Last week, the 25th Annual Meeting of the Inter Action Council took place in Vienna. The Council brings together over 30 former heads of state and government "on a regular basis to foster international cooperation and action in the priority areas of global peace and security, world economic revitalization and universal ethical standards." [The Inter Action Council was established in 1983 as an independent international organization to mobilize the collective experience, energies and contacts of former national leaders in the continued service of mankind.- Ed.]

This is not the first time that I have taken part in this annual meeting, but I must admit that never before have I heard such unequivocal, unanimous comments on one of the central issues on its agenda: U.S. policy. Following are the main highlights of a discussion that lasted three and a half hours.

The keynote speaker - each subject is presented by a rapporteur appointed in advance - was Walter Mondale, former U.S. vice president. In giving him the floor, M. Jean Chrétien, former prime minister of Canada, said: "Many people do not have a clear understanding about the U.S.'s place in the modern world. The United States has the most powerful economy, and spearheads the international effort in dealing with many dangerous problems. Whatever might happen in the U.S. affects all of us. I am sure that when we return home, we will know much more than we did before this meeting."

Mondale told us, among other things, that after World War II America became the world's leading nation, not only thanks to its power but also because citizens and leaders of other countries believed in America's good will and common sense. "U.S. leaders saw that achieving a durable and lasting peace would require the creation of new institutions in which other great nations could also participate. Those efforts were a success, bringing a durable peace, victory in the Cold War, and the most impressive global growth in entire history. But recently the situation has changed. The radical neocon revolution, which damaged the U.S.'s "partnership" approach in its foreign policy, has disastrous consequences and implications. U.S. policy began to be shaped by individuals like Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz and Feith. Neocons saw America's military might as an opportunity for expanding their influence.

"Some of these people call themselves idealists. They believe that by using military force they will be able to achieve great results, for example, by building democracies [across the world]. This could be described as democratic imperialism. Others think that the modern world is very bad, so one can not rely only on diplomacy, allied relations and treaties. Force is the only thing that counts. We hear plenty of such tal, such as, ‘You are either with us or against us,' etc. They want to eliminate evil, and their arguments often have religious connotations. They typically accuse their critics of lacking firm moral principles.

"Ignorance is another substantial factor. When preparations were being made for a war in Iraq, our friends around the world, such as Prime Minister Chrétien, advised us to study more deeply the imminent consequences of such a war and analyze the real threats. His recommendations, as well as those made by many other people, were rejected. The opinion of Old Europe was ignored, not to mention  that of UN inspectors and  warnings by experts at the State Department, the CIA, and other security and intelligence services. In a memo to his government, one British agent observed that the U.S. government was manipulating facts to fit its policy.

"The Americans, who want to believe their government especially when their country is at war, no longer trust it. In recent Congressional elections, Americans clearly showed their disapproval of the war policy. After the elections, the Baker-Hamilton Commission prepared a report based on broad expert opinion. The report, which concerned the U.S. military involvement in Iraq and the revival of relations with our adversaries in the region - Iran and Syria - had an enormous impact in the United States. But the U.S. administration said that it would stay the course and change nothing.

"Meanwhile, U.S. public opinion is against the Bush administration's policy in Iraq. Now, even representatives of the U.S. Armed Forces - some retired and some still in active service - are expressing their disagreement with this policy. More servicemen are quitting, the military is faced with manpower acquisition problems, and morale is declining. A large delegation of moderate Republicans met secretly (so they thought) with the president to tell him that changes are critical, or many of them will be unable to stay on board after the election.

It ought to be said that a number of neo-cons had to quit politics - Bolton, Feith, Rumsfeld, and now Wolfowitz. It seems that Condoleezza Rice conducts a more transparent diplomacy than before, while Robert Gates, the new secretary of defense, is getting good comments from many people. It seems that he is beginning to support Condoleezza Rice, who believes that higher priority needs to be given to diplomatic avenues.

"It has to be said that the Iraq campaign is sapping the resources that are needed for tackling other problems. There are some formidable challenges that can only be met through joint efforts. The number one challenge is nuclear terrorism, a threat that is growing as nuclear weapons are proliferating. Another is the energy crisis. I believe that the United States, as well as all other countries, should make considerable efforts to develop alternative energy sources and energy saving technology. The U.S. should find a more effective way of opening dialogue with the Arabs and the Islamic community. The militarization of this debate, the view that the problem of Islamic extremism can only be solved with bombs or bullets, is in effect playing into the hands of the extremists themselves who are unable to offer any reasonable solution. We must find a way of exiting Iraq, while preserving responsibility for that country. And I believe that the United States should be seen as a country striving to ensure peace between Israel, Palestine and their neighbors.

"Soon, America will have a presidential election, but as a matter of fact the election process has already begun. Yet, whoever wins - Democrats or Republicans - changes will occur. I am saying this because I am convinced that the neo-con ideas have failed, and almost everyone in America knows it."

Mondale closed his presentation by saying: "Today I have criticized my country. It has made a big mistake, but I love my country and I know that we will correct this mistake. Not only the Americans need a healthy America, but the rest of the world does as well."

Then there were questions and comments.

Helmut Schmidt, former federal chancellor of Germany: "I am not sure whether the new administration will understand that the United States cannot function as a unipolar center. How long will it be before the U.S. stops teaching everyone how to live?"

George Vassiliou, former president of the Republic of Cyprus: "Do you not think that it is important to reach agreement with Iran, without which it will be difficult to make any forecasts about the future of Iraq? It is not Vietnam, where order was enforced after U.S. troops pulled out because there was an organized force - the Communist Party."

Richard von Weizsäcker, former president of Germany: "We want to preserve trans-Atlantic ties. During the Cold War we had NATO. But NATO is a defensive alliance, and it has lost its enemy. Within the NATO framework, the European Union and the United States have a common battle field - Afghanistan" (H. Schmidt interrupted: "Afghanistan is outside NATO's zone of influence, as established when the organization was created").

Weizsäcker: "Will NATO really become the best place for Poland, Australia, Georgia and Japan to be united?"

Malcolm Fraser, former prime minister of Australia: "I would like to ask a question about arms control. Is it possible to scrap the plans to build a U.S. missile shield? I believe that it would be a very serious mistake. I think that technically speaking, such weapons have no relation to national defense, even for such a country as the U.S."

Jim Bolger, former prime minister of New Zealand: "How long will the U.S. believe that it is the only great power in the world? What about China, India or Russia? The U.S. did not particularly criticize Israel when cluster bombs were exploding in Lebanon - isn't that an indication?"

Thomas Axworthy, professor at the University of Toronto (Canada), associate member of the Council: "I do not want to use the word ‘coup', which is unusual in U.S. history, but where were the Democrats when the neo-conservatives started formulating policy? Isn't democracy about a system of checks and balances that can foil any plotters?"

There were many other presentations, many offering a similar take.

As they say, "No comment." 

By Yevgeny Primakov