The Progressive ResponseVolume 4, Number 40
Editor: Tom Barry (IRC)
Table of ContentsI. Around the WorldBy Tom Barry
II. Updates and Out-TakesINTERNATIONAL TOBACCO SALES MASCULINITY AS A FOREIGN POLICY ISSUE
III. Self-Determination Crisis WatchPEACE IS POSSIBLE, BUT NOT LIKELY
I. Around the WorldBy Tom Barry Kofi Annan, UN secretary-general, has spearheaded a UN-NGO-Business partnership called the Global Compact that has sparked strong criticism from anti-corporate nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). Just as attempts by business groups to express their support for international environmental protection through such groups as Businesses for Sustainable Development resulted in charges of "green washing" by some environmental NGOs, the new UN partnership with business groups has been labeled "blue washing" by anti-corporate groups such as the Transnational Resource and Action Center (TRAC). As part of his efforts to revitalize the United Nations, Secretary-General Annan has reached out beyond UN member states to religious groups, NGOs, and businesses. He calls this constituency-building campaign the UN's "New Partnership" initiative. The UN's creation this summer of a Global Compact designed to increase corporate social responsibility touched off strong opposition by many citizen groups involved in global economy issues. Last week Assistant Secretary-General John Ruggie convened a meeting of NGOs to address some of these concerns. He stressed that the Global Compact (GC) was not a regulatory instrument and not a substitute for regulatory arrangements that countries or companies might establish. Rather it is "an open-ended experiment intended to identify, disseminate, and promote good practices based on universal principles." These principles are drawn from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the ILO's Fundamental Principles on Rights at Work, and the Rio Principles on Environment and Development. Specifically, the UN requests that corporations make three commitments:
Concerned that corporations will seek to wrap their profit-making ventures in the UN flag and that deals with business groups will undermine the UN's ability to serve as a counterbalance to global corporate power, an NGO coalition recently wrote a letter to Annan critiquing the Global Compact initiative. Asking that the secretary-general reassess this initiative, the letter states that "the mission and integrity of the United Nations are at stake" with the Global Compact. Fifteen individuals signed the letter, including representatives from such groups as Essential Action, Greenpeace International, International Forum on Globalization, Institute for Policy Studies, Transnational Institute, People-Centered Development Forum, and Third World Institute. The letter to Kofi Annan denounced the Global Compact as "threatening the mission and integrity of the United Nations." The coalition letter calls a number of the Global Compact's newly announced corporate participants, including Nike, Shell, Novartis, and Rio Tinto "simply inappropriate for partnerships with the United Nations." In the letter the coalition charges that the Global Compact allows corporations to "gain all the benefits of association with the UN without any responsibilities." "The first three words of the UN Charter are 'We the Peoples,' said John Cavanagh, Director of the Institute for Policy Studies, which endorsed the letter. "Private corporations are accountable only to their shareholders, often in flagrant disregard of the rights of the people who work for them, live near them, or suffer the consequences of their decisions. Millions of people who work for or live near several of the 44 firms that have signed the Global Compact have had their rights denied or abused by these firms," said Cavanagh. "The secretary-general seems to think the UN can help 'fix' the problems of globalization by getting serial violators of human rights, labor rights, and the environment to declare that they won't be bad anymore," said Kenny Bruno, UN Project Coordinator for TRAC-Transnational Resource and Action Center. "But the ongoing actions of Nike, Shell, Novartis and others continue to speak louder than words." The letter went on to warn how corporations may use the UN logo under the new guidelines, asserting that "the UN logo and the Nike swoosh do not belong together." The guidelines provide ample opportunity for global companies to display the UN logo in conjunction with a UN project they may be involved with, allowing them to enhance their "brand image" by, for instance, placing the Nike swoosh next to the UN olive branches. Scores of NGOs around the world have endorsed a Citizens Compact on the United Nations and Corporations, which, like the Global Compact, advances nine principles. The presumption of the Citizens Compact is that the UN will and should interact with corporations, but it sets different guidelines for this interaction. For example, the Citizens Compact's first principle states that "multinational corporations are too important for their conduct to be left to voluntary and self-generated standards. A legal framework, including monitoring, must be developed to govern their behavior." In an apparent response to NGO criticism that a number of corporations within the GC have had reprehensible corporate practices, Ruggie speculated that these corporations may now want a "new image" after having "paid a price in public embarrassment and perhaps even diminished sales." Others, he said, now view global corporate social responsibility as "a natural extension of corporate social responsibility in their home countries as one of the rules of the game in the new global marketplace." Ruggie promised that the UN will be alert, along with the GC's NGO and labor partners, to the possibility that some companies may be opportunistically looking to the GC for a free ride of good publicity or co-branding with the UN without any sincere commitment to improving their corporate practices. Cutting to the heart of the debate, Ruggie noted that opinions about the GC's objectives mirrored analysis about the possibilities of globalization. "If you want to make globalization work for everyone, as we do, then it is worthwhile. But if you reject globalization, global corporations, or even the system of capitalism itself, then you won't like what we're doing at all--any more than your predecessors liked social Keynesianism or social democracy because such pragmatic innovations inevitably reduce the social rationale and political support for more polarized rejectionist postures." Ruggie then went on to critique the analysis of those who reject open markets as at least part of the solution to addressing global poverty. "I fear that the rejectionists of globalization in the North are on a collision course with the needs of the poor in the South." According to Ruggie: "The life-shaping force haunting the world's poor is not Disneyfication; it is not McWorld. Nor is it a Nike or a Shell, whatever its other sins may have been. Nor, indeed, is it the WTO, the World Bank or the IMF, though each has committed egregious policy errors over the years. The stark reality facing the world's poor is the absence of economic opportunity, a deep-rooted inability to generate equitable and sustainable economic growth, and a scarcity of the political, economic and social institutions conducive to that outcome. This root problem is compounded by an insufficient sense of global solidarity in the form of faster and deeper debt relief, greater market access for the exports of developing countries, especially the least developed, and vastly expanded programs of outright grants to poor countries, targeted for poverty reduction programs. Rejectionism will not solve a single one of those problems. Globalization can help do so--a globalization that is embedded in universal values and principles, and one that is better managed by good governance at national and international levels alike." Discussion about the wisdom and objectives of the Global Compact echoes other important debates that have emerged around globalization issues, such as sweatshop policy, corporate codes of conduct, Sullivan principles, and the reform or abolition of the institutions of global economic governance. The success of the global economy movement in loosening the corporate stranglehold on globalization will depend largely on its ability to advance a forward-looking agenda that moves beyond reaction toward solutions. Whether the Global Compact is part of the solution or "blue wash" is a debate worth having. Clearly, the operations of transnational corporations need to be monitored and regulated by the institutions of global economic governance. In discussions about what kind of governance is needed and is feasible, previous UN attempts to regulate corporate behavior in the form of proposals by the UN Center on Transnational Corporations (UNCTC) and UN Center on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) deserve close consideration.
Sources for More Information on Global Compact:Global Compact Focus on the Corporation United Nations Association/USA Corporate Watch (Around the World is a weekly column of news commentary by Tom Barry, FPIF codirector.)
II. Updates and Out-TakesINTERNATIONAL TOBACCO
SALES
The human costs of tobacco use are staggering and rising dramatically. Every eight seconds, someone in the world dies from tobacco use--4 million deaths a year. If current trends continue, that number will soar to 10 million by 2030, according to the World Health Organization (WHO), with 70% of those deaths occurring in the third world. Given these figures, over 150 million people will die from tobacco-related diseases over the next 30 years--exceeding the toll from AIDS, automobile accidents, maternal mortality, homicide, and suicide combined. As the world's biggest cigarette exporter and as home to the world's largest multinational cigarette company, Philip Morris, the United States has a special responsibility to address this catastrophe. Facing declining markets in developed countries, the U.S. tobacco industry has aggressively expanded overseas, particularly in recently opened markets in Asia, the former Soviet Union, and Eastern Europe, where the bulk of the world's smokers live. Philip Morris now sells more cigarettes abroad than it does in the United States. Philip Morris currently earns half of its cigarette profits overseas, garners almost two-thirds of its tobacco revenues in foreign markets, and sells more than three-quarters of its cigarettes outside the United States. The company's international gains come after two decades of heavy overseas spending to advertise its products, buy newly privatized cigarette companies, set up joint ventures, and build distribution and sales networks. In 1999, member states of the World Health Organization unanimously agreed to launch negotiations on a global tobacco treaty. The Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), as this treaty will be called, represents a historic effort by the international community to promote a coordinated international response to one of the most deadly epidemics of our time. The negotiation and implementation of the FCTC could make an enormous contribution to stemming the growth of the global tobacco epidemic by fostering multilateral cooperation on aspects of tobacco control that transcend national boundaries, such as tobacco smuggling and the global marketing of tobacco products. The FCTC process could also raise awareness, as well as mobilize technical and financial resources, for effective national tobacco control measures that would help rein in Big Tobacco. Unwilling to cooperate in this global health effort, the tobacco industry is trying to undermine the negotiations by lobbying developing country governments and spreading misinformation. The 1997 Doggett Amendment, which banned the use of government monies to promote the sale or export of tobacco overseas or to seek the removal of any nondiscriminatory foreign-country restrictions on tobacco marketing, is important for barring heinous assaults on countries' tobacco control regulations. It should be made permanent law, so that it no longer requires annual renewal. Even if made law, however, the Doggett Amendment needs strengthening. It currently allows the U.S. government to challenge other countries' tobacco control measures if they appear to discriminate against U.S. companies. Yet other countries often must impose such controls to significantly reduce smoking rates. The World Bank has recently reiterated the finding that opening developing markets to multinational tobacco companies is associated with a 10% increase in smoking rates. U.S. policy should prohibit the inclusion of tobacco in new bilateral trade agreements, so that countries can have the option of either blocking the entrance of U.S. and foreign brands or taxing them heavily. More affirmative measures are required, as well. U.S. tobacco companies, primarily Philip Morris, should be required to meet the same minimal marketing, labeling, promotional, and performance standards in their overseas operations as they must in the U.S. market. The U.S. government also should increase its funding of international tobacco control activities to a level commensurate with the harm being caused by tobacco. This funding should go to the WHO--which has been reinvigorated since former Norwegian Prime Minister Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland became director-general in 1998 and made tobacco a top priority--to foreign NGOs, and to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Imposing a special licensing fee on tobacco companies or earmarking a portion of new tobacco taxes for international tobacco control would secure funds for this effort without requiring annual debates over funding levels. Finally, the United States needs to display strong leadership in the negotiations regarding the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control or at least not function as an impediment to an agreement on a strong convention. The convention should set a global floor for national tobacco control efforts while in no way preventing countries from adopting measures that go beyond what is in the FCTC. A strong and enforceable convention is needed to hold tobacco companies accountable for their actions, and the FCTC and its protocols should include binding measures in areas such as advertising/promotion and smuggling. The tobacco companies must be barred from any role in the negotiation or implementation of the treaty, and NGOs should be fully included in these processes. (Robert Weissman <rob@essential.org> is a codirector of Washington-based Essential Action and the editor of Multinational Monitor; Ross Hammond is a San Francisco-based economist.)
Sources for More InformationOrganizationsAdvocacy Institute Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids Essential Action INFACT San Francisco Tobacco Free Coalition PublicationsJohn Bloom, "International Interests in U.S. Tobacco Legislation," Health Science Analysis Project (Washington: Advocacy Institute, 1998): http://scarcnet.org/hsap/international.htm Ross Hammond, "Addicted to Profit: Big Tobacco's Expanding Global Reach" (Washington: Essential Action/SF Tobacco-Free Coalition, 1998): http://www.essentialaction.org/addicted/addicted.html Multinational Monitor, July/August 1997. Available at: http://www.essential.org/monitor/ WebsitesInternational Tobacco Listserv Tobacco News and Analysis World Health Organization's Tobacco-Free Initiative
MASCULINITY AS A FOREIGN
POLICY ISSUE
Many observers have remarked on the peculiar American contemporary political culture that equates military experience and/or military expertise with political leadership. It is this cultural inclination that has made it very risky for any American public figure to appear less "manly" than a uniformed senior military male officer. It is a culture--too often unchallenged by ordinary voters--that has given individuals with alleged military knowledge a disproportionate advantage in foreign policy debates. Such a masculinized and militarized culture pressures nervous civilian candidates into appearing "tough" on military issues. The thought of not embracing a parade of militarized policy positions--that increase the defense budget, make NATO the primary institution for building a new European security, expand Junior ROTC programs in high schools, insure American male soldiers' access to prostitutes overseas, invest in destabilizing antimissile technology, maintain crippling but politically ineffectual economic sanctions and bombing raids against Iraq, accept the Pentagon's flawed policy of "don't ask, don't tell, don't pursue," and finance a military-driven antidrug policy--would leave most American public officials (women and men) feeling uncomfortably vulnerable in the political culture that assigns high value to masculinized toughness. The result: a political competition to appear "tough" has produced U.S. foreign policies that severely limit the American capacity to play a useful role in creating a more genuinely secure international community. That is, America's conventional, masculinized political culture makes it unlikely that Washington policymakers will either come to grips with a realistic analysis of potential global threats or act to strengthen those multilateral institutions most effective in preventing and ending conflicts. A feminist analysis turns the political spotlight on the conventional notion of manliness as a major factor shaping U.S. foreign policy choices. It demonstrates that popular gender presumptions are not just the stuff of sociology texts. Every official who has tried not to appear "soft" knows this. For example, early in his administration, Bill Clinton made known his abhorrence of landmines and his determination to ban them. But by 1998, he had caved in to military pressure and stated, instead, that the U.S. would not sign the widely endorsed international landmines treaty until the Defense Department came up with an "alternative." Feminist questioning also produces a more realistic accounting of the consequences of macho policies. Despite slight increases in the number of women in policy positions, U.S. militarized policies in the post-cold war era have served to strengthen the privileged positions of men in decisionmaking, both in the United States and in other countries. For instance, the U.S. government is currently promoting NATO as the central bastion of Western security. Although it is true that there are now women soldiers in all NATO governments' armed forces (the Italians were the most recent to enlist women), NATO remains a masculinized political organization. The alliance's policies are hammered out by a virtually all-male elite in which the roles of masculinity are silently accepted, when they should be openly questioned. Thus, to the extent that the U.S. succeeds in pressing NATO to wield more political influence than the European Parliament (where women have won an increasing proportion of seats), not only American women but also European women will be shunted to the wings of the political stage. A feminist-informed analyst always asks: "Which notions of manliness are shaping this policy discussion?" and "Will the gap between women's and men's access to economic and political influence be widened or narrowed by this particular policy option?" By deploying feminist analytical tools, U.S. citizens can clarify decisions about whether to foster militarization as the centerpiece of the post-cold war international system. Moreover, by deploying feminist analysis, Americans are much more likely to craft a U.S. foreign policy that will provide the foundation for a long lasting global structure of genuine security, one that ensures women, both in the U.S. and abroad, an effective public voice. (Cynthia Enloe <cenloe@clarku.edu> is a leading feminist scholar and a professor of government and women's studies at Clark University. She is indebted to Carol Cohn, Mary Katzenstein, and Linda Yarr for their thoughtful readings and suggestions regarding this brief.) Sources for More InformationOrganizationsCenter for Women's Global Leadership Committee on Women, Population and the Environment Nationwide Women's Program Women in Conflict Zones Women's Environment and Development Organization (WEDO) Women In International Security World Wide WebInternational Campaign to Ban Landmines International Criminal Court (ICC) Caucus Youth and Military Online News
III. Self-Determination Crisis Watch
PEACE IS POSSIBLE, BUT NOT LIKELY There is a widespread assumption that resolution to the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is an extremely complex issue, and that the United States has been and is the best hope for peace. The reality, however, is just the opposite. Peace between Israelis and Palestinians is possible because Israeli security and Palestinian rights are not mutually exclusive, but mutually dependent on the other. Israel will not be secure until the Palestinians are granted their legitimate rights, and the Palestinians will not be granted their rights until Israel's legitimate security needs are met. Unlike some periods in the country's past, Israel's survival is no longer at stake. The Israeli military is far more powerful than any combination of Arab armies. Israelis are generally quite secure within their country's internationally recognized borders. Although occasional suicide bombings cannot be ruled out in Israel or any other country, the cross-border guerrilla raids, which terrorized the country in previous years, also seem to be a thing of the past due to high-tech border security measures. Where Israeli soldiers and civilians are most vulnerable is in occupied Palestinian territories seized by Israel in the 1967 war: the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. This is where rioting Palestinians have attacked Israelis--not within Israel itself. Though this captured Palestinian land was supposed to be a buffer zone to protect Israel, the Israelis have colonized these territories in violation of the Geneva Convention, which prohibits countries from transferring any part of their civilian population onto territories seized by military force. United Nations Security Council resolution 446, adopted unanimously with United States support, insists that Israel withdraw from these settlements. These illegal settlements and the network of highways connecting them with each other and with Israel have made the establishment of a viable Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza impossible, since it would be limited to a patchwork of territory divided into small noncontiguous units. These settlements and roads--reserved for Jews only--not only create an apartheid-like situation, but also make it extremely difficult for Israeli forces to defend against a hostile population angry that their best land has been confiscated by foreign occupiers. Israel would be far more secure defending a clearly defined and internationally recognized border than this network of outposts within Palestinian territory. The way to peace, then, is rather straightforward: Israel would repatriate its settlers and withdraw its occupation troops from lands seized in the 1967 war, in return for security guarantees from the Palestinian Authority and the right of access to Jewish holy places. Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat has already offered just such a deal. Furthermore, Israel has no choice: It is required to do so under a series of UN Security Council resolutions, including 242, which the U.S. long insisted should be the basis of negotiations. Unfortunately, the Clinton administration sees it otherwise, refusing to insist that Israel live up to its international obligations and its own self-interest. Instead, the U.S. has claimed the Palestinians have not compromised enough, even though Arafat has already conceded 78% of the original Palestine to the Israelis in the Oslo Accords. Furthermore, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright has insisted that all previous UN resolutions on the conflict are no longer relevant, claiming they have been superceded by the Oslo Accords. However, no bilateral agreement between two parties can supersede the authority of the United Nations Security Council, particularly since one of the two parties has made it clear that such resolutions are still valid, a position confirmed by the secretary-general and every other Security Council member. Not only has the United States blocked the UN from enforcing its resolutions through sanctions against Israel, the U.S. continues to bankroll Israeli occupation forces through large-scale military and economic aid. In addition, the Clinton administration is actually funding the construction of the highways linking the settlements. This places the United States in violation of UN Security Council resolution 465, which calls upon all states "not to provide Israel with any assistance to be used specifically in connection with settlements in the occupied territories." It is therefore quite understandable why the United States is no longer trusted to be an honest broker in the negotiations. It is not surprising that so many Palestinians have resorted to violence in demanding rights denied to them by a "peace process" so antithetical to their legitimate aspirations. And it is no wonder that perhaps the most frustrated people of all are the moderate Israelis and Palestinians, whose dream of living in two states side by side has been shattered by Israeli intransigence, Palestinian reaction, and--perhaps most importantly--American ineptitude. (Stephen Zunes <zunes@usfca.edu> is an associate professor of politics and chair of the Peace & Justice Studies Program at the University of San Francisco. He is the Middle East editor of Foreign Policy In Focus.)
Subscribe to The Progressive Response!
This page was last modified on Thursday, June 20, 2002 6:07 PM |
|
Contact the IRC's webmaster with inquiries regarding the functionality of this website.
Copyright © 2000 IRC and IPS. All rights reserved. |