By George SOROS, financier
The results of the NATO intervention have shocked me and forced me to reconsider
some of my most cherished preconceptions. I am a believer in what I call
an open society, which is basically a broader and more universal concept
of democracy. Open society is based on the recognition that nobody has
access to the ultimate truth; perfection is unattainable and therefore
we must be satisfied with the next best thing: a society that holds itself
open to improvement. An open society allows people with different views,
identities, and interests to live together in peace.
Judging by these principles, I have no doubt that Milosevic infringed
the rights of the Albanian population in Kosovo. Nor do I have any doubts
that the situation required outside intervention. My doubts center on the
ways in which international pressure can be successfully applied.
We have accomplished exactly the opposite of what we intended. We have
accelerated the ethnic cleansing we sought to interdict. We have helped
to consolidate in power the Milosevic regime and we have helped to create
instability in the neighboring countries of Montenegro, Macedonia, and
Albania, not to mention the broader international implications such as
our relationship with China.
The question I have to ask myself: is it possible, is it appropriate
to intervene in the internal affairs of a state in the name of some general
principle like human rights or open society? I did not want to consider
such a question and I certainly don't want to accept no for an answer.
It would be the end of the aspiration for an open society. In the absence
of outside intervention oppressive regimes could perpetrate untold atrocities.
People who live in democratic countries do not believe in democracy
as a universal principle. They tend to be guided by self-interest, not
by universal principles. They may be willing to defend democracy in their
own country because they consider it to be in their own self-interest,
but few people care sufficiently about democracy as an abstract idea to
defend it in other countries, especially when the idea is so far removed
from the reality. Yet people do have some concerns that go beyond self-interest.
They are aroused by pictures of atrocities. How could these concerns be
mobilized to prevent the atrocities?
I have attended a number of discussions about Kosovo and I was shocked
to discover how vague and confused people, well-informed people, are about
the reasons for our involvement. They speak of humanitarian reasons and
human rights almost interchangeably.
The atrocities started over a year ago, and the principles of open society
were violated ten years ago. But people did not even know where Kosovo
was until we started bombing Yugoslavia.
We shall not be able to get rid of Milosevic by bombing but if, after
the war, there is a grand plan for the reconstruction of Southeast Europe
involving a customs union and virtual membership in the EU for those countries
which qualify, I am sure that the Serbs would soon get rid of Milosevic
in order to qualify.
Ironically, it is the US that stands in the way of such a political
alliance. We are caught in a trap of our own making. We used to be one
of the two superpowers and the leaders of the free world. We are now the
sole remaining superpower and we would like to think of ourselves as the
leaders of the free world. But that is where we fail, because we fail to
observe one of the basic principles of the open society. Nobody has a monopoly
on the truth, yet we act as if we did. We are willing to violate the sovereignty
of other states in the name of universal principles but we are unwilling
to accept any infringement on our own sovereignty. We are willing to drop
bombs on others from high altitudes but we are reluctant to expose our
own men to risk. We refuse to submit ourselves to any kind of international
governance. We were one of seven countries which refused to subscribe to
the International Criminal Court; the others were China, Iraq, Israel,
Libya, Qatar, and Yemen. We do not even pay our dues to the United Nations.
This kind of behavior does not lend much legitimacy to our claim to be
the leaders of the free world. To reclaim that role we must radically alter
our attitude to international cooperation. We cannot and should not be
the world's policemen, but the world needs a policeman. Therefore we must
cooperate with like-minded countries and abide by the rules that we seek
to impose on others.
Moscow News, June 8-15, 1999






