The Hindu Business Line : Global leadership adrift in self-interest

The UN is often referred to as a talking shop. The General Assembly would pass all the resolutions it wants and the real decisions would be taken only at the Security Council. Given the veto power of the members in that body, this often meant that no action was taken, or the decision was so watered down as to not affect any of its members, making it an ineffective decision, or worse, ineffective implementation. Nowadays, even that fig leaf of a preliminary talking shop is being given the go-by. Unilateralism or cabalism is alive and well with the appointment of Tony Blair as the special Middle East envoy.

It is said to be a ‘tradition’ that the head of the World Bank is appointed by the US and we saw that in process recently, when Paul Wolfowitz was forced out. A similar tradition requires that the head of the IMF be appointed by the Europeans and we will see that soon since the current head wants to quit earlier than his full term. The governing principle in these traditions, of course, is that the rich and powerful have their say and there is no need to consider the views of those whom these organisations are supposed to benefit, nor is there a need to consult the membership of these bodies. Cabals have their way.

‘Quartet’ and West Asia

Another cabal is the ‘quartet’ that Tony Blair, former British Prime Minister, is supposed to represent in West Asia. This comprises the US, the EU, Russia, and the UN. Considering that France and the UK (members of the EU), along with Russia and the US, are members of the Security Council, the only one not a part of this cabal is China. I wonder what Beijing would have to say, given its ardent desire to be recognised as a world power.

But we digress. A look at the credibility of the members of the quartet in meeting global expectations of a resolution of the West Asian conflict is worthwhile.

The US, for long now, has taken on itself the leadership to resolve the conflict. Action, however, depends on the mood in the White House. While the Clinton administration furiously tried to do something during its last days, the Bush administration went in the opposite direction and successfully expanded the problem by adding Iraq, along with the Israel-Palestine conflict. Apart from the frequent flyer miles that its Secretaries of State must have accumulated over the years, they do not have much to show in the direction of resolving the crisis.

The UK started the problem when it magisterially held the ‘Palestine Mandate’ and promised the land, occupied for over a thousand years by an Arab majority, as home to the international Jewish community, most of which had lived in Europe. Britain then failed to resolve the problem of Jewish immigration along with maintaining Palestinian Arab rights. The world has been paying a price ever since.

Apart from the Palestinian problem, British decisions post Second World War in creating states in the region laid the ground for Saddam Hussein to invade Kuwait claiming it was rightly a part of Iraq.

With such a track record, you would think the international community would have ostracised the British from having anything to do with West Asia. Yet, they pop up, now in the form of Tony Blair.

The third member of the quartet, Russia, is having a second wind. After the implosion of the Soviet system, and being adrift for a while, the rising price of oil and gas has improved its economy, added to its foreign reserves, and given it a voice in world matters. And that is all it wants — a seat at the G-table, and in these other global cabals, even if no one listens to it.

Last, the UN, the grand talking shop. It did not even talk about the appointment of Blair. There was no need for debate, or even consideration of other individuals who may play a meaningful role. The UN’s irrelevance reached a peak when the US unilaterally launched its war in Iraq without the world body approval. No one knows if they were really consulted about Blair’s appointment, or just told about it. This is the nature of the quartet that the world community is expecting to solve the crisis in West Asia.

Tony Blair’s appointment, coming immediately after his retirement (resignation, easing-out, whatever) as Prime Minister, has given rise to speculation. Given the tortoise-like speed with which such decisions are normally made, this was supersonic. Newspapers reported ‘intense negotiations between London and Washington’ telling us that it was not the quartet, but an appointment of the US administration. Reminds me of CEOs who retire with a severance package, which includes a consultancy agreement with the erstwhile employer, with the unspoken understanding that they need not show up but can stay at home and collect their fees.

Fragmented action

Cabals thrive when they bring their collective influence into sharp focus and when there is confusion elsewhere, preventing the emergence of an alternative leadership. For instance, a regional power can step forward and take the leadership in this situation. However, having made disastrous mistakes in the 1967 war, the Arab world continues to smart from defeat and inconsequence that they have not been able to speak above their petty divisions, outdated theological arguments, and religious civil wars to resolve this major crisis in their backyard.

The Saudis tentatively advanced a solution to West Asia but there is nobody in their community who has the moral credibility to champion the cause. Is it any surprise that the cabal continues to call the shots?

This approach to the problem is worrisome in this era of globalisation for it means that when the cabal of super powers, or Security Council members, decline to be concerned about any issue, nothing happens.

From responsible leadership, we have moved to an era of fragmented action taking place only when the cabal feels its self-interest threatened. Fragmented action is guided by short term-ism.

Little initiative

Look at the other critical issues on the global plate where statusquo for the cabal is preferable so we see either inaction or limited, short-term action. Global warming and sustainable development, which threatens the livelihood of the poor but is a life-style issue for the rich, is being dealt with in a piece-meal fashion. The biggest polluter, the US, can point the finger at the inaction of other short-termists, India and China, and not do anything. The action of individual states and cities in the US to do something is no substitute for coordinated federal action. The Doha Round continues to run in circles. It is regularly declared to be dead and is then miraculously revived. The hopes that were raised by calling it a development round are dashed because the cabal cannot compromise on its domestic self-interest.

This is only the first step and we shall soon see more protection, for free trade has begun to hurt the cabal. The issue of global disarmament has been forgotten. Instead, the cabal has focused on trying to prevent further proliferation.

Unless they demonstrate that they are giving up their own stockpile of weapons of mass destruction, with what moral authority can they wag their fingers at others who want to go down the same path? Another global issue that has been subsumed under the short-term interests of the cabal is the steady growth of autocracies in the world — non-violent and violent coups of the military, along with democracies that have turned autocracies and monarchies.

This is something that will never come up even in the talking-shop, the General Assembly. Let us join the current trend of expediency and short term-ism. Since there is little chance that Tony Blair will solve the Palestine-Israel conflict, we can take heart that his job description includes more mundane duties of mobilising assistance to the Palestinians, and helping in the economic development of the region. At least a few people in the refugee camps will get jobs with which they can feed their families.

(The author is a professor of international business and strategic management at Suffolk University, Boston, US. He can be reached at cgopinat@suffolk.edu)

More Stories on : Politics | American Periscope

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
Sense at 15,000

Inclusive vs. intrusive development

Further capital account convertibility — The neglected considerations

China's infrastructural revolution

Global leadership adrift in self-interest

The professional college fiasco

WTO: Battle of the bottle

Human resource re-engineering