Speech by the President of Finland Tarja Halonen at the Asia-Pacific regional dialogue under the World Commission on the Social Dimension of Globalization in Bangkok on 16 December 2002

Globalization that corresponds to people's needs is possible to achieve only by listening to people - their needs and dreams - in different parts of world. Thus it is a great pleasure to be able to participate in this dialogue arranged by the World Commission on the Social Dimension of Globalization. Our commission wants as much information as possible on local and regional experiences concerning globalization. We have already arranged several national dialogues around the world. This seminar is the second regional dialogue following one in Latin America. Regional dialogues will be held in Europe and Africa in February.

The Asia-Pacific region has always been a key part of globalization. It has been the scene of regional - and worldwide - trade for thousands of years. Integration in the world economy has not always been nice; conquests and colonialism also have their own history here.

In general terms economic growth and reduction of poverty in the Asia-Pacific region has been stunning in the past few decades. Why is this? Is it so that countries in the same geographical region have independently made something right or is there something typically Asian about this? Of course there are huge differences between and inside countries in the Asia-Pacific region as is the case concerning Europe also. Regions look more homogeneous from outside than from inside.

Discussion concerning why some countries and regions succeed will no doubt be on our agenda. What can others learn from Asian experiences? I thing it would be interesting to hear your views on how Asian best practices in promoting development and reducing poverty could also be applied in other parts of the world.

Spectacular economic growth and more active participation in international trade have made the countries in the region more vulnerable to disturbances in the international economy. This vulnerability has been increased by the enormous amount of foreign investment in Asia. I await with interest your own evaluations of the effects and lessons of the Asian economic crisis. No one wants to serve as a test laboratory, but learning from mistakes and unpleasant events can be helpful to oneself as well as many other countries and regions.

I have been dealing with the impact of globalization in Asia mainly from an economic perspective. It is clear, however, that globalization is much broader in scope. The rapid development of technology, the speeding up of communications, the spread of cultural influences, tourism and other travel and cross-border relations are key elements of globalization. All this has its own impact in the Asia-Pacific region as well.

Although globalization is by definition world-wide. In their own lives people experience globalization locally. Even for global businesses markets are mainly local; they just happen to be in different parts of the world. On a planet with six billion people, globalization is always present somewhere. As a result of increased interdependence, people's local actions have global effects. Local becomes global and vice versa.

In my opinion it is important that, in analysing the effects of globalization or considering ways to conduct globalization, we keep our attention focused on people. People are at the same time the objects and the subjects of globalization. It follows logically from this that globalization is not a law of nature but a process achieved by people. Governments' decisions to eliminate obstacles to globalization have generally been based on the desire to improve citizens' standard of living and quality of life. Unfortunately the result has not always been in line with this goal.

The World Commission on the Social Dimension of Globalization is seeking means so that globalization can be made more humane. I am enthusiastic about the commission's work and it is a great honour for me to serve as co-chair together with President Benjamin Mkapa of Tanzania. I am delighted that so many commission members are also present here: Surin Pitsuwan (Thailand), Victoria Tauli-Corpuz (Philippines), Lu Mai (China) and Bill Brett (Great Britain). There are also three other members in the commission from this region: Deepak Nayyar (India), Taizo Nishimuro (Japan) and Eui-yong Chung (Korea) as well as our capable executive secretary Padmanabha Gopinath.

The goal of our commission is

a) To move discussion concerning globalization from confrontation to dialogue. Discussion is presently characterized by polarization and the presentation of narrow viewpoints. We need a discussion in which globalization is approached in a comprehensive manner.

b) To present a practical vision of a fair and sustainable globalization which corresponds to people's needs. The goal is globalization which has a more human face, promotes development, growth and employment and reduces poverty. In other words the aim is globalization which promotes a decent life.

c) To present initiatives and recommendations concerning how this vision can be achieved. Recommendations would be aimed at key actors: nation-states, international organizations, businesses, trade unions and other parts of civil society. Some recommendations would be immediate while others would require long-term action.

Our commission has made good progress in its work, in my opinion. During our three meetings we have come a long way from general discussion to more focused, solution-oriented discussion. Without anticipating the content of our report, I would like to mention a few things which have stood out in our discussions in the commission and in national dialogues.

Creating fair international rules. Time and again we have heard the generally accepted statement that the rules and agreements, which regulate international dealings are not fair. Especially in the developing countries people feel that ostensibly equal rules favour the industrialized countries. The industrialized countries are in a better position to take advantage of opportunities provided by agreements. In other words, the playing field is not level. Even fair rules do not automatically lead to a fair result. We need arrangements which favour those in a weaker position. Criticism focuses above all on the WTO agreements and their implementation as well as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, but the United Nations has also received its share of criticism.

The role of the nation-state. Despite the increase in international cooperation and dealings, nation-states are still the key actor in globalization. Action on national level can contribute to better conduct of globalization either on regional and global level or on local level. National measures have the strongest impact on people's lives. The nation-state is also a key level of political influence. Key demands on the nation-state are democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law. Nation-states should pursue also to have good governance.

Business. With the opening of economies and markets, the significance of business has continued to grow. International corporations in particular can have a large significance for employment and finances in individual countries, not to mention their importance for those people who are directly dependent on them. Business is often criticized and this criticism is surely often deserved. Less attention seems to be given to companies' positive effect on employment and also good practices. In the best case a foreign company can help a country develop practices which are much more progressive than legislation.

Development. Many speeches have called for globalization that promotes development. Many people find the present situation to be far from this. Globalization can promote development, but this requires that poor countries and their citizens also obtain the benefits. This in turn requires solidarity on the part of the industrialized countries, including development aid and the elimination of market access barriers. Nevertheless it is not a one way street, the developing countries must for their part show willingness and commitment to development.

Movement of people. Globally speaking, only a small portion of people move from one country to another. The portion who move for economic reasons is even smaller; the reasons are more often natural or political catastrophes. Migration has a large impact on both source and destination countries, however. Source countries can in the worst case suffer a brain drain which substantially slows down their own development. In destination countries, unemployment and other unfavourable developments are far too often blamed on immigrants. Yet the United States' faster economic growth in the past decade, compared with Europe, has been due largely to higher immigration. The economic significance of migration is also reflected by the fact that the amount of remittances by immigrants to their countries of origin is greater than all the development aid supplied around the world. Anyway I hope that in the future people should not have to move if they do not so desire.

I have mentioned only a few of the themes that have come up in the commission's work or dialogues. There are many more and I believe that new themes will be addressed and additional light will be shed on familiar themes in this meeting.

I would like to thank the organizers of this event as well as all the participants. Special thanks go to Surin Pitsuwan and Yasuyuki Nodera. Without their active input this meeting could not have been arranged.

I still have warm memories from the first Asia -EU meeting (ASEM), which was held here in Bangkok in 1996. That meeting was a great success and paved way for a flourishing process. I am sure that this meeting will also be a success and look forward to the results of dialogue.