of world conflicts  and
collapses,  whether there is a danger of evil  egoism  dominating the  world
will depend to a very great extent on the means and forms of globalisation.

     <B>4. THE EGOISM OF POLITICIANS</b>

     <i>The  responsibility of politicians  is  not  to incite conflict but  to
resolve them,  not  to serve the  people  of  the  past  but  to open up the
potential for the future.</i>

     T
     he  advent  of  the  New  Civilisation  is  indisputably  irreversible.
However, when it  will come and  what controversies  it  will  bring with it
depends to a large extent on the modern political leaders.  There is grounds
to speak  of  the  possibility  of  the formation  of  new  global elites in
accordance with the great structural  changes on a world scale. They will be
above  all  the  leaders  of  the   trans-national  corporations  and  other
international companies,  international  traders, representatives  from  the
world of show business and intellectuals who identify  their  lives with the
progress of the whole world.
     Would it  be  correct to  say  that  the majority of contemporary world
politicians are the defenders  and  advocates  of  the  Fourth Civilisation?
Hardly. The mass of people seem to  be  conservative defenders  of the Third
Civilisation. There are exceptions,  of  course, such as Jacques Delor, Hans
van  der Bruk, Leo Tindemans and other  architects of  European integration.
Other exceptions  include  those politicians  who have  contributed  much to
world peace such as Bill Clinton, Itsach Rabin, Edward Shevardnadze and many
others whose world view is more global than local.
     Unfortunately, the majority of modern politicians are influenced not by
global  responsibilities but purely local and national interests. This local
egoism is  above  all a product  of  the political structures themselves. In
every  country where there is a  pluralist structure the  party leaders have
the responsibility to their own parties or at best to their countries  while
members of parliament are responsible to  their constituents. Even  when the
level of education and intellect  of the politicians makes them aware of the
interests  of  others their  dependency  on  the national  and local systems
renders  them  powerless before  the challenges  of  the  New  Civilisation.
Minimal efforts are necessary to bring a halt  to  infant mortality all over
the  world and the funds  needed to  finance  this  are less that 1% of  the
budgets of  the industrialised world. Young people at universities  are more
interested  in the resolution  of  environmental problems than  the  elected
representatives  of  the nations.  However, the egoism  of politicians is  a
product of  the  electoral systems and the necessity for  each politician to
defend first and foremost the current interests of his electors. In this way
the richest  countries and peoples of the  world  are  protecting  their own
interests  above  all and  the  problems  of  the  starving  and  childrens'
illnesses remain in the periphery of their thoughts.
     The  political  forces  which  should  work  to  establish  the  Fourth
Civilisation are  not yet clearly identified. They are somewhere amongst the
different  interests  and  competition of  the  trans-national corporations,
amongst the group of leaders of the major nations and the representatives of
the intellectual  community and environmental  movements etc..  Despite  the
successes of the  New  Civilisation, despite  the  growing global awareness,
these forces are insufficient. Clearly, for an indefinite period of time the
majority of politicians will play  a conservative, rather than a progressive
role  in the  furtherment of global relations. Today the political awareness
of  the  majority  of people involved  in such  activities  goes  as  far as
agreeing  to  inter-state  positions  almost exclusively  on  the  basis  of
national interests. The expansion  of  global problems is  still in no-man's
land.
     There is a  clear need for changes in  the culture and the awareness of
the political elite as well as changes to the political systems. One  has to
admire the majority of modern  European politicians for their  constancy and
stubborn resilience with which they have built the European Union. It is not
customs mechanisms  nor  the  development of a prototype European parliament
which should  serve as  shining  examples to the  rest of  the world but the
gradual development over a period of forty years of the dynamic processes of
the European idea. However,  even  here there are a number of examples where
the European idea has  been compromised by national ambitions and prejudices
or  has  been  used  demagogically  for  local political interests. British,
French and German members of the EU parliament  acknowledge the interests of
those  who do  not  want  to  give up its privileges  and  to  accept  their
challenges of  economic and political integration. Analyses have  shown that
these are people who put priority on the interests of  the  manufacturers in
their constituencies or a simply victims of limited political thought.
     The main reason for the egoism of politicians is inherent the nature of
the  political  systems, in  the  national  limitations  of  the  concept of
political responsibility, in  the weakness of the link between the electoral
mechanisms and the concern for future generations.

     <B>5. MILITANT RELIGIONS</b>

     <i>When a shell exploded in the market place in Sarajevo and killed dozens
of people, a young woman cried out, "Allah, have revenge for me..." A friend
of mine  from Serbia told me how a detachment of  Muslims in Bosnia raped  a
group of  women  and  them  murdered them... The hatred  which  he spoke was
enough to last him for the rest of his life.</i>

     T
     he  ethnic  war and  cleansing  in  Bosnia,  the religious  attacks  in
Algeria,  the fundamentalist attacks in  Egypt,  the  victory of the Islamic
party  in  Turkey,  ethnic and religious problems  in  Iran,  Iraq, Northern
Ireland, Israel and Palestine, India and dozens of other places all over the
world are all  steeped  in the blood of continuing religious conflicts. They
are  sometimes  referred  to  as  the  militant religions.  Perhaps this  is
correct.  Religion  and  faith  is  the  greatest  unifying  principle,  the
strongest mass  feeling  overwhelming  emotions, traditions, indignation and
interests and unites  them under  a common will.  Whoever captures this will
shall be victorious.  It is true that there is no life without faith just as
there  is  no  matter  without  spirit.  No-one  can  deny  that  the  major
traditional  religions have  survived for many thousands on this  earth  and
they will clearly survive for many more. Religions have learnt  how to adapt
to  new  processes   and  phenomena,  to  demonstrate  flexibility  and   to
acknowledge the needs of the people. Some call  this pragmatism, others call
it hypocrisy.
     The great challenge  of the modern  day which faces all world religions
is should  they adapt to the global world or should they continue  to  fight
over their  old  conquests. The dilemma  is either to adapt  to the open and
modern world or to defend the life and traditions of the past,  to integrate
religious symbols into a modern, open  economy  or isolation  and  a  war of
cultures. Another great challenge is tolerance  between religions. Will they
continue to fight with each other or will they allow co-existence with other
faiths and the free choice of people?
     The  militant isolationist and totalitarian religions are in opposition
to  the New  Civilisation. They  and their  representatives form part of the
obstacles to the advent of the new. There is little doubt that the conflicts
arising from the conflict of  open societies and cultures will frequently be
based on  religious  principles. I and inclined to think, however, that  the
role of  the militant religions  will  grow  only  if this is allowed for by
certain preconditions  such as poverty and nationalism and the spread of new
utopian ideas.
     When in  1991 President George Bush and his aides  unexpectedly  halted
the American invading force en route to Basra  and Baghdad many people could
not understand why  he did this.  Five years later it  is now clear that the
Americans had to choose between the  consequences of  religious conflicts or
the preservation  of the  regime of Saddam Hussein.  Militant religions  can
take  power, as they  did  in  Iran  or  they  can  halt  the  processes  of
modernisation of entire regions. However, they  can do little more since for
the same  reasons for which  I reject  the thesis of S.Huntington  I believe
that religious modernism will prevail over fundamentalism.

     <B>6. A CUP OF COFFEE IN APENZEL</b>

     <i>The  defenders of  the Third Civilisation do  not only live in the poor
countries. A large number of them live in resplendent luxury and comfort  or
in conditions of social harmony  alien to four  fifths  of  the world. These
people live in the West and do not want global change...</i>

     H
     ave  you ever been to Apenzel?  It is a Swiss  Canton with a capital of
the same name on the road from the lake of Boden to Liechtenstein. It is the
smallest,  best  ordered  and  quietest  of  all  the cantons  in  the Swiss
confederation. There  are no large factories  as there are  in  Basel or the
vanity of  the  financial  centre  of  Zurich. There are  none  of  the bank
employees forever in a  hurry or the limousines of the major  banks. Apenzel
has  the the  cleanest  cows in the world,  the  most beautiful green fields
merging  in the distance into the majesty of the Alpine peaks.  It is a land
of peaceful, almost invisible work where everyone  knows what to do and when
to do it. If you get the  chance to go to the  capital of the canton, take a
walk  across  the bridge  and a stroll through the little town and  you will
feel as though you  are in a fairy  story.  The flowers in the windows,  the
decorated roofs of the houses and the hidden little backstreets.
     My reason for  writing about this  is because Apenzel  is not  only the
smallest  and most  comfortable  canton  in Switzerland  but  also  the most
conservative. Here the  majority  of the people  do  not want  any  form  of
change.  For  them Switzerland's  membership  of  the  European  Union is  a
dangerous event with unforeseeable consequences. I stopped  in Apenzel for a
cup  of coffee and a cake  in the summer of  1993 and  my contacts with  the
local people made a  strong impression on me. This was not only because they
had voted  against Swiss membership of the EU but for the reasons which they
explained to me.
     The people passionately and convincingly did not want to become part of
the united  Europe since they were afraid that  the underdeveloped  European
countries  would  hold back  their  development  and  their  towns "would be
invaded by immigrants" and that they were "getting on very well without  the
Common Market" etc.. I would not have bothered to mention this event if this
attitude  was not  repeated  in other wealthy parts of the world. One of the
main  sources  for the  rising  xenophobia in Germany, France and Austria is
this unwillingness to share their wealth  with others and to  experience the
risk of cultural intermixing.
     In contrast to the  supporters of  Zhirinovski in Russia who admire his
defence of traditional Russian values or Erbakan in Turkey who advocates the
traditions of Islam against the modern processes taking place in the West my
experience in  Apenzel has completely  different  origins. I  could  call it
result of "resplendent  comfort".  Millions of people in Western Europe  and
North America are entirely  satisfied by their lifestyles and do not want to
jeopardise the status quo.  Employment, security, mistrust of other cultures
are  reasons for which they  prefer  nationalism to the open  world and  the
advent of the New Civilisation.
     Do  not  be  angry with  the  conservatives of  Apenzel. This is not an
emotional but a widespread cultural  and political phenomenon. It  manifests
itself in many forms of protective nationalism  and is the social  basis for
potential serious conflict against  the Fourth Civilisation. About ten years
ago  the  French  Nationalist,  Le Pen, seemed a political  curiosity,  now,
however,  he  is  accepted  as  something  real   and  necessary   by   many
intellectuals. Such is the case with the Austrian Nationalist J.Heider whose
party categorically  won  third  place in  the country  and has even greater
political ambitions.
     Thus the  defenders of the old civilisation come not  only from amongst
the   ranks  of  the  fundamentalists,   the  supporters  of  Islam  or  the
ultra-nationalists from the lesser developed countries.  They also come from
the West, from its more conservative circles, from people who are frightened
of  losing  the  luxury  which  they  have  achieved.  Undoubtedly  the  New
Civilisation  will involve  the  intermixing of cultures and economies,  the
global  redistribution  and  harmonisation  of  resources,  production   and
benefits.  This  will  also  lead  to  structural  changes  and  even  cause
difficulties in the most developed countries of the West. Will the people of
these  countries  be prepared to concede some  of the privileges which their
current state of economic and political advantage allows them?
     This "drowning in  luxury" will continue to  hold  back the progress of
the New Civilisation and lead  to a  variety of conflicts and other hitherto
unknown phenomena.  Together  with the  slow and gradual  opening-up of  the
world  and its  cultural  intermixing  we  will  also  become  witnesses  to
processes of  temporary  "closing-up" and the victories of  nationalists and
fundamentalists. If in the richer countries  of the world those who live  in
states  of  "resplendent  luxury"  win  this battle imperial or neo-colonial
thinking and fundamentalism will inevitably increase.

     Section Three
     <b>The Alternatives to the Fourth Civilisation</b>
     Chapter Eight
     <B>THE NEW ECONOMIC ORDER
     1. THE ECONOMIC HEART OF THE GLOBAL WORLD</b>

     <i>Throughout  the whole of the 20th  century  the economic dependence  of
nations grew to become  what is the now the nucleus of the New Civilisation.
One  essential  part of  the modern  infrastructure is  the  supra-sovereign
control of nation states. The main question  is whether this will lead  to a
new economic order or will it revive the familiar conflicts...</i>

     T
     he economic  interaction  of countries and  peoples is at the  basis of
each  human community.  "Economic  interaction"  is  not always the  leading
factor  but is does always  dominate. It challenges not only the autonomy of
particular  communities but  also their unification into  nation states. The
new elements  of  the 20th  century  is  that  the modern global economy  is
becoming less  and less an object of control of  national govern