THE INTERNATIONAL NEGOTIATION PROJECT*
SCENARIO
FALL 2002
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 Project (INP), copyright 2002, Joyce P. Kaufman. This scenario is for classroom use only for those who participate in the INP, or with the express permission of the author. Please do not reproduce or cite without permission.
PREFACE
The International Negotiation Project (INP) was created in 1988 by Dr. Joyce P. Kaufman, Professor of Political Science at Whittier College to serve as the West Coast regional center of the University of Maryland ICONS Project. Creation of the INP was funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, the Parsons Foundation and the United States Institute of Peace. It was developed with the support and assistance of Dr. Jonathan Wilkenfeld, Executive Director of Project ICONS.
A program like the INP is the result of the work of many people, each of whom contributes to its success. My thanks go to a number of people who have helped make this program possible: Jonathan Wilkenfeld, Executive Director of Project ICONS at the University of Maryland, for his belief in this program and in my commitment to it; Beth Blake and Alex Jonas of Project ICONS, who provide ongoing technical support ans assistance to the INP with unfailing good humor; and Elizabeth Kielman, Managing Director of Project ICONS who is responsible for all the details. Thanks also go to Karen Tyrrell, INP Project Consultant, without whose help this program would be impossible to maintain with the quality we all have come to expect, and to Kristin Karlson, my Administrative Assistant, for all that she does in support of me and this program. Any problems or errors associated with any aspect of the INP remain my responsibility, however.
Special thanks go to all of the teachers who have participated in this program, and who have remained part of it through its various lives. Their commitment to, and interest in the International Negotiation Project have ensured its success and continuation since the first simulation ran in 1989, the year the Berlin Wall came down.
Joyce P. Kaufman
Director, International Negotiation Project
Whittier College
August 2002
ICONS/International Negotiation Project[1]
Fall 2002
INTRODUCTION TO THE SIMULATION
The ICONS/International Negotiation Project (INP) 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. Each country can have its own press team to educate other countries about events that are taking place within the country. In addition, there is a simulated press corps which can hold press conferences with any team. After a press conference is held, the press will then issue a press release about what they learned during the press conference. As you read press releases, whether those of a country or from the “official” press corps, please remember that press can often distort events or may report partial truths. In addition, many countries use the press as an extension of the government so that the press reports only that which is officially sanctioned. Therefore, please remember that press releases are to be read and evaluated critically.
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 issues other than the one they are working on in order to get a complete picture of the issue. 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 Issues: This exercise will focus on five general problem or issue areas in the world today and how they are interrelated.[2] Note that 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. Certain countries will be expected to take the lead in particular issues and will be invited to attend on-line “conferences,” in addition to the regular e-mail negotiations. The agenda for each conference will be determined in advance of the conference and will grow from the issues raised during the on-line negotiations prior to that point and from the questions for negotiation. There will be three to four conferences for each of the major issue areas. Should a team that is not scheduled to be included in a conference wish to be invited, once the simulation begins please send that request to SIMCON with your reasons for wanting to be included.
The five general issue areas are:
1) Global Economics, specifically issues of globalization and the trade-off between protectionism and free trade;
2) Security, in light of the events of September 11, can countries agree on a definition of “terrorism”?;
3) Human Rights, following up on the May United Nations General Assembly Special Session on Children;
4) Human Rights, Migration/Immigration and protecting the rights of migrant workers and immigrants; and
5) Environment, specifically determining rules on genetically engineered/modified foods, colloquially known as “frankenfood.”
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, there is a direct relationship between trade and economic growth/development, and migration and immigration. People often emigrate from one country and go to another in search of economic opportunities. Yet, those same people, while essential to the economic prosperity of their “adopted” country, are also often exploited because few laws exist to protect them, especially those who arrive or remain in a country illegally. One of the things that makes it so easy for people to move from country-to-country is “globalization.” Yet, this also means that it is harder to impose controls on those who enter the country to do ill, such as terrorists. In another example, although a large proportion of the world’s population goes hungry, there is a movement against genetically modifying food, despite the fact that genetically engineered foodstuffs, such as rice, could feed larger numbers of people. From these examples and the scenario as a whole it should become apparent that countries are always faced with trying to balance a number of often-competing factors in making policy decisions.
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 of foreign policy available to countries as a way of addressing their concerns. According to traditional, i.e., “realist,” international relations theory, countries will behave in a way that maximizes their national interest. Theoretically, every country will pursue those policies that enable it to further national interest, however that is defined. Generally, a country will begin by ensuring that its “core values” are maintained. Those values are the ones that guarantee continuity and a country’s security, militarily and economically. A country’s national interest, however, might also include protecting its heritage and its history, its culture and traditions. What we are seeing increasingly in the post-Cold War world, however, is that there are variations within a country as to what these are or how they are interpreted. Hence, the growth of ethnic or religious conflict will result when different groups within a country have conflicting interpretations of what its national interest is or how it can be defined and protected.
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. 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 minority impose its will on the powerless majority, as was the case in Kosovo. In that area the Serb minority began to impose its will on the Albanian majority, resulting ultimately in “ethnic cleansing” and finally 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 15 diverse countries throughout Europe have united to pursue common economic, political and security interests while still maintaining the sovereignty of each of the member states.
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 best 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 of foreign policy fit into this framework?
Negotiation is a tool of foreign policy that can be and is used at all points along this continuum. It represents the main form of communication between and among countries. Every international agreement made is the result of negotiations of some type. So negotiations become the means by which foreign policy options are conveyed from one country to another, and they can dictate the terms for complying with the options. In “normal,” i.e., non-crisis situations, negotiations can be quite routine and might involve nothing more than determining the ways in which two or more countries can implement an ongoing agreement. However, in times of crisis, negotiations can be used to manage the situation and to avoid armed conflict. Even during times of war, negotiations can be involved as a way to bring the conflict to a halt, to dictate the terms of cease-fire and to determine what happens after the conflict ends. One of the best examples of the positive impact of negotiations during times of crisis can be seen during the Cold War when the United States and Soviet Union were engaged in ongoing arms control negotiations. Whether these talks resulted in an agreement, they had the effect of keeping the two sides talking with one another, thereby minimizing the possibility that they would actually go to war.
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 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 play an important role in the world of international negotiations, although the functions 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
Negotiation is a process and all negotiations unfold in stages. 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 October 15, 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 to remember that the tougher the position you plan to take in the negotiations, the more important it is to set the right tone that will help you achieve your goals. It is also important that you remember to depersonalize and avoid framing the problem as an issue of principle that will not allow you to compromise.
Phase 4, Preparatory Negotiations: The negotiations will then proceed until you are told by SIMCON that the simulation is over. The messages between and among teams 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 Conferences: At the end of the first week of exchanging regular mail messages you will engage in a series of on-line real-time conferences. Each conference is built around a set agenda which will be distributed to you in advance of the conference by SIMCON. Each conference will focus on a specific issue area or part of a specific issue. The conference should be used to clarify your position on specific parts of the issue under discussion, and to allow countries to try to reach agreement on proposals. The regular mail should be used both to prepare for the conferences and to follow up after the conference is over.
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 conferences, you should be better able to understand the negotiation process, and the complexity associated with concluding any negotiation – individual, business, international – successfully.
Research
The key to a successful simulation is the research that each team does both prior to the start of the simulation and on an ongoing basis once the simulation gets underway. All teams need a thorough understanding of their own policies, as well as the policies of the other countries with which they will be negotiating. Because this is a technology-based exercise, the more you can rely on technology for your research the better. Using Internet and the World Wide Web will allow you to access primary documents from the government that you are representing, and the official positions of the other countries with which you will be negotiating. You are urged to take advantage of that capability which will enable you to arrive at a more realistic depiction of your government’s policies than you would simply by relying on US-based documents alone. Further, you are reminded that issues will arise during the course of the simulation with which you are unfamiliar. When that happens you need to resume your research so that you are able to continue the negotiations in an enlightened way.
There are also many sources available that describe in great detail issues pertaining to national interest, foreign policy orientations and the process of negotiation summarized above. These range from traditional International Relations text books to specialized monographs on particular topics. You are encouraged to consult these as part of your research.
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 or more individual teams, with the press, 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.
Real-time conferencing: Regular mail is augmented by on-line real-time conferences. These are one hour long and cover specific topics. The agendas of each conference are set and distributed prior to the conference. Countries are encouraged to review the agendas and to send their opening statements at least 24 hours prior to the conference. The better prepared countries are prior to the conference, the greater the likelihood that progress will be made at the conference.
Countries are reminded that while reaching an agreement is an important accomplishment, it is not the end of your job. Rather, once agreement has been reached the next step is determining how to implement it, how the agreement will be monitored and verified, and what types of sanctions should be imposed upon countries that violate the agreement. In the world of diplomacy, that is part of an ongoing process of negotiations. The scenario reflects specific cases where international agreement has been reached at least in theory and countries must determine how to implement the agreement, as well as cases where it will be up to you to try to arrive at an agreement on a particular topic. Both of these are valid and important aspects of international negotiation.
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!
Applications
Although this is a simulation of events in the international system, many of the lessons learned have practical applications. 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. 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. 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. Finally, the simulation focuses on contemporary international events and the interrelationship among them. In a world that is increasingly interdependent and interconnected, it is impossible to be considered truly “educated” unless you are aware of the important 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. with causing the deaths of almost 3,000 civilians and injuring scores of others. Although one of the four aircraft crashed in Pennsylvania, there seems to be little doubt that that one, too, was targeting a building 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.
The result of the attack initially was an outpouring of grief and sorrow, followed by the desire to respond to the attacks. President George W. Bush quickly declared a “war on terrorism,” and began to put together a military coalition to locate the terrorist cell(s) responsible and destroy it. The war on terrorism and the global coalition that resulted is a radical shift in the foreign policy that the Bush administration appeared to pursue upon taking office when the major theme was one of isolationism and the desire to “go it alone.” For the first time in its history, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), invoked Article 5 of its treaty, which states that an attack on any NATO member on its home territory is to be considered an attack on all, and paves the way for a NATO military response. What has been interesting is that President Bush has chosen not to go the NATO route for an alliance-wide response, preferring instead to build a military coalition on a country-by-country basis, relying especially on NATO-ally Great Britain for military and political support.
But the road to building and keeping the coalition has not always been easy. Initially, some of the US’s coalition partners, especially those in the Middle East, asked for proof of responsibility before signing on to the military mission. Even when that was provided, the strength of the coalition remains tenuous. President Bush’s speech in January 2002, in which he identified Iraq, North Korea and Iran as an “axis of evil,” while bolstering his support in the United States, offended many of the coalition partners who felt that he was oversimplifying the situation. In addition, it isolated some of the European allies, who had been working hard to establish ties with Iran in the belief that this would be the best way to integrate that country back into the international system.
One of the more interesting questions facing the international system as it struggles with the “war on terrorism,” is simply arriving at a definition of the term. This is not a new question; rather, what one country or group might refer to as “terrorism” another might see as fighting for freedom, or heroic groups or individuals resorting to extreme measures in order to make their point. Hence, some might question whether the Palestinians who engage in suicide attacks in Israel are terrorists or heroes dying for a cause they believe in, for example. In addition, the international community has not agreed on whether there is a difference between so-called “state sponsored” terrorism versus a rogue group, such as Al Qaeda, which acts outside any state sanctions and which moves across territorial borders. As a result of September 11, the uprisings in the Middle East and the instability in South Asia, the discussion and determination of what terrorism is has become especially relevant.
Despite the need for the coalition against terrorism to hold together, the Bush administration has sent notice to the international system that the US would continue to pursue an independent course of action in terms of foreign, defense and even economic policy. This has put the United States in a position where it stands in opposition to even its staunchest allies on many foreign policy and international issues. Before September 11, for example, the EU approved (and the US did not), the creation of an International Criminal Court, the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, the ban on antipersonnel land mines and the biodiversity treaty. In all these cases, the only other democratic nations that shared the US position were Israel and India. Instead, the US’s views were held by the same countries the United States has declared as “outlaw”states, such as Libya, Iraq and Iran. Although the United States’ position on these issues has not changed since September 11, it now needs the support of many of those countries whose views it disregarded earlier.
Many of the coalition partners also grew suspicious of Bush’s call to eliminate Saddam Hussein. The fear here was that the United States would expand the “war on terrorism” beyond the borders of Afghanistan and into Iraq, an expansion of the war which would be much harder for their own publics to accept. In fact, late in July British Prime Minister Tony Blair was claiming that the United States had no set plans to invade or attack Iraq, despite the fact that such plans had already been leaked to the press.
Despite the success of the coalition and its declaration of war on terrorism, other events intervened that deflected the attention of the US and started to cause strains among the coalition partners. The violence between Israel and the Palestinians escalated in the fall 2001 as Palestinian extremists engaged in an increasing number of suicide missions that resulted in the deaths of Israeli civilians. The Israeli government retaliated with increased ferocity, using the force of its military, and then created controversy by beginning to build a wall between Israel proper and parts of the West Bank. The Sharon government called upon the United States to support it, claiming that Israel was protecting itself against terrorist attacks, drawing on the words of President Bush against terrorism and the right of any country to defend itself from terrorist attacks. Attempts by the United States to mediate an end to the conflict in December were a failure and, as the violence escalated through the spring and into the summer, there was increasing pressure on the United States to take some forceful action, as well as criticism that the Bush administration had waited too long before doing anything.
At the end of June, President Bush finally delivered a long-awaited speech on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Although he reiterated his vision of two states, Israel and a Palestinian state, he also made this notion conditional. In his speech, he specified that the Palestinians would need to reform their institutions and services to make them more democratic and open, and he also called for the removal of Yasser Arafat as the leader of the Palestinian Authority. The latter condition elicited a response from many of the allies and coalition partners of the United States, who questioned whether it was the role of another country to demand a change in leadership. Nonetheless, President Bush repeated this demand in a subsequent speech, against a backdrop of continued violence in the region.
In addition, tensions 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.
Although an armed conflict was averted, tensions in the region remained high. This situation again put the US into a difficult position. Although relations between India and the US had been strained following India’s nuclear weapons tests in 1998, they were starting to ease again recently, in part to counter the apparent dictatorship of Pervaiz Musharraf in Pakistan. Earlier in December 2001, for the first time in three years a joint US-Indian defense group met, and the US agreed to speed up the process for reviewing military equipment that India wanted to buy from the US. On the other hand, Pakistan has been playing a critical role in the war against terrorism; Musharraf denounced the Taliban regime and said that his government would not support terrorists. He also banned extremist Islamist groups, arrested their leaders and froze their financial assets, and pledged to prevent terrorists from using Pakistan as a staging post for attacks against India.
But the situation escalated again in May 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.
Now one year after September 11, the repercussions of the attacks 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. However, 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 air craft, which had a direct effect on large manufacturers such as Boeing, but also smaller companies that make equipment also used on the air craft.
In the United States, the economic slow-down that had started before September 11 grew quickly 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. The political rancor and name-calling only grew worse late in the spring when the President had to go to Congress to ask for an increase in the debt ceiling. The Bush administration claimed that the economic slow-down coupled with the costs of fighting the war on terrorism had resulted in the deficit, estimated at about $165 billion by the end of the fiscal year. The Democrats, however, placed the blame squarely at the feet of the Republicans, claiming the deficit was the result of both poor economic planning and the tax cut passed early in the Bush administration.
The economic issues were made worse early in the summer when the stock market started to plunge in the wake of a series of high-profile corporate bankruptcies as well as allegations of corporate mismanagement. Rather than instilling confidence, a speech made by the President on Wall Street early in July only made the situation worse when he was accused of not being aggressive enough. Instead, the Congress moved forward with passage of bipartisan legislation to curb the apparent excesses of the corporate world. Once signed by the President, the new legislation would create a watch-dog agency to oversee corporate America, as well as impose harsher punishments on those who break the law.
In addition, the President and Congress also disagreed on the best way to protect the United States. The President’s proposal for the creation of an agency for Homeland Security was criticized by members of Congress who felt that it would cost too much and allow the executive branch to have too much power at the expense of the Congress. While some saw all this as “business as usual” in Washington, it also meant that little has been done to address the more important issues, such as the clearly declining economic situation 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 as well, 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) which made it even more unlikely that this legislation would be passed, and certainly unlikely that it would be in a way that the president could accept.
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.
On the whole, though, the countries of the EU appear to be thriving. 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. Further, the British, 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.
Going into the recent EU summit, held in Seville, Spain on June 21 and 22, the European leaders all said that controlling illegal immigration would be a top priority on the agenda for discussion. It is estimated that the EU as a whole absorbs about 500,000 illegal immigrants each year. While some have been needed – even welcomed – in order to keep the economies of many of the EU countries going, the sheer number means that the EU needs to start thinking about developing a policy to deal with both illegal immigrants and asylum seekers, such as defining what is meant by each.
Despite these noble goals, however, little was actually accomplished at the summit. Two ideas were put on the table for discussion about immigration policy: 1) the creation of a new EU frontier force and 2) imposing penalties on developing countries who refuse to take back immigrants who are expelled from the EU. Even before the summit it became apparent that the EU was not ready to create a common border police force, and the second idea was stopped by the flat refusal of French President Jacques Chirac and Sweden’s leader Goran Persson to go along with it. Instead, the EU began working on the idea of offering incentives, rather than punishments, to countries which cooperated.
Another major issue addressed at the summit was EU farm policy, among the most protectionist globally. Also of concern was whether, when and how the EU should expand further. It appears that these issues will remain on the agenda for discussion at the next EU summit, scheduled for December 2002 in Copenhagen, Denmark.
One of the points that became apparent to the world during the series of international trade meetings over the past two years was 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. Nonetheless, the economic fault lines in South America are fairly close to the surface. The dramatic decline in the economic situation in Argentina, earlier seen as another of the potential economic powerhouses of that region, raised questions about how enduring economic growth and stability really is. Further, that economic situation was accompanied by political instability; five men assumed the presidency only to step down within a period of months. While predictions are that the economic and political instability will not spread to neighboring Brazil, the situation in Argentina was seen by many as a “wake-up call” and a reminder of how interrelated the economic and political situations really are.
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 am improved outlook for 2001 was tied to the United States, a major trading partner. As the economy in the United States slowed after September 11, it had a direct impact on Mexico which, coupled with a number of domestic factors, looked like it would end the year far weaker economically than expected. This, in turn, has implications for the presidency of Vicente 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.[5] 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 as well. 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 allows 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, i.e., how to determine who should and should not be admitted to a country and permitted to stay.
Following 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. 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. And, many speculate, Putin will extract a price from the United States for his loyalty.
Putin has proven to be a skillful politician who has worked hard to develop ties with the major leaders of the West. In addition to a number of bilateral meetings with President Bush, most recently at a summit between the two leaders in Russia in May, Putin has met with Prime Minister Blair many times, further securing his position as a major leader in the world today. From the time that Russia indicated its willingness to work with the West by sending its troops first to Bosnia and then to Kosovo as part of NATO-led peacekeeping missions, first Yeltsin and now Putin have reinforced the idea that Russia is part of the “major powers” of the West and needs to be consulted and included. At a time when there is discussion of NATO expanding to include the Baltic countries (over Russian objections), Putin has been negotiating ways to ensure that Russia is consulted more broadly in any NATO decision. His efforts were successful when it was announced in May that NATO would form a new NATO-Russia Council. Although Russia will not have veto power over NATO decisions, it will now be involved with NATO decision making and will be further integrated into the West.
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 to 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. The situation in Japan had been settling down, at least prior to September 11. After a period of political and economic instability, in April 2001 Junichiro Koizumi was elected to head the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and was then made the Prime Minister of Japan. Koizumi, who is seen as a reformer, inherited a difficult situation. Public debt was close to 130% of GDP, economic growth was down, and unemployment was at near-record high levels. Not only has this had a negative impact domestically, but the instability has frightened foreign investors who are essential to Japan’s economy. Following years of failed economic policies and the inability of his immediate predecessor, Yoshiro Mori, to address the situation, Koizumi is under pressure to turn things around and to live up to his reputation as a reformer. Koizumi has pledged to push through economic reforms necessary for Japan’s recovery, and polls indicate that the public is in support. However, it remains unclear just how much the public really is willing to accept, especially as Koizumi moves forward with his plans for deregulation of the economy, which could directly hurt many of those small businesses that have long looked to the government for protection. Furthermore, critics also charge that many of Koizumi’s plans seem vague and unfocused. But supporters are quick to point out that policies enacted to date have not been successful and in Koizumi the public has a leader who has made it clear that he does have a plan, and that he is not afraid to take action in support of economic recovery, even if those decisions might be politically difficult.
Perhaps the greatest challenge to regional stability in Asia will come from China, a country that took advantage of a new US president in order to flex its international muscles. The tensions between the US and China over the spy plane incident, Taiwan policy, missile defense and a host of other issues could potentially threaten China’s relations with the United States and other countries in the West. On March 6, 2001, China announced an increase of 18% in its defense budget, the largest increase in more than twenty years.[6] Although the official reason is that China must protect itself against US aggression, this move sent an unambiguous signal to the countries of the region as well as the West that China is again asserting its role as a leader in Asia and that the United States cannot “bully” China. The independence of China was also asserted when China and Russia signed a Treaty of Friendship, their first since the Sino-Soviet split of the 1950s. This move was seen by many as a direct diplomatic affront to the United States.
Despite all that, 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.” But the lowering of tariffs and other barriers to China’s markets that were a condition for membership bring with them potential dangers of increased unemployment and even the possibility of a backlash against the west if economic benefits are not seen quickly.
China has become an uncertain ally in the US war on terrorism. In fact, the Chinese government has assured the United States that Beijing is not opposed to a larger security presence in the region, as long as it does not involve Taiwan. Nonetheless, the United States has been moving forward with its plans to boost Taiwan’s firepower by selling it military hardware, and reiterating its pledge to protect the island. This ends the US policy of “strategic ambiguity,” that is more than twenty years old, and that enabled the US to sell military equipment to Taiwan while, at the same time, refusing to give any explicit guarantees that it would defend the island. According to one analysis, “The aim [of strategic ambiguity] was to keep both Beijing and Taipei guessing about how the US would react to conflict across the Taiwan Strait. That has been junked in favor of straight talking and a determined effort to make up for what the Pentagon sees as serious shortcomings in Taiwan’s defense forces.”[7]
The change in US policy has alarmed China, but its reaction has been restrained thus far. Vice President Hu Jintao has implied that the apparent change in US policy is a violation of the three joint communiques that formed the basis of normalized relations between the US and China in 1972. Under these, the United States agreed to curb its arms sales to Taiwan. A “private” speech given in Florida by Undersecretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz was seen by China as further proof of a change in US policy. In that speech, Wolfowitz said that the Pentagon could help train Taiwan’s military and improve coordination between the services as part of “doing whatever it takes” to defend the island. Wolfowitz also called for a peaceful settlement of tensions between the two sides (Taiwan and China) but also noted that China continued to deploy missile batteries aimed at China. The goal of US policy appears to be to strike a balance between boosting Taiwan’s military in order to deter an attack from China while at the same time avoiding any conflict with China. While this is all beneficial from Taiwan’s perspective, it runs the risk of threatening China.
Another country in rapid transition in Asia is Vietnam. Although many of its households exist just above the poverty level, on the whole the economic situation in the country has been increasing. The United States has established trade relations with the country, and, in another important sign of change, opened an embassy. Japan, Germany, Canada and Denmark are among the countries that have been investing in Vietnam. Japan, especially has been working with Vietnam on ways to reform its agricultural cooperatives. With about 66% of the population (almost 40 million people) engaged in farming, change in this area could have a major impact on the country. While some question whether Vietnam should be looking to Japan for advice in this area, given Japan’s inefficient agricultural sector, others claim that although Vietnam now is the way Japan was 30 years ago, it will not take Vietnam 30 years to catch up.
Vietnam is also benefitting from the fact that the International Monetary Fund announced in October 2001, that the IMF would write off $35 million in pre-1997 debt. However, Vietnam also has a current $368 million loan that it will need to address and that will continue to threaten its economic stability. In short, Vietnam is a country that is poised to move forward. However, given the current communist regime it remains unclear whether – or when – it will do so.
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 forms 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 in to 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 if 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.
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.
Global Economics: Protectionism versus Free Trade
Synopsis
US President George W. Bush came into office in January 2001 proclaiming the importance of free trade and his commitment to expanding free trade internationally. Initially, he followed through on this promise with early visits to Mexico and countries in Latin and South America during which he discussed his desire to create a true Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). The trade summit in Doha, Qatar in November 2001, coming just two months after September 11, resulted in the promise of another round of talks designed to liberalize
trade still further. While many of the world’s poorer countries questioned how this would benefit them, the commitment from the developed countries to reduce barriers on industrial goods could – and should – result in greater access for textiles and other products made by the developing countries.
However, these goals and the promises that they generated were quickly stopped short by the United States which put into place a series of policies that were designed to protect the United States at the expense of free trade. This, immediately, raised questions about whether protectionism and free trade stand in direct opposition to one another, and whether the inevitable result of the US policies will be the imposition of protectionist policies by other countries and trade blocs in retaliation.
A special meeting of the World Trade Organization has been called to address these issues. Even Russia, which is not yet a member of the WTO, has been invited to attend in order to get the broadest possible range of ideas and perspectives about what the international economic community can do to address this issue.
The Issues
The 21st century is an era of globalization, defined by Thomas Friedman as “the integration of markets, finance and technology in a way that shrinks the world from a size medium to a size small.” Friedman also notes that this process is driven by technology which allows different parts of the globe as well as sectors of the economy to interact quickly.[8] According to Friedman, while globalization is a fact of life that brings all countries and regions closer together in some ways, it does not affect all countries or regions in the same way. Rather, how a country reacts to and deals with globalization begins with the country itself, what Friedman calls “the fundamentals,” or those factors within the country that determine how well it can compete and interact externally.
There are those who disagree vehemently with Friedman, arguing that globalization is inherently unfair to the poorer (i.e., less developed) countries which face a range of barriers that have been imposed by the richer (i.e., developed) countries in order to protect themselves. Robert Kaplan, for example, writes directly in response to Friedman in Foreign Policy, arguing that while globalization leads to complexity this does not necessarily mean stability. And, as September 11 illustrated, a globalized world means that people can move freely from country to country and severe economic disruptions in one country can have a devastating effect on other countries.[9]
The entire issue of “globalization” and what it means to all countries, both rich and poor, is one that can and has been debated extensively. Writing in The Economist, Jagdish Bhagwati attempts to debunk some of the myths surrounding globalization in order to get at the basic issues of free trade and what it means to the international system. In his article, Bhagwati notes that free trade can be good for both rich and poor nations but only if all countries lower their trade barriers in order to facilitate open trade. In fact, he notes that on the average, the richer countries’ tariffs average 3% while those of the developing are about 13% primarily imposed on textiles and clothing that many of them produce and export. He also notes that the trade barriers that the developing countries erect are often directed to one another, rather than as a reaction to or imposed on products of the wealthier nations.
Here Bhagwati echoes Friedman’s claim that to really understand the imposition of tariffs or other protectionist policies, it is necessary to look within the country at the domestic political and economic situation. One example he gives is of the countries of South and East Asia, all of which faced the same external barriers from 1960 on. Yet South Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong did well economically while India initially did not in part because the first three focused on exports while India was more protectionist in its policies. In enacting such policies, it actually limited its own economic growth and therefore, it missed out on the economic growth that its neighbors experienced.[10]
While it is clear that the world is getting smaller, countries continue to debate the wisdom and benefits of globalization and free trade versus the need to protect their own industries, products and agriculture. And, by most assessments, those countries that are most “globalized” or integrated with other countries are also those that are most open politically and economically, as well as wealthier. But, according to the “globalization index” developed by Foreign Policy, these also tend to be smaller countries which, in turns, allows for greater overall access to goods and services not readily available at home.[11] And it should not be forgotten that the same forces that have driven globalization, (access to technology, open borders and the free movement of people, a global media, etc.) can and have been used by terrorists for their own purposes as well as legitimately by businesses and countries.
In short, the issues surrounding globalization and what it really means to any country are
difficult and complex. Further, they continue to be discussed and debated by the countries in the international system.
Trade officials from around the world met in Doha, Qatar in November 2001 to discuss the international trade regime and to outline next steps, the first such meeting since September 11. By the conclusion of the meeting, the representatives of 142 nations agreed to launch a new round of trade talks, to liberalize trade further (especially in agriculture), to improve the rules in particular areas such as “anti-dumping,” and to develop new rules in other areas. Not all countries, however, were happy with these results. India, especially, wanted to press for more concessions on textiles, one of its major exports. And, under pressure by the United States, the EU was forced to accept a stronger commitment to ending agricultural subsidies than many of its members would have liked.
On the whole, though, the meeting was considered a success in that the agreements reached offered the prospect of long-term gains for most countries. Developing countries will benefit from the decision to clarify and improve anti-dumping rules, as well as the commitment to reduce barriers on industrial goods.
It did not take long after the meeting ended for analysts to begin second-guessing the importance of what was accomplished. As the WTO looks to the opening of a new round of talks focusing on cross-border trade, there are those who say that this misses the most important issue facing the international system, that of cross-border investment. For example, companies are now moving closer to their customers, investing in local markets, and participating actively in the host country’s economy (and occasionally, politics). But the current trade regime has not addressed foreign investment and competition policies, which would only complicate still further the international economic situation. Shortly after the Doha meeting ended, Asean and China reached an agreement to forge a new free-trade area, which would include such intra-regional investment, as well as allow Taiwan to liberalize its regulations regarding investment in mainland China. By addressing cross-border investment as well as trade issues, the Asean-China negotiations and agreement will go further in leveling the playing field in Southeast Asia than any WTO talks.
This commitment to establishing and expanding a Free Trade Area in Asia (FTA) illustrates clearly the impact of foreign investment as another source of integration among nations. Japan and China area each other’s second largest trading partners, and Japanese companies are increasingly transferring production to China. Ties between South Korea and China are increasing as well. It is estimated that a free trade area that would include these three nations could allow them to smooth political tensions as well as improve economic relations. Further, it would give these three countries considerable political and economic weight internationally.
Following Doha, while countries and even regions were finding ways to improve and increase their trade ties, the United States stunned much of the international economic community by imposing a series of policies that are not only protectionist, but which could potentially spark another trade war. The string started in January 2002. At that time the WTO sided with the EU against the United States saying that a US law allowing companies to exclude taxes on profits earned from operations abroad was an unfair subsidy and, therefore, was inconsistent with WTO rules. If the US does not change its tax code to comply with the WTO rules, then the EU is entitled to impose counter-measures. The EU has estimated that the amount of money involved is about $4 billion; for the United States to scrap that, would mean, in effect, an increase in taxes of $4 billion for US corporations doing business abroad.
The next salvo in the trade wars came in March when President George Bush imposed a 30% tariff on imported steel. US law allows the president to impose protective tariffs on any industry that has suffered as a result of imports, and, the President argued, steel is one of those industries. However, other countries have argued that that argument is fallacious for a number of reasons, not least of which is because of the retaliatory tariffs that would likely be imposed. In addition, the reality is that the US consumes more steel than it produces, thereby requiring the US to depend on imported steel. In addition, in the long-term, the imposition of tariffs would not address some of the reasons that the steel industry in the US has not been competitive and, in fact, has been failing. Finally, for most observers, the underlying rationale is domestic politics, specifically President Bush’s desire to both reward West Virginia for supporting him in 2000 and as an incentive for this group of workers to continue to do so.
Almost immediately the EU responded by threatening to impose its own counter-tariffs on steel, as well as on other American products. On July 19, in a decision that The Wall Street Journal called “a return to trade sanity that the world economy surely needs,”[12] the EU announced that it would delay imposing $377 million in retaliatory tariffs against the United States, at least until September 30. By doing so, the Europeans are hoping that President Bush can find a face-saving way to back off the steel tariff while waiting for the WTO to rule on the protectionist measures. But this move also gave the EU the moral high-ground, as well as moved this organization into a leadership position on international trade issues. The EU asserted this position still further by announcing that it would reform the Common Agricultural Policy, which makes the EU one of the world’s most protected agricultural markets.
South Korea, one of the world’s biggest steel producers, also denounced the US move and with that, years of talks between the two countries about setting up a bilateral investment treaty collapsed. China and Japan also joined the EU in formally complaining to the WTO about this, and threatened the imposition of their own tariffs in retaliation. The WTO is expected to rule on this issue within a year.
Domestic politics intervened to undermine Bush’s position further when the US Congress refused to grant him Trade Promotion Authority (formerly known as “fast track”). Bush asked for this as necessary for him to pursue his free trade agenda by negotiating agreements with a host of countries. If passed, it would allow him to present any trade agreement to Congress for a straight up or down vote, without any opportunity to modify the agreement. While TPA narrowly passed the House of Representatives, it has been stuck in the Senate which has imposed amendments to the bill that would guarantee protections for workers who lost their jobs because of imports. Further, even the House version has provisions that blocks free trade in agricultural products. The House and Senate versions need to be reconciled before they are presented to the President and, even if they are, Bush has said he will not sign a bill that is this deeply flawed.
Bush roiled the international economic community further by imposing tariffs on Canadian lumber, and by threatening to impose even greater tariffs on textiles (the average American tariff on imported textile and clothing imports is 17%). The textile industry in the United States is suffering from severe economic depression, with an estimated of 180,000 textile workers who have lost their jobs in the past five years. In fact, the number of people unemployed from the textile industry is far larger than steel workers who are out of jobs. Were Bush to move forward with greater protections in this area, it would continue to fly in the face of his commitment to free trade in general and to specific countries, such as Peru, El Salvador and Pakistan. Further, it would likely result in the imposition of tariffs by the EU on American textiles and other products, such as orange juice from Florida, another politically sensitive state for Bush.
The trade disputes between the US and the EU accelerated still further in May when President Bush signed into law a farm bill that was full of subsidies for American farmers. This is in direct contradiction with the Doha agreement to liberalize trade in agricultural products, and is perceived as a direct slap at the EU and also Japan, both of which have had protectionist agricultural policies. Further, the United States was at the center of the move to include free trade in agriculture on the agenda at Doha. The 2002 farm bill reverses the policies of an earlier 1996 farm bill, which cut subsidies and encouraged movement toward a subsidy-free agriculture that could better compete in a world of liberalized farm trade. In the latest instance, by contrast, the bill raises the level of farm subsidies by more than 80% in some existing areas (soybeans, wheat and corn), and imposes subsidies in new areas, such as peanuts. This means that US subsidies will soon be three or four times European levels.
The most likely result of this change in US policy will be to reverse many of the gains made at Doha. Many of the poorer countries will most likely become even more suspicious of any possibility of trade liberalization. And many countries will feel that this gives them the excuse to impose their own protectionist policies.
Given the direction that international trade has taken since Doha, a special meeting of the World Trade Organization has been called to address the issues of the inherent conflict between free trade and protectionism. Even Russia, which is not yet a member of the WTO, has been invited to attend in order to get the broadest possible range of ideas and perspectives about what the international economic community can do to address this issue, and what this means in an era of globalization.
Questions for Consideration
1) What does the concept of “free trade” mean in an era of globalization? Can “free trade” apply to regional trade blocs, or should it apply to the international system as a whole?
2) Do countries have the right/responsibility to protect their own citizens economically, even if that comes at the expense of other countries or trade blocs?
3) What should the WTO do when one country changes its policies to make them more protectionist at the expense of other countries/blocs in the international system?
Security: Definition of “Terrorism”
Synopsis
One of the major issues facing the international community in the wake of the events of September 11 is what exactly is meant by “terrorism”? This is not a new problem; rather, what one country or group might refer to as “terrorism” another might see as fighting for freedom, or as heroic groups or individuals resorting to extreme measures in order to make their point. Further, the international community has never reached agreement on how terrorists should be treated (e.g., are they international outlaws? traitors? war criminals? etc.) because the definition should, technically, determine the types of trials that an apprehended terrorist will have and the punishment meted out. In addition, the international community has not agreed on whether there is a difference between so-called “state sponsored”terrorism versus a rogue group, such as the Al Qaeda, which acts outside any state sanctions and which moves across borders.
Trying to determine how to define terrorism is not new. However, the events of September 11 have made the discussion and determination of what terrorism is especially relevant.
The Issues
In December 1994, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution designed to outline measures that would help eliminate international terrorism.[13] The desire to do something was prompted by general concern about an increase in acts of terrorism world wide. and the perception that extremism of various kinds (religious, political, ethnic, etc.) was growing in many parts of the world. Further, many countries saw a direct link between terrorist groups and other international criminal acts, such as drug trafficking and the growth of paramilitary groups that undermine basic human rights. With that background, the countries of the international system saw the need to take action that would contribute to the elimination of international terrorism as well as control some of the other illegal acts that were perceived to be part of and supporting terrorism.
This resolution clearly outlined actions that states individually as well as collectively through organizations such as the UN should take to help combat international terrorism. Under the UN charter as well as international law, states were told, among other things, that they must:
1) “refrain from organizing, instigating, facilitating, financing or encouraging terrorist activities...”
2) “ensure the apprehension and prosecution or extradition of perpetrators of terrorist acts...”
3) “cooperate with one another in exchanging relevant information concerning the prevention and combating of terrorism...” and
4) “before granting asylum...ensuring that the asylum seeker has not engaged in terrorist acts....”[14]
The resolution defines what is meant by “terrorism,” as the following: “Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstances unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them.” While this resolution was approved, not all states agreed with its terms or even the definition.
The issue of international terrorism was again addressed by the General Assembly in November 2000. However, in this case some countries, notably Syria and Lebanon, claimed that a distinction needs to be made between “terrorism” and “actions of liberation movements,” which they argued should fall outside the definition of terrorism. Their position was supported by Cuba, but also Pakistan. Those who lead the opposition to this position were Israel and the United States.
This distinction underlines the dilemma facing countries today as they try to determine what terrorism is as a prelude to determining how to address it. In many ways, it was not only September 11 but the US response to the attacks that has catapulted this issue to the top of the international agenda. In his address to the Congress following the September 11 attacks, President Bush said that “...any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.”[15] The message that the President was sending was clear: the American campaign against terrorism would not stop with Afghanistan but would be extended to include any country that was known to harbor terrorists.
But this blanket-type statement also carries with it certain problems, especially in the absence of a single definition of terrorism. For example, some countries call their enemies “terrorists,” especially when those enemies are tied to internal movements of some type. As former US National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski notes, “By declaring war against an undifferentiated, undefined and fundamentally vague phenomenon like global terrorism, or terrorism with global reach, we in a sense opened the gates to a lot of countries to leap into this exercise on our backs. They are all declaring whoever their enemy is to be a terrorist, and then claiming moral justification for doing whatever they decide to do.”[16]
Brzezinski’s concerns have proven to be well-founded. For example, in response to a UN Security Council resolution requiring all UN members to report on measures against terrorism, Syria, ranked one of the 10 least democratic countries, offered the assurance that “[Syria] has always condemned terrorism in all its forms.” Accompanying this statement, however, was the reminder that Syria (as well as most other Arab countries) distinguishes between terrorism and the “legitimate struggle against foreign occupation,” such as the actions that the Palestinians, including extremist groups such as Hamas, might take against Israel.
The Bush statement has also resulted in grudging US support for Israel and India, both of which have had long-term problems with “terrorism.” Where in the past the United States has urged Israel to be restrained in its responses to Palestinian suicide attacks, Washington now has little choice but to tell the government to do whatever it feels is necessary. Similarly, not only has the United States had to take the same tack with India, but India is using the United States as an example to justify its own military buildup against Pakistan. One American political analyst was quoted as saying that the problem now is that “What the Indians are trying to do, what Israel is doing, is to persuade Bush that their situation is no different than ours. How can we ask the Israelis or the Indians now to exercise restraint?”[17]
It is clear that the issue of how to define terrorism and what the international community should do about it has become especially relevant, not only because of the events of September 11, but because of subsequent events as well. It is incumbent upon all countries to determine how to define terrorism and, from that starting point, decide what are legitimate means of addressing terrorism.
To do so, the United Nations has convened a committee of countries to begin the process of defining the term. Unlike the resolution passed in 1994, at this juncture the goal is simply to see whether countries can reach agreement on what is meant by “terrorism,” and, from that beginning point, see whether they can agree upon ways to address it and, eventually, eliminate it. The working group of countries has been selected because they represent a range of types of countries in different parts of the world. All perspectives and ideas will be considered. But reaching agreement is the ultimate goal.
Questions for Consideration
1) Can countries reach agreement on a definition of the concept of “terrorism”?
2) Is or should there be a difference between so-called “state sponsored”terrorism, versus a rogue group, such as the Al Qaeda, which acts outside any state sanctions and which moves across borders?
3) If agreement can be reached on what terrorism is, then what types of sanctions or punishments should be imposed on countries that support or harbor terrorists?
Security: United Nations Conference on Children
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.
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 show 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.[18]
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.[19] 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 age children are NOT in school, more than 60% of whom are girls.
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.”[20]
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.[21] 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 program, 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, 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 are 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.[22] 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.
In order to ensure that these issues would stay on the global agenda, the UN has convened a working group of countries to continue to explore the topics raised at the Special Session. 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. These will then be addressed at a subsequent Special Session of the General Assembly.
Questions for Consideration
1) What can countries do individually and collectively to further protect the rights of children world wide?
2) Who should be responsible for funding initiatives that would aid children, and how should funding be assessed?
3) How can countries insure that children themselves can continue to be a part of the discussion process, or should they be?
Environment: Genetically Engineered/Modified Foods
Synopsis
Hunger is a fact of life in many parts of the world. Although the absolute number of people who are malnourished is declining, it is estimated that more than 800 million people go hungry. Children, especially, suffer from the effects of malnutrition, as they succumb more easily to disease and are stunted both physically and mentally in ways that will affect them throughout their lives. A World Food Summit held in June 2002 places part of the blame on the heads of governments, finding that well-governed countries have less hunger. However, out of the control of governments, good or bad, are natural conditions such as drought or flood, which also directly affect the food supply.
One way that the problem of global hunger can be solved is by genetically engineering food. Advocates argue that genetically engineered strains of crops, such as rice, could increase the yield thereby assuring that more people could be fed with fields of the existing size, that is, no more land would be needed to feed more people. However, opponents of genetically engineering or modifying foods warn that such crops could not be controlled and will quickly spread to neighboring fields, producing undesirable traits in other crops. Further, they warn, there are possible health dangers that have not yet been explored.
In dealing with the issue of genetically modified food, “frankenfood,” the international community is being asked to see if it can arrive at rules governing genetically engineered foods while also addressing the issue of world hunger.
The Issues
The World Food Summit, held in Rome in June 2002, offered the international community a grim picture of the situation regarding hunger world wide. While on the one hand, the international community responds relatively well and quickly to extreme disaster situations (whether natural or man-made), delivering emergency food and aid to those who need it, chronic hunger, (defined as “a steady lack of enough safe and nutritious food to maintain physical and mental well-being”[23]), is a far more complex and difficult challenge. The issue is far greater than simply supplying food, but of ensuring that the individual gets enough nutrients to keep the body running as it should. Further, the impact of hunger starts before birth; malnutrition in pregnant mothers cause problems for children that will affect them throughout their lives. In young children, malnutrition stunts physical as well as mental growth, thereby making it harder for them to get and hold a job later and reinforcing the cycle of poverty. And malnutrition contributes to more than 5 million childhood deaths each year both directly and indirectly by making the child more susceptible to diseases that it is unable to fight.
Hunger is not distributed evenly either around the world, or even within a household. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the UN estimates that 780 million people in developing countries are malnourished; while hunger has fallen sharply in China, it has increased in parts of South Asia which alone accounts for about 40% of the world’s hungry. Estimates are that half of all children in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh are malnourished, with girls getting even less food within a household than boys.[24]
Simply shipping food from developing countries to the poorer countries does little to alleviate the problem. Three quarters of the world’s poor live in rural areas and depend on farming for their livelihood as well as food. And it is in these cases, it is argued, that higher agricultural productivity and better access to markets will help more than anything else. Demand for food and income continue to expand with the population, while land and water available to agriculture diminish due to soil degradation and encroachment by urban growth and industry.
It is in that context that biologists and other scientists see genetically modified food as holding the answer. Those who are proponents of GM food say that there is clear evidence that the technology can produce higher yield strains of crops that are more resistant to disease and that will not harm, and may even improve, the environment. For example, a joint Chinese-US study of insect-resistance cotton found that the use of pesticides actually went down about 70%. Along with this was a dramatic drop in the number of farmers suffering from pesticide poisoning, which is a common problem in developing countries where agricultural workers are often untrained in the use of pesticides.
Approximately 3 million people depend on rice as the staple of their diet; roughly half of the world’s population, mostly in Asia, eat rice at least once a day. Therefore, finding ways of producing better, higher-yield strains could have a major impact on their lives. One of the early strains of GM rice was produced as early as 1963, and was released for cultivation in Asia shortly thereafter. Using this crop, a good farmer on irrigated land could produce twice what he could previously in his best yields. That strain of rice has since been improved even further, and is now one of the most widely planted crops in the world.
Further, the Royal Society in Britain, the world’s oldest scientific organization, has joined other scientists in concluding the GM foods pose no more risk to human health than any other type of food. Increasingly, science has been coming out against NGO’s, “green” groups and even governments in some cases that oppose GM food and crops on the grounds that they will not harm people and can actually help in any number of ways.
On the other hand, there are many concerns that have been raised about genetically engineering or modifying and then planting crops, ranging from philosophical to practical. On a philosophical level, some geneticists are concerned that such genetic engineering signals that it is acceptable to isolate genetic information and then to control its exploitation. On a more practical level, however, there is concern that genetically engineered crops, once planted, cannot be controlled. Canadian farmers, for example, have discovered that after three seasons of planting genetically modified crops, their fields were filled with “volunteers” which were resistant not only to the herbicide against which the crop was engineered, but to others as well. This raises the danger that the crops could easily mutate into weeds that could not be eradicated and which, potentially, could take over the fields.
Environmental groups, such as Greenpeace, have been in the forefront of the opposition to GM food and crops, rejecting the claims that such foods are safe. They argue that it is too early to tell what the long-term impact of genetically modifying foods might be, arguing that it often takes decades for the health impact of such substances to be felt. They also reject the argument that food shortages and poverty are the result of declining production, and claim that the world has the capacity to boost production using more conventional means. And they are skeptical of the claims of dramatic increases in yield associated with GM crops.
The EU has been in the forefront of governments eager to promote environmentally friendly farming. Yet, that organization’s most recent proposals, which were unveiled in July 2002, make no reference to GM crops. Here, too, divisions can be seen. Proponents claim that GM crops have a proven track record of environmental benefits, while there continues to be resistance from consumers and food retailers. The recent proposals represent a shift from the position that the EU took in January, when it published a strategy document that said genetic engineering of crops can lead to environmental benefits, including reducing the reliance on pesticides. Under pressure, the EU has since backed down from this position.
The controversy about GM crops puts the international community into a quandary: on the one hand, there is no scientific evidence to show that such crops are not safe and that, in fact, it has been shown that genetically modifying crops can produce higher yields that can help alleviate world hunger. On the other hand, there is a real and valid concern that seeds from genetically engineered crops that are resistant to herbicides could quickly spread and take over other fields, expanding rapidly and potentially choking other crops. Governments, the scientific community and the public is deeply divided about the issue.
A group of countries have agreed to meet to discuss this issue in order to determine what, if anything, the international community can and should do about GM crops or “frankenfood.”
Questions for Consideration
1) Should the international community try to arrive at a set of rules and regulations governing the production and planting of GM crops world wide?
2) If so, what would be the framework for such rules and regulations? How would they be monitored for compliance?
3) If limits are agreed upon, who would be responsible for trying to find ways to address world hunger?
Human Rights: Movement of People
Synopsis
Different countries have different labor needs. In a world that is becoming increasingly interdependent economically, therefore, it seems only logical that countries look to one another to augment their own supply. For example, many of the developed countries, such as the United States and the countries of the EU, rely upon workers from the less developed countries (often former colonies, in the case of Western Europe, or neighboring Mexico for the United States), to do the menial jobs that their own citizens don’t want or won’t do. In addition, the developed countries are looking to other countries to supply skilled technicians necessary for businesses reliant upon information technology. And the open borders that often come with the creation and growth of free trade zones have made the migration of workers from country to country even easier.
However, one of the lessons of September 11 is that it can be too easy to move from country to country. Open borders mean that terrorists can easily cross from one country to another virtually undetected. And, unless all countries agree to the same set of standards and rules regarding immigrants, migrants and asylum seekers then the possibility exists that this situation will remain.
In the wake of September 11, an international working group has been established to make recommendations to the international system regarding standards that might be set that would both ensure civil liberties for immigrants, migrants and asylum seekers, but also provide a measure of protection for all countries.
The Issues
It is estimated that roughly 150 million people now live outside their countries of birth. Some have left by choice, in search of better economic conditions. Others have fled wars; more than 12 million refugees live in camps and shelters.[25] Still others, so-called “asylum seekers,” flee their home countries because of fear of political reprisals, their lives or their health if they were to stay. And it is not always easy for a country to be able to determine who is fleeing for what purpose, legitimate or illegal.
The situation is exacerbated because many countries are aware of the fact that their economic security depends, to some extent, on importing workers from other countries. Those workers, in turn, see the opportunities that come from emigrating. The Congress of the United States, for example, has been pushing for legislation that would let more skilled foreign workers into the United States. The proliferation of high-tech software companies has increased demand for software engineers and other highly trained workers. With a shortage of such skilled workers already in the United States, US companies have had to look elsewhere, such as Asia, in order to meet the demand. For many of these skilled technicians, working in the United States is a guarantee of financial security not only for them, but for their families back home as well. These workers often choose to stay in the United States for a few years, sending money back home, and then they return to their home countries with experience, expertise and savings that they can invest and that they could not have gotten had they remained at home.
The United States is aware that such legislation has a down-side as well. In addition to fighting with unions that want to limit the migration of foreign workers for obvious reasons, it is hard to specify that some workers can be allowed into the country, while others cannot. For example, there are an estimated 500,000 workers from Central and South America and the Caribbean who emigrated to the United States, often illegally, and who are now employed in menial jobs and doing manual labor.[26] The economies of agricultural states such as Texas and California depend on migrant workers to pick their crops. But proposed legislation, coupled with increased pressure to ensure basic rights for migrant workers, could potentially damage the economies of these states which depend upon the cheap labor of the often-illegal migrants. Further, since September 11, these groups are looked upon with increased suspicion.
The situation has been complicated still further by the fact that many illegal immigrants, to the United States and around the world, now use the services of smugglers. Hoping to escape the poverty at home, these immigrants fall into the hands of people-smugglers who charge hefty sums of money to get people out of their own country and into another. The result is that if they survive the trip (and many do not), they are often forced into a life of servitude in order to pay back the money that they committed in order to make the trip.
Along with the increase of people smuggling has come actual trafficking, that is, the business of trapping people into virtually slave-labor or prostitution. The American government believes that across the world between 700,000 and 1 million women and children are trafficked every year, half of whom come from Asia.[27] This increase in illegal migration has also created political tensions as those who are caught entering a country illegally are being sent back, despite the fact that many of the refugees claim to be legitimate asylum seekers who were simply desperate to get out of their home country. In March 2002, ministers of 30 Asia-Pacific countries gathered to try to find ways to tackle the twin problems of people-smuggling and trafficking. The meeting ended with the acknowledgment of the need for better coordination between and among countries, and the promise to find ways to do so, but with no specific proposals.
The rights and protections of migrant workers (whether internal or external) and immigrants is a global problem, as is finding ways to protect those who are genuinely in danger were they to remain at home. However, these issues have to be balanced against the need to protect countries from the possibility of terrorists coming into those countries under the guise of “workers” or even asylum seekers. Admittedly, it is difficult to balance individual rights and liberties of those who are in another country legitimately or for legitimate purposes with the need to ensure the protection of all citizens.
Different countries have chosen to deal with foreigners in various ways, both before and after September 11. The Japanese police, for example, have wide powers of arrest and interrogation. All people must register with local authorities and, until a few years ago, this included fingerprinting all foreign residents. Since domestic security had always been tight, Japan’s policies or legislation changed little after September 11.
Britain, which has had a long history of dealing with terrorism, has among the strictest set of anti-terrorism laws that affect foreigners as well as nationals. For example, since the Prevention of Terrorism Act passed in 1974, the police are allowed to detain suspected suspects for up to a week without charging them. The government recently extended the law to cover terrorists planning attacks abroad (e.g., those associated with the attacks on the United States). The government is also considering introducing compulsory identity cards. But some of these measures run directly counter to the British Human Rights Act, which was specifically designed to help guarantee the protection of all peoples. But some of the measures currently under consideration by Britain are coming up against opposition by civil rights groups within England as well as parts of the EU.
Germany, too, has a history of being tough on political extremists of any type due, in part, to its need to crack down on neo-Nazis. Germans do have identity cards that they must carry. However, the government is limited by law in its ability to pass on any personal data. In France, Spain and Italy failing to produce an identity card when asked can result in arrest, especially of foreigners. The Spanish secret service has monitored telephone calls, and the French government has far-reaching powers to put suspects behind bars without charge. Even French journalists working on stories about terrorism have been detained by the police.
And it is likely that in both France and Spain search powers will be expanded.
The European Union as a whole has enacted new Union-wide legislation following September 11. In December 2001, the EU agreed on a common arrest warrant that would allow any country to arrest an individual alleged to be guilty of a crime in any other EU country. This was seen as an important measure both to increase integration but also as a way for the EU as a whole to do more to fight cross-border crime. However, the crimes covered by the warrant go far beyond just terrorism and include fraud, embezzlement, and even racism. Effective 2004, people accused of offenses in one country can be arrested and deported to another country. This, once again, raised questions of civil liberties and about the legal protections that will actually be afforded to any individual in the EU, whether citizen or foreigner.
The European Union promised to take up the question of illegal immigration at its summit in Seville, Spain on June 21-22. This issue was made even more urgent in light of the growth of right-wing parties in parts of Europe, where leaders like France’s Jean-Marie Le Pen rose to power on an anti-immigrant platform. The EU estimates that it absorbs about 500,000 illegal immigrants each year, many of whom enter the EU legally and simply stay after their visas expire. Further, EU member nations have no common policy to define or admit asylum seekers into their respective countries, which has contributed to dissension among the 15 member states, as well as to the prospect of “asylum shopping,” as the immigrant goes from country to country looking for the most lenient policies.
Going into the EU summit the European leaders all said that controlling illegal immigration would be a top priority on the agenda for discussion. However, little was actually accomplished at the summit. Two ideas were put on the table for discussion about immigration policy: 1) the creation of a new EU frontier force and 2) imposing penalties on developing countries who refuse to take back immigrants who are expelled from the EU. Even before the summit it became apparent that the EU was not ready to create a common border police force, and the second idea was stopped by the flat refusal of French President Jacques Chirac and Sweden’s leader Goran Persson to go along with it. Instead, the EU began working on the idea of offering incentives, rather than punishments, to countries which cooperated.
The United States similarly enacted tough measures following the September 11 attack. Spurred by Attorney General John Ashcroft, the Congress passed legislation that would expand the government’s ability to wiretap conversations of anyone who is a suspect in a terrorist-related act; allows the government to eavesdrop on conversations between a terrorism suspect and his/her attorney; and, in perhaps the most controversial part of the legislation, allows the government to detain foreigners who are believed to pose a threat to national security. In that case, the detention would be without trial and with only minimal oversight. In addition, the legislation would eliminate the statute of limitations on terrorist crimes, and would change existing law to make harboring a terrorist a crime. On November 13, subsequent to the passage of the legislation, President Bush issued an executive order allowing any foreigner suspected of terrorism to be detained and tried by military tribunal rather than in civilian courts.
The United States’ legislation and treatment of accused terrorists put it at odds with some of the countries of Europe which are far from in agreement on some of these issues to start with. The United States has also tightened up security at its borders with both Mexico and Canada. This, too, has caused problems with its neighbors and closest trading partners. At the border crossings with Mexico, the wait to cross is now often hours, as trucks and cars are inspected and individuals questioned. Even those who have long-held legitimate jobs across the border have felt harassed by the intensified procedures. Ironically, one of the effects of this new procedure has been to further depress the economies of the border areas at a time when Mexico was already feeling the contagion effects of the recession in the US.
Patrols at the border with Canada have also been increased. However, the very length of that border combined with the open terrain in a number of places, have kept it relatively porous. The United States has had to rely heavily on Canadian authorities to help crack down on potential terrorists trying to enter the country illegally from the north.
One of the lessons of September 11 is that it can be too easy to move from country to country. Open borders mean that terrorists can easily cross from one country to another virtually undetected. Further, many countries need to have foreign workers in their country as an economic necessity, whether they are there legally or illegally. And few countries would dispute the importance of student exchanges country-to-country. Yet, unless all countries agree to the same set of standards at their borders and regarding immigrants and migrants, the possibility exists that a situation will remain that will allow potential terrorists to move freely. The dilemma facing countries is how to balance their own protection with the civil liberties of foreigners.
As the international community meets to debate and discuss this issue, it must start with a basic question, that is, “who is an immigrant?” The UN defines a short-term migrant as “anyone who moves to a new country and stays from three months to a year; long-term, one who stays a year or more.”[28] However, countries have found that it is virtually impossible to get – and keep – such statistics. Because their status is different, countries can count and record asylum-seekers, but they are usually not counted as “immigrants.” Further, not all countries use the same [UN] definition of immigration, nor do they seem movement of their own people as migration. At the most basic level, some countries do not even have ways to register and track immigrants once they enter the country, thereby raising fears about how to find those who enter a country specifically to do harm, and then seem to disappear.
In the wake of September 11, an international working group has been established to make recommendations to the international system regarding standards that might be set that would both ensure civil liberties as well as address questions about legal rights for immigrants, migrants and asylum seekers, but that can also assure a measure of protection for countries. The issue facing the international community how to insure that those who are really in need of protection get it.
Questions for Consideration
1) Can countries agree upon a definition of the terms “immigrant,” “migrant” and “asylum seeker”?
2) What rights/protections should be afforded to people who are in a country illegally?
3) At a time of more porous borders, how can the arrival and departure of foreigners be monitored effectively? Can countries arrive at a set of recommendations for security measures that would ensure the monitoring of foreigners but without infringing on civil liberties?
[1] The International Negotiation Project (INP), copyright 2002, Joyce P. Kaufman. Please do not reproduce or cite without permission.
[2] The issues selected for inclusion here were determined because they are current and relevant and, in fact, each is now being debated and discussed within the international arena.
[3] Please note that this scenario is being written prior to the final determination as to which countries will be included in the fall 2002 INP simulation. This will make it even more important for each country team to do detailed research and be able to send out substantive messages at the start of the simulation in October. However, a scenario update with the specific countries included will be provided prior to the start of the simulation.
[4] The information contained in this scenario is factual and current as of July 25, 2002. 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] 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.
[6] “China, America and Japan: The Uneasy Triangle,” in The Economist, March 17, 2001, p. 21.
[7] David Logue, “This Is What It Takes,” in Far Eastern Economic Review, April 25, 2002, p. 22.
[8] “Techno Logic,” by Thomas Friedman in Foreign Policy, March/April 2002, p. 64. Also see Friedman’s book, The Lexus and the Olive Tree: Understanding Globalization (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1999), for more detail about his interpretation of globalization and what it means.
[9] For the entire debate/discussion between Friedman and Kaplan see “States of Discord,” in Foreign Policy, March/April 2002, pp. 64-70.
[10] See “By Invitation” Trading for Development,” by Jagdish Bhagwati in The Economist, June 22, 2002, pp, 24-26.
[11] “Globalization’s Last Hurrah?” in Foreign Policy, January/February 2002, pp. 38-51.
[12] “Europe Beats America,” editorial in The Wall Street Journal, July 23, 2002.
[13] See: http://www1.umn/edu/humanrts/resolutions/49/60GA1994.html.
[14] Ibid.. It is important to note here the overlap that exists in this issue, as it pertains to this definition, and the issues surrounding migration/immigration, which deals in part with the definition of an (illegal) immigrant versus and asylum seeker.
[15] Quoted in “Caution: This Weapon May Backfire,” by Serge Schmemann, in The New York Times, December 30, 2001, Section 4, p. 1.
[16] Ibid., p. 7.
[17] Quoted in Schmemann, op. cit., p. 7.
[18] “U.N.’s Goals for Children Prove Painfully Elusive,” by Roger Thurow in The Wall Street Journal, May 8, 2002.
[19] “Goals Set by UN Conference on Children Skirts Abortion,” by Somini Sengupta in The New York Times, May 11, 2002.
[20] “UN Forum Stalls on Sex Education and Abortion Rights,” by Somini Sengupta in The New York Times, May 10, 2002.
[21] “UN Prepares for a Debate on Dire Needs of Children,” by Somini Sengupta, in The New York Times, May 8, 2002.
[22] “UN Prepares for a Debate on Dire Needs of Children,” by Somini Sengupta, in The New York Times, May 8, 2002.
[23] “Hunger: Always With Us,” in The Economist, June 15, 2002, p. 73.
[24] “Hunger: Always With Us,” in The Economist, June 15, 2002, p. 73.
[25] “On the Fence,” in Foreign Policy, March/April 2002, p. 23.
[26] “GOP, Democrats Square Off Over Legislation to Allow Entry of More Skilled Foreign Workers,” by Marjorie Valbrun in The Wall Street Journal, May 31, 2000.
[27] “Human trafficking: Desperate Cargo,” in The Economist, March 2, 2002, p. 44.
[28] “Migration statistics: Cross-country chaos,” in The Economist, June 15, 2002, p. 50.