THE NEED FOR AN EMERGENCY SESSION OF THE UNGA: Why the UN and Member States must act collectively

By George I. H. Cooke

In less than 48 hours, attacks and counter attacks have shaken West Asia, killed hundreds, injured hundreds more, caused panic and chaos, and destroyed infrastructure, with ripple effects even felt in adjoining regions. Unlike the attacks that took place in June 2025, those launched on 28 February 2026 caused the death of the leader of Iran. This has significant repercussions with Iran having to respond, and in doing so they claim to be targeting US interest in the region, but those interests are located in neighbouring countries. This has resulted in an extremely volatile situation that has the tendency to escalate, until and unless those at war take a step back and understand the risks posed. While the debate rages on the legitimacy, magnitude and impact of the attacks, the world is perilously close to mayhem and it is the responsibility of governments around the world to take a stance.

Expressions of concern are important. Presidents and Prime Ministers across the world have expressed concern and called for caution. Such expressions convey sentiments to protagonists to be mindful of opinion, but such expressions individually by leaders in different countries are not sufficient at critical moments in history. Joint stances and collective action are what count, and member states of the United Nations have a responsibility to step forward and call for an emergency session of the General Assembly which is of utmost importance at this stage. Whilst leaders themselves may not be able to travel to New York, it is the duty of Permanent Representatives to meet and explore options out of the current stalemate.

Diplomacy has been the main recourse for decades. The United Nations has averted a third World War owing to effective diplomacy. In this 80th year of its existence the global body can play a pioneering role as it has on numerous occasions in the past. At the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis, it was a South Asian, at the helm in New York - U. Thant - who was able to effectively mediate and ensure a reduction of tension. Thant brought the world back from the brink. If not for his mediatory role, the world would have very likely seen the impact of nuclear weapons as Kennedy, Khrushchev and Castro all remained determined to traverse their individual paths.

Thant, who was at the time the Acting Secretary General, having been sworn in for a year following the tragic death of Dag Hammarskjöld, was able to diplomatic engage with all concerned, and he had the backing of the rest of the world. The most important tool in his armoury however was the strong support that he received from the White House and Kremlin, where both saw him as a neutral personality, with the best interests of the global community. This was his biggest asset, an asset which unfortunately Antonio Guterres does not possess, through no fault of his own.

Iran hails from one of the oldest civilizations on the planet. It is a country of the Non-Aligned Movement, it is a partner in the G77 grouping, it is also member state of the Global South. For too long Member States of all these bodies have taken a back seat, and kept lamenting, especially over the growing power of the United States of America, and its heightened degree of influence in capitals around the world. It is absolutely correct that America is the world’s leading economy, and leader on the world stage, but it is also a country that espouses democracy. In a democratic environment there can be dissent, there can be differences of opinion, and there can be the adoption of different courses of action. It is through diplomacy that such differences are ironed out, and not by mere submission. America is against the dictatorial ideals in certain quarters of the world, and needs to be engaged with diplomatically, with national positions explained.

It is inspiring that the current leadership of America is attempting to make their country great, again. It is also imperative for the leadership of other countries to make their countries great too. While national interest is paramount, what might be concerning is the level of dependency on America, and therefore the hesitancy to step forward at this time, for fear of reprisals. However, it is also essential to remember once again that democracy is the common bedrock of most our countries. We must possess the ability to agree on some issues, and to agree to disagree, on others. It is only through skilled diplomacy that such efforts can be realised.

At this time, the world needs peace. The head of state of a country of the Global South has been assassinated and much violence is ensuing. For this to stop, there has to be a collection of voices from around the world. These have to collectively emanate from the United Nations, which is at the heart of global affairs. For too long the UN has had to step in when the crisis has escalated and is blowing out of proportion. This is yet another situation where the UN needs to step in, but Member States have a crucial responsibility to strengthen the body. Regional groupings have potential but it is only through a global call for an end to the violence, that a reduction in tension will occur.

Member States must be proactive in calling for an Emergency Session of the United Nations General Assembly. Such an Emergency Session will send out a strong message to conflicting parties to stop their actions and return to negotiations and use diplomacy as their means of engagement. From the first Emergency Session of the UNGA that took place in November 1956 at the height of the Suez Crisis, to the eleventh session in 2022 and 2023 over the Russian invasion of Ukraine, there has been a dominance of issues emanating from West Asia that have warranted such sessions. It is through diplomatic engagement that ways can be found to initially halt the violence and fear, and thereafter address further issues.

Lest we forget, the Vietnam War ended chiefly due to opposition from the American public. People made a difference by calling on their government to withdraw and end the hostilities as thousands had been killed and injured. It was the millions turning out in demonstrations that turned the tide from support for the war effort to opposition. There has to be momentum. Momentum must come from Member States who take concerted action to thwart the escalation of violence and the potential of much greater destruction.

This momentum must be encouraged by reaching out beyond the Global South. While it is understood that countries of the developed world have issues with Iran, the need of the hour is an end to the hostilities, and this is where the Global South can partner with much of the developed world. It is in the interest of the entire global community to see an end to the attacks, irrespective of individual positions on Iran.

The Global South alone comprises of between 80% and 85% of the world population. Collectively the Global South can do so much to support each other but has tended to traverse differing paths owing to varied reasons. The current moment is a golden opportunity for the Global South to come together, include much of the developed world, and demand an end to the bombings which are making an oil-rich region highly volatile.

An Emergency Session of the UNGA might not be viewed positively by the main protagonists, but it is certainly the way forward for the rest of the world, that does not want an entire region to go up in flames. It would also constitute collective action of the majority on the planet, which is how democracies function.

THE DEMOCRACY THAT IS INDIA: INTRIGUING, EVOLVING AND INSPIRING

Marking 75 years of Indian Independence

By George I. H. Cooke

Preserving democratic values, ensuring the maintenance of democratic standards and strengthening the process of democratization, are formidable measures for any country. When a country with a population of nearly one and a half billion embraces democracy as its political ideology, continuously champions this system for more than seven decades and implements it across the entirety of its length and breadth and at all levels of its political being, it is clear that democracy has been able to withstand much. India is today the largest democracy on the planet, and with its position comes much responsibility.

The democratization of India, whereby the world saw the abandoning of hereditary monarchical systems, and the dismantling of the privileged structure that had existed even through colonialism, was to set India on a pedestal. Yet this pedestal was not one of natural influence and ability. It did not occur accidentally either. It was to be one on which and from which India, her leaders and people would be called upon to formulate and implement policies that would sustain democracy, nurture its values and ensure that all - irrespective of their communities, religions and castes - who identified as Indian, would be beneficiaries. The journey was not without its challenges, but it is the journey itself that remains remarkable.

The Intrigue - Lessons of the Past

At Independence, Jawaharlal Nehru, was at pains to ensure that India remained a secular nation, which rallied around the Indian flag and identified primarily as Indians, before all else. Undoubtedly it was a firm foundation that gave the Indian nation a strong start. His presence at the helm for seventeen years till 1964 guaranteed that the seeds he sowed would have the opportunity to grow unhindered for nearly two decades. In many neighbouring countries of South Asia, leaders at independence did not survive for even a decade thereafter to see the results of their pre-independence struggles or to fully implement policies they deemed fit for their emerging countries.

India thus received an advantageous commencement on a journey, that has seemed more like a race, with neighbours, with the Cold War, with non-alignment, and with economic liberalization among other entities and concepts, but most importantly with internal challenges of keeping a country as diverse, as different, and as divided as India, together. This diversity is upheld today as a great boost for image and publicity in the international community. Yet arriving at the present involved much cohabitation, compromise and cooperation, that was, is and continues to be unparalleled in the world.

The Evolution – Overcoming Challenges

While it is argued that the holding of elections at regular intervals and electing leaders are not the totality of democracy, they are key components. In the last 75 years Indians have elected leaders and political parties and in so doing removed others, who were subsequently bought back at later times. Leaders have resigned, died in office, been assassinated, Parliament has been attacked, the fundamentals of democracy have come under siege, but despite all of these occurrences and much more, the Republic remains strong. Presiding over a federal system that aims to embrace the diversity and overcome the differences is a complex task. In reflecting upon that which has been, it is evident that the complexity has been comprehended. If not, the Republic would have disintegrated quite some time ago.

Lincoln observed that people remain at the core of any democracy. Whether the ones who are elected, or the ones who elect, it is people who are the direct beneficiaries of any democratic society. Thus, people must never leave the equation nor allow themselves to be excluded from it. If any attempt has been made or is being made to restrict that which a democracy affords, all effort needs to be exerted to rein in the constrictions and permit instead the prevalence and proliferation of all that a democracy stands for.

In neighbouring Sri Lanka, the oldest democracy in this part of the world having gained universal franchise in 1931, when efforts were underway to undermine people, with ill-advised policies, erroneous decisions, incompetent leadership and heightened corruption, that collectively misled a nation of 21 million, people rose up. In proof that democracies are constantly evolving, the people forced leaders out of office due to the aforementioned reasons, and demanded change. While mandates are given at elections, mandates can also be withdrawn especially through mass protests that signify the displeasure of the people and their desire to safeguard the democratic standards that are enshrined in the constitution and which must be preserved in a democracy.

The Inspiration - Strategizing for the Future

Democracy with all its complexities and connotations is still the optimal governance system for any country. Giving people the freedom to elect their representatives who in turn are called upon to formulate sound policies which would have a positive impact on the entirety of the polity, is by far the accepted form of governance, and is widely practiced. India, as the world’s largest democracy has a bigger burden. This is not confined to the implementation of proactive democratic principles within the country alone. It extends to the immediate sub region, the greater Asian region, and the international community. The Indian model, despite its complications and conundrums experienced within, is still the largest working model in the world today. With the growth in population, this position is not likely to be changed for the rest of the 21^st century, and would only be further strengthened in the decades to come.

The onus is thus on India. Indian leaders have an obligation to their people, which extends beyond. The first obligation is to the people of the vast country to be able to live in a society that enshrines basics freedoms, guarantees equality in all respects, and promotes understanding amid diversity. At no time must the citizenry of a country that occupies this primal position be forced to compromise on their freedoms, have their voices silenced, find themselves bereft of recourse to justice, encounter an erosion of democratic institutions, or have any form of ideology foisted upon them. The liberal nature of democracy can create space for such challenges to thrive, but it is the people who remain at the core, and who must be able to thwart any weakening or destabilizing of the democratic norms upon which their nation has been built.

The second obligation is to countries that adhere to the democratic form of governance. If a country the size of India falters, the repercussions would be widespread. Thus far the country has survived in close geographic proximity to two of the largest countries, that advocate different policies of governance. Whilst their preferred policies have been implemented for decades, and would prove effective for them as a means of governance, the larger Asian neighbourhood has adopted democratic norms, as has most of the world. Any faltering or failure to remain the strong, representative democracy that India was envisioned to be at independence, would prove detrimental to many.

Given the challenging global environment in which democracy attempts to thrive, with a skew of ‘isms’ disrupting countries and their courses, India has a third obligation to the democratic tradition as a whole. The concept was first coined in the middle of the 5^th century to denote the system of governance in Greek city states, which had populations of several thousands. Thereafter it survived millennia, and is today practiced in a single country that possesses a population of nearly one and a half billion. This is testimony to the fundamental importance of the system, its traits and what it proffers its adherents. Therein India remains an inspiration to all, from fledgling states to well-founded ones, and cannot renounce its role.

As India surges ahead towards further milestones, it is the action taken at present, that would see the country emerge as a global giant or remain a regional power. Whether through partnerships with the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD) or membership in the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multisectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC) or even Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), through intensified performance in larger multilateral bodies like the United Nations and its affiliated agencies and organizations, or even in its bilateral relations in South Asia and the world, India can readily rely on two key features, democracy and diplomacy. Both have been strategically implemented and have stood the country in good stead. However as with all key characteristics, no lapses can be encountered, no slips allowed and no mistakes permitted.

India’s place in the world, and also in history has been guaranteed to a large extent by its democratic credentials, which have been bolstered by an effective diplomatic apparatus. In its engagement with the people of India, the people of the region, and those of the world, the Indian leadership has and must continue to safeguard democratic ideals, and guarantee their implementation. A strategized foreign policy administered by an effective and efficient diplomatic structure will see the country raise its stakes for global leadership, realize that which was envisaged more than seven decades ago, and reinforce the enormity of potential and opportunity of the country and her people.

 

 

 

 

 

MARITIME CONVENTIONS, DISASTERS AND HUBS: SRI LANKA’S DECISIVE HOUR IS HERE

 World Oceans Day 2021

 By George I. H. Cooke

The territorial waters of Sri Lanka have experienced maritime disasters for centuries. The presence of numerous hulls on the sea bed around the country are testimony to the battles that were fought, and the accidents that occurred in close proximity to the island nation. Whilst the hulls are a grim reminder of the past, the impact on the environment at that time remains sketchy, and hardly any lessons seem to have been learnt from each disaster. Much has remained unaccounted for and hence the repetition of such catastrophes is witnessed. Sri Lanka, known by various names in the centuries gone by, was a shipping hub with the presence of numerous international traders, trading companies and countries that vied for engagement with the island from pre-colonial through to colonial times.

Sri Lanka's strategic maritime importance

The island remained of strategic maritime importance to the British, whose military expressed concern at the granting of independence, owing to the connectivity the island afforded. A report of the British Chiefs of Staff dated May 05, 1947 noted that “The island forms an essential link in our cable and wireless network to Australia and the Far East. It is also the centre of our naval intelligence organisations for countries bordering the Indian Ocean. Inability to use Ceylon would deprive us of the only existing main fleet base between Malta and Singapore and would seriously weaken our control of the Indian Ocean…”

From the first Prime Minister onwards, attention was focused on the strategic importance of the island. D. S. Senanayake in his independence message observed that “We are in a specially dangerous position because we are on one of the strategic highways of the world. The country which captures Ceylon could dominate the Indian Ocean.” Such was the importance attached to the locality not only from a strategic perspective of geopolitics, but also owing to the relevance of the island from security and commercial angles.

At the height of the Cold War nuclear action by the two power blocs in their tussle with each other could have had far reaching repercussions. In 1971, Ceylon’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Hamilton S. Amerasinghe called for the inclusion of an additional item in the agenda of the 26^th session of the UN General Assembly on the ‘Declaration of the Indian Ocean as a Zone of Peace’. Later in October 1971, Ceylon’s Prime Minister Sirimavo Bandaranaike called for the acceptance of this proposal to avert a crisis in the Indian Ocean by prohibiting the passage of military vessels. The effort was to raise concern about the potential impact that war could have on the countries of the Indian Ocean, and the disasters that would grip the countries of South Asia and its neighbourhood. 

The Blue Economy

The continuous stress on the relevance of the oceans, is now on the concept of the Blue Economy and its potential, especially for a country like Sri Lanka. As the island looks to strategize beyond merely fishing, and focuses on the multitude of opportunities that oceans provide, Sri Lanka is looking to enhance its shipping connectivity, and evolve into a maritime hub once again. This potential could be realized through the multifaceted aquatic resources, aquaculture, seabed deposits, marine biotechnology, as well as the beaches which heavily support the tourism industry. However they would all be heavily affected not only in the short to medium term after maritime disasters, but would also face the long term impact which damages the ecosystem and the economy. At present urgent commitment to the improvement of standards, abiding by international regulations, and enhancement of facilities remain critical areas that deserve immediate attention.

Maritime Hub 

In order to evolve into a maritime hub in the 21^st century unlike how it was centuries ago, Sri Lanka needs to be more aware of its international obligations and effectively study the conventions which have been ratified, as well as those which have been bypassed for varied reasons at the time they were adopted at the international level.

In the last two decades alone several maritime disasters caused immense concern, and much damage in Sri Lanka’s territorial waters. In 1999 MV Melishka began sinking off Dondra and finally ran aground off the Bundala coast. It subsequently deposited 16,500 metric tonnes of fertilizer and 200 metric tonnes of heavy fuel oil. 2006 saw MV Amanat Shah causing a spill of 25 metric tonnes of oil and dropping over 800 teak logs into the ocean off Kogolla. Further up the eastern coast of Sri Lanka, in the seas off Trincomalee, the MT Granba experienced a leak in 2009, leading to the eventual sinking of the ship and its cargo of 6,250 tonnes of sulphuric acid. In 2019, when the vessel, Sri Lankan Glory washed ashore in Galle timely action resulted in the removal of 15 tonnes of fuel on board which averted a further disaster. Similarly in 2020, another large scale disaster was mitigated when the MT New Diamond carrying 270,000 tonnes of oil caught fire east of Sri Lanka but was eventually towed out of territorial waters although an oil slick was reported at the time.

The latest incident concerning MV X-Press Pearl off the western coast of the island highlights once again the risks faced by maritime nations but more importantly draws attention to the need for countries to be prepared for such eventualities. Whilst the preparation remains very much national, it is only through international collaboration that countries are able to raise standards and ensure readiness for any form of disaster that might occur within and beyond its territorial waters. 

Maritime Conventions

It was collective action that saw a Convention establishing the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization (IMCO) in 1948, as the main specialized agency of the United Nations mandated to ensure ‘the safety and security of shipping and the prevention of marine and atmospheric pollution by ships.’ The Convention came into operation in 1958 and IMCO convened for the first in 1959. Whilst the name of IMCO changed to the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in 1982, the objective of ‘Safe, secure and efficient shipping on clean oceans’ continued.

Sri Lanka ratified the Convention in 1972 only after the country called for international action to safeguard the Indian Ocean. Whilst the Convention had been in operation for well over a decade it was a national requirement that led to the subsequent ratification. Several Conventions that were initiated from then onwards have been ratified by Sri Lanka while many others remain unratified. It takes a national requirement to re-examine these Conventions. The current development off the western coast of Sri Lanka and the environmental disaster that is already being witnessed for miles along the coast is a critical juncture for Sri Lanka to re-examine the maritime conventions that have been ratified and ensure complete implementation, while also identifying those which have not been ratified and to take suitable action at the earliest.

The International Convention for Safe Containers (CSC) which came into force in 1977 is yet to be ratified by Sri Lanka. First drawn up in 1972, after a study of the safety of containerization in marine transport, the CSC has two objectives. Whilst it is aimed at maintaining internationally accepted levels of safety of human life, it also attempts to lay out international safety regulations. This uniformity is crucial given the universality of the shipping industry.

The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) which was adopted in 1973 and has several Protocols that were introduced in the ensuing years, has seen Sri Lanka ratifying Annexes I, II, III, IV and V, but not VI. Covering the prevention of pollution of the marine environment and ecosystems by ships due to operational or accidental causes, the Convention’s six technical annexures call for strict adherence in the areas of oil, noxious liquid substances, harmful substances carried by sea in packaged form, sewage, garbage and air pollution. The Convention remains a landmark agreement that deserves much deeper study especially in addressing the current situation in Sri Lanka.

The International Convention relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties was adopted in 1969 and came into force in 1975. While Sri Lanka ratified the Convention, the 1973 Protocol is yet to be ratified. This Convention gives countries like Sri Lanka ample area for action when vessels cause maritime disasters and is yet another Convention that needs to be invoked in the current scenario.

The International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Cooperation (OPRC) which was adopted in 1990 and came into operation in 1995, has not been ratified by Sri Lanka. This Convention calls upon parties to it to “establish measures for dealing with pollution incidents, either nationally or in co-operation with other countries.” These are not adhoc measures but instead are ones which are strategized upon well in advance and are thus operationalized as and when disasters occur. Ships are required to have a ‘shipboard oil pollution emergency plan’ and member states to have ‘stockpiles of oil spill combating equipment, the holding of oil spill combating exercises and the development of detailed plans for dealing with pollution incidents.’ With the IMO playing the crucial role of coordination, this Convention is essential for countries, especially Sri Lanka as the island develops into a maritime hub. Further, a Protocol related to hazardous and noxious substances was adopted in 2000.

The International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage (CLC) was adopted in 1969 and came into force in 1975, and thereafter was replaced by the 1992 Protocol which came into force in 1996. Sri Lanka has ratified the 1992 Protocol which calls for adequate compensation at times of oil pollution damaging the territory and territorial sea of a State Party to the Convention. The 1992 Protocol also expanded the operability of the Convention to include the exclusive economic zone (EEZ).

The International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in connection with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea (HNS) was first adopted in 1996 but did not come into force. It was superseded by the 2010 Protocol which is also yet to come into force. Only Canada, Denmark, Norway, South Africa and Turkey have ratified the Protocol which proposes the establishment of a two tier system for compensation wherein the first tier involves the ship owner’s insurance providing funds and the second tier draws from a fund formed by recipients of the HNS. The payment of dues towards this fund is seen as a stumbling block in its ratification as the amount is calculated based on the amount drawn in the preceding year. For it to come into force ‘at least twelve States, including four States each with not less than 2 million units of gross tonnage, [need to] have expressed their consent to be bound by it’.

The International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage (BUNKER) which was adopted in 2001 and came into force in 2008 is yet to be ratified by Sri Lanka. The Convention lays emphasis on damage owing to spillage of fuel from the ships’ bunkers, and is free-standing covering pollution damage only, and applies ‘to damage caused on the territory, including the territorial sea, and in the exclusive economic zone of States Parties.’ This is yet another convention that enables countries to recover from disasters.

Conclusion

Some of the aforementioned Conventions have been ratified, others have not been fully ratified and still others have not been ratified at all. Although the immediate action required on the ground and at sea is to curtail the spread of the pollutants from the sinking vessel, it is paramount that steps are taken to address the issue from a holistic perspective wherein Sri Lanka does not have to suffer similar consequences and is instead further prepared to tackle such challenges, which will undoubtedly occur in the future.

In the short term, the disaster caused by the MV X-Press Pearl remains a clarion call for immediate action to ensure that the Conventions that have been ratified are invoked and adequate measures taken to address the catastrophe that is unfolding along the western coast of the island and has the potential to spread further. Coordination with IMO and States Parties to the ratified Conventions need to be explored instantly to identify avenues for technical cooperation that is needed at present.

In the medium term, a comprehensive study is required of Conventions which have not been ratified to date, noting the reasons for non-ratification and attempting to overcome challenges that might have been perceived in the past which stopped Sri Lanka from ratifying these Conventions. Further, measures are required pursuant to a comprehensive analysis, to ratify these internationally recognized, standard setting instruments which are critical for island nations, and especially for Sri Lanka given its geographical positioning, and future ambitions.

In the long term, a widespread study is required of all Convention that have been ratified and action taken to ensure that Sri Lanka continues to abide by the stipulations enclosed therein, which would eventually be rewarding for the country as it improves standards and journeys further down the path towards becoming a maritime hub.

Sri Lanka has long yearned to be identified as a maritime hub. Yet maritime incidents such as that which occurred in May 2021 which possess the potential of escalating into massive environmental catastrophes the impact of which will continue to be felt for years, remain challenges that require concerted, strategized action. It is only when, at the national level, action is taken to implement Conventions, which are directly beneficial to signatories as they hold States Parties to high standards and regulations that concrete steps would be taken towards maritime hub status. Such status is rewarding from an economic prism, and it is relevant to ensure that the standards prescribed by internationally binding Conventions are implemented as they thwart all forms of damage, if not, try to mitigate the damage that could be caused through maritime incidents.

However the damage experienced by each and every maritime incident cannot be undone or overcome completely, the compensation cannot bring the marine creatures back to life, the underwater world which was already under immense stress due to global warming has now been further impacted and those who relied on the seas to sustain lives and livelihoods have been collectively affected. It is a truism that development comes at a cost.  Nevertheless urgent measures are needed to reduce the impact on the environment, stringent plans are required to have been formulated and rushed into operation when an incident occurs, and an overall vision is vital to diminish the negative impact of progress and development. All of this can only be achieved through thorough strategizing across all sectors, under a comprehensive national plan of action.

The disaster of 2021 is not the first to hit Sri Lanka, and will not be the last that the country experiences, but it should at least become a moment of realization. Realization of how all sectors are closely integrated across the country, how engaged Sri Lanka is with the international community, and very importantly, how cooperating in a proactive and mutually beneficial manner, will give Sri Lanka the opportunity to rise and take her place among counterparts in the region and beyond. Until this moment of realization dawns, and appropriate action is taken, maritime hub status, or any other form of hub status, will remain elusive.

 

 

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.

UN AT 75: TIME TO CHANGE PERCEPTIONS AND REALIZE POTENTIAL

 by George I. H. Cooke

In 2020, the United Nations completes seven and half decades since its inauguration and since its Charter came into operation on 24^th October 1945. Following the brutality of war and the misery it left in its wake, the words of American President Harry Truman remain relevant. In addressing delegates to the opening conference in April 1945, in San Francisco, Truman noted that humanity had learned long ago that it was impossible to survive alone. He stressed that “This same basic principle applies today to nations. We were not isolated during the war. We dare are not become isolated in peace.”

This was a warning. A warning that unless countries realized the potential of collective action, they would toil in vain in their attempts to overcome challenges they face. The clarion call on the need for uniting and progressing under a common banner remains relevant 75 years later, and would certainly remain so in the future.

Sitting at the apex of leadership in multilateralism with numerous agencies and organisations under its umbrella, the United Nations is today faced with countless challenges. It is however through those challenges that the organisation has been able to rise further, and ensure that we, the human race lives a relatively peaceful life. It is owing to the promotion of multilateral engagement and cooperative action at the international and regional levels, that world wars have been averted, disease eradicated and violence reduced. 

Countries, their leaders and peoples have been made to realise, especially in the context of the pandemic sweeping the world, that cooperative action is mandatory for survival and progression. Not just survival of peoples in countries, but the survival of the whole of humanity. For those who opt to go it alone and use unilateral action, as some do, the consequences remain harsh.

Why multilateralism?

Various concerns have been expressed about the effectiveness of multilateral interaction, especially in the 21^st century. Whilst a world war hasn’t broken out, several conflicts rage in different neighbourhoods of the world. Whilst deadly diseases like small pox have been eradicated numerous others pervade the planet. Whilst attempts are being made to eradicate hunger, there are still people who fall asleep hungry. So has multilateralism and collective action failed?

At the political level, it is alleged that through multilateral engagement, countries are called upon at times, to dilute strong positions in a bid to build consensus. Also through such engagement, there is it is argued, an apparent loss or a reduction of sovereignty, which is a hindrance for countries in their forward march as they are required to conform to that which is acceptable for the greater good of all, as opposed to ones own people. So has multilateralism and collective action failed?

If a listing of grievances that exist in the world were done, the list would undoubtedly be endless, with problems and challenges in abundance. Yet of importance at this juncture is a reversal in the understanding of that which occurs around us, and the manner in which we look at it. It is the potential and not the problem that needs to be comprehended.

Yes, wars rage in different corners but a world war hasn’t broken out. Yes, numerous diseases, like Covid-19 and many others are around but other deadly ones like small pox are not. Yes, people still fall asleep hungry but that number has drastically reduced owing to efforts, which were even recently recognised in the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to the World Food Programme.

In relation to challenges at the political level, yes, multilateralism results in the need to dilute positions to build consensus. Yet of importance is that the consensus that is built is for the benefit of all stakeholders, and not to the detriment of some, as might occur if an issue is resolved through a vote or war. The UN and many other multilateral bodies always explore the potential of building consensus first and leave the option of voting to the last, as voting divides. It creates camps of those in support of a resolution, or those against one. Instead, the process of building consensus generates mutual benefits and collective responsibility in the final result.

Yes, sovereignty gets reduced when countries join international organisations and are called upon to accept binding treaties or adapt domestic policy in accordance with that which is agreed to at the multilateral level. However there isn’t a single country on the planet that hasn’t had its sovereignty compromised. Even the most powerful country, the United States of America cannot lay claim to having its sovereignty completely intact.

When trading internationally there is reliance on outside entities. To purchase goods or services that are required within a country, it is necessary to engage overseas and provide finance in return for that which is being purchased. That makes a country reliant on the country from which it is purchasing. It is the same when selling products of a country internationally. The seller and buyer need to enter into an agreement which is mutually beneficial, and not in favour only of one and to the detriment of the other.

When countries want to generate finances, bonds are sold internationally, making that country reliant on external actors, who have a stake in that country thereafter. When countries want to ensure development occurs, they look to the international community to provide investments. This is reliance once again. Where then is the country that is entirely in charge of its affairs, and is wholly competent and self reliant, and which has its sovereignty completely intact?

The era in which sovereignty was touted as the most sacrosanct aspect of a state has passed. In the 21^st century, more than ever before, countries and their leaders are realizing that without the other, their own existence is compromised. It is here that the United Nations has been a beacon of hope in a world often viewed through a lense of gloom.

With its involvement in every imaginable aspect of life on the planet, the UN is today the crucible of change. From its inception, the organisation at the centre and its agencies at the periphery have striven amidst numerous obstacles to overcome, and remain relevant through a process of evolution. Polices are formulated to suit the present, and they are implemented in a concerted manner. Thereafter reviews are conducted and necessary adjustments made as required. As such the UN has been able to do what Charles Darwin remarked was necessary for the human species to continue – to adapt.

The UN has and continues to endeavour to adapt. In the last few decades alone, the UN identified the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and thereafter the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as objectives of where humanity should progress. These objectives are relevant to all peoples irrespective of where they are located on the planet. It is in and through the realization of such aspirations that we as a people will make a degree of progress along each of these roads.

In a world of corruption and greed, the achievement of noble goals, in their entirety, is not always feasible, but what is possible is the ability to make considerable progress towards their achievement, which wouldn’t have happened if the goals were not set up at all. 

It is here that countries, leaders and individuals can, and must make a difference. For too long those in positions of leadership have endeavoured to consolidate power for themselves, and those around them, and acted in a manner that they felt would suit them alone. The realization that they too would pass, and others would occupy such positions is not realized when one is at the zenith of power. The need to implement policies that are for the benefit and betterment of all, and for the long-term, and not just a select few, at the present moment, are sometimes conveniently bypassed.

The failure to realise the need to engage far and wide creates a situation in which, owing to rising nationalism and the tacit support given to it, leaders attempt to portray the ability to survive without the support of the outside world. Or on the other hand attempting to pick some over others proves futile as countries require deep forms of exchange with added frequency, if they are to reap the benefits of cooperative action.

Trickling into society too, individuals sometimes prefer to remain silent, ignorant and nonchalant in the face of adversity, exploring instead only that which would benefit oneself. This has resulted in the creation and propagation of a corrupt and greedy society. The inability to ascertain that which occurs around us, or the disinterest in affairs of state and the world, and the impact these developments continue to have on individuals, results in a serious lack of support or appreciation for that which is done for all, by some.

At the individual level it is easy to condemn. It is the same at the international level. Until and unless perceptions change at the individual level and at the level of leadership, the manner in which some view the UN in particular and multilateralism in general, won’t change. It is only with this change the real potential of the UN and multilateralism will be realized.

The synergic effect of international cooperation, especially through multilateralism and its institutions is, it can be argued, the future. As countries collaborate, explore mutually beneficial outcomes and implement policies for all, it will be possible to realise the objectives for which the UN was first established. Whilst all peoples everywhere are not encountering war and violence, starvation or famines, there are some amongst us who are. It is for them that collective action is required. It is for them, who although seen as another in the present context, could well be ourselves in the future, that the UN strives.

In looking back at the last 75 years of its existence, it is opportune to also look ahead to the coming decades. The UN has much to offer, through its consolidated structure, overarching mandate, abundant resources and unique outreach. It remains the main form of hope for humanity as all other multilateral bodies augment the action of the UN, and attempt to enhance that which is done through this global body. At the institution level, the UN and regional organisations have evolved. At the theoretical level, multilateralism and regionalism as concepts have also evolved. It is now time for individuals and those in decision making positions to evolve too.

Former UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon would often state that “there is no plan B, because we have no planet B.” At this juncture of the 75^th anniversary of the UN, it is relevant to reflect on the need to change perceptions, and realise the potential of the world body if effective engagement and outcomes are to be achieved.

2020 marks a century since multilateralism was introduced through the League of Nations. From then to date, countries have learnt the hard way that cooperation at the international level is the only means through which existence on the planet can be guaranteed, as we have only one planet to live on, at present. 

Lest we forget Truman’s words - “We were not isolated during the war. We dare are not become isolated in peace.” The 75^th milestone is yet another reminder that collective action was, is and will be the way forward.