Dear ladies and gentlemen,

 

It is an honour for me to be here with you today – it doesn’t happen too often when Consul General in his capasity could interact with the younger audience, though it is hard to overestimate the importance of this dialogue because the world will very soon be entrusted to you.

 

I put a word “dialogue” intentionally to underline that I am not professional lecturer, and my mission today is to engage you into discussion about what kind of world you are going to inherit. That is why the theme of our talk today may look a bit thought-provocative, though anyway not as provocative as the typical Russia headlines in the British press.

So firstly I will briefly reflect on my own vision of a Post-Western world, and then we can discuss it together, and I would be glad to answer your questions and listen to your opinions.

 

For people of my profession it is vital to be clear about the terms to avoid any misunderstanding. Let me start from telling you what I don’t imply from the very beginning.

 

Do I mean to say that the Post-Western world is a world where «the West» has no place or role?

 

No, I don’t. I am talking about the bigger world and an ongoing shift from a unipolar to a multipolar world. Remember a landmark work by Francis Fukuyama – «The End of history» written in 1989 when the Cold War just finished. He wrote about the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government. He didn’t argue that the end of history would bring an end to all conflicts, discoveries and events in general, they would happen – he says, as economy would remain the only real stimulus for any changes, but all those economic processes according to Fukuyama will go within the same ideological system. No more systems of ideas which can define a way of thinking different from the Western liberal democracy and attractive to people will be discovered.

 

Almost 30 years passed since that, and academics are still at odds about Fukuyama's prophecy. Too many questions remain unanswered. Is terrorism only about economy, and has it changed the values of the modern world? Would it be right to argue that ancient countries of China and India with total population of 2,5 bln people are not capable of having their own successful model of society? Are there countries and nations in some parts of the world (take the middle East) that are not prone to democracy?

 

Do I mean to say that the upcoming Post-Western world is the only possible future for the world today?

 

No, I do not. What I am saying is that it is vital for every unbiased and open-minded person to realize that the world is undergoing changes that will lead us to a different pattern of international relations based on multipolar cooperation and equal terms.

 

It might happen that things will change much more dramatically that we all can only imagine, let us hope not, but World will never be the same. That is why it is wrong, for example, to describe the current state of affairs between Russia and the West as “a cold war”. No, it is not. Russia is different from the Soviet Union and the world is different.

It is a paradox, but with all the sources of information, with all the speed this information is transmitted, with airplanes and spaceships and mass tourism, we still live in the world where we don’t know each other well enough. With all crucial advantages technology gives us, it feeds us too often with the oversimplified answers and black-and-white picture of the complex and multifaceted world.

 

Have you ever noticed how Eurocentric is the history we learn at school? It is first about Greece and Rome as the cradles of the European civilization, and then it is as wide as the Christian world. I know that we do learn about other countries and conflicts, but let’s be honest we are much more interested in us than in others, and when we are interested in others, they are of course seen from our perspective. It could be logical, but it doesn’t mean that it is the only way to look at things.

A question to you – how many European countries are in top 20 of the most populated countries in the world? (The answer is – 2). Russia with 144 mln and Germany with 82.

 

Actually throughout the 20^th century population of most of the countries has been growing, but with a different speed, and in 21^st century we discovered that some countries are even experiencing decline. Here are some examples – in 1960 there were 450 mln people living in India and now 1 bln 320 mln, in China – 667 mln in 1960 and 1 bln 400 mln now. If we look at Europe, the Baltic States are the most striking example – from 1960 till early nineties their population has been steadily growing, for example, –Lithuania from 2,7 to 3,7 mln and  Latvia from 2,1 to 2,6 mln. But most recent data says that since they gained independence Lithuania lost 0.6 mln since early 90’s and Latvia 0.5 mln.

 

An example from geography. Have any of you seen a world map they use in Australia? Turn our maps upside down, and you will see the world the way Australians see it – South pole is on top, so if you cast your eye according to an old habit, instead of Eurasia and North America you will see New Zealand, Australia and Latin America. Now when you know the logic, guess – where was the center of the world according to European maps throughout centuries? And the answer is Jerusalem.

 

You can easily google for the modern world maps of South Africa, Chile, China and other countries, and on some of them you will see that it is Europe which is on the edge. I am sure I don’t have to explain that it is not maps that matter but the thinking behind them. So now you know the way – if you feel a bit lonely on the edge, you just need to adjust the map accordingly.

This is an illustration of the fact that our understanding of global order could differ quite radically from the others. You could hardly find the experts who do not take for granted the Western civilization as the starting point of world order and who do not seriously underestimate the role of other civilizations in the making of past, present and future global rules and norms. With exception of professor Oliver Stuenkel who works in Brazil and in 2016 published a book with the same title– Post-Western world.

 

He argues that our Western-centric world view leads us to underappreciate not only the role non-Western actors have played in the past and play in contemporary international politics, but also the constructive role they are likely to play in the future. For more than a century, an extreme concentration of economic power allowed the West, despite representing a small minority of the world’s population, to initiate, legitimize, and successfully advocate policy in the economic or security realm. To most observers, non-Western actors hardly, if ever, played any constructive role in the management of global affairs.

 

Such views dramatically underestimate the contributions non-Western thinkers and cultures have made, and how much the West depended on foreign knowledge, technology, ideas, and norms—such as from China and the Muslim world—to develop economically and politically. They also disregard the fact that non-Western powers have dominated the world economically for much of the last thousand years.

 

As a consequence, the future of global order — no longer under Western rule — is instinctively seen in the West as chaotic, disorienting, and dangerous. 

It cannot be denied however that non-Western world is active not only in the spheres of trade, finance and infrastructure, but also in security and diplomacy. Moreover, there is no reason to immediately consider these initiatives as a challenge to the West. Not only could they be new platforms for cooperation, but they will also make the behavior of emerging powers more predictable by tying them to institutionalized rules and norms.

 

Such international organisations as BRICS and APEC, though they don’t get too much press in this part of the world, are vivid examples that these trends are not temporary, and that there are countries that have already build what seems to be an alternative to existing formats of cooperation. These new structures allow them to exercise collectively their national interests. These institutions were created not to overthrow or undermine the existing ones, but to be able to obtain the same privileges that the West currently possesses. If the U.S. and Europe have institutions in which they undoubtedly hold the privileges, why can’t other states create their own structures where they hold privileges and can influence the agenda-setting?

 

These structures arose because of the limited social mobility of today’s order and because of existing institutions’ incapacity to adequately integrate rising powers. As part of a hedging strategy, emerging powers will continue to invest in existing institutions, recognizing the strength in today’s order, but they will seek to change the hierarchy in the system to obtain privileges so far only enjoyed by very few.

 

BRICS countries come from Asia, Africa, Europe and America and are all members of the G20. Together, they account for 26.46% of world land area, 42.58% of world population, but 13.24% of World Bank voting power and 14.91% of IMF quota shares. According to IMF’s estimates, BRICS countries generated 22.53% of the world GDP in 2015 and has contributed more than 50% of world economic growth during the last 10 years.

 

BRICS is made up of China, Brazil, Russia, India and South Africa. In 2009, the first BRIC Summit was held in Yekaterinburg, Russia. Since then, the Summit has become an annual event. Up to date, 9 Summits have been held, the last one in China in September 2017.

 

In the 10 years since its inception, BRICS cooperation has continued to consolidate its foundation and expanded to more areas. It is now a multi-level process led by the Summit, and include day-to-day activities of the national Security Advisors， Foreign Ministers and other governmental officials, and enriched by pragmatic cooperation in dozens of areas such as economy, trade, finance, business, agriculture, education, health, science and technology, culture. Cooperation mechanisms such as the New Development Bank, Contingent Reserve Arrangement, Business Council and Think Tank Council have been established.

 

Some critics say that fall-out from the last financial crisis has had a long-lasting damaging effect on BRICS and other intergovernmental networks in Asia. However they recovered. To make this recovery faster in future a new financial vehicle was launched in form of the New Development Bank. It has approved seven investment projects in the BRICS countries worth around $1.5 billion. This year, the NDB is to approve a second package of investment projects worth $2.5-$3 billion in total.

My country has an interesting place  here. It is surely a European power and at the same time with 11 time zones and its vast Far East territories Russia is a Eurasian power as well. That is why for us it is already obvious that international relations have entered a transitional and irreversible stage of development. This is due to the objective process of forming a new polycentric, more just and fair, more representative system of international relations, which should reflect the geographical and civilizational diversity of the modern world. In other words, structures that are to be global powers must represent the world they want to lead.

 

As a major Eurasian power Russia has a stake in the successful future of the Asia-Pacific region, and in promoting sustainable and comprehensive growth throughout its entire territory. We believe that effective economic integration based on the principles of openness, mutual benefit and the universal rules of the World Trade Organisation is the primary means of achieving this goal. Besides that, for Russia, the development of our own Far East is an overall national priority for the 21^st century.

 

We support the idea of forming an Asia-Pacific free trade area. We believe this is in our practical interest and represents an opportunity to strengthen our positions in the rapidly growing Asian and Pacific markets. Over the past five years, the share of APEC economies in Russia's foreign trade has increased from 23 to 31 percent, and from 17 to 24 percent in exports. And we have no intention of stopping there.

 

The Western dominance in international affairs is so deeply rooted and ubiquitous that we think of it as something natural, reducing our capacity to objectively assess the consequences of its decline. And while the transition to genuine multipolarity—not only economically but also regarding agenda-setting capacity—will be disconcerting to many, it may be, in the end, far more democratic and representative than any previous order in global history, allowing greater levels of genuine dialogue, broader spread of knowledge, and more innovative and effective ways to address global challenges in the coming decades. And Russia being both European and non-Western country has its own unique role and its natural place in that process.

 

So whether its an opportunity or a challenge? My answer is that the coming new world order is clearly a huge opportunity to build a better and fairer world, but it would be a challenging task.

Thank you for your attention!

Now I am ready to answer your questions.