|
||||||||||||
GPF List-Serve
September 7 - 17, 1999
Greetings from Global Policy Forum!
Hurricane Floyd lashed New York furiously on Thursday, September 16 with high winds and fierce rain. Most offices closed in the afternoon, including the United Nations. In the morning, though, before the full fury of Floyd had hit, the United Nations Security Council heard its first-ever briefing from Mary Robinson, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.
For several years, some Council members have tried to get agreement on such a briefing, always to be rebuffed by others, especially China. But for more than a year, the Chinese position on human rights has softened and the Chinese delegation has increasingly agreed to human rights wording in Council documents. Finally, on this occasion, China at last assented to an invitation to Ms. Robinson to address an important debate on the protection of civilians in armed conflict. As the hurricane winds roared outside, the Council quietly marked a milestone in internatinal affairs.
On Monday, September 13, when Floyd was still simmering in the Caribbean, Jim Paul arrived back in the GPF office, after a trip to Berlin where he attended a conference on Global Capital Flows and Development Finance. The conference, sponsored by UNDP and the Development and Peace Foundation of Bonn, was attended by nearly a hundred academics, political figures, NGO representatives and UN staff. Jim chaired one of the sessions.
During two days of proceedings, the conference engaged some lively debate, centering on a paper presented by Inge Kaul, Director of the UNDP Office for Development Studies. Kaul argued for a "market friendly" approach to development and cautioned against "repression" -- that is, regulation. Her critics wondered about speculation and the volatility of private capital, as well as the concentration of private investments in just a small number of countries. Given the deep crisis in Asia, Latin America, Africa and the countries of Eastern Europe, they asked why unregulated private capital should be promoted uncritically by any development agency.
Kaul's paper along with other conference papers can be found at the Development and Peace Foundation website. Our congratulations to former GPF intern Michele Roth, who now works for DPF and is in charge of that excellent web site.
While the conference was going on, the rightward-moving government of Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder got soundly defeated in local elections, providing a clear judgement by the voters on its harsh budget cuts and financial orthodoxy. When Uschi Eid of the Green Party, the Deputy Development Minister, took her turn on the conference podium, she faced some sharp criticism on the deep cuts by the German government of its contributions to UNDP. In the budget for the year 2000, the German contribution will decline by 50% from about 80,000 DM to about 40,000DM, a cut of some $24 million, down to just a third of its level a short time ago. This marks a sad retreat from the commitment to multilaterial development assistance that the governing parties made in their election campaign just one year ago.
One of the most articulate and forceful speakers at the Berlin conference was Peter Eigen, Chairman of Transparency International, an NGO that fights corruption worldwide. Eigen talked, among other things, about new German laws making it impossible for German firms to deduct from their federal income taxes the bribes paid to foriegn officials to gain contracts. Previously this was a routine pratice (in France, bribes are still deductible).
In a private conversation over lunch, a high-ranking member of the German Foreign Ministry carried out a long scornful diatribe about the lack of morality among judges and civil servants in the Third World. But when asked about why Western governments had covered-up or even promoted the vast bribery, corruption and money-laundering in Russia, he argued that this had been a policy necessity, to assure the ascendency of Yeltsin and the triumph of the free market. "We simply had to do this, he insisted." What kind of a mental firewall, we wonder, allows people to live with such views and believe in their own essential rectitude?
On Monday, September 13, the NGO Working Group on the Security Council had one of its most informative and agreeable meetings ever -- a luncheon with members of the Netherlands delegation hosted by Ambassador Peter van Walsum, current President of the Security Council. The ambassador provided his guests with a riveting inside account of his efforts to organize an effective Council response to the crisis in East Timor. The Council took several unprecedented steps during this process, sending a delegation of five of its members to Jakarta to put pressure on the Indonesian government so that it would agree to a UN-backed force.
The Dutch presidency has many accomplishments to its credit, including the Robinson briefing, the East Timor resolution, and an unprecedented number of open meetings of the Council. This latter step, usually opposed by the Permanent Members, allows for far greater transparency and accountability than the Council's usual closed consultations.
The NGO Working Group also had a breakfast briefing with the Argentine delegation on Wednesday the 15th, after a Council emergency session on East Timor that lasted past 3:00 AM. Though there was a general feeling that the UN should have acted sooner to avert the slaughter in the former Portugese colony, the Argentines expressed relief that a robust resolution had finally been put in place and that a strong force would soon be deployed.
Since there is some confusion about what the Council adopted, and why the UN did not act sooner, a few comments here are in order:
The main delay in UN action was, of course, due to Indonesian unwillingness to allow an international force to come into the territory of East Timor. Some NGOs have argued that the UN should have sent a force anyway, since the international community did not recognize Indonesian sovereignty over the territory. However, no country was willing to send a force that might meet military opposition from the Indonesian armed forces. So whatever the legality of the matter, the UN could not send a force until Jakarta agreed.
The Security Council in Resolution 1264, approved Wednesday morning September 15, authorized not a UN peacekeeping operation but a "multinational force" (sometimes referred to as a "coalition of the willing"). The Resolution called for a peacekeeping force to replace the MNF, as soon as practicable. It is not now clear how soon this will be.
In an effort to get the widest possible number of participating countries, the resolution set up a special "trust fund" so that rich countries can make funds available to countries that want to send troops but cannot afford to do so. Normally, countries participating in an MNF pay for their own contribution of forces and there is no UN finance at all.
The Council felt that a UN Peacekeeping Operation (PKO) could not be set up and deployed fast enough to address the crisis. This delay was largely due to United States policy, including a 15-day pre-authorization period for Congressional scrutiny of all new PKO missions. The time period for Congressional consultation can be overridden by the President, but only if he wishes to do so and believes it is a case of urgent "national interest." This President Clinton was not willing to do.
Additionally, the US has refused to fund the development of UN peacekeeping standby arrangements to allow for rapid deployment. For instance, a mobile command center, proposed by Canada and others, was strenuously opposed by Helms and others, and also by the Pentagon.
To put a substantial force into the field, with proper coordination, requires quite a complex process, even if the force is only lightly-armed. The UN has tried to build up the military expertise to do this, but the UN budget crisis (for which the US is largely responsible) has prevented the costly staff and infrastructure needed, both at headquarters and in terms of pre-positioned supplies, coordinated joint military exercises and all the rest.
Another factor preventing rapid deployment of UN PKO forces: the US has refused to permit a unified UN funding arrangement under which peacekeeping operations could be launched quickly from a financial standpoint. At present, the UN must set up a special budget for each operation, a process that can take weeks before funds are actually in place.
In the best of circumstances it would have taken several weeks to launch a UN PKO, assuming Congress gave the go-ahead. No one on the Security Council wanted to wait, since there had already been far too much waiting.
Under the circumstances, the MNF seems to be a creative response. Australia is the main contributor and was ready to deploy immediately on Wednesday or Thursday. But in order to assemble a truly multinational force there had to be further delay til Sunday, so that units from the UK (Nepalese Ghurkas), Thailand, and others could come together.
All this action has given the Security Council a new sense of purpose and relevance, after the embarrasment of the Kosovo crisis. Kudos are due especially to Amb. van Walsum for his leadership of the Council and Amb. Antonio Monteiro of Portugal who labored tirelessly to advocate a more vigorously international response to the crisis.
Readers will be interested to see GPF's latest postings of UN financial data, through August 31. We are sorry to report that the United States paid only a small part of its obligation towards its regular budget obligations during the first eight months of the year and now owes $570 million out of a total oustanding of $851 million -- some 67% of the amount owed by all countries. Additionally, the UN's second largest payer, Japan, has withheld most of its regular budget payment, owing $156 million. In such grave financial circumstances, we invite you to work for the Millennium Mobilization events on October 23rd, to remind the governments of the world to pay their dues and keep the UN from collapse.
Finally, GPF welcomes intern Marc Sutton of the UK. A graduate of the University of Exeter, who has also studied at the University of Uppsala, Marc is now studying in the graduate program in Political Economy at the New School for Social Research. GPF is also pleased to welcome back Christian Kaufholz of Columbia University who worked very effectively on our Security Council program over the summer and will be contributing to this area of our work again this fall. More staff news will follow shortly, as we assemble the fall GPF team.
