Dear Salzburg Fellows and Friends,
The many thoughtful responses to my 14 November posting - asking the Salzburg global community to offer advice to President-Elect Obama - provided excellent preparation for our “Members Only” breakfast on Capitol Hill two weeks ago.
Since that time, our attention has shifted tragically to the horrific events in Mumbai. The Seminar has hundreds of Fellows and friends in India and, on behalf of our worldwide fellowship, please know that we are united as we stand with you.
Though world events seem to unfold at an ever quickening rate, I did want to report briefly on the Capitol Hill briefing and ask for your additional thinking in response to two questions posed by the Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman, Representative Howard Berman.
Chairman Berman indicated that in coming months the House Foreign Affairs Committee would take up the question of U.S. foreign assistance programs. He invited the Salzburg Global Seminar to address: “To what degree should Congress and the Administration re-direct and re-structure the way that foreign assistance is pursued?
Second, he asked: “How should the U.S. change its attitude toward and use of the United Nations, and what should replace the G-8 as a forum for coordinating economic policy?”
I would welcome the thoughts of Salzburg’s worldwide alumni on Chairman Berman’s questions.
As Chairman Berman acknowledged, one development in the second Bush term was to increase substantially U.S. support for foreign assistance, particularly in Africa. Which of the Bush policies in this area should be preserved, which changed?
In the second area, can the United Nations overcome its structural limitations, especially in matters of war and peace? Further, who should be at the table when heads of state convene, especially in this time of international economic crisis?
We would like to compile the best of these responses for use in a follow-up communication to the transition team and to members of the House Foreign Affairs and Senate Foreign Relations Committees in Washington. Please add your voice to the comments field below, and to find additional information about the Capitol Hill briefing, click here.
Thanks for your contributions and for standing with and being a part of the Salzburg global community.
Stephen Salyer
President
Salzburg Global Seminar
P.S. The Seminar’s work and its independent status as a global institution would not be possible without people who value it and offer contributions, small and large, so that it can continue. To show your commitment, please visit our web site: www.SalzburgGlobal.org and select Support Our Work, or go to: https://secure.groundspring.org/dn/index.php?id=2278.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Videos from the Salzburg Global Seminar
3 comments:
Dear Mr Salyer,
I would like to respond to first of the two questions raised by Chairman Berman: “To what degree should Congress and Administration re-direct and re-structure the way that foreign assistance is pursued”:
There is, as is generally known but not quite understood, a wide gap between what foreign assistance seeks to achieve in the developing world and the results it actually obtains. In my view, this gap arises because foreign assistance is often program-based. Instead foreign assistance should support very specific projects where the target persons, homes, administrative units, schools, heath centres – in short whatever be in focus of attention of the foreign assistance – is precisely identified. The assistance should be centred around each target unit. The expected result of this assistance should be aggregated over the target population to arrive at the purpose of the intervention. Once foreign assistance is designed in such detail, it is easier to budget for, implement and to evaluate. The gap between foreign assistance objectives and its results should reduce significantly. An important aspect of this re-direction of assistance is that it strengthens accountability of the implementing agency and assists, therefore, in rooting out corruption.
Regards,
Anil Dhar
Fellow Session 395
Dear Stephen Slayer,
My reply to the two questions raised is as follows:
First question: "To what degree should Congress and the Administration re-direct and re-structure the way that foreign assistance is pursued?"
After the collapse of the Soviet Union there is a growing need in most of the developing countries that the privilege of getting American assistance and its objectives could be more strategically redefined in the context of a unipolar world.
President Obama is expected to profoundly alter US politics towards the world. Regarding development assistance, the US should comply with universally agreed goals, i.e. raise ODA to 0,7% of GDP, and concentrate on the implementation of the Millennium Development Goals in the framework of a global development partnership. While the new trend is to support balanced budgets in receiving countries, I would suggest that some consideration should be given to good governance, i.e. compliance of receiving countries with international agreed principles (including fighting corruption via implementation of the UN Convention against Corruption). Also, I would hope that implementation of the MDGs would be given priorities over military assistance (which has tripled in the last three years of the present US Administration).
The needs of the developing countries are many and varied and require rigorous dialogue with them to focus on areas that serve the both the donor and the recipients short, medium and long term objectives. Foreign Policy is also a vital component in this consideration and should never be neglected.
Let me take a case study of my own country Pakistan, as an example. Its geo-strategic importance in the world is now widely accepted, specifically by the West, and requires that a very considered and holistic approach be pursued which serves the country's, the regions and world's interests.
American assistance in the short term must be defined by a new dialogue that takes into account the interest of its people and what they require, to contain menace of terrorism along with its prescriptive jingoism, and to foster and sustain Pakistan’s fragile democracy. This is the short term requirement of assistance. The medium term requirement is the provision of infrastructure in the country which is crucially lacking, restructuring the institutions of governance and rigorous capacity building in most regions and areas of life, specifically North & South Waziristan bordering Afghanistan in the west and the Northern Areas of Pakistan. The long term requirement is, most importantly, education and health of its people, so that each person becomes a viable economic unit and gains the ability to begin to climb out of the pit of poverty with their self-generated dynamics.
All this can only be possible if an effort is made, as suggested above, towards demilitarization of the region as a whole for no country in the region is likely to do this on its own and their efforts at development suffers a setback because of the huge expenditure this sector entails. Thus, foreign policy requires that cooperation and initiatives towards peace between countries of the region must increase and aid become conditional and dependent upon this. Aid is effective when peace prevails, and war mongering is curtailed.
Hence conflict resolution of frozen conflicts that are turning hot again gains primacy and should be seriously looked into as money spent in rapid militarization can be diverted towards more peaceful and fruitful endeavors. Structural changes nationally, and in almost all underdeveloped countries internationally, must focus on redistribution of land and a serious effort at land reforms must take place to break the feudal stranglehold that makes all efforts towards progress, reform and literacy redundant. Aid must also not be seen to increase the gap between the rich and the poor but must be actively directed towards reducing this gap. Therefore redistribution of land holdings becomes a primary focus of vital importance nationally and peaceful coexistence becomes the focus regionally. In other words, national security of the countries of the region must be taken into account and aid must address this requirement so that the countries can acquire a comfort level whereby they are able to reduce the expenditure on militarization they incur because of the perceived threats to their sovereignty and freedom.
This methodology of this case study on Pakistan can be applied to other aid receiving regions of the world like the African Union and, most importantly, the Middle East.
Second question: “How should the U.S. change its attitude toward and use of the United Nations, and what should replace the G-8 as a forum for coordinating economic policy?”
The G8 have been pretty much replaced by the G20 as the forum for global financial governance. Still there remains the question of legitimacy, i.e. who represents the other 172 countries? The World Bank seems to be favoring the G20 (maybe even expanded by a few in a pragmatic way). The UN (and its present President of the General Assembly) favors the GA as the body for coordination because the GA alone includes the global community. Whereas there is a shared understanding of the urgency to renegotiate and redesign global financial governance (with the goal most likely to achieve a "Basel 3", which then needs to universally adhered to), we have not moved beyond the first procedural steps. The recent Doha conference on Financing for Development did not break new grounds and the Summit at the UN, to be held sometime during the coming year, is vague. There is a lot of good analysis, but a commanding vision is lacking. Everybody seems to be looking for a new Keynes.
There was a time during early to mid-eighties when the US was very wary of the UN and some of its most important agencies like the UNESCO. This was the period when I was studying in Stanford University and I had written paper there entitled “US to UNESCO: Stop the World We Want to Get Off!” This title had summed up the attitude of the United States towards the United Nations at the time.
In an era of interdependency and globalization, where the support of all countries is required there is a great need to strengthen the UN and the US has a pivotal role to play in this regard. The forum that can very easily guarantee such participation is the United Nations. The UN is a unique platform that can ensure the contribution and involvement of all member countries and this is required for the simple reason that any structure of a world order will depends largely on their support and participation.
The UN represents the ‘Voice of The World’. However, while there is ‘one world’ there are ‘many voices’. Gaining a consensus through dialogue, discussion and debate is what democratic decision-making is all about. The United States should understand that unless the Security Council represents the greater democratic and sovereign aspirations of a majority of the nearly 200 countries of the world, the legitimacy the Security Councils decision-making process will continue to be challenged. The case of Iraq is a prime example. The United States must therefore provide the moral high ground for such a dispensation to be acknowledged. This will strengthen the role of and respect for both the United States and the United Nations in the eyes of the world. In short, for all the countries of the world, without exception, there is nowhere to go when they are in trouble but to the United Nations or one of its different organs. The US must strengthen the UN, inculcate a positive attitude towards the UN and all its organs and support it in its efforts to create a more peaceful world.
The G8 Forum does not require replacement but it requires a more encompassing enlargement so that economic policy is better coordinated. In the absence of this, other countries will emerge with newer coalitions like for example the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China). This may cause to give birth to unnecessary conflicting economic viewpoints.
Besides, it is very important to consider the involvement of other countries as members of the group who have a geo-strategic significance to Economic Policies like Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Israel and Palestine. Such an engagement with these countries is bound to lower the level tension they generate. These are places that have drained the economy of not only their own countries but most significantly that of the US and other donor countries too, through constant conflict and therefore, cannot be overlooked. They should be a part of an expanded forum of the G8 countries. If this consideration is ignored the consequences could be like the collapse of Russia after its invasion and decade long conflict in Afghanistan which drained its economy completely. Arguably, the US invasion in Iraq and Afghanistan has also significantly contributed to the present US state of debt, economic meltdown and the ongoing recession. Therefore, it is evident from the above that a judicious expansion and thereby engagement of other countries by G8 countries is required. This should be coupled with an intense effort at organization, synchronization and the bringing together of key nations of the world to discuss and debate and try to peacefully resolve the globally important conflicts and concerns such as scarcity of food, security, environment, barriers of trade and all such issues that impact upon the economy and are required for the coordination of economic policy.
Dear Stephen Salyer,
This is my response to your request for ideas for responding to Chairman Berman's two questions.
First question: "To what degree should Congress and the Administration re-direct and re-structure the way that foreign assistance is pursued?"
My reply: I am afraid that I know too little about how exactly the US foreign assistance programme is designed to be able to give an initiated response. However, the advice that I have given to politicians in my own country Sweden is that much more focus should be given to the establishment of the state under the rule of law. Any development assistance that does not take that into consideration risks being compromised, in particular in if the assistance is given is in the form of transfer of economic resources.
It is against this background that I published an article in the International Bar News in April this year under the title "The Right Climate for the Rule of Law". According to the Bali Action Plan the idea is that a major effort should be to assist developing countries inter alia the transfer of financial and technical resources. See
http://www.havc.se/res/SelectedMaterial/20080421corellrightclimateforrol1.pdf
It is imperative that any effort to assist developing countries is accompanied with robust technical assistance for the establishment of the rule of law. I know that the US is a leading actor in this field, not least through non-governmental organisations like the American Bar Association. Reference could also be made to the Central European and Eurasian Legal Initiative (CEELI), which is based in Prague. See http://www.abanet.org/rol/europe_and_eurasia/ and http://www.ceeliinstitute.org/ . So, if resources are available, additional efforts should be made in this field. At the same time it is of course important that the U.S. sets the example. Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib have been disastrous for the U.S. as a leading nation in defence of democracy and the rule of law.
Second question: “How should the U.S. change its attitude toward and use of the United Nations, and what should replace the G-8 as a forum for coordinating economic policy?”
My reply to the first part of the question: In my view the answer is very simple. Just imagine the United Nations if it had a wholehearted support of the United States of America! I have tried to develop this thought in an address that I gave to students in San Diego a couple of years ago. May I refer to "Who Needs Reforming the Most: The UN or Its Members?" at http://www.havc.se/res/SelectedMaterial/20071108corellwhoneedsreforming.pdf
Of particular interest is a quote on page 274 by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, a Republican and a former General! In January 1957, when re-elected U.S. President he said in his State of the Union: "We recognize and accept our own deep involvement in the destiny of men everywhere. We are accordingly pledged to honor, and to strive to fortify, the authority of the United Nations. For in that body rests the best hope of our age for the assertion of that law by which all nations may live in dignity." Where did these wisdom go?
In a nutshell my advise would be: support to the United Nations and set the example by bowing to the international law which the U.S. has accepted and in particular the UN Charter. According to the US Constitution, Article VI, paragraph 2 "all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby."
On a more specific note -- and this is the most important component of my message in this mail -- is that the upcoming negotiations on the composition of the Security Council simply must not lead to a paralysed Council. If the membership of the Council would grow to 26 as suggested in one of the options and if there is no true commitment on the part of the members of the Council to actually abide by international law, and in particular the UN Charter, the Council will become inoperable and completely unable to deliver on its mandate.
I view the situation is so serious that two days ago, on 10 December, I sent a letter to the governments of all members of the United Nations under the title: "Security Council Reform: Rule of Law More Important Than Additional Members." In this letter I am proposing an alternative to an extended membership. If the U.S. could take the lead on this one, it would be a tremendous contribution to the maintenance of international peace and security in the future. The letter is attached. The link to the same is: http://www.havc.se/res/SelectedMaterial/20081210corelllettertounmembers.pdf
My reply to the second part of the question: I do not know if it is necessary to "replace the G-8" rather than to extend its membership. Here I would like to refer to the Communiqué adopted by the InterAction Council for Former Heads of State and Government (Presidents Carter and Clinton are members, but they did not attend this year's meeting). The easiest way to access the Communiqué and the two brief expert reports is actually to go to http://www.havc.se/RuleofLaw.htm and then to "Former Heads of State and Government". I would actually warmly recommend this material (only a few pages) for an in-depth study, first because of its contents, second because of the fact that it is a message from over 20 former Heads of State and Government.
I hope that this will provide some ideas for your further work.
With my very best regards,
Ambassador Hans Corell
Post a Comment