US-Europe cooperation on global governance

Nevertheless, despite this increasing consensus for positive change and sound global governance, there appears to be lingering differences in perspective and vision between the US and the EU. This is reflected in their respective emphasis on means for achieving such change.

Europe has already shown creative leadership in its approach towards global governance. It is pursuing innovative proposals on how to reach out to surrounding countries through individualised policy proposals outlined within its 'Wider Europe Neighbourhood' strategy. A policy of "carrots" and "sticks" in achieving positive domestic change is being undertaken there. The idea is to avoid interference in sovereign state structures through military action. Instead, withdrawal of certain privileges, such as market access (a palpable carrot), is being put in place as a powerful catalyst for positive change.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

George Soros, in his newest book, "The bubble of American supremacy", has outlined an interesting vision in how the US should conduct itself in international affairs. He explains that the US should lead the world in cooperative, pre-emptive action of constructive, non-military nature. Pre-emption, according to him has to be redefined. This approach is not too far from Solana's European Security Strategy of effective multilateralism. In fact, Soros suggests that the EU needs to play a lead role and actively demonstrate that this kind of non-military pre-emption can be realistic and functional in helping to realise an equitable international system that would promote peace and prosperity for all, while simultaneously furthering other common interests like the environment.

The main stumbling block in the creation of common goals and cohesive action seems to lie with the principle of sovereignty. It creates a fundamental double-think: firstly, in the difficulty of intervening in the domestic policies of the state because of the 'sanctity' of the nation-state (which derives its political legitimacy for the largest part from the territorial definitions laid down in the Treaty of Westphalia of 1648) and secondly, because sovereign states generally put their own interests ahead of common good.

Mr Soros believes that the 'international community' has to have the right to intervene in domestic politics in cases where a government is found to be oppressing its citizens or threatening basic human rights. He thinks that the key recipe to overcoming the stronghold of state sovereignty would be to offer strong, viable incentives, encouragement and alternatives for positive change in that given country. According to him, the 'international community' has an inherent responsibility to act in these situations.

However, the matter is not so simple. The question that remains unresolved is -- who determines the objectivity of allegations before resorting to necessary and justifiable use of military force?

The consequent query relates to which authority should shoulder the responsibility for the decisions taken in each individual case.

Naturally, most of us believe that the UN should have the right for such decision-making. Recent developments have however shown that negotiations in the Security Council can often end in deadlock, as sovereign states pursue rival interests. Kosovo, probably was an exception where certain democratic countries acted together outside the UN established lines to solve an international crisis.

Some analysts have suggested an interesting alternative. They have proposed the evolution of a situation where, instead of the USA alone, the EU assumes a greater role alongwith developing democracies and other larger democratic nations joined together in the UN General Assembly. They have pointed out that this will ensure sizable majorities who could coherently supervise international monitoring tasks without the stigma of unilateralism.

In theory such a proposal appears to be attractive and not inconsistent with stated US policy. The US is on record that it agrees with expanding collaboration between democracies in multilateral institutions such as the UN. It's representatives have indicated more than once in their interventions that a "caucus of democracies" is a useful and desirable concept, that fits well with the overall US policy goal of spreading democracy globally. It is pointed out regularly that the US is actively engaged in working with others to resolve problems in the world's crisis zones.

There is only one draw-back in such an option. Pragmatism would require the need to not only define an implementing mechanism but also its resource mobilisation technique.

The past months have shown that one should not underestimate the importance of "carrots" in persuading governments on the fringe to move back into the international community. Here, both Europe and the USA have already demonstrated the power of positive coercion. The stability and Association Agreements in Europe with its Eastern neighbours, and the individualised approach in the Wider Europe strategy (with the Copenhagen criteria) have paid dividends. Similarly, we have watched the recent developments in Libya with regard to the possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Like Europe, the US perspective on global governance is aimed at achieving sound global governance. The problem however seems to arise from the manner in which intractable issues are dealt with. What distinguishes the two approaches is the mixture of the carrot and the stick with regard to 'effective multilateralism.' This has been best exemplified in the tangible differences existing on issues from the Kyoto Protocol to the International Criminal Court (ICC).

What is probably required is change in the rhetoric on both sides and promotion of positive collaborative efforts. It would also probably help decision-making for both Europe as well as the USA (in the 'caucus of democracies') within the UN, if greater importance was attached to the opinion of the majority. Certain common values could then hold the groups together. The US could then very well be part of such a structure without appearing to be the sole dictator on the course. The power of underlying values and ethics could then be stressed even more.

In this context, it would be worthwhile to remember that a balance in approach between these two major actors would do the world a lot of good. There would be immediate fallouts in the global agenda -- reformation of the agricultural regime, increased trade facilitation measures and health policy. It would help global governance move forward.

Their efforts in this direction would probably be further facilitated, if they undertook a careful analysis with regard to their "absolutely inadequate" financial commitments in resolving the huge scale of global problems. There is need to globally recognise that we have an equity problem. We can applaud the US commitment to global AIDS funds, but this amount is a pittance when compared to the funds that are expected to be spent on maintaining a military presence in Iraq. That carries a $160 billion price tag. What is required is a more equitable utilisation of global resources. Non-governmental actors and civil society might play a more meaningful role in this regard.

I believe that such collaboration will be most useful in accomplishing our common efforts with regard to combating terrorism, illegal human trafficking and promotion of law and order. It will also assist our common commitment and determination to live in peace, to strengthen human rights, to promote sustainable development and to improve environmental standards. We would all be better off by applying the principle of multi-lateralism rather than unilateral action.

Muhammad Zamir is a former Secretary and Ambassador.