FROM DIFFERENCES TO DIALOGUE: U.S. & FRENCH VIEWS ON GLOBAL GOVERNANCE For the Fondation Charles Léopold Mayer pour le Progrès de l’Homme Priyanka Bhalla Catarina Fabiansson Maria Gonzalez Solis Berthilde Goupy Corinna Jentzsch Irene Menendez Gonzalez Maurice Nsabimana Carole Vereerstraeten From Difference to Dialogue: US and French Perspectives on Global Governance Interim report, final report to be presented in June 2005 Contents Preface: Why Global Governance Matters: US and French Perspectives .................. 2 I. Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... 3 II. Our Client: The Charles Leopold Mayer Foundation for the Progress of Humankind........................................................................................................................ 6 III. Our Project: A joint Columbia University-Institut d’Etudes Politiques (Sciences-Po) Integrated Team Project: ......................................................................... 7 Project Objectives........................................................................................................... 7 Deliverables of Project.................................................................................................... 7 Project Methodology....................................................................................................... 8 Challenges....................................................................................................................... 9 IV. LAYING THE GROUNDWORK........................................................................... 12 Alternative Perspectives on Global Governance .......................................................... 12 US & French Views...................................................................................................... 16 Identifying Policymakers (DC) – Practitioners – Academics....................................... 17 US Foreign Policy Centered vs. International Organizations centered aka "Condi vs. Kofi".............................................................................................................................. 18 V. CORE ISSUES ........................................................................................................... 19 Sovereign States............................................................................................................ 19 American Exceptionalism............................................................................................. 21 International Law, ICJ, ICC.......................................................................................... 23 Security ......................................................................................................................... 26 Economic Governance.................................................................................................. 28 VI. THE MISSING LINK(s).......................................................................................... 31 Democratic Deficits of Global Governance.................................................................. 31 Civil Society................................................................................................................ 344 The Generational Gap............................................................................................... 3838 VII. IDEAS FOR REFORM .......................................................................................... 40 American UN support and the High Level Panel Report ............................................. 40 Regionalism .................................................................................................................. 43 VIII. Conclusion The Need for Dialogue: Team Recommendations........................................................ 46 ANNEX ............................................................................................................................ 48 Executive Summary of UN High Level Panel Report………………………………...49 Framework for the different fiches..……………………………………………………...….57 Fiches: Sample Fiche Document; Sample Fiche Analyse and, Fiche Debat Outline... 58 Sample Questionnaire for Interviews.…………………………………………………66 Working Bibliography on Global Governance………………………………………..68 Joint Biographical Sketches of Interviewees.………………………………………....76 Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………....88 1 From Difference to Dialogue: US and French Perspectives on Global Governance Preface: Why Global Governance Matters: US and French Perspectives In a world, where multilateralism and cooperation are becoming an increasing necessity, the definition of who holds power and who has the capacity to engage on a global level is changing at a rapid pace; non-state actors are gaining more significance; states are increasingly interacting with multiple stakeholders and the responsibility to protect is a burning issue in the collective security arena. Why is Europe, in this new world, at the vanguard of global governance, with the creation of the European Union? Why is the US that is well known for creating the blueprint of the League of Nations and mistrusting its own government, so protective about its sovereignty? The need to answer the above mentioned questions; the growing international sentiment that international institutions such as the World Bank (WB), International Monetary Fund (IMF) and United Nations (UN) need to be reformed; the publication of the UN High Level Panel Report (HLPR); increasing interdependence among countries; a need for increased collective action, not just in areas of security, but health, the environment, etc. motivated the Charles Leopold Mayer Foundation to commence this project. In addition, the current American political climate has allowed for the transatlantic rift between the US and France to deepen. Being two major, international actors, it is important to foster dialogue between the two countries, in order to gain more international cooperation and Is there a need to study global consensus on global collective action. governance: “Sadly, the answer is yes… The costs to the United States reduced constitutional autonomy, impaired popular sovereignty, reduction of our international power, and limitations on our domestic and foreign policy options and solutions - are far too great…” John Bolton, 2000 The research has been interesting; highlighting, as it did, the transatlantic divide between European and American Policy circles in regards to global governance and multilateralism. In addition, we also learned about the domestic divide within the United States between those who wish to centre their opinions on global governance within the framework of US foreign policy, and those who are more centrally focused on the international organizations framework. 2 From Difference to Dialogue: US and French Perspectives on Global Governance I. Executive Summary As part of the Applied Workshop in International Development in the School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA) at Columbia University, a joint, integrated SIPA- Institut des Etudes Science Politiques team was appointed by the Swiss Charles Leopold Mayer Foundation to conduct an eight-month long investigation on American and French perspectives towards global governance and its reform. Starting in November 2004, the SIPA sub-team conducted two principal activities: (1) numerous interviews with American policy makers, practitioners and academics in New York City and Washington DC; and (2) a literature review. After reviewing many books and articles, the SIPA sub-team wrote a number of book reviews, op-eds and debate papers on topics connected to global governance, e.g. “the impact of trade liberalization on economic governance.” The Science Po sub-team commenced its part of the integrated project in February 2005 and is engaging in similar activities in France. This report includes primary findings by the SIPA sub-team with preliminary additions by the Sciences-Po sub-team. Our main findings are as follows: • Our principal finding is that there are not as many differences between the US and France on global governance as we assumed at the beginning of this project. After comparing interview and literature review findings, we realized the following: (1) Neither the US nor France has one, comprehensive definition for global governance. In both countries, global governance remains a vague, often hard to define, area of scholarship and political action. Similarly, there is not one US or French perspective on global governance, but rather multiple perspectives. For example, in the US, many citizens hold dual nationalities or are recent immigrants to the country, however, they too, hold an “American” perspective; (2) Both the US and France (within the EU context) have a tradition of being both internationally engaged, when convenient, or being isolationist, when convenient (American and French exceptionalism?). Therefore, there are factions who uphold and guard national sovereignty (John Bolton and Moreau DeFarges) and there are factions who fully support international organizations (League of Nations blueprint and European idea of “common good needs to be governed collectively.”) There are additional points of commonality in areas of civil society, security and economic governance, which have been further described in the report. • Other primary findings have been divided into the following sections: (1) Laying the Groundwork; (2) Core Issues; (3)