Obama and multilateralism

The election and inauguration of President Barack Obama has seemingly lifted the spirits, if not the sails, of those who believe in the multilateralist approach to foreign policy and diplomacy. Not only has the Obama team adopted the soothing language of “smart” diplomacy, but Democratic administrations have had a better press in this area for some time.

This hope was further substantiated earlier this month when the US House of Representatives released the latest Foreign Relations Authorization Act (HR 2410). According to reports, the Act would authorize full payment of all outstanding US dues to the UN accumulated since the 1999 Helm-Biden legislation. It would also lift the Congressionally-mandated 25-percent cap on US funding for UN peacekeeping. 

This would certainly represent significant support for multilateralism and the United Nations. For the Philippines, which is both an ally of the United States and a country with a long tradition of multilateralism, this is definitely a good thing.

However, there are at least two worrying signs on the horizon that cannot easily be dispelled. The first is North Korea’s second nuclear test since 2006 just last month, and its accompanying tests. The second is the fate of democracy in Myanmar (Burma). To make matters worse for the Philippines, both these problems are in our own East Asian home region.

It is generally assumed by North Korea watchers that its Dear Leader wants closer bilateral negotiations with Washington. There is a certain brutal logic to this deliberate use of nuclear proliferation to catch the attention of the world in general, and of the US in particular.

But it is also the kind of logic that our world must not allow. Because this involves nuclear power, the international community has a vital interest to reinforce all multilateral structures and bring to bear all possible influence (read: China), to get the North Koreans to play by the rules of the game. The Six-Party Talks have to be kept a going concern, and we must watch the US lest it be tempted to go it alone or work only with a select “group of the willing” again. 

The Philippines may actually have a role in these efforts, since it will hold the presidency of the next Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) review conference scheduled in 2010. The NPT is the backbone of the global nuclear non-proliferation framework, that is to say, the international legal effort to keep nuclear weapons from spreading. Since the United States and the current nuclear-weapon countries have only been serious about using the NPT to restrict membership in their select club rather than to disarm themselves, it is really up to other countries, including the Philippines, to make sure that both aspects of the non-proliferation agenda are adequately covered.

The problem of Myanmar is less urgent from a security standpoint, but more prickly for the Philippines since it is a member of ASEAN. Yangon’s latest actions on Aung San Suu Kyi are outrageous and ASEAN, our chosen instrument for regional multilateralism, has only had an anemic response. A dialogue with the most influential nations (read China again, and this time India as well) is unavoidable for ASEAN if we wish to be a principal facilitator in helping Myanmar help itself. Care, nonetheless, is needed. For ASEAN to seriously sanction or expel Myanmar from its ranks, as some in the US and the West would have us do, would irreparably damage ASEAN’s aim of building a regional community while making it only harder to effect any change in Myanmar. 

Beyond security, we must also push the US, the major industrialized market economies and perhaps the stronger developing nations to work harder towards an acceptable outcome at the WTO Doha Development Round. In this regard, we sincerely hope the United States will not veer towards protectionism despite the rhetoric of the last presidential campaign. This is the fundamental leadership we should expect from the Obama Administration.

Multilateralism in the UN

The key ingredient in these and other global problems is clearly a multilateralism that works. In the modern United Nations, the power of the Member States has grown, while the influence of the UN Secretary General has waned. But the Secretary General, the symbolic office he holds, and the global platform from which he speaks, remain important in rallying the international community. Multilateralism cannot work if its most potent symbol is wanting.

As an example of UN leadership shortcomings, the Washington Post published a June 2 article headlined “What The UN can’t ignore” and written by Pedro Nikken and Geoffrey Nice (principal prosecution attorney in the case of Slobadan Milosevic in the Hague). They referred to the crimes against humanity and war crimes committed under Burma’s military regime, including the recruitment of thousands of child soldiers and attacks on ethnic minority civilians. The article concluded: “Given that the UN is aware of the scale and severity of rights abuses in Burma, it is incumbent on the UN Security Council to authorize a commission on inquiry into the crimes”. 

On the other hand, it would be a mistake to value multilateral diplomacy only in terms of whether it can manage high-profile issues like North Korea and Myanmar. There are many security, development and humanitarian efforts where the UN and regional organizations have been making headway without too much fanfare. Space does not allow me to enumerate these efforts.

Fortunately, the US has been very involved in these initiatives. Witness the positive role played by the US in the international humanitarian cooperation in the wake of Nargis that devastated Myanmar. This is a behavioral pattern that the Philippines, as a key regional ally of the US and an ASEAN leader, can continue to encourage in concert with the rest of ASEAN and the region. We need Washington to stay the course in building multilateralism from the ground.

Chacha train to nowhere

While many are aghast and alarmed by this development, I submit that this is a train going nowhere. Bypassing the bicameral nature of our legislature is a mortal flaw of the scheme. The decision of the Senate to sit on House Resolution 1109 will effectively bottle it up. And the indignation of the people about this naked assault on our democratic system will ensure that it will not prosper.