THE INTERNATIONAL NEGOTIATION MODULES PROJECT*

SCENARIO

SPRING 2003

Developed by:

Dr. Joyce P. Kaufman

Professor of Political Science and

Director, Whittier Scholars Program

Whittier College

PO Box 634

Whittier, CA 90608

ph: (562) 907-4808

fax: (562) 907-4996

e-mail: jkaufman@whittier.edu

* The International Negotiation Modules Project (INMP), copyright 2003, Joyce P. Kaufman. This scenario is for classroom use only for those who participate in the INMP, or with the express permission of the author. Please do not reproduce or cite without permission.

Preface

The International Negotiations Modules Project (INMP) is a program designed to internationalize the community college curriculum and to introduce technology in a meaningful>

As of Spring 2003, the INMP will be going into its fifth year of implementation following the end of the FIPSE grant, and the eigth year of the project. The ongoing success of the program is a credit to a number of people, each of whom believed in the program’s goals and the changes that it has and could make to teaching and learning at the community college level. Special thanks go to all of the community college faculty members who have participated in this program and were willing to take a chance with this effort, and who continue to believe in it. Your commitment to, and interest in, the International Negotiation Modules Project will ensure its ongoing success and continuation.

A project like this one is the result of the work of many people, each of whom is responsible for its success in different ways. My thanks go to Jonathan Wilkenfeld, Executive Director of Project ICONS of the University of Maryland, for his belief in this program and in my commitment to it, and Elizabeth Kielman and Beth Blake, also of Project ICONS, each of whom supported this program from its creation in ways too numerous to mention. Thanks also go to Rosalind Raby for her ongoing assistance in curriculum development and to Karen Tyrrell, Technical Manager of the INMP, without whose help this program would be impossible to manage. Any problems or errors associated with the program, however, remain my responsibility.

The INMP is based at Whittier College; special thanks go to Kristin Karlson, my administrative assistant, who makes sure that “details” of the program, like the budget, coordinating the workshops, distributing materials, etc. are all managed as effectively as they should be.

Joyce P. Kaufman

Associate Academic Dean and Professor of Political Science

and Project Director,

International Negotiation Modules Project

Whittier College

January 2003

ICONS/International Negotiation Modules Project[1]

Spring 2003

INTRODUCTION TO THE SIMULATION

The ICONS/International Negotiation Modules Project (INMP) simulation puts students into the role of the decision makers and negotiators on matters of international importance. Working in teams, participants model real-world international relations among countries. The simulation is conducted on two levels: within teams and between teams. Within a team, students will research their assigned country and, working as a group, formulate their country’s foreign policy. Between teams, countries will communicate their foreign policies and conduct international negotiations using the computer as your medium for communication.

Assumptions: For purposes of this simulation, we assume that real world international conditions remains as they are articulated in the simulation scenario. That is, unless changes are specifically noted during the simulation, all government leaders currently in power remain in place and no international incidents or developments not emerging from the simulated negotiations occur. A scenario update will be issued immediately prior to the start of the simulation noting changes that should be considered. Should real world events intervene during the simulation, instructions will be issued over the simulation community network as to how these should be handled. Generally, however, real world developments will not effect the simulation once it is underway.

SIMCON (Simulation Control) monitors all negotiations in the simulation and chairs on-line summits. Please note that SIMCON is apolitical, and has no country or team preferences. SIMCON does not interfere with the course of the simulation nor direct it in any way. SIMCON does monitor all massages for content to ensure that stated positions are realistic and accurate. Further, SIMCON reviews all messages for diplomatic language, and will send warnings to any team that does not adhere to the use of such language. SIMCON sends out procedural messages and scenario updates. Questions regarding any aspect of the simulation can be sent directly to SIMCON.

There is also a Press component in the simulation; the simulated press corps can hold press conferences with any team at their request. All requests to hold a press conference must go through SIMCON. If you desire to request a press conference, please make sure you include some dates and time when you will be available. The press will then let you know when the conference has been scheduled. After a press conference is held, the press will issue a press release about what they learned during the conference. Please remember that press releases are to be read and evaluated critically as press can often distort events or may report partial truths.

In addition, countries may issue their own “press releases.” However, please remember that many countries use the press as an extension of the government so that the press reports only that which is officially sanctioned. These factors must be considered when you assess the information provided in any press release issued by an individual country.

The Scenario and Issues for Negotiation

The scenario for the simulation follows this introduction. The scenario outlines current world conditions and defines the areas for negotiation during the simulation. The scenario is presented in a case format, that is, each issue area becomes the framework for a particular set of negotiations. Each issue area is framed as a separate case, with a focus on a set of questions that should be negotiated. It is important to remember that even though the issues are framed as distinct cases, they are often interrelated. Countries will often need to consider all issues in order to get a complete picture of world events. While the scenario provides basic background information on general conditions, issues and countries, teams in the simulation are encouraged to expand beyond this basic information in the preparation and research phase prior to the start of the simulation.

The focus of the simulation is global and includes individual countries and international organizations (such as the European Union). Please remember that the press is a player in this simulation as well. As in the real world, the role of the press is to report information as they view it. This means that the perspective that the press takes may not be consistent with individual country-teams. Further, the press might report information that is not accurate from the perspective of a particular country. In those cases, it will be the responsibility of the country to refute the information or to offer its own press release and interpretation of the situation or events covered. One of the lessons here is the need to review information critically, including that which is reported by the press in newspapers or other media.

The Issues: This exercise will focus on four general problem or issue areas in the world today.[2] They were selected to reflect not only current political, economic and social realities, but also to emphasize the interrelationship that exists among countries and issues in the world today. For that reason it is important to note that some of these issues have a number of component parts.

The problem areas selected are not intended to cover all issues or countries. Some countries will necessarily be more active in certain areas than others; however, because issues are interrelated, all countries should formulate policies and strategies for all issues included in the simulation. Further, all countries will be invited to attend on-line “summits,” in addition to the regular e-mail negotiations. The summits will be held toward the end of the on-line negotiation process and can be seen as the culmination of the weeks of on-line negotiations. The agenda for each summit will be determined in advance and will grow from the issues raised during the on-line negotiations prior to that point and from the questions for negotiation.

We ask that each country notify all others in advance of the summit whether you will or

will not be attending so all teams can prepare accordingly. Further, in some cases, a country team that has been actively involved with a negotiation (e.g., putting forth a proposal, helping to mediate among disagreeing countries, etc.) might be asked to take the lead and chair a particular summit. In that case, SIMCON will seek the country’s permission to do so and will also offer some suggestions as to how to chair the summit. SIMCON will announce to all teams in advance of the summit who will be chairing and will provide more detailed information about the summit prior to the actual event.

The four general issue areas are:

1) Global Economics, with a focus on globalization and the movement of goods and people versus the need for countries to ensure their own security;

2) Security, specifically, whether established international law needs to better reflect current realities including topics such as the apparent contradiction between assuring security and a pre-emptive first strike, which is a violation of a nation’s sovereignty;

3) Environment, especially the importance of water as a scarce resource and as a commodity;

4) Human rights, with an emphasis on the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Each of the issues for negotiation is described in more detail in the scenario, and is the focus of an individual “case.” However, since these issue-areas are interrelated, the impact of those relationships should be considered in formulating team positions. For example, one of the characteristics of a globalized world is the movement of goods. Yet, often those goods enter other countries uninspected, thereby raising the possibility that terrorists could use the access to move weapons of mass destruction from one country to another, thereby compromising a country’s security. But countries also need to ask whether imposing restrictions or requirements on imports will infringe upon the sovereignty of the exporting nation. Or, in another example, protecting children would appear to be a fundamental human right. Yet, in some countries, the economic welfare of a family depends upon the ability of a child to earn money. Does the international system have the right to decide whether children can or should work, or is that a case of cultural imperialism that wealthier nations have the luxury of imposing on poorer and less developed countries. From these examples it should become apparent that countries are always faced with trying to balance a number of often-competing factors in making policy decisions and that virtually no decision can be made without taking a range of factors into consideration.

Information about the position of some countries included in this simulation and their positions on the various issues can be found in the section entitled “General International Conditions,” as well as in each of the issue-cases.[3] Remember that this is just general background and it will be up to you to research your country’s position on each of these issues in more detail, to research the position of the countries with which you will be interacting, and then to determine who your negotiating partners are or are likely to be. Gathering that information is part of the research step of the process, and will be critical in helping you draft your own briefing/background paper as well as serving as a guide throughout the negotiation process.

Negotiation Framework

Diplomacy and negotiation represent alternatives to the use of force in the settlement of potential or actual disputes between countries. In the event of conflict, negotiations between and among the various parties are often used to help settle the conflict before it escalates, or to resolve a conflict once it starts. International negotiation is a phased process predicated on expectations of reciprocity, compromise, and the search for mutually beneficial outcomes. All parties to a negotiation must prepare their positions carefully, looking for a balance between national (domestic) considerations and political realities.

Negotiation is one tool>

Most of international relations is premised on the interaction between and among nation-states, or what we generally think of as countries. A nation-state in actuality combines two distinct concepts: the nation, or a group of people with similar ethnic or religious background, common culture and heritage, and who share common values and beliefs; and a state, which is a territory with a defined border that is under the governance of a political entity of some type. Generally, the nation and state are congruent, that is, all (or a majority) of the peoples within the territory accept a set of values and beliefs as well as the legitimacy of the political system. Where conflicts occur, and we have seen this increasingly since the Cold War ended, is what happens when a national group rejects the legitimacy of the political system, or seeks to create its own state that represents the values of that nation or group rather than the whole. In Europe, we have seen this pattern with the Basques in the Pyrenees Mountain areas of France and Spain, for example. Or conflict can result when a vocal and powerful> class=Section3>

international intervention to address the situation. There are similar examples in Asia, such as the Tamil rebels in Sri Lanka. It is the divergence between the goals of the nation and those of the state that has given rise to ethnic, religious and other forms of internal conflicts that threaten not only the country but potentially regional or even international stability.

One of the major decisions that any government has to make is what is in the national interest and how to protect and preserve it. First, the country must begin with a clear statement of its own goals, that is, what is the “national interest.” From that starting point, there are a range of possible options open to countries as they seek to protect that national interest. Since all of these deal with one country’s relationship to other countries, these are called “foreign policy orientations.” The particular option chosen should reflect what the country’s needs at that particular time. Clearly, these can change as both domestic and international circumstances change.

One option for a country is simply to pursue a policy of isolationism, or a desire to turn inward and to minimize involvement with other countries. Often the only exception to this policy is in trading relationships, where even the most isolationist country recognizes the need to trade and interact economically with countries beyond its own borders. A country can choose to be neutral, which means it does not commit its military forces or engage in a military or security alliance with other countries. This does not mean that a neutral country is removed from the international system; rather, neutral nations are often quite engaged because the status of neutrality gives it certain rights and responsibilities in the eyes of the international system. For example, Switzerland, a neutral nation, has become an international banking center as well as the location for many international negotiations.

Or, depending on its national interest, a country can choose to become engaged internationally. This, too, can take on a number of characteristics depending on the country and the international circumstances. For example, countries can choose to enter into military alliances or security arrangements of various types. These can be bilateral, between two countries, or multilateral, among three or more. Often the goal underlying the creation of these alliances is the belief that countries acting together can wield more power internationally than any country can acting alone. NATO is one example of a multilateral alliance that was created in 1949, early in the Cold War period, to join the countries of Western Europe with the United States as a way to deter Soviet aggression. The European Union (EU) represents a case where many of the countries of Europe chose to unite to pursue common economic, political and security interests while still maintaining the sovereignty of each of the member states as defined by separate and distinct governments and leaders. In that case, the countries in the EU must balance their own individual goals with the broader ones of the EU as a whole.

Increasingly, since the end of the Cold War, economic unions, such as the European Union or APEC, have taken on a security component as well. Conversely, NATO, which was created primarily as a collective security alliance, has broadened its mandate beyond deterrence. By admitting Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic as members, NATO has affirmed the belief that there is a direct relationship between democracy, capitalist economies and security.

Hence, countries can choose which foreign policy orientation to pursue in order to assure its own national interest. However, countries also have to determine how best to respond to any particular set of actions taken by other countries in the international system. Again, they may choose to act unilaterally, bilaterally, or multilaterally. In most cases, however, the greater the number of countries acting together the more effective a policy decision will be, although the more difficult it might be to reach agreement.

Countries have a range of policy options available to them that can be placed along a continuum from positive (rewards) to negative (punishment). In all cases, the country decides which particular course of action to pursue by weighing the relative costs and benefits. A government, acting rationally, should choose the option that will promise to give it the desired outcome at the least possible cost. Again, in most cases, while a country might decide to offer or grant a reward to a country unilaterally, it generally will look to other countries to support it when the option chosen is negative. Threatening or imposing economic sanctions, for example, is a far more credible threat when more than one country agrees to abide by those sanctions. In deciding which option to pursue, the other thing any country must remember is that it must be credible, that is, have the resources and the will to follow through on the policy decision made.

Positive Negative

Granting Offering Threats Imposition of Armed

rewards rewards punishment conflict

Foreign aid Economic sanctions

Military technology Boycotts

Military support Recalling diplomats

Diplomatic recognition Threaten force

Form alliances Use of force

Given the above, a logical question is where and how does negotiation as a tool>

Negotiation is a tool> class=Section6>

One of the major challenges facing any government involved in a negotiation, however, is separating out the diplomatic from the political. Diplomacy is the formal process of interaction and is usually carried out by diplomats and bureaucrats who are asked to implement a government’s policy or policies. This is different from those politicians, many of whom are also engaged in negotiations of various types but whose main job is to formulate policy (rather than carry it out). Both of these are important functions in the world of international negotiations, although they are different.

One of the other challenges in any negotiation lies in understanding the culture and perspective of the country or countries with which you are negotiating. Different countries have different negotiating styles and these must be considered in formulating a position and in determining how to approach another country. In addition, there is a strategy involved with any negotiation: whether to begin the negotiation or wait for another country to respond, how much to reveal about your own position and at what point, how much are you willing to compromise in order to reach an agreement, and, most important, what is your own desired outcome of the negotiation? These must be determined by each country in advance of the negotiation so that it will know how to begin and/or how to respond to another country’s overtures.

Stages of Negotiation

Diplomacy and negotiation represent alternatives to the use of force in the settlement of potential or actual disputes between countries. International negotiation is a phased process, predicated on expectations of reciprocity, compromise, and the search for mutually beneficial outcomes. All parties to a negotiation must prepare their positions carefully, looking for a balance between national (domestic) considerations and political realities. Simulation participants should be prepared to engage in the following stages:

Phase 1, Preparation: The preparation is the most critical part of any negotiation. Each team must prepare for the negotiation by doing research on its own position, as well as the likely position of the other teams with which you will be negotiating. Each team must set goals, that is, what do you want to achieve through the negotiation process. In the “real world,” it has been estimated that 80% of negotiations succeed or fail because of the preparation that is done prior to the time that the negotiation even begins. It should also be noted that, although this is a simulation of international negotiation, learning how to prepare – identifying the problem, doing the background research, formulating a position – is central to accomplishing any task successfully.

Phase 2, Pre-Negotiation: Based on the research and identifying your own goals, each country prepares an internal briefing or position paper that lays out the principles and objectives central to the issues under discussion. The paper should convey an understanding of each issue and the interrelationship among issue areas. In drafting this paper, attention must be paid to domestic policy needs, as well as to the likely position taken by allies and potential adversaries. The briefing paper should also include the team’s desired goals, as well as a negotiating strategy to achieve those goals. In defining the negotiating strategy, it is often best for a team to know what its own bottom line is as well as what the ideal outcome is.

Phase 3, Opening Positions: Each team’s opening message should flow from the briefing paper. Beginning on March 31, all teams present their opening or “going in” positions on-line for the benefit of other participants during the first on-line exchanges. These messages provide the basis for the start of the negotiations. All teams should remember that the opening messages set the tone for the negotiations that will follow. Once that tone has been set, it will be up to you to determine how to maintain that tone for the duration of the simulation. As you frame your opening message, it might be helpful>

Phase 4, Preparatory Negotiations: The negotiations will then proceed over a number of weeks and should be characterized by an exchange of ideas, comments and proposals. All delegations should assess their positions relative to other teams, and explore ways to form coalitions and build support for your proposals. Try to develop a common ground, that is, identify the areas that you have in common and that you can build upon, rather than focusing upon the things that are different. Remember that the objective of the negotiation process is to see whether you can work cooperatively with other countries in a way that will help you achieve the goals that you defined during the preparation phase.

Phase 5, On-line Summits: There will be one summit associated with each of the issue areas. Each summit will be multilateral (i.e., many teams will be participating in the discussion), and will be held toward the end of the simulation after teams have had the opportunity to put forward proposals and have started to build support for their position. (The exact dates and times of the summits will be announced.) All teams are invited to attend each of the summits; however, we realize that not all teams will have representatives at each summit. It will be helpful>

During each summit, deliberations take place on the formulation of a common position and are used to see whether teams can reach agreement on proposals. These summits represent the culmination of the negotiations.

To aid you in the process, the ICONS software includes a feature called a “proposal center.” Teams can post their draft proposals in the proposal center, and then other teams can access them and respond. Using the proposal center can be an effective tool>

Some Caveats: As you engage in these negotiations please remember that a simulation such as this one cannot begin to capture the full complexity of the issues, nor does it try to. Further, this exercise is structured in such a way as to limit your ability to move beyond what might be called the “pre-negotiation phase,” and into the middle- or end-games associated with concluding a real negotiation. Nonetheless, as you move from the preparation stage to defining your opening statement and into the exchange of messages and then the summits, you should be better able to understand the negotiation process, and the complexity associated with concluding any negotiation – individual, business, international – successfully.

Preparation

Each class has been assigned to represent a country, an international organization, and/or an NGO during the simulation. Within the class, you will probably be organized in teams to explore the issues for negotiation. Within that team, you will then have to do the research on the actor you are assigned to represent, the specific issues highlighted in the scenario, and the likely position of the other actors you will be interacting with during the simulation. If you are representing a country, you will begin by formulating your government’s official position on the issues. You will also have to consider the position of non-state actors or interest groups operating in your country who influence or effect your country’s policies on these issues.

Similarly, if you have been assigned to represent an international organization, like the European Union, you must take into account the fact that your policies are the result of another set of internal deliberations among the member countries. However, ultimately, each of those countries is an independent actor which will make policy based on its own interest. The goals of the individual countries must be balanced against the goals of the organization as a whole.

In all cases, working as a group you will formulate policies for multilateral and bilateral negotiations. These negotiations might be government to government or country to organization, depending on the country and the issue addressed. While the focus of the exercise is multilateral, participants should keep in mind that fact that bilateral dialogue is also an effective component of negotiations. The determination of when to pursue bilateral versus multilateral discussion must be part of each team’s negotiating strategy. Further, remember that the press is an actor in this simulation and can be used to help further your negotiations and goals, or to thwart progress.

Research: The key to a successful>

Communications

A special simulation community will be created to facilitate communication among teams during the simulation. Through this community, you will be able to communicate with all participants, one of more individual teams, and with SIMCON. You will also use a special conference sector of the community for the scheduled summit meetings.

Regular e-mail: The backbone of your negotiations should be the “regular mail.” Regular mail can be accessed at any time, and should be checked daily. There should be a steady flow of messages from the start of the simulation as each country begins to establish ties and opens communications with other countries. As is the case with “real world” conferences and summit meetings, those messages that flow behind the scenes set the stage for what will take place during the on-line summit conferences and will determine what, if anything, will be accomplished during the limited time of those conferences. You should be prepared to begin sending your regular mail messages as of April 1.

Real-time conferencing (summits): The on-line summits will last 90 minutes each, and will cover specific topics. All teams are invited to attend each summit – the schedule for each of the summits will be announced by SIMCON. The agenda of each summit is set and distributed in advance, and will grow from the course of the negotiations to that time. Each team will have the chance to suggest agenda items and some will have the opportunity to chair a summit. The on-line conferences are like a real summit meeting where heads of state actually meet to hammer out specific details of an issues following behind-the-scenes preparation. The more effective your negotiations via regular mail prior to the summit, the more successful>

Getting Started

Many teams feel a bit uncertain as to how to start. Some teams wait for other countries to take the lead. This can create an unrealistic policy atmosphere, as it is often in a team’s best interest to put forward proposals that will be beneficial to it, rather than wait and have to respond to other actors’ initiatives. From the beginning of the simulation, you should be prepared to communicate your proposals to other teams on a range of issues via “regular mail.” And please remember to submit your position/briefing paper to SIMCON prior to the start of the simulation.

To help you get started on the issues, you might want to focus on the section entitled

“Questions for Consideration” which is included at the end of each issue-case. Please refer to this for guidance on the sorts of questions and topics that might arise during the simulation. However, do not feel that you must be confined to just the issues raised here. Once you have done your research and understand your country’s position on the issues, you might arrive at additional issues that are also appropriate topics for negotiation.

It is often the case that the more messages you send, the more responses you are likely to get. Be specific, respond to messages in a timely fashion, and be sure to leave room to negotiate!

“Real World” Applications

Although this is a simulation of events in the international system, many of the lessons learned have practical applications that go far beyond the classroom. This exercise will be more valuable if all participants realize that they are learning important lessons about things in addition to current international issues:

First, the simulation teaches about the process of negotiation, which is part of every aspect of life. While the focus here is on negotiations among and between countries, in fact, the same principles apply to negotiations between spouses, parent and child, boss and employee, and among friends. Central to this is the ability to think through a position clearly, and then know how to articulate it. In other words, the ability to communicate clearly is an important tool>

Second, this program is technology based, something that is a critical part of our world today. Remember that you are using Internet and Web technology to send and receive messages and to do research for the simulation. But, again, the applications of the technology are transferable beyond the bounds of this program. Studies have shown that employers are looking for employees who know and can use current technology for research, writing, and communication. Mastering this skill in an environment such as this simulation will allow you to apply that knowledge that will help you get a job or advance within a job situation.

Third, the basis of this program is the written word, and learning to think critically and analytically. These are skills necessary to advance in the work place as well as your educational career and throughout life. As noted above, the ability to communicate ideas clearly and concisely is valued in the work place as well as in school. And, since virtually everything in this simulation is tied to the ability to communicate complex ideas, you will be practicing this skill throughout the simulation.

Fourth, the simulation requires you to work in teams, another critical skill required in the “real world.” There is virtually no job that allows people to work in isolation; rather, people are expected to be able to work and learn together. Collaborative learning is a skill that requires practice. Participating in this simulation will give you a framework within which to hone that skill.

Fifth, the simulation should give you a sense of the relationship between local and global problems and issues. In a world that is “globalized” and interconnected, the distinction between local and global breaks down. Thus, it is incumbent upon all of us to see and understand the relationship between local and international events.

Finally, the simulation focuses on contemporary international events and the interrelationship among them. This also means that you must make connections across traditional disciplinary approaches. For example, although one of the issues is explicitly economic in nature, you must understand the political and cultural context within which that issue is addressed in the country that you are representing. The particular position taken by any country is a function of its history as well, and its historical relationship with other countries.

In addition to thinking across disciplines, in a world that is increasingly interdependent and interconnected, it is impossible to be considered truly “educated” unless you are aware of important global issues and the different perspectives that countries have on those issues. Similarly, understanding those different country perspectives should help clarify the position that others within your own community might have. And that, too, is part of what it means to be “educated” in the world today.

The Simulation Scenario[4]

General International Conditions

The world was changed dramatically on September 11, 2001 when terrorists commandeered four aircraft and used them as weapons to crash into the World Trade Center in New York, and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. Although the targets were directed at the United States, citizens of all countries were victims of the attacks, either as they worked in offices in one of the targeted buildings, or as passengers on one of the doomed planes. Further, the apparent vulnerability of the United States raised serious questions about whether any country or people can be safe from terrorism.

This, in turn, has raised important questions about what “security” means in the world today. Where one of the hallmarks of globalization has been the rapid and open movement of goods and people, that carries with it apparent dangers as people can easily move from country to country for illegitimate reasons. Similarly, the ease with which goods are transported from country to country fosters an atmosphere of free trade, but also raises dangers that contraband materials, including weapons of mass destruction, can be imported into an unsuspecting nation.

These changes in the international environment have created a dilemma for world leaders, and potentially, for established international law. On the one hand, most government leaders recognize the importance of globalization and economic integration as a force that could benefit all countries. They see the importance of increasing the number and range of trading partners, and the role that international organizations, such as the World Trade Organization (WTO), can play to ensure that countries play by an established set of rules. And they seek open access to all countries as a way to further the goal of free trade. On the other hand, there is a fear that accompanying this is a tendency toward protectionism and a growth of nationalism, as countries seek to protect themselves from potentially destructive forces imported from other countries. This has contributed to a desire to maintain and assure security at all costs, even if at the expense of individual rights within a nation, or at the risk of infringing upon the sovereignty of another nation. Within countries, especially in the so-called “developing” world, inequalities in the distribution of wealth and resources have become even more apparent, contributing to the growth of extremist movements. This, too, has contributed to the belief that any country’s highest priority is to protect itself.

The international community is now dealing with the impact of this belief in the primacy of security as it debates if and/or whether to go to war with Iraq.[5] The rationale for such a war has been tied to Iraq’s disregard for international law, specifically, questions about whether it has been developing weapons of mass destruction in flagrant disregard of United Nations resolutions. A UN Security Council resolution required the admission of weapons inspectors back into the country, with the outcome of their report to be a critical determinant of war. However, as early as January 2002 when President Bush identified Iraq, North Korea and Iran as an “axis of evil,” it was clear that he was setting the stage for a war. In a reversal of established US policy, though, the possibility of war with Iraq is based on the “Bush Doctrine,” that asserts that the United States (or by implication, any other country) has the right to attack another country first in order to prevent a subsequent attack.

Not all countries agree with the assertions put forward in the Bush Doctrine. However, the success of the ongoing war on terror as well as any war against Iraq depends on US ability to hold together the coalition of nations assembled for this purpose. But the road to building and keeping a coalition in support of such these actions has not been easy. Initially, some of the US’s coalition partners in its war on terrorism following September 11, especially those in the Middle East, asked for proof before signing onto another military mission. Further, even allies within the Security Council, especially France and Russia, expressed concerns that the United States was moving forward to war too quickly, in violation of established international law. In short, despite the apparent inevitability of a conflict, it would not be without controversy both internationally and even within the United States.

Further, the impact of such a war is potentially widespread. A war would directly affect the global economic situation, as countries would have to change their own priorities in order to pay for war. There would be significant disruptions to trade and to the flow of oil, which would also have far-reaching economic consequences. Plus, according to UN planners, a war and its aftermath could result in injury to more than 500,000 Iraqis and create almost one million refugees. The war would have an impact on different countries and populations in ways that would not immediately be obvious. For example, there are thousands of Filipinos currently working in Kuwait and other parts of the Middle East. In case of war, they (and other foreign workers) would have to be evacuated, causing yet another level of economic disruption as they are forced to relocate or return home without jobs.[6]

In addition, other events have intervened that deflected the attention of the US and its other partners from the situation in Iraq. The ongoing violence between Israel and the Palestinians escalated as Palestinian extremists continue to engage in suicide missions resulting in the deaths of Israeli>

North Korea, another of the “axis of evil” countries, also has been a source of international tension when it violated the terms of the 1994 Framework Agreement and started to reactivate one of its nuclear processing plants. Although much of the world’s attention was focused on Iraq, many in the international community believe that North Korea, especially its decision to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, actually presents a greater threat and one that cannot be ignored. (This topic will be discussed in more detail below.)

In addition, tensions have escalated between India and Pakistan after a series of terrorist attacks in India. India claimed that a radical fringe group supporting independence for Kashmir and based in Pakistan was behind the attacks. The flashpoint was an attack on the Indian parliament on December 13, 2001, in which nine Indians died along with the five assailants. In response, India recalled its ambassador to Pakistan and ended bus and train service between the two countries. India also called upon the United States to turn away from Pakistan since it was a supporter of Islamic militant terrorists. Both India and Pakistan then rushed men and weapons to the border, resulting in the largest military build-up there in more than 15 years.

The situation escalated again in May 2002 when 31 people, most of them women and children, were killed in an attack in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir. India claimed that this was further proof of the insincerity of Musharraf’s promises, claiming that terrorist camps had been reestablished in the part of Kashmir controlled by Pakistan. Pakistan has long-supported the cause of Kashmir, India’s only Muslim-majority state, and earlier in May, Musharraf described attacks on Indian military (not civilian) forces as part of a “legitimate freedom struggle,” which not only enrages India but also raises questions about what a “terrorist” really is.

Once again, this conflict put the United States into a difficult situation. Closer ties between India and the United States are critical to the United States’ strategic interests in the region and, specifically, its need to help create a balance against China. But keeping India’s support and the relationship that the two countries had been building required that the United States condemn Pakistan; in condemning Pakistan, however, the United States runs the risk of isolating Pakistan which it need for its war on terrorism, especially, the hunt for members of the Al Qaeda network. A referendum held in Pakistan on April 30, 2002, extended Musharraf’s presidency for another five years, although many questioned the legitimacy of the election. The result has been condemnation of his regime from a range across the political spectrum, a situation that is exacerbated still further by a deteriorating economy. But Pakistan, and especially Musharraf, has become an important ally of the United States. Given the critical role that Pakistan has been playing as well as the possibility that a conflict in the region could become nuclear, neither the United States nor any of the other coalition partners can afford to have the tensions in the region escalate into war.

The repercussions of the attacks of September 11 continue to be felt globally in other ways as well. In an era characterized by “globalization” and the growing interrelationship among countries the world, which was already heading toward economic downturn, went into a global recession after and as a result of September 11. The first industries to be hit were the airline and tourism-related ones, as people became increasingly hesitant to fly or even to leave their homes unless they absolutely had to. The United States Congress responded with a multi-billion dollar bail-out of the American carriers affected, many of which had been in decline prior to these events. This was not sufficient to keep two of the major carriers, United and US Air, from declaring bankruptcy. Non-US carriers felt the impact as well, and a number of them, including Sabena Belgian airlines and some of the smaller Canadian carriers went out of business. There were significant trickle-down effects as well as airlines cancelled orders for new aircraft, which had a direct effect on large manufacturers such as Boeing, but also smaller companies that make equipment also used on the aircraft.

In the United States, the economic slow-down that had started before September 11 accelerated as economic growth slowed even further and unemployment numbers rose. In addition to the most immediate impact of the slowing which was felt in New York because of the number of companies that were affected directly by September 11, the rest of the country was hit as well. After a period of political unity, the slowdown in the economy contributed to a resurgence of partisan politics as the two parties debated the best way to get the country moving again. An economic stimulus plan presented by the President in January 2003 was countered by an alternative plan offered by Congressional democrats. The goal of both was to find ways to get the economy moving. Nonetheless, the US elections of November 2002 were seen by many as a referendum on George W. Bush, and support for his programs. By January 2003, when the Republican Congress came into office, they did so with a belief that they had a mandate for their agenda.

The political and economic situation is being watched carefully by other countries who are also affected by the economic slowdown in the United States. As the primary international economic engine, the economic slow-down in the United States has a direct impact on other countries, many of which had already been struggling. Stressing the interrelations among nations, one of the most consistent points that President Bush made since taking office was the importance of increasing free trade patterns. This was a major theme at his early meeting with Mexico’s President Vicente Fox, it was repeated during Bush’s trips to Europe in June 2001 and May 2002, and reprised during the meetings of the Group of Eight (G-8) industrialized nations in both 2001 and again in June 2002. Nonetheless, many countries, including the European allies, were concerned that the United States would take the opportunity to pursue a protectionist agenda that would come at the expense of its trading partners.

These fears were realized early in March 2002, when President Bush imposed tariffs on imported steel and also on Canadian lumber. The EU quickly condemned the United States and began the process of imposing tariffs of their own. Although he came to office as a president who supported “free trade,” it quickly became clear that when this goal conflicted with protectionism, especially for critical groups within the United States (such as steel workers), Bush would opt for the domestic political agenda. His credibility on this issue was further undermined when the Senate imposed a series of conditions onto the passage of “fast track” trade promotion authority (TPA), raising questions about whether he would win this important economic battle. In the end, however, Congress did grant him the authority. And in many ways, issues of free trade have been eclipsed by or become intertwined with security issues.

Despite their close ties fighting terrorism, in many ways the United States and the countries of Europe continue to have a difficult relationship as the goals of the EU have often run directly counter to those of the United States. The United States and the EU are the two largest economies in the world which together account for about half of the entire global economy. The EU and US also have the greatest bilateral and trade relationship, with transatlantic flows of trade and investment amounting to about $1 billion per day. Further, through NATO these countries are also military allies, and hold common political values as well as strong cultural ties. Despite all these factors, the European allies continue to look with suspicion upon the United States and remain unclear as to the goals and priorities of the Bush administration and, more important, how changes in US foreign, defense and economic policies will affect them.

Chancellor Schroeder in Germany, facing a tough election campaign in September 2002, made the different points of view very clear when he focused his campaign in part on opposition to a war with Iraq and, by implication, his opposition to the United States. This has caused a deep rift between the United States and Germany, which is a major NATO ally. Within the EU, Germany and France seem to have become uneasy allies, which has the effect of minimizing US-ally Britain’s role. Although Schroeder and French President Chirac remain suspicious of one another, they have started to push for a number of EU initiatives, specifically those that will strengthen the EU’s position on justice and domestic policy. Many of these are opposed by the UK, which some see as a slap to the United States as well as to EU-member Britain.

On the whole, though, the countries of the EU appear to be thriving and the EU continues to implement its various policy goals. The economic recession that had plagued many of the EU countries in the mid-90's generally has receded to be replaced by a feeling of optimism and prosperity. Although unemployment remains relatively high in some countries, notably Germany and France, the introduction of the euro as the common currency as of January 2002 has reinforced the belief that economic union is a reality. Despite a precipitous fall in the value of the euro against the dollar during the early part of 2000 when it was first introduced, by the summer of 2002 it was pegged at equal to or greater than the dollar, and it has remained strong. Britain, one of the European countries that is not part of euroland, has seen its economy and world prestige rise. The pound sterling never experienced the fluctuations of the euro, and given the prominent role that Prime Minister Tony Blair has played since September 11, he has emerged as an important world leader. That prestige has started to erode, though, when even members of his own Labour Party started to question Blair’s support for a war in Iraq, in opposition to the will of the majority of the British public.

The EU summit held in December 2002 in Copenhagen helped outline the future of the EU. The current 15 members issued invitations to another 10 to join, including NATO members Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic. Further, with the admission of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania, the EU will go up to the borders of the former Soviet Union. The accession treaties still have to be ratified, a process that is likely to start in Hungary as early as April 2003. If all goes according to plan, the new members could join as early as May 2004.

However, the invitations to these members was not without controversy as Turkey was once again excluded. A NATO nation with an important strategic location, Turkey was hoping that admission to the EU would mark it as a full member of Europe. However, the invitation has been waived until a demanding set of political reforms are put in place. The inclusion of Cyprus was controversial as well. Many in Europe hoped that the invitation to join the EU would spur talks and eventually an agreement to reunite the island, which has been divided since 1974. There is now concern that once it does join, the Greek-Cypriot government would block Turkey’s entrance to the EU at the next round.

One of the points that became apparent to the world during the series of international trade meetings over the past two years is the growing international importance of the countries of Latin and South America in the global system. For example, even though it was suffering economically just a few years ago, Brazil is now the world’s ninth-largest economy. A series of economic liberalization measures, including ensuring greater access to imported goods, more efficient industries coupled with increased privatization, and opening many of its markets have all benefitted the country economically as well as securing a place for Brazil internationally. But, like the rest of the world, Brazil has been affected by economic downturn.

The election of Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva (i.e., Lula), a left-wing pro-labor candidate, to the presidency of Brazil is indicative of the types of political changes that are, and will continue to take place. Lula came into office committed to a policy of austerity, and has warned the governors of the 26 states of Brazil that they will be expected to pay their debt to the federal government. This has resulted in an increase in investor confidence with the belief that the President really is committed to fiscal stability. On the other hand, with this policy he risks alienating the governors whose help he will need to pass other important reforms. The stakes for Lula are especially high in this issue, since states contribute about 20% of Brazil’s public-sector budget surplus. A surplus of 3.75 percent of GDP is a condition of a loan from the IMF that was approved last year.[7]

Clearly, the economic fault lines in South America are fairly close to the surface. The nation-wide strike and political unrest directed at President Hugo Chavez in Venezuela threatens to have international repercussions because of the disruption of the sale of oil. As one of the world’s major oil-producing countries, Venezuela is a member of OPEC. Although the United States has criticized Chavez and the questionable political tactics he used to get and hold power, the US has done little beyond that and remains an important trading partner, especially as an importer of Venezuelan oil.

Mexico, after rebounding from the economic crises that plagued the country just a few years ago, started to fall into recession in 2001 as well. In another example of the impact of the interrelationship between countries, the economic forecast going into 2001 proved to be far more optimistic than the reality as Mexico, too, was directly affected by the economic slow-down in the United States. In 1999, the low price of oil, Mexico’s largest single export, and jitters over a devaluation of currency in Brazil triggered a round of economic instability. However, inflationary fears subsided when investment remained strong and the central bank held fast to its restrictive monetary policy. In 2000, Mexico’s economy was slowing but relatively stable, but it was clear that the outlook for 2001 was tied to the United States, a major trading partner. As the economy in the United States started to slow, coupled with a number of domestic factors, it had a direct impact on Mexico which looked like it would end the year far weaker economically than expected. This, in turn, has implications for President Fox.

In addition, Mexico continues to be plagued by corruption, much of it tied to illegal drugs. This is not a new problem, but one that has reached epidemic proportions, especially in

the state of Baja that borders the United States.[8] The issue of illegal migration from Mexico into the United States has also been seen as one that could cause tensions between these two nations. The crackdown at the border following September 11, which was designed to stop terrorists from entering the US illegally, also has had a direct impact on the economy of Mexico. Long lines and detailed inspections have deterred tourists and had a direct impact on those who work legally in the other country, regardless of whether that is Mexico or the US. This, too, has contributed to tensions as well as economic slow-down in the areas on both sides of the border.

Fears that porous borders allow terrorists to move about freely, including entering the United States, contributed to a desire in many countries in addition to the United States to reverse the trends of the past few years and start to close their borders, or at least scrutinize those entering more closely. “Racial profiling” became an issue, as people fitting certain ethnic profiles were stopped as they tried to leave one country and enter another. At a time when many of the developed countries have become dependent upon those from the developing world for both skilled and unskilled labor, this has posed another – economic – problem, that is, how to determine who should and should not be admitted to a country and permitted to stay.

In January 2003, the United States began talks with five Central American countries as part of its desire to expand free trade across the Americas. An agreement being negotiated with Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala would push further south some of the free-trade provisions that became part of the NAFTA agreement signed in 1994 between the US, Mexico and Canada. The United States is also moving forward with its agreement to eliminate tariffs on several Mexican agricultural items, including limes and winter vegetables. Mexico, in turn, was supposed to eliminate its tariffs on US farm products including wheat, barley, rice, apples, potatoes and pork. While this is beneficial to the United States, the tariff reductions threaten to undermine the strength of the agricultural sector in Mexico. Since about 22 percent of Mexico’s labor force is in agriculture, the government has a vested interest in making sure that this group is protected economically in some way. Whether this means postponing the implementation of the tariff reductions, renegotiating NAFTA, or finding a way to provide internal price supports, it is clear that President Fox will make this a priority.

In another area of security, to follow up on a campaign pledge to build a National Missile Defense (NMD) system, in December 2001 President Bush gave notice that the United States would withdraw from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty so that work on that defense system could go forward. This threatened many of the US allies, especially Russia. While Russian President Putin indicated his displeasure with that decision, it quickly became clear that there was little he could – or would – do. With the Russian economy in decline and Putin starting to shore up his own position politically, it was important that Putin appear to remain an ally of Bush. No where was this more apparent than in the Security Council, where the United States needed Russia’s support on behalf of the resolutions about Iraq. Many speculate that Putin will extract a price from the United States for his loyalty

Putin has proven to be a skillful>

This step is important to Russia for a number of reasons. Politically, it allows Russia to be part of ongoing discussions with the West, and allows Putin to help shore up his position as a global leader. Economically, this is an important step to a country that is not integrated into the existing international trade regime. Russia’s primary manufactured exports are guns and vodka, the country has a very high debt burden, and there is little foreign investment. While some of this is changing slowly, the greatest benefit to Russia would come if it were invited to join the WTO, which would help make Russia appear to be a more predictable and stable place to do business. While membership is likely, it is still a number of years out and Russia will still have work to do before it becomes a major player in the international economic system.

The political and security as well as economic situation across all of Asia remains fluid and potentially unstable at this time as well, thereby raising the stakes regarding what to do about North Korea. In the Philippines, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyoa has managed to remain in control, in part by winning and keeping the support of the military. But her support remains shaky and halfway into her term (with elections due in 2004), it is unclear whether she will be able to win reelection. The country suffers from severe economic problems as well as continuing corruption. More than 80% of the population is considered either “poor” or working class whose support the President will need if she is to remain in power. Further, the top 10% of the population earned 24 times more than the bottom 10%, a significant “income gap.” The country is facing a growing budget deficit that is not likely to be reduced due to weak tax collection that limits income. Part of that weakness is due to corruption in the bureaucracy, especially in the Bureau of Internal Revenue which is charged with collecting taxes. In fact, one estimate is that 20% of government spending is lost because of graft and corruption, a situation that Arroyo has tried to address, largely unsuccessfully.[9] Despite these problems, President Arroyo has been quick to point out that the economy has grown at a strong rate of over 4 percent, inflation has stayed low, exports are rising, and foreign capital has been flowing into the country. The question is whether these positive economic indicators can be sustained and whether President Arroyo can get – and keep – the confidence of the public.

The instability in the Philippines was made clear in September 2002 when six Jehovah’s witnesses were kidnaped on the southern island of Jolo. This event occurred just weeks after US military forces left the country, and served as a stark reminder of both the reach of terrorist groups (in this case, the Abu Sayyaf), and the inability of the Philippine military to adequately protect and guarantee the security of anyone within the country.

The sense of vulnerability through Asia was made worse when a bomb exploded on the Indonesian island of Bali>

As of November, China began the process of transition in its highest levels of government. After more than 50 years in positions of power, 76 year old Jiang Zemin was replaced as Communist Party General Secretary by 59 year old Hu Jintao. Jiang will remain as state president until March 2003, at which time he is required to give up his post. However, his continued presence is viewed by many foreign governments and investors alike as necessary in order to provide stability and order during the transition period. China’s position and its relationship with other countries, especially the United States, has become especially critical given the growing crisis in North Korea.

President Bush and President Jiang met in October 2002at President Bush’s ranch in Texas for their third summit meeting. At that time, one of the major items on the agenda was the potential war looming in Iraq, an action that Jiang does not support. But his opposition is balanced against the fact that the United States is China’s largest export market and one of its leading sources of foreign direct investment. Furthermore, China is aware of the fact that the relationship with the United States, according to one analysis, “touches on China’s core national interests of economic development and unity...” This makes maintaining US-Chinese relations a high priority.[10]

With the growing tensions in Asia over North Korea, China’s role has been made even more critical. China is one of North Korea’s few allies, and for a number of years Beijing has been encouraging North Korea to follow its own model of development. In addition, China has encouraged Pyongyang to begin talks with the EU and Japan in an effort to broaden its diplomatic access. In 1994, North Korea was helped by China’s refusal to support economic sanctions, but China also helped pave the way for the Framework Agreement that resulted. Because of their current economic relationship China’s interests appear to lie more closely with the United States than Pyongyang. A telephone conversation between President Bush and Jiang in January 2003 was reported to have the two leaders in agreement about North Korea and its status as an outlaw state.

In 2002, China finally realized its goal of being admitted to the WTO. This was important economically as well as symbolically as it was the first major step that this country has taken to integrate its own economy with that of the capitalist west since the People’s Republic of China was created more than 50 years ago. The decision to join was the result of intense debate internally, as the reformers who pushed for membership had to fight with the conservative “old guard.” This, too, was an important step in bringing China more closely into the global economic system and helped elevate its status internationally.

The December 19 elections in South Korea brought to power Roh Moo-hyun, a former civil rights lawyer who has not been supportive of the United States. For example, Roh has called for the revision of an accord that gives the United States legal jurisdiction over the more than 37,000 soldiers stationed in Korea. This became an issue after two South Korean school>

But relations between the two countries became even more important – and potentially dangerous – following the revelation of North Korea’s nuclear program. During his election campaign, Mr. Roh argued for a policy of conciliation with the North, and against America’s hard-line stance of isolating North Korea. Roh’s position has moderated since North Korea made the decision to activate its reactor, and he has urged anti-American demonstrators to tone down their activities. He also indicated his desire to find ways to improve relations with the United States, and plans to visit Washington soon. Despite the appearance of warming relations between the US and South Korea, American policy makers remain concerned about the apparent differences that the two countries have over North Korea.

Japan has emerged as a critical player in Asia as well. Always important because of its economic position, it has taken on an even more important role regarding North Korea. When Junichiro Koizumi was elected to head the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and then made the Prime Minister of Japan in April 2001, he was seen as a reformer who inherited a difficult situation. Public debt was close to 130% of GDP, economic growth was down, and unemployment was at near-record high levels. This put Koizumi under pressure to turn things around and to live up to his reputation as a reformer.

However, by spring 2002, about a year after he took office, little had been accomplished to address the deteriorating economic situation. In fact, in April 2002, two former US officials with expertise on Japan recommended that the Untied States should suggest to Koizumi that “he might best lead by resigning.”[11] The United States has two interrelated concerns about the flagging Japanese economy: first, there is concern that the economic malaise could spread and contribute to further economic destabilization in Asia; second, the United States is aware that a floundering economy would leave Japan unable to take on a stronger strategic security role in the region. This latter concern has become especially critical given the changing situation because of North Korea.

The frustration goes both ways in this critical relationship, though. Japan has become increasingly concerned over the US handling of the war on terrorism, specifically, what Japan views as a unilateral assertion of US power with little or no consultation with allies. Japan is also concerned that an expansion of the war (into Iraq, for example) would further jeopardize Japan’s economic recovery, especially by disrupting Japan’s oil shipments from the Persian Gulf. And Japan was annoyed by the US decision to reject the Kyoto accord on global warming, and also its criticism of Japanese whaling.

Normalization talks between the Japan and North Korea, including the promise of a multi-billion dollar settlement to North Korea from Japan as compensation for its occupation from 1910 through 1945, have stalled following North Korea’s nuclear decision. Growing ani-North Korean sentiment in Japan makes it more difficult for Japan to be able to give any money or aid to the North. This puts Japan into a unique position to play a critical role in helping to mediate a conclusion of the North Korea situation. Doing so would also help assuage some of the United States concerns about Koizumi.

While much of the world’s attention has been focused on issues of security, there are other issues that remain important, if less prominent on the international agenda. In May 2002, the United Nations convened a General Assembly Special Session to address the situation of children around the world. For the first time, children were allowed to participate in the Session, and to tell their own stories as a way of increasing awareness of the plight of children. In addition to speeches by the usual diplomats and NGOs, these children told stories of their own situations as refugees, sex slaves and soldiers. In stories supported by health professionals and those who work with refugees, the members of the General Assembly learned that 10% of the babies in the world are born to teenage mothers, many of whom were married off to men who are significantly older than they are, and who are then expected to bear children. One doctor referred to this as among the worst form of child labor as these teenage mothers suffer disproportionately from anemia, high blood pressure, miscarriages and are more likely to suffer from other health problems directly related to pregnancy.

Going into the Special Session it was hoped that the delegates could agree upon a declaration of goals that would contribute to improving the plight of children around the world. There is a Convention on the Rights of the Child that was agreed upon in 1989, but which the United States never ratified. Advocates from around the world hoped that this Special Session would result in a conference document that would encourage countries to pass laws and invest in programs that would directly benefit children. While a start was made, politics interfered and the goals of the Session were not met in their entirety.

Another issue that is of paramount concern is water, one of the most important – and scarcest – of natural resources. While parts of Africa suffer from drought, other parts of the world, such as India, periodically have to deal with floods that are the result of monsoon rains. Mali, a land-locked country in western Africa, is an example of one country that can suffer from both extremes because of its location. Its geography makes it susceptible to drought in the semi-arid to arid northern parts, but also periodic flooding of the Niger River which runs through the southern part of the country. Geography has also contributed to one of the country’s major environmental issues, which is an inadequate supply of potable water.

Furthermore, as many waterways cross national boundaries tensions have and could easily arise when one country acts unilaterally in a way that disrupts the water supply to another country. The fact that some countries are even selling access to water systems raises both economic and ethnical questions about who really “owns” the water, and whether it is a commodity that can be bought and sold on the open market. This is a new issue for the international community, but at a time of global warming and concomitant climate change that have had a direct impact on water world-wide, it is an important one.

In short, the 21st century will pose new and perhaps greater challenges to foreign policy decision makers. Unlike the Cold War era, when most issues were premised on competition between West and East, the United States versus the Soviet Union and democracy versus communism, the post Cold War international system has no single framework to guide it. Economic strength has replaced military might as an indicator of power, and human rights issues have become important components of foreign policy. However, political and military issues remain and, as September 11 illustrated, potentially are more dangerous to international peace and well-being.

Security: Role of International Law

Synopsis

On October 7, 2002, President George W. Bush went on television to lay out what has

become known as the “Bush Doctrine.” Drawn from the national security policy statement that was developed by his administration and released publicly in September, the Bush Doctrine significantly reverses established US foreign policy by laying out circumstances under which a preemptive (i.e., first) strike is justified. In this speech, clearly aimed for an international as well as domestic audience, President Bush argued that September 11 was a wake-up call against terrorist threats that can no longer be ignored. And, specifically, he made the case that to do nothing is “the riskiest of options.”

Under both domestic and international political pressure, the Bush administration has subsequently been persuaded to wait for the results of reports to be submitted by UN weapons inspectors before taking military action against Iraq. However, the very possibility of a pre-emptive strike on a sovereign nation prior to having evidence of the presence of weapons of mass destruction and/or intent to use them flies in the face of established policy and, some would argue, international law as it undermines the sovereignty of another nation.

As the international system debates going to war with Iraq, a working group has been assembled under the auspices of the United Nations to debate the philosophical and ethical impact of such a decision. While, on the one hand, any country has the right to protect itself on the other hand does it have the right to do so by infringing upon the sovereignty of another country?

The Issues

In his State of the Union speech in January 2002 President Bush identified three countries, Iraq, Iran and North Korea, as members of an “axis of evil” which threatens the peace of the world by developing weapons of mass destruction. But he also made clear at that time that his administration’s foreign policy would be guided by a set of “non-negotiable demands,” including the fact that these countries must be disarmed. In short, what Bush did in this speech was broaden the “war on terror” by identifying other threats to the United States, and reminding the world that the spread of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons poses an even greater threat to peace and security than the terrorist-hijackers did. By putting these ideas forward, President Bush laid out the plan for broader American involvement beyond simply fighting al-Qaeda.

Also in this speech President Bush put forward a more complete list of “non-negotiable demands” tied to values, including “the rule of law...respect for women...private property...free speech...equal justice...religious tolerance.” While few could debate the importance of these values as tied to basic human rights, many are also western-oriented and culturally bound. As noted in an editorial in the British magazine The Economist, while the aim is admirable, the application will be harder. “It will be harder because so many countries around the world disagree with it, including many that now play host to American bases or are acting as allies: Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Kuwait, Uzbekistan, to name but a few. It will be harder also, though, if the list comes to be a rigid indicator of who must be an ally and who an enemy.”[12]

While one result of the speech was to shore up the President’s popularity at home, it had other negative repercussions abroad in addition to those noted above, including alienating its closest allies. Italy and Germany, two NATO members, were offended by the use of the term “axis of evil,” as it conjured up a part of their history that they would rather forget, including the fact that they stood as enemies fighting against the United States in an earlier war. Further, other NATO allies, such as France, had been working hard to establish economic ties with Iran in the belief that this would be the best way to bring it more firmly into the community of nations. And still other allies, including Japan and South Korea, had been working to build diplomatic ties with North Korea in order to help beak down that country’s isolation. They also were critical of the United States’ increasingly hard-line stance regarding North Korea, thereby reversing a tentative opening made by the Clinton administration. China, too, had been encouraging North Korea to follow its own model of development and to reach out more to other countries.

What was unambiguous about the speech, however, was that Bush made it clear that the United States was going to chart its own course in foreign policy. And, although it would need help in achieving the lofty goals it outlined, that assistance would be the result of a coalition of countries built for a specific purpose, rather than relying on traditional allies.

In the period following the “axis of evil” speech, the Bush administration focused primarily on Iraq as a rogue state, talking at times about the need for “regime change,” (i.e., toppling Saddam Hussein) and then of the need to “disarm” the country. And the administration appeared ready to take military action in support of these goals. But in the period between the January 2002 speech and the release of the Bush Doctrine, support for preemptive (and potentially unilateral) military action was starting to erode. For example, a USA Today/ CNN/Gallup poll released on October 3rd through 6th 2002 showed that about half the American public (53 percent) were in favor of invading Iraq, down from even a month earlier. And a New York Times poll taken in the same period, just before the speech, showed that 63 percent of the American public wanted to give UN weapons inspectors more time to do their work.[13] In short, public opinion was working to slow down the course that the administration wanted to chart. And existing international law, as embodied in international organizations such as the United Nations, started to play a greater role.

Bearing in mind the importance of getting international support for his policies against Iraq, on September 12, 2002 President Bush spoke before the UN General Assembly in support of resolutions laying out specific demands on Iraq. Following the end of the Gulf War, the United Nations had passed resolutions giving Iraq 15 days to disclose its nuclear, biological and chemical weapons and then destroy them under international supervision. Iraq did not comply; the United Nations imposed sanctions on Iraq, but did nothing directly to ensure compliance with the terms of the resolution. And Iraq suspended the weapons inspection program entirely in 1998. It was Iraq’s disregard for this earlier UN resolution that became the basis for the subsequent resolution that was finally passed in the Security Council, and that paved the way for the return of the UN inspectors.

In debating the most recent resolution before the Security Council it became clear that many countries, including France and Russia, were adamantly opposed to the idea of going to war against Iraq without first allowing inspectors to return to the country. Tied to this was the fact that pressure was growing on the Bush administration by other countries, as well as the US Congress and public, to provide proof of the allegations that Iraq not only had weapons of mass destruction but that the country also posed a direct threat to the US and its allies. Underlying many of these concerns were issues of international law and whether any country has the right to engage in a pre-emptive strike on a sovereign nation without firm proof that that country poses a direct threat. A related concern was whether one country has the right to call for a “regime” or leadership change within another country.

By mid-November, the Security Council finally voted unanimously on a resolution that outlined the plans for Iraq. The country was required to admit weapons inspectors back into the country, and then benchmarks were set that, if violated, would pave the way for war. Among these were Iraq had to produce documentation disclosing the location of the weapons of mass destruction or proof that the weapons had been destroyed; the weapons inspectors had to present their findings to the members of the Security Council; the US would agree to consult the security Council before going to war against Iraq; and the United States reserved the right to act unilaterally if a “material breach” was found in violation of the terms of the resolution.

In preparation for war should it become necessary, and to shore up his case internationally, in the fall the President also went to the Senate with a request for a war resolution giving the President whatever powers he deems necessary to engage in a war. Modeled on the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, and designed to ensure compliance with the 1973 War Powers Resolution, the Senate overwhelmingly gave the President the support he needed, despite some Democrats’ concern about the power it gave the President and the administration.

Since the passage of the UN resolution in November, Iraq complied by allowing the weapons inspectors back into the country, and met the December 8 deadline to disclose information about its weapons program. Although the United States and other members of the Security Council said that the documentation that Iraq provided was simply a rehash of what it had provided before, thereby calling into question Iraq’s sincerity in complying with the resolution, other member countries felt that at least Iraq was showing good faith. Similarly, at a briefing by the top weapons inspectors in January, they indicated that while they were still skeptical that Iraq had disarmed, they had not yet found evidence of a “smoking gun” that would constitute a material breach that would justify war.

Although President Bush said that he had not yet reached a decision about a war, the United States has not hid its build up of military forces to the Middle East in preparation for one. As early as September 2002, the United States was increasing the number of personnel deployed to the region, and has been talking with countries, such as Turkey, about using it as a staging area. The British government released a report designed to remind the world about the atrocities that Saddam Hussein had committed against its own citizens, again, as a way to shore up public opinion. And early in December Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said that “any country on this earth with an active intelligence program knows that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.”[14] However, as many countries are quick to point out, there has been no proof offered publicly of this assertion.

Much of international law and specifically the right to engage in war with another country stems from the tenets of “Just War,” defined as “ a doctrine that pertains to the moral considerations by which war may be undertaken and how it should be fought once it begins.”[15] The Just War tradition grows from work of St. Augustine in the 4th century, when he questioned the legitimacy of those who take the life of another on behalf of the state. By medieval times, Augustine’s view grew into what we now know as “just war doctrine,” which is divided into two parts: 1) the justice of a war and 2) justice in war. Justice in war refers to the criteria “by which a political leader may determine whether war should be waged. The latter specifies restraints on the range of permissive tactics when a just war is fought.”[16]

Debating the question of when and whether a country has the right to preemptively attack another gets at the heart of a just war. According to the way in which just war doctrine has evolved, the taking of a human life in war may be sanctioned as a “lesser evil” when it is employed to stop the aggression of another country that would, in turn, result in greater loss of life. Out of this assumption come another series of precepts about when war is just (or justified): 1) last resort, that is, war is permissible only if all other means to resolve the conflict have been tried and failed; 2) legitimate authority, that is, the decision to go to war can only be made by a legitimate head of state or government; 3) right intention, that is, war is justified only for purposes of defense; 4) probability of success, that is, there must be the assumption that war will succeed with a “reasonable” loss of life; 5) appropriate goal, that is, war can only be initiated in order to restore peace and to ensure conditions that are preferable to those that existed prior to the war; and 6) military purpose, that is, “war is permitted to resist aggression but not to change an aggressor’s type of government.” (Emphasis added)[17] It is this last point that is especially troubling to many in the international community when debating war with Iraq, for the very notion of “regime change” raises questions about whether that is a legitimate reason to go to war.

As the international system debates going to war with Iraq, a working group has been assembled under the auspices of the United Nations to debate the philosophical and ethical impact of such a decision. While, on the one hand, any country has the right to protect itself on the other hand does it have the right to do so by infringing upon the sovereignty of another country?

Questions for Consideration

1) Does one country have the right or responsibility to preemptively attack another in the belief that the country poses a threat?

2) How can countries reinterpret established international law, including just war doctrine, to account for changing political and military realities?

3) Where do countries see the balance between the need for security versus protection of another country’s sovereignty?

Global Economics: Free Trade versus International Security

Synopsis

To many observers, the decade following the end of the Cold War was the era of “globalization,” characterized by growing interaction and interrelationships among countries. Globalization was driven by a “borderless world,” in which transactions moved electronically, capital flowed freely, and people quickly crossed borders from one country to another. In fact, “globalization entails a dense web of cross-border relationships that range from the very evident (the spread of disease) to the very subtle (the spread of ideas).”[18]

One of the things that has made globalization possible has been the almost seamless movement of goods as they go from manufacturer to container to ship to a port in another country. Yet, in the United States for example, only about 2 percent of cargo entering the country is inspected. Potentially this could make it possible for a terrorist group to easily smuggle a nuclear weapon or other weapon of mass destruction into the country as part of cargo in a container.

Although the United States has focused a great deal on “homeland security” since September 11, including passage of a bill that would create a new, omnibus agency that would focus on this issue, little has been done by the US or other countries to address the apparent contradiction between globalization and the movement of goods, and that of guaranteeing security by imposing an inspection regime on such goods.

Given the security realities that have emerged since 9/11, a working group of countries has been convened to try to arrive at a set of parameters that would allow countries to help improve security by creating and implementing some universal inspection regime that would allow countries to examine cargo and imports, but could do so without infringing upon either free trade or national sovereignty.

The Issues

A globalized world carries with it both advantages and disadvantages. On the one hand,

globalization means free and open access to other countries, as people, ideas, and goods move freely across borders. This has contributed to the growth of free trade, which has economic advantages for all countries involved, the open exchange of ideas, and greater understanding as people from diverse countries and cultures get to know one another. But it brings with it disadvantages as well. The importation of ideas, especially those deemed as “western,” has contributed to the growth of nationalism and fundamentalism in some countries or among some groups,who see the introduction of western culture as a direct threat to their beliefs. And globalization does not affect or benefit all countries equally; many argue that globalization only seeks to take advantage of the poorer or less developed countries by allowing the developed countries to exploit the work force by importing goods made more cheaply. So while globalization is a reality, it must be looked at as the proverbial “double-edged sword.”

Global integration carries with it benefits beyond just economic advantages. For example, a study of the “Globalization Index” revealed that the world’s most globalized countries also tend to have greater income equality than those that are less globalized. More global countries tend to enjoy greater political freedom, civil liberties and political rights than the less globalized do.[19] In short, the more “globalized” a country is, the more likely it is to be politically open, educated and technologically wired, as well as economically engaged internationally on any number of dimensions.

As noted above, globalization and economic interdependence bring with them a host of disadvantages as well. The interrelationship among countries means that if and/or when one of the “major” countries suffers from an economic setback of some kind, it will directly affect other countries. This interrelationship was seen clearly with the Asia economic crisis of 1997, which started in Thailand and quickly spread throughout all of Asia and, ultimately, affected most other countries with which Asia traded or had relationships. And it again became apparent with the world-wide recession that followed September 11 and the economic disruption that resulted starting in the United States and then affecting its trading partners. The increase in globalization only served to exacerbate this situation. Further, the relationships that currently exist also mean that it is harder for countries to move out of recession because of the interconnections among nations.

Finally, as September 11 also made clear, globalization and the free movement of people and goods can make a country far more vulnerable. Not only the United States but many other countries have been reexamining their policies and procedures by which visitors of various kinds are admitted into their country. The easing of restrictions at the borders of EU countries have made it especially easy for people, including potential terrorists, to move from one European country to another. Fears that porous borders allow terrorists to move about freely contributed to a desire in many countries in addition to the United States to reverse the trends of the past few years and start to close their borders, or at least scrutinize those entering more closely. “Racial profiling” became an issue, as people fitting certain ethnic profiles were stopped as they tried to leave one country and enter another. At a time when many of the developed countries have become dependent upon those from the developing world for both skilled and unskilled labor, this has posed another – economic – problem, i.e., how to determine who should and should not be admitted to a country and permitted to stay.

In many countries, this has been manifested in a change in immigration policy, especially a crack down on immigrants entering a country (legally as well as illegally), from certain “high risk” areas. The United States has started to require men who immigrated from some of the countries in the Middle East must register with the federal government, and risk arrest if their paper work is not in order. Many of the immigrants to Europe are also Muslim: Germany has long depended on Turks as “guest workers” to do the jobs Germans don’t want; Pakistanis have emigrated to England and North Africans to France, the former colonial master. But many of these emigres are attracted to or have become more fundamentalist in their beliefs, thereby posing a potential danger. As a result, countries in Western Europe have also increased their scrutiny of emigres from those groups. Thus, the United States and its European allies have been paying special attention to immigrants from many of the Middle Eastern countries, including monitoring mosques in the hope of identifying potential terrorists.

One of the ways in which the United States chose to address the issue of domestic security was the creation of a new Department of Homeland Security. Signed into law by President Bush at the end of November 2002, the creation of this department represents the most far-reaching government organization since the National Security Act of 1947, which created the Department of Defense, the CIA, and many of the other agencies seen as essential to the United States as it faced the Cold War. The new Homeland Security Department will bring together about 170,000 workers from 22 government agencies under one department with the goal of protecting the United States by ensuring aviation safety, more secure borders and even protection for technology. To do this, the agency will have four major functions. Border and Transportation Security will include the Immigration and Naturalization Service, Customs, the Coast Guard, and the new Transportation Security Agency. Emergency Preparedness and Response will be responsible for emergency response and preparedness, including emergency response in the event of chemical, biological, or nuclear attacks. Science and Technology will include civilian defense and research programs, including some of the laboratories. And Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection will be responsible for infrastructure protection and communication. The cost of the new agency is estimated to be about $37 billion per year.

The new department has been hailed because for the first time, it will gather all the border and transportation agencies into one organization. Prior to this, someone entering the country might have to deal with three agencies (Customs, Immigration and Naturalization, and the Department of Agriculture) for example. And the new agency will also serve as a clearing house for assessing the vulnerabilities of, and threats to, Americans at home.

But the approach taken in organizing the new agency has a number of weaknesses as well. For example, many of the most vulnerable targets, such as chemical factories, are privately owned and are under private security. And while passengers and baggage are checked at airports, still vulnerable is cargo coming into the country by truck and rail (from Canada and Mexico), by air, and especially by water.

This problem of protecting ports and monitoring cargo is not unique to the United States. However, as the area with among the largest ports in the world, the US is especially vulnerable. To begin to address this potential threat, the adjacent ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles will be used to test new devices and strategies designed to deter terrorism. But, authorities note, the challenge will be “to balance the safeguards with the flow of commerce in the nation’s busiest harbor complex...where 15,000 tractor-trailer-sized cargo containers arrive from around the world each day.” By the end of 2004, the plan is to install video cameras, motion sensors and radiation detectors “capable of sniffing out a nuclear bomb on a train traveling past at 30 mph.”[20] In addition, a new inspection center is being planned for the area. All port workers will also be required to have plastic identification cards that will include a holographic photograph, fingerprint, signature and other unique identifying characteristics. And credentialing will include a criminal background check.

Port safety for all countries will involve international cooperation, though. For example, as part of an agreement that was reached in December 2002, new experimental tamper-proof locks and other security systems designed to deter terrorists trying to smuggle in weapons will start being tested in 2004 on Los Angeles-bound containers before they leave Hong Kong’s terminal. In addition, cargo coming from Hong Kong’s Modern Terminals bound for the Los Angeles ports will be screened in Hong Kong rather than off the Los Angeles coast, as is currently the case. Costs on the Hong Kong side will be borne by Modern Terminals, a major container port, and the expenses on the US side for implementation these new programs will come from the Department of Transportation’s $28 billion “Operation Safe Commerce” program. Hong Kong is the largest port in the world, and the largest point of embarkation of cargo heading to the United States.

But experts in the United States concede that this is just a start. Combined, the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles are the busiest in the country and the seventh-busiest in the world. Together, they handle about 43 percent of the imports for the country, but only about 2 percent of cargo typically is screened. Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) has been working on a bill that would fund development of a device that could detect nuclear weapons up to 60 feet away. If passed, that would be another step the ensuring security, but it is not enough. Similarly, the agreement reached with the Hong Kong Terminals is a step toward ensuring cargo (and, therefore port) safety, but admittedly it is just a pilot program that is limited in scope.

While countries agree on the need to protect themselves by better inspecting cargo entering their country, they disagree as to how this can be done without having a negative impact on free trade. For example, if the security measures become too odious and costly, will a country try to find a way around it, perhaps by shipping goods to another country (such as Canada), and then having them brought in by train where inspection measures might be less stringent? And, if so, will that increase the costs which, of course, will then be passed on to the consumer?

All of these questions are at the forefront of the international discussion about this important and relevant issue. To address it, a working group of countries has been convened to try to arrive at a set of parameters that would allow countries to help improve security by creating and implementing some universal inspection regime, but could do so without infringing upon either free trade or national sovereignty.

Questions for Consideration

1) Can countries agree on specific actions that they can take to protect cargo and ports, without impeding free trade? Should countries begin by enacting measures nationally, or begin by trying to confront the problem on a global scale?

2) If countries can reach agreement on such measures, how can they guarantee that countries will comply with those measures?

3) Who will be responsible for monitoring compliance with any agreement reached, and what sanctions should be imposed upon countries that violate that agreement?

Human Rights: Rights of the Child

Synopsis

In May 2002, for the first time in ten years the United Nations General Assembly convened a Special Session on Children. The delegates and child advocates hoped that this Special Session would result in a conference document that would encourage countries to pass laws and invest in programs that would directly benefit children. But statistics support the idea that the international community needs to act to protect children globally, rather than relying on individual states to do so. A start was made in 1989 with the passage of the Convention of the Rights of the Child. However, some states, such as the US, never ratified this document, plus there are significant questions about enforcement and compliance.

In the wake of this Special Session, and given the issues that the Session raised about the deplorable situation facing many of the world’s children, the United Nations agreed to convene a working group that would continue to explore the topic. The charge of this group is to see whether it can reach agreement on some of the issues facing children and then to make recommendations to the international community as a whole. Specifically, this group has been asked to use the Convention on the Rights of the Child as its starting point as a way to enact some specific policies that would protect children and that could be enforceable and verifiable.

The Issues

In May, 2002, the United Nations convened a Special Session of the General Assembly specifically on children. The session, which for the first time featured children as speakers to talk personally about the situation that they face, was called to help governments focus on ways to improve the conditions of children around the world. It was also designed to take stock of the situation since 1990, which is the last time global leaders gathered to address the plight of children world wide. However, this is the first time that the United Nations has devoted an entire General Assembly session exclusively to children.

Since 1990, progress has been uneven. On the whole, immunization of children against diseases such as diptheria and tetanus has improved but other goals that were set then are far from being achieved. In 2000, statistics showed that almost 40% of children ages 10 through14 worldwide are working, many of whom are not even paid for their labor. The 1990 goal of reducing the mortality rate for children under five by one-third has been met by a decrease of less than 15%; the UN has set another goal to reduce the infant and under-five mortality rate by 33% by 2010. Another goal of cutting in half the number of malnutrition cases for children under five not only was not met but in some parts of the world, such as sub-Saharan Africa, the number of such cases has increased.[21]

The conference raised other disturbing statistics about the plight of children around the world. In 2000, more than 150 million children were malnourished including 52% of the children in Sub-Saharan Africa, 21% of those in South Asia, and 18% in the Middle East and North Africa.[22] Many of the diseases that have affected children, such as polio, have just about been eradicated, yet 10 million children die every year from preventable diseases. And 120 million primary-school>

The situation in parts of the world is made worse because governments, squeezed by foreign debt, are spending less on social services. The United Nations has found that some of the poorer countries spend three to five times as much paying off foreign debt as they do on basic services, many of which would directly benefit children. This point was not lost on the children who attended the session. One 12 year old boy from Uganda asked rhetorically, “Who will pay those big loans when they come due in 20 or 30 years?.....It will be us. And we have nothing to pay them with....” Another child delegate, a 17-year old from Chad, noted that “The promises of the past...had left [him] disenchanted.” He concluded “Listen to the children not with your ears, but with your hearts.”[23]

At the same time, the world’s richer countries are falling short of the commitments that they made at the 1990 summit meeting to devote an average of 0.7% of GDP to development assistance. Only four countries, Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden and Norway have met this goal. The United States devotes 0.1% of its GDP to such aid.[24] And the United States announced at the end of July that it was removing $34 million in aid from the United Nations and will put it into its own programs through the Agency for International Development (AID). The rationale was that the UN supports abortion rights and family planning in a way that the Bush administration does not, and this way the US government can direct the funds to places it feels needs them. While the fact that the US will be keeping money in areas of development earmarked for children and families has been praised by some, others are concerned by this move for a number of reasons. Some fear that this will decimate the budget of the UN agency tasked with this mission, others are concerned that the funds will not be distributed to those countries that most need it (but only to those countries the US chooses), and, finally, others see this as a way for the Bush administration to play to the more right-wing elements of the country at the expense of families and children who need the support.

Many of the delegates who attended the Special Session hoped to use the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child as a starting point to set standards for children. However, the language finally agreed upon did not address the Convention and, in fact, many child advocates were concerned that the weak language in the final conference document would hinder efforts to pass laws protecting children. Much of the blame was laid at the feet of the United States, one of two countries that has yet to ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child. (Somalia, the other country, finally signed the Convention earlier in May and was expected to ratify it.) The United States has opposed the document in part because it condemns the use of capital punishment against minors, a practice allowed in almost half of the states in the US. The European Union had been pushing for a ban on executing criminals under the age of 18, but this, too, was not included in the final conference document because of pressure from the United States.

One of the most divisive debates that took place during the course of the Special Session was about reproductive health. The United States delegation was joined by the Vatican and several Islamic countries in its push to make sure that the term “reproductive health services” be annotated to exclude abortion. They were opposed by the European Union and many of the Latin American, Asian and African countries. The American delegation also pushed for language promoting abstinence for unmarried youth, and critics accused the United States of trying to withhold information about HIV, which is spreading rapidly among the young of the developing world. Part of the rancor came from the fact that some countries felt that the United States was trying to renegotiate commitments that were made earlier. The EU delegates, as well as some from many Asian, African and Latin American countries favored maintaining those commitments and agreements that had been made earlier and advocated using this session to move them still further.

The issue of reproductive health is one area that directly affects a number of young women world wide. One in 10 babies is born to teenage mothers, many of whom are married to men who are significantly older than they are. In parts of the developing world it is established practice to marry-off daughters at a relatively young age and they, in turn, are quickly expected to produce a child. Some doctors who treat these girls have called this among the worst forms of child labor, since their small size and fragility make bearing a child dangerous for them. Hence, to many countries the negotiations surrounding the wording about assuring reproductive health was far more than the politics of abortion. Nonetheless, the United States prevailed and the term “reproductive health services” was expunged from the final document. However, neither does it contain any specific proscriptions against abortion which the US and its allies on this topic wanted. In previous conferences, language stated only that in countries where abortion was legal it ought to be safe.

Despite the controversy surrounding these various health issues, the strongest condemnation was reserved for a discussion of the deployment of child soldiers, which Kofi Annan called a “despicable and damaging practice,” and he hinted of the need to punish those who are responsible for this.[25] The United Nations estimates that 300,000 children are fighting in wars around the world. Unlike the issue of reproductive health, the horror of child soldiers is an area on which it was possible for countries to reach consensus.

The wrangling over the wording of the conference document, while apparently trivial to the child-delegates to the Session, was critical to the delegates representing the various countries attending. The final document was to set the goals that would guide the United Nations for the next eight to ten years, but also because of the role that the document could play in pressuring governments to enact legislation that would directly benefit children. However, even when the language was agreed upon, among the issues facing all countries are how to move these issues forward on the global agenda and make sure that the rights of children continue to be protected.

For many of the delegates the failure of the international system to address children’s rights stems from the issues raised in the 1989 Convention and the weaknesses of that document. For example, while the Convention clearly addresses issues about what is “best” for a child, it does not prescribe what “best” is, thereby leaving it open to interpretation by each country. Even questions about when a “child” becomes an adult are open to discussion based on culture and social norms. For example, child development practitioners know that the period between 12 and 16 are critical times in a child’s development, physically, cognitively, socially and emotionally.[26] Yet, in some countries children of that age are working, are not in school, or are even married and bearing their own children. In some cases, having a child work at that age is economic necessity. Yet, it is also clear that doing so will stunt the child’s development in any number of ways.

In the wake of the recent Special Session on Children, and given the issues that the Session raised about the deplorable situation facing many of the world’s children, the United Nations agreed to convene a working group that would continue to explore the topic. The charge of this group is to see whether it can reach agreement on some of the issues facing children and then to make recommendations to the international community as a whole. Specifically, this group has been asked to use the Convention on the Rights of the Child as its starting point as a way to enact some specific policies that would protect children and that could be enforceable and verifiable.

In addressing this topic, the international community must address whether it can prescribe the ways children should be treated in all countries, considering cultural, economic and social realities. It also must take into account that factors such as poverty, hunger, malnutrition, the environment are also factors that will affect a child’s development.

Questions for Consideration

1) What can countries do individually and collectively to protect the rights of children world wide? Is there a single standard that all countries can agree upon?

2) If countries can agree on a standard, how will compliance be monitored and assured? What sanctions should be imposed on countries that violate the standard?

3) Who should be responsible for funding initiatives that would aid children, and how should funding be assessed?

Environment: Water as a Resource and as a Commodity

Synopsis

The only incidence of war over water was 4,500 years ago in the region of Mesopotamia part of which is now contained within Iraq. However, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, among others, has warned that “fierce competition for fresh water may well become a source of conflict and wars in the future.”[27] Fresh water is a finite resource that has no substitute in most of its uses. It has been estimated that by the year 2015 nearly 3 billion people, or an estimated 40 percent of the world’s population, are expected to live in countries with scarce water. This raises the possibility of conflict for what will become an even scarcer global commodity.

Issues surrounding water as a scarce resource have become even more politicized because of questions, both ethical and economic, surrounding the sale of water as a commodity. In a number of cases public authorities (i.e., governments) have been selling or transferring the ownership and/or management of water systems to private corporations. This move toward privatization is the result of a number of factors including mounting costs and increased liability associated with providing water services, pressure from international organizations (such as the International Monetary Fund and World Bank) to find ways for governments to reduce public sector debt, and the growing power and influence of multinational corporations which are seeking ways to increase profit. Often, the countries that are most affected by this move are those that are developing and often the poorest, in other words, those whose people are least able to pay for water and who often need this resource the most.

While some argue that sharing fresh water can lead to cooperation between and among countries, as noted above, others fear that the logical outcome will only be conflict. In order to address some of the important questions about this topic, the United States, other developed countries and the United Nations have established a Global Alliance of Water Security. The goal of this organization is to coordinate assistance in priority regions and to find ways to help countries address this important resource issue peacefully.

A meeting of nations associated with the Global Alliance of Water Security has been called specifically to see if agreement can be reached to both establish some specific cooperative guidelines regarding water and also to see if they can arrive at a way to settle disputes peacefully when they do arise.

The Issues

While much of the world’s attention has been focused on the possibility of a war with

Iraq and the nuclearization of North Korea, one of the greatest possibilities of conflict comes form water, specifically, access to scarce and precious fresh water. A recent study released by the National Intelligence Council of the United States, working in conjunction with outside scientific, diplomatic and corporate experts, has concluded that “by 2015, nearly half of the world’s population – more than three billion people – will be in countries lacking sufficient water...”[28] Further, although the global population has been increasing and with it, demand for fresh water, the amount of water available has been unchanged since the conflict Mesopotamia. In fact, since 1950 the renewable supply of water per person has fallen 58 percent, as the world’s population has grown from 2.5 billion to 6 billion, with the water supply unchanged.[29] What this means is that competition for this precious and scarce resource will only grow worse.

Authors Sandra Postel and Aaron Wolf found that one-fourth of the water-related interactions over the past 100 years were hostile. Specifically, on 37 occasions these hostile actions went beyond verbal antagonism to actual conflict ranging from shots being fired to some other form of military action, including dams being blown up.[30] They have also concluded that although these water disputes have not typically led to war directly, they have had other negative effects; they have “fueled decades of regional tensions, thwarted economic development, and risked provoking larger conflicts....”[31] In short, it is incumbent upon governments to determine the early signs of conflict and then work together to prevent violence from erupting.

The greatest imbalance between population and water supplied will be in Asia, a region that is largely agricultural and with a dependence on irrigation. “Asia today has roughly 60 percent of the world’s people but only 36 percent of the world’s renewable fresh water.”[32] China, India, Pakistan and Iran are among those countries at risk because of groundwater depletion and other water-related threats. The resulting water scarcity only exacerbates the already volatile relationships among those countries.

Most of the water that humans use goes to crop irrigation. One reason for world hunger is that irrigation is generally a luxury for the wealthy farmers, thereby leaving the poorer farmers with few options and low crop yields. While in some countries poor farmers have been able to dig wells, in other cases the water tables have been so depleted that they have not been replaced. Many of the lakes, rivers and aquifers that have been most important for food production have already been depleted, including China’s Yellow River, the Nile, and the Ganges in India.

Countries facing water scarcity have a number of ways to address it. Since it takes about 1,000 cubic meters of water to grow one ton of grain, in those cases that can afford it importing grain reduces some of the demand for water that can then be allocated for other purposes.[33] But for those countries that cannot afford to import grain, the inevitable increase in grain prices will contribute to further food scarcity, hunger and malnutrition, and greater demands for humanitarian aid. In another scenario, in cases where farmers no longer have access to water for irrigation undermining their livelihood, they may migrate from the farms and rural areas and to the cities, thereby contributing to overcrowding. This, too, carries with it dangers of domestic violence as urban conditions deteriorate and competition for food, work, housing, etc. increases. Such violence could easily spread across borders or give rise to the extremism that breeds terrorism as the refugees and migrants look for people (or governments) to blame.

Another source of international tension over water comes from the fact that about 60 percent of the world’s fresh water sources are shared by two or more countries. Here, the tensions and potential areas of conflict are the result of one country taking unilateral action that directly affects the water supply of another country, without any treaty or other agreement. Examples of these are Turkey’s construction of new irrigation projects on the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers, which would reduce the water flowing into neighboring Iraq and Syria. Projects in Ethiopia and Sudan could potentially divert water form the Nile, thus reducing the flow of water into Egypt. The Nile River basin is shared by 10 countries, yet no water sharing agreement exists between Egypt and Ethiopia, for example, where 85 percent of the Nile’s flow originates. The result has been tension between these two countries for decades.

The same pattern can be seen in other parts of the world where one country’s decision to construct a dam or other major development project relating to water leads to increased tension or even hostility with its neighbors. A study at Oregon State University found that the likelihood of conflict increases greatly when two factors come into play. First, a large or rapid change occurs in the physical setting, for example, through the construction of a dam, or in the political setting, for example, the breakup of a nation resulting in new boundaries affecting the waterways. The second case is when institutions cannot effectively manage a significant change, such as when there is no treaty spelling out each country’s water rights or responsibilities.

Another potential area of tension or even conflict pertaining to water in general, and to shared waterways in particular, has to do with cross-border pollution. In this case, one country is directly responsible for polluting the waterway that, in turn, flows directly into another country. In this case borders are murky, as is responsibility. For example, China’s construction of a dam on the Mekong River have contributed to increasing industrial pollution, inhibiting fish migration, and trapping of silt all of which have affected the downstream countries of Laos, Vietnam, Thailand and Cambodia.

The same pattern of downstream pollution can be seen in parts of Europe, especially countries of Eastern and Central Europe where obsolescent factories that go back to the communist-era continue to work. And the United States, Canada and Mexico built in to the NAFTA Agreement an approach to settling cross-border pollution disputes, including those pertaining to water.

Many of these issues are of human making, but these are not the only water issues that plague the world today. Where parts of Africa and India have been ravaged by flooding, other areas have been affected by drought. Australia, for example, is suffering from the worst drought in 100 years, with the average rainfall 50 to 70 percent below average. This, in turn, means that farm production is down dramatically, which will have a major economic impact on the country. Parts of Africa have suffered similarly from prolonged periods of drought. Given the poverty of the region, the population has few options, and malnutrition has been rampant.

Issues surrounding water as a scarce resource have become even more politicized because of questions, both ethical and economic, surrounding the sale of water as a commodity. In a number of cases public authorities (i.e., governments) have been selling or transferring the ownership and/or management of water systems to private corporations. This move toward privatization is the result of a number of factors including mounting costs and increased liability associated with providing water services, pressure from international organizations (such as the International Monetary Fund and World Bank) to find ways for governments to reduce public sector debt, and the growing power and influence of multinational corporations which are seeking ways to increase profit. Often, the countries that are most affected by this move are those that are developing and often the poorest, in other words, those whose people are least able to pay for water and who often need this resource the most. This raises important ethical questions about whether countries should be allowed to transfer ownership of water systems to private corporations who use it to make a profit, or whether it should remain under the control>

In order to address some of the important questions about water as a scarce resource, the United States, other developed countries and the United Nations have established a Global Alliance of Water Security. The goal of this organization is to coordinate assistance in priority regions and to find ways to help countries address this important resource issue peacefully. As countries look to the future, there are a number of basic principles that they can follow in order to promote water security. For example, countries can work together to find ways to increase water productivity and usage through more efficient irrigation techniques, for example. Second, countries can work together to arrive at more sensible policies to regulate ground water use. Third, countries must work together proactively to address and therefore reduce potential areas of tension because of water issues. And countries must be more willing to engage in negotiations pertaining to management of this scarce resource.

A meeting of nations associated with the Global Alliance of Water Security has been called specifically to see if agreement can be reached to both establish some specific cooperative guidelines regarding water and also to see if they can arrive at a way to settle disputes peacefully when they do arise.

Questions for Consideration

1) Given the fact that it is a scarce resource, how should water be treated by the international community? For example, is it a commodity that can and should be bought and sold?

2) What responsibilities do countries have to protect the water supply? To increase it?

3) What mechanism can countries arrive at in order to manage areas of tensions that might arise over water issues?

[1] The International Negotiation Modules Project (INMP), copyright 2002, Joyce P. Kaufman. Please do not reproduce or cite without permission.

[2] The issues were selected by participating faculty at the faculty training workshop, November 8 and 9, 2002, and reflect current international conditions post 9/11in a way that is relevant to the various classes and topics in which the simulation will be implemented.

[3] Please note that this scenario is current as of January 2003. As we have seen, conditions can change rapidly, which will make it even more important for each country team to do detailed background research. Prior to the start of the simulation a scenario update will be provided which will note any changes to the international conditions or the situation in specific countries. Countries should be prepared to send out their first substantive messages at the start of the simulation as of March 31.

[4] The information contained in this scenario is factual and current as of January 2003. The materials were drawn from readily available sources including The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Economist, plus others as noted. Specific cites are included in the text.

[5] War in Iraq had not yet broken out as of the writing of this scenario. However, preparations for such a conflict are well under way as the United States and some of its allies, primarily Britain, have started to deploy troops and equipment to parts of the Middle East.

[6] This information is from The Wall Street Journal’s world-wide summary, January 8, 2003, p. 1.

[7] Jonathan Karp, “Brazil Gets Tough on Unruly States,” in The Wall Street Journal, January 9, 2003, p. A9.

[8] A very detailed description of the issue and its impact on Mexico and Mexico’s relations with the United States can be found in “A Mexican State Finds Drugs a Power that Corrupts Absolutely,” in The New York Times, January 9, 2000.

[9] See James Hookway, “Manila Comes to the Rescue,” in The Far Eastern Economic Review, September 19, 2002, pp. 12-16.

[10] Susan V. Lawrence and Murray Hiebert, “Bending in the U.S. Storm,” in The Far Eastern Economic Review, October 24, 2002, pp. 32-3.

[11] Quoted in Murray Hiebert, “Change of Mind,” in The Far Eastern Economic Review, July 25, 2002, p. 17.

[12] “George Bush and the axis on evil,” in The Economist, February 2, 2002, pp. 13-4.

[13] “The gathering storm,” in The Economist, October 12, 2002, p. 25.

[14] Quoted in “Inspecting, squeezing, threatening,” in The Economist, December 7, 2002, p. 45.

[15] Charles W. Kegley, Jr. and Eugene R. Wittkopf, World Politics: Trend and Transformation, 4th ed. (New York: St. Martine’s Press, 1993), p. 581.

[16] Kegley and Wittkopf, p. 505.

[17] See Kegley and Wittkopf, pp. 505-6.

[18] “Globalization’s Last Hurrah,” in Foreign Policy (January-February 2002), 38.

[19] For more on the Globalization Index, see “Globalization’s Last Hurrah?” in Foreign Policy, op. cit.

[20] Louis Shagun, “Harbor to Put Security to Test,” in The Los Angeles Times, December 16, 2002, p. B1.

[21] “U.N.’s Goals for Children Prove Painfully Elusive,” by Roger Thurow in The Wall Street Journal, May 8, 2002.

[22] “Goals Set by UN Conference on Children Skirts Abortion,” by Somini Sengupta in The New York Times, May 11, 2002.

[23] “UN Forum Stalls on Sex Education and Abortion Rights,” by Somini Sengupta in The New York Times, May 10, 2002.

[24] “UN Prepares for a Debate on Dire Needs of Children,” by Somini Sengupta, in The New York Times, May 8, 2002.

[25] “UN Prepares for a Debate on Dire Needs of Children,” by Somini Sengupta, in The New York Times, May 8, 2002.

[26] Information provided by Professor Anne Sebanc in her presentation at the INMP faculty training/development workshop, November 9, 2002.

[27] Sandra L. Postel and Aaron T. Wolf, “Dehydrating Conflict,” in Foreign Policy, September/October 2001, p. 60.

[28] Elaine Sciolino, “2015 Outlook: Enough Food, Scarce Water, Porous Borders,” in The New York Times, December 18, 2000.

[29] Postel and Wolf , (2001), p. 60.

[30] Postel and Wolf , (2001), p. 60.

[31] Postel and Wolf , (2001), p. 61.

[32] Postel and Wolf , (2001), p. 61.

[33] As Postel and Wolf note, however, “Currently water-stressed countries in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East account for 26 percent of global grain imports.” p. 62