Exclusive Interview ‘I am a supporter of globalization’

His Holiness the Dalai Lama

Getting
to the Dalai Lama is a long and treacherous journey. The religious
leader and Tibet’s head of state lives in exile at the foot of the
Himalayas, two hours north of New Dehli by airplane. Here in
Dharamshala his residence lies on an idyllic hill, right next to a
Buddhist temple. Those who want to get to him must go through strict
controls performed by both Indian as well as Tibetan security guards.
Even bare fingers are patted down. Fears over His Holiness are
great. On one hand, the over 50-year-old non-violent fight for the
autonomy of the Tibetan state has made the Nobel Peace Prize winner an
international superstar. On the other hand, the Chinese have seen him
as their archenemy since 1959. But for years now the monk has
shifted his focus from solely the Tibetan question and the fight
against violence and has engaged himself in matters of the global
economy and the challenge of how wealth can be distributed more fairly.
Shortly before his trip to Germany at the end of July the Dalai Lama
warns not only against greed, but also against having too much faith in
the state.  WELT ONLINE: Your Holiness, for the Tibetans
you are a divine king and you have many followers in the western world
who idolize you. Do you have any weaknesses? Dalai Lama:
(laughs) Yes, I am lazy. Of course I wake up every morning at 3:30am
and do some excercises, mediate, eat breakfast and meditate again. This
goes on for four or five hours. In the spiritual regard I am not lazy.
But when I sit in an airplane I always see people reading, writing or
working on their computers, preparing presentations. I never do that –
no homework, no preparations. These are signs of my laziness. Does it bother you? No,
because when I prepare for something to intensely I always feel like it
is too fake. I feel much better when I am spontaneous, because it comes
from the heart. Can you imagine how long I spent preparing for this interview? (laughs
again): You are German, so everything has to be precise. Besides, your
questions have to be interesting. If I had to be the one asking
questions, I would prepare for it too. But I just need to answer your
questions, and if I don’t know an answer, I will just tell you. Ok, how will we solve the financial crisis in the short-term? See,
this is one of those questions – I don’t know. The politicians must
decide this. I am no expert in regards to solving a severe crisis. The
same goes for violence and terrorism. In the short-term governments
will have to act to prevent from endangering its citizens, which is the
right thing to do. But with all the short-term actions we are taking,
we shouldn’t forget the root cause of the problem. What, in your opinion, is the root cause of the financial crisis? Greed
and gambling. Many people and companies only have one goal: money,
money, and more money. Greed is ok when you let others profit from it,
but greed for oneself is bad, it makes you ill. The egotistical
ambition to always want to earn more money harms both the company and
the individual himself. That is the biggest weakness of many managers –
the financial crisis has proven this. So it’s ok for someone to earn a lot as long as they share? Wealth
is not necessarily a bad thing when it has been earned in an honest
manner and neither other individuals nor the environment suffered for
it. As Buddhists we recognize that wealth is a basic prerequisite for a
happy life. But a billionaire also only has ten fingers. He can fit
three or four rings on each finger, but that would look weird. The
satisfaction many millionaires who don’t share their wealth have in
their heads is fictitious and not real. Rich people should help reduce
poverty. Some managers earn 10, 20 or even 30 million euros per year. You really don’t have a problem with this? Just
like in the music industry or sports there are exceptions. They can
earn as much as they want, as long as it remains transparent and
traceable why they earn so much money. Unfortunately there are only few
such people. It is, however, unacceptable if a chief executive
continues to increase his wealth while the company is sliding into
bankruptcy, the shareholders lose their savings and the employees lose
their jobs or don’t earn enough to afford a decent standard of living. Let’s
assume a chief executive discovers that he can develop a software in
India for a tenth of the price it would cost in Germany. In order to do
so, he must cut 1,000 jobs in Germany and create new ones in India. The
owners of the company are pushing him to do this. What should the
manager do? The manager should consider the situation from
all possible angles – the shareholders, the employees, the clients and
society. Yes, even global society. A good manager must have a clear
image of the problem. This sounds self-evident, but it doesn’t happen
that often. Most of the time it is about maximizing profits. Companies can’t survive without profits. Yes,
but companies are living, complex organisms and not profit machines.
The profit should therefore not be the object of a company, but rather
a result of good work. Just like a person can’t survive for long
without food and water, a company can’t survive without profits. Not
that I would ever reduce the purpose of a human to that, as eating and
drinking are the only prerequisites for a meaningful life. How
do you feel about western companies investing in low-cost countries? Is
that exploitation or does it help the national economy of these
countries to close the gap with industrialized nations? It
depends on the investor’s incentive. I don’t think that many of the
companies to invest in Indian or Chinese businesses are really
interested in the Indian and Chinese people’s well-being. Quite often
the interest lies in exploiting cheap labor, which I disapprove of. Yet
if a company has a moral responsibility to improve the quality of life
and to help China as a whole, then it is fine to profit from cheap
labor. Global businesses can help China to become more democratic, help
it to achieve an independent legal system and help to ensure a freedom
of the press. You won’t make many friends among those against globalization with your argument. I
am essentially a supporter of globalization. In the past societies and
countries could seal themselves off from the rest of the world, but
today this has become impossible. When we search for organizations that
have the capacity and ability to improve our world, global companies
are at the top of the list. In particular integrated global
corporations are in an ideal position to support developing countries
to close the gap to leading national economies. Do you not have sympathy for anti-globalists? I
do when they remind leaders and companies that it is about more than
just making profits. At the same time the growing opposition to
globalization is dependent on our reluctance to accept the principle
that everything is perishable: Meaning, the fact that everything is
subject to permanent change. For Buddhists this is one of the basic
pieces of wisdom that one must accept. These liberal attitudes don’t really fit to someone who once called himself a Marxist monk. Do you still see yourself as one? Yes,
I still believe I am a Marxist monk. I don’t see a contradiction here
either. In the Marxist theory the focus lies on the just allocation of
wealth. From a moral perspective this is a correct claim. Capitalism,
on the other hand, values the accruement of wealth – the allocation of
it doesn’t matter here initially. In a worst case scenario the rich
will keep getting richer while the poor keep getting poorer. Why is it then that you are so against communism and socialism? Communism?
What is communism? Is China a communist country? (He laughs out loud).
I am confused. The Chinese communists are communists without a
communist ideology. But if you mean socialism, like it first existed in
the Eastern Block and now in North Korea and Cuba, I believe it goes
against human nature; it destroys creativity. It is not enough for
people to have just enough to eat, clothes and a roof over their heads.
We need to self-actualize ourselves. Buddha encouraged entrepreneurs to
become successful through dependability and sales skills. Those who are
successful can help others. Yet you used to be a long-time admirer of Mao Zedong. How could you be so wrong? I
am still convinced that Mao Zedong was a Marxist, who wanted to help
workers and farmers, in his early years up until the mid-1950s. In the
mid-1950s I spent six months in Beijing and another four months in many
other parts of China. The party leaders, to me, seemed really dedicated
to their cause. What impressed you about Mao? He
always looked like a farmer – his clothes were old and ruined. And when
he spoke, he did so very slowly, so every word had an importance. He
never beat around the bush, never said niceties; he always came
straight to the point. All of his party members that I met back then
were like that, which impressed me. How did Mao fail, in your opinion? Mao
once told that the communist party must endure criticism, and that
self-criticism was very important. Without criticism every system of
power is like a fish without water. But then, in 1957, suddenly all
party officials who dared to criticize were eliminated. That was the
end of Maoism. The system failed because of its own arrogance and a
lack of self-discipline. The abolishment of private property led to
many belongings ending up in the hands of a state that devolved into a
party elite which exerted an authoritarian reign – much like
aristocrats of the past. What role does the state play for you in the economy? That
is a very hard question. I don’t think that equality can be established
on a national level. Nations can cause a lot of damage. This is why I
warn against expecting too much from governments when it comes to the
redistribution or regulation of the financial markets. People will
always find ways around rules and laws – even if they are the best
rules or laws. Or do you think it was the lack of regulations that lead
to this financial crisis? The rules in the United States were good; but
responsible action demands more than law-abidance. (Translated by Carolin Wittek)Related:EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW: ‘Companies need hearts and brains