Posted on 15-9-2003
New
Internationalism Possible
by Hazel Henderson, www.hazelhenderson.com
As I leave for Brasil for two weeks of meetings with President
"Lula's"
senior officials, the members of his Economic and Social Council,
as well
as seminars with business and NGO leaders, I am heartened by
Brasil's
leadership at the WTO meeting in Cancun, Mexico.
Brasil led in forming the Group of 21 with India and China to
challenge the
USA and the EU to eliminate the subsidies to their farmers,
which destroy
many farmers in developing countries. At last, WTO rules will
have to be
reshaped to address current trade's negative impacts on developing
countries, wages and workplace conditions, widening poverty
gaps and the
environment. These were never "side issues", but an integral
result of
narrow economic ideologies of the "Washington Consensus", focusing
on
GDP-growth at less than full cost prices, ignoring corporate
social
responsibility, social justice, human rights, health and the
environment.
United Nations (UN) agreements in all these areas of human well-being
supercede the trade-at-all-costs agenda of the WTO and all regional
and
bilateral trade and investment agreements. Human rights, corporate
social
investment and responsibility may yet humanize and reshape world
trade! My
new editorial picks up on how the current tragedies in Iraq
are driving the
reform agenda to revitalize the UN.
The Iraq debacle is providing a historic opportunity to implement
long
sought, widely supported reforms needed for the UN - to assure
its
independence and its vital role in this new century. The breakdown
in the
Security Council over the US war on Iraq illustrated its obsolete
aspects. An anachronism of the post-World War II era, its permanent
five
members: the USA, Britain, France, China and Russia with their
veto power,
finally demonstrated all its dysfunctional aspects.
Most reformers agree on the indispensability of the Security
Council - and
the shape and direction of needed reforms. The Council needs
to dispense
finally with the veto - a relic nod to the winners of World
War II. Then
the permanent seats can be rearranged to accommodate important
new world
players, including India, Brasil, Japan, South Africa and newly
democratic
Indonesia with the world's largest Muslim population. To keep
the
Council's size manageable, the seats of Britain and France could
be
combined into one rotating seat representing the European Union.
Another long sought security reform - more necessary than ever
in a world
of terrorism and asymmetrical threats - is a standing UN peace-keeping
and
humanitarian force - properly trained and ready to meet security
threats
and natural disasters. Together with interpol, this professional
unit
could proactively monitor terrorist groups. Funding of these
functions and
all UN humanitarian and development operations need no longer
rely only on
dues from its member countries. The recalcitrance of the USA,
which still
owes the UN over $500 million in back dues, has shown that new,
more
reliable sources of funds are needed. A smaller contribution
from the USA
is also desirable to reduce its influence. The UN, with its
miniscule $1.25
billion annual budget (one quarter of New York City's) can tap
a wide
variety of new financing sources. Many of these are promoted
by the
increasingly powerful global NGO community and public policy
networks. Many were submitted and documented in the PrepCom
reports of the
UN Summit on Financing for Development in Monterrey, Mexico,
March
2002. These included very small fees (1% or less) on the $1.5
trillion of
daily currency transactions, which could yield several hundred
billion
dollars annually. This feasible system would serve the additional
purposes
of reducing speculation (90% of these transactions) while reducing
these
destructive flows of "hot money" destabilizing member countries'
domestic
economies.
Other equally viable, well-researched proposals include taxing
global
transportation and airline tickets (which do not currently include
their
full social and environmental costs) and authorizing the UN
to sell bonds
in the same way as the World Bank is funded. Many a grandparent
would thus
be able to help assure a more peaceful future for their grandchildren.
The
well-assessed proposal to recast security from exclusively military
means
to insurance and risk-assessment modalities - more suitable
for today's
Information Age world - is a United Nations Security Insurance
Agency
(UNSIA) as an arm of the Security Council. The UNSIA would provide
a new
line of business to the insurance industry: assessing risks
and writing
policies for those countries applying to UNSIA for guaranteed
and timely
peace-keeping and humanitarian assistance when under domestic
and foreign
threats. Many countries have seen the benefits to Costa Rica
in abolishing
its military in 1947. Diverting such expenditures to investments
in human
and social capital has catapulted Costa Rica to "first world"
status on the
UN's Human Development Index. The premiums from these insurance
policies
would fund the Security Council's need for rapid deployment,
standing peace
keeping and humanitarian contingents. These contingents would
continue to
be trained and provided by willing member countries, such as
Canada and others.
All such viable proposals for diversifying the UN's funding
base have been
thoroughly researched and many, such as UNSIA, are supported
by several
Nobel Peace Laureates. Why have they been waiting for implementation
for
so many years - even decades? First, Cold War politics and later,
they
incurred the strenuous disapproval of now retired US Senator
Jesse Helms
and other right-wing politicians in the USA. Powerful financial
interests
opposed greater power-sharing between the UN and its two breakaway
financial agencies, the World Bank and the International Monetary
Fund
charged with enforcing "Washington Consensus" economic policies
on
developing countries. Such opposition is now discredited.
Even as many of these same funding proposals were re-asserted
in the UN
Financing for Development PrepComs by global NGOs and developing
countries
of the G-77, they were quietly vetoed by US Ambassador to the
UN John
Negroponte, on orders from the Bush Administration. Today, Bush's
popularity is waning rapidly, 54% rating his job as fair to
poor
(Reuters-Zogby, Sept. 2003). Near majorities now repudiate the
unilateralist, preemptive strike policies of Bush and his neo-con
cabinet:
Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and their entrepreneurial
"eminence grise" Richard Perle (still a member for the Defense
Policy
Board, despite numerous revelations of financial conflicts of
interest). The deficit-ridden US economy with its high unemployment
level
is now the key concern of voters. Bush's disastrous policies
have led to
the return of the Taliban and warlordism in Afghanistan and
the deepening
quagmire in Iraq.
The world sees again the indispensable role of the UN - the
only forum that
can convene all the world's nations. Even the Bush Administration,
now
deeply divided, is seeking UN help. The US now seeks "burden
sharing" in
paying for its ill-considered adventure in Iraq. Only the UN
can
legitimize reluctant member nations' involvement in re-building
Iraq. The
US President 's father, George H.W. Bush may help his son realize
that the
UN is never likely to be "irrelevant." Secretary-General Kofi
Annan has
deftly guided the UN through these latest storms - in spite
of charges of
bending too much to US pressure. Annan has introduced many innovations,
including his UN Global Compact's nine principles of good corporate
citizenship on human rights, labor standards and the environment,
now
signed by over 1000 corporations globally.
Today, even as it mourns, there is a new era of opportunities
opening to
revitalize the UN. All these new funding sources and renewed
global
goodwill can expand confidence in the world body. Even 63% of
the US
public is still solidly behind the UN taking the lead in global
security
and peacekeeping. Enacting these reforms would be a fitting
epitaph to the
thousands of Afghans, Iraqis, Liberians and other innocents,
as well as a
tribute to all the world's displaced refugees, abused women
and hungry
children.
There is no shortage of funds in the world - only misplaced
priorities,
defunct economic ideologies and bloated weapons budgets. One
quarter of
global weapons spending - together with some of the international
taxes on
speculators and other abusers of our global commons - could
provide the
world with needed public goods: peace-keeping, health and education
for
all, cleaner air and water, environmental restoration, and millions
of new
jobs and livelihoods. Globalization can be humanized. The World
Social
Forum has shown that another world is possible - and achievable!
****
Hazel Henderson, author of Beyond Globalization and other books.
She
co-edited The UN: Policy and Financing Alternatives, Elsevier,
UK (1995)
with Harlan Cleveland and Inge Kaul, in which these proposals
are detailed.
|