It is certainly a step forward that there is a growing consensus among us that development, peace-building, and conflict prevention must be undertaken simultaneously if initiatives at peace and security are to take hold and prosper. This is, however, a consensus mainly among United Nations agencies, peace analysts and practitioners, and civil society actors. Moreover, the positive experiences in this area have been mainly at the local, micro level. Negative Global Trends Unfortunately, at the global, macro level, trends are in the opposite direction, towards greater destabilization and thus greater human insecurity. What are these trends? First of all, never since the end of the Second World War have established norms of international law been more under threat than today. And what is disturbing is that the key destabilizer is the most powerful member of the global state system. It is ironic that there is lively debate on whether or not China is, to use the terms of international relations theory, a “status quo” or a “revisionist” power when the focus of the discussion should really be the United States. There can be no doubt, in my view, that the US is a revisionist power, that is, one that seeks to radically alter the correlation of global power even more in its direction, if we take into account the following developments: -Under the false pretext of eliminating weapons of mass destruction, the US has attacked the fundamental pillar of the UN system—the inviolability of the sovereignty of the nation-state—by invading and occupying Iraq. - The Bush administration has set aside the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners by creating the new category of “enemy combatants” to allow certain prisoners to be subjected to unlawful punishment, including torture. - White House executive orders have unlawfully extended the reach of the US state, allowing CIA agents, for example, to seize individuals in Italy, against Italian law, and bring those individuals to Guantanamo Naval Base in Cuba. The second macro trend countering positive developments on the ground has been the undermining of development by the powerful multilateral economic agencies. Over the last two and a half decades, the stated goal of using trade policy to promote development, which was so well articulated by Raul Prebisch, the first secretary general of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), has been replaced by the subordination of development to free trade, corporate profitability, and the economic interests of the rich countries. This has been accompanied by the dominant position achieved by the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization at the expense of the United Nations economic agencies in the system of global economic governance and the hegemony of the ideology of neoliberalism. More poverty, inequality, and economic stagnation have been the consequences of the neoliberal paradigm, resulting in its loss of credibility and legitimacy. However, like the dead hand of the engineer of the speeding train, neoliberal policies continue to prevail nearly everywhere. But the problem is not only ideological, that is, a case of negative outcomes resulting from policies guided by wrong assumptions. The policies themselves are increasingly followed to consciously subvert the interests of developing countries. At the International Monetary Fund (IMF), for instance, the rich countries have killed off all attempts to reform the decision-making system to give developing countries more weight in determining the policies of the agency. Likewise, an already very mild proposal that would have allowed developing countries to protect themselves from creditors while restructuring their external debt, the Sovereign Debt Restructuring Mechanism (SDRM), was vetoed by the US. At the World Bank, the appointment of Paul Wolfowitz, whose name is synonymous with unilateralism, heralds a new era in which the policies of the World Bank are likely to be oriented even more closely to what the American right defines as the national interests of the United States. At the World Trade Organization (WTO), the so-called “July Framework Agreement” that serves as the negotiating document of the coming ministerial meeting in Hong Kong brazenly preserves the high levels of subsidization of agriculture in the European Union and the United States while demanding greater access to the markets of developing countries in order to dump subsidized commodities. A third negative trend is the usurpation of the role of the United Nations in leading the effort to meet global challenges by the Group of Eight. At the recent G8 Summit in Scotland in early July, the G8 staked out global leadership in the areas of debt, trade, aid, and climate change. This is hugely problematic for two reasons. First of all, the G8 is an informal, unelected, and unaccountable entity. Second, it represents the interests of the world’s most powerful countries, so that the proposals it has come up with for dealing with some of the world’s most pressing problems are tailored to fit primarily the interests of the dominant interests in those countries. What is emerging in effect is a structure of global governance in which the G8 makes the key decisions of issues of global import, then has them implemented by the IMF, World Bank, and WTO, bypassing the UN system. What makes this power play so insidious is that it is being carried out with the rhetoric of achieving the UN’s Millenium Development Goals and promoting global poverty reduction. These then are some of the key trends at the macro, global level that can easily undermine the successes registered at the local, micro level by more coordination of development, peacebuilding, and conflict prevention efforts. Countertrends Fortunately, there are counter-forces to these negative global trends, and to stand any chance of success the Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflict (GPPAC) must relate innovatively to them. What are these positive countertrends? First, there is the global peace movement, the potential power of which was on display on Feb. 15, 2003, when some 40 million people in hundreds of cities throughout the world marched against the projected invasion of Iraq. Probably one of the most stunning achievements of the movement was the convoking of the World Tribunals on Iraq (WTI) in New York, Copenhagen, Tokyo, Mumbai, South Korea, and a number of other cities. At its recent culminating session in Istanbul, the WTI’s Jury of Conscience headed by novelist Arundhati Roy adopted a resolution that is likely to have a moral influence on the course of events: it called on US and Coalition soldiers in Iraq to exercise their right of conscientious objection and called on communities throughout the world to provide haven to those who heed this call. Second is the global justice movement, also known as the anti-globalization movement. This movement contributed mightily to the derailment of the WTO ministerial meetings in Seattle in 1999 and Cancun in 2003. While it is best known for its opposition to the IMF, WTO, and World Bank, this movement is also the site of an exciting process of generating alternatives to the dominant neoliberal paradigm—alternative systems of development and global economic governance that would subordinate the market, trade, and profitability to the goals of development, economic justice, and social solidarity. Third is the movement among Southern governments to band together to resist the continuing hegemony of the North. The months leading up to the WTO’s ministerial in Cancun in 2003 saw the emergence of the Group of 20, Group of 33, and Group of 90. The resistance of these groupings, along with that of civil society, prevented the Northern governments from railroading the ministerial. While these alliances have had their share of shortcomings, they nevertheless offer the possibility of serving as the springboard of efforts toward greater South-South economic cooperation outside the Bretton Woods-WTO framework. Finally, many Southern governments as well as global civil society networks are slowly coming together around the UN reform process, out of a sense that while the UN system has many flaws, it still serves as one of the few existing global multilateral framework that can counter the trends towards a more unstable and inequitable world promoted by the dominant political and corporate interests. UN reform in the view of these governments and civil society networks is not what the United States means by “UN reform,” which means further eroding the capacities of the UN. On the contrary, the progressive UN reform program contains, among others, the following: -a greater effective decision-making role for the General Assembly; -dilution of the power of the big powers in the Security Council, including the abolition of the anachronistic system of Five Permanent Members; -strengthening of the UN system of economic agencies composed of, among others, UNCTAD, the Economic Commission for Latin American, and the Economic and Social Commission for the Asia Pacific, to serve as a counterweight to the Bretton Woods system and the WTO; -The institutionalization of a co-equal decision-making role for civil society—especially social movements--alongside governments, in the UN system. In sum, we cannot divorce advances in promoting human security at the ground level from macro, global trends. Some of these trends are negative, others positive. It is by innovatively interacting with these fluid forces that the Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflict will be able to effectively contribute to the making of a truly more secure world. - Walden Bello, Executive Director of Focus on the Global South. Speech delivered at the founding conference of the Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflict, United Nations General Assembly Hall, New York City, 19-21 July 2005 Source: Transnational Institute: http://www.tni.org/archives/bello/equation.htm