A global meeting point
Multilateralism has been the main instrument for countries of the world to come together to find solutions for regional and global problems. The roots of multilateralism dates back to the establishment of 'The concert of Europe' in 1815 Vienna Congress. The idea was for the big powers to come together to discuss issues of differences and resolve the crisis before it began rather than resolving it in the post-conflict negotiating table. The Vienna Congress was followed by the Hague Peace Conference in 1899 and 1907 bringing together 47 governments (most of the countries at that time excluding colonised countries), which facilitated cooperation between governments in several fronts. Multilateralism became a significant feature of the modern world with the establishment of the League of Nations in January 1920, which was replaced by the creation of the biggest multilateral institution in the form of the United Nations in October 1945. But the multilateralism path has been full of potholes with a turbulent journey from the very beginning which remains so even today due to too many political interferences due to countries or blocs of countries.
Good intentions
The League of Nations aimed at collective security through mutual cooperation. In August 1928, eight years after establishing the League of Nations, a new agreement referred to as the 'Kellogg-Briand Pact', drafted by the US Secretary of State Frank B. Kellogg and the French Foreign Minister Aristide Briand was signed to prevent use of war as foreign policy. The immediate signatories of this treaty include all major powers of the day; Heads of States of all major powers (The President of the United States of America, the President of the German Reich, His Majesty the King of Belgium, the President of the French Republic, His Majesty the King of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, His Majesty the King of Italy, His Majesty the Emperor of Japan, the President of the Republic of Poland, and the President of the Czechoslovak Republic). By the end of July 1929, 57 countries had signed this Pact. Croatia and Bosnia signed this Pact in 1994 showing signs of life of this Pact. Several signatory countries to this Pact were party to wars during past decades. What is then the meaning of this Pact?
Kellogg-Briand Pact Article I
The High Contracting Parties solemnly declare in the names of their respective peoples that they condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversies, and renounce it, as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another.
Article II
The High Contracting Parties agree that the settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them, shall never be sought except by pacific means.
Article III
The present Treaty shall be ratified by the High Contracting Parties named in the Preamble in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements, and shall take effect as between them as soon as all their several instruments of ratification shall have been deposited at Washington.
The Kellogg-Briand Pact is perhaps the shortest legal document ever with just 3 Articles listed above. Anyways both the League of Nations and the Kellogg-Briand Pact lack enforcement mechanisms and failed in preventing wars, which in the 21st century has become a big global business in the name of national security.
Defining multilateralism
Some authors, for the sake of inclusiveness, have broadened the concept of multilateralism by including civil society organisations and private sectors including multinational companies. But given the fact that multilateralism has its foundation on global political institutions with the inception of the League of Nations followed by the Kellogg-Briand Pact and the United Nations aiming at global peace and security its memberships with the government representation may still be the best. The civil society organisations and private sectors such as multinationals may not represent the interest of the global population or the global institutions given their mandates but can be consulted as required.
Blaming multilateralism is not the solution
Multilateralism has played significant roles such as the initiatives of the International Labour Organisation in setting global labour standards. There are many similar themes based multilateral wings of the UN system in almost all technical fields. However, there exists serious differences when it comes to global political unity, peace, trade and environment. There may be some improvements in bilateral relations and trade depending on alliances where multilateralism can be and have been sidelined.
Between 1925 and 2017 there have been 18 international treaties on peace and security; and 11 international treaties on human rights. But the world continued to witness wars between states, civil wars, military confrontations, international terrorism, and even genocide as the world saw in Rwanda and the ongoing one in Gaza. Many of these conflicts in recent decades are the causes of competition between the powerful countries. Millions of civilians and countries have simply expendable victims of this powerplay, famously defined by the Hollywood actor Arnold Schwarzenegger as collateral damage in his movies. Is this our civility?
With the rapid expansion of globalisation and interdependence, multilateralism plays an essential role in bringing some sense of normality in the troubled world. But the rise of protectionism in trade and broadening of the web of national security has created too many stumbling blocks in the very notion of multilateralism, globalisation and interdependence. For example, Nepal's relationship with Pakistan and with China is seen as a threat to India. It may be true that Nepal could be a hub for intelligence personnels of all its neighbours including India. This example may be true in all other regions. The end result is confrontation leading to lack of peace.
There are numerous newspaper articles on failures of multilateralism written by popular journalists who lack objectivity. How can anyone defend war as a strategy for peace? Since the end of World War-II we have seen too many wars and conflicts. Millions of civilians have become victims of the failures of the leaderships not the failure of multilateralism. Why is the vision of multilateralism so difficult to realise? Why do we continue to blame the institution but not the parties to the conflict?
Given our living history, should the general public expect anything tangible and enforceable recommendations from the UN's Summit of the Future which is taking place on 22-23 September? Or is it going to be yet another global events with outcome documents which will remain in the bookshelves? The answer lies in the hands of the global leaders.
Read more articles by Ramesh by clicking here
Good intentions
The League of Nations aimed at collective security through mutual cooperation. In August 1928, eight years after establishing the League of Nations, a new agreement referred to as the 'Kellogg-Briand Pact', drafted by the US Secretary of State Frank B. Kellogg and the French Foreign Minister Aristide Briand was signed to prevent use of war as foreign policy. The immediate signatories of this treaty include all major powers of the day; Heads of States of all major powers (The President of the United States of America, the President of the German Reich, His Majesty the King of Belgium, the President of the French Republic, His Majesty the King of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, His Majesty the King of Italy, His Majesty the Emperor of Japan, the President of the Republic of Poland, and the President of the Czechoslovak Republic). By the end of July 1929, 57 countries had signed this Pact. Croatia and Bosnia signed this Pact in 1994 showing signs of life of this Pact. Several signatory countries to this Pact were party to wars during past decades. What is then the meaning of this Pact?
Kellogg-Briand Pact Article I
The High Contracting Parties solemnly declare in the names of their respective peoples that they condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversies, and renounce it, as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another.
Article II
The High Contracting Parties agree that the settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them, shall never be sought except by pacific means.
Article III
The present Treaty shall be ratified by the High Contracting Parties named in the Preamble in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements, and shall take effect as between them as soon as all their several instruments of ratification shall have been deposited at Washington.
The Kellogg-Briand Pact is perhaps the shortest legal document ever with just 3 Articles listed above. Anyways both the League of Nations and the Kellogg-Briand Pact lack enforcement mechanisms and failed in preventing wars, which in the 21st century has become a big global business in the name of national security.
Defining multilateralism
Some authors, for the sake of inclusiveness, have broadened the concept of multilateralism by including civil society organisations and private sectors including multinational companies. But given the fact that multilateralism has its foundation on global political institutions with the inception of the League of Nations followed by the Kellogg-Briand Pact and the United Nations aiming at global peace and security its memberships with the government representation may still be the best. The civil society organisations and private sectors such as multinationals may not represent the interest of the global population or the global institutions given their mandates but can be consulted as required.
Blaming multilateralism is not the solution
Multilateralism has played significant roles such as the initiatives of the International Labour Organisation in setting global labour standards. There are many similar themes based multilateral wings of the UN system in almost all technical fields. However, there exists serious differences when it comes to global political unity, peace, trade and environment. There may be some improvements in bilateral relations and trade depending on alliances where multilateralism can be and have been sidelined.
Between 1925 and 2017 there have been 18 international treaties on peace and security; and 11 international treaties on human rights. But the world continued to witness wars between states, civil wars, military confrontations, international terrorism, and even genocide as the world saw in Rwanda and the ongoing one in Gaza. Many of these conflicts in recent decades are the causes of competition between the powerful countries. Millions of civilians and countries have simply expendable victims of this powerplay, famously defined by the Hollywood actor Arnold Schwarzenegger as collateral damage in his movies. Is this our civility?
With the rapid expansion of globalisation and interdependence, multilateralism plays an essential role in bringing some sense of normality in the troubled world. But the rise of protectionism in trade and broadening of the web of national security has created too many stumbling blocks in the very notion of multilateralism, globalisation and interdependence. For example, Nepal's relationship with Pakistan and with China is seen as a threat to India. It may be true that Nepal could be a hub for intelligence personnels of all its neighbours including India. This example may be true in all other regions. The end result is confrontation leading to lack of peace.
There are numerous newspaper articles on failures of multilateralism written by popular journalists who lack objectivity. How can anyone defend war as a strategy for peace? Since the end of World War-II we have seen too many wars and conflicts. Millions of civilians have become victims of the failures of the leaderships not the failure of multilateralism. Why is the vision of multilateralism so difficult to realise? Why do we continue to blame the institution but not the parties to the conflict?
Given our living history, should the general public expect anything tangible and enforceable recommendations from the UN's Summit of the Future which is taking place on 22-23 September? Or is it going to be yet another global events with outcome documents which will remain in the bookshelves? The answer lies in the hands of the global leaders.
Read more articles by Ramesh by clicking here
Or contact Ramesh at ramesh.chauni@gmail.com
Comments
Post a Comment
If you are a member of XUNICEF, you can comment directly on a post. Or, send your comments to us at xunicef.news.views@gmail.com and we will publish them for you.