Syndicated Distribution to
400 Newspapers in Asia, Europe, Latin America and Africa in 27
Languages. For information on subscribing to INTERPRESS
SERVICE (IPS),Rome, contact Pablo Pacientini, fax 390-6-4817877 or
kosi@ips.org, or Mario Lubetkin
mlubetkin@ips.org. For
permission to syndicate or reprint contact: Teddy Jefferson (IPS)
New York, phone: 212-924-9102, fax: 212-924-9120.
For
InterPress Service
© Hazel Henderson, September 2003
www.hazelhenderson.com
(word count 1,152)
NEW OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE UN
The Iraq debacle is providing a historic opportunity to
implement long sought, widely supported reforms needed for the UN – to
assure its independence and its vital role in this new century.
The breakdown in the Security Council over the US war on
Iraq illustrated its obsolete aspects. An anachronism of the post-World
War II era, its permanent five members: the USA, Britain, France, China
and Russia with their veto power, finally demonstrated all its
dysfunctional aspects.
Most reformers agree on the indispensability of the
Security Council – and the shape and direction of needed reforms. The
Council needs to dispense finally with the veto – a relic nod to the
winners of World War II. Then the permanent seats can be rearranged to
accommodate important new world players, including India, Brasil, Japan,
South Africa and newly democratic Indonesia with the world’s largest
Muslim population. To keep the Council’s size manageable, the seats of
Britain and France could be combined into one rotating seat representing
the European Union.
Another long sought security reform – more necessary
than ever in a world of terrorism and asymmetrical threats – is a
standing UN peace-keeping and humanitarian force – properly trained and
ready to meet security threats and natural disasters. Together with
INTERPOL, this professional unit could proactively monitor terrorist
groups.
Funding of these functions and all UN humanitarian and
development operations need no longer rely only on dues from its member
countries. The recalcitrance of the USA, which still owes the UN over
$500 million in back dues, has shown that new, more reliable sources of
funds are needed. A smaller contribution from the USA is also desirable
to reduce its influence.
The UN, with its miniscule $1.25 billion annual budget
(one quarter of New York City’s) can tap a wide variety of new financing
sources. Many of these are promoted by the increasingly powerful global
NGO community and public policy networks. Many were submitted and
documented in the PrepCom reports of the UN Summit on Financing for
Development in Monterrey, Mexico, March 2002. These included very small
fees (1% or less) on the $1.5 trillion of daily currency transactions,
which could yield several hundred billion dollars annually. This
feasible system would serve the additional purposes of reducing
speculation (90% of these transactions) while reducing these destructive
flows of “hot money” destabilizing member countries’ domestic economies.
Other equally viable, well-researched proposals include
taxing global transportation and airline tickets (which do not currently
include their full social and environmental costs) and authorizing the
UN to sell bonds in the same way as the World Bank is funded. Many a
grandparent would thus be able to help assure a more peaceful future for
their grandchildren. The well-assessed proposal to recast security from
exclusively military means to insurance and risk-assessment modalities –
more suitable for today’s Information Age world – is a United Nations
Security Insurance Agency (UNSIA) as an arm of the Security Council.
The UNSIA would provide a new line of business to the
insurance industry: assessing risks and writing policies for those
countries applying to UNSIA for guaranteed and timely peace-keeping and
humanitarian assistance when under domestic and foreign threats. Many
countries have seen the benefits to Costa Rica in abolishing its
military in 1947. Diverting such expenditures to investments in human
and social capital has catapulted Costa Rica to “first world” status on
the UN’s Human Development Index. The premiums from these insurance
policies would fund the Security Council’s need for rapid deployment,
standing peace keeping and humanitarian contingents. These contingents
would continue to be trained and provided by willing member countries,
such as Canada and others.
All such viable proposals for diversifying the UN’s
funding base have been thoroughly researched and many, such as UNSIA,
are supported by several Nobel Peace Laureates. Why have they been
waiting for implementation for so many years – even decades? First, Cold
War politics and later, they incurred the strenuous disapproval of now
retired US Senator Jesse Helms and other right-wing politicians in the
USA. Powerful financial interests opposed greater power-sharing between
the UN and its two breakaway financial agencies, the World Bank and the
International Monetary Fund charged with enforcing “Washington
Consensus” economic policies on developing countries. Such opposition is
now discredited.
Even as many of these same funding proposals were
re-asserted in the UN Financing for Development PrepComs by global NGOs
and developing countries of the G-77, they were quietly vetoed by US
Ambassador to the UN John Negroponte, on orders from the Bush
Administration. Today, Bush’s popularity is waning rapidly, 54% rating
his job as fair to poor (Reuters-Zogby, Sept. 2003).
Near majorities now repudiate the unilateralist,
preemptive strike policies of Bush and his neo-con cabinet: Dick Cheney,
Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and their entrepreneurial “eminence
grise” Richard Perle (still a member for the Defense Policy Board,
despite numerous revelations of financial conflicts of interest). The
deficit-ridden US economy with its high unemployment level is now the
key concern of voters. Bush’s disastrous policies have led to the return
of the Taliban and warlordism in Afghanistan and the deepening quagmire
in Iraq.
The world sees again the indispensable role of the UN –
the only forum that can convene all the world’s nations. Even the Bush
Administration, now deeply divided, is seeking UN help. The US now seeks
“burden sharing” in paying for its ill-considered adventure in Iraq.
Only the UN can legitimize reluctant member nations’ involvement in
re-building Iraq.
The US President ‘s father, George H.W. Bush may help
his son realize that the UN is never likely to be “irrelevant.”
Secretary-General Kofi Annan has deftly guided the UN through these
latest storms – in spite of charges of bending too much to US pressure.
Annan has introduced many innovations, including his UN Global Compact’s
nine principles of good corporate citizenship on human rights, labor
standards and the environment, now signed by over 1000 corporations
globally.
Today, even as it mourns, there is a new era of
opportunities opening to revitalize the UN. All these new funding
sources and renewed global goodwill can expand confidence in the world
body. Even 63% of the US public is still solidly behind the UN taking
the lead in global security and peacekeeping. Enacting these reforms
would be a fitting epitaph to the thousands of Afghans, Iraqis,
Liberians and other innocents, as well as a tribute to all the world’s
displaced refugees, abused women and hungry children.
There is no shortage of funds in the world – only
misplaced priorities, defunct economic ideologies and bloated weapons
budgets. One quarter of global weapons spending – together with some of
the international taxes on speculators and other abusers of our global
commons – could provide the world with needed public goods:
peace-keeping, health and education for all, cleaner air and water,
environmental restoration, and millions of new jobs and livelihoods.
Globalization can be humanized. The World Social Forum has shown that
another world is possible – and achievable!
*********
Hazel
Henderson, author of Beyond
Globalization and other books. She co-edited The UN: Policy and Financing Alternatives,
Elsevier, UK (1995) with Harlan Cleveland and Inge Kaul, in which
these proposals are detailed.