Global Policy Forum

Greetings from Global Policy Forum!

Not long ago, a respected UN ambassador referred to Acton's Law in a discussion of contemporary international politics. "No matter how much we may admire qualities of particular nations," he said, "Acton's Law defines national conduct in the international arena -- 'Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.'"

Three important policy speeches last week provided evidence to support the ambassador's judgement. The speeches reveal a deep and growing divide between the super-power in Washington and its frustrated European allies on the conduct of international affairs, especially on the importance of the United Nations.

On Tuesday, October 2, Richard Holbrooke, the new U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, delivered a major policy statement at the National Press Club in Washington. Holbrooke's speech unabashedly affirmed US unilateralism and presented an astonishingly negative view of the UN.

Holbrooke spoke of the UN's "ineffectiveness," "its failures," "blatant anti-Americanisms," "its anti-Semitism," "its significant flaws," "its many shortcomings," "its faults," "its antiquated biases," "padding the lifestyle of bureaucrats living on Park Avenue" and so on. He claimed that in spite of these shortcomings, the US should support the UN and pay its bills. But his pitch seemed designed to reinforce unilateralist assumptions and anti-UN prejudices rather than provide an alternative policy vision.

Warning that "we must always approach peacekeeping skeptically," Holbrooke stated that "as of early October there are only 38 - let me repeat 38 - U.S. military personnel who are part of UN peacekeeping missions." compared to 260,000 U.S. military personnel deployed around the world. "There are almost as many [US] troops in the Bahamas alone," he proudly told his audience, "than are assigned to UN peacekeeping missions."

In a clear reference to Washington's preference for NATO, or US-lead coalitions, Holbrooke affirmed that "the US will not always act through the UN. We have other vital instruments of national power at our disposal, as was demonstrated in both Bosnia and Kosovo, where NATO acted without UN authority. I would advocate similar actions again if they were in the national interest." He went on to outline the "enormous economic leverage" the US could also bring to bear to achieve its aims.

"The UN works best," said Holbrooke, " . . . when it works hand in hand with regional organizations or, on select occasions, coalitions of the willing. Regional organizations have the resources, weapons, knowledge and most important, the will to succeed. The Security Council can have an important role in authorizing such missions. But in many cases, the intervention will be most effective if handled by regional states who have direct interests at stake." (the Holbrooke text)

The very next day, October 3, French Foreign Minister Hubert Védrine, enunciated a radically different view -- a direct argument with Holbrooke -- in a major policy speech at the French Institute for International Relations in Paris. French President Jacques Chirac followed with a speech of his own the next day. Both minister and president had the same message -- that the United States poses a serious threat to the world because of its unique power, its unilateral action and its self-justifying moral certitude.

US leaders and policy analysts, said Védrine, are convinced that their nation is the "indispensable country" and that it should remain dominant "in the interest of all humanity." It remains to be seen, said the minister, whether the US can establish reliable partnerships with its allies and whether it can move from unilateralism to multilateralism. "We cannot accept," he said, "either a politically unipolar world . . . or the unilateralism of the sole hyper-power." He bluntly called for "less arrogance and more dialogue."

On the following day, Chirac continued in the same vein. France, he said, advocates greatly strengthened foreign and military policy for the European Union, in hopes that a stronger and more unified Europe will counterbalance the United States and bring about an equilibrium of power in the global arena. In July, the French government circulated a proposal on this subject to its partners, who expressed considerable enthusiasm in the wake of the Kosovo conflict.

Speaking of the United Nations, Chirac affirmed that the world body must be strengthened and given "sufficient financial resources." It is, he said, "the keystone of all the [international] system and sole place for the democratic development of universal consciousness and international law." "France is not able to agree, and will not agree, that a regional defense organization [NATO] should arrogate to itself the role of the world's policeman," he said, insisting that this is a role "assigned by the UN Charter to the Security Council and to it alone." Chirac closed his speach with a call for a "new world, multipolar and multilateral." (the Vedrine and Chirac speeches in French)

At GPF we have no particular illusions about France or Europe as repositories of virtue on the international stage. But we are inclined to view these speeches as an extremely important watershed in contemporary global politics. While the United States continues to affirm its right to dominate global politics in the post-Cold War world, critical voices are emerging. We have long heard such views expressed in the corridors of the UN. And recently we have observed shifts in behavior in the Security Council. But now a European leader has clearly and publicly defined the crisis. The Germans and other Europeans agree, though they will be more cautious in saying so. Even the UK is taking some distance from its American partner. The UN may begin to benefit from this European declaration of independence. But the dangers of multipolar conflict may be as great as the dangers of the pox Americana. Only if we can strengthen and democratize international institutions can we be confident of a more promising and peaceful future.

While the transatlantic politicians make their public proclamations, those amassing wealth act more discreetly. This week, we learned of a private meeting in December on the Hawaian island of Maui entitled the "Offshore Wealth Summit," where financial discretion and tax avoidance are the watchwords. For three days, participants will compare notes and learn from other experts how to best shelter money from taxes, be assured privacy in their transactions, and "protect assets from scrutiny and attack." For inspiration, Col. Oliver North will be present.

Among other events at the Maui gathering will be a seminar on "Owning Your Own Bank for the Ultimate in Profit, Privacy and Tax Protection." The seminar prospectus tells the reader that: "There is no greater symbol of power and prestige than to own your own private international bank. And owning one can be as simple as setting up an office at a resident agent location in an offshore locale such as Vanuatu or Nauru." (Nauru was one of three new states just admitted to the United Nations.) The acting Foreign Minister of Fiji will also be on hand at the meeting to promote his island as a tax haven. We learn that "recently enacted legislation now authorizes permanent residency in Fiji without having to live there." How very handy!

We came across a fascinating and complementary report on "Financial Havens, Banking Secrecy and Money Laundering" published by the UN's Office of Drug Control and Crime Prevention. This week on GPF's web site, we have posted a section of the report, which details the geography of money laundering (the entire report is available via a link). The report has some intriguing information. While it points out that the latest and most regulation-free havens are located in South Pacific islands (as the "Offshore Summit" makes clear), it also says that two states of the United States -- Montana and Hawaii -- have recently taken steps to become "offshore" havens as well!

Back in the world of politics at Turtle Bay, the week saw some tough maneuvering over the fate of Under Secretary General Hans von Sponeck, the UN Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq. A German national, von Sponeck has been under attack by the United States and Britain because of his statements that the current sanctions and "oil-for-food" policy are producing a humanitarian crisis. Von Sponeck's predecessor, Denis Halliday, was forced out in October 1998 for taking a similar stance. Various humanitarian agencies, including UNICEF, have long urged a change in the sanctions because of their negative effect on health, especially of children. Virtually all European countries favor a policy change.

The US is especially keen to keep the sanctions in place, so Washington hopes to oust von Sponeck to put pressure on all critics of its policy. The sanctions cannot be changed without an affirmative vote of the Security Council, where the United States and the UK both hold vetoes. The dispute over the USG has caused further strains in US-UN relations, because Secretary General Annan has insisted that von Sponeck will stay on. Annan has openly criticized US policy, telling the Washington Post that the US is "disrupting the operation" of the UN oil-for-food program. The SG has objected to the over 500 "indefinite holds" imposed by the US on humanitarian shipments to Iraq, and he has also expressed concern at the negative US stance in negotiations for a new Security Council resolution. On the site during the week, we posted several articles on this critical dispute. Much of the UN's effectiveness and credibility are now at stake in finding a resolution.