Multilateralism should not be abandoned in favor of de-globalization or system rivalry. Together, humanity can overcome global issues.
 |
| [G-20 Summit, Bali, Indonesia 2022] |
System The USA and Soviet Union produced a draft of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in the late 1960s, within the Cold Conflict and in light of the destruction inflicted by a nuclear war. Not only did the treaty significantly contribute to limiting nuclear weapons, but it also momentarily halted the ideological fight in favor of a worldwide regulation in anticipation of a probable cataclysmic disaster. A feat of such magnitude deserves to be recognized as historic. This bolstered the post-World War II multilateral order and global security that had been established via the establishment of the United Nations and the development of international law.
However, the second half of the twentieth century was not the only time when groundbreaking multilateral agreements were reached; in 2015, the international community created almost universal agreements with the Paris Climate Protection Agreement and the agreement on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), recognizing not only symbolically but also practically that the greatest challenges of the twenty-first century can be overcome only through global cooperation and coherence.
Climate change, the biodiversity issue, pandemics, geopolitical conflicts, and an outrageous imbalance in the distribution of poverty and riches have put mankind in a similar existential dilemma as the nuclear arms race. The rising narrative that suggests structural rivalry between democrats and authoritarian nations adds another layer of difficulty to the situation. Scientists and journalists aren’t the only ones contributing to this story; governments are, too.
It seems that the “strategic competition” between the so-called “West” and “China” is witnessing a resurgence in the form of statements and strategy papers. The “all-encompassing, strategic cooperation” between China and Russia is about an alliance to fend off purported Western proposals, and the US President has been invited to a pompous democratic conference at the end of 2021. Many governments and organizations throughout the globe are already working on methods to cope with the various system competitors, so we can expect this tendency to continue to accelerate.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine and the Corona crisis are two examples of the kinds of events that provide fire for calls for de-globalization and increased strategic independence. In the past two years, it has become too clear that trade networks and linkages for strategically essential components and resources are brittle for a return to turbo globalization to be achieved.
But the issue remains as to whether or not the end of globalization necessitates the end of multilateralism, which is typified by solid international institutions and a rules-based system. If you take the buzzword plurilateralism at its value, see the rise of ad hoc coalitions, and assume that the global community approves of the rejection of the Western-dominated international institutional order, you may come to this conclusion.
The COP27 climate conference in Sharm El-Sheikh and the G20 summit in Bali will go on as scheduled despite the crisis facing rules-based multilateralism and the international institutions it supports. That being the case, it is essential to wonder whether a so-called system competition may form the basis of a new era in international relations. It’s because the protagonists, who stress system rivalry from all angles, tend to ignore crucial details:
First, despite all genuine calls for democracy, it is impossible to ignore that there is a democratization of the international institutions, many of which were founded in the era following 1945 until is successfully stopped today. This is especially true when looking at the G7 members. However, by rejecting such changes, the credibility of any desire for democracy is severely damaged, and hypocrisy is accused.
It is clear that many actors around the world were responsible for wars and violations of international law, which makes the accusation of double standards all the more violent the more democracy, the primacy of international law, and the condemnation of wars are stylized by the so-called West as the moral compass of foreign policy. Former German President Gustav Heinemann once said, eloquently: “Whoever points at others with an extending index finger is pointing at himself with three fingers of his hand.”
Second, there is a threat to democracy and the rule of law in the United States and several EU countries. The unwavering support for Donald Trump among a substantial portion of the American populace and the storming of the US Capitol on 6. January 2021 are only two examples of the glaring evidence of this. The Prime Minister of Hungary, Viktor Orbán, explicitly identified “illiberal democracy” as a paradigm for Hungary’s future.
As a third point, critics of the Western system should not ignore the reality that multilateralism after World War II has avoided a nuclear disaster since 1945 and enabled the development of several nations in the Global South.
Fourth, it is not true that democracy, women’s rights, and press freedom are exclusively Western concepts. Anyone making such a claim is either cynical, seeks to protect their own power above all else, or has never talked to individuals who are battling for similar rights in other parts of the globe.
To clarify, I have no intention of downplaying the importance of democracy or human rights. In addition, I think authoritarian regimes are the same as democracies that aren’t working. To be clear, I am merely cautioning against an overarching moralalism in foreign policy, which every state inevitably fails to meet, which is often rightly accused of double standards, which at best complicates the urgently needed solutions to the major planetary crises, and which at worst even triggers crises themselves.
As much as the North relies on the South, the South relies on the North. Despite progress, there is still a great deal of mistrust, historical guilt, and the everyday experience of injustice, all of which are completely rational reactions. As individuals, groups, and nations, we rely on cooperation too much to ensure our survival to approach international negotiations with anything other than compassion and a willingness to learn.
This, however, does not preclude the inclusion of human rights, ecological, and social standards as part of the negotiating package in international trade agreements, for instance, nor does it preclude the external support of democracy movements, nor does it preclude sanctions; especially in regards to the latter, there have been significant changes in recent years civil society forms of sanctions have also been developed.
However, it is critical that the remaining international debate venues be utilized swiftly and courageously to launch huge programs to rescue the world. For instance, if the global South could be convinced to support a climate effort that would speed up decarbonization at the meeting of the heads of government at the G20 summit in Bali in the middle of November, that would be a turning moment. After the G20 summit, the COP27 conference will take place in Sharm El-Sheikh, and this might give the meeting a fresh boost. This has the potential to provide a fresh dynamic into the UN, G20, and other regional organizations’ top-level summit chains.
Until China, India, and other big CO2 emitters join this club, the admirable endeavor by the German G7 Presidency this year to promote the Paris climate deal via a “climate club” would be ineffective. The G20 might shift its attention to the Global South if India, Brazil, and South Africa take up the presidency after Indonesia.
The German federal government’s backing of a climate club it started is not, of course, about the global south following a G7 proposal in which it had no hand. Instead, nations who are hit worst by climate change may find it to their advantage to provide their support to this new endeavor so that international climate protection measures might gain momentum. The climate club is intended to be inclusive, despite the annoying connotations the word “club” may evoke. It would benefit greatly from the active participation of civil society groups like Fridays For Future and the many business initiatives for decarbonization that are currently operating below the radar.
Obviously, other international projects’ use cases need to mirror the climate change initiative’s success. It is self-evident that global cooperation is required to defeat pandemics. To achieve this goal, health care and prevention must be recognized as a global public benefit, which necessitates reducing patent protection in certain instances and increasing vaccine and drug manufacturing in developing regions like Africa. No one can be considered safe from pandemics unless everyone is.
Protecting biodiversity, eliminating poverty and inequality within countries, and limiting the spread of nuclear weapons are just a few more global problems that will shape our future. If we don’t want the digital disruption to destroy our ability to live together, keep our communities safe, do business with one another, and uphold our shared values, then this generation will have to figure out how to govern itself in the digital era.
This essay, written on the “eve” of the G20 summit and COP27, is an appeal for fair and innovative multilateralism and the resourceful use of existing international institutions in honor of past weapons control accords.
The author Dr. Markus Engels is Secretary General of the Global Solutions Initiative (GSI), an international think tank network that advocates a reorientation towards more sustainability, social solidarity and individual empowerment.