Global Policy Forum

by Mike Moore *

Once again, as it has before in the past 100 years, the United States stands unchallenged in the world in terms of economic and military might. It has learned from these occasions and now it faces the need, once again, to apply the lessons.

The most important is that of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who, determined to avoid the pitfalls that had stymied Woodrow Wilson's efforts at creating a structure for international order after World War I, began planning a postwar international architecture even before World War II was over. That structure, which included the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the Marshall Plan, NATO and the predecessor agency of the World Trade Organization, delivered economic growth, peace and progress unparalleled in human history. NATO, though it has been shaken and tested over the years, has been the most important of all these institutions.

But when the Berlin Wall collapsed nearly a half-century after war's end and the Cold War was won, it had a domino effect, creating new relationships throughout Central and Eastern Europe, Latin America and Africa. Now, as the United States again stands all-powerful, there is unease about U.S. dominance, expressed most strongly with regard to the war in Iraq. The rest of the world seems not to realize just how fundamentally the United States changed after the horrors of 9/11: that it now truly sees itself as acting in self-defense abroad and certainly not in pursuit of empire.

Study the media response to the liberation of Iraq. The media of those countries that supported the coalition had photos of Saddam Hussein's statue falling and Iraqis cheering. Those that opposed the war -- and they weren't just Arab countries -- showed that brief moment in which an American flag was draped over the statue's face. In this postwar atmosphere, there is a lot of misunderstanding to be cleared up. One organization with some possibility for doing so is the United Nations. Unfortunately, the United Nations seems to be getting the blame from all sides for the discord, and this isn't fair. The United Nations can do only what its members allow it to do. That is perhaps why its practice has not matched its promise. It is held together at the moment by the idealism and hope of its founders and by its public face, Kofi Annan, whose dignity and integrity are unquestioned.

Its agencies, of course, do worthy social work. But surely the "greatest generation," which constructed the United Nations primarily in the image of American ideals, did not want it to be just a super-duper Red Cross, as important as that work is.

After 50 years, the United Nations and its agencies need a makeover. Two-thirds of the nations represented there did not exist a half-century ago. The world economy has changed dramatically in that time. There are now more than 100 international agencies whose functions and mandates overlap and whose policies are contradictory. Some bureaucrats told ministers at Doha, Qatar, not to launch a new trade round. One agency told China not to join the World Trade Organization -- instructions that could have had disastrous consequences had they been followed.

The U.N. secretary general has few executive powers, and when he seeks to make changes, vested interests and tenured bureaucrats who enjoy the privileges of the status quo block him. The management systems of the world body would make a Polish shipyard manager of the 1950s blush. For many in the world, multilateralism is simply an opportunity to block progress in the interest of achieving selfish gains.

A small group of representative leaders needs to take control and, writing on a blank page, come up with a new architecture. This has to be done from the top down; otherwise it will be lost in the details and compromised, and it will fail. Next, these leaders need to convince the world of the worthiness of their plan. President Bush would stun his critics if he were to take the lead. Only he can. Moreover, this must be done in parallel with other important work the administration is carrying out to build peace elsewhere in the Middle East.

No nation, mighty or modest, can combat terrorism, manage a tax system, provide clean air, fight the drug war and prevent AIDS without the cooperation of others. Woodrow Wilson, when challenging the U.S. Senate to adopt the League of Nations treaty, asked, "Will you reject this treaty and break the heart of the world?" It did, and another war followed.

That example tells us why the United Nations must be made to work and to live up to its promise.

The writer is a former director of the World Trade Organization and former prime minister of New Zealand.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Global Policy Forum distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C íŸ 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.