Global Policy Forum

Summary

This week in New York, leaders from across the globe gather. But the most telling details are not in New York - but in the myriad meetings that have unfolded in different corners of the world in recent days. Increasingly, world leaders are trying to find ways to work around Washington as U.S. foreign policy increasingly drifts. The only thing missing from New York, it seems, will be the presence of the United States.

Analysis

An extraordinary gathering of world leaders takes place in New York this week, at what has been called a millennial town meeting, to help mark the opening of the next General Assembly of the United Nations.

But the real significance is found not in the photo opportunities or the speeches - but in the run-up to the summit itself. A wave of significant meetings has built across the globe as major world leaders slowly make their way to New York. These dialogues indicate the importance of contacts at the regional levels, in working out problems that Washington once sought to influence. These dialogues, however, suggest that much of the world is tuning Washington out.

In the last few days, there has been a flurry of bilateral contact. Russian President Vladimir Putin visited Japan, the Israeli foreign minister visited Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, more than a dozen African leaders met in Libya, South American leaders attended a summit in Brazil, and the Yugoslav foreign minister dropped in on Fidel Castro in Havana.

Each of these is interesting in itself. Putin showed the Japanese that he did not intend to be flexible on returning the Kuril Islands, taken by Moscow in 1945. The meeting between the Israelis and Egyptians suggest that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak is trying to broker a deal over Jerusalem. The gathering in Libya indicates the continued and growing influence of Libya in sub- Saharan Africa. South American leaders are focused on the continuing crisis in Colombia. The Havana gathering indicates that Belgrade is trying to break out of its diplomatic isolation, while the Castro government delights in irritating Washington.

But the most striking theme is the absence of any overriding, globally significant themes. In part, this is good news. Riveting, overarching issues tend to indicate crises of global proportions. When the world's leaders gathered at the United Nations in 1960, for example, there were overarching issues-namely the threat of a global war involving the United States and Soviet Union.

But there is a pattern. Consider the meeting in Cairo. The failed Camp David talks left Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat strengthened against hard-liners who wanted to reject a formal agreement anyway, while weakening Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak. Barak's claim to power is partly rooted in his close relations with the United States. But the Clinton administration chose to put him in the position of blowing up his ties with Washington - or his coalition back home. Barak's foreign minister went to Cairo to search for an unlikely way out.

In Libya, the summit represents a new high point for Moammar Gadhafi, who has been assiduously building his influence in sub- Saharan Africa. In spite of a generation-old attempt to isolate him, American policy in Africa - despite sporadic interventions and periodic visits by President Clinton - has not stemmed the Libyan leader's influence. Similarly, neither Cuban President Fidel Castro nor the regime in Belgrade is deterred from exploring common interests.

Significantly, the summit in Brazil has focused on an American concern: Colombia. There is an underlying theme here, expressed at the Latin American summit, a fear that U.S. policy in Colombia might lead to an explosion that could spread to neighboring countries. Like the gathering between leaders of North and South Korea on the far side of the globe, these gatherings are as much about taking control away as much as working with the United States.

While there is no common text to these, there is a common subtext. These dialogues are taking place at the regional level either because American actions have created unintended consequences that others are scrambling to contain, or because the United States has allowed situations to drift without control.

In fact, there is an overarching theme: the global attempt, taken by different actors in different ways, to manage around the Americans, instead of letting the Americans manage the world. The United States is the center of gravity of the international system. But that is not to say that Washington is in control of the system.

American power - political, economic and political - has become enormous. At the same time, American behavior has become both insular and unpredictable. The vibrancy of the economy has created a sense that what happens outside of U.S. borders is of little consequence. The exercise of power is unanchored, unconstrained by necessity.

The Clinton administration's hasty call for talks at Camp David, for example, did not take place because there was a pressing national interest involved. The summit took place precisely because the risks of failure for the United States were minimal.

Later this week, President Clinton will meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Postponing a decision on a national missile defense, as Clinton has done, was a gesture to the new government in Moscow; postponement was something that Putin wanted very badly. Now comes the question of the quid pro quo: What does the Putin government offer the United States, in return?

Putin has steadily moved to centralize power in Moscow and revive the military. Even the loss of the submarine Kursk in the Barents Sea helps Putin's cause, lending power to the argument for strengthening a weak military. Indeed, before going to New York, Putin went out of his way - to Japan - to drive home the point that Russia is not in retreat.

But what does Washington want from the Putin government at this juncture? The answer is unclear, as is much U.S. policy toward the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). The same can be said about U.S. policy toward China. Clinton will meet with Chinese President Jiang Zemin. Chinese-Taiwanese relations now seem only nominally under U.S. influence. What would previously have been either a showdown or an opportunity will likely yield little.

What will be missing in New York this week will be the United States. Its government has no clear agenda. This is not only true in the broadest sense - say, some overarching global vision - but in the myriad bilateral relationships throughout the world.

The Clinton administration has generally lacked strategic direction abroad; backed by so much economic, political and military power, it has not really needed one. But the administration has had immediate goals in both Yugoslavia and the Middle East, for example. Increasingly, though, Washington lacks any policy at all - beyond avoiding complexity and entanglement.

This is partly the function of a presidential election and, soon, a transition of administrations. The waning days of any presidency are marked by initiatives best avoided and commitments not made. But this time, the phenomenon goes a little deeper. The United States is paradoxically the center of gravity of the international system - and its most reclusive player, content to shape itself instead of the post-Cold War world.

Most global gatherings lack real import. But the Millennial Town Meeting is the perfect summary of the state of the world. Everyone is gathering in New York to talk to each other - mainly because there is no point in talking to or through the government in Washington. Few are looking to the United States for leadership. Most are picking their way around it.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Global Policy Forum distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C íŸ 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.