Interview: Political scientist proposes a high civilization for Ukraine (10/23/05)

Interview: Political scientist proposes a high civilization for Ukraine

by Lydia Korsun

Last fall, during the election campaign in Ukraine, I ran across the Kyiv journal Ekonomichnyi Chasopys-XXI (Economic Annals-XXI), No. 9, 2004. I became interested in one of the first articles. The title of the article, "The United States, Ukraine and High Civilization," appeared then to me excessively optimistic. Last September nobody knew who would win the election and which road Ukraine would take. But here the highest level of societal development was addressed - and alongside the United States, the superpower of the world.

The author of the article, Victor Basiuk, a political scientist, was born in Ukraine, grew up in the United States, has a doctorate in political science and is the author of the book "Technology, World Politics and American Policy," in which he developed the concept of high civilization. He taught at Columbia University, and was a consultant to the White House, the Department of State and other governmental institutions.

The interview below was published in Dzerkalo Tyzhnia, No. 32 (560), August 20-26, 2005, Kyiv. The English translation of the interview is published here with permission from Dzerkalo Tyzhnia.

Q: Dr. Basiuk, what is "high civilization"?

A: It is the highest level in the evolution of society in a given era. In various periods of history there were high civilizations. Ancient Greece and Rome, for their time, were high civilizations. This does not mean that the attributes that those states possessed constitute a high civilization today, because the evolution of society progresses. Certain characteristics of past high civilizations - say, philosophy or music - can be components of a high civilization in the present era, but countries which have the best philosophy or music today will not be countries of a high civilization if other aspects of their society - for example, the economy, political development, or culture in general - are backward.

At the center of high civilization in its contemporary dimension is the development of the best potential of the human being and its utilization for the betterment of society. The focus of contemporary high civilization on the human being is related to democracy, which cares about human beings and which has moved up front in the evolution of the political aspect of society. In the course of the last century, democracy prevailed over autocratic forms of political systems, including fascism and communism, although this process still continues in certain regions of the world.

Q: In your article, "The United States, Ukraine and High Civilization," published in Economic Annals-XXI, you maintain that the United States will inevitably decline in relative power. What are your reasons for such an expectation?

A: The answer is very simple - history. In the course of history, there were several states that were the most powerful in the world, but none of them succeeded in maintaining its might eternally. Perhaps the Roman Empire dominated the longest - some 1,000 years. Great Britain was the most powerful nation in the world for about 200 years. The question regarding the United States is not whether it will lose its first place in the world, but when. There are reasons to believe that a relative decline of America's power will begin in the not too distant future.

The economy of China is growing at a rate of some 8 to 10 percent per year, while the U.S. economy is growing only 3 to 3.5 percent annually. India, just as China, has a population of over 1 billion, its economy is growing at 7 to 8 percent per year, and it has a respectably sized technologically educated population. In a couple of decades, the American economy could become sustainable. In a sustainable economy, almost all solid waste will be recycled and growth of the economy would depend on productivity. If so, then U.S. economic growth will decline to about 1.5 percent.

Moreover, the American population is aging, and the cost of health care is significantly growing. In the year 2000 the cost of health care for people age 65 and above comprised 2.3 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) of the United States, but in 2024 it is expected to reach 6 percent. After that, the cost of health care will continue to rise sharply, and in 2080 it will reach 13.7 percent of GDP. Such an increase in the cost of health care will significantly curtail the capability of the nation to maintain its power.

It's important to emphasize that all these factors causing a relative decline of the United States are in the area of the so-called "hard power," which consists of the economy and the armed forces. If the United States would pay more attention to "soft power" - in particular, to the development of high civilization, which in the future could be a very powerful instrument of soft power - then it could extend its power and influence in the world for many more years.

Q: Tell us more about "soft power" and how it differs from "hard power." Also, you say in your article that it is necessary to maintain a balance between soft and hard power. How would this pertain to the United States and Ukraine?

A: I'll start with hard power. As I mentioned earlier, hard power consists of the armed forces and the economy. The main attribute of hard power is compulsion. Armed forces are used for compulsion, ultimately in the form of war. The economy creates and sustains armed forces, but it could be used for compulsion directly, not necessarily through armed forces. For example, refusal to have economic relations with a country is a means of compulsion, which the United States is currently using with regard to Iran. A secondary characteristic of hard power is providing an incentive in a concrete form. For example, one nation could provide an incentive to another by offering it a sum of money or military assistance and thus induce it to act in a desirable fashion.

The concept of soft power was developed by Joseph Nye, professor of international relations at Harvard, in his book "Soft Power: The Means of Success in World Politics" (2004). The main characteristics of soft power are attractiveness and ability to co-opt people and countries to a certain goal. A nation may have an attractive image which other countries admire, are willing to respond to, or are inclined to accept its leadership. The Orange Revolution opened many doors for Ukraine which, until that time, had been closed. Skillful diplomacy mindful of the legitimacy of its actions, alliances, common ideology, intellectual and cultural influences are forms of soft power.

In the evolution of society, the influence of soft power is growing. This is largely because the factors related to soft power are becoming more important. For example, in the course of recent decades the role of morals and ethics has markedly grown in international politics. It has become more important than the principle of sovereignty of nations. Such international organizations as the United Nations and NATO approved military interventions in Bosnia, Somalia and Kosovo because human rights were trampled there. Accordingly, to behave ethically in international politics is an instrument of soft power.

As far as a "balance" between soft and hard power is concerned - it is necessary even for those countries that have very large hard power. Hard power loses its might if it is not appropriately correlated with soft power. In the early years of its existence, the Bush administration placed emphasis predominantly on hard power and conducted unilateral policy, often avoiding consultations with other nations. This led to an overstretching of military and economic resources, and to a deterioration of relations with many nations, even some of the closest allies of the United States. Washington was compelled to resort to soft power - to change its policy regarding the United Nations and NATO, and to moderate its unilateral policy.

The above does not mean that the United States has radically changed its policy; it continues to rely primarily on hard power. But it was necessary for America to turn to soft power to support its hard power. Hard and soft power are mutually interdependent and, if appropriately used, they support each other. In the case of Iraq, the hard power of the United States attempts to expand the soft power ideals of democracy in the Middle East. Whether this is being done successfully or not is a different question.

The problem of a balance between hard and soft power is different for Ukraine than for the United States. The potential hard power of Ukraine is much smaller than the present hard power of the United States. Even if Ukraine develops this potential to its highest degree, it cannot be a superpower; at best, it could be a successful middle-rank power.

But Ukraine's potential in soft power is much greater than its potential in hard power. Especially if Ukraine is consistent and determined in striving for a high civilization - which would give it a great deal of soft power - it could move to the forefront of influence in world politics. Therefore, it would be advantageous for Ukraine to develop a high civilization and capitalize on its soft power.

This does not necessarily mean that the priority of soft power in the development of Ukraine must be at the expense of hard power. Hard power - in particular, the economy - is essential for high civilization. Without a solid economic foundation, a high civilization cannot exist.

Q: What are the realities for achieving a high civilization by Ukraine after the Orange Revolution - the means, the time frame?

A: Such phenomena as the Orange Revolution are transitional stages on the road toward a high civilization in those countries that are dictatorial or approaching a dictatorship, where corruption, dishonesty, crime and other "impurities" of society are widespread. Society gets tired and finally reacts to these "impurities" - and an Orange Revolution explodes. The press cited the voices of opposition on the maidan: "Finally we are becoming a civilized nation!"

In this light, the Orange Revolution was a very important step forward for Ukraine. But purification of society does not end with the Orange Revolution; it will continue for years. Moreover, in order to move consciously toward a high civilization, the leadership of the country must reach a concrete decision in this matter and direct society well beyond the stage of purification. Insofar as possible, the nation must move to the forefront of all branches of the evolution of society. This would pertain to almost all ministries, but foremost to the Ministry of Education and Science, and the Ministry of Culture.

We may recall that at the center of a high civilization today is the development of the best potential of the human being and its utilization for the betterment of society. In this regard, education and science would play a central role. Culture is a key factor in the evolution of society and in the perfection of the human being, because humans continuously perfect themselves through culture. With regard to the development of the human being, education, science and culture are interdependent and, if appropriately directed, must support each other.

However, at the present stage of Ukraine's development the Ministry of the Economy is particularly important because it has to create a model of the economy sufficiently advanced to respond to the demands of a high civilization and to build an economic foundation on which a high civilization could stand. In this regard, the model of Finland deserves attention, where - just as in the United States - there is close cooperation among the government, universities and industry, particularly with regard to science and technology.

How much time would it take Ukraine to reach a high civilization? Assuming a concerted and consistent activity in this direction, about 30 to 40 years.

Q: Taking into consideration the current situation in the European Union (EU), would steps towards a high civilization accelerate Ukraine's entry into the Union?

A: At its present stage of development, the European Union is immersed in the drudgery of its everyday problems: high unemployment, low economic growth, the threat of cheap labor from new candidates for membership, complexities regarding a common budget and the Constitution of the EU, etc. As a result of these problems, France and Holland voted against acceping the Constitution of the EU and thus have slowed down the development of the union.

These developments make the entry of Ukraine into the EU more difficult. A striving by Ukraine to a high civilization would improve its chances of entry into the EU, although this would not guarantee such an entry in the nearest future.

But let's take a look at the relationship of Ukraine to the EU from a different perspective. The fact that the EU is immersed in the drudgery of its everyday problems and does not have higher ideals and goals creates a serious obstacle for the development of the union and may lead to its decay. If Ukraine began to consciously strive toward a high civilization and showed concrete results of this striving, this would force the European Union to think about the direction of its own development and about ideals higher than everyday problems. It cannot be ruled out that the European Union, in order to avoid the danger of everyday problems and to unite its countries around a common goal, would, in time, accept high civilization as an objective for its own development and gladly welcome Ukraine as its member. This is an example of how the soft power of Ukraine could influence Europe.

In order to capitalize on the soft power of a high civilization, the leadership of Ukraine must have vision and act promptly. As I pointed out before, the Orange Revolution is only a stage on the road to a high civilization, and yet it has a powerful soft power in its own right. If this soft power is not incorporated in appropriate institutions and capitalized upon, it will decay and be ultimately forgotten.

A certain analogy can be drawn between the Orange Revolution and Chornobyl. Chornobyl was a huge catastrophe for Ukraine and its neighboring countries. But it gave a very large soft power to Ukraine in the area of the preservation of the environment. And yet the government of Ukraine did not capitalize on this soft power to develop initiatives in this area and bring them into being on the platform of the United Nations or elsewhere in the world and thus move to the forefront of leadership in the area of the preservation of the environment. Instead, the Ukrainian government focused its efforts on obtaining funds for taking care of the consequences of the Chornobyl disaster. The West, however, was not in a great hurry to come up with the requisite funds.

Had Ukraine moved to a leading role in the area of the preservation of the environment, it would have been much easier to obtain money for Chornobyl.

As we can see, it is easy to squander the potential of soft power if the leadership of a country lacks vision and does not produce timely action.

| Home Page |