NEW AGE FOREIGN POLICY 2020-2025: ADOPTING A FOUR ‘R’ STRATEGY IN SRI LANKA

by George I. H. Cooke

Charles Darwin irrefutably claimed that “it is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change”.  The first half of 2020 proved that the rate of change can and does intensify, and it is entirely in the hands of individuals, communities, states, regions and the entire world to either adapt to the change, ensure relevance and thrive, or get engulfed, submerged and subsequently sink. 

In the foreign policy arena, the cataclysmic changes that have been experienced owing to the pandemic, have resulted in the need to adapt, adjust and keenly strategize to respond to growing concerns, tackle hitherto unseen issues and more importantly be ready to meet the challenges that lie ahead. States and their decision makers face the daunting task of having to adjust and do so in a timely manner to ensure their responses are relevant, their actions are prudent and their decisions prove visionary.

In Sri Lanka, the election of a new President at the end of 2019, signaled the dawn of a new age, as has been the scenario since independence. The election of a new leader is an opportunity to formulate and implement policy through a new vision, which, it is expected, accounts for the domestic environment, the regional concerns and the global circumstances, in which the decisions are to be made. 2020 has revealed the daunting nature of such policy formulation and implementation, but has provided a platform from which policy relevant for a new age, could and should be the main focus.

Sri Lanka’s presence on the global stage is not of a country that is making a debut or one that is attempting to make a mark on the map. It is a country that has for centuries played varying roles, in the South Asian region and beyond, and needs to firstly rely on its ancient connectivity, relate this to the modern context and ensure relevance and significance in the long run. This rich and dynamic past, is undeniable. Whether during the times of the ancient kingdoms, or even the periods under colonization, the island enjoyed a special and favoured position. This was also experienced for most of the second half of the last century. How was this possible? What factors contributed? Which polices were effective? Similarly, it is relevant to reflect upon instances in which the country erred, faced obstacles, and examine their origin and cause, and the measures adopted to overcome them.

 

Formulating and implementing an effective foreign policy is in itself a daunting task, yet one that can and must be achieved if a country is to progress and prosper. The adoption of a clear strategy, based on practical and sustainable aspects, is the key to an effective foreign policy.

REVIEW

In light of the aforementioned introspection, it is important for Sri Lanka to take a long hard look at the past, critically analyse that which has occurred, study the triumphs, avoid a repetition of the errors, and strategize for the future. Whilst theorizing on foreign policy is often understood to be easier than the practical aspect of the subject, it is crucial to focus primarily on reviewing that which has occurred to flesh out that which is and isn’t possible, while noting that which has and hasn’t been done.  

Any project requires a system of review at intervals to assess its success or failure. In the realm of foreign policy, all too often, policy is formulated and implemented but a process of reviewing does not occur systematically. This has led to situations in which countries have often failed to acknowledge weak areas, and have also ignored new developments which directly impact such policy. This has been to their detriment and resulted in the creation of deeper problems and fresh challenges. It is for this purpose that a structured process of data collection would be necessary.

The gathering of data should not be limited merely to collecting statistics from missions around the world. The gathering of material needs to be done with a ‘Sri Lanka-first’ objective, which ensures the centricity of Sri Lanka but accounts for the realistic position of the country vis-à-vis neighbours and counterparts across the globe. The input should include positions that could be adopted, new avenues that could be explored and fresh opportunities that have hitherto remained untapped. This would clearly require analysis given the need for comprehensive data.

Statistics in the form of raw data needs to be humanized to comprehend its impact and potential. This would lead to a clearer understanding of all bilateral and multilateral forms of engagement, and lay the foundation for formulating a foreign policy that is rich in terms of heritage, acknowledges the country’s strengths and weakness, and explores new areas of opportunity, which would be timely. It is at this juncture that Sri Lanka needs to explore opportunities for reigniting old connections, build on past successes and situations, commemorate long standing ties in a meaningful way, and ensure the remembrance of assistance that was given in times of need, among many other aspects, which remain crucial in this first part of the process.

RESTRUCTURE  

Secondly, a restructuring of the entire system, process and means of delivery is essential to ensure that Sri Lanka is not left behind or even lags behind other countries, and is capable of utilizing innovation at the very core of decision making. For too long the ministry-mission system has relied on particular processes and positions, some of which have worked effectively and others that have not. This has resulted in unpreparedness in facing new challenges, seen the adoption of short term, temporary measures, caused an increase in the logjam that is often experienced, and increased the tendency for bureaucratic processes to hinder growth and development.

It is through a restructuring of the system, both within the ministry and through the network of missions, that bold decisions are required to ensure that neither is ill-equipped, ill-prepared or poorly informed, and instead the decisions made and implemented are timely and not long overdue, proactive and not merely reactive measures, and intensely strategic in nature and scope. This would ensure that Sri Lanka is able to recapture most of the lost glory, but more necessarily become a country that is viewed in positive light and is acknowledged for her potential and vibrancy which are key factors in Sri Lanka’s armoury.

Within the Ministry, it would be necessary to prioritize areas of operation, taking note of sectors of importance and giving impetus to their structure. This impetus needs to come from above, whereby stronger and deeper focus is given to countries and not merely regions as is the present form. One can’t be accounted for at the expense of the other. Instead due recognition to both individual countries and those operating with regions need to be included. While, for example, a division of South Asia is relevant to relate to regional issues, it is important for emphasis to be placed on the bilateral connectivity, without allowing it to dovetail into one of regionalism. The focus on regionalism is relevant in dealing with regional entities.

Heightened emphasis on specific countries with which Sri Lanka enjoys particularly vital relations, is crucial, owing to the systems of operation found in such countries, wherein due emphasis is placed on Sri Lanka. Whilst resources might be a challenge, it is one that needs to be overcome if the full potential of bilateral connectivity is to be achieved. Until and unless Sri Lanka looks at optimizing output with the given resources and explores ways of enhancing such resources, the country will not be able to ensure deeper and stronger relations, which make Sri Lanka the optimal choice and not another option.

This process of changing Sri Lanka’s position from an option to being optimal also requires immense input from the vanguard of diplomatic engagement, in the missions around the world. While it would be beneficial to look at more missions in strategic locations, it is important to start with optimizing output from the current system, and in the long term explore means of opening new missions. There are many countries out there with which Sri Lanka hardly engages, even on a monthly basis.

Political engagement at the highest level, through the creation of opportunities for leaders to meet continuously is paramount. This engagement augurs well for bilateral ties, and lays a strong foundation, which was one of the strongest factors in Sri Lanka’s foreign policy establishment in the decades gone by.  Despite the challenges of travel, leaders in the first half of Sri Lanka’s independence years, engaged regularly. The engagement was brought to fruition in numerous forms, wherein they met on State Visits, on the sidelines of international gatherings, wrote to each other regularly highlighting critical issues and maintained close lines of communication, especially through their choice of emissaries. 

Economic engagement through missions, require an enhancement of interaction with the Department of Commerce, by allocating a team as opposed to a single officer, which would be capable of reaching out and interacting with the economic community in their respective countries of residence and accreditation. Drawing in investment needs to be undertaken in a structured manner and not on an ad-hoc basis. Often trying to grab at any form of investment, as long as it is an investment is detrimental on many fronts. For enhanced economic engagement to take place a pre-requisite is a national plan of action, in line with national interests, which clearly identifies projects of relevance and then efforts are made to garner such forms of investment. It results in Sri Lanka growing through clear initiatives which are based on nationals needs and also gives the investor great confidence to enter and engage with the country.

The process of restructuring the system in its entirety, though time consuming, would be one of the most rewarding endeavours undertaken by the political and bureaucratic leadership in conjunction with academia and professionals from the connected fields. The resulting factors wherein Sri Lanka grows, by leaps and bounds, through consistent and comprehensive measures will yield a beneficial output that generates decisive results. It is change in the form of restructuring that is required to obtain such desirable results. 

REACH OUT

Sri Lanka has a large and extensive network of countries with which diplomatic engagement has been signed and sealed. The short fall occurs in the practical aspect of engagement. Several features have to be considered in this sphere.  With numerous countries accredited to single missions, the task becomes overwhelming, resulting in a loss of mutually beneficial engagement. Similarly connectivity is sought often at times when elections or resolutions of various forms are taken up within multilateral bodies. Furthermore, a lack of knowledge of the connections that exist and ignorance of the intricacies of the bilateral relationship, either sour ties, or more often, result in the full potential not being explored, leading to missed opportunities. 

 

When considering the degree of engagement with host countries and their communities, it is essential to consider the diversity that exists within each of these countries. This diversity spreads from the political spectrum, where it is not only the governing party and its members, in that respective country that requires connecting with. The political milieu needs to be studied and sufficient engagement sought with all across the board. When considering the sciences, or culture and the arts, academia, and the economic sphere, the actors are numerous and painstaking attention is required to spread one’s interactions with a cross section of the society in which one serves. This then needs to extend to the countries of accreditation as well, and visits by ambassadors and high commissioners to such countries shouldn’t be curtailed to credential and national day ceremonies.

On the second point, Cardinal Richelieu meticulously explained centuries ago that diplomacy should be a continuous process aimed at creating durable relations rather than a process that consists of opportunistic advances. The key take-away is the ability to sustain relations through differing times and not be seen to approach or engage only in times of need. All too often adhoc encounters, meetings sought for campaigning, or sudden attempts to garner support for or against procedures, reveal a lack of genuineness, and display opportunism, which must be avoided at all times. Sri Lanka has enjoyed long standing ties with countries, some of which predate the colonial period. It is these connections that need to be especially pursued and every attempt made to strengthen the degree of engagement, while boosting ties established post independence.

The third aspect is the need to fully comprehend the historic perspective of the connections, understand relations in the contemporary period, and deploy mechanisms to highlight both the past and present to build a sturdy future. Within the first stage of reviewing that which has been, it is possible to fully reveal all that has occurred and be able to utilize such knowledge for the betterment of the country.

In addition, in the phase of reaching out, it becomes imperative to identify key windows into regions. These are countries with which historic ties, religious congruence, or even language and cultural attributes provide a deeper degree of connectivity which could be a leveraging factor for Sri Lanka in engaging with other countries in that particular region. Considered a prudent policy and implemented by many others, this approach is ideal for countries like Sri Lanka which possess limited resources and may look to such ‘windows’ to resuscitate diplomacy. These ‘windows’ prove beneficial in multilateral organisations and in regional groupings. In multilateral organisations, such ‘windows’ would play pivotal roles to support Sri Lanka at crucial times. In regional organisations, the inability to be physically present in each and every country, would be augmented through strategic presence in key ‘windows’ which in turn act as intermediaries with countries with which Sri Lanka doesn’t enjoy long standing or strong ties.

Diplomacy today has evolved to cover a plethora of areas where all forms of engagement possess the ability to contribute to the bilateral relations of two countries. With military diplomacy extending to specified areas and including air and naval diplomacy, the role and function of peaceful military engagement deserves more indepth study and emphasis. Similarly diplomacy based on religion and philosophy is another opportunity to explore new forms of engagement. The abundance of spheres indicates the plurality of diplomacy in the 21^st century. It is for countries to enhance diplomacy by harnessing such spheres.

Within this phase it is noteworthy that opportunity exists to expand, enrich, and diversify connectivity. Requiring acute strategizing at the very highest level and trickling down to all levels of diplomacy, the implementation of this stage of the four ‘R’ approach widens the scope and ambit of Sri Lanka internationally and augurs well for the foreign policy of the country. By reaching out to existing partners, identifying ‘windows’ into regions, and seeking new connections and new forms of diplomatic engagement it would be possible for Sri Lanka to generate innovative opportunities, which would stand the country in good stead.

READINESS

For Sri Lanka to remain on firm footing in the foreign policy arena, abreast of the latest developments, whilst being in tune with the past, it is essential that the country remains ready for all eventualities. Such readiness can only be achieved if adequate measures have been taken to make informed decisions, implement sound policies, and review that which has been implemented, while remaining in sync on all levels. Resorting to adhoc decision making to satisfy a fresh development, is a trial and error system, which becomes a gamble. It works effectively at times, but can also be significantly disastrous.

This aspect of readiness relates to effective decision making to obtain plan A, but also having a plan B and even C if required, whilst taking into consideration all foreseeable outcomes. It might be that plan B is not as effective as plan A, yet the compilation of alternate plans and policies are paramount to avoid failure. These plans have to drawn up as short, medium and long term strategies of foreign policy and address pressing problems, and provide recourse to new challenges that may arise in the future.

Acute strategizing becomes crucial at this stage, as Sri Lanka prepares for the growing challenges that the pandemic has brought, and all other forms of obstacles that would arise in the short to medium term. Such developments need to be addressed using the foreign policy mechanism, especially in responding to threats and challenges emanating from outside, or deciding on joining or distancing oneself from alliances, or even exploring new forms of revenue generation and investment for the country. Irrespective of the arena of activity, Sri Lanka must have the plans drawn up, the contingencies at the ready, and the ability to resort to these varied options in the face of challenges, instead of groping in the dark, adopting adhoc measures or introducing temporary schemes to tide over periods of uncertainty.

Through an effective and efficient system of strategizing it is possible for Sri Lanka and her decision makers to arrive at well structured, knowledge-driven, prudent decisions and to formulate policies that are Sri Lanka-centric, economically beneficial, and which prove the efficacy of the trouble taken in the first place. Furthermore through the process of implementation, the returns would highlight the suitability and efficiency of the policy, whilst raising the standard of the system, and those within it.

Within the four ‘R’ approach it is important to review that which exists, restructure the system, reach out to allies and make new contacts, and ensure readiness to face any eventuality. Until and unless decision makers start thinking of the bigger picture in which Sri Lanka as a country operates in the international system, take note of the gamut of factors that deserve due consideration prior to decision making, and strategize to acquire the fullest potential, it would be pointless deliberating on foreign policy.

Sri Lanka stands at yet another juncture in history. A new President is in office and would be keen to leave his mark in the foreign policy arena, like numerous predecessors from historic times to those in the years of independence. As the third decade of the 21^st century unravels, the challenges in 2020 appear to subsume all those experienced in the first two decades and portend to increase in the years ahead. It is at this crucial stage in the international system, that Sri Lanka possesses the opportunity to not only embrace change, remain relevant and survive, but to go further and shine in the new age.

BREXIT AND BEYOND: STRATEGIZING BRITISH FOREIGN POLICY IN 2020 THROUGH THE COMMONWEALTH

by George I. H. Cooke

As the United Kingdom exits the European Union, and Euro-skeptics draw parallels to a doomsday scenario, in which more members will opt to leave, it is relevant to reflect upon the United Kingdom, the country that is to be directly impacted in the months and years ahead. Member states of the EU still have each other and even have neighbours such as Serbia, Montenegro, Albania and even Turkey, all of whom are keen to gain membership. The EU will ride out the storm that hit it in the last five years since the now infamous referendum which David Cameron promised and held, and respected as he exited Downing Street. His successors have gambled as did Theresa May in holding elections and hoping to obtain a larger majority, but instead lost more seats. Her successor Boris Johnson, who was one of the architects of Brexit, who campaigned vigorously with Nigel Farage of the United Kingdom Independence Party for Brexit in 2005, had more success in the polls in 2019 and is now prepared to lead his country out of the regional grouping. 

What options lie ahead for the United Kingdom? How will foreign policy be impacted? What will happen to the position of leadership the UK enjoys on the world stage? While questions abound, it is relevant to focus on the mechanisms within the United Kingdom which the country has relied on for centuries and attempt to understand how the UK has weathered many a storm and still retained its advanced place on the world stage

The United Kingdom, having ruled large swathes of the world for most of the 19^th and 20^th centuries and yet after giving up the empire in stages throughout the second half of the last century, has proved her ability to remain relevant and resilient against many odds. Having been a dominant naval power, which transformed into an industrial power house and built a remarkable empire which conquered countries across continents, the loss of one of its initial colonies, America, was soon overcome through a galaxy of other acquisitions of territory, earning for itself the designation of being an empire on which the sun never set.

As the 1^st of February 2020 dawns, the United Kingdom will turn another page in its dotted history, and gradually, but surely return to its position of prestige on the world stage. The referendum of 2015 is now a part of history and the steps being taken, although not irretrievable are certainly momentous for a country that shook the very fundamentals upon which two particular concepts of International Relations discourse, those of sovereignty and regionalism, have long been established.

Sovereignty challenged from within

The calls for the referendum centered on numerous issues, one being the diminishing sovereignty that the British people enjoyed over their policy formulation and implementation, as it was argued that Brussels, dictated terms and conditions. This, it was noted, was owing to the supranational form of cooperation that the European Union created. British people must decide on their own future, was the call, in a bid to strengthen sovereignty of a country that had delicately balanced and ensured a Union of its own for centuries. Yet the day after the referendum, when Nicola Sturgeon, first Minister of Scotland said that she intended “to take all possible steps and explore all possible options to give effect to how people in Scotland voted - in other words to secure our continuing place in the EU, and in the single market in particular”, alarms bells rang at Downing Street and the new Prime Minister Theresa May flew swiftly to the north to reassure Sturgeon.

The Scottish leader’s statement that she thought “an independence referendum is now highly likely but I also think it is important that we take time to consider all steps and have the discussions, not least to assess the response of the European Union to the vote that Scotland expressed yesterday,” was not what was expected by leaders in London, or even hard line Brexit campaigners. Even if they had not envisaged such an outcome, they certainly hadn’t bargained for such stiff resistance from Scotland in relation to the results.

Theresa May’s “commitment to preserving this special union that has endured for centuries” was a quick fix attempt to reassure the people of Scotland that despite their leaders’ sentiments, the central government would respect the “union, not just between the nations of the United Kingdom, but between all of our citizens.” Sovereignty and its preservation, which had been a crucial element of the Brexit campaign, was under fresh strain, not from Brussels this time but from within the United Kingdom itself.

Similarly, views expressed by Gerry Adams, the Sinn Fein President that “the British government should respect the popular vote in the North for European Union membership by bringing forward a referendum on Irish unity. The Irish government, too, should act on this,” created further concern as another integral part of the country, which shares the only tangible border with the EU, was appearing to test sovereignty at its very core. Given that the Good Friday Agreement and relative peace in Northern Ireland, arrived at through a delicate and complex process, might be jeopardized, the cautious note of the Prime Minister led to her delaying invoking Article 50 to commence the process of leaving the Union.

Regionalism threatened

The European Union is held up as the most integrated, progressive and visionary regional grouping of all those that exist at present. From its initial steps through the Coal and Steel pact, to the complex, multinational union of today, the EU has been the epitome of regionalism. Yet the results of the 2015 referendum sent shudders through this hugely consolidated structure with nationalist frontrunners such as France’s Marine Le Pen claiming that “this is the beginning of the end of the European Union. And I hope the birth of the Europe of nations, a Europe of cooperation that we’ve been propounding for years.”

Geert Wilders, leader of the Party for Freedom in Netherlands proclaimed that “We want to be in charge of our own country, our own money, our own borders, and our own immigration policy. As quickly as possible the Dutch need to get the opportunity to have their say about Dutch membership of the European Union.” Related issues such as the Euro were being raised in Italy with Luigi Di Maio, Vice President of the Lower House of Parliament stating that “We want a consultative referendum on the Euro. The Euro as it is today does not work. We either have alternative currencies or a 'Euro 2’”. The decade long process of building a region of stability and certainty upon this overarching concept of regionalism was facing its gravest threats.

Other regional blocs, which aimed to emulate the EU and its comprehensive progress, especially in understanding mechanisms such as the European Commission, which remains one of the most unique apparatus aimed at protecting regional interests over national interests, were suddenly faced with the daunting question of whether integration needs to adopted only up to a certain stage, and if the EU had integrated too much.

United Kingdom: Having it her way

The ensuing crisis created by the referendum and the need for its implementation, given the democratic form of governance prevalent in the United Kingdom, was yet another scenario unfolding in which the UK had had her way. From the refusal to convert the Sterling Pound to the Euro and the rejection of the offer to join the Schengen Agreement, the UK has consistently ensured that she was able to chart her own course despite being within a grouping such as the EU.

In the developments post January 2020 it is apparent that the United Kingdom will once again push for swift settlement of the multitude of issues arising out of this move to depart. From travel to savings, pensions, investments, personnel, the value of the Pound, the proposed Free Trade Agreement, the border with Northern Ireland and numerous other issues that require settlement, the task ahead for British leaders is daunting to say the least, but undoubtedly a challenge they will accept and emerge from relatively unscathed, if past experiences are to be relied upon. 

The United Kingdom is today a United Nations Security Council Permanent Member, a position retained through her victorious alliance during the Second World War. The Prime Minister is the current Chair-in-Office of the Commonwealth, a position which will be relinquished later this year to Rwanda. The UK is a leading power in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), an integral member of the G7, possesses the fifth largest economy with a $2.83 trillion GDP, and also has the eighth strongest military in the world with an estimated defence budget of $47.5 billion. 

This is a country which gave up an empire and gained the Commonwealth. It is a nation that despite many trials and tribulations has always been able to survive and remain resilient in the face of much resistance and strife. The foreign policy trajectory actively pursued in the UK indicates a nation state which, through centuries of experience, is at the top of her game, still, and doesn’t appear to be about to lose that exalted position among nations. 

West Asia referred to as the Middle East

Countries that fall within the West Asian region or those to the north of Africa that straddle global territory from Europe to Central and South Asia have long been termed the Middle East. From peace accords to conflicts, this terminology has remained in use. Yet a clear viewing of the map would clearly indicate that the region hitherto referred to as the Middle East isn’t the middle of the East by any stretch of the imagination, especially in the current context of world affairs. At a time when Britain ruled a major portion of the world, and power was centralized within the context of Europe, it was understood that everything beyond Europe was the East and it stretched to the Far East where countries like China lie.

In the 21^st century, when global affairs are widespread, and the United Kingdom plays an important role, it is relevant to note that it is not the most dominant force it once was. Yet even at this juncture, when the subject of International Relations requires evolution and appropriate terminology suitable for the times, the term Middle East remains part of the vocabulary of the West and is even used in countries within this particular region. This century is argued to be the Asian Century, and thus usage of terms, especially by countries in Asia, in identifying this region as West Asia is appropriate and timely, but it is yet to happen.

High Commissioners and not Ambassadors

Whilst non-Commonwealth countries exchange ambassadors, it is an accepted norm within the Commonwealth for countries to exchange ambassadors who are identified as High Commissioners. India, which took on the British with Gandhi and Nehru at the helm, is a significant example of a country that, despite a bitter struggle with her colonial master, opted to join the Commonwealth and retain this terminology as well.

The usage of this term to date signifies the importance of the Commonwealth and the monumental role that the United Kingdom has played in this grouping. This role has seen the gifting of Marlborough House, the former residence of Queen Mary, for the establishment of the Commonwealth Secretariat; Commonwealth scholarships that have benefited thousands of students over the years in undertaking higher education and granting them opportunities in other Commonwealth states; the impressive quadrennial games which are said to be the third largest sporting event in the world after the Olympics and Paralympics; and the numerous programmes and initiatives, including the Queen’s Commonwealth Canopy (QCC) which is designed to generate a network of forest conservation projects across member states and connect them through programmes of preservation for future generations. All of these initiatives have been possible owing to the dynamic leadership and cooperation stemming from Downing Street, which has ensured that the Commonwealth is relevant and Britain’s contribution is not overlooked or underestimated.

In its initial years the Commonwealth faced pressure and much doubt was expressed over its potential to exist. Then Australian Prime Minister Robert Gordon Menzies, who served twice from 1939 to 1941 and 1949 to 1966, opined that “there has been a great stirring of minds on the subject of the British Commonwealth and Empire. Its name; its structure; its internal rights and duties; its means of family consultation; its place in the world -- all are in debate. In the nature of things, uniformity of ideas about it would be unlikely.”

Relevance of the Commonwealth

Decades later when we reflect upon the Commonwealth and its achievements, which abound in multiple sectors, it is possible to note that its very existence in 2020 is one of its greatest accomplishments, and the British deserve a significant amount of credit for this feat. Even when the UK opted to move closer to Europe and get deeply involved in the activities of the EU, at gradual stages of growth and integration from 1973 onwards, the Commonwealth remained a key foreign policy priority for the British government.

The inability for Vanuatu to host the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in 2017 led to the United Kingdom stepping in and offering to host it in London in 2018. This was yet another momentous opportunity for the British to take over the Chair-in-Office position which will be retained until the next CHOGM. Prince Charles’ position as the next Head of the Commonwealth was also established at this meeting at which The Queen requested that her son continue what her father started.

It is in and through the Commonwealth that the United Kingdom will seek its greatest source of support post-Brexit, and the mechanism through which the country will look to work more with fellow member states in this grouping. Likewise member states of the Commonwealth will see renewed interest, formidable policies, favourable trade, fresh opportunities and above all a rejuvenated platform from which regionalism in its newest form, which Peter Katzenstein defined as “regions (that) are politically made”, wherein there is less emphasis on the geographic aspects of regions altogether and instead focus is on the political and ideological characteristic of the regions.

It is at this stage that the Commonwealth is being reborn. Serving the interests of the UK, and its member states, it also possesses the potential to become the new, innovative form of regionalism, which would also bode well for other aspirant groupings and unions.

Winston Churchill played a fundamental role in leading the United Kingdom and the allied powers to victory in the Second World War. Similarly Boris Johnson is determined and resolute as he takes on the challenge of leading the United Kingdom out of the European Union and into a new form of existence. Despite the challenges faced a century ago and throughout the 1900s, and through the difficulties forecast for the country in the short to medium term after leaving the EU, the United Kingdom will bounce back reinvigorated and re-energized to take on the world and continue to secure the special place the country has on the global stage, owing to her timeless policy of strategizing amongst all else, her foreign policy.

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.