George Soros Discusses Iraq and Globalization on NPR

In the year since the terrorist attacks in New York City and Washington, the U.S. government's view of the world and the country's place in it has changed in ways both small and large. In an interview on National Public Radio's "The Diane Rehm Show" on September 12, 2002, the day after the one-year anniversary of the attacks, OSI Founder and Chairman George Soros discussed several of the more pressing issues confronting the government—including the Bush administration's Iraq strategy; efforts to shore up international markets and maintain global economic stability; and globalization in general.

Excerpts from the interview

G.S. = George Soros
D.R. = Diane Rehm

D.R.:
President Bush has told the United Nations they cannot stand by while Iraqi President Saddam Hussein defies it by developing weapons of mass destruction and barring weapons inspectors. Financier and philanthropist George Soros believes the best defense against terrorism is international cooperation. He joins me from New York to discuss his vision of a global, open society and America's role in a post 9/11 World.

President Bush has just laid out his case against Saddam Hussein to the United Nations. Do you believe military action is called for now?

G.S.:
Yes, I fully support what President Bush said and I also fully support what Secretary General [Kofi Annan] said. I'm hopeful that the United Nations will pass a resolution demanding unconditional inspections, also that Iraq agree to that. Then l think that we really have won a victory for the United Nations.

D.R.:
If, in fact, the United Nations does not go along with that idea of demanding, again, inspections, complete and fully open, can you see any circumstances under which a unilateral preemptive strike by the United States would be justified?

G.S.:
A case could be made [for a preemptive strike], but President Bush has definitely not made the case for one at the present time. And Kofi Annan made it clear that it is only in self-defense that the United Nations allows a country to engage in war.

D.R.:
In your book On Globalization you say, "I advocated military intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo and I am glad at the extent of American military superiority. All our efforts at crisis prevention may come to naught, and as a fall back position, we had better be prepared to win military confrontations, if and when crises occur".

G.S.:
That is actually my stand, and I think that military action is necessary as a last resort, but it should be the last resort. Now President Bush has announced a doctrine of preventive action; I'm all for preventive action, but that preventive action should be a constructive action. It should provide incentives and reinforcements to countries that are moving in the right direction, moving out of poverty, establishing democratic regimes. We are failing in delivering on that need. And there's no example better than Afghanistan. We won the war. We were greeted as liberators. And we have already, I think, largely lost the peace because we have failed to introduce international peacekeeping forces and in delivering assistance in the provinces. We only have international forces in Kabul. And we have regimes that only control Kabul. And that, I think, is our failure. I would blame Defense Secretary Rumsfeld in particular for resisting the need for international peacekeepers.

D.R.:
Now the other thing that President Bush said in his speech to the United Nations, and I think I'm giving you a fairly accurate quote here, is, "My nation will work with the Security Council to meet the Iraqi challenge. The purposes of the United States will not be thwarted, they will be met or there will be action." Now how do you interpret that, Mr. Soros?

G.S.:
Well, if this very firm tone succeeds in getting the United Nations to take the right actions, then I think it has brought results. If it is actually converted into unified action, I seriously have to question the legitimacy of the United States going alone without the authority of the United Nations.

D.R.:
What do you think that the result of going it alone might in fact do?

G.S.:
Well, I think that, first of all, it really undermines the international laws we currently have. I think that there is really an ideology here in certain segments of the Bush administration that really has no respect for international law. But to speak to Iraq, I think doing it alone would be very, very dangerous because Saddam is likely to retaliate by attacking Israel, and Israel would then likely retaliate. And that would then create a war between the Arabs and the rest of the world or the Arabs and the United States. And there would be the danger of the Arab street siding with Saddam. And that could have repercussions in countries like Egypt and Jordan and so on.

D.R.:
And perhaps, even India or Pakistan?

G.S.:
Pakistan is a problem anyhow, but [Pakistani President Pervez] Musharraf knows that danger and he has warned the United States, and so has practically everybody in the world.

D.R.:
Mr. Soros, come back to that point, if you would, of international law and the Bush administration, which has said it believes it has the right to proceed with a preemptive strike should the United States deem that to be necessary.

G.S.:
This is the really dangerous lie because we have people in the administration today who believe that international relations are basically the relations of power, not of law. So you have rule of law inside the United States, democratic country that it is, but there is no international rule of law in the world. That is, international relations are governed by power, mainly military power. Now we are in fact by far the most powerful nation on earth, not just militarily but also economically and financially. Now therefore we have the right to decide how the world should be ruled. What is the world order that we want? That is the right that we do not have. This belief that "might is right" is tremendously dangerous, particularly if it is held by the most powerful nation on earth.

D.R.:
Now I want to take you back in history to the Cuban missile crisis and to the fact that indeed missiles were seen from the air on Cuban territory and President John F. Kennedy issued an ultimatum. The ultimatum was responded to, but if that kind of weaponry were indeed to be shown to exist on Saddam's territory, and yet we still did not have the agreement of nations around the world, would you then, if the proof was there, be amenable to a preemptive strike on the part of the United States?

G.S.:
I would be very reluctant. I would need more evidence that Saddam is about to use that weapon, because I think that you could probably get evidence that Israel is in possession of nuclear weapons or that maybe other countries are in possession. Pakistan possesses nuclear weapons, and there is a very strong Islamic extremist movement there. So I think just the sheer possession of nuclear weapons would not be sufficient cause for intervention. But I think it would be sufficient cause for the United Nations to intervene and to authorize the United States to act, and if the United Nations isn't capable of that, then there is a breakdown of international law and order and then maybe the United States would have to act alone, or then build a coalition of the willing to act. So I think that there should be other countries. I think Britain would certainly join, and hopefully Europe would. So that it might be possible to create a coalition of the willing for intervention, which would have sufficient legitimacy, given the dire circumstances to be justified.

D.R.:
Considering past performance, do you believe that the United Nations is capable of putting together such a force as to create a momentum that ultimately forces Saddam to back down?

G.S.:
The United Nations doesn't have to put together the forces. All it needs to do is to authorize the United States and other countries that are willing to intervene to do so. That is the most powerful way to do it. And I'm confident that a resolution will be passed. Maybe China will abstain, but there will be no veto. So I'm actually quite hopeful that maybe there will be a peaceful resolution, that Iraq might actually agree to the inspection, and if not, that the intervention would be under UN auspices. But my concern is, as I stated, there are elements in the U.S. government that not only don't want international law to prevail, but go out of their way to destroy whatever we have.

D.R.:
Mr. Soros, one of the comments that you make in your book is that the United States is the major obstacle of international cooperation today and that it is resolutely opposed to any international arrangement that would infringe on its sovereignty. After September 1lth, the Bush administration is still not willing to compromise sovereignty in waging war on terrorists. Would you explain?

G.S.:
Take the treaty establishing the international criminal court. Not only did we not subscribe to it, but we have gone out of our way to try to destroy it by sabotaging it, by asking countries to sign bilateral agreements that might break that treaty. Now there is plenty of protection for American citizens acting on behalf of the U.S. government, such as soldiers or officials, under article 98 of that treaty. But we are asking for every citizen to be exempted from it. So, we are making unreasonable demands with the express purpose of breaking that law.

We are very much in favor of international trade, but we have imposed steel tariffs that will be ruled to be illegal under the World Trade Organization, and I think that we know that will be the case. There is a convention on torture, which the United State has subscribed to, and there is now a protocol for enforcing it, but we refuse to accept that protocolÉand I could go on.

D.R.:
So, from your perspective, while the United States is calling for international support and international cooperation, the United States itself, remains in your view, a major obstacle.

G.S.:
That's right. Now that we are the most powerful nation, we call the tune in the world and there can be no development of international law or international organizations without American cooperation. There is a lot to be done because we now have global markets and there are needs for improved international law and regulations, and we are not willing to come through with this. Now we have a situation where there are international markets, but we have a political regime that is based on the sovereignty of the states. It is very difficult to intervene in the internal affairs of other nations. It is very difficult to bring about regime changes in, let's say, Iraq, however really desirable that would be. What we can do, which does not violate sovereignty, is to offer inducements, reinforcements, and incentives for countries that are moving in the right direction. We have a very uneven global system. And we need to extend a helping hand to the less developed countries and countries that have less strong democratic institutions.

D.R.:
Has September 11th has actually changed your vision of a global open society, and has it affected where you'll direct your efforts and your money?

G.S.:
Well, the only thing to the extent that I see is a more aggressive, negative attitude on the part of the United States towards international cooperation. And I believe that the future of a global open society is going to be decided in the United States. So I, as a philanthropist, have concentrated my efforts on the countries that are emerging from communism, from a closed society, and tried to help them make the transition to an open society. I think that the future of open society is now decided in the United States and so I am refocusing my attention to the United States.

D.R.:
Has the downturn in the stock market, Mr. Soros, affected your spending on trying to solve some of the world's problems?

G.S.:
Actually, I am downsizing my spending; I've been spending $500 million a year and I really have passed my moneymaking phase. So, I'm not making money any more and therefore I can't quite spend as much as I have in the past.

D.R.:
Do you still intend to spend down your entire fortune and close down your Open Society Network by 2010?

G.S.:
No, there is a modification there, because there is a network that needs to, or is justified, to be maintained past 2010, but it won't have the resources that it currently has. It will be more of a network of people standing for a certain set of ideas, rather than a network of foundations, spending $500 million a year. Because the money will not be there.

D.R.:
The Los Angeles Times recently asked, in a review of your book On Globalization, whether it matters if an institution fostering democracy is the creation and extension of one very rich person who need not stand for office, take into account the wishes of an electorate, or consult with anyone or anything except his bankers. How do you respond to that?

G.S.:
I think that is a phony accusation, actually. Because in a democracy everybody has a voice, and not just a voice, but he can function within the laws to advance his ideas. Most people are motivated by self-interest. I happen to be in a position where having satisfied my personal needs, I am more concerned with the well being of society and I devote my resources to it and I don't see anything wrong with that.

D.R.:
The book we're talking about is called On Globalization. Our guest this morning is George Soros. Let's go to the phones for your questions and comments for philanthropist George Soros.

We have an e-mail from Karen, who asks who are those in the administration who don't believe or want to support international law. Can you be more specific?

G.S.:
Yes, I would select Donald Rumsfeld, who really did not want to have international peacekeeping in Afghanistan and we are now paying the price for it. I would select [Attorney General John] Ashcroft, who, when we introduced the Patriot Act, said that those who are opposed to the law as laid down are aiding and abetting the terrorists. That pushes the wrong buttons with me, you know, because I grew up in Hungary and I experienced Nazis and I experienced Communism. And that is the kind of extremist talk that is not what America stands for. We are a democracy and I hope people will actually express their disapproval at that kind of approach. And then I could go down further. There's an Undersecretary of State, Bolton, who is the mastermind behind trying to sabotage the international criminal court. And there are other people. I think Vice President Cheney is very much the head of this group of people, and [Secretary of State Colin] Powell is on the other side representing a more reasonable law abiding policy.

D.R.:
Caller in Rockford, Illinois. Good morning, Drew.

CALLER:
Mr. Soros, I would just like to compliment you. I spent time in East Central Europe over about the last 12 years and have witnessed some of, well, many of the programs your foundation initiated during that time. Having said that, I'm curious if you think that some of the efforts to promote social change in that region could be applied to either here, domestically, in the United States, or abroad in the effort to influence the rest of the world as to what America is about.

G.S.:
Well I think the problems are different there and that was a period of transition from a totalitarian closed society to an open society. We are an open society and of course every society has some deficiencies and so we need to address those, but we do have strong democratic institutions even though, let's say, Ashcroft's attitude does remind me of the Nazis and the Communists. He cannot implement his ideas to the extent that they could be implemented in a totalitarian regime, so our democratic institutions are very strong. I think that we have an educated and freedom-loving population and we need to express our views and defend our democratic principals. Because the terrorist attack has awakened great fear, we all reacted in our stomach, in our gut; we mustn't let that grow to overwhelm our thinking and our actions.

D.R.:
Mr. Soros, those are pretty strong words you used about the attorney general. Have you said those words to him directly?

G.S.:
Not to the attorney general himself, but I did confront Rumsfeld and Afghanistan at a public meeting. I actually sponsored an advertisement in the newspapers quoting Ashcroft's statements about aiding terrorists by opposing the Patriot Act.