Posted Sunday, January 18, 2004; 13.35GMT The point here is not just to blame Washington for its focus on terrorism. The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, would have recalibrated the policies of any country in which they occurred. In fact, Wolfensohn gives credit to the Bush Administration for promising to increase both the U.S. aid budget and the amount that it spends on fighting aids internationally although, as ever in the American system, both initiatives have been subject to congressional meddling and delay. But there are plenty of other culprits for the failure to develop an international agenda not determined by the war on terrorism. With a U.S. Administration absorbed by security, there has been a huge opportunity for Western Europe and Japan to promote a development agenda of their own. This they have not done. There have been honorable exceptions; Britain's Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, has spoken eloquently of the need to increase aid budgets and forgive debt, while the French have taken the lead in providing peacekeepers to Africa. But in large measure, European and Japanese leaders have been just as preoccupied with their own local issues as any American has been with terrorism. The interminable construction of the European Union has monopolized the attention of the European political class. In Japan which by the late '80s had become one of the world's most generous aid donors a decade of economic disappointment led to a shrinking of political horizons. Even Canada, a country whose economy is in splendid shape and whose people like to boast of their commitment to the world's poor and downtrodden, shrank its aid budget in the '90s.
None of this is to suggest that other nations should set themselves up as rivals to the U.S. But they might consider what Harvard University's Joseph Nye calls "soft balancing." Nye has long argued that in conventional "hard-power" terms for example, the strength of its military the U.S. has an unassailable position. But in a forthcoming book, Nye suggests that in the realm of "soft power" political and cultural resources other nations' capabilities are increasing relative to the U.S. The U.S. is bearing the lion's share of the global-security burden. But Western Europe and Japan
If we want a stable and secure world, we must build a more just and equitable world
— LUIZ INACIO LULA DA SILVA, President of Brazil
are wealthy, comfortable places. It is surely possible for them to balance America's agenda with priorities of their own.
While we wait and wait for the E.U. and Japan to assume the responsibilities that go with prosperity, others are rising to the challenge. Traditionally, issues of economic development have been defined by rich nations, not just because they had the wealth to do something about them, but because they could speak with legitimacy. Putting it crudely, after 1945, rich nations tended to be true democracies, while poor nations with honorable exceptions, like India did not. But this is changing. The "emerging" democracies no longer need the patronizing adjective. The relatively poor nations of Eastern and Central Europe have had democratic governments for more than a decade. In the last four years, both Mexico and Brazil have seen the peaceful transition of power from one political party to another. Africa's giants, Nigeria and South Africa, are both democracies. Strengthened by a sense of their own legitimacy, and in some cases led by charismatic figures such as Lula, these nations have shown themselves willing to stand up for their interests. Last September, Brazil led a march out of the World Trade Organization talks in Cancún rather than accept a deal in which the richest nations gave little away. Later that month at the U.N. General Assembly, the leaders of Brazil, India and South Africa representing over 1.2 billion people pledged to work together on development issues. And at the E.U. summit in December, Poland resisted French and German bullying and refused to accept the dilution of its voting rights in the proposed European constitution.
How far should this new attitude go? Jeffrey Sachs, of Columbia University, recently argued that "the democracies of the developing world ... should say, 'We need to act on the issues that concern us, not just on the issues that concern the U.S.'" Sachs calls for a "declaration of independence from American willfulness." The language may be a bit harsh there's little to be gained by such an open challenge to the U.S. but the sentiment is an interesting one. Cooperation among the new democracies, and an enhanced saliency of their views, could turn out to be one of the most important developments of our time. Winning the war on terrorism the dominant issue in international affairs when viewed from the U.S. is important. But it is not the only thing that will improve the human condition over the next two decades. Many poor nations can now speak with just as much authority as rich ones. In time, that should transform the list of items that all of us consider important. It would be nice if the view of the world from Davos this year reflected such a change.
Mogadishu at 60 Miles an Hour Arms merchants are once again doing brisk business after a rapid change of power in this tough town, but so far the peace has held
The Year of The Nuke A rundown of the world's nuclear powerhouses, and what to expect in the coming months
The point here is not just to blame Washington for its focus on terrorism. The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, would have recalibrated the policies of any country in which they occurred. In fact, Wolfensohn gives credit to the Bush Administration for promising to increase both the U.S. aid budget and the amount that it spends on fighting aids internationally although, as ever in the American system, both initiatives have been subject to congressional meddling and delay. But there are plenty of other culprits for the failure to develop an international agenda not determined by the war on terrorism. With a U.S. Administration absorbed by security, there has been a huge opportunity for Western Europe and Japan to promote a development agenda of their own. This they have not done. There have been honorable exceptions; Britain's Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, has spoken eloquently of the need to increase aid budgets and forgive debt, while the French have taken the lead in providing peacekeepers to Africa. But in large measure, European and Japanese leaders have been just as preoccupied with their own local issues as any American has been with terrorism. The interminable construction of the European Union has monopolized the attention of the European political class. In Japan which by the late '80s had become one of the world's most generous aid donors a decade of economic disappointment led to a shrinking of political horizons. Even Canada, a country whose economy is in splendid shape and whose people like to boast of their commitment to the world's poor and downtrodden, shrank its aid budget in the '90s. 
Premium Content
