MULTIPLYING MULTILATERALISM - Strengthening Multilateral Diplomacy for strategic synergy

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 75^th 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.

A CENTURY OF MULTILATERALISM: WILL IT LAST ANOTHER 100?

-         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 08^th 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 10^th 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 28^th June 1919 to 21^st 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 1^st 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 24^th October 1945, multilateralism triumphed once more as faith was reposited in collective action over unilateral or bilateral measures alone. The ensuing decades of the 20^th 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 21^st 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.

GLOBAL GOVERNANCE: CHINA’S CONTRIBUTION THROUGH THE SHANGHAI COOPERATION ORGANISATION

- George I. H. Cooke

Global Governance: where are we?

Symbiotic associations among states and peoples have occurred over centuries whilst a semblance of collective governance on an international scale in varied forms and manifestations has existed from time immemorial. The building of empires, which were spread over many centuries, did result in governance from powerful capitals, yet this was a forced form of governance on weaker nations. Differing periods of colonialism saw large swathes of the world being governed by conquering nations, mostly emanating from Europe.

City states and subsequently nation states had interacted with and amongst each other, but a global network hadn’t been realized until the founding of the League of Nations. Here global governance in its modern form began to take shape through this initial experience. It was with the establishment of the League on 20 January 1920, pursuant to the Paris Peace Conference that ended the Great War, that was later identified as the First World War, that voluntary and free willed cooperation begin to emerge in the world.

The League may have faltered in the quarter century of its existence, yet nations started realizing the potential of a cooperative mechanism. World peace, collective security, disarmament, the resolution of international disputes by peaceful means such as negotiation and arbitration, measures to curb human and drug trafficking, improving labour conditions, ensuring health care and a myriad other issues became the focus of nations that came together in the League of Nations.

Whilst the outbreak of the Second World War spelt the end of the League, it didn’t curb the enthusiasm of nations and their leaders to ensure that a new and innovative approach would be adopted when war ceased. The preparation, throughout the Second World War, for what would occur after the battles had ended, is testimony to the foresight of leaders to forge a common stance, which resulted in the establishment of the United Nations Organisation in 1945. Over the last century since the creation of the League, and more specifically in the seven decades since the founding of the UN, humanity has grappled with numerous causes for concern when the world has been on the brink of a Third World War, yet managed to avert all out disaster owing to many factors including sound diplomacy, economics and sheer power.  

The rise of regionalism in the twentieth century with the emergence of numerous groupings based on, but not often limited, to geography, resulted in the creation of a heavily intertwined network. The connectivity which was formerly carried out through neighbouring nation states coming together has evolved today to include associations based on security, religion, culture and economic cooperation. It has led to deeper reliance on one another, generating an environment in which states are not isolated anymore.

Ahead of the centenary in 2020, reviewing the progress made, identifying areas in which states have faltered, comprehending the scope of that which is to come and strategizing for future, it is prudent to analyse the role of specific groupings and countries in the promotion of global governance. Today amid a flurry of economic connectivity, states, especially those in the global south, are reaching out for enhanced trade, guaranteed markets and greater investment to boost their economies and ensure prosperity. For most of the twentieth century, this tangible cooperation was forthcoming from the West, as the Cold War dominated global affairs. Yet with the closing of the last century, it is evident that states of the east and most of the global south, which provided moral support in the past, have rapidly emerged, some ahead of others.

Amongst states that have undergone rapid advancement, the leader is China. Over the seven decades since the founding of the Peoples Republic of China, the country has risen in a plethora of sectors, taken on a catalytic role in global affairs, and is transforming the rationale of global governance. Through its involvement in international associations, ranging from the UN, Group of 20 (G20), the Boao Forum for Asia and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) among others, and also through its own domestic and foreign policies such as the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), China has ensured a massive presence in the world. It has also resulted in countries grappling to understand the rise of China, some trying to counter its growth, whilst most are eager to enhance relations and experience similar growth and prosperity.

China’s impact on global governance is being felt in almost every country around the world. Shouldering greater responsibility in global affairs, China’s involvement is not confined to a particular country or group of countries, nor to a specific region. Over the last four decades China has gained influence, but borne the responsibility that goes with it. Having attempted to play a greater role in existing structures, China has moved ahead by creating new and innovative mechanisms based on her own attributes which stem from but are not limited to history, culture, size and the ensuing potential.

Some in the west have turned their back on globalization, jeopardizing the process, network and institutions they fought hard to establish. In the wake of rising nationalism and economic protectionism that has spread rapidly in the last few years, China is seen today to be providing the support and cooperation the global south yearns for. Developing countries, in their inherent desire to enhance prosperity and improve the livelihoods of their peoples, are bereft of the tangible support that once flowed from the West. China has been able to fill the vacuum, but through unique means. China’s two pronged approach of working bilaterally and multilaterally has seen the country make immense headway in both arenas.

The bilateral connectivity was carefully nurtured over the last seven decades and has been enhanced by the BRI and the resulting investment and development. From a multilateral perspective, China is one of the strongest advocates of cooperation and integration. Believing in the need to share opportunities and generate mutually beneficial arrangements, China is using her position in many international groupings to share positive experiences and ways by which they can be replicated, in a bid to improve conditions internationally.

Growth of the SCO: power house of the 21^st century

The last century ended with the Treaty on Deepening Military Trust in Border Regions being inked in Shanghai. The resulting Shanghai Five brought together China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia and Tajikistan. In 2001 the group added Uzbekistan and was renamed the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. Bringing together key Dialogue Partners and Observers, the SCO’s decision to include India and Pakistan as full members in 2017, saw the Organisation growing but more importantly transforming into a larger Asian alliance. Estimated to be the largest organisation in geography and population after the UN itself, the SCO has, over less than two decades, consolidated its position on the world stage.

Originally formed as a confidence building forum to demilitarize borders, the SCO has expanded its mandate to include increased military and counter-terrorism cooperation and intelligence sharing. Geared towards tackling the ‘three evils’ of terrorism, separatism and extremism, the states involved have effectively cooperated through a multitude of fora, such as joint drills and other cooperative mechanisms, to thwart the rise and/or spread of the ‘three evils’. The amalgamation of political summits with peace games in Bishkek in 2007, intense cooperation between the SCO and the Russian-led Collective Security Treaty Organisation and the formulation of an Anti-Extremism Convention, the outfit has realized the need to respond to growing challenges from outside the region and to respond collectively if an impact is to be made.

Identified as one of the most influential and powerful entities in global affairs, its strength comes from its membership and their high level of commitment. The inclusion of India and Pakistan bodes well for many. India and Pakistan receive the opportunity of working closely with each other and with China and Russia respectively as they allay their past misgivings, and bilateral differences for a greater cause. The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) has a sliver of hope if neighbours decide to work in unison. The formula is thus a win-win situation and is positively impacting other groupings.     

Just as the 19^th century was identified as the British Century and the 20^th was dubbed the American Century, the 21^st it is widely argued, belongs to Asia. Robust economic growth, rapid development, expanding populations and poor performances in other quarters of the world, indicate a possible realization of an Asian Century. With the inclusion of Russia, through the SCO and as a northern neighbour in the greater Asian region, key aspects of power are thrown into the formula, ensuring a success story. With China, India and Russia the prospects for the grouping remain endless.

China’s role in the SCO: Synergizing for the future

China led the SCO in 2012 and took over the presidency once again in June 2017. Since then China has created new platforms for deliberations and widened the scope of the organisation, to ensure greater representation, meaningful involvement and deeper interaction at all levels among the member states. From the first SCO Peoples Forum in Xi’an in April, to the first SCO Women’s Summit in May, the first ever SCO Media Summit in Beijing in June, and thereafter hosting the SCO Summit in Qingdao, also in June, China has provided reinvigoration and led in the effort to transform the SCO.

Forging consensus among member states to implement an initiative of the Chinese NGO Association for International Exchanges, the Peoples Forum brought together more than 80 delegates from across the SCO region as well as those from Cambodia, Nepal and Sri Lanka, as Dialogue Partner countries for several days of deliberations and in a bid to further consolidate the connectivity between SCO states.

In 2017, President Xi Jinping called for closer people to people connectivity, and the need to ensure a shared vision for humanity. His offer of Chinese solutions to meet the onslaught of challenges gripping the global community, generated avenues for deeper cooperation, mutual trust, and common development, all of which are enshrined in the Shanghai spirit. Sharing the Chinese experience, the SCO Peoples Forum was an opportunity of understanding the potential of building bridges of communication and securing lasting peace, which could be a means of guaranteeing universal security. As an exercise in public diplomacy, the Forum ensured the realization of a Chinese proverb that the relations between states lie in the affinity of their people.

At the SCO Summit, the Chinese leader identified four areas for closer cooperation amongst member states. He identified the need to return to the Shanghai Spirit and act to advance the areas of mutual trust, mutual benefit, equality, consultation, respect for diverse civilizations and pursuit of common development, and enhance solidarity and coordination. President Xi called for the SCO to provide heightened emphasis on cooperation in the field of security with the ‘three evils’ remaining the focus, as the SCO works towards shared development by promoting a freer, more open interplay in the economic arena. His fourth call was for the SCO to play a more comprehensive role in world affairs.

The structured approach advocated by China is a reflection of her own policies wherein, successful attempts have been made to reduce poverty, improve livelihoods, generate growth, ensure a greater degree of prosperity and common development, safeguard peoples, and increase the influence of China internationally. Irrespective of the region or country, the provision of development assistance increases the influence that China has in the world, but of relevance is that the assistance is being sought by states, and not being forced on them by China. As the only country with the capacity to provide the assistance at the current scale, Chinese investments across the world, have been able to drastically change domestic dynamics within recipient countries.

Countries of the global north are among the chief beneficiaries. Hosting President Xi in 2015, the United Kingdom had received an estimated $16 billion between 2000 and 2014, while Germany received $8.4 billion, France was close behind with $8 billion, and Portugal and Italy received $6.7 billion and $5.6 billion respectively, during the same period. Currently ranked as the number one investor among foreign governments in the United States, with an estimated $1.18 trillion, China holds 21% of America’s debt.

Developing countries rely on China but this in turn bodes well for South-South cooperation, as the fast changing tide with which China gradually assumes a higher, if not the highest role in the international hierarchy, augurs well for all developing countries. It needs to be understood in the Asian context, then the region as a whole can share the success of an Asian neighbour. Xi had no qualms in stating that ‘China is an important member of the Asian family and the global family. China cannot develop itself in isolation from the rest of Asia and the world. On their part, the rest of Asia and the world cannot enjoy prosperity and stability without China.’ [1]

 

China has accepted her role, and is clearly emerging as the next world leader. It is obvious that the sooner she is viewed as a partner and is joined in the pursuit of development, the sooner Asia and in fact many other regions of the world, will gain strength and stability.

---

[1] http://www.china.org.cn/business/Boao_Forum_2013/2013-04/10/content_28501562.htm