WFI at the 2005 CGS Conference
The WFI presented a panel discussion with the theme "Making the Local Global: Developing a U.S. Foreign Policy True to Our Ideals." The panel featured four speakers: Saul Mendlovitz, a scholar of international law and founder of the World Order Models Project; Paul Kimmel, a social psychologist; Steve L. Damours, an author on international politics; and Marty Resick, a businessman. Moderating was Mariel McKone Leonard, a member of WFI's Steering Committee and a former WFI intern .
Panelists and Remarks
Mariel McKone Leonard
Bio
Mariel McKone Leonard serves as editor for the WFI webpages. She has been a member of the WFI's Steering Committee as well as the former Assistant to the WFI Director.
Ms. Leonard received her B.A. in International Relations from the College of William and Mary. She is currently pursuing a Certificate in International Development at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies.
Opening Remarks
Good morning, and welcome to the second World Federalist Institute forum. I hope you all have enjoyed the conference, and will leave here feeling reinvigorated in the search for global solutions to global problems.
Throughout this conference, we have discussed what issues are important, why they are important, and how to prompt action. Today, with the WFI forum, we turn the conference theme inside out, and offer a way of thinking of possible solutions that draws on America’s history of radical thinking, experimentation and advocacy.
Two centuries ago, some forward-thinking Englishmen fought a momentous war for independence because they believed that the government should serve the interests of the citizenry, not the monarch, and it should do so by expressing and actively promoting their ideals. Having won their cause, they began the process of designing their ideal government, one that would balance both liberty and security. Their first attempt, the Articles of Confederation, failed because no man-made government can ever be flawless. Recognizing this, on their second attempt, they sought only to forge a ‘more perfect union’, one that would realize their ideals into perpetuity.
Early America, the America of our Fathers, was meant to be a beacon of hope, freedom and justice that its light might shine over the rest of the world. But we have fallen from that mission. For too long we have used that light to cast shadows over others, all the while pledging to drive out the dark. But now is the time to change. Now we must burn our lights bright that they may serve as a beacon to others, a guide in the treacherous waters of the 21st century. And we must expose our own dark corners. Being the light of the world is an enormous privilege, with weighty responsibilities. It requires not only sound and just leadership, but an engaged and confident public that is open to the pursuit of new ideas, and to dredging up neglected theories from the sea bottom of our collective consciousness. Citizens for Global Solutions, the World Federalist Institute, and all of us today, we are here to produce that public. We are here to raise the level of public debate in this country, in search of a foreign policy that reflects not only our interests, but our ideals.
Our panelists today remind us of those ideals: Paul Kimmel tells of our respect and understanding for the wide range of humanity’s achievements; Martin Resick speaks of the desire for individual growth and opportunities for success, and businesses’ role in fostering these; Saul Mendlovitz of our respect for human life and Steve Damours reminds us that, sadly, the desire for security can be corrupting, and that those who are willing to sacrifice liberty for security do not deserve either, and are guaranteed neither.
In order to promote dialogue amongst our panelists and the audience, each speaker will have several minutes, after which we will have a guided discussion. Following that, we will open questions up to the audience, and I request that you please write your questions on a piece of paper and pass them along to Erica or Scott.
I would also like to take this opportunity to thank all of those who submitted abstracts for our consideration, and to highlight two individuals: Jerry Tetalman and Joe Schwartzberg. Jerry so perfectly answered our prompt question that we couldn’t use his presentation for fear that there would be nothing left to discuss. He reminds us that the oil in the lamp of our freedom is the philosophy of federalism. Without federalism, America would not be able to be America, and our beacon would be lost. His book, One World Democracy, co-authored with Byron Belitos, was featured during our authors’ salons. Joe, who spoke at last year’s WFI panel, is Professor Emeritus at the U of Michigan, and a leading expert on how more democratic and effective voting system can be devised for the UN General Assembly and Security Council. His excellent monograph, Revitalizing the UN, was featured alongside Jerry’s on Friday and Saturday.
Without further ado, I would like to introduce our first speaker....
Saul Mendlovitz
Bio
Saul Mendlovitz is Dag Hammarskjold Professor at Rutgers Law School, Founder and President of World Order Models Project, Founder and Co-Chair of Global Action to Prevent War, and Representative of five NGOs to United Nations. Previously, he served as a board member of the Arms Control Association, a member of the Social Science Research Advisory Board of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. Mr. Mendlovitz earned his B.A. from Syracuse University; and his M.A. and J.D. from the University of Chicago.
Publications he has contributed to include A United Nations Peace Emergency Service, edited by Robert Johanson; and A Reader on Second Assembly & Parliamentary Proposals, edited by Mendlovitz and Walker.
UNEPS: To Prevent Genocide and Crimes against Humanity
THE NEED: Despite the need at times to move quickly to prevent genocide, "ethnic cleansing," and crimes against humanity, the United Nations has no reliable capacity to move promptly, even if halting a catastrophe could save hundreds of thousands of lives. Genocide in Rwanda illustrates this incapacity, as do the massive killings of innocent people in Cambodia, the former Yugoslavia, East Timor, Sierra Leone, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Liberia, the Sudan, and elsewhere.
The time has come to create a permanent UN Emergency Peace Service to ensure that the next preventable humanitarian disaster will not occur. If such a service had been established earlier, it could have prevented many of the atrocities that have killed millions of civilians, wounded millions more, forced tens of millions from their homes, destroyed entire economies, and wasted hundreds of billions of dollars. Of course such a service would not be a panacea for security problems in general; indeed it would be designed to complement -- not replace -- other essential national, regional, and United Nations efforts. Yet an emergency service could provide immediate, full protection in some crises and serve as an advance peace service that would prepare the way for subsequent additional help, if needed, in larger conflicts -- a vital function that is not provided by any existing agency. Such a service could also help address extreme environmental and natural disasters in cases where other remedies are inadequate for averting major threats to human life.
THE PROPOSAL: Because a UN emergency service would be permanent, based at UN designated sites, and include mobile field headquarters, it could move to quell an emergency within 48 hours after United Nations authorization. Since it would be individually recruited from among volunteers from many countries, it would not suffer the reluctance of UN members to deploy their own national units. As its 10,000 to 15,000 personnel would be carefully selected, expertly trained, and coherently organized and commanded, it would not fail in its mission due to lack of skills, equipment, cohesiveness, experience in resolving conflicts, or gender, national, or religious imbalance. Because it would be an integrated service encompassing civilian, police, judicial, and military personnel prepared to conduct multiple functions in diverse UN operations, it would not suffer for lack of components essential to peace operations or from confusion about the chain of command. By providing a wide range of functions, the UN emergency service would, for the first time in history, offer a rapid, comprehensive, internationally legitimate response to crisis.
THE PLAN OF ACTION: Because governments have not created the necessary UN capability, the responsibility for breathing life into the United Nations Emergency Peace Service now lies with civil society, working with allies in the UN and interested governments. To create this service, a growing number of citizens' organizations and leaders of civil society are determined to: (1) identify interested parties throughout the world to expand the number and diversity of those committed to this initiative; (2) secure agreement on the principles, composition, and financing of a UN emergency service; (3) draw on expert knowledge to ensure that the growing constituency is accurately informed and to write detailed plans for the emergency service and how to establish it; (4) develop a well-organized network of support with a compelling website, promotional materials, list of endorsements, and speakers' bureau; and (5) encourage a wide consultative process among non-governmental organizations, the UN system, and national governments to ensure the implementation of a successful strategy.
Paul Kimmel
Bio
***Biographical Information Coming Soon***
Dialogue among Civilizations
The UN designated 2000 the Year of the Culture of Peace and 2001-2010 the Decade of the Culture of Peace and Nonviolence to the Children of the World. A culture of peace has "caring and just relations among individuals, groups, and nations based on full realization of their positive interdependence with one another and with their environment -- it entails social justice, norms of equity and multicultural sensitivity and social relations conducive to nonviolence, sustainable development, and human well-being." UNESCO 1994, p. 2.
To become more caring and sensitive internationally, Americans can get in touch with individuals in other countries to share ideas and experiences, feelings and beliefs. Through programs like the International Network of Local Projects for a Culture of Peace (www3.unesco.org/iycp) we can set up dialogues and visits to learn more about each other so that everyone grows. Increasing world peace requires an active effort to work together beyond differences of class or creed, race or religion, language or lineage.
When we experience the realities of other people's lives, feelings of connection and empathy naturally arise. All viable cultures have patterns of belief, affect, behavior and social relations, but only cultures of peace nourish nonviolence and individual, social and ecological well-being. Americans will identify with diverse peoples and build cultures of peace when they know people from other places as friends rather than "foreigners." Their dialogues and projects are especially important as law and order governments discourage international contacts.
Steve Damours
Bio
Stephen Damours is Coordinator for the Washington DC Meditation Center of Self-Realization Fellowship and member of the World Federalist Institute Steering Committee. Previously, he has served on the Board of Directors and Executive Committee of WFA, chaired WFA's Education Committee and Publications Task Force, and served on WFA's Partners Planning Commission and Growth and Outreach Commission. He has also served on the Board of Directors and Executive Council of the Campaign for U.N. Reform and on CUNR's Political Action Committee and Nominating Committee. He has held a variety of management consulting, program analysis, and human resources positions in the U.S. Department of State. Mr. Damours earned his B.A. from Wheaton College and his M.A. from the University of Chicago.
Mr. Damours' most notable publication is his book, America the Almighty: The Maverick Hyperpower , in response to which he has given interviews on U.S. foreign policy throughout the United States.
Tribalism, Greed, and the Arrogance of Power: The Motives of American Militarism
The behavioral evidence suggests that since the end of the Cold War a number of American leaders have become increasingly hostile to international laws and institutions that might limit their power to dominate world events. They have become increasingly prone to use or threaten military action. This coercive approach to foreign policy has undermined respect for the U.S. and the values for which it stands, and has replaced admiration with fear and resentment in the minds of much of the world’s population. Polls show that world opinion of the US has turned sharply, dramatically negative.
The largest single cause of this shift of world opinion is of course the Iraq war, but there are many others. In launching the Iraq war the U.S. violated the UN Charter and its own values by attacking another nation based on flimsy and fabricated intelligence. A majority of members of Congress across the political spectrum either supported this decision or acquiesced in it even though the case for war was notably weak and unconvincing. As the war approached, the evidence for it faded away under increasing scrutiny, yet we went ahead with it.
The financial costs of the war have been deferred, passed along to future generations. A deeper cost is disillusionment with the integrity of the nation and its leaders in the US and abroad. The local costs inside the U.S. can be seen in casualties and trauma that have fallen on the poorest families and communities, those whose sons and daughters have few alternatives to military service.
The long-standing refusal of the US to pay its dues to the UN, only recently and partially corrected, has been another factor driving increasingly hostile world opinion, along with a clear pattern by the US government of undermining international law. The U.S. has either pulled out of, refused to sign, refused to ratify, or clearly violated treaties that limit U.S. military options, including treaties to control landmines, biological weapons, nuclear weapons proliferation, ballistic missile technology, torture, and other kinds of international criminal conduct such as war crimes prohibited by the International Criminal Court.
The US Senate has also refused to ratify treaties expressing a global consensus or near-consensus on important matters of moral principle such as human rights--the rights of women and children, and the use of two great global commons, the oceans and the atmosphere as expressed in the Law of the Sea Treaty and the Kyoto Protocols on Global Warming. This pattern of resistance to international law--indeed, apparent contempt for international law, is so stark and clear that it cries out for an explanation that digs deeper than any I have yet seen.
This pattern is often attributed to an ideology that advocates an American empire of military might as the only way to achieve stability by policing an anarchic and violent world. The theory is that American military supremacy is the tool that can be used to create peace and stability, democracy and free markets for American goods throughout the world. Certainly such an ideology does pervade the highest political levels of this country, and particularly dominates the policy levels of the Pentagon.
But an ideology is far from a full explanation. An ideology is a structure of thought that guides action, but it does not motivate action. It is more like a steering wheel than an engine. To understand what is going on and offer a viable alternative we must “look under the hood” at the engine, the motive forces, that drive this policy These forces are psychological and sociological. But they are also primitive and commonplace. They require no Ph.D.s in academic fields to be understood. These primitive motives and habits of thought must be confronted and counteracted before the policies will change. Key among these forces are tribalism, greed, the arrogance of power, and a deeply entrenched habit of thinking in terms of win-lose games.
By tribalism I mean the universal we-they tendency of human emotional reactions, the tendency to think of people who are like us or are familiar to us as “the good guys” and others, the different ones, as “the bad guys.” This tendency is so universal it may be embedded in our genes. In early human history literal tribes either stuck together and fought off enemies or they died out and became extinct. Today this same tendency operates like a computer virus, even successfully attacking religions that advocate the value of all human life and perverting them into excuses to kill people of other religious persuasions. Of course, extreme nationalism is another manifestation of tribalism run amok, the one we’re dealing with here.
Given the sad facts of human nature, another psychological force, the arrogance of power, is an almost inevitable accompaniment of our overwhelming military superiority relative to the rest of the world. Before the Iraq War started, the US was spending six times as much on its military establishment as the second-biggest spender, Russia, and we all know Russia's military is a wreck. Now the US is spending more on its military than all other nations combined. Think of that. More than Russia, all the NATO countries--England, France, Germany, Italy, etc. plus Japan, China, India, and dozens of others combined. Our military empire spans the globe; the sun never sets on it. The temptation to overuse it is all too real.
In American foreign policy, tribalism and the arrogance of power don’t work separately, of course, they synergize. Here arrogance and the we-they dichotomy are merged into one thing. We have the power because we’re the good guys, we have the best kind of government and the best kind of economy, and therefore we have a responsibility to reshape the world in our image and make it a better place for us and for everybody else. This viewpoint is called the “moral” dimension of the policy. It is the mentality of the missionary imposing his religion on the lesser breeds and stamping out paganism. Those who oppose us (because they’re losing power or they prefer a different way of life) are “the bad guys.” Shiite theocracy looks awful to us, but we shouldn’t be surprised if there are some people who prefer it. And Sunnis losing power are likely to fight back.
Greed, a third motive, is pretty self-evident, but not much talked about. Our wealth and our way of life are based on extravagant consumption of oil. Our oil industry and our automotive industry, among others, are trashing one of the most vital global commons, the atmosphere, but our leaders are not about to change course or admit there’s a problem. We could have long ago created government policies strongly favoring hybrid cars and making new buildings far more energy efficient, but the transition would have been inconvenient, and maybe costly. In the long run there would have been immense savings. However, our leaders take the view that since oil is so vital to our current, comfortable way of life, we must control the supply of it coming from the Middle East. Hence we build more and more military bases there, and take over an uncooperative country once in a while.
The fourth element that has a major underlying role in US foreign policy is a deeply entrenched habit of thinking in terms of win-lose games. Win-lose games are not only a habit of thought, but a way of life for Americans. They are a key source of excitement, as in our sports, and one of the main ways we decide who has power, as in our elections. Businesses compete strenuously and try to drive one another out of business. Our so-called reality shows on TV are win-lose games. We even turn the arts into win-lose competitions. We set up competitions over who is the best pianist, or has painted the best painting, or has raised the most beautiful and well-behaved dog.
In the international arena, win-lose metaphors pervade the talk of our politicians and pundits. Are we winning the economic competition or the war on terrorism, losing the hearts and minds of Iraqis or Vietnamese, and so on. By comparison, cooperation is boring, governance even more boring, and these win-win games have few ego rewards. They produce wonderful results, but they don’t produce excitement. How do we know we’re the best if everybody’s a winner?
The terribly destructive foreign policies driven by the above-mentioned motives can be countered only by exposing their malevolent, law-of-the-jungle underpinnings and advocating a return to the values on which this country is based, and by establishing values-based policies that are friendly to global law and institutions. Implicit in all we do as members of Citizens for Global Solutions is a value system that is the exact opposite of the selfish, group egotisms I have outlined here.
Opposite to tribalism, arrogance and greed is a reverence for the value of all human life and human well-being. That is the core value Americans explicitly embrace, and the value foundation of all the world’s great religions and philosophies. We need to hark back to that rock-bottom basic value whenever we speak and write on subjects of concern to us.
The American tribalists cannot stand up to the light of that basic value. When we run a violent, tribalistic foreign policy we violate the values on which this country is based. We destroy whatever greatness we otherwise might hope to claim. The rest of the world sees that but our leaders do not, nor do the American citizens who blindly elect those leaders, thinking they can be made safe by “winning” against others and using force, which only creates resentment and backlash.
So, what can we do to counter these awesome, universal psychological forces? We can remember always and above all to frame the policy debate in terms of the values for which this country was founded, the value of human life and well being, the rule of law, and settling disputes by debate and discussion rather than violence. Polls show that Americans do find moral arguments for policies more persuasive than arguments based on selfish national interest.
We can win policy debates when we base our arguments on the bedrock reality of the value of all human life, not just American lives. We need to start with that reality, that value, and stick with it and keep emphasizing it, in all we say as a lead-in to the importance of global law, a law for all human beings, and global institutions to implement global laws, while respecting local and national autonomy and self-determination. In other words, in the long run, the value of human life demands a democratic and federal system of global governance.
Marty Resick
Bio
***Biographical Information Coming Soon***
Corporate Social Responsibility: Time for CGS to Get Involved?
(Modified and revised 4.7.06)
The corporate social responsibility movement for US companies that also operate overseas is a growing movement across the United States. Weekly, one sees more articles that give examples of CSR, and its impact on a broad range of companies as they choose to make their policies fit the global environment of the 21st Century.
So, the question should be raised – is this a ripe topic for Citizens for Global Solutions, given our desire to reform globalization’s worst impacts?
Below are 8 questions to pose and answer when weighing whether Corporate Social Responsibility should be chosen as a global-local initiative by CGS (national). The answers tentatively given are my thoughts from having dealt with this issue for more than 5 years.
1) What is Corporate Social Responsibility? It is the action of multi-national corporations, and local companies that operate internationally, to apply their visions, missions, and operating statements to every unit of the company, no matter where – in the US, or abroad in a subsidiary. It means not cutting corners by using double standards on environment, labor, and social or tax issues or economic fairness as these issues arise overseas. It means hiring and promoting locally, helping build the society in which the company operates, and giving back to places and people who have enabled its profits. In other words, CSR involves US companies acting as ethical forces for change, in addition to just making a profit.
2) What does a chapter or region do with a CSR program at the local level? Chapters can use the power of best practices, the power of example, the power of moral suasion to help companies adopt CSR statements, measure themselves against the statements, and lift the consciousness of companies regarding their obligations in every country and culture. Chapters can put on seminars, highlight best practices, cross-fertilize other companies, learn, and challenge companies to adopt good CSR statements. Chapters can propose possible outside evaluators of a company’s adherence to its statement. Chapters can lead a team of non-profits, companies, and academia to kick off a program, while quickly getting labor and government involved. Chapters can assist in the formulation and writing of CSR statements. It is contagious!!
3) How does such a program link to global-local initiatives? In a nutshell, it is ‘globalization with a human face’ for companies, and it is a reform that puts us (CGS) in the middle of some advanced thinking and acting. Companies link their actions locally to their global subsidiaries; CGS links its national program (if chosen) to activities in as many chapters as get involved in CSR. If you are true to your CSR statement, then you operate globally like you operate locally. You don’t show cultural bias. If chosen, this program has the potential to show globalization in a positive light, and to set up win-win situations – rather than rerunning our history and repeating the “Robber-Baron” era of the 1880’s, only this time in the 21st Century, and with an international arena for the playground.
4) What resources do we (CGS) have available to us? First, we have studied the problem of globalization for a number of years. Second, we know the consequences of NOT being a corporately-social-responsible company – the ugly American company, with a rapaciousness of character toward resources, land, people, taxes, and culture, which only drives itself to the altar of profit for profit’s sake. We, CGS, have a moral understanding of the issues because of our vision and mission statements. Third, we have tried a pilot CSR program in the Pittsburgh Chapter of CGS. Fourth, we have a number of knowledgeable people in 8-10 states, who have written on globalization subjects, or researched them, or been involved with international business. Fifth, we have Knowledge, the Right Attitude, Locations, and a Good Approach, but are not dogmatic we need, and get input from participants. Sixth, the United Nations has a special committee on CSR, but it is only a drop in the bucket – there is a crying need for more involvement.
5) Why should CGS (nationally and locally) do this? Why is it important? The largest 100 companies in the world control 28% of economic resources and trade. The internal trade of these companies (between their subsidiaries) consists of about 50-60% of this 28% of used resources. This is a huge economic, social, and ethical impact of international companies, regardless of whether the company produces broomsticks, oil, services, or heart monitors. It is a way to approach globalization from the ground up, from local to global. It is a way for companies to buy into a stronger ethic than the nebulous ethic of ‘profit alone’.
6) Is business (both local companies and multi-national corporations) ready for this – CSR? Just think of the business scandals of the last 10 years (Enron, Global Crossing, Worldcom, Adelphia, etc.) Think about being a CEO of a company with a responsible Board. Think about looking for positive public relations among all the bad news dished up daily. Think about progressive companies, who have led the quality movement, and who believe you can be a good business by being socially responsible, and that implementing CSR actually gives a company a competitive edge. Think about Starbucks’ purchasing practices of forming cooperatives in Latin America, and raising wages of cooperative coffee growers. (In Pittsburgh, we started with 3 progressive companies, in food products, banking, and medical products). Look at Bill and Melinda Gates’ foundation, and its outreach programs to combat malaria and other diseases. Is business ready for this? You bet, business and industry are ready for this.
7) Is this a golden opportunity for CGS? You, my readers, have to answer this one. My tentative answer is yes. Think of it this way – this (CSR) is bigger than the Stop-Bolton Campaign, with a chance for much more involvement everywhere that CGS operates.
8) What is the Downside of Choosing CSR for a global-local initiative for CGS? We could become overextended, and consume lots of time and energy of both staff and volunteer members. We could become identified with business (but the businesses that you start with are progressive organizations). So, to mitigate these downsides, 1) Start small, 2) Stay focused, and 3) Join with Others (Oxfam, Amnesty, UN groups) as you roll out the CSR program in pilot projects.
In closing, we have a chance to make a difference in CGS. In most instances, we (CGS) deal with political and international relations problems and issues, and we have had an impact. Here is a chance to get involved, on the ground level, with economic, social, and ethical problems of companies – and challenge them to change. Often, these companies only need the spur of knowing that other companies have tried CSR statements, and became better for it.
-->