by George
I. H. Cooke
|
In commemoration of the 65th
anniversary of Sri Lanka’s membership in the largest multilateral forum, the
United Nations, which is on 14th December 2020
|
Multilateralism is at
the core of global governance. It has been in and through the League of Nations
and its successor, the United Nations that the core of multilateralism has been
reposited. The UN marks its 75th anniversary and over the last seven
and half decades, the many agencies and organisation within its system have
grown, and contributed immensely to the furtherance of global goals. Yet in the
century ahead, the growth and integral value of the UN is being augmented by
the presence and active participation of a plethora of groupings. These are not
in competition with the UN, but instead complement cooperation, which is highly
favourable for countries and their peoples. Having emerged in the second half
of the last century, these entities are based on geography, politics,
economics, finance and other factors of connectivity, and today embody the
future of diplomacy.
The formalization of
multilateralism a hundred years ago yielded overwhelming results. At the
completion of a milestone and commencement of another century it is opportune
to widen its understanding by strategizing diplomacy and deepening the synergy
of its use. The inclusion of such measures in foreign policy provides
innovative avenues for nation states, ensures strength for regional groupings
and guarantees an enhancement of the world of diplomacy.
The placement of
emphasis on multilateralism has been realized throughout the passage of time,
as a means to garner greater support, build deeper awareness and promote
harmonious engagement and existence. The multitude of groupings have
contributed towards the realization of a semblance of co-existence and hence
the ability to avoid the outbreak of a third world war or anything even close
to it. Despite such efforts and the ability to stave off the challenges, they continue
to abound. From nationalism and prolific movements, to global crises and
pandemics, the doubt mounts, yet opportunity is even found in such situations.
The rise of nationalism
in many parts of the world calls into question the potential of multilateral
engagement and the prospects for countries to collaborate and compromise. The
emergence of the far right in the legislative and executive arms of states appears
to threaten the process of deepening and widening multilateralism as evidenced
in numerous regions. The impact of multilateralism has however been ingrained
in the fabric of the state. From preferential trading agreements to beneficial
investment plans, and cooperative security measures to guaranteed support in
times of difficulty, neighbours are realizing the need to rely on each other.
This extends to those without common borders but instead share common
interests, and who explore common solutions for common problems.
The era in which
countries attempted to or indeed managed their affairs alone, if ever it
existed, is certainly over. It ended a long time ago. Whilst the political
rhetoric may attempt to persuade the populace to embrace nationalist stances,
the practical aspect of governance proves the antithesis. Nationalism has
risen, it has done so in the past too, but multilateralism hasn’t declined. Its
superseding nature, advantageous positioning and promising returns have
collectively made multilateralism indispensable on the planet.
When confronting global
crises and pandemics, as 2020 revealed, countries have had to adapt to the new
norm wherein their own safety may remain within their remit of control, but the
onslaught of catastrophes is well beyond their capability to control. Therein assistance
received and examples utilised often originate elsewhere. It is through the
assistance received, be it material or technical, that the degree and depth of changes
to dynamics occur at the national level. This is applicable largely to
developing countries which have relied on international assistance in coping
with the pandemic but also refers to situations in which developed countries
have sourced medicine, equipment, and personnel from elsewhere to mitigate the
impact of the pandemic. The examples derived from similar scenarios in other
countries, either in learning from measures taken or not, have served all
countries as they understand the ramifications of actions or the absence of
such actions, through example.
Multilateralism has
made the world more aware of the need to share. By sharing countries have been
able to enhance their status, and improve their well-being. Whilst those
possessing the wherewithal to share gain crucial positioning on the world
stage, others are beneficiaries and have their well-being improved. Yet it is
not limited to this equation alone. Situations abound where countries
classified to be industrially poor yet resource rich, and those perceived to be
financial giants but power in terms of resources, rely on each other. This
dichotomy has thus spawned a deeper sense of cooperation.
The concept of one
planet and one world is reiterated through every multilateral organisation. Their
membership joins with the intention of contributing and receiving. Thus the
building of consensus by means of giving and receiving make countries rely on
each other. Though the degree of reliance maybe contested, it is still a
relationship that is constructed and expanded. Given the synergy accrued from
such relationships, it is possible to further grow such bonds ensuring positive
returns.
The opportunities to be
derived from those relationships are determined by each country and their
representatives in policy formulation and implementation. Each country while
possessing inherent strengths is responsible for ensuring the best returns for their
respective country. It is here that strategizing becomes critical, and
negotiation becomes the conduit through which strategized diplomacy is
achieved.
Strategizing
Diplomacy
In the decades ahead
the demands of the planet will continue to increase with growing populations.
The increasing presence on the globe will not be supplemented with increasing
space for existence. Contending with the existing landscape would lead to
aggravated conflict over a multiplicity of wants from food and water at the
individual level, transcending onto the national, and thereafter causing
constant consternation at the regional and global levels. Numerous other
battles have the potential to arise and their effects would severely impact the
progress of states, having a direct bearing on people once more.
How concerned are
individuals of such eventualities? How prepared are governments for such
developments? And how equipped is the world to face and overcome such
challenges? Covid-19 generated much needed dialogue on the ability of countries
to face such issues. It went beyond dialogue to ensuring that countries did
cope, to the best of their abilities, with the unfolding effects. Yet questions
exist from Andhra Pradesh to Ankara, and Wuhan to Washington on whether
adequate, timely measures were taken, and are being taken, as the pandemic is
far from over. Such discourse will continue well past the pandemic as the
economic effects of it are gushing through societies around the world. The
lesson to be derived is that no country, state or peoples can hope to remain
immune or isolated when a crisis of this magnitude strikes the planet. Neither
can a country battle the effects on its own.
The most strategic of
tools in the armoury of a state, to assist its peoples and engage
internationally, is its diplomacy and diplomatic machinery. Whilst arms and
ammunition remain relevant to an extent, and finances and economic prowess
stand them in good stead often, it is only through the skillful use of
diplomacy that states are able to avert further contribution to impending disasters,
avoid the devastating repercussions and evade human-constructed debacles or
natural ones.
Of all aspects of
policy formulation within a state, foreign policy needs to be included at the
very core of decision-making given its pivotal nature. As an extension of
domestic policy, it is foreign policy that enables a government to reach out,
engage, consolidate and strengthen the goodwill a country enjoys on the world
stage. Such goodwill is mandatory for co-existence as countries, though
sovereign entities operate in collaboration with others and not in a vacuum.
The promotion of this goodwill postulates well, especially at times of crisis
and certainly in the growth of a country.
The conduit for
garnering this goodwill is diplomacy, and more assuredly strategized
diplomacy. From the most powerful of
states to tiny islands, or landlocked countries to economic powerhouses, the
common denominator remains diplomacy. Whilst size and power matter to an
extent, it is instead the quality of diplomacy, tenacity of diplomats and
direction of policy that results in countries playing significant roles on the
world stage. The resources at their disposal would understandably have an impact
on their role but individuals with potential make the true difference.
St Lucia, an island in
the Caribbean with a population of less than 200, 000 recruited Vera El Khoury
Lacoeuilhe in 2001 to serve as deputy permanent delegate to the United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO). Possessing acumen
and expertise she was instrumental in making Saint Lucia a country of great
significance at this UN agency headquartered in Paris. From chairing several
inter-governmental committees including the World Heritage Committee and the
Independent External Evaluation Ad Hoc Working group, to heading the drafting
group of the International Convention against Doping in Sport, the
representative of Saint Lucia gave that country a place at the table. Serving
in that position till 2016, the institutional memory and experience she gained,
made her a pillar of the organisation and one to whom many other diplomats
would turn to for advice and guidance. This accrued goodwill for the country
she represented.
Saint Lucia’s choice of
an individual resulted in the country gaining immense goodwill and the
positioning of the country in a crucial arm of the UN system. Irrespective of
the prospects of that country or its position on the global power ladder, Saint
Lucia wasn’t subsumed within the greater machinations of a large organisation
like UNESCO. Instead the choice of an individual to lead its cause made the
difference and ensured effective engagement and the building of a positive
image.
Positive
Image
Countries are concerned
about image. The desire to project a positive image is at the heart of
diplomacy. Strategizing diplomacy to project that positive image becomes its
very raison d'être. It is only
through concerted diplomatic action and engagement that projections, alteration
of perceptions, or even interaction can hope to be established. Diplomacy rests
at the very heart of international relations. Possessing a systemic approach
through the institutionalization of the field for centuries, diplomacy is at the
vanguard of international issues. Being the peaceful and preferred option, its
multifaceted construct, makes diplomacy in all its forms and manifestations the
pivot of progress in the world.
Often countries struggle
with three main causes for concern - reality, perceptions and resources. In
conducting diplomacy, countries have to be mindful of understanding the reality
themselves. It is only when one
comprehends the ground reality and is able to communicate its circumstances
effectively is the challenge overcome. Similarly with perceptions, attempting
to change them instantly is redundant given that perceptions are built up over
a concerted period of time and will only be demolished over a similar period.
It is however mandatory
that steps are taken through the diplomatic apparatus to deconstruct such
perceptions, irrespective of the time involved, through repeated
clarifications. Going further countries are called upon to be proactive rather
than predominantly reactive. Waiting to respond to others narratives
complicates messages and it is always better to commence the process rather
than merely contribute to it.
In terms of resources a
continuous increase and improvement of resources is essential for a
comprehensive undertaking in diplomacy. Countries need to ensure that
resources, in whatever form from individuals, infrastructure, and infusions of
finance are devoted to the foreign policy sector. Budgets have to prioritize
this sector as it is the most crucial in international engagement and will
determine the success of numerous other sectors within the country, which rely
on the outside world.
Irrespective of whether
it is in understanding reality, clarifying perceptions or devoting more
resources, it is the usage of personality that matters to the greatest degree.
As evidenced with Saint Lucia, the choice of individuals ensures the success of
strategized diplomacy or its dismal failure. While that which is formulated
might be the most suitable, and timely action plans could be drawn up in
strategizing diplomacy of a given country, it is the human resources involved
in implementing it that play a most crucial role and cannot be compromised at
any cost.
Generating
growth
Through multilateral
fora states are afforded the unique platform of being able to reach out to a
diversity of countries, with which bilateral connectivity may not be strong.
This arena gives policy formulators the ability to strategize in a manner which
would accrue greater dividends and provide better visibility in their
interactions.
The appointment of
ambassadors singularly to regional headquarters that are located in many
capitals increases momentum of interaction, helps a country realize its
potential and more importantly guarantees visibility in that grouping. This
visibility can transcend into tangible returns as the presence of an envoy on
the ground has been proven to be far more valuable owing to the ability to
network, rather than to have distant contact with a grouping.
Of those organisations
in which states are categorized as Dialogue Partners or Observers it is
essential that special attention is devoted if that state intends increasing
its involvement and/or membership in the long term. Irrespective of the status
of membership in such multilateral fora of significance is the seat at the
table, and inclusion in the dialogue.
Countries that didn’t
have direct connection with the British Empire, nor were colonized by Britain
have gained membership in the Commonwealth. The rational is the ability to gain
that much more by being a part of it, than being apart from it. Rwanda is one
such country and will be hosting the next Commonwealth Heads of Government
Meeting (CHOGM) once the pandemic recedes. The country is keen to be endorsed
as an international conference destination and to change the perception that
existed owing to its troublesome past. The opportunity to serve as the next
Chair-in-Office will give Rwanda recognition within the Commonwealth and
thereby attract tangible benefits, especially through the Commonwealth Business
Forum which is set to take place on the sidelines of the summit.
The Shanghai
Cooperation Organisation (SCO) has six Dialogue Partners of which Turkey drives
the energy discourse within the grouping. Turkey is not a full member but has
been instrumental in this sector since 2017 and has the opportunity of
increasing momentum towards full membership. The contribution is being viewed
in positive light from a political perspective, is bolstering energy
cooperation and is aiding the country in its efforts to become an energy hub.
The African Union (AU)
in partnering with the United Nations through the Joint Task on Peace and
Security has become the key to the success of peacekeeping operations. From the
Central African Republic, to the Democratic Republic of Congo, Guinea-Bissau,
South Sudan and the Horn of Africa, contention remains a critical factor yet
the collaborative nature of work has seen a decrease in tension. Ethiopia has
faced internal political issues but as host of the AU, member states have rallied
around the country. From an Ethiopian perspective the steps taken by Haile
Selassie in forming the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) in 1963 is seeing
affirmative action today.
The Association for
South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) at its inception in 1967 was deemed a grouping
that would fail given the internal issues that the five founding members were
facing as well as the animosity amongst these countries. Yet collective action
facilitated change. The change has resulted in ASEAN being regarded today as one
of the most progressive regional groupings and its members have gained
immensely from the stability it brought to the sub-region, and from the peace
that followed. Identified as the ‘Balkans of the East’ owing to the diversity
and friction, the member states were able to alter such differences to their
advantage through cogent policy formulation individually and collectively, and
generate growth.
Diversifying
approaches
Through multilateral fora,
states are at liberty to evolve innovative means of engaging in the world of
diplomacy, though particular parameters do exist, to enable the sphere to be
globally accepted. The freedom afforded countries makes it possible for them to
adopt unique approaches. The diversification of the field and inclusion of new
actors makes it more competitive and deserves attention in its totality if
countries are going to remain relevant on the global stage.
Whilst culinary
diplomacy is relatively new as a concept the deed has existed for a
considerable period of time. The showcasing of gastronomic delights, through
food exhibitions, not only introduces nationals of other countries to one’s own
cuisine but more importantly generates a platform to present culture. Cultural
exchanges or cultural diplomacy augments mainstream diplomacy as a soft power
tool. Ranging from movies to music, and dance to drama, that which can be
highlighted through cultural diplomacy remains limitless. Such forms extend to
Public Diplomacy to reach people, and to further areas such as Military
Diplomacy, and its varied off shoots, including Gunboat Diplomacy, Air
Diplomacy, Maritime Diplomacy, as well as Religious Diplomacy, and its variant
forms of usage notably Buddhist Diplomacy and Islamic Diplomacy in particular.
Similarly with more
political forms of diplomatic engagement such as Shuttle Diplomacy complimenting
the main diplomatic channels, branches dealing with science, sports, energy and
economics all form deeply ingrained areas of diplomatic connectivity. Using
these models in multilateral fora or basing multilateralism on such formats
enables member states to explore hitherto tapped spheres and diversify their
approach to diplomacy.
The characterization of
diplomacy, with pioneering and widening scope of each and every sub-sect that
exist to-date has given diplomacy opportunity as never experienced before.
Through multilateral bodies states have the ability to promote themselves, support
regional groupings they belong to, engage as widely as they wish by sharing
best practices, undertake mutually beneficial arrangements, bolster existing
cooperative mechanisms and establish new ones.
Multiplying
multilateralism through strategized diplomacy ensures a synergic effect that
will guarantee rich dividends for groupings and states alike, and most
importantly ensure the prevalence of stability. States and their leaders have
the option of either remaining static and volatile or synergized and stable.
Though the effect of synergy remains elusive, at least from an International
Relations perspective its effect when applied through multilateralism becomes
more apparent and weighs heavily towards the effectiveness of the sphere.
In 2020, we mark the
centenary of multilateralism. Stakeholders owe it to the founders of
multilateralism to strengthen, strategize and synergize the scope of the field.
With deeper engagement and wider collaboration, states will be able to reap a
bountiful harvest, which would stand them in good stead in the years and
decades ahead.
The time for action is
here and now.
