The cold war period – one which carried often tragic consequences for conquered nations – was simple and transparent in its political and intellectual dimensions. Two powers acted as opposite ends of a bipolar magnetic field, drawing medium-sized and small countries into their orbit, determining their opportunities for development and alliances, and influencing their specific identity. Of course the power of attraction took on an entirely different flavour between the United States and the Soviet Union. The former offered democratic ideals and interests, and duly supplemented them with guaranteed security within the U.S. orbit. The latter pressed on as a conquering army wielding violence and direct control. Accordingly, some nations formed part of the “free world”, while others belonged to the “world of socialism”. And yet the Manichaean logic of the confrontation of the blocs made even democrats frequently resort to a political logic where “our dictator” was acceptable simply because he was ours.

The year 1989 brought a significant change. The magnetic fields fell inert, casting the world into chaos. Hence the political and strategic, as well as intellectual, need arose to breathe sense into the new world. New theories and paradigms sprang up in an attempt to introduce some intellectual and political order into international relations. Francis Fukuyama’s concept of the “End of History” became very popular one. The global triumph of democracy and of the market envisioned in Fukuyama’s brilliant work was supposed to unite the world. Many popular ideas about globalisation in economics, finance, information, and communication also suggested inevitable progress on the path of uniformity and homogeneity.

Others saw new threats facing the post-cold war world, and pointed to a wide range of new conflicts that would arise. Samuel Huntington’s “the Clash of Civilizations” is the most famous of these works. In it, he argues that following times of dynastical, political, economic and ideological conflicts, is a time for confrontation between great civilizations. He suggests that as a consequence, the democratic West should retire to its own culture and cease to interfere with the internal problems of other civilizations.

It is in such a political and intellectual environment that the idea of attributing a major role to democracy promotion in international relations was born, although it of course had profound roots in a long-standing tradition of America, Europe, and in other parts of the world. By placing democracy at the core of global politics, a major dividing line in international relations was established, separating democratic countries from all and any forms of dictatorship. This concept lay at the heart of the political initiative of the governments of the United States, Poland, and later other countries, to form the Community of Democracies. The fundamental objective was to replace the cold-war containment doctrine with a more offensive, and more optimistic vision for the progress of democracy in the world. The goal was to put into motion a process contributing to the creation of a democracy-friendly world; to put pressure on non-democratic countries, but also on formally democratic countries to become liberal and more modern, thus indirectly advancing the cause of stability and peace.

Two years ago in Warsaw, the first Community of Democracies Ministerial Conference was held. A parallel large international seminar for non-governmental organisations, intellectuals, businessmen, and religious leaders also took place in Warsaw. This was indeed proof of an understanding that in today’s world, international relations are not limited to interstate diplomacy, and that democratic progress also depends largely on citizen initiative and action, both on a national and international level. The Polish Stefan Batory Foundation, which I have the honour of chairing, was privileged to co-organise the Warsaw conference with Freedom House, New York. The purpose of the conference then was the some as that of ours here in Seoul: to reflect on the condition of modern democracy, but also to inspire and influence the gathering of foreign affairs ministers of democratic states – the Community of Democracies - to promote democratic ideals world-wide.

Since our last meeting in Warsaw the situation has changed dramatically. After the tragic events of September 11th 2001, the Wilsonian words of a “world secure for democracy” were replaced with the imperative of assuring fundamental security of the world. Although all democratic governments understand that the promotion of democracy serves as an important tool for the long term prospects for a more peaceful world, it is not as prominent on their agenda as it was a few years ago. However, for those who have lived under dictatorships, and for those who live in poor quality democracies, in semi-democracies, in facade democracies, or in pseudo-democracies, democracy without qualifications – true democracy – remains a major objective and a dream worth dreaming.

We are deeply convinced that democracy expansion and respect for human rights are powerful weapons for the fight against all the basic threats faced by today’s world. This is why we should do everything possible to ensure that the progress of democracy will remain at the center of the democratic powers’ attention throughout all continents, and that this objective continue to mobilize more and more people both in non-democratic and in democratic countries in the world. I hope that our conference will serve this noble purpose.

Thank you for your attention.