In a multipolar world, global collaboration and solidarity are absolutely necessary to achieve success. The Global South needs our assistance now more than ever.
While Russia's campaign of aggression against Ukraine is upending the European security order, the "side effects" of the conflict are having a particularly negative impact on other regions of the globe. For many poor nations, the struggle against the economic ramifications of the pandemic and the impacts of climate change were in and of themselves significant obstacles to overcome. Because of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, dealing with the situation has become even more difficult, and a new crisis dynamic has been introduced.
Because of the Russian invasion, the price of food, gasoline, and fertilizer in nations in the Global South has risen dramatically in recent months. At the same time, several exporting nations have placed restrictions on the export of food, raising the possibility of food shortages in a number of locations. As a result of these changes, the likelihood of starvation grows, as does the likelihood of demonstrations that result in civil upheaval. There is also worry that additional obligations due to the crisis in Ukraine would diminish donor nations' desire and ability to provide assistance to the Global South in the future. They are more required than ever in that location. We, as Europeans, must work to dispel these anxieties. Support for Ukraine and active participation in the Global South do not have to be in opposition to one another.
There are two examples from Africa that demonstrate why our commitment to the Global South is still relevant today: The Horn of Africa is suffering from the worst drought it has seen in more than 40 years. Up to 20 million people are at risk of starvation due to a lack of food. At the same time, as a result of the war in Europe, food and fertilizer prices are increasing exponentially. So far, Russia and Ukraine have supplied more than a third of East Africa's grain imports. Since Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the number of deliveries has plummeted. Having suffered for more than two years from the pandemic and economic restrictions, the region's national budgets are massively indebted and unable to absorb the price hikes. The UN World Food Program, which imports more than half of its grain from Ukraine or Russia, does not have the resources to combat the impending famine.
In West Africa, on the other hand, it is becoming more clear that the protection of civilian populations is becoming increasingly impossible. Since a result of the climate crisis, there has already been an increase in the likelihood of violence in the Sahel zone, for example, as pastures and water sources have diminished. A lack of economic opportunities, a lack of services of popular interest, and a lack of security all serve to strengthen the motivation for many people to join violent organizations. The latter are often engaged in combat by the military of the area with little concern for the civilian population. Weapons and military advisers from Russia are also becoming more prevalent.
In addition to international peacekeeping missions such as those in Mali, locally coordinated human security assistance, which is also funded by German and European development cooperation and by the German and European Union, can make a significant contribution to protecting civilian populations on the ground. MINUSMA's continuance and German involvement in it have been the subject of heated controversy, particularly after the mission's departure from Afghanistan last summer. The Ukraine conflict is gradually raising the issue of whether a military involvement is still feasible in light of the present danger, which is just a few miles away. However, if we were to withdraw from the Sahel, the civilian population would be deprived of the required protection, and humanitarian supplies would be more difficult to get. That would be a devastating signal for the residents of the area. This also wouldn't be indicative of Europe's readiness to take on more global responsibilities in the future.
The two instances above demonstrate that, at this point in time, it is preferable to increase rather than decrease collaboration with the Global South. International solidarity requires that we retain our worldwide commitment to complete human security both inside and outside of Europe. For centuries, we in the Global North have reaped the benefits of colonialism and globalization at the cost of the nations of the Global South, and we will continue to do so. The latter group not only bears the brunt of the consequences of the climate problem, but they have also made the least contribution to it. The continuation of our assistance for these nations - particularly when they are deeply impacted by the consequences of the conflict in Europe - is a part of our global duty.
Europe's commitment to this is more extensive than that of other partners in the Global South in this regard. It is virtually entirely with governments – no matter how democratic they are – that Russia, China, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates collaborate in the region. Europe, on the other hand, works in partnership with national legislatures, the courts, and civil society organizations. Civil society organizations in the Global South rely on European assistance in a variety of endeavors, including famine relief, civilian protection, human and labor rights enforcement in global supply networks, and the building of democratic leeway. This is not something that Russia and China should be doing. In most nations in the Global South, a majority of the population want to benefit from possibilities that can only be provided through democratic institutions.
In terms of geostrategic importance, the preservation of a strong global commitment to Europe is equally critical. There is no other area in the globe that benefits as much from the rule-based multilateral system as the European Union, which has built its wealth and supply chains on the dependability of the rules-based multilateral order. Consequently, given the unique integration of European wealth into a global division of labor, the hitherto underestimated de-globalization danger, which is presently threatening along exclusive zones of influence, poses a particularly serious threat to the continent's success. Europe should do all it can to ensure that the rule-based system continues beyond its borders.
In order to do this, we need collaborators. However, we will have to put in much more effort than we have in the past to accomplish this. The EU, the G7, NATO, and the OECD are all too tiny groups to do this task. We must make more specific and equitable proposals to the Global South in order to make the EU a more appealing partner than it has been up to this point in time. This is not altruism, but rather common sense in the interests of both parties: anyone who wishes to secure majorities for a rule-based multilateral order in their own interests must be the partner of choice for developing countries and for joint political projects, regardless of political affiliation.
Because of this, certain poor and rising nations withdrew their votes from the UN General Assembly's vote on Ukraine resolution at the beginning of March, which served as a warning signal. Of the more than 140 nations that voted in favor of the resolution, those in the Global South were predominantly those in which Europe is most involved and which tend to be democracies, according to the resolution. However, we should also consider the factors that drove certain nations to abstain from voting and use this information to develop more productive policy initiatives. Many nations in the Global South are benefiting from an increasingly multipolar world because it allows them to minimize their reliance on Europe and the United States while also diversifying their ties. Russia is becoming a more important partner, for example, as the biggest armaments seller to Africa, as well as in the sector of food exports, among other things.
Europe should respond in a positive manner to this. There should be no distinction made between "reward" and "penalty" in the future when it comes to voting behavior. Instead, the prospects of collaboratively defining global concerns should be stressed, as opposed to individual solutions. Countries such as India and South Africa withdrew their votes from the General Assembly, among other reasons because they believe we use double standards in our nation, such as when it comes to battling pandemics, and this is not the case. However, not only these two nations, but also the rest of the world, continue to be important allies in the pursuit of rules-based multilateralism. As a result, we must make more competitive offerings to the Global South than we have ever done before. In order to do this, we must develop a new method of working together as well as a greater understanding of our different interests.
Our collaboration has to be more strategic than it has been in the past. More coordination across the many policy sectors in Europe is required in order to achieve this. The approaches to foreign, development, climate, and economic policy all need to be coordinated. It is essential to sustain the wide humanitarian and development commitments notwithstanding the rising need for cash for military. The bottom line is that every euro invested on crisis prevention saves a double of the expenditures that would otherwise have been incurred in dealing with the effects of a crisis in the first place. Every penny that is spent on defending democracy helps to lay the groundwork for long-term political stability.
A critical evaluation of one's own conduct is always required as a precondition for making policy changes. In the past, we have made the mistake of conflating short-term security with long-term stability. Cooperative efforts between Europe and autocrats in Africa to curb migration to Europe and ostensibly boost regional security were a miscalculation. It has lost us the trust of people who, with growing success, are demonstrating against these autocrats and who may soon be tasked with the responsibility of running the country. The assertion of trade interests, which protects the interests of individual European industries while restricting the creation of added value in the Global South, makes it easier for other actors to make supposedly more attractive offers, such as in the construction of economic infrastructure, in order to compete with them for business. The significance of a more equitable EU trade policy becomes even more apparent in a world where many developing nations are being courted by a variety of prospective partners. We will be able to recruit the partners we need via them.
The capacity to engage in multifaceted collaboration with the Global South continues to be Europe's competitive edge. Our allies in politics, civil society, and labor unions from So Paulo to Bamako to Dhaka all concur that it is widely recognized in those countries and regions. International participation is needed more than ever in a world that is becoming more multipolar. This must also be taken into consideration while evaluating our political response to the turning moment.
The author :
Martin Schulz is a former member of the German Bundestag and the European Parliament, of which he was President from 2012 to 2017.