RABIGH: The Inter Action Council (IAC) meeting ended here yesterday with the release of a final communiqué stressing the need for cooperation to resolve key world issues.
The agenda for the meeting was set by the keynote speech delivered on Sunday by former German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt and the communiqué reflected his surgical analysis of the world stage in 2009.
The council set the context by acknowledging that societies lived in an environment of technological and economic globalization and emphasized that cooperation rather than confrontation and military force was the only way open to the resolution of world issues. Paraphrasing Reinhold Niebuhr (an American theologian best known for his study of relating the Christian faith to the realities of modern politics and diplomacy) the communiqué said that it would “require courage and energy on the side of governments to change what they were capable of changing and the serenity to accept those things that they were not capable of changing. Further, it will require wisdom to distinguish one from the other.”
The council identified a danger that might see many countries deteriorating into national egoism should the current world recession deteriorate into a depression. Greed, it said, had played a major role in causing this crisis and the efforts of regulatory authorities in the financial world had been “absolutely insufficient and inadequate.” The council thought that there was also a danger that the crisis would divert the international community from “the responsibility it must have toward the least developed countries” and what was one of the most important issues today, that of food security for the hundreds of millions of people facing hunger.
It opined that the other most pressing tasks were to strengthen confidence and promote cooperation.
While welcoming what the council saw as a change from unilateralism to multilateralism in the US with the election of Barack Obama as president, the council advised that China and India be handled with “careful diligence” but noted that this rise in power was accompanied with increased responsibilities.
Located as it was in the Middle East, the council paid special attention to the relationship between Israel and its Arab neighbors. It suggested that without an enduring peace “the Middle East will remain a trouble spot in the region.” It thought that the need for action was urgent and that the only long-term solution was a two-state peace settlement based on previous UN resolutions and the borders of 1967. “We urgently need action. The King Abdullah peace initiative, endorsed by the Arab League, to create peace and stability in the Middle East and provide justice to the Palestinian people should be supported.”
The US and Iran should, said the council, begin talking and listening to each other. Jean Chretien, former Canadian prime minister and joint chairman of the session, said that during the council’s closed sessions discussions became quite heated and that “people said things that some others did not like — but at least they listened.”
The communiqué pointed out that the example of Iraq showed how easy it was to wage war but how difficult it was to withdraw “without leaving short, medium and long-term consequences.”
It was the five original nuclear powers that drew special criticism from the council. US, Russia, France UK and China had, it said, “violated their obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and had “modernized” their weapon systems by deploying new weapons and attendant systems. They ran the risk of engaging in two new arms races: The development of anti-missiles and the militarization of space.
A major step, suggested Chretien during the post-deliberations press conference, ought to be an international treaty against first-strike use. “No first strike, no problems,” he shrugged.
Referring to the phrase “clash of civilizations” the council believed that such a clash could be avoided through dialogue. “With respect to disputes the major faiths can and must have dialogue based on their commonalities,” it said.
“There must be recognition that there can be no peace among nations without peace among religions and there can be no peace without dialogue and no dialogue without understanding.” In its final recommendations it called for the “dissemination of the culture of tolerance and understanding through dialogue so as to be a framework for international relations.”
Reviewing the energy challenges the council said that a decline in the demand for energy sources and low commodity prices had resulted in less investment in the energy sector. “We require a stabilization of oil prices and reduced reliance on fossil fuels.”
However, it conceded that fossil fuels would continue to be a dominant energy source with oil, coal and gas remaining “immensely important for national security.” Diversification should be encouraged but not at the expense of damaging food supply with the production of bio-fuels.
On the day after snow fell in Abha, concern for climate change was entirely apposite, quipped Chretien. “If left unchecked, climate change will reinforce itself with untold consequences,” the council noted. “To meet emissions targets, half of all global electricity will have to come from renewable resources.”
The council recommended that world leaders must take the lead in action on climate change and that government energy policies should be shaped by climate change. “Developed nations must provide technical and financial support to developing nations in a search for a solution to climate change,” the council said.
The council determined that 20 years after the end of the Cold War “antiquated perceptions of East and West as adversaries still persist.” This they thought had led to a polarized society that prevented true international cooperation. Under the heading “A New Opportunity for the World” it opined that “a new era has dawned and the recognition of this will require the emergence of a new international architecture.”
Acknowledging that huge challenges remained in the disarmament and non-proliferation process, the council thought it necessary to reassure states that nuclear weapons were not necessary and that, in Chretien’s opinion, reduction or elimination by a state gave it a moral authority to suggest to developing nuclear states to do the same. “We must avoid entering a new age of warfare,” the council concluded.
