The Instruments of International Influence

Moderator: Jiří Schneider

Participants: Ady Schonmann, Ján Kubiš, Festus Mogae, Grigory Yavlinsky, Jorge Quiroga

12th October 2009, Žofín Palace

 

 

The panelists explored the various and changing instruments of international influence, mentioning international law, independent international institutions and expertise, or simply the spirit of freedom and democracy. The pursuit of economic interests in spite of freedoms or democracy was identified as a negative and dangerously prevalent instrument used in the multi-polar world of today.

 

There is a tension and an inherent link existing between the instrument of international influence –international law, and international politics, stated Ady Schonmann, legal expert from the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. This results in a relative application of this instrument and in a discourse, which has limited effects. She went on to develop some of the negative aspects of empowering concepts of international law, such as the “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P). “History teaches us that failure to act equals acts of failure”, however, Ady Schonmann added that “any attempt to widen the application of the Responsibility to Protect concept beyond its core purpose of addressing mass atrocity crimes is dangerous and counterproductive.“

 

Ján Kubiš, Executive Secretary of the UN Economic Commission for Europe added that the R2P debate should, in fact, be widened to remove the fears of those who are its strongest opponents – those who see the R2P concept as giving the Western countries a free hand to pursue their interests in the so-called Third World. Another solution to this may be to balance the “responsibility” so that it is shared across the UN in its entirety, not only in the Security Council, or to remove the “double standards” in the behavior of the Western World.

 

The countries that hold the instruments and therefore the obligation to act, often fail to do so, noted Festus Mogae, former President of Botswana, citing Rwanda and Darfur as examples of such inaction. He mentioned the perception of the members of the Security Council as not always reacting to violations of human rights even-handedly, often allowing business to profit.

 

The instruments of international influence have been summed by Grigory Yavlinsky, former Russian Prime Minister as “knowledge, moral motivations, and ability to take decisions.” The power of independent international institutions is there, they “are especially important for creating a dialogue between society and authoritarian leaders before trouble or bloodshed break out“. However, it is hampered by the decision-making process, which tends to exclude outside expertise, which may be key in predicting crises, such as the one in Georgia. 

 

The power of international institutions was rejected by former Bolivian President, Jorge Quiroga, especially in protecting democracy and preserving “freedom under creeping authoritarian regimes”. He used the example of Latin America and Hugo Chávez’s (“the Petropirate of the Caribbean”) methods of subtly seizing power and eroding democracy – model copied by other countries around the world. In the 1990s, it was the United States determining all action or inaction, also through the International Monetary Fund. The current multi-polar world has turned any international architecture irrelevant, the only solution, according to Jorge Quiroga, lies in the spreading of the spirit of people such Václav Havel.

 

The panelists agreed in conclusion that multilateralism should be pursued in general terms, however when it comes to actual action, it is up to regional powers to assume leadership with the backing of the international community.