Uniting the Two Superpowers

NOTES

Essentially, RTP applies the same reasonable principles of appropriate and proportionate intervention that govern the behaviour of a police department or a good samaritan when confronted with the scene of a violent or potentially violent conflict, such as an assault, a kidnapping, or evidence of domestic abuse. Violent intervention must only be as a last resort and undertaken with maximum care.

[D]isarmament ultimately must be universal. . . .The double standard of the United States and other nuclear states, in which we propose to keep these deadliest of weapons indefinitely while denying them to the rest of the world, cannot endure. . . .A global prohibition against all weapons of mass destruction is the best protection against the danger of terrorists' acquiring and using them. In effect, the disarmament obligations being imposed on Iraq must be applied to the entire world. All nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and long-range missiles should be banned everywhere, by all nations. This is the path to a safer and more secure future. 

Of course, a ban on weapons of mass destruction would be meaningless without robust means of verifying and enforcing such prohibitions. A world of disarmament will require much stronger mechanisms of monitoring and enforcement than now exist. The policies we have supported for the peaceful disarmament of Iraq - rigorous inspections, targeted sanctions and multilateral coercive diplomacy - can and should be applied universally to rid the world of weapons of mass destruction. The UN weapons-inspection capability should be increased a hundredfold and deployed throughout the world to monitor and verify the universal ban on weapons of mass destruction. Nations that refuse to comply with verified disarmament requirements should be subjected to targeted sanctions and coercive diplomatic pressures from the UN and other regional security organizations. Nations that cooperate with disarmament mandates should receive inducements in the form of economic assistance, trade and technology preferences, and security assurances. These policy tools, combined with a serious commitment to sustainable economic development for developing nations, are viable means for helping to assure international compliance with a global disarmament mandate. 

[T]he largest trans-national corporations now wield enormous economic and political power. The number of multinational companies jumped from 7,000 in 1970 to 40,000 by 1995. If they were states, 50 companies would now appear in the list of the world's largest one hundred economies. The five largest companies in the world have combined sales greater than the total incomes of the world's poorest 46 countries.

While Washington tears up one weapons of mass destruction treaty after another, a recent Zogby poll finds that 70-77% of Americans strongly believe their government should sign (or re-sign) the Treaty on Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Four years before 9/11 and five years before the panic about Saddam Hussein's alleged chemical weapons, 84% of Americans wanted their government to ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention which would "ban the production, possession, transfer and use of poison gas worldwide." And just months after 9/11, when President Bush scuttled the new international Biological Weapons Convention Protocol (BWC) and as anthrax-laced envelopes terrorized Americans, a poll revealed that most Americans favoured the creation of an international agency to inspect facilities (including private American drug companies) capable of producing biological weapons - anywhere, any time - to enforce compliance with BWC. [For an overview of the biological weaponry issue and a citation of the poll, click here.]

Similarly, the "2002 Worldviews" survey of over 3000 Americans found very strong support among Americans for "the treaty that would prohibit nuclear weapon test explosions worldwide" (81%) and "the treaty that bans all use of land mines" (75%). 

Americans value human rights - and not just their own. In poll after poll, they give human rights abroad high priority. In 1999, PIPA reports, "an overwhelming 90% agreed (66% strongly) with the statement that, 'Because the world is so interconnected today it is important for the US (United States) to participate, together with other countries, in efforts to maintain peace and protect human rights.'" 

One of the most tragic lapses in fulfilling that responsibility was the Rwanda genocide of 1994. Eight years later two thirds of Americans agreed that "the United Nations, including the US, should . . . have gone in with a large military force to occupy the country and stop the killings."

Responsibility!

I was both intrigued and frustrated by the editorial on "Changing the UN" published Saturday.  I acknowledge that the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, like the rest of the UN system, is dysfunctional in many ways.  I agree that the UN is in dire need of reform on many levels and that the US would be a powerful force in this regard if it made the commitment.  I agree that creating a "Democracy Caucus" would be a significant step in reform.  Finally, I most certainly agree that the challenges we face as a country today require robust global institutions much more than at any other time in our history.

What the author fails to acknowledge however is that the US has much responsibility for the present state of the UN.  The UN doesn't exist separate from the US or any of its members.  We were a founding party of the organization, we are a permanent member of the Security Council, and as the world's greatest power we have the greatest share of responsibility for its present state.  Before September 11th we were a very irresponsible member by not paying dues and refusing to honor the request to supply manpower to stop the genocide in Rwanda.  In these instances, and in subverting the UN on the Iraq issue, we did far more damage to the organization than the UN Commission on Human Rights did in re-electing Cuba.  We also destroyed our integrity.  Spearheading UN reform is an honorable aim, but our intention would be thwarted by our present lack of integrity.

We need to restore our integrity by accepting responsibility for the current mess in international relations and I fear this administration is much more interested in looking good and blaming others to take such honorable steps.  Accepting responsibility doesn't mean apologizing, that doesn't do any good - it means saying we see how our past actions have been out of alignment with the values and principles upon which this great country was built and that we are committed to leading with integrity going forward.  It means making our foreign policy serve our values as a country, not our interests.

The world both admires and despises America.  They admire us for the integrity we have demonstrated in our past by honoring the principles and values of our founding fathers in our own affairs.  They despise us for the lack of integrity we have demonstrated abroad by applying those same foundational principles selectively instead of universally.  Applying them more liberally in cases where our economic and political interests are aligned with them and not at all in cases where our interests diverge from them.

Are we the only ones responsible for the failings of the UN?  Certainly not.  

Can we set a powerful example by owning up to our role in creating the messes we are dealing with such that other nations are moved to do the same?  Absolutely.

If we are to continue to be global leaders we must remember what it means to be a leader - and be responsible.

Kevin Osborne
Seattle, WA