| Informal
Session with Dr. Phyllis Bennis on
Multilateralism, the US and UN Reform Multilateralism focuses on relations between governments and the role of the UN has been seen as the center of it. However, a new internationalism has given rise to a new paradigm to understand international relations. The world has changed and nation states are no longer the only actors. The new internationalism also focuses on the struggle of North-South relations and the role of the UN within a new context. The role of civil society and the struggle for peace and justice has emerged as a new global phenomenon. Demonstrations for peace prior to the US led war on Iraq demonstrated the extent of the global threat perceived by geographically dispersed countries and also their ability to mobilize globally. This has strengthened internationalism. In this context, we need to look at the UN and what it is and can be. In the past, the General Assembly represented the centerpiece of power. During the Cold War, there was an imposed paralysis on the Security Council. The legacy of colonialism (and the subsequent inability to discuss it) set the GA as the locus of power and the subsequent establishment of new agencies in the UN system to improve the lives of the poor, especially to improve the role of newly independent countries. This context gave rise to the NAM and the G-77. This trend lasted until the mid-1970s. The creation of a new economic order led to a change in the position of the US with respect to the UN. Caught off guard, this change led to a mobilization of the south through vehicles such as the NAM and the G-77. This action forces the US to wake up and question what is going on. The US began efforts to undermine them, especially during the Reagan administration. Opposition to multilateralism grew, clearly demonstrated from Kirkpatrick and Bolton’s new ‘goal’ to undermine the UN. This had a significant impact on the UN: it concentrated power out of the GA and into the SC. From 1985 forward, the SC emerges as the center of the UN. During this concentration of power in the SC, the US also began withholding dues from the UN. For many Americans, they remained unaware that this was happening. The impetus for this move came from a report by the Heritage Foundation which propounded the logic that the way to gain power in the UN is to withhold dues. Although this plan may sound counter logical, the thinking went that the US would obtain more power in withholding dues since countries would cater to you in the hopes of making you pay. As the Cold War ended, the question of UN reform arose. However, the discourse remained problematic because it moved away from what existed and only dealt with change at the Security Council level. However, the discourse remains problematic because it moved away from what existed and only dealt with change at the Security Council level. The question of change should have dealt with empowering the GA, returning to earlier days. Such a discourse would provide a better sense of possibilities within this new internationalism and the US drive towards empire. In the post-9/11 world, we witnessed an increase of negative drive and fear at the UN. 9/11 became an excuse for war and there was a fear of challenging the direction of US response. Bush needed to recognize that the US needed the rest of the world but the option was war or nothing. At the international level, US rhetoric was the same: either you are with us or with the terrorists. It was necessary not just to condemn terror but support the US response of war. The challenge for the UN was to take into account the fears arising from the post-9/11 situation but not allow it to determine the direction of the UN. The Bush administration is divided up into 4 factions: 1. Ideologues –
these are the most influential members (ex. Wolfowitz) surrounding Bush
and have been together since the 1980s. They militarized the US and gave
privilege to the Pentagon rather than the Department of State, effectively
emphasizing military over diplomatic answers. They wanted to create a
world where no country could imagine challenging US might and had a vision
to remake the world (ex. US democracy etc.) The combination of these forces led to an instrumentalist view of the UN: multilateralism meant an aggressive multilateralism. Iraq and Palestine About two years ago, I worked with the South African Mission on the question of international protection for Palestinians. The discussion at the time was to give the GA an opportunity to bring up the issue. If the SC remained paralyzed over the issue, the GA would be permitted (if not obligated) to take up the issue and effectively take over the call for Palestinian protection which includes Israeli civilians. This would happen in the following way: 1. A decision by countries
like the NAM decide to negotiate a framework of a UN centered plan with
respect to Palestine and Israel The current Roadmap is in trouble and has created false pretenses. The question of initiatives in the GA can be something as grandiose as the Palestine/Israel issue. In terms of Iraq, people were discussing different resolutions: 1. Condemn the war
and allow the US to send letter condemning an independent move by the
UN However, the question always returns to the political will to get everyone on board to confront the US. It comes back to a partnership between civil society, governments and multilateralism. Questions & Answers Q1:
Q2: Q3: A123: The notion that the US and its collation can replace and override the UN is problematic. There is a need to think about how to challenge this. Regarding the question of the Middle East, the situation will worsen. The UN needs to be involved and the issues need to be raised in the GA. The Charter calls for regional and then international responses. The problem is that Israel is excluded from the region and keeps itself out of the region. It is Israel’s choice. It is outside of normal relations with its neighbors and therefore their role in regional initiatives is problematic. How can the South deal with the US? It needs to broaden its views of who are its colleagues in Washington. You need to look beyond Powell to Congress. 65% of Democrats voted against the war. Allies need to be sought out beyond the administration like in the Black Caucus, the Progressive Caucus etc. In terms of Bush’s alliances, I’m not sure why. His father was much more of a multilateralist. There is a need for collective response and the use of the UN through caucuses like NAM to address global threats like AIDS, poverty but also empire. There is a need to react to US power in not allowing the UN to respond. Q4: A4567: The ideologues in the administration were from the beginning a main force. From January 2001 to September 2001, there was an overt shift to unilateralsim (the unsigning of the ICC, Kyoto). Their goals are clear. However, the response of the rest of the world was different. There was growing opposition. The US lost its seat on the human rights commission. In Johannesburg, the US attempted to get a walkout but only Israel followed. However, after 9/11, all opposition shut down. On 9/11, Rumsfeld said he was going after Iraq. He knew they could get support for it. If Clinton had been in power, media response would have been the same but war would not have been framed in empire. The administration thinks that this is the way to remake the world. These assumptions are based on false information. Opposition groups were detached from the current situation in Iraq. The outcome of a happy ending did not happen. The Iraqi people are happy Hussein is gone but not with the US occupation. The lack of pressure on Israel gives it little incentive to end the Occupation. They are creating a wall of apartheid. They would not be building it if they really wanted to tear down the wall and create a state of Palestine. There is a rhetoric of peace. The international community has an obligation. It must stop and look at the causes, which is the occupation of Palestine. The US is like a real estate broker, it helps the two sides negotiate but has a vested interest in one. Regarding the democratization of the Security Council, the US will consistently fight it. This is not just about the US but all five permanent members. There is a need for an alternative power center. The issue of the GA is a viable option . Q8: Q9: A89: --ooOoo--
|