The annual convening of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) is the supreme moment for multilateralists. It is happening in New York under a cloud of doubt: is multilateralism finished?
Yes, say those pointing towards the sorry state of a world of endless conflicts, egregious humanitarian transgressions and war crimes. As well as to rising poverty, hunger, and disease. Countries are slipping behind with their Sustainable Development Goals. Then there are the issues of accelerating climate change, disasters and record population displacements.
Did we not hold many conferences committing to work together for a safer and better world, leaving no one behind? Why is multilateralism failing to deliver on its high ideals?
There are complex reasons, not least the challenge of persuading diverse self-interests to give way for the common good. Especially in the context of globalisation, which has benefitted the world enormously but also created losers.
Disappointment with multilateralism inevitably translates into discontent with the UN because they are so intertwined. Take UNGA, for example. This is the world’s only inclusive body where all states – small and large, rich and poor, democratic and authoritarian – get equal say. But its decisions are neither binding nor enforceable. UN-style multilateralism is, therefore, optional. This is hardly surprising as its biggest article of faith centres on the sovereignty of individual states who may choose if, how and when to co-operate with others.
The voluntary approach to pulling the world together was sufficient in the aftermath of the UN’s formation from the rubble of the Second World War. There were only 51 state actors at the first UNGA in 1946. The western victors defined the new world order, dictated its legal, economic, and security terms, and obliged others to follow.
Although this was contested by many wars of decolonisation and the Cold War, the victors and losers were both keen to get on the same bandwagon. Better late than never, as they rushed to capture their fair share of resources while competing to mould the world towards their own interests.
Clashes of ideas and ideologies were inevitable as the global community quadrupled to 193 quarrelsome states and their population exceeded 8 billion noisy people. They have differing perspectives on the momentous questions of our age – be they democracy and development, or war and peace. They cannot be resolved by one-size-fits-all solutions.
Yet, that is the mantra of UN multilateralism, which is constitutionally inclined towards universalist prescriptions. These require everyone to weigh-in on all issues. To obtain consensus entails so many compromises that conclusions are either embarrassingly anodyne or, if taken by majority, leave us more divided than we were.
The consequent erosion of UN credibility is compounded in other UN forums such as the Human Rights Council, and governing bodies of specialised and humanitarian agencies. Their painstakingly negotiated resolutions on important topics are often disregarded because they are inadequate for the challenges at hand, even if there were the means to enforce them.
The problems were evident from the earliest days of the UN. So, the World Bank Group and International Monetary Fund emerged in the 1940s and the 2000s brought the Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria, and the Global Vaccine Alliance.
Unlike the UN, they receive hefty financial endowments to ensure functional independence. Arguably, they deliver better results than mainstream UN agencies, even if they are not so inclusive or beloved of nations who cannot control them in the same way.
The quest for effective multilateralism has continued to shift out of the UN through creating influential interstate fora such as the G7, G20, Brics, and regional groupings such as the European and African Unions, League of Arab States, Organisation of Islamic Co-operation, the Commonwealth, La Francophonie, Nato, the Quad alliance and others.
There are bespoke multilateral alliances on numerous matters even beyond them, for example, those to reverse desertification, control trade in endangered species, expand solar energy, curb human trafficking and prevent specific diseases.
Today’s states typically belong to several multilateral groupings. But they may not take consistent positions in them. That is either an unhelpful fragmentation of multilateralism or, conversely, provides flexibility of policies that are more relevant to specific issues and contexts.
Neither is it necessary for productive multilateralism to be government-centred. There is a welcome growth around humanitarian networks, exemplified momentously by the 191 National Societies that constitute the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent. Countless professional and research associations – in medicine, climate science, engineering, and so on – exist to share knowledge and expertise to benefit humanity.
That countries are selecting their co-operation forums reflects on their increased maturity. Competition between forums is not unhelpful if it allows better and creative ideas to emerge or drive greater effectiveness and efficiency.
Therefore, the UN should not be dismayed if it is no longer the exclusive centre for multilateral dialogue and co-operation.
It will always be indispensable for gauging world opinion, including expressing solidarity or censure. It will always provide legitimacy for setting core norms for a decent world such as for gender rights or prohibiting torture, for example. Its professional agencies will remain essential for establishing standards such as the treatment of tuberculosis or regulating Artificial Intelligence. UN agencies are also the trusted repository for data from member states, such as on literacy levels or water availability. They produce objective analyses to benchmark progress, generate early warnings of crises and recommend evidence-based approaches.
Beyond that, the UN must let selective groupings deliver on global aspirations or to solve their neighbourhood problems. Top-down global diktats, such as on sanctions or peacekeeping from the Security Council, even if this is reformed to become more representative, will remain ineffective. Relying on the vagaries of big powers to bring stability and prosperity is also undesirable because of the clientelism and distortion generated.
Thus, despite the rhetoric of our increasing inter-connectedness and inter-dependence, only truly existential matters should require global multilateral attention. Countering climate change is one as well as nipping potential pandemics in the bud. Reversing wars of aggression under Article 39 of the UN Charter and the Genocide Convention’s requirement on all nations to suppress and punish that heinous act are other universal obligations. Unfortunately, not all countries are good at them.
There are few other issues requiring global interference and the UN should keep its capacity and credibility reserved for new world-level challenges when they arise, which they will.
Meanwhile, solutions for other problems are most effective when devised and implemented closest to where they are encountered. That requires nations taking responsibility for their own issues. Where that requires cross-border collaboration, the minimum necessary stakeholders should be involved to avoid paralysis by the many who may have strong opinions but no useful role to play.
For example, the vicious wars in Sudan, Ukraine and Palestine will settle only when their directly involved external stakeholders act, regardless of numerous UNGA and Security Council resolutions.
Geographically confined problems elevated to the global level may alleviate suffering by allowing the voices of the oppressed to travel farther and garner moral sympathy and even some help. But it can make underlying issues harder to tackle because of the entrenchment of polarised positions that usually accompanies global debate. This paradoxically means that a problem shared too widely becomes a problem doubled, not halved.
Multilateralism is not finished. It is getting smarter as nations select the best routes for collaboration and co-operation according to requirements. Not everyone must be involved in everything, everywhere. That is good for a multiply challenged planet where there is enough to do for all – at the level that is right for each of them.
