Global human solidarity is the only way forward
Emerging powers such as India are important pillars of multilateralism and have tried to influence and reform the institutions and rules of the game towards more equity and public good decisions
In 2020, the UN75 initiative sought to envision “The Future We Want, the UN We Need and Reaffirm our Collective Commitment to Multilateralism”. Along with Bretton Woods Institutions (BWIs) — the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank (WB), and the World Trade Organization (WTO), it faced a litmus test when the coronavirus pandemic hit the world. There was a trust deficit and universal angst about a crisis in and of multilateralism when it was most needed. The World Health Organization was seen by some as ineffective when it came to health and bio-surveillance, on providing early warning, on the origin of the coronavirus, and subsequently, driving the global response.
The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) was also ineffectual. The IMF’s historic Special Drawing Rights allocation of $650 billion and WB’s emergency relief of $160 billion proved inadequate for developing countries facing a severe liquidity crunch, financial and economic crisis. WTO could not manage a decision on the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights waiver for vaccine equity.
Over the decades, multilateralism has spawned a web of specialised institutions, covering almost every area of global concern and the public good. The interaction of the three — the UN secretariat, the governments, and “we the people” — civil society and private sector and the power play and dynamics of decision-making among the big, emerging, and small powers — determines its success or failure.
For 75 years, multilateralism has ebbed and crested in the four projects of humanity: Sustainable development, peace and security, human rights, and humanitarian action. In each of these areas, it has justified its keep through global norms and standard-setting, ranging from a comprehensive body of human rights covenants and treaties, Agenda 2030 and sustainable development goals, the Paris climate agreement, World Summit on the Information Society, disarmament treaties and soft laws on every subject of global concern.
It has spurred advocacy and movement, building around each cause, knowledge and global best practices hubs and lighthouse programmes, including peacekeeping: 72 operations since 1948 and 13 active missions in three continents, relief for 59 million refugees, reducing maternal mortality, ending polio, promoting gender equality, supporting developing countries and using its convening power for the governance of sunrise areas such as Tech 4.0 and cyber security. If the UN was not there, it would need to be created.
However, multilateralism has been undermined by institutional capture by major powers and the unrepresentative nature of key decision-making bodies. The UNSC with P5, especially China, shows no will for expansion in permanent membership and reforms, despite major geostrategic changes and needs. The IMF/WB’s quota of reforms has also been slow. The shaping and gaming of the world monetary, financial, and trading systems by a few, for the few, continues. Sovereignty is invoked by the powerful, while the weak are often denied the protection of a rule-based, equitable multilateral order.
The UNSC’s conflict prevention, peacemaking, and building role against regional conflicts, asymmetrical wars, and terrorism have been hobbled by elitism, cross-veto, and implementation gaps. Universal membership of 194 countries makes consensus-building elusive, big powers resort to unilateralism regionalism, plurilateral, and issue-based strategic groupings (G7, G20, BRICs, IBSA). Quads and “minilateralisms” abound. The UN lacks teeth, scale, and ambition, as admitted by the secretary-general.
Under United States (US) President Joe Biden, there has been a return of the prodigal superpower and post-Brexit Europe is scrambling to become the catalyst for revitalised multilateralism — sometimes to tame and other times to co-opt China as we saw with climate multilateralism at the Glasgow climate summit.
Emerging powers such as India are important pillars of multilateralism and have tried to influence and reform the institutions and rules of the game towards more equity and public good decisions as have smaller countries using Lilliputian tactics of banding together to exercise a margin of persuasion. But these efforts have been met with only partial success and some reform based alliances with major powers are needed.
The civilisational-cum-multilateralism crisis in the “Body Social’’ of the world politics and economy such as the US-China, Democracy — authoritarian schisms cannot be resolved by archaism or futurism to use Arnold J Tonybee’s words. At this creative destruction moment like 1945, archaic, multilateral institutions need recreation to build back better and anew through a mandate review, more representative governance, impartiality, independence, technical excellence, strengthening of crisis response capacity, and financial viability and stability.
Futurism — an ideal projected future, conceived self-centeredly by reigning powers will not work — whether America First or the Chinese Dream. Global human solidarity is the only way. It is imperative to remedy the dominance-based architectural flaws, as well as the three UNs not working in sync defect in the UN’s rebirth. Let countries be bold and convene a review conference under article 108-109 of the UN Charter to design and build a new, 21st century UN/BWIs on the debris of this unprecedented crisis humanity faces.
Lakshmi Puri is a former ambassador of India, former assistant secretary-general, United Nations, deputy executive director, UN WOMEN, and distinguished fellow, Indian Association of International Studies. She is also a recipient of the Eleanor Roosevelt Award for Human Rights
The views expressed are personal