Uncertainty of multilateralism: Ramesh Shrestha

Give peace a chance – John Lennon

There are numerous multilateral organisations, the largest one being the United Nations. There are many such regional organisations focused on specific regions such as ASEAN, GCC, EU and there are others focused on businesses and industries such as OPEC and WTO while some focused on defense such as NATO. Many are doing good for humanity such as the International Red Cross focusing on humanitarianism. There are other multilateral groups without a fixed HQs such as G7 and G20, which are equally influential on global political drama. They all have contributed in their own way in various aspects of human development. Some of them have been criticized for their opaque policies such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

Regional multilateral organisations play important roles in enhancing regional cooperation with unified views on global political agenda, enhancing regional trade, mobilising resources for regional issues, developing regional standards on technical matters, cooperation in sharing local natural resources such as river water and maintaining regional peace and security. There are few regional multilateral organisations such as SAARC, which is practically lifeless while few remain totally inward looking such as ASEAN and GCC.

Over the past few decades global financial situation, geopolitical rivalries, trade policies and the growth of nationalism have created uncertainty in the future of multilateral organisations as a whole. This is true especially for those engaged in peace, security and international development.

Could nationalism threat multilateralism?

Rising tide of unilateral actions with nationalistic agenda by powerful countries on issues of global importance especially on peace, security and trade has sidelined the role of multinational institutions. Nationalism tends to surge bilateral actions based on national political interest and bilateral relations rather than supporting multilateralism on issues of global significance. Such actions risk the rupture in relations between countries and international cooperation. Nationalism also makes international coordination difficult as countries have their national priority overriding the global issue such as in mitigating climate crisis. Regrettably works of some multilateral organisation can also become a threat to the functions of other multilateral organisations such as the role of G7 against the role of the United Nations.

There is a general support for the multinational organisations such as the UN, but they are not matched by actions. Instead, repeated baseless attacks on the UN and flagrant breaching of UN resolutions threatens the stability of world peace. Same applies for selective application of WTO regulations by member states. There are also resentments against the EU by some nationalist member states as some of the issues dictated by the EU goes against the foreign policy of countries. (The distinction between the resentment against the UN and EU must be understood in proper context; the works of the UN are on peace, security, humanitarianism and human development it has no 'foreign policy' of its own unlike the EU and its member states.)

With the rise in nationalism and resentments against multilateralism there are possibilities of reduction in funding. The survival of multilateralism depends on being able to remain relevant by revisiting its mandate so that it can regain trust of all its member states including nationalist members. Globally the frequency of conflicts is on the rise which requires cooperation between countries, for which only the multilateral institutions can provide a neutral forum for dialogues. There are rising problems of illegal immigration, labour movements between countries, border disputes between neighbours and sharing of natural resources such as rivers that flow through several countries, etc. Unilateral actions by countries on these issues will flare up problems instead of finding solutions. The functions of some of the multilateral institutions have not been able to demonstrate serious outcomes such as the works on mitigating negative impacts of climate change but that should not be an argument to suppress multilateral institutions totally.

G7, G20 and the UN

The roles of G7 and G20 deserve special mention as they play a significant role in global politics, economy, peace and security. Their priorities often differ if not totally incompatible with many global issues managed by the UN. G7 is an exclusive club of seven industrialized countries and the European Union (EU). This club invites some countries as guests which makes the invited guest feel inclusive while their policy decisions are made in closed doors based on their economic and security needs which is extended globally through the UN as three of the seven members are also the permanent members of the UN Security Council.

G20 is G7 plus high income countries such as Argentina, Australia, Germany, India, Mexico, South Africa, South Korea, etc. The agenda of G20 is some kind of buy-in from these high income countries to push the narrow agenda of the industrialized countries, a repeat of the G7 agenda but with broader participation. Since G7 and G20 take independent initiatives on global issues with their financial might it creates a perception of undermining the roles of the UN; real or not you be the judge.

Strengthening multilateralism

There are many reasons which continue to fragment human society, the most common ones are religious belief, ethnic bias, traditional enmity, communities separated by artificial borders, political views and of course wealth. All of these impacts on peace and security at all levels of human society. Everyone has a civic duty to maintain harmony to contribute to maintaining peace. According to UN jargon, peace in the world can be cultivated starting from the grassroot level. Cooperation and collaboration between countries in a multilateral forum is the best option for international peace and security. If there is no trust and cooperation at the local level between people and countries there is little multilateralism can achieve. Powerful countries as guardians of peace and security must encourage multilateralism as opposed to remaining neutral or worse taking sides.

We are currently witnessing one of the massive failures of multilateralism in Ukraine, Gaza Sudan and Democratic Republic of Congo and now add Iran to this list. Many member countries who can make a difference either remained neutral or even inflamed the situation. It is a far cry from the calls of multilateralism and the idea of human civilization. If multilateralism fails, the 21st century could see much worse conflicts than in the 20th century as the war technology we have today is hundreds of times more lethal than what we had in the past century. Multilateralism is the only way to preserve peace in this fragmented world.

Read more articles by Ramesh here.
Or contact Ramesh at ramesh.chauni@gmail.com
Labels: Ramesh