View previous stories
	US 'Realists' press for Bush to engage Iran, North Korea by Jim Lobe Inter Press Service   Washington, June 3, 2005   Hawks in the administration of US President George W. Bush may think that they are tough, but their dreams of ''regime change'' in Iran and North Korea are increasingly deluded, not to say dangerous, according to their hard-edged realist rivals who have become increasingly outspoken in recent weeks.   Their latest broadside comes in the form of an article by Richard Haass, president of the influential Council on Foreign Relations, in the forthcoming edition of the journal Foreign Affairs entitled ''The Limits of Regime Change.''   Haass, who served under Bush in a top State Department position, also has just published a new book, 'The Opportunity: America's Moment to Alter History's Course', one of the central themes of which is that the hawks have over-estimated Washington's ability to change the world.   Haass' article and book release follow the publication of a column last week by arch-realist Brent Scowcroft in the Wall Street Journal which argues that the hawks' rejection of bilateral talks with North Korea in the hopes that the government there will collapse are ''irresponsible.''   Yet another realist, former Foreign Affairs editor Fareed Zakaria, made much the same argument in a recent Newsweek column that assailed the White House for what he called a four-year ''stalemate'' within the administration between hawks who ''want to push for regime change'' in North Korea and ''pragmatists'' who ''want to end the North's nuclear programme.''   Common to all three authors is the conviction that the U.S. is not all-powerful; that it must coordinate its policy with other great powers to achieve its ends; that creative diplomacy can be far more constructive than military action; and that, despite the tough rhetoric of administration hawks, U.S. policy towards Iran and North Korea, both members of Bush's ''axis of evil'', effectively is adrift.   The realist offensive comes amid a growing sense that the intra-administration fights between hawks led by Vice President Dick Cheney and realists led by then-Secretary of State Colin Powell have continued unabated nearly six months into Bush's second term, albeit more recently without Powell and fewer leaks from unhappy State Department and intelligence officers who generally lined up with the realists.   While Washington has persisted in its refusal to directly engage either Iran or North Korea, it has provided nominal, if sceptical, support to negotiations between the so-called EU-3 -- Germany, Britain and France -- and Iran on Teheran's nuclear programme while also stating that a military option of one kind or another remains on the table if an agreement is not reached.   Washington also has continued to insist that Pyongyang return to the Six-Party Talks -- which also involve China, Japan, South Korea, and Russia -- to discuss a possible agreement for dismantling its nuclear programme.   But the administration has rejected entreaties by China and South Korea, in particular, to put on the table what it might be prepared to offer if the North were to strike such a deal. In recent weeks, Washington also has sent 17 Stealth warplanes to South Korea as part of a series of steps to increase pressure on the North and signal the other parties that its patience is running out.   Haass, who, as head of the influential Policy Planning office in the State Department during the first two years of the Bush administration, was a top adviser to Powell, argues in his Foreign Affairs article, that the hawks' pursuit of regime change is flawed on many counts.   He concedes that regime change appears superficially attractive because it ''is less distasteful than diplomacy and less dangerous than living with new nuclear states.''   ''There is only one problem,'' he adds. ''It is highly unlikely to have the desired effect soon enough.''   Haass dismisses the notion that Washington is prepared to invade either country simply due to the ''enormous'' expense involved, the ability of Pyongyang's conventional military power to inflict destruction on South Korea and U.S. forces stationed there, and the size and large population of Iran that would make ''any occupation costly, miserable, and futile.''   In addition, ''regime replacement,'' often is far more difficult and expensive than the initial regime ouster, as Washington's experience in Iraq has demonstrated, according to Haass.   As for the option of carrying out a military attack on Pyongyang's or Teheran's nuclear sites, as urged by some hard-line circles outside the administration, Haass warns that, given the state of U.S. intelligence on the two countries' nuclear programmes, this is likely to be limited in its effectiveness and would almost certainly prove strategically counterproductive.   In the first place, Washington is unlikely to face a demonstrable imminent threat from either country that would justify pre-emptive action. Any preventive attack on North Korea would be opposed by Washington's Six-Party partners because of the dangers posed by war on the Korean Peninsula, according to Haass.   While a preventive attack on Iranian targets could set back its nuclear programme by months or years, he argues, Teheran could respond in any number of ways, from ''unleashing terrorism'' and promoting instability in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia, to triggering oil price increases that ''could trigger a global economic crisis.''   Instead, Haass urges what he terms a ''containment'' policy similar to that pursued by Washington during the Cold War which, he notes, had as a ''second, subordinate goal'' incremental regime change or ''regime evolution.'' Such a policy, he says, ''tends to be indirect and gradual and to involve the use of foreign policy tools other than military force.''   ''A foreign policy that chooses to integrate, not isolate, despotic regimes can be the Trojan horse that moderates their behavior in the short run and their nature in the long run,'' he writes.   Critical to this strategy is Washington's willingness to offer clear incentives, ''including economic assistance, security assurances, and greater political standing,'' to both countries if they satisfied U.S. and international concerns regarding their nuclear programmes. It also would spell out clear penalties, including military attack ''in the most dire circumstances,'' if they failed to cooperate, says Haass.   Washington also should work with its negotiating partners to devise packages for both countries that lay out similar carrots and sticks on which all parties would commit themselves, he adds.   He admits it is quite possible this strategy will not work, and that one or both countries will use the time to build up their nuclear capabilities either overtly or covertly. The option then is to accept their de facto nuclear status similar to that currently accepted for Israel, India, and Pakistan.   Given the stakes that would be involved, particularly the likelihood that the two countries' neighbours would try to follow suit, Washington, according to Haass should declare publicly that any government that uses or threatens to use weapons of mass destruction or knowingly transfers them to third parties ''opens itself up to the strongest reprisals, including attack and removal from power.'' At the same time, the U.S. should try to persuade all other major powers to sign on to such a policy, he adds.
	'World' Bodies under fire for serving the few, not the many by Thalif Deen Inter Press Service Canada   24 June 2005   As UN Assembly meets with public groups Annan hails key role of civil society. (UN News)   United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan today urged civil society groups meeting in New York to keep making their voices heard and to hold governments – and the UN – responsible for the obligations and promises that had been made to ensure a safer, prosperous and more equitable world for all.   “You are essential partners and without you as advocates, we would not be where we are on some of the issues on the agenda today,” Mr. Annan said, wrapping up the General Assembly’s historic two-day hearings with non-governmental organizations (NGOs), civil society groups and the private sector.   The 191-member Assembly opened its first-ever interactive sessions with civil society groups yesterday to hear proposals on security, human rights, development and UN renewal, ahead of a landmark summit in September commemorating the world body's 60th anniversary.   The hearings coincided with the ongoing closed-door negotiations among UN Member States preparing for the summit, which will kick off on 14 September with a mid-term review of worldwide efforts to achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), a set of ambitious targets, ranging from halving extreme poverty, to halting the spread of HIV/AIDS and to providing universal primary education, all by 2015.   World leaders gathering at the UN will also have what Secretary-General Kofi Annan says is "once-in-a generation" opportunity to make the world body more efficient at tackling global problems by adopting the reforms he proposed in his landmark report In Larger Freedom, which he introduced to the Assembly in March.   “As a civil society and as individuals you have quiet a lot of power and you know how to use it. And when you mobilize you usually get results,” Mr. Annan said this afternoon, adding: “Your overall message is loud and clear: to build a more prosperous, just and peaceful world, we need Member States to take bold actions here in September.”   “We need your support. We are counting on you, and many around the world are counting on you particularly the poor the weak the frightened and the intimidated, who have no voice or representation in powerful chambers,” he said.   Assembly President Jean Ping of Gabon said that there was no doubt that the hearings of the past-two days would have an impact on the outcome of the 2005 World Summit. Since the draft outcome for the high-level plenary will be a consensus document, every topic raised during the hearings cannot be reflected exactly as discussed in hearings, he said – but this does not make the contributions of participants less important.   “The time has come, he said, “to collectively grapple with all the threats and challenges that humanity is confronting if we are going to build a more peaceful, a more fair world based on solidarity. We will succeed all the more easily if the Member States and the non-governmental organizations, civil society and the private sector manage to work together with a genuine spirit of partnership.”   June 24, 2005 (IPS)   "NGOs hope first date wasn't just a One-Night Stand", by Mithre J. Sandrasagra.   Security, development and U.N. reform emerged as major themes over two days of civil society and private sector meetings with governments that concluded here Friday.   But the main proposal made by the 200 non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and 1,000 observers participating in the unprecedented General Assembly hearings was for similar consultations to be held before all major U.N. summits.   Hopefully, the hearings will not be an isolated event, but will move the relationship between civil society and governments ”from a historic precedent to a more formal institutionalised way of interacting,” said Renate Bloem, president of the Conference of NGOs (CONGO).   ”CONGO has worked intensively for 57 years to enhance civil society's participation at U.N. forums,” Bloem added.   Secretary-General Kofi Annan's report on U.N. reform, titled ”In Larger Freedom”, states that ”the goals of the U.N. can only be achieved if civil society and governments are fully engaged.”   It goes on to propose that ”prior to major events, the Assembly could institute the practice of holding interactive hearings between Member States and civil society representatives that have the necessary expertise on the issues on the agenda.”   Annan's report lays the basis of the agenda to be taken up at the high-level summit of world leaders to be held here in September. The report's proposals for development, security, human rights and U.N. renewal also provided the framework for the civil society hearings this week.   NGO participants came to New York prepared to offer their ideas and recommendations, ”based on firsthand experience of the issues,” Bloem said adding, ”I hope that their voices would not only be listened to, but heard, so that they might have a substantive impact on the document to be issued to the summit.”   Pera Wells, acting secretary general of the World Federation of U.N. Associations, said that, ”So far, there is only one reference to civil society in the draft outcome document being prepared for the high-level summit, and it is very weak.”   ”We would like to see more references to civil society participation in the document to be considered by heads of state,” she continued.   There are over 40 references to negotiations on follow-up to the issues that are addressed in the draft outcome document, according to Wells.   ”There is a strong feeling among civil society and NGOs that we should be included in these negotiations, not just in separate hearings, but through the consultative treaty conference and prepcom processes that have been very successfully used by the U.N. over the years,” she said, adding, ”We do not want decisions taken in small groups behind closed doors, we want to see the U.N. come back to an open inclusive decision-making process.”   Two years ago, Annan said that the U.N. had come to a ”fork in the road.” Recent events had called into question governments' commitments to development, security and human rights embodied in the Millennium Declaration unanimously adopted in 2000, according to Deputy Secretary-General Louise Frechette.   ”We now face a choice, with the upcoming review of the Millennium Declaration in September, of coming together to tackle challenges collectively, or we risk increased tension, disorder and inequality,” Frechette told those gathered at the civil society hearings.   If the September Summit takes decisions that help strengthen collective security, if the world provides the means to reach the eight Millenium Development Goals (MDGs), and if governments recognise the centrality of human rights and U.N. reform, then all the world's people will benefit, Frechette said.   ”In that process the voice of civil society representatives had to be heard,” she stressed.   Ana Nelson of the International Conflict Prevention Analysis Group agreed. ”Civil society involvement is no longer an option, it is a necessity,” she said.   The hearings took place at a critical time, amid ongoing closed-door negotiations among U.N. Member States preparing for the Assembly's 2005 World Summit, with a mid-term review of worldwide efforts to achieve the MDGs. The MDGs are a set of targets designed to halve or eradicate poverty and other socioeconomic ills by 2015.   Gladman Chibememe, of the group Africa 2000, said that he appreciated and recognised the role of the U.N. in human rights, but noted with great concern that, ”there was a lack of connectivity between documents and action on the ground.”   Stressing that indigenous communities should be empowered, Chibememe proposed creating a mechanism for enabling communities to play a leading role in achieving the MDGs.   All the MDGs need to be implemented within the framework of ”environmentally sustainable development on a local level,” Chibememe added.   ”Freeing women from injustice was a prominent goal of the MDGs and the empowerment of women was central to achieving all the others,” said Geeta Rao Gupta, of the International Centre for Research on Women. Gupta expressed disappointment in the draft outcome document's treatment of women's rights and suggested that they be elaborated.   NGOs also emphasised the need for the creation of a trust fund to facilitate the participation of Southern NGOs at future meetings. Canada, Finland and Norway made contributions to a fund that facilitated participation of developing country civil society representatives at this week's meetings.   In short, ”We need to stop speaking and start acting,” Shannon Kowalkski of Family Care International told IPS   Montreal, May 31 (IPS News)   "'World' Bodies under fire for serving the few, not the many", by Thalif Deen.   The world's multilateral institutions -- which preside over the political and economic destinies of more than six billion people -- have come under heavy fire at a meeting of 350-plus representatives of civil society and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) here.   The United Nations, World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF), and World Trade Organisation (WTO) were criticised as lacking transparency and accountability and practising political elitism and decision-making dictated by the rich and powerful.   Rajesh Tandon, chair of the board of the Montreal International Forum (also known by its French initials, FIM), singled out the United States, France, and Britain -- three veto-wielding permanent members of the U.N. Security Council -- for what he termed their political double standards.   ''Those who pretend to be champions of democracy at the national level are the practising enemies of democracy at the global level,'' Tandon told IPS.   He urged civil society groups in the three countries to exert pressure on their governments to bring their actions in line with their stated principles.   All three countries have opposed the elimination of the veto power -- currently held by the permanent five in the Security Council, including China and Russia -- which makes them singularly more powerful than the rest of the 186 U.N. member states in an institution advocating multi-party democracy and majority rule.   ''The veto is the most undemocratic weapon at the United Nations,'' said Tandon, who also is executive director of the New Delhi-based Society for Participatory Research in Asia (PRIA).   ''Over the years, we have abolished the veto of the father over decision-making in the family, the veto of the village chief in rural communities, and even the veto of the elites in some point of time in democracy,'' he said.   But the world's three largest practitioners and propagators of democracy, Tandon added, have consistently refused to forego the political anachronism of the veto even in the current proposed restructuring of the 15-member Security Council.   He said the political architecture created 60 years ago during the birth of the United Nations remains unchallenged.   ''The major deficits of global democratic governance are well known, including the inability of the U.N. system to live up to the values of its own charter,'' Tandon said, hinting at the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003, which U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan described as an ''illegal war.''   Tandon said the very survival of the human race was at stake because a four-week-long meeting of 188 countries to review the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) last week ''ended in disarray.''   At the same time, he said, the U.N.'s social and economic agenda of the 1990s, including poverty eradication, remains ''unimplemented.''   Even so, he said he feels that in the next five years ''something will give way. And I think there will be some significant changes in the mechanism that currently operates in the United Nations. If this happens, it will only be under sustained pressure both from within and from the outside.''   Bill Pace, of the World Federalist Movement and the Coalition for the International Criminal Court, told NGO delegates at the talks ending here Wednesday that the United Nations is going to enact more major changes in the next four months than it has over the last 60 years.   The changes include restructuring the Security Council, creating a Peace Commission, revamping the U.N. Human Rights Commission, and revitalising the U.N. Economic and Social Council.   A U.N. summit of world leaders scheduled for September is expected to approve all or most of these proposals.   But Pace said he held out very little hope of any accomplishments, primarily because of the unilateralist policies of the United States.   ''There is too much focus on national security at the expense of human security, and too much concentration on unilateral action as against multilateral action,'' Pace told IPS.   Kumi Naidoo of South Africa-based Civicus told NGO delegates that one of the first political exercises is to educate world leaders who extol the virtues of democracy in their own countries.   ''But they advocate the worst policy of global governance in multilateral institutions outside their home countries,'' he added.   Kristin Dawkins of the U.S.-based Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy said a hierarchy of treaties which, in practice, favour economic and trade agreements over international human rights law or environmental agreements dramatically illustrates the democratic deficit in the global governance system.   ''Some treaties are enforced, while others are not,'' Dawkins said.   Activists also have highlighted the World Bank's appointment of former U.S. deputy defence secretary Paul Wolfowitz as the global lending agency's president as ''a glaring example of undemocratic governance.'' Wolfowitz takes up his new duties Wednesday.   ''These recruitment procedures are neither democratic nor transparent,'' says a recent report from a coalition of advocacy groups including the World Development Movement. ''Citizens, their representatives and most governments (bar a few exceptions in Europe and the United States) have no say about who takes on this key job.''   The Montreal-based FIM, which organised the four-day NGO seminar here, is a global alliance of individuals and organisations sharing the goal of improving the influence of international civil society on the multilateral system.   Organisers described the seminar, titled 'Global Democracy: Civil Society Visions and Strategies', as a major world conference of civil society in the run up to the U.N. summit in September.   In a report to the seminar, FIM says ''we are living in the midst of a worldwide crisis in democracy. There is an increasing concentration of power amongst an elite. As a result, there is a growing gap between the rich and the poor. The economy is being militarised and legitimate public debate is either discouraged, personalised, sensationalised, or trivialized, leading to a dangerous level of political polarisation.''   A growing number of young people, discouraged with seemingly rampant corruption and a growing elitism of the political class, are opting out of the formal political process altogether, it adds.   FIM also criticises the mainstream media, once the vital fourth estate, which it says ''has largely been absorbed by the corporate community.'' As a result, freedom of the press has become subservient to the bottom line, and, by extension, accountable to shareholders, FIM says.   ''The response to current crises such as (war against) Iraq, (genocide in) Darfur, the spread of AIDS and the future of our environment, is a sad reflection of weak and misguided governance,'' the group says.   ''If these and other challenges continue to be exacerbated by the politics of greed and power, then new democratic measures must be invented, and by and for the people,'' it adds. Visit the related web page
	View more stories