Category Archives: Global Governance

G20 Collaborative Actions: With or Without the US

Posted on by
Reply

The common refrain by those examining the multilateral  institutions and organizations seeking greater collaboration at the global level are: ‘legitimacy’ and ‘effectiveness’. Now the fact is these characteristics apply to the national and subnational levels as well, but they are a consistent refrain at the international level, especially in light of the geopolitical tensions in the international system. 

A number of my colleagues have recently focused on what I consider the key global informal governance institution, the G20. These colleagues focus on both critical characteristics with somewhat different views. First there is Danny Bradlow and Robert Wade. Danny Bradlow is a Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Advancement of Scholarship, University of Pretoria and Senior G20 Advisor to South African Institute of International Affairs. Robert H. Wade, is co-author on this piece, and is a Professor of Global Political Economy, London School of Economics. Both have participated in various CWD events. In a piece in Global Policy entitled, “How to Fix the Representation Problem of the G20” the co-authors described briefly the G20. Some of that is worth repeating: 

“The G20 is an informal gathering, which claims to be “the premier forum for international economic cooperation”. It was established at finance minister’s level in the wake of the East Asian financial crisis of the late 1990s, and upgraded to summit level, with the same membership,  in the wake of the global financial crisis of 2008-2009. The summit is held annually, under the leadership of a rotating presidency.”

 

“The membership comprises 19 of the “weightiest” national economies plus the European Union and the African Union. The 19 national economies include  the G7 (US, Japan, Germany, UK, France, Italy, Canada), Australia, plus China, India,  Indonesia, Republic of Korea,  Russia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina.   The group, which includes about 10% of the states in the world, accounts for 67% of the world’s population, 85% of global GDP, and 75% of global trade.” 

 

It is in size and the weight of membership the most formidable of what I call the Informals which includes at least  the G7, the BRICS+ and the G20. When it then comes to an evaluation of this key Informal the authors suggest: 

“The G20 has had a mixed record.  It has an intense work programme  focused on addressing many of the most significant international economic, financial, environmental and social challenges. The consistency in G20 membership has proven to be an advantage because it helps foster a sense of familiarity and understanding at the technical level among the permanent members, which is helpful in times of crisis and in dealing with complex problems.”

 

“But its exclusivity and informal status has limited its ability to address these challenges. This is particularly  because in many cases an effective response requires agreement and action by all states.” 

 

“Over time, as tensions in international relations have grown, the shortcomings in the structure of the G20 have become more evident. Despite its economic weight, the G20 has a basic legitimacy problem.  It is a self-selected group whose members, except for the African Union and the European Union, represent only themselves. 

What these authors then suggest, in light of their view that legitimacy is lacking is to adopt a model being used, in this case, at the Financial Stability Board, the FSB: 

“It has established six Regional Consultative Groups (RCGs), one each for the Americas, Asia, Commonwealth of Independent States, Europe, Middle East and North Africa, and Sub-Saharan region. The objective is to expand and formalize the FSB’s outreach activities beyond the G20 membership and better reflect the global character of the financial system.”

They conclude their examination with this perspective: 

“Applying the FSB model to the G20 would allow the current members of the G20 membership to continue, while obliging them to establish a consultation process with regional neighbours, thereby creating a limited form of representation for all the world’s states. It would also establish a limited form of G20 accountability towards the international community.”

It is evident that these authors believe the problem for the G20 is a lack of wide representation and apparently the need to enlarge G20 representation. Yet it is somewhat surprising that these two colleagues target representation. I’ve always been of the view that you go with the members you have and seek to move ‘the policy dials’. Whether it is multilateral or minilateral or plurilateral, in an ideal world we would probably enlarge representation but we have learned all too unhappily that universal representation is not necessarily a solution to effective policy action. 

Two other colleagues seem less inclined to see representation as the most serious impediment to advancing G20 policymaking. Indeed these co-authors underscore the critical value of the G20. So, my CWD colleague and lead co-leader, Colin Bradfrord, a Nonresident Senior Fellow of the Global Economy and Development Program at Brookings and his colleague, Brahima Sangafowa Coulibaly who is vice president and director of the Global Economy and Development program at Brookings have joined together to examine the G20 role in, “Strengthening Cooperation for a Changing World:  The Evolving Role of the G20 in Global Economic Governance”, a special brief for Brookings and in fact Brookings held a session with a number of esteemed panelists in Washington at the margins of the ‘Spring Meetings’ to examine the G20. As they argue in their Executive Summary:

“While there are areas for improvement, a review of the G20’s evolution highlights a remarkable transformation. From an ad hoc response to the GFC [GlobalFinancial Crisis], it has evolved into a central pillar of international cooperation—shaping global trajectories across finance, economics, technology, health, climate, and society. After 18 years of experience, involving tens of thousands of politicians, policymakers, and societal leaders throughout each year, the G20 has demonstrated that it is indeed “fit for purpose” at this crucial moment of competing perspectives on the global future.

 

“Indeed, the world is undergoing one of the most profound transformations in global economic relations and facing the greatest test of international governance since World War II. In this context, the G20 has proven to be an indispensable platform—not only through its annual leaders’ summits but also through its multilayered, yearlong process involving ministers, sherpas, senior officials, and civil society leaders across a wide range of sectors. Its ability to convene nations with vastly different cultures, interests, and perspectives—and to keep them at the table despite tensions, rivalries, or even war—is one of its greatest strengths. The G20 serves as a vital arena where global governance plays out in real time amid deep uncertainty and geopolitical strain.”

Are matters perfect, of course not. And the authors are alert to point to the limitations: 

“Despite its past success, there is room to enhance the G20’s effectiveness and impact. Key areas for improvement include strengthening personal dynamics among leaders; enhancing continuity and sustained engagement; improving public communication and domestic outreach; and restoring public confidence in leadership and markets. To bolster its credibility, the G20 should also revisit practices from its most effective years—particularly the use of action-oriented communiqués with clear timelines.”

Critically on the plus side the G20 has a significant element of inclusiveness – at least politically. Not only do you have all the members of the G7 but you also have all the original BRICS members, Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. Critical in my mind, and it seems to be as well for the co-authors, the G20 includes many key actors from the Global South:

“Third, around the same time, the rise of large, dynamic emerging market economies (EMEs) dramatically altered the global economic landscape, reducing the long-standing dominance of the West—namely the United States and Europe—and ushering in a more pluralistic world. This shift integrated key non-Western powers, such as China and Russia along with influential voices from the Global South, into global economic decisionmaking, injecting realism along with tensions into the global governance system.”

In addition, and to aid continuity from year-to-year for the G20 in the face of  passing of the presidency to the next G20 member, the co-authors point to the Troika: 

“Each annual summit marks a formal transition between presidencies, but continuity is ensured through a “troika” system, comprising the past, current, and incoming hosts. At the outset of a presidency, the host country announces its priorities, which are then integrated with ongoing legacy issues. Together, these form the foundation of the annual work plan, which is refined during the first sherpa and deputies’ meetings— typically held in December and January—and officially endorsed at the first finance ministers’ meeting. This process sets the structure for and establishes working groups and ministerial responsibilities.” 

Is it perfect, no. Indeed in the recommendations section the co-authors suggest adding more members to enhance continuity. But the co-authors pay attention to the structure, what I’ve referred to as the ‘Iceberg Theory’ of the G20. The Iceberg is the significant structure of political and administrative actors carrying on the year to year work, maintaining a critical element of continuity,  to move policy actions forward: 

“This expansive framework highlights the G20’s evolution into a dynamic platform for global governance with broad consultations that extend well beyond its core membership. G20 summits are not simply a two-day gathering of world leaders; they are the culmination of a yearlong process involving a wide array of ministerial meetings, working groups, and civil society dialogues aimed at steering the global economy and addressing 21st century challenges.[In fact the significant structure of Ministerials, Working Groups and Task Forces can be reviewed here at the Global Summitry Project (GSP) website].  

Is it  enough? Well, here you have to be a bit cautious. Overall, the representation and structure of today’s G20 seems adequate but with respect to ‘effectiveness’ – collective concerted collaboration – there is still a distance to go. Very much so. The co-authors in fact also urge the following: 

  • “Strengthen personal dynamics among leaders
  •  Enhance continuity and sustain engagement
  • Improve public communication and domestic engagement
  • Restore public confidence in leadership and markets”

All of that would be useful but collective determined policymaking – advancing action on climate change and climate financing, debt management and relief, global development and many more subjects – remain seemingly unreachable at the moment. 

And now, with the completion of the South Africa year we come to the end of the first cycle of G20 countries. That means that the United States is scheduled to return to hosting in 2026. The Trump administration’s distaste for multilateral actions including debt support, climate change, global development are all too evident. While there was talk in fact of the Trump administration deciding not to take up leadership for 2026, that may not be what the Trump administration is deciding to do at the moment. I wonder which is better however: with, or without, the US? I’m not sure. Some see the Summit collapsing without US involvement. But US hosting, with a Trump administration, may collapse forward movement in key global governance policies. There is at the moment no definitive answer. But there will be more to come on this.  

Credit Image: Bahrain

This Post originally appeared asa Substack Post at Alan’s Newsletter: https://globalsummitryproject.substack.com/p/g20-collaborative-actions-with-or

Taming the ‘Bully and the Dragon’

Posted on by
Reply

It is hard to deal with a ‘Bully’. Usually efforts, even reasonable ones of accommodation only lead generally to further demands – just ask Columbia University. That was why I was pleased to see Harvard University ‘dig in’ rather than try to accommodate the Trump administration. As Philip Stephens, contributing editor of the FT wrote in a recent piece on various allied responses to Trump’s tariff actions titled, ‘Placate or retaliate? Starmer and Carney are both right on Trump’:

“Canada’s Mark Carney has picked up the gauntlet. Britain’s Keir Starmer prefers to look the other way. Japan and South Korea lead the queue to strike a bilateral deal. … Kudos generally goes to those willing to stand up to “the bully”. Carney has transformed his Liberal party’s electoral prospects by relishing the fight. In Europe, Gaullism has gone mainstream. Emmanuel Macron’s call for Europe to break free of the Americans is echoed by chancellor-in-waiting Friedrich Merz in Berlin.”

 

“None of this makes pandering to Trump look heroic, particularly when, with characteristic vulgarity, the president publicly mocks the softly spoken. Opinion polls suggest Europeans would prefer their leaders to join Carney in the ring. Appeasing Trump may simply encourage him. He clearly enjoys humiliating America’s old friends. The answer surely is to show him that Trumpism has costs. Didn’t we learn at school that the way to beat bullies is to fight back?”

So a round of applause for the Harvard folk. But there will continue to be hard times – note the request by Trump to the IRS to end Harvard’s tax-free status. What additionally is needed then to blunt Trump’s actions? What is needed is: collaboration and group support from other universities and then collective action in the courts. Bending the knee to Trump will not work. Nobody said it would be easy.

David Wallace-Wells has pointed out in the NYT what the actions of the Trump administration have led to the following actions by US partners:

“Last week Spain’s democratic-socialist government proudly announced plans to intensify relations with China, after Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent warned that doing so would amount to “cutting your own throat.” President Emmanuel Macron of France urged European companies to stop investing in the United States, and the European Union as a whole, which is developing a retaliatory tariff response and plotting potential tax increases on American tech companies, announced it is sending a delegation to Beijing in July.

 

What comes next? Perhaps it shouldn’t be so hard to imagine, given the drift of what’s now called geoeconomics. Already, China commands global trade, and modeling from Bloomberg shows that, as constituted today, the tariffs will only add to the lead — pushing many more countries to work more with China and less with America. According to one model, 30 percent of American trading partners would fully recover from even total cessation of U.S. trade within one year; within five years, more than half would. This is why chaos is rarely the chosen strategy for a hegemon: Barring what Trump calls a “beautiful deal,” the biggest single beneficiary of the whole crusade may well end up being its intended target.”

So how do we deal with the dragon? Clearly there is ‘fire’ and a certain amount of ‘huffing and puffing’. But beyond the aggressiveness, think Taiwan, and even aggression – talk to the Philippines – about that, is there the prospect of securing a deal? And in the more immediate circumstances, is there the prospect of securing a bilateral trade arrangement, or even an enlarged one with China.

Let’s start with an assessment of what the Trump administration is up to. This is not an easy determination. What is the goal of the Trump administration? Kyla Scanlon, author of, the author of “In This Economy? How Money & Markets Really Work” wrote recently in the NYT:

“What is an overarching goal of these actions? Or, what is the purpose of Trumponomics?

In a word, reindustrialization.”

It is hard to see at times what is the end point for Trump and his minions: is it revenues, China decoupling, reshoring of manufacturing – all or none of the above. But for Scanlon it is evident – reindustrialization in the US and she goes on to say:

“To reindustrialize will require investment in people and machines — and a coherent strategy. Given the Trump administration’s aversion to collaboration and the internal contradictions of the factions within the administration, its reindustrialization drive appears disconnected from reality and destined to fail.”

She concludes that a successful strategy in the 21st century today, in her opinion, require the following from the US and its partners ultimately:

“Modern manufacturing is high-tech and requires different skills from those of the 20th century. The focus should be on advanced manufacturing sectors where America can lead through innovation, not just protectionism: pharmaceuticals, clean-energy technology, robotics and semiconductors.

 

Second, it would invest substantially in the foundations for industrial competitiveness like education, infrastructure, research and development (like the CHIPS Act) and work force training.

 

Third, a serious strategy would recognize that alliances matter. Rather than needlessly alienate partners like Canada, Mexico, Japan and the European Union, a sound approach would build cooperative frameworks that reduce dependence on geopolitical rivals while strengthening ties with allies. Selective decoupling would better serve America’s long-term interests.”

But what appears to be evident is that the Trump administration seems dramatically unwilling to work with partners and allies to enhance trade with them and to press China on what remains today a damaging economic policy from Beijing that increases production and exports as opposed to a more determined effort to improve domestic consumption. Yes, Xi Jinping and his associates have once again targeted energizing domestic consumption, but seeing is believing. We shall see.

What then is possible? Tom Friedman describes why it is highly unlikely that Trump will, or can, act in concert. As Friedman put in a recent NYT piece:

“So much crazy happens with the Trump administration every day that some downright weird but incredibly telling stuff gets lost in the noise. A recent example was the scene on April 8 at the White House where, in the middle of his raging trade war, our president decided it was the perfect time to sign an executive order to bolster coal mining.”

 

“It’s commendable that the president honors men and women who work with their hands. But when he singles out coal miners for praise while he tries to zero out development of clean-tech jobs from his budget — in 2023, the U.S. wind energy industry employed approximately 130,000 workers, while the solar industry employed 280,000 — it suggests that Trump is trapped in a right-wing woke ideology that doesn’t recognize green manufacturing jobs as “real” jobs. How is that going to make us stronger?”

 

“This whole Trump II administration is a cruel farce. Trump ran for another term not because he had any clue how to transform America for the 21st century. He ran in order to stay out of jail and to get revenge on those who, with real evidence, had tried to hold him accountable to the law. I doubt he has ever spent five minutes studying the work force of the future.”

 

“But this farce is about to touch every American. By attacking our closest allies — Canada, Mexico, Japan, South Korea and the European Union — and our biggest rival, China, at the same time he makes clear he favors Russia over Ukraine and prefers climate-destroying energy industries over future-oriented ones, the planet be damned, Trump is triggering a serious loss of global confidence in America.”

 

“The world is now seeing Trump’s America for exactly what it is becoming: a rogue state led by an impulsive strongman disconnected from the rule of law and other constitutional American principles and values.”

If indeed the US under a Trump administration is a rogue actor, and on too many days it does indeed look exactly like that. Put simply what is required and the answer may well be: coordination without the United States. And I’d add it begins with the Informals, most notably the G20.

There has been on and off talk that Trump will not attend the G20 Leaders’ Summit which will be held in Johannesburg, South Africa, on November 22-23rd. And senior US officials including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent have failed to show up for at least early meetings. On the other hand, apparently, the United States has been active in the Troika – the gathering of the G20 members – the past host, the present one and future host – in assisting in carrying out a successful G20 Summit. As it turns out the United States is scheduled to take hosting in 2026. But the point is whether the US participates – if it doesn’t the UK would likely take the hosting in 2026 – and indeed possibly US absence might benefit the working of the G20 at the moment – a serious gathering like this may be critical in advancing needed global governance action.

Coordination without US participation – at least during Trump 2.0 – may be the necessary ingredient for advancing critical multilateral action. I will return to this soon.

Image Credit: FT and Neil Hall/EPA

This Post first appeared at Alan’s Newsletter: https://globalsummitryproject.substack.com/p/taming-the-bully-and-the-dragon

In a Trump World, ‘Widening the Who’ in the Global Order

Posted on by
Reply

Now we are out a bit early. But that’s not surprising because of the US national elections on Tuesday night. So a few thoughts on that and then a redirection to the, “what do we do about the global order in the light of Trump’s return, including many of his former advisers, to the White House”

The electoral equation in the end proved to be rather simple if also somber. Harris lost too many non-college and latino men and she won women – but not by nearly enough. With the Latinos, Trump won 32 percent in 2020; in 2024 Trump won about 45 percent.  Harris,  on women, won 54 percent but Biden in 2020 won 57 percent. The Harris statistic on women is dismaying.

Now I am not one to focus and comment on US elections – other than as a ‘somewhat informed’ but non-expert – but it does seem to me that the Harris campaign did not strategically break through with a host of electoral groups with her message. And she needed to to secure the Presidency. As Michael Hirsh described in FP: 

Despite overpowering Trump in their only debate on Sept. 10 and raising more than $1 billion in donations in just three months—a new record—Harris often floundered when challenged to deliver a convincing summary of her agenda on critical issues such as the economy and immigration. She also fumbled badly in explaining her flip-flops on issues such as fracking (which she once opposed and later supported, but without pointing out the simple fact that improved technology had made it environmentally safer). That led Wall Street Journal commentator Peggy Noonan to label Harris an “artless dodger.”

Worse, possibly, was the view expressed by Opinion Writer Peter Baker who suggests that Trump represents a significant current of American thinking. As he wrote in the NYT:

The assumption that Mr. Trump represented an anomaly who would at last be consigned to the ash heap of history was washed away on Tuesday night by a red current that swept through battleground states — and swept away the understanding of America long nurtured by its ruling elite of both parties. … With his comeback victory to reclaim the presidency, Mr. Trump has now established himself as a transformational force reshaping the United States in his own image.

 

No longer can the political establishment write off Mr. Trump as a temporary break from the long march of progress, a fluke who somehow sneaked into the White House in a quirky, one-off Electoral College win eight years ago. With his comeback victory to reclaim the presidency, Mr. Trump has now established himself as a transformational force reshaping the United States in his own image.

 

Populist disenchantment with the nation’s direction and resentment against elites proved to be deeper and more profound than many in both parties had recognized. Mr. Trump’s testosterone-driven campaign capitalized on resistance to electing the first woman president.

In fact, according to Baker, Trump was appreciated for all his effrontery and racism:

Rather than be turned off by Mr. Trump’s flagrant, anger-based appeals along lines of race, gender, religion, national origin and especially transgender identity, many Americans found them bracing. Rather than be offended by his brazen lies and wild conspiracy theories, many found him authentic.

So with Trump in the White House and his people in the Administration where do we go? On the immediate geopolitical front we are very likely to see rising tensions with China – though I believe there is a path to less tension. We are very likely to see pressure on Ukraine to halt the conflict with Putin even at the cost of transferring Ukrainian lands to Russia – a real cost and speaking of costs we are likely to see a blizzard of tariffs on Chinese goods and possibly beyond. But it is a bit early to fill in the contours of Trump 2.0 foreign policy.

But, instead, let me look at the outline of the direction we saw coming from Democrat and Democrat-leaning experts and operatives. In particular let me look briefly at the design described by Anne-Marie Slaughter in a recent Foreign Affairs piece titled: “How America Can Succeed in a Multialigned World: The Importance of Building Truly Global Partnerships”. Anne-Marie is currently CEO of the think tank New America. From 2002 to 2009, she was Bert G. Kerstetter ‘66 University Professor of Politics and International Affairs and Dean of the School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University. In 2009 Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appointed her as the first woman Director of Policy Planning in the U.S. State Department. She has been a ‘close in’ Democratic voice and it is why I refer to this article to give an inside possible glimpse at where the Harris administration might have moved had she been elected and indeed the possibility of Anne-Marie’s very real likely participation.

Anne-Marie is quite aware that there are two challenges this Biden administration faced and would be front and center for a Harris administration – the rising geopolitical tensions with Russia, and with China and with Iran, but also the existential global governance threats, climate, finance and weakened multilateralism and the institutions that no longer served global order purposes. Anne-Marie moved back to gaze at the Biden administration and its effort to build not just an alliance system but beyond that to a ‘multipartner world’. As Anne-Marie declared:

It [the Biden administration] has reanimated and expanded traditional alliances such as NATO and strengthened and created a host of new diplomatic and security partnerships. Secretary of State Antony Blinken described in Foreign Affairs a network of “partners in peace,” the result of an intense diplomatic strategy to safeguard U.S. interests abroad while rebuilding competitiveness at home.

Yet as she described the effort:

 These partnerships are important and valuable. Still, the Biden strategy overall has tilted too far in the direction of geopolitical competition over global cooperation, even as it tries to do both at once. To strike the right balance, the next administration must partner with a wider variety of global actors, focus those partnerships more on existential global threats, and accept a more decentralized, messier world that welcomes leadership from many different quarters.

 

The concept of “multistakeholder governance” holds that all actors who have a stake in the outcome of a specific decision, whether a state, an international institution, a corporation, or a municipality, find a place at the table at some point in the decision-making process.

So the future of multipartnering was just not just constructed on state, regional and international organizations but extending to non-state and substate actors. As Anne-Marie argues:

The concept of “multistakeholder governance” holds that all actors who have a stake in the outcome of a specific decision, whether a state, an international institution, a corporation, or a municipality, find a place at the table at some point in the decision-making process.

Her conclusion for this multipartner approach is as follows:

A national security strategy dedicated to building a multipartner world will still leave plenty of room for the United States to lead on the global stage. Moreover, embracing multisector partnerships gives open societies such as that of the United States a leg up in in geopolitical competition, given the autonomy and energy of American civic, corporate, philanthropic, technological, scientific, and educational institutions.

This wide multipartner approach, as described in part by Anne-Marie Slaughter, is unlikely to be captured and furthered by the incoming Trump administration. But it is worth keeping in mind and may well be an approach that will be valuable for many national, regional and international actors in the near future, even if not for a Trump America.

Meanwhile, another piece in a multipartner world is a possibility. And we at the China-West Dialogue (CWD) are keenly examining the role today of Middle Powers in furthering efforts to meet the challenge of global threats and to diminish the ratcheting up of geopolitical tensions. We are currently examining with colleagues across the globe the potential for Middle Power Diplomacy (MPD)  to tackle global threats and stabilize the global governance environment. As the lead co-chair of the CWD, Colin Bradford has written:

Global pluralism, developed in 2020-2023, posits the existence already of “autonomous” strategies and independence in foreign policies as a “global political dynamic” in global relations.  Pluralism is a core concept for CWD, in that it leads to the “pluralization” of relations with China as an “alternative framework” to address the toxic tension in the bilateral China-US relationship in recent years. This has been the goal of CWD from its foundation.

 

In the last year of CWD exchanges, the importance of Middle Powers and Middle Power Diplomacy has arisen as the domestic driver of pluralism.  This new CWD series seeks to elucidate the factors enabling countries to be Middle Powers and the features of their international behaviors which are effective in addressing global systemic challenges.

 

A better understanding of these factors and features could facilitate proactive national efforts to deliberately contribute to global pluralism by “punching above their weight” and to influence global governance outcomes that include China and the US but which “globalize” those outcomes, rather than narrow them by allowing great power dominance to prevail.

We have examined with colleagues globally, and always with our colleagues from China in the CWD process, Middle Power actions from Japan and Latin America, especially Brazil, and Korea shortly with Turkey, Indonesia and the ASEAN to come and also with examinations of Europe and the US and China and MPD.

Trump America with its hypernationalist focus and its likely transactional initiatives fails to promote any kind of global order optimism; but there are other pathways. We need to explore these further and promote those that appear promising.

This was first posted as a Substack POst at Alan’s Newsletter. All comments and free subscriptions are welcome

https://open.substack.com/pub/globalsummitryproject/p/in-a-trump-world-widening-the-who?r=bj&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true

Image Credit: ABC News

 

 

 

The Changing Shape and Influence of the Informals

Posted on by
Reply

The UN General Assembly’s High Level Week has come and gone. And so has the unique UN gathering – The ‘Summit of the Future’ with the passage of the long anticipated, ‘Pact for the Future’. So, it’s not surprising that those of us concerned with global governance, global order and global summitry have turned our attention to the – Informals and most evidently the upcoming two Summits – the G20 Summit hosted this year by Brazil and the BRICS+ Summit hosted by none other than Russia. As it turns out, the third key Informal, the G7 has already been held by Italy in Apulia on June 13-15th.

The Informals emerged in 1975 with the creation of the G6 then the G7 a year later. While the G7 enlarged to the G7/8 in 1998, with the inclusion of Russia, it returned to being the G7 in 2017 when Russia that had been suspended with its annexation of Crimea in 2014, abandoned the Informal for the G20. The G20 began in 1999 with finance ministers and central bankers. It evolved into a leaders summit with the global financial crisis in 2008. The G20 members in attendance at the first Leaders’ Summit called by George W. Bush were: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Türkiye, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The BRICs called their first leaders gathering in Yekaterinburg Russia in 2009. It emerged as the BRICS with the addition of South Africa at the Sanya China meeting in 2011.  These three, the G7, the G20 and the BRICS have remained the key informal annual leaders’ summits. The question remains, however, how effective have these 3 Summits been? Have they been able to shape the global order and advance collective global governance leadership? In other words, have they been effective?

Let me first focus on the BRICS+. This year’s gathering is the first convening of the BRICS+, an enlarged BRICS group. This year’s Summit is significant for the current member enlargement but also for its hosting by Russia. Yes, this year the BRICS+ is hosted by Russia – a pariah for the West due to the Ukraine War. My colleague, Stewart Patrick, a senior fellow and director of the Global Order and Institutions Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP) published a BRICS+ piece on September 9, titled, “BRICS Expansion, the G20, and the Future of World Order”. On the first point, enlargement, Stewart suggests:

Putin has also invited more than two dozen other countries that have applied for or are considering membership in the expanding club. The gathering is meant to send an unmistakable signal: Despite the West’s best efforts to isolate it, Russia has many friends around the world.

This meeting in Russia will take place in Kazan the capital of Tatarstan. In addition to the original members – Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, besides all the many invited guest there are the new members: Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), though it should be noted that Saudi Arabia has technically not accepted membership but will attend in any case. Now Stewart’s explanation for this expansion:

No doubt, BRICS expansion evinces a growing global dissatisfaction with and a determination to challenge the structural advantages that advanced market democracies continue to enjoy in a global order that was in many respects made by the West, for the West. Reducing those exorbitant privileges, including by creating alternative, parallel institutions, is the fundamental purpose of BRICS+.

And the prospects of further expansion is highly possible. According to Putin, as described by Stewart:

According to Putin, thirty-four countries have expressed an interest to join the club, “in one form or another.” Some two dozen countries have reportedly applied for membership, among them Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, Kazakhstan, Myanmar, Nigeria, Pakistan, Senegal, Thailand, Venezuela, and Vietnam. More may be waiting in the wings, like Indonesia, which applied and then withdrew its application a decade ago. The most recent applicant is Türkiye, a member of NATO—albeit one that seeks to keep its options open. The group, in other words, seems destined to expand.

So what are the goals and how effective has the current BRICS+ been. As noted above, the BRICS+ members loudly proclaim the need to add the Global South to the major multilateral institutions whether the UN, and especially the UN Security Council, or the major financial institutions, the World Bank and the IMF.

At the extreme, according to my colleague Oliver Stuenkel and his co-author Alexander Gabuev in a recent article in Foreign Affairs, titled, “The Battle for the BRICS: Why the Future of the Bloc Will Shape Global Order”:

Putin summarized the agenda of Russia’s BRICS presidency in remarks in July as part of a “painful process” to overthrow the “classic colonialism” of the U.S.-led order, calling for an end to Washington’s “monopoly” on setting the rules of the road.

But the makeup today, and likely in the near future, has its limitations as described by Oliver and his co-author:

But despite its allure, the club must grapple with an internal fissure. Some of its members, chief among them China and Russia, want to position the grouping against the West and the global order crafted by the United States. The addition of Iran, an inveterate adversary of the United States, only deepens the sense that the group is now lining up on one side of a larger geopolitical battle. Other members, notably Brazil and India, do not share this ambition. Instead, they want to use BRICS to democratize and encourage the reform of the existing order, helping guide the world from the fading unipolarity of the post–Cold War era to a more genuine multipolarity in which countries can steer between U.S.-led and Chinese-led blocs.

There clearly are differences in the view of its members as to what this Informal is designed to accomplish. And evidently not all members are equal. In particular China exerts strong influence on the original members and it, along with Russia, have pushed for expansion notwithstanding Brazil and India’s reticence:

Brazil and India are therefore wary of the BRICS’ hardening orientation. Both were initially opposed to China’s push to expand the group, which Beijing first proposed in 2017 under the rubric of “BRICS Plus.” Brazil and India were keen to retain the club’s exclusivity, worried that adding more members to the bloc would dilute their own influence within it. In 2023, China stepped up its diplomatic campaign and pressured Brazil and India to support expansion, mostly by casting their resistance as tantamount to preventing the rise of other developing countries. Keen to preserve its own standing in the global South, India dropped its opposition, leaving Brazil no choice but to go along with expansion. Brazil did lobby against adding any overtly anti-Western countries—an endeavor that failed spectacularly when Iran was announced as one of the new members that year.

It appears that the BRICS+ has taken on what appears to be a growing anti-western tilt and in the extreme case an anti-US position. In particular Russia, given its experience of US and European sanctions since the outbreak of war between Russia and Ukraine has urged the toppling of the US dollar dominance according to Alexander and Oliver:

In this fight against the Western “monopoly,” Putin identified the most important campaign as the quest to weaken the dominion of the dollar over international financial transactions. This focus is a direct result of Russia’s experience with Western sanctions. Russia hopes that it can build a truly sanctions-proof payments system and financial infrastructure through BRICS, involving all member countries.

But what has the BRICS accomplished beyond expressing distaste for the current global order leadership.

Stewart targets what he sees as the goals of the BRICS+ on the differences within:

On its face, BRICS+ is a formidable economic bloc,comprising half of the world’s population, 40 percent of its trade, and 40 percent of crude oil production and exports. The coalition can use this leverage not only to demand a more equitable international order but also to act on those ambitions, for instance by establishing a parallel energy trading system, deepening commercial links among members,creating an alternative system of development finance, reducing dollar dependence in foreign exchange transactions, and deepening technology cooperation in fields from AI to outer space. Expect BRICS+ to seek opportunities in each area.

Stewart also applauds various group actions:

Like the G7 and G20, the BRICS group has launched an expanding array of initiatives and partnerships across multiple issue areas, from energy to health to sustainable development. The result is an impressive and increasingly dense transnational latticework of networked minilateralism, with a heavy focus on South-South cooperation.

Yet the major collective BRICS efforts have been limited. In fact, we have two only: the New Development Bank (NDB) and a currency swap arrangement, the Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA) which has remained unused notwithstanding all the discussions of an alternative to the US dollar. As to the NDB it has not had a major financing impact with many criticizing it for relying too much on private financing. For an insightful discussion of the BRICS please listen to the podcast I undertook with York University’s Gregory Chin, “Summit Dialogue, S2, Ep 7, An Interview with Gregory Chin on the BRICS+ and the New Development Bank”

Frankly the collective efforts have been at best works in progress with far more rhetorical expression than practical implementation. As Stewart remarks:

To date, BRICS has been more effective at signaling what it is against—namely,continued Western domination of the architecture of global governance—than what it stands for.

And Alexander and Oliver further note:

In this fight against the Western “monopoly,” Putin identified the most important campaign as the quest to weaken the dominion of the dollar over international financial transactions. This focus is a direct result of Russia’s experience with Western sanctions. Russia hopes that it can build a truly sanctions-proof payments system and financial infrastructure through BRICS, involving all member countries.

The talk of de-dollarization is rife but the dethroning of the dollar is nowhere to be seen at the moment. So that is a first look at the expanded BRICS.

What then is the current status of the G20? First it should be noted the G20 has enlarged as well with the addition of the African Union in 2023. A key strength of the G20, unlike the G7, is that the G20 includes advanced economic and Global South members. In principle this wider membership corrects for the skewed membership of the G7 where no significant Global South members are present. This evident avantage has however fallen to the tensions generated in a far more geopolitical tense international system. Stewart reflects on the impact of the rising geopolitical tensions:

Of particular concern is the future of the Group of 20 (G20). Even before BRICS expansion, it had become a microcosm of growing global rifts. A further hardening of these divisions would undercut the G20’s fundamental raison d’être: namely, to help bridge gulfs between—and leverage the capabilities of—important countries that are not inherently or necessarily like-minded.

 

Among the biggest uncertainties is what impact the BRICS+ will have on the role and functioning of the G20, which will hold its own summit in Rio de Janeiro on November 18–19 under this year’s chair, Brazil.Since the G20’s elevation to the leader level in 2008, one of its ostensible comparative advantages has been that it provide a setting for flexible coalitions of consensus to emerge that transcend rigid blocs.

 

The expansion of BRICS certainly has the potential to exacerbate these dynamics, by splitting the G20 into opposed G7 and BRICS+ factions.

Though much anticipation was paid to the G20 broad membership, the geopolitical and now the ant-Western tensions reflected in the BRICS+ may hobble the very needed collective global governance efforts ascribed to the G20.

We will come back to the G20 as we approach the G20 Summit scheduled for November 18th and 19th, in Rio de Janeiro as we look to take the measure of G20 effectiveness.

Image Credit: LinkedIn

This Post was originally posted at my Substack, Alan’s Newsletter: https://open.substack.com/pub/globalsummitryproject/p/the-changing-shape-and-influence?r=bj&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true

 

Growing Closer to the Summit of the Future

Posted on by
Reply

So, we are closing in on the consequential “UN Summit of the Future” (SoTF). This UN gathering will occur this coming fall on September 22-23rd during the UN General Assembly’s high-level week. This Summit, as was the case with the earlier SDG Summit, will be attended by many Heads of State and Government. 

Now this is not the first occasion that I found myself raising the SoTF. I did so back in March in a Substack Post, entitled: “The Impact of the UN Summit of the Future (SOTF)”. At that time I noted the hope from the UN and the Secretary General, Antonio Guterres for this second of two major UN gatherings: 

The Summit of the Future (SoTF) is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to enhance cooperation on critical challenges and address gaps in global governance, reaffirm existing commitments including to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the United Nations Charter, and move towards a reinvigorated multilateral system that is better positioned to positively impact people’s lives. Building on the SDG Summit in 2023, Member States will consider ways to lay the foundations for more effective global cooperation that can deal with today’s challenges as well as new threats in the future.

If only to take the measure of this formal multilateral institution – the UN, it is useful that we closely examine the UN and the Secretary General’s effectiveness through the actions and conclusions of this second of the Two Summit. It has become evident to most, if not all commentators that this formal security institution and its many specialized agencies,  like the formal financial and trade institutions such as the World Bank, the IMF and the WTO – have all become enfeebled with age, conflicting North-South objectives and rising geopolitical tensions between major powers including Russia, China, the US and Europe. In addition, the rules often require consensus that as pointed out recently by Frederic Menard and Jennifer Welsh and her colleagues, in a new volume on global governance,  Afterworlds: Long Covid and International Relations leads to the following conclusion: 

The second weakness of contemporary multilateralism—its reliance on particular representations of power and interests—means that it maintains a system whereby a consensus among sovereign governments is required to advance collective policy on global problems, even when that consensus effectively results in the lowest common denominator.

There is a strong sense that these institutions are no longer ‘fit for purpose’, yet there is little hope for renewal in the face of the ‘rising disorder and fragmentation in international relations’. 

But back to the UN and this critical Summit. The UN describes the path to the SoTF as follows: 

The 75th Anniversary of the United Nations was marked in June 2020 with a declaration by Member States that included 12 overarching commitments along with a request to the Secretary-General for recommendations to address both current and future challenges. In September 2021, the Secretary-General responded with his report, Our Common Agenda, a wake-up call to speed up the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals and propel the commitments contained in the UN75 Declaration. In some cases, the proposals addressed gaps that emerged since 2015, requiring new intergovernmental agreements. The report, therefore, called for a Summit of the Future to forge a new global consensus on readying ourselves for a future that is rife with risks but also opportunities. The General Assembly welcomed the submission of the “rich and substantive” report and agreed to hold the Summit on 22-23 September 2024, preceded by a ministerial meeting in 2023. An action-oriented Pact for the Future is expected to be agreed by Member States through intergovernmental negotiations on issues they decide to take forward. 

This self-described pathway by the UN and its Secretary General highlights the key measure of success and renewal – the “Pact for the Future” (Pact).  Richard Ponzio, Director and Senior Fellow, Global Governance, Justice & Security at The Stimson Center, and a close watcher of the UN, raised that very same question with his opinion piece on the Pact with its title – “Summit of the Future: A Historical Pivot or Mere Footnote?” But after a reading of his opinion piece and then a review of both the zero draft and now what is called the compilation draft it leaves the answer difficult to discern. As Richard pointed out, however, this compilation draft is not yet an end point. As he describes: 

Time is running short, with the first revision of the Pact for the Future not expected until shortly after the UN Civil Society Conference, from May 9-10 in Nairobi, which is focusing on the Summit of the Future.

Now  the zero draft covered 20 pages. Additions and emendations and significant paragraph rewrites by member states left the compilation draft at 255 pages leaving much to accomplish for those about to hold the pen after Nairobi. Moreover, as Richard points out, there is a movement ‘afoot’ to leave final results – the final document, to sometime in the future: 

A more recent argument to gather steam that could further kick the can down the road and result in underwhelming outcomes by September is the notion that as a consensus-based world leaders document, the Pact for the Future is already pitched at an appropriate length, tone and level of ambition. Hence, the logic follows that the technical details could be fleshed out by diplomats and others after the summit.

But  the current document as I pointed out earlier remains fixed more on the ‘what’ but hardly anything on the ‘how. There is little in the current document on how can the UN, the Secretary-General, and others actually advance and implement reforms and changes agreed to by the Member States. Unfortunately, the ‘what’ is decidedly more easy to lay out than the ‘how’. Thus, for example, there is a call for UN Security Council reform – an issue that has dogged the UN system for years but the compilation draft, just as the earlier zero draft, still fails to actually provide suggested reforms in membership,how many countries will be permanent, how large will the the Security Council be, which countries will hold a veto, if any at all, etc., etc.

Now Richard does suggest there there are four major initiatives that appear to be coming together:

A biennial summit on the global economy to bring the G20 and the UN closer to expand development financing for the 2030 Agenda (Sustainable Development Goals) and improve global economic governance. 

 

An emergency platform for better addressing complex global shocks, such as pandemics or large-scale environmental disasters (although influential countries, such as Pakistan and Cuba, question its purpose and cost). 

 

A Global Digital Compact with human rights-based principles to lay the foundations for broader governance of cybertech, including AI. 

 

A Declaration on Future Generations, which, if backed by an authoritative intergovernmental body, a special envoy and monitoring tool, could achieve the status and impact of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 

If Richard is correct, and these are the most likely changes and reforms to be adopted by the UN and also likely to be adopted as a legacy for the current Secretary General as he comes to the end, and likely retirement in 2026 after his second term, well, I am concerned.  A biennial summit with the G20 is possible but then what is likely to be accomplished – I’m not sure. But an emergency platform – that seems to me to be a stretch and as for the other two other initiatives, they suggest a presence but likely in form but without substance. 

Look, reform of these formal institutions created decades ago is a struggle at the best of times. And, I’m afraid, the state of global governance reform is far from being at the best of times in this growing era of disorder in international relations.

But stay tuned.

This Post first appeared at my Substack, Alan’s Newsletter’.

https://open.substack.com/pub/globalsummitryproject/p/growing-closer-to-the-summit-of-the?r=bj&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true

 

Stumbling Over ‘Strategic Narcissism’

Posted on by
Reply

“Advancing global governance and human security for a better future”: A Symposium hosted by the Center for China and Globalization (CCG), America-China Public Affairs Institute (ACPAI) and the China-West Dialogue (CWD) 

I had the good fortune to attend a ‘closed’ symposium in Washington this past midweek hosted by the organizations identified above. The Symposium identified the attainment of human security and the advancement of global governance as the key subjects of discussion and debate for the two roundtable sessions. The advance notes for the symposium suggested focusing on: 

How, might 2024 turn out to be a year of opportunity for advancing global governance in addressing human security challenges? What role can the Middle Powers play in moving the global relations forward to address humanity’s quest for security and systemic sustainability?

And as the notes further suggested: 

This half-day event aims for a broad engagement of perspectives from China, the United States, and the Global South on the feasibility of revamping global governance in the current context. We seek to convene leading global policy researchers, practitioners, and advocates to debate and recommend specific global institutional, legal, normative, and operational mechanisms that could inform governments’ participation in the major multilateral events of this year. 

 

The first roundtable session on the attainment of human security was led by Henry Huiyao Wang the President of CCG. And as the notes suggested: 

This session seeks to explore the scope of the concept of human security as a useful tool of generating alternative narratives and dynamics of US-China relations that yield more productive relations in global governance policy.

 

Framing questions:

 

  1. How can the idea of human security [to] be articulated in a way to mediate differences between the United States and China, given the prospects of bilateral cooperation on climate change, health, and AI governance?

  2. Multilaterally, how can the scope of the notion be extended to include norms and principles, such as international humanitarian law, human rights, nuclear nonproliferation, and other dimensions in global governance?

  3. Are there specific institutional, legal, normative, and operational mechanisms that can be reformed to accelerate the implementation of the 2030 agenda? What are alternative coalitions that need to, should or can drive global governance leadership?

The second roundtable was led by Colin Bradford, the Lead Co-Chair of CWD and non-resident Senior Fellow, Brookings. The session was designed to explore advancing global governance “in a new global dynamic of pluralism where middle power diplomacy, it was suggested, might play a key role in lowering the ‘temperature’ in great power relations and promoting greater global governance policymaking. As the notes identified: 

Middle Powers exist today with agency and influence to play a role in addressing global threats. Understanding Middle Power Diplomacy and its implications for the global order can generate transformative forces in fostering multilateral consensus on global governance. The Brazilian and South African G20 presidencies during 2024 and 2025, with the US to follow in 2026, could become pivotal focal points for transition to a new era in global relations in which MPD demonstrates the feasibility of advancing humanity’s quest for peace, security, equality, and sustainable development. This session aims for a broad engagement of diverse perspectives, cutting across disciplines, sectors and regions.

 

Framing questions:

 

  1. What is Middle Power Diplomacy and how [can] the concept factor in independent and cross-national policy space to address global governance challenges?
  2. Following the Bali Declaration in November 2022 and the pause in US-China tensions after the Biden-Xi summit in November 2023 in San Francisco, what are the prospects for MPD to play an active role in global governance leadership?
  3. What are specific issues on which greater potential for convergence and cooperation exist in a global governance dimension, not a geopolitical context for MPD to bridge divides and invigorate coordinated efforts between countries?”

There was a lively discussion throughout the two roundtables that revealed, as one participant put it, that there appears to be two trends in our thinking on the current geopolitics. One trend underscored how critical greater cooperation was called for to deal with the growing transnational problems and the second, and a countervailing trend – greater great power rivalry  and competition. With respect to the first trend, it was hoped that various Middle Powers – seen as countries that can and do punch above their weight – say a Sweden, or Singapore, or Braziland more – work to tackle global governance problems such as extreme poverty or climate change ‘green transition’ policy and financing.

While there was a strong sentiment expressed underscoring the agency of Middle Powers in the midst of great power rivalry, especially in the context of Middle Power leadership of the G20 – Indonesia, India, currently Brazil, and to be followed next year by South Africa, there was an equally strong sense of caution and a view that great power rivalry – Russia, China and the United States – appeared to cripple collective action and to undermine Middle Power Diplomacy (MPD). 

Much of our discussion in MIddle Powers and MPD – what was possible in the face of great power competition – was shadowed by what has been labelled in the recent past as ‘Strategic Narcissism’ and I recalled to the group. The term ‘Strategic Narcissism’ was used, if not created by H.R. McMaster in his book,  Battlegrounds: The Fight to Defend the Free World published in 2020 at the end of the Trump years. McMaster In February 2017 succeeded Michael Flynn as President Donald Trump‘s National Security Advisor.  For McMaster the term was applied to the US role in shaping global order relations. He defined the term as: “the tendency to view the world only in relation to the United States and to assume that the future course of events depends primarily on U.S. decisions or plans.” As he wrote (2020, 18): 

Across multiple administrations, U.S. foreign policy and national security strategy has suffered from what we might derive from Morgenthau’s essay “Strategic Narcissism”: the tendency to view the world only in relation to the United States and to assume that the future course of events depends primarily on U.S. decisions or plans. The two mind-sets that result from strategic narcissism, overconfidence and resignation, share the conceit of attributing outcomes almost exclusively to U.S. decisions and undervaluing the degree to which others influence the future.

McMaster appears to have drawn the concept  from earlier work by the great international relations thinker, Hans Morgenthau. Morgenthau identifies the concept in his 1978 essay: “The Roots of Narcissism” with Ethel Person (The Partisan Review. 1978 vol 45(3): 337-347). McMaster, however, creates what is a new phrase and concept by adding “strategic.” How closely McMaster’s interpretation of narcissism represents Morgenthau’s position is debatable. The language of “alienation” and “aspirations exceeding the limits of ability” is drawn verbatim from Morgenthau, but Morgenthau presents them as human problems. The leap by McMaster to apply this analysis to a national level foreign policy is somewhat questionable. In Battlegrounds, however, McMaster writes that in “The Roots of Narcissism” Morgenthau lamented preoccupation with self in foreign policy because it led to alienation from other nations and aspirations that exceed the limits of ability.  America’s stature as the only superpower encouraged narcissism, according to McMaster with a preoccupation with self, and an associated neglect of the influence that others have over the future course of events. Americans began to define the world only in relation to their own aspirations and desires and there are many that continue to do so in current global order analysis.

While there was much caution, even pessimism expressed over the ability of MPD to successfully temper great power dominance and action, general support was expressed for a view acknowledged at the end of the symposium by one participant that it was necessary to try and ‘move the needle’ – to push back against blocs and their rigidity and to support and advance collective global governance policy and action.   

This Post first appeared at my Substack, Alan’s Newsletter

https://open.substack.com/pub/globalsummitryproject/p/stumbling-over-strategic-narcissism?r=bj&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true

‘The Black and the White of it’ – The Rules-based Order(RBO) – at an Intriguing Roundtable

Posted on by
Reply

I was fortunate enough last week to join colleagues at the annual ISA in San Francisco in a Roundtable with the above title, or close to it. Enjoy the weekend and this Post at Alan’s Newsletter

https://open.substack.com/pub/globalsummitryproject/p/the-black-and-the-white-of-it-the?r=bj&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true

It was a good gathering, actually, a very good gathering! I had the good fortune of joining with many thousands of my colleagues at the International Studies Association (ISA) annual conference, this year in San Francisco. The ISA runs for some 4 days and the attendees joined the conference from across the globe. One thing that was noticeable at this annual gathering was that there seemed to be more international relations (IR) sessions than in the past. And this year I was fortunate enough to chair the following Roundtable: ‘The Black and White’ of the Rules-based Order (RBO): Does it exist? If it does, how to constrain breaches; if not what is to be done?

The session’s origin was in back and forth with my colleagues G. John Ikenberry and Arthur Stein. Though John in the end failed to attend, Arthur, Distinguished Research Professor of Political Science at UCLA did join us at the Roundtable. And truth be told Arthur and I snuck away from the Conference on Friday to enjoy – the opening game of the San Francisco Giants. So cool!

So, back to the Conference and the Rountable. The other members of the Roundtable included: Pascale Massot, Assistant Professor, soon to be Associate Professor, in the School of Political Studies at the University of Ottawa, Harukata Takenaka, Professor at the National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies (GRIPS) at Tokyo, Andrew Cooper, Professor of Political Science at the University of Waterloo, Yves Tiberghien, Professor of Political Science and Konwakai Chair in Japanese Research at the University of British Columbia and Amitav Acharya the UNESCO Chair in Transitional Challenges and Governance and Distinguished Professor at the School of International Service, American University. The group joined Arthur and I on Thursday morning of the Conference.

So what was the premise of this Roundtable? The intro posed the contrasting views of the RBOs existence.  There are clear statements from the Biden Administration,  NATO partners and other European countries of Russia’s violation of the RBO with its war on Ukraine. We then zeroed in on the Russian view, expressed by among others, Sergei Lavrov, Russia’s Foreign Minister who described the state of the global order as seen from Moscow: “Now the UN-centric system is undergoing a deep crisis, the root cause of which was brought on by the decision of certain UN members to replace international law and the UN Charter with some rules-based international order”. A similar view was expressed by Chen Wenqing, a chief security official from China who declared: “Individual states are trying to use the pretext of protesting  [for] democracy to substitute the existing world order based on international law with an artificial rules-based order…”. On the one side an evident and declared rules-based order and on the other something very different. This view declares that international order and international law are something very distinct from this apparent Western construct – The Rules-based Order. And it led us, at this Roundtable to raise the evident question: “… do we even have an RBO? If an RBO does not exist are we condemned to growing rivalry and conflict? If an RBO does exist, then what are the limits on conflict?”

The participants brought a variety of views to this Roundtable and the folks that joined us for the session. They expressed  perspectives and viewpoints from the major powers but not only and took a bird’s eye view of the evolving order and its relationship to the RBO. In the end the participants described the construction and the current state of the house that states, and now others, have built.

Let me try and capture just some of the participant perspectives. Let’s start with two valuable points, among many, that Amitav expressed at the Roundtable. First, according to Amitav, such RBO rules have been developed, shaped and reshaped by states over many centuries. He described a variety of RBOs: rules of diplomacy that go back to the 13 century; the Geneva Convention that goes back to the Code of Manon from 200 BC; the freedom of the seas from the 1th century but before that from small Asian states in Mombasa, Calicut, Malacca and more. Not a single order but a variety of orders. Secondly, the contemporary RBO is the product of a shared effort at San Francisco and not just a US creation. For some time the rules, and in many instances norms, have been refined, and in many cases came together in the 19th century and the West had much to do with it, but so did others.

As described by a number of participants, power shifts can and often do challenge the rules and norms but as pointed out by Pascale institutions can survive power shifts if the legitimacy of purpose can be maintained by some. Different futures are fashioned by states  for each RBO ecosystem – and we witness different evolutions for humanitarian law, from trade, from freedom of the seas and other orders. But the powerful may, and often do, ignore the norms time and time again for convenience. When the powerful are tired, or inconvenienced, they go around the rules and norms. There is a huge amount of arbitrariness in the order,  as described by Andrew. And further, as noted by Arthur all rules have exceptions and cheaters. Rules are created for violating the rules and, as identified for example in trade agreements, such agreements have escape clauses. States at one time or another are willing to enforce rules and on other occasions are all too ready to cheat on the same rules. And it is the case, and it should be noted that when a country complains about others being hypocrites, that state is in fact complaining about the actor being hypocrite, not the rule itself. For Harukata the RBO can be maintained but requires the commitment of leading states to expressly maintain such norms and rules.

Finally, our colleague, Yves described 7 flaws as he saw them  in the contemporary RBO. Among the 7 it is evident that the RBO is weak and needs commitment especially from the more powerful to sustain the order or orders. As he pointed out, in a Westphalian world, any global order is a weak superstructure that requires agreement of major states at creation, and indeed to survive. Like several others Yves suggested hypocrisy, especially, among the leading powers can undermine the RBO but as he notes the power of habits and socialization, even if the order is organized hypocrisy can grow on the members of the order. Norms get integrated. The ideal standards of the RBIO can bestow legitimacy even where hypocrisy lives. Institutional gravity and stickiness as well as the entrepreneurial role of staffers in the IOs can keep the RBO alive, note recent agreements: the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the High Seas Treaty 2023. For Yves, if we really want to promote cooperation and collective commitment toward meeting common challenges and common rules, we have to focus more on the pragmatic as opposed to the high pitched rhetoric demanding adherence to an ideal RBO that does exist.

The session with my colleagues was both revealing and satisfying. They undertook a wide and deep examination of the RBO and realistically examined the contemporary order that as all pointed out is under stress, hindered by hypocrisy but still capable of maintaining constraint and order in the face of a complex interstate environment but also today an engaged substate and non-state set of actors.

 

Image Credit: ISA 2024

 

Continuing the Middle Power Narrative

Posted on by
Reply

In early February CWD highlighted, and I described in the Post at Alan’s Newsletter, “Are They All Middle Powers? Or, Are There None!” this emerging Middle Power narrative:

We hoped this session would be an opportunity to examine and critique “Asia’s Future at a crossroads: A Japanese strategy for peace and sustainable prosperity.” This very valuable Report was the outcome of years of work by the ‘Asia Future’ Research Group (Research Group)  co-convened by Yoshihide Soeya, Professor Emeritus of Keio University and Mike Mochizuki of the Elliott School of International Affairs of George Washington University. … The Research Group urged that Japanese policy not be reshaped by the rise in US-China rivalry and the growing geopolitical tensions in the international system generally and in the Indo-Pacific specifically. Alas, that may prove to be quite difficult.

The story of emerging Middle Powers is about to continue with a new Report, this by the Körber Foundation. As noted by Colin Bradford our lead co-chair at CWD in his invitation to CWD participants to join a coming session on March 28th:

Driven by demographic and economic factors and an increasingly self-confident presence on the world stage, emerging middle powers (such as Brazil, India and South Africa) are gaining international influence.

  • ​What foreign policy challenges do emerging middle powers face?  How do they position themselves vis-à-vis China and the war in Ukraine?    And, where do they find common ground with the West, particularly on reforming the international system?

The Report is, “Listening Beyond the Echo Chamber: Emerging Middle Powers Report 2024”. This Report, front and centre in our coming CWD session, presents an intriguing survey and various findings from the following:

The first Emerging Middle Powers Survey polled nearly 1,000 politicians, diplomats, journalists, researchers and private-sector representatives from

India, Brazil and South Africa (IBSA) as well as from Germany.

The CWD gathering has the good fortune of welcoming Julia Ganter, Programme Director Körber Emerging Middle Powers Initiative to introduce the Report to CWD. In addition we have remarks from:

  • Steven Gruzd, Head, African Governance and Diplomacy Programme, South African Institute for International Affairs (SAIIA), Johannesburg,
  • Manjeet Kripalani, Executive Director, Gateway House Indian Council on Global Relations, Mumbai, and
  • Paulo Esteves, Researcher & fmr. Director, BRICS Policy Center, Rio de Janeiro

The Report identifies the purpose of this research initiative on the part of the Korber:

The aim of our Körber Emerging Middle Powers Initiative (KEMP) is to promote dialogue between Germany and emerging middle powers, such as Brazil, India, and South Africa. With their growing political, economic and demographic weight they are key players for global problem solving and also form the G20 troika in 2024. The Russian invasion of Ukraine has shown that in Germany, among other places, geopolitical perspectives, foreign policy traditions, and national interests of emerging middle powers

are often not assessed in a realistic manner. To address this, the Körber initiative conducts an annual expert survey and facilitates various dialogue formats in cooperation with Gateway House India, the Brazilian BRICS Policy Centre and the South African Institute of International Affairs.

The initiative is valuable in part because it targets three quite important Middle Powers – India, Brazil and South Africa – all large democratic emerging market powers –  that formed IBSA with the Brasilia Declaration in 2003. While overshadowed by the BRICS and now BRICS+, IBSA remains a useful gathering of key EM powers. Moreover, India, last year, Brazil this year, and South Africa in 2025 will each host the G20 Summit. With the troika mechanism these three countries will be influencing the organization and policy initiatives of the G20.

Back to the current Körber Report. The Report opens with a rather surprising conclusion in its Executive Summary:

despite differences among the four countries, there is a common basis for more meaningful engagement and joint approaches for international reform.

The survey findings are varied and interesting.The broad conclusions:

respondents in India, Brazil and South Africa (IBSA) identify a different foreign policy challenge as most important for each country – climate change for Brazil, relations with China for India, the war in Ukraine and the Middle East for South Africa – as well as international trade for all three. These are global concerns and respondents in Germany share them.

The Report is particularly interesting in highlighting differences of view between IBSA experts and German ones.

These aspects divide [Germany] them from the IBSA respondents, who perceive international trade as a foreign policy challenge, prefer to mediate between Russia and Ukraine instead of supporting either, view the dollar’s dominance unfavourably and are optimistic about BRICS+. But even in IBSA, some are critical of the group’s expansion to include the likes of Iran.

Finally, the Report brings into focus  what Western interests, I suspect, need to understand and to advance more collaborative action:

Understanding the challenges of the West’s partners must begin with an examination of their specific concerns. Brazilian respondents most often cite climate change and the environment as the most challenging foreign policy issue for their country. Indian respondents see China, which their country has a ‘hot’ border with, as the biggest challenge. In South Africa, the most frequently cited issue is maintaining an autonomous foreign policy between the demands and pressures of different major powers, followed by the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East. … Taking their ideas seriously would show that the West is ready to include them as equals at the new global high table. Ultimately, this shift in thinking will transform the Western echo chamber into a symphony of voices.

The Report is very revealing and I suspect the CWD session will be lively and likely to advance our Middle Power thinking between and among the participants at the CWD.

More on that later I anticipate.

This Post first appeared at my Substack, Alan’s Newsletter. Comments are welcome and feel free to subscribe to receive new posts and support my work.

The Impact of the UN Summit of the Future (SOTF)

Posted on by
Reply

The Global Summit Project (GSP), as I’ve written in the past, has targeted as one of its main research interests, the national and international actions to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).  It is therefore not a big surprise that I was attracted to my good colleague, Stewart Patrick’s webinar initiative examining the Summit of the Future (SOTF) in the context of global governance. The SOTF, as much of the immediate UN efforts is concerned, in part, with achieving the SDGs. Stewart is the director of the Carnegie Endowment’s (CEIP)  Global Order and Institutions Program. Bravely he brought together for a CEIP webinar conversation – “Is This the Moment to Renew Global Governance? Prospects for the UN Summit of the Future” – Guy Ryder, UN Under-Secretary-General for Policy, Jake Sherman, Minister Counselor, U.S. Mission to the United Nations, and Minh-Thu Pham, Nonresident Scholar, CEIP. Stewart acted as moderator for this session.

This webinar is well worth listening to. We have folks who have real insights into UN reform and into achieving the SDGs. We will see, I suspect, over the coming months a growing number of presentations and events concerned with SOTF. The SOTF is the second UN summit and like the first will be held at the UNGA opening week in September. And also like the first, Heads of State and Government will be in attendance for this second of the ‘Two Summits’.

The first – the SDG Summit called member leaders to attend at the UN to review the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This first Summit, encouraged by the UN Secretary General,

… carried out a comprehensive review of the state of the SDGs, responded to the impact of multiple and interlocking crises facing the world, and provided high-level political guidance on transformative and accelerated actions leading up to the 2030 deadline for achieving the SDGs.

The SDG Summit was chaired by the President of the General Assembly. The evidence to date reveals, unfortunately, that this most important of  global efforts is way off track and notwithstanding the urging from all to accelerate the effort to achieve the SDGs, it will be a very difficult uphill battle to achieve the goals.

The second of the Two Summits is the Summit of the Future. According to the UN and the Secretary General:

The Summit of the Future is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to enhance cooperation on critical challenges and address gaps in global governance, reaffirm existing commitments including to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the United Nations Charter, and move towards a reinvigorated multilateral system that is better positioned to positively impact people’s lives. Building on the SDG Summit in 2023, Member States will consider ways to lay the foundations for more effective global cooperation that can deal with today’s challenges as well as new threats in the future.

The Summit of the Future has already produced a draft – the zero draft – of the final Summit document – the “Pact for the Future”. An extensive document, the Pact for the Future covers five areas:

  • Sustainable development  and financing for development
  • International peace and security
  • Science, technology and innovation and digital cooperation
  • Youth and future generations
  • Transforming global governance

Indeed it is an extensive document and well worth spending some time on. But a review reveals somewhat oddly that the document covers not just UN areas of focus but extends beyond them. This includes, for instance, reforms to international financial architecture, institutions not part of the UN system including the World Bank, the IMF and the Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs). The Document does not back away from calling for reform of these institutions as well as those in the UN system – most notably reforming the Security Council:

To enhance our cooperation, we need a multilateral system that is fit for the future, ready to address the political, economic, environmental and technological changes in the world, and with the agility to adapt to an uncertain future. We know that multilateral institutions – especially the Security Council and the international financial architecture – have struggled to address the scale of the challenges they face and live up to the world’s expectations of them. Too often, international commitments that are made, remain unfulfilled. …

 

We reaffirm our declaration on the commemoration of the seventy-fifth anniversary of the United Nations [that was 2020], and we commit to accelerating our pursuit of the 12 commitments contained therein, including through the measures outlined in this Pact. We further re-affirm the importance of the multilateral system, with the United Nations at its centre. We recognize that the multilateral system must keep pace with a changing world. To that end, we commit to concrete steps to reinvigorate this system, fill critical gaps in global governance, and accelerate efforts to keep our past promises and agreements. Through this Pact for the Future, we commit to build a multilateral system that delivers for everyone, everywhere. We commit to concrete action in five broad areas, as follows.

The discussion with Stewart in this webinar over the Summit of the Future is animated by very knowledgeable folk from the UN and near it. But a review of the Document reveals, it seems to me, and not so obviously discussed in the webinar, that the SOTF zero draft focuses on the ‘What’.  What needs to be reformed, what needs to be added to the UN and the multilateral system? But what is missing is the ‘How’. It is not the first examination – with strong detail, to discuss the reform and updating of the UN system and indeed beyond that to the international financial architecture. But like earlier documents before it and with serious discussions about this Document what is missing is the ‘How’. How do you in the context of heightened geopolitical tensions, and particular national interests, implement reforms? How do you accommodate the often reasonable demands of the Global South? In the world of 4-Cs – cooperation, collaboration, coordination and commitment – there is little evidence acknowledging ‘commitment’, as opposed to need for cooperation, because in fact it is scarce. In the end national governments are the key to achieving the SDGs and meeting necessary reforms of policies and institutions; and as best I can see and understand this critical element is hard to find.

I can understand the Secretary General urging the organization and the members forward but are we closer to reform of the Security Council after years of discussion? I am afraid we are not there yet and the Pact for the Future cannot hide it.

Image Credit: Summit of the Future & The Role of Geneva – Geneva Environment Network
This Post appeared originally at my Substack, Alan’s Newsletter. Free subscriptions are always welcome.

Biden Trade Protectionism

Posted on by
Reply

There is a continuing interest in capturing the state of the current global political economy and the global economic policymaking of the major states – the US, China, India, Brazil, Europe, Japan, Korea, and others. Not surprisingly the debate is most active in the US. Experts and officials alike are intent in describing current Biden Administration policy. Most recently some experts have been labeling the global economic framework as ‘post- neoliberalism’, defining it, apparently, in contradistinction to the previous dominant policy framework – ‘neoliberalism’.  The dilemma of course is a definitional one as much as anything else  – the terms are well known, their meaning not so much. 

Recently, colleagues of mine have kicked off a discussion. One, Dan Drezner, from the Fletcher School and the Substack ‘Drezner’s World’ has waded into the policy mix, actually in an article from Reason titled, “The Post-Neoliberalism Moment”. As Dan early in the piece thought to frame first neoliberalism he suggested the following: 

The term neoliberal has been stigmatized far more successfully than it has been defined. For our purposes, it refers to a set of policy ideas that became strongly associated with the so-called Washington Consensus: a mix of deregulation, trade liberalization, and macroeconomic prudence that the United States encouraged countries across the globe to embrace. These policies contributed to the hyperglobalization that defined the post–Cold War era from the fall of the Berlin Wall to Brexit.

Dan made it clear, however, that this economic model no longer dominates: 

In the 16 years since the 2008 financial crisis, neoliberalism has taken a rhetorical beating; New Yorker essayist Louis Menand characterized it as “a political swear word.” Until recently, no coherent alternative set of ideas had been put forward in mainstream circles—but that has been changing. 

And what has been the replacement, well Dan suggests that its the politicians and officials that have been most active in leaving neoliberalism behind:

These ideas are being shaped by powerful officials. The primary difference between Biden and Trump in this area is that Trump’s opposition to globalization was based on gut instincts and implemented as such. The Biden administration has been more sophisticated. Policy principals ranging from U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai to National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan have been explicit in criticizing “oversimplified market efficiency” and proposing an alternative centered far more on resilience.

For elements of this policy transformation one need only look to recent Biden Administration policies including the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the CHIPS and Science Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act. As Dan concludes, the totality of these policy initiatives is: “all represent a pivot to industrial policy—a focus on domestic production.” 

In constructing this post-neoliberalism model, folks argue that there is a necessary trade-off between resilience and efficiency. As Dan suggests: “A key assumption behind post-neoliberalism is that policy makers can implement the right policies in the right way to nudge markets in the right direction.” 

Now another colleague of mine, Henry Farrell from Johns Hopkins, tries his hand at a definition in a recent Substack Post at his ‘Programmable Mutter’, titled, “If Post-Neoliberalism is in Trouble, We’re all in Trouble”. The Post partly responds to Dan, and further articulates Henry’s view of post-neoliberalism. As he describes it: 

A key assumption behind post-neoliberalism is that policy makers can implement the right policies in the right way to nudge markets in the right direction. … I see post-neoliberalism less as a coherent alternative body of thought, than as the claim, variously articulated by a very loosely associated cluster of intellectuals and policy makers, that markets should not be the default solution. … More generally, post-neoliberalism isn’t and shouldn’t be a simple reverse image of the system that it has to remake. It can’t be, not least because it has to build in part on what is already there.

The dilemma, as I see it, for understanding any of these  post-neoliberalism models, and also, though less intensely – neoliberalism, is pretty much all definitional. The base of the problem is not really understanding what ‘resilience’ and ‘efficiency’ really mean. And that in turn causes confusion over trying to then understand ‘globalization’.  And that unfortunately builds vagueness into our understanding of these economic models especially over what we are to understand to be – post-neoliberalism. 

But what isn’t so difficult to understand is the problem that has been created in this post-neoliberal period by current trade policy especially as seen in the United States. Layer it as much as you can but the Biden Administration policy is ‘protectionist’ and the Trump Administration, was, and will in all likelihood be, even more protectionist if Trump is returned to office in late 2024. As Inu Manak has written in a recent piece for the Hinrich Foundation in Australia – a foundation focused on global trade: 

Trade has become toxic, not just on the campaign trail, but in the way that it is discussed by both Democrats and Republicans. “Traditional” US trade policy, which began to form its nearly century-old roots under the leadership of President Franklin Roosevelt and his Secretary of State, Cordell Hull, has been described by US Trade Representative Katherine Tai as “trickle-down economics,” where “maximum tariff liberalization…contributed to the hollowing out of our industrial heartland. … The current US approach to trade, if it can be called an approach at all, risks weakening US influence abroad and economically disadvantaging Americans at home. It rests on the false belief that retrenchment of “traditional” US trade policy—by putting America First or catering to a select group of US workers and branding such efforts as “worker-centric trade policy”—will somehow restore the United States to a position of hegemonic dominance with no peer competitor. 

The Biden Administration’s allergy to new trade policy initiatives can be seen in its Indo-Pacific economic strategy – the IPEF – the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity. This framework is intended to advance resilience, sustainability, inclusiveness, economic growth, fairness, and competitiveness for the fourteen countries negotiating the IPEF. The countries included are: Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Fiji India, Indonesia, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam with the United States. The IPEF partners represent 40 percent of global GDP and 28 percent of global goods and services trade. Negotiations have proceeded well for three of the four pillars including supply chains, clean economy, and fair economy pillars but the Biden Administration has decided not to proceed in negotiating for fair and resilient trade. As William Reinsch at CSIS described the situation: 

The commentariat is busy these days debating the future of the Biden administration’s trade policy in the wake of its effective abandonment of the trade pillar in the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) negotiations. (The administration says the talks will continue, and I imagine they will, but I don’t see a conclusion, at least before the election.) The policy is clearly a failure at this point, …

As colleague Ryan Haas of the Brookings Institution, and a former US official – from 2013 to 2017, Hass served as the director for China, Taiwan and Mongolia at the National Security Council (NSC) staff – underscored in his examination of trade policy in the Indo-Pacific: 

These constraints will be most visible on trade. The absence of a credible trade and economic agenda for Asia has been the Biden administration’s greatest weakness. Political and national security imperatives will continue to drive the United States’ approach to trade. Do not expect any outbreak of creativity or boldness on trade by the Biden administration in 2024.

The Biden Administration failed to roll back the tariffs imposed by the Trump trade folk. It is a major failure of US trade policy and an expression of the Biden SAdministration’s trade protectionism. It bodes ill for growing the global economy and achieving productivity gains for the United States and others.

Image Credit: E-International Relations

This Post originally appeared at my Substack Post Alan’s Newsletter – https://open.substack.com/pub/globalsummitryproject/p/biden-trade-protectionism?r=bj&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcome=true