Wither Architecture Of Global Governance?

The post-war institutional architecture of global governance is fragmented and untidy. The approach of the US on global governance is transactional and undefined, though it has shown distrust in the existing formal institutions such as the UN and WTO and informal ones such as G7 and G20. Unilateralism of the sort that US President Donald J Trump states, such as integration of Canada in the US or either allowing Greenland to choose its future or becoming a part of America, threatens allies and competitors alike. President Trump is upending post-war security, diplomatic, ecological, health and economic structures that had shaped the world’s geopolitical foundations and brought the veto and non-veto powers of the UN to shape the frame of global governance — formulate policies, execute them and resolve conflicts.

 Supranational institutions have become more important now than ever before to meet the challenges of global proportions, including economic development, climate change, pandemic and mitigation of several crises. Chinese President Xi Jinping’s interest lies in reforming global governance based on cooperation, consultation, multilateralism and shared benefits of common goods and universal peace. He stresses on the just, democratic and equitable global governance benefitting all. As a result, the number of nations, big and small, signing its global initiatives is growing. Russian President Vladimir Putin says, “We need to use the UN Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today’s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not.” 

Sovereignty of state

The Global South favours sovereignty of state, non-alignment, Panchsheel and the UN Charter as the core pillars of global governance. Although the Vienna convention does not allow the state to unilaterally withdraw from the UN except in the conditions of a vital change of situation, the US withdrawal from the WHO, Human Rights Council, Paris Climate Agreement, etc., show the UN’s inability to execute its sustainable development goals and set up rule-based governance. The Trump administration had earlier withdrawn from the UNHRC and UNESCO, which was reverted by his successor, former President Joe Biden. His nationalistic approach of America First has also quashed the democratic fraternity of nations and its premise that democratic nations do not wage war against each other as popular sovereignty opposes it and creates shared values for cooperation.

President Trump’s strategy of restoring ties with Russia and earlier withdrawal of intelligence, satellite images, economic and humanitarian support to Ukraine has changed the geopolitical landscape of the region and created a strategic vacuum in many parts of the world, prompting aspiring nations to fill in. However, the US has lifted its suspension of military aid and intelligence sharing for Ukraine after the latter agreed on a 30-day ceasefire. Trump is insisting that European nations scale up their defensive capability and is thinking of withdrawing its NATO soldiers from Europe. 

The erosion of NATO’s cohesion has weakened the ties between the U.S., Europe and their allies, forcing them to look for new partners. Europe is scrambling to set up a new security plan with the support of the UK, Germany, France and Poland and evolving its own foreign policy independent of Washington and Moscow.  France’s offer of a nuclear deterrent for the whole of Europe is objected by Russia and even denied NATO or European peace force in Ukraine.

Russia, America, the EU and Ukraine prefer durable peace, but the nature of peace differs. Europe wants not only durable peace but also a just and dignified one that respects its sovereignty, territorial integrity and dignity. It is, therefore, mobilising military, economic and political support to it. The US is bargaining for its security support in exchange for rare earth materials from Ukraine. The Saudi meeting of the US and Ukraine favoured a limited ceasefire and release of prisoners. In no way growing Russia-USA affinity can distance the former from the coordination of Sino-Russian policies in the UN, SCO and BRICS and international affairs and cooperation in trade, connectivity, AI, oil and gas pipelines, naval exercises and cyber security.

Syria presents a complex geopolitical challenge as it is a cockpit of struggle among Israel, Turkey, pro-Assad guerrillas, Kurdish militia and security forces, each fighting for its primacy and hard to resolve. The US economic sanctions on Iran prohibited India from importing oil but China did not care about it. Russia, China and Iran are holding a joint naval military drill in the Gulf of Oman, aiming to strengthen mutual security. It may be costly for the USA to pursue nuclear deal negation and curb its nuclear ambition even threat of hardball tactics. 

 China-Turkey amity holds strategic values as it embraces infrastructure development, green technologies, artificial intelligence, information, trade and rising convergence on geopolitics. Both support the cause of Palestine. China’s strategic partnership with Turkey gives it an edge to promote the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). It stands as a bridge between Asia and Europe and deftly balances ties between China and NATO. China’s economic cooperation with Spain has improved its leverage in Europe to reap benefits from EU solidarity and trade with China. Germany and France already have a strategic partnership with China. The interest of the UK, EU and Australia lies in elevating economic and strategic ties with India but Australia is unhappy with India’s ties with Russia despite their membership in QUAD.

 India has also reoriented its policy to Japan, South Korea, ASEAN and Europe. Canada is reviving ties with India. The Korean peninsula is heating up with South Korea-US military drills where North Korea, an ally of Russia, has fired several ballistic missiles. The weakening of the multi-literal system hints at its inability to safeguard global security, development and peace. When the rules of the game are violated by veto powers and the Security Council faces an impasse, it allows the crisis to flare up. One problem of the Council is an overrepresentation of G7 nations while no representation of the African and Latin American continents except in the case of non-permanent seats. 

The rise of new powers such as India, Japan, South Africa, Germany and Brazil and their aspirations to rectify the imbalance of world politics are aimed to become Security Council’s permanent members and assume corresponding responsibilities. Inclusivity and balance provide legitimacy and effectiveness of international institutions, including the UN. The suspension of American aid for three months and collapse of USAID reveal a lesson to other donors as to how foreign aid as global public goods should be justly administered, aligned with the needs and priorities of people and escape from stuffing the agencies of deep state.  The US now aims to align its aid to national interest. But it should not run away from humanitarian obligations and climate action programmes vital for human survival.

The exclusive pursuit of national interest, mercantilism and nostalgia of past glory harbored by powerful nations do not create a common background condition and positive shadow of future cooperation among the sovereign nations of various scales and strengthen the capabilities of existing international regimes for robust global governance. The search for common goods and proper distribution of global commons among the richer and poorer nations requires a strong institutional and policy architecture of governance not only on security, which is flawed now, but also on economic spheres, trade, climate change and digital technologies.

The powerful nations of the world are racing for critical resources such as oil and rare earth materials and market access essential for their development.  Many African nations are witnessing the race of big powers to drill their critical resources while they are needed for their nation-building. In this context, the Bretton Woods institutions, the financial architecture of global governance, need to be effective in many areas such as debt relief, climate finance, ease of supply chains and sustainable development. They can harmonise the efforts of the New Development Bank and Asian Infrastructure Development Bank as a new global economic lifeline. 

 President Trump’s tariff threats to all the nations, more particularly BRICS, Canada, Mexico and Europe, haunts the future of the global free trading system set by the WTO. Countermeasures afoot are afflicting global economic governance, weakening its premises and resorting to de-globalisation, even stirring economic fears of the decline of Americans' living standards. Banks of America and Europe have frozen Russian assets worth billions of dollars and delinked Russian banks from the SWIFT transfer system following the Ukrainian war. Europe wants these assets to be utilised for the reconstruction of Ukraine. The freezing of assets has prompted BRICS and other nations to resort to de-dollarization. When Russia and the USA have access over each other’s economies, it might propel China, India and Europe to diversify their economies.

Declining US dominance 

India-China-Russia-Latin America-Africa cooperation can grow. China does not fear India because of the power gap, its reading of declining US dominance and its balancing act. In trade, India’s total trade of $800 billion is less than China’s profit of $1 trillion and its outreach and investments in the world are much higher. Trump showed interest in inviting Russia to the G7 nations which were expelled after its occupation of Crimea in 2014. His interest in removing all economic sanctions against Russia once a peace deal on Ukraine is struck can provide a template to improve ties in strategic areas.

In the turbulent geopolitics where the architecture of global governance is withering, Nepal has to reposition itself and develop institutional capability to improve its foreign policy effectiveness. One thing is obvious: regime-oriented foreign policy does not work when the global order is defined by realism, the raison d’etre of states. Its history is full of insights as to how the nation had adapted its external conduct with bipolar, unipolar and multipolar world order and accommodated the rival interests of neighbours in times of détente, conflicts and competition now. Nepal has to upgrade its foreign think tanks, not with partisan people but with interdisciplinary intelligence embracing national and enlightened global perspectives.

(Former Reader at the Department of Political Science, TU, Dahal writes on political and social issues.)