-
George I. H. Cooke
Wilsonian idealism gave
birth to multilateralism a century ago as nation states emerged from the
ravages of the Great War, which came to be identified as the First World War in
ensuing decades. The depth of the devastation, the incomparable loss of lives,
the gravity of the disaster and the determination to avoid a recurrence of such
atrocities led to countries considering positively the words of the then American
President Woodrow Wilson.
Addressing the Congress
of the United States of America on 08th January 1918, Wilson
highlighted fourteen salient aspects for the achievement and preservation of
peace and stability in international interactions, chiefly in Europe and America,
but also with the world. It was the fourteenth point that had the greatest
impact, leading to it being brought to fruition through the League of Nations
that was established on 10th January 1920 – thus creating the platform
for multilateralism and multilateral engagement as we know it today.
Wilson’s fourteenth point
stated that “a general association of nations must be formed under specific
covenants for the purpose of affording mutual guarantees of political
independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike.” The world
had hitherto not experienced such an association albeit in the form of
colonialism, wherein nation states cohabitated owing to their being invaded and
conquered. Under such an arrangement weaker states were under duress from
stronger ones who exercised influence, changed domestic dynamics, introduced drastically
new concepts, which were for the better and the worse, and also plundered
natural resources in massive amounts. This gathering of states under a single
banner or common identity was forged through force, and not through the voluntary
amalgamation of states.
Wilson’s idea of a
gathering was unique as states had hitherto understood the nuances of bilateral
engagement through which they sought to enhance ties with specific counterparts
either in their own neighbourhood, or further afield in other regions of the
globe. This was to be a foray into a democratic form of engagement, understood
today to be the closest we have come to global governance.
With the conclusion
of the Treaty of Versailles, which had been conducted from 28th June
1919 to 21st January 1920, the League of Nations ushered in a new
system of diplomacy which called for and relied upon better world cooperation. The
end of the First World War in 1918 and the two years to follow were filled with
enthusiasm and determination to never return to conflict but more importantly
to explore a whole new world of cooperation on a completely different
proportion, that had not been witnessed thus far. This system of openness,
public channels and summits, was to ensure Wilson’s “mutual guarantees of
political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states
alike.”
The coming together
of states proved the resolute nature of the leadership of these states to
commit to change, new direction and more importantly lay claim to a new era. During
the course of its existence from 1920 to 1946, the League was to be administered
by three Secretaries General, namely, Sir James Eric Drummond of the United
Kingdom from 1920 to 1933, Joseph Avenol of France from 1933 to 1940, and Ireland’s
Sean Lester from 1940 to 1946. Whilst it is often argued that League failed to
avert the outbreak of another World War, it is relevant to reflect upon the
successes of the League that proved that joint decision making and collective
defence were the need of the hour.
In 1921, the League was
asked to intervene and resolve the issue of ownership between Finland and Sweden
given that the islands were equidistant between the two countries. The decision
that the islands should remain with Finland but that no weapons should be kept
there remains in force to date.
In that same year,
when violence broke out in Upper Silesia over a referendum result that had seen
some 700, 000 voting to be a part of Weimar Germany and 500, 000 to be with Poland,
the League decided to split Upper Silesia, with their decision found to be
acceptable to the people of the area.
Similar adjudications
on the port of Memel which was declared an international zone, the response to
the humanitarian crisis in Turkey in 1923, and the resolution of the border dispute
between Greece and Bulgaria, highlighted that the League wasn’t doomed from the
beginning but was able to maintain peace and stability in its initial years. The
multilateral arena was a new one, and one that depended on the goodwill of all
stakeholders for its success to manifest on the world stage. Regrettably its
failures, and specifically the inability to thwart Adolf Hitler and his draconian
policies of Nazism, led to the outbreak of yet another devastating conflict
from 1939 to 1945, and the subsequent death of the League, but the re-engagement
in conflict, the death and destruction it brought and the fear it instilled in
people directly affected, led to the creation of the United Nations
Organisation in 1945.
The continuation of
multilateral engagement in the reformed version of the United Nations proved
that the world was not ready to abandon that which had started in 1920 and was
instead the affirmation of an overwhelming belief that collective action was
required for the maintenance of peace and stability in the world.
The coining of the
name ‘United Nations’ by President Franklin D. Roosevelt when the term was
first used in the Declaration of 1st January 1942, whilst the war
was still raging, saw the pledge of 26 nations to continue the fight against the
Axis Powers. The stance that was taken by the United States of America, the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics, China, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Costa Rica, Cuba,
Czechoslovakia, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti,
Honduras, India, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama,
Poland, South Africa and Yugoslavia would pave the way for states to pledge “to
employ their full resources, military or economic, against those members of the
Tripartite Pact and its adherents with which such government(s) is (were) at
war.”
Secondly their
commitment “to cooperate with the Governments signatory hereto and not to make
a separate armistice or peace with the enemies” indicated the collective nature
of decision making and the ability for states to act cohesively when required. The
deliberations of the representatives of China, the Soviet Union, the United
Kingdom and the United States at Dumbarton Oaks, from August-October 1944 led
to representatives of 50 countries meeting in San Francisco in 1945 at the
United Nations Conference on International Organization to draw up the United
Nations Charter.
With the United
Nations officially coming into existence on 24th October 1945,
multilateralism triumphed once more as faith was reposited in collective action
over unilateral or bilateral measures alone. The ensuing decades of the 20th
century were to prove some of the hardest given the impact of the Cold War which
broke out so early in its existence. The ability of the UN to manoeuver through
the intrinsic confrontation it generated, and the contribution made through a
plethora of initiatives, international agencies and organisations, has seen the
creation of a better world, but certainly one that is damaged. Reflection generates
discourse on how much worse the situation could have been if bodies such as the
UN had not been in existence.
The United Nations was
bolstered further through the formation of regional groupings. Whilst regionalism
is a scaled down version of what the UN and its affiliated bodies aspire to
achieve through multilateralism, it is a platform from which UN principles and policies
are reaffirmed in the enhancement of the overarching goodwill that the UN has
been able to garner.
Whilst in 1968 Joseph
Nye argued regionalism to be a “limited number of states linked by a
geographical relationship and by a degree of mutual interdependence”, the emphasis
on the geographic element of regions changed in the 21st century
with Peter Katzenstein claiming that regions are politically made” and Frederik
Söderbaum observing that they comprise a “body of ideas, values and concrete
objectives that are aimed at creating, maintaining or modifying the provision
of security and wealth, peace and development.”
The direct outcome of
multilateral engagement has been certainty, which Timo Behr and Juha Jokela argue
is “one global public
good that is in high demand in the evolving international environment and
especially for the always jittery financial markets.” Yet that which provides solace
can also endanger it. The deep degree of integration experienced in the
European Union led to the grouping identified as the most integrated of bodies
having moved to a supranational level of cooperation, but today it contends
with calls to leave the Union, loosen the arrangement and even rethink the Euro.
Yet on the other hand countries such as Turkey, North Macedonia, Montenegro,
Albania and Serbia are eager to enter the Union, owing to their seeing
potential through joint action over their solitary existence.
Attracting states to the concept of multilateralism
has been the power, presence and potential they see through collective action.
Groupings such as BRICS, which came out of a Goldman Sachs report and BIMSTEC, focus
primarily of economic cooperation, while the Organisation of the Islamic Conference
(OIC) places religion at the centre of collaboration. The Organisation
Internationale De La Francophonie (OIF), emphasizes the importance of common linguistics
and culture as the main amalgamating factor.
Similarly other groupings which promote
multilateralism such as the Commonwealth, have seen Zimbabwe, The Gambia and
The Maldives leaving the body, while others such as Rwanda which does not share
a colonial past with the United Kingdom, joined and would even be hosting the Commonwealth
Heads of Government Meeting in 2020.
From an Asian geographical
perspective, the founding of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN)
in 1967, and the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) in
1985 bolstered multilateral cooperation. A decade later, in 1996 China, Russia,
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan formed the Shanghai Five which eventually
included Uzbekistan in 2001 and came to be known as the Shanghai Cooperation
Organisation (SCO). With India and Pakistan becoming gaining membership in 2017
the grouping represents almost half of humanity, includes two permanent
Security Council member states, and enabled a new multipolar dimension in
international relations.
In 2020, as the
United Nations turns 75, it remains the largest international grouping which
has grown in size and potential, evolved through varying global developments, endured
internal issues including the perennial debate over the composition of the Security
Council, expenditure, efficiency, among others, and yet remained relevant at
the most challenging of times. This is one of its greatest victories. From the rigours
of the Cold War, and the emergence of numerous states on the international
stage with the ending of colonialism, to the disintegration of the Soviet Union
and the unipolar world that emerged thereafter, as well as having to contend
with the rapacious manner in which humanity is consuming resources, developing
technology and attempting to surge ahead, the UN continues to face daunting challenges
but still ensures that sanity prevails.
As the next hundred
years of multilateralism unfold, the UN would remain pivotal, unless a third
World War were to erupt, and states would look for an alternate form of collaboration.
While nationalism remains a formidable challenge in the short to medium term,
it is manner in which the UN counters concerns and formulates strategies that
would ensure its preservation and the sustenance of the multilateral mode of
operation. The Millennium Development Goals and Sustainable Development Goals
were timely initiatives that set lofty targets that may be criticized for their
abstract or sometimes unattainable nature, but of importance is the pursuit of
such goals and progress to some degree down those roads, which would have not
been accomplished if such targets had not been set in the first place.
The prevalence of
non-state actors in the global arena remains a daunting challenge for multilateralism
which is said to opt to operate among state actors. However given that the
media, multinational corporations, terrorist groups, and individuals cross
national boundaries and function within regional and international structures,
their predominance will continue to evolve in varied forms. States and their global
and regional groupings would need to contend with sharing the international
stage, and combining efforts to cooperate rather than attempting to compete,
with the acceptable while also enhancing cooperation to counter that which is
illegal and detrimental.
Artificial Intelligence,
if harnessed appropriately could be of immense value, but it could also
function in a devastating manner, bringing life as we know it to an end and creating
a new era, which rethinks the very basics of existence and transforms, while
creating new norms. Engagement among states would thus need to be
rethought.
Power, presence and
potential remain the crucial, magnetic aspects of multilateralism, which have
aided its preservation to date. Given the inherent nature of states, their
leaders and humanity, to want more, and explore avenues of generating more, the
aforementioned aspects of multilateralism will continue to grow, portending
well for multilateralism as a whole. Of concern however is that that which is
sought, notably power, presence and potential, could in turn generate desires
for domination, leading to confrontation and conflict over the next century.
