Discussion panel split over global unity

With wars and conflicts erupting over the face of the planet and covering it like molten lava, causing everything it touches to either be incinerated or to become a part of it, unilateralism versus multilateralism in government has become a frequent debate.

Unilateralism is something done by one person or party and is one-sided while multilaterism has many sides or view points.

On Friday, the Dedman School of Law presented a panel discussion on “Responding to Global Threats: the Cases of Unilateralism and Multilateralism”.

Professors of law and economics and statesmen from Uruguay, Germany, Africa, China, Japan and Russia presented opinions as did a former special operations force officer.

“There have been cases of extending the Rule of Law,” said John Attanasio, law school dean.

The Rule of Law are laws established in the international community to ensure that every man and woman of every country receives a just and fair trial. Covered under this is the prosecution of war criminals.

“After Sept. 11, we (Attanasio, Michael Reisman of Yale and others) decided that with the world political situation, this was a good time to discuss unilateralism and multilateralism,” said William Hawley Atwell, professor of Constitutional Law at SMU. “We should not limit it, however to security and military issues but should include economics, human rights and the environment as well.”

Robert Jordan, the U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, spoke first on President Bush’s perceived unilateral decisions.

“Each decision made is based on input from other officials chosen by the people and from specialists in their fields. The application of diplomacy is not without its consequences,” Jordan said.

Lt. Gen. James T. Scott (retired) spoke from a military perspective. Scott was the commanding general of the U.S. Army Special Operations Command at Fort Bragg, N. C., and a soldier for more than 32 years.

Scott said that he could not see the formation of NATO-like organizations or other long-term alliances in the future.

“The only thing worse than fighting a war with allies is fighting a war with no allies,” Scott said, quoting Winston Churchill.

Then he said, “You can not win a war for other people. You can train them but they have to win the war to appreciate what they have won.”

Yutaka Kawashima, the former vice minister of Foreign Affairs in Japan and Japanese ambassador to Israel, spoke on the shared interests and values of the world and human rights issues.

“When should a nation or state become involved in human right’s issues of other nations?” Kawashima asked. “That depends on the situation. Human rights are universal. Some believe these rights are not universal but believe instead that it is a matter of vision versus vision and that the success of a country is measured by its economic growth.”

Kawashima said he thinks there is an increasing awareness of human rights and increasing moral values globally.

Gao Shang Quan, the former Chinese vice minister of the State Commission for Restructuring the Economic Systems, spoke of China’s desire for peace and economic growth while saying that he did not feel the United States should be heavily involved in Middle Eastern politics. When asked for suggestions on a peaceful, economic solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Quan said that he would leave such negotiations to the United Nations while Ndiva Kofele-Kale, spoke for the protection of human rights more actively by the U.S. Kofele-Kale, a professor of law at SMU, talked about the casualties from non-intervention such as the 600,000 Rwandans to die from a lack of aid.

“I vote for multilateralism,” said Christopher Ashby, a former ambassador to the Oriental Republic of Uruguay. “One problem with multilateralism is that we often enter into agreements on an effort, then when things don’t go as planned, we get upset. Are we willing to trade our values for the end result of the effort?”

Whitney Harris, a former Nuremberg prosecutor and professor of law at SMU, defined the “Rule of Law” and spoke of some of the long-term implications of Nuremberg.

“July 1 of 2002 is a significant day in history,” Harris said. “At that time we will see the birth of the International Criminal Court (ICC). This is to be a permanent tribunal with a universal jurisdiction over individuals responsible for international crimes. At the present time, there is no global mechanism capable of responding to systematic violations of human rights with systematic investigations and prosecutions.”

Werner F. Ebke, chair of the International Business Law and Taxation at the University of Konstanz School of Law (Germany) spoke of the increasing global economy. He also spoke of the vast disparity of wealth between poor nations and prosperous nations and stressed the need for more participation by financial institutions and private business in reform.

A more stark economic view was presented by Rudolph Dolzer, a former director general of the Federal Chancellery in Bonn, Germany.

“Four billion people out of the world population of 6 billion people live on less than $3 per day.” Dolzer said. “In 20 years, the number of people is expected to increase to 8 billion people.”

He explained 80 percent of all foreign aid is distributed to 12 of 130 countries.

“This is why it is necessary to globally restructure from an economic, environmental and government perspective,” Dolzer said.

Verbal sparks flew when Alexander Konovalov of Moscow State Institute of International Relations said that he, personally, did not support an invasion of Iraq by America while other issues are pending.

“I am very afraid that a U.S. initiative in Iraq would be a grave mistake,” Konovalov said. “America should not go to combat while engaged with other conflicts. This sets a precedent of unfinished business.”

Jordan challenged Konovalov’s opinion.

“How can our involvement be challenged when we are asked to participate by the U.N. as a peace-keeping force when Saddam refuses to follow the directions of the U.N.?”Jordan asked.

Konovalov said that a way should be found to enforce the U.N.’s decisions or that another organization should be created that had “the teeth to do so.”

Several members of the panel will present the results of their debates in a book to be published soon, said Attanasio at the end of the discussion.