It was a 20-minute roundup of all the bad things that are happening or going to happen around the world: ethnic conflicts, nuclear and biological arms proliferation, starvation, population and pollution bombs, the disappearing ozone layer and AIDS. I don’t recall her mentioning the drug war going on in the streets outside the conference hotel, but that malady would have fit her list quite well.

I found myself thinking about crawling into a hole somewhere in Montana and not peeking out for about 50 years. Carl Sagan has another solution. He’s selling manned space exploration again in his new book, arguing that our civilization may need an escape hatch – Earth II, here we come.

Dr. Mathew’s point was that with all this bad stuff happening, and with things getting worse fast, what we need is good, indeed exceptional, diplomacy. Most of the rest of the conference was well spent on considering conflicts such as those in North Korea, Haiti, Somalia, and Bosnia, and the usefulness of governmental and non-governmental intervention and mediation.

Looking forward to Henry Kissinger’s closing keynote speech, I had read his new book, Diplomacy, before the conference. In fact, almost all of the two-day’s discussion related in some way to the two theories of statesmanship Dr. Kissinger proposed in his text.

The first theory of statesmanship, named after President Woodrow Wilson, holds that fighting for America’s values of freedom and democracy is worthwhile anytime and anywhere because peace is ultimately based upon universal acceptance of these values. The League of Nations then, or the United Nations now, would be the keepers of the values and the peace.

The second theory, attributed to Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Richard Nixon, holds that foreign policy should be based on American interests, not values. They reasoned that a balance of power yields peace. For example, in 1972 it was in America’s interest for Nixon to travel to China to keep the Soviets off balance.

A “values” policy clearly recommends military intervention in places like Bosnia, Nicaragua and Vietnam. A threat to freedom anywhere is a threat to freedom everywhere. The “interests” or “balance of power” theory dictates intervention in such places only if you believe in some sort of domino effect. That is, Bosnia is a long way from Washington and we shouldn’t be bothered unless the conflict there might upset the balance of power in Europe.

Being a fish out of water at this conference – I was the only presenter out of 60 speakers who was described as a “business type” – I was wondering if anyone was going to mention GATT. Only five miles away, Congress was approving the most remarkable advance in world peace since the fall of the Berlin Wall. Yet only one speaker, late in the second day of the conference, addressed economic interdependence as a third theory of peace.

Robert Zoellick, advisor to Presidents Bush and Clinton, revealed what he called “the big secret.” The real intent behind NAFTA, GATT and the most recent Latin American and East Asian trade talks wasn’t profits. It was really peace!

Here’s how this economic interdependence theory works. Today, Japan wouldn’t bomb Pearl Harbor; it’s simply too close to their billions of dollars of property on the Hawaiian Islands. Similarly, Washington should not cut off trade with China over human rights, because the best way to influence changes there is through the thousands of commercial contacts that compromise trade.

Perhaps it’s a bit late in Bosnia, but this third theory recommends, instead of bombs, delivery of Sony TVs (made in Tijuana) and RCA satellite dishes (made by a French company), so that the good Serbs can see on CNN exactly what the bad Serbs are doing.

Later, America can send in the second wave: the brigades of red and white (Coke, Marlboro and Budweiser) and blue (Levis, Fords and IBM). After all, isn’t it better that the Serbs seek cigarettes and sedans, rather than the blood of their neighbors?

Perhaps my “business type” commercialism is crass. But strategic boycotts lead quite directly to angry isolation. Fidel Castro should have been invited to the recent Pan-American economic summit in Miami. Isn’t human creativity the best remedy to all of Dr. Mathews’ maladies? And isn’t that best encouraged through open borders and the free trade of goods, services, people and ideas?

Passage of GATT was a huge leap in the right direction. Indeed, I’d much rather be able to take an evening stroll down Massachusetts Avenue than to have to steal away to either Montana or Mars.

Here’s how this economic interdependence theory works. Today, Japan wouldn’t bomb Pearl Harbor; it’s simply too close to their billions of dollars of property on the Hawaiian Islands. Similarly, Washington should not cut off trade with China over human rights, because the best way to influence changes there is through the thousands of commercial contacts that compromise trade.