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.