As policymakers continue to adapt to the new world scene caused by ongoing fears of terrorism and efforts to combat it, COSSA focused its final congressional briefing of 2003 on globalization.  The September 25 seminar was entitled “Rebuilding the World Community:  Global Institutions and Interactions in an Era of Terrorism.”

International Organizations

Beth Simmons, Professor of Government at Harvard University, focused her presentation on “Collective Problems, Collective Responses:  International Organizations and U.S. Interests in an Era of Terrorism.”  She noted at the outset that the last year has been a critical time for the UN because the Security Council has rarely had such a lead role in international events and because “the debate continues over whether the UN is central to world affairs or irrelevant.”

Simmons asserted that the post-September 11 world has created a set of collective problems and that “the U.S. must participate in collective responses.”  While “our encounters with the Security Council have been rancorous . . . the United States is going to have to think about the extent and the ways in which it will engage international organizations” to try to solve collective problems.

To provide some historical context, Simmons explained that the United States faced similar choices immediately following World War II as it does today.  Rather than taking a unilateral approach to leadership at that time, however, the U.S. adopted a strategy of working through multilateral institutions.  The “U.S. supported the creation of the UN to address both the security as well as economic and social issues which were viewed as the roots of WW II.”  She also noted that fair international trading and banking systems were established with U.S. support.  And the creation of NATO fostered collective security in Europe and organized the U.S.’s closest allies. 

Simmons argued that investment in these institutions has paid off handsomely over time for the U.S.  NATO has prevented any major wars in Europe over the past 50+ years, the opening of markets around the world has benefited the U.S. economically, and working through the UN, the U.S. received international approval and support for its actions in the Korean War and the Gulf War.

Despite her praise for international institutions, Simmons took time to point out some problems inherent in them.  First off, there’s the phenomenon of “soft balancing,” in which an organization will work to frustrate the efforts of a superpower to promote balance.  This is similar to what the U.S. has experienced at the Security Council in several of its efforts related to the conflict in Iraq. 

Another problem with international organizations is that they have goals separate from those of their member states.  They may institutionally push for one course of action over another or take on responsibilities to boost their budget or bureaucracy.  Finally, the problem of “democratic deficits” is created because decisions by international organizations are so far removed from the citizens of member states.  Simmons mentioned that this has been a particular problem for the European Union, which is often charged with “making decisions over the heads of average Europeans.”

Looking at present events, Simmons noted that the Iraq conflict is demonstrating the cost of going at it alone and that the U.S. would have benefited greatly by working within the frame of UN.  She mentioned specifically that the U.S. went outside of the typical application of international law when it asked the Security Council to authorize preemptive force against Iraq last year.  This reduced our chance of winning the support that would have brought financial and manpower backing with it. 

To conclude, Simmons asserted that the U.S. would benefit in many ways by working through international organizations in the years to come.  They help by making solutions to difficult world problems – humanitarian intervention, peacekeeping situations – more palpable.  They have a socializing effect – other nations are more likely to support and trust us if they see we are working though established organizations.  Finally, they promote public support for national leaders – polls have consistently shown greater public support for military action the U.S. undertakes through NATO or the UN.

International Negotiations and Interactions

Linda Putnam, Professor of Communication at Texas A&M University, discussed “Framing and Transforming Issues in Global Negotiations and Interactions Among Leaders.”  She followed up on Simmons’ remarks by noting that the UN is at “its gravest point in history” and that improving communication between global leaders in this day and age is absolutely imperative.

Putnam explained that there are three dominant models of international negotiation:  soft negotiation, hard bargaining, and interdependence.  Soft negotiation involves trusting your adversaries, making a strong commitment to reach agreement, assuming people will act amicably towards you, and yielding to avoid confrontation.  She noted that we know from history that this model only works if everyone is taking the same line and soft negotiation can place you at a competitive disadvantage. 

Hard bargaining involves opening negotiations from an extreme position, using coercion and pressure, and seeking, and even pressing, for concessions from the other party.  This method is problematic because it makes it very difficult to form alliances and negotiations often progress very slowly.  Putnam asserted that the    U.S. has used this approach in the war against terrorism – but that agreements are likely to suffer over time as a result.

The interdependence model involves give and take and requires a posture between that of soft negotiation and hard bargaining.  It also encourages the participants to take a new look at the situation – understand the needs of the other party while still maintaining firmness on your position.  It is imperative to be sensitive to cultural and historical difference and try to resolve sticking points by asking questions and gathering information.

Putnam asserted that the interdependence model isn’t used enough in the world community.  We need to shift the focus to promote more collaboration.  She concluded, “The ultimate goal and ultimate win-win of any conflict is when we change the way we approach the whole situation and we come together . . . where all parties are getting something and gaining from the process.”

Economic Leadership

Lael Brainard, Senior Fellow in Economic Studies and Foreign Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution, addressed “U.S. International Economic Leadership Post-Cancun.”  She explained that there’s been a major shift in international economic policy post-September 11 that many people haven’t been aware of owing to attention focused on security issues. 

Brainard noted that generally, “the exercise of international economic power by the U.S. is more often than not fairly incoherent.”  Over time, our leadership has been affected by both domestic politics and foreign policy concerns.  Historically, the U.S. long had a multilateral approach to trade policy.  This was revised slightly in the 1980s as we adopted a bilateral agreement with Israel and in the 1990s as the bilateral pact we formed with Canada was ultimately regionalized into the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Brainard asserted, however, that the current Administration shifted drastically towards a bilateral approach, driven largely by philosophy.  She explained that economists worry about a bilateral trade policy because it “diverts trade from the most efficient trading partners to the ones that have the best deal worked out among governments.”  A bilateral policy has also put the U.S. in a very complicated foreign policy position. 

For example, we recently finished new pacts with Australia and Singapore, while negotiations with New Zealand and Chile stalled.  This is due, in large part, to the fact that Australia and Singapore supported us on the Iraq war, while New Zealand and Chile defied us on votes.  As a result of this policy, Brainard pointed out that the list of the top 10 countries we should open business with differ greatly between the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Administration.  She noted “We have tremendous power on bilateral agreements . . . but that our interests as a global leader are very badly served” by adopting the position we have.

In turning to the issue of foreign aid, Brainard explained that our use of aid can greatly help our situation in global politics.  For example, the European Union tends to outmaneuver the U.S. in international organizations because it is currently providing about 70 percent of the development assistance around the world.  When the disagreement arose between the U.S. and France and Germany over the Iraq war, this could have played a role in the fact that we couldn’t win UN backing for the conflict.  As a result, we have paid 93 percent of the costs in the current war, versus only 15 percent of the costs in the Gulf War, which had UN support.

COSSA will prepare edited transcripts of the seminar, which included a lively question and answer period.  These should be available in December.  If you would like to request a copy, please e-mail cossa@cossa.org.