|
|
 |
|
 |
 |
| MILLENNIUM SUMMIT | |
 September 8, 2000  |
|
|
Over 152 leaders from around the world met in New York for the United Nation's Millennium Summit. After a background report, Ray Suarez leads a discussion of the policy issues discussed by the leaders and the summit's historical significance.
|
|
RAY SUAREZ: And for more on the United Nations millennium summit, we turn to John Ruggie, United Nations assistant secretary-general; David Rieff, journalist and author-- he co-edited Crimes of War and is writing a book on humanitarian aid; David Sanger, is the White House correspondent for the New York Times; and Jessica Mathews is president of the Carnegie Endowment for international peace. She served as undersecretary of state for global affairs during the first Clinton administration. |
|||||||||||||||||||
| A new political declaration for a changed world | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
DAVID SANGER, New York Times: Well, Ray, it was obviously an overwhelming event to see so many leaders gathered in one room, and to stand in the general assembly the other day and see Vladimir Putin and, of course, President Clinton and leaders of the third world all gathered together was somewhat remarkable. And there was an instance where Fidel Castro actually shook Bill Clinton's hand. This was one element of it. The second element, of course, was the U.N.'s effort to reform itself, and the U.N.'S effort to come to grips with a much more effective peacekeeping method. I think the third element was this background diplomacy in which President Clinton tried to put the Mideast peace talks back on track -- that appears to have failed. And had a lengthy discussion today with China's President, Jiang Zemin. But that also didn't seem to make much progress on the big issues before them: Taiwan, Tibet, for example. RAY SUAREZ: John Ruggie, let me turn to you next. Why have this meeting? What did you hope to accomplish?
RAY SUAREZ: And can you look back at any accomplishments for this week? JOHN RUGGIE: Well, I think it's been quite an event, an extraordinary event in fact. I believe that when you sit back and you reflect on what has been said and what has been done, first of all, a political declaration is being adopted tonight at the closing ceremonies, which I think speaks to three major issues of our time: The first one is the transforming effect of globalization in the world, and the real threat that it widens income gaps between rich and poor and the need for to us do something about that. And the declaration lays out some specific concrete actions and timelines. Secondly in the area of peace and security, the U.N. was created for a world of interstate wars. Most people today are being killed in internal wars. And we need to adapt our machinery to that radically different world. Thirdly, the environmental threat that humanity faces: Global warming, safe drinking water. We have small island states that literally are afraid of going under if sea levels rise. So there are three fundamental, major issues that have been addressed. And I think the declaration tonight and the commitments to act in the future will make a difference. RAY SUAREZ: Jessica Matthews, what's important for you to look at as you assess the value of this meeting?
The other thing that I think is important is what wasn't said and never alluded to by any of the leaders, which is that the world has been so changed by the information revolution, that the power of nation states and the power of national sovereignty has been fundamentally altered. And the U.N. is an institution that's made of, by and for nation states. And so it faces a tremendous challenge to try to operate in fundamentally new conditions where so much power has shifted elsewhere under old rules, under the old 55-year-old charter. So, you know, the Achilles' heel of a big U.N. talk fest is always the follow-through. And I doubt there will be too much of that that will change things radically, although I hope perhaps there will be some change on peacekeeping. But I think the event itself has some real significance for the world, importance of global governance. |
 |
|||||||||||||||||||
| An insignificant "gabfest"? | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
RAY SUAREZ: David Rieff, do you agree?
A whole set of issues up to and including peacekeeping are addressed, but in ways that have nothing to do with their reality on the ground. So while taking nothing away from the good intentions of the organizers, above all, Professor Ruggie himself, I just don't see how this is anything more than a gab fest and a big traffic jam and headache for New Yorkers. RAY SUAREZ: Well, John Ruggie, how do you respond to that critique? JOHN RUGGIE: We're New Yorkers, too, and we have been affected by the traffic jams. But to get to the fundamental point, historical change isn't easy to achieve; it takes time; and it's a slow process. And part of the price of doing business in international relations at the United Nations is to have leaders come together to talk to each other and sometimes only at each other.
|
 |
|||||||||||||||||||
| The unofficial meetings | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
RAY SUAREZ: Well, David Sanger, a lot of people have been paying attention to the agenda items. I know you have been looking at some of the things that have been going on, sub-agenda you might say -- meetings in corners, meetings between unlikely bedfellows.
RAY SUAREZ: But are there things that happen accidentally at a meeting like this, just from having people there in the same room or in the same space? DAVID SANGER: The biggest accident was Castro's approach. And of course the White House went out of its way to say that this was a discussion of no substance. Usually the White House is busy telling us how substantive a president's conversations were. In this particular case, it seems that Castro came over to the President, shook his hand, which as far as we could conclude is the first time Castro had actually shaken the hand of an American president. And they did have a conversation of a few minutes' time, perhaps an empty one; but one which no one in Washington would relay to the press in any particularly informative way.
DAVID SANGER: That is a great result of the end of the Cold War. And it was sort of interesting that when President Clinton held a big gala event for all of the other world leaders at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the only ones not invited were those the United States still brands as terrorist states. Castro had to find dinner elsewhere that night; so did the Iraqis and the Libyans. But that's a very small list, and, in fact, most of the world leaders came and everything was on the table. And I think that even if the Mideast talks don't make it very far, the White House makes a legitimate point when it says that issues like the status of Jerusalem, which have never really been discussed openly, only by think tanks never by leaders, are now on the table. And I think that when we look back at this over a longer period of time, we'll say that that was a modest accomplishment. But any summit like this is going to have incremental progress; and particularly when you've got a leader like Mr. Clinton, who has only four months left in office. Many leaders, President Jiang included, were clearly holding back today, waiting to deal with his successor. |
 |
|||||||||||||||||||
| The summit's possible accomplishments | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
RAY SUAREZ: Well, Jessica Matthews, you held out the possibility that some real accomplishments might be seen down the road. What conditions have to be in place?
RAY SUAREZ: Dave Rieff, peacekeeping is your patch. Respond to Jessica Matthews' speculations about possible accomplishments coming out of this summit. DAVID RIEFF: Look, the real problem with peacekeeping, despite what they say at U.N. headquarters, are not operational, although these will certainly be improvement fiscal they have more staff and more money and if the Americans pay their bills. I agree completely with that, obviously. The problem with peacekeeping is peacekeeping is a doctrine that was originated to deal with conflicts between states and is wholly inappropriate to internal wars. So you've got the U.N. saying well, we made these mistakes in Bosnia and Rwanda -- mistakes that were made under Secretary-General Annan when he was peacekeeping operations director -- but we're going to do exactly the same thing in the Congo. They're starting a peacekeeping operation now when supposedly they've learned these lessons, which is going to recapitulate every last one of these mistakes. I don't see how more people in headquarters is going to help this. RAY SUAREZ: And, John Ruggie, let's wrap up with you because peacekeeping was one of the major focuses of the Millennium Summit.
RAY SUAREZ: John Ruggie, guests, thank you all very much. |
||||||||||||||||||||
 |
    
|
|
| Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station. | ||
| ||
| PBS Online Privacy Policy Copyright ©1996- MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved. | ||
| ||
David
Sanger, let me start with you. As you look back at this week in New
York, what have you seen, what have you heard that will really stick
with you? 
JOHN
RUGGIE, Assistant Secretary-General, United Nations: The United Nations
was founded a long time ago in 1945. It was a very, very different world.
There were 53 countries in the world. Most people crossed the Atlantic
by big boats. Two-thirds of the world was under colonial rule. We wanted
to take this opportunity, the accident of the calendar, the year 2000,
the millennium, to have a really comprehensive look at what we do, how
we do it, how we can do it better, and the Millennium Summit was our
vehicle for doing that. 
JESSICA
MATHEWS, Carnegie Endowment: Well, I think it probably doesn't lie in
anything that was said or even in the declarations. It was in the fact
that it happened, first. Heads of state are not people who like to come
together in great big groups and clumps. And I think it's fairly extraordinary
that this many chose to come and to be part of a very large almost anonymous
group, except for a few from the very large states. It says that the
U.N. means more, is recognized as more important in the rest of the
world than it often is here. 
DAVID
RIEFF, Author/Journalist: No, I'm afraid I don't. I don't see how an
event whose consequences, even Jessica Matthews seems to think, as I
do will be marginal at best, can be an event of historic significance.
It seems to me that, to the contrary, the meeting showed up... but if
you actually read the statements of the presidents and prime ministers
assembled, the differences in the world, the growing consensus among
liberal democratic states for humanitarian intervention, which mirrors
the views of Professor Ruggie and I think the secretary-general, as
opposed to the views of the Chinese and the Indians and Iranians and
others who are dead set against this.
But
what's extraordinary is that 189 countries are represented in the United
Nations; 152 leaders, government leaders, prime ministers, presidents,
showed up and put their political energy and commitment behind the political
declaration, agreed to establish a follow-through process. It's going
to take time. But in the areas of poverty, in the area of strengthening
peacekeeping and giving a political push to environmental concerns and
to U.N. reform, I think this has made a difference. And I don't think
we should pre-judge how effective it's going to be a year, two, five
years down the road. Certainly we're going to be committed to making
it work. And we're going to keep the feet of everybody to the fire.
DAVID
SANGER: Well, there have been many of those, Ray. But I think one of
the most interesting elements of it was that a subtext of many of those
meetings and some of the public statements was the frustration that
you heard about America's power, about the inequities that come about
from economic globalization, but mostly between North-South and also
between the degree to which America has pulled ahead economically and
is perceived around the world as not being willing to share that wealth.
Some of the other meetings that took place, I think, were important,
but they were important to the Americans in large part because President
Clinton has been in great search of course, for want of a better word,
a legacy, and he has been hoping to have one or two big foreign policy
accomplishments that he could claim in these last few months.
RAY
SUAREZ: Just a little over 20 years ago, David Sanger, Andrew Young
left the U.N. under a fire storm because of... it was revealed he had
conversations with people with whom it was impolitic at that time, members
of the Palestinian delegation -- just from the mere act of talking to
them. When you look at that space of time, is this summit remarkable
because so many of those rules have just been swept away by history?
JESSICA
MATHEWS: I think that the most likely consequence we'll see is a renewed
push and, maybe, actually achieving a serious body in the U.N. headquarters
for directing peacekeeping operations. This came out of the secretary-general's
report this summer. And it is the most crucial issue, immediate operational
issue for the U.N. It is something that could really be fixed with a
very modest expenditure and so that each of these peacekeeping operations
would not have to be reinvented from the ground up every time a new
country gets in trouble with huge delay and inefficiency and extra cost.
I think it's quite possible that this summit will have given that effort
really a very substantial significant push, and that that may be a really
concrete outcome. I'm much more skeptical that this would make any difference
on the environment over the long-term, for example, on which we've had
hundreds of declarations. 
JOHN
RUGGIE: I guess what I would say to David Rieff's last comment, is that
we are fully aware of the problems of peacekeeping and fully aware of
the crisis of credibility that the United Nations in fact faces as the
secretary-general himself said yesterday in trying to adapt a mechanism
that was established for interstate conflict to domestic conflict. Now
I'm not sure what we are supposed to do other than trying to improve
our performance, to devise new understandings of how to do this, to
get political commitments on the part of our member states behind a
new program of action; that's how change is made. You can't simply say,
well, this instrument was established for a different world; we now
live in different circumstances. It's no longer appropriate. So, let's
close down shop. We have to deal with the fact that human beings are
being killed each and every day, largely in internal conflicts and all
of us around the world feel the need and the desire to prevent those
kinds of killings, attempted genocide, massive violations of human rights
from taking place.