Tag: Global Governance

The Place of the Global Governance Initiative in a Rapidly Changing International Political Space

Posted on By Joshua Kingdom

Moments following his inauguration eight months ago, President Trump announced that the United States would be withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, the World Health Organization, and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. If that was not shocking enough, the assault on other international bodies in the intervening time not least, the International Criminal Court, the UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, and the UN Human Rights Council has certainly been.

This tendency is representative of several different waves that the United Nations system has had to go against in the last couple of years. Eighty years after the two catastrophic wars that were the immediate motivation for the inception of global cooperation, it is incumbent on the international community to seriously reflect on the course of things moving forward.

Presiding over the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) plus meeting late last month hence, President Xi Jinping of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) proposed the Global Governance Initiative (GGI) as one way to mitigate this crisis.

GGI is driven by five core principles each speaking to a specific fracture in the present state of relations between countries. For the issue diagnosed in the first paragraph of this OP-ED for instance, it is principle two (a commitment to uphold international law) that carries the antidote.

According to the PRC leader, this should be arrived at by adhering to the said norms unwaveringly through among other things applying them fairly across the board. And when forging out new tenets, participation of all nations should be ensured. The latter attribute especially answers to the disillusionment that has increasingly arose in the Global South and Prof. Wang Dong the Executive Director of the Institute for Global Cooperation and Understanding at Peking University agrees.

Another of the current US administration bulwarks i.e. trade tariffs is addressed by the GGI in calling for multilateralism. Rather than discriminate their counterparts in some cases while isolating themselves in others, the Global Governance Initiative suggests that nations aim to harness resources for the common benefit of all humanity. This it argues, best allows for the realization of the intentions of the UN Charter.

State sovereignty is also at the heart of GGI. The details here are that regardless of a state’s size or economic capacity, her counterparts should do not intervene in its internal governance– political, social, and economic. This notion certainly goes far back in the history of diplomacy but given that it has faced real threats in recent times, China’s call serves to remind the world of how significant it is for political stability.

The other two GGI themes (people-centeredness and effectiveness) go hand in hand. If the global order is not effective, then the individuals to whom its policies are aimed will see no benefits. The concept paper which explains the full GGI picture rightly points out that as it stands, an example of where the status quo can be improved is fast tracking the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals.

But it is not enough that the proposal sounds nice, it must be attainable too. For China, this question is answered by the fact that it has already been extensively involved with different players for years in efforts that will no doubt augment GGI. The signing of the Tianjin Declaration at the recently concluded SCO summit for instance, showed that the super power already has several strategic allies behind its back.

Further, the different but related global programs coming before GGI tell us a lot about how effective the Communist Part of China (CPC) has been when it comes to steering the waves of geopolitics. The greatest testimonies here lie in the Global Development Initiative (introduced by President Xi at the 76th UN General Assembly session), the Global Security Initiative (introduced by President Xi at the Boao Forum for Asia Annual Conference in 2022), and the Global Civilization Initiative (introduced by President Xi at the CPC in Dialogue with World Political Parties High-level Meeting in 2023). Taking the second of the trio, a 2024 assessment of the project found that it had already received support from over one hundred countries and that its principles had been adopted in no less than ninety bilateral/multilateral agreements.

GGI is therefore an answer to several issues that have been plaguing international relations for a while now. And from the vision as articulated and the evidence of what China has accomplished previously, there is no doubt that its promise will come to fruition as the years unfold.

The writer is a research fellow at the Development Watch Centre

 

The Multilateral Trading System: The U.S Should Stop Undermining Global Practice

Posted on By Alan Collins Mpewo

The Multilateral Trading System: The U.S Should Stop Undermining Global Practice

By Alan Collins Mpewo

It is not in doubt that the United States of America (US) has is always doing their best to stabilize global economy through various measures for selfish gains. Indeed, the US was among the spearhead as of what has popularly in recent times to be known as the Multilateral Trading System that has wide reception globally. This game after the second world that had seen an increase in various shortfalls especially during and shortly after the Cold war with the Soviets. The inception of this system lead to a finality of the General Arrangement on Tariffs and Trade. The Multilateral Trading System also saw the birth of the Uruguay Round sometime in 1980. Because of the growing conflict in the economies of scale between the competing blocs of the West and the Eastern globe there was need to set up formal rules to follow during international trade and business. Because of this, the United States was one of the founding members of the World trade organization and consequently part of the formulation committee over the World trade organization rules that would later bind all existing partners States at the time and those that would later in the near future adopt and assent to the World trade organization. Countless achievements have been since achieved by the World Trade Organization due to the recognizable leadership over the United States of America. It therefore goes without saying that the United States of America has made its solid contribution to the growth and periodic stabilization of the world’s economy.

Most important under the World Trade Organization rules was and still remains the dispute resolution mechanisms that have constantly been explored by the various parties whenever conflicts arise. The United States of America has without a doubt being on the forefront of always making sure that no more devastating consequences arise which would greatly affect majority of the global stakeholders in dangerously unimaginable levels. It should therefore be understood That’s that the United States of America has made various contributions as aforementioned herein, it has also in equal measures benefitted from the Multilateral Trading System. It is therefore safe to state that the system has been important in elevating various economies globally. The role played by the United States of America remains pivotal given that it is the world’s leading economy and ranks among the top three investment Nations in the world. Understanding that comes with major implications on how it exercises its dominance and authority in the various circles to which it trades and has power.

It is not bad for any Nation to come up with policies that seek to put it first ahead of other global key players’ interests. The United States of America in 2017 also came up with a major slogan and policy formulation along that line of “America first.” However, while it is a noble thing to do, friction and antagonism has since ruptured between the United States of America’s internal policies and the aspirations of other global actors under the Multilateral Trading System. The U.S has constantly deviated from the very ideas to which it was a founding state. Its trade protectionist policies have rather been hurting other trade stakeholders by closing the windows to trade information and active participation on the American soil. From commencing with ideas of globalization, the Multilateral Trading System has now come into an uncertain trade abyss and now every country does as it wishes under the current structures of global economics.

Among other things that explain the above State of affairs is the constantly unchecked bullying through its hegemonic tendencies that are used to exert unwarranted sanctions and dominance through the guise of “National Security.” In other instances, depending on how it chooses to act or react to other countries, it uses the connotation of “Human Rights.” It has been seen with the Middle East and due to the sanctions and blockages there has been deprivation of equity, debt, and investment in many countries because trade diplomacy ends up as a victim. Additionally, dispute resolution and settlement mechanisms have also been greatly undermined by the United States of America. An example can be cited before 2022 when the United States of America blocked the requisite appointments of the new members to the Appellate body. That alone has paralyzed the various efforts by concerned countries in trying to resolve the different disputes that have been arising on an appeal point of view. The United States of America holds a very important vote and by December 2022, it has refused the outcries from the other members of the World Trade Organization to have the Appellate body constituted for purposes of dispute resolution. While Article 17.2 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding gives the legal reception for the appointment of the members to the Appellate body, enforcement has been stalled by the United States of America. By February 2023, 29 appeals are still pending as a consequence of US’s actions.

Some other practices have included, offending export control, often undermining other members’ legitimate industrial policies, unwarranted sanction measures, economic coercion, disrupting industrial and global supply chains, among many other. Other strong economies and lead actors like China and Mexico and the World Trade Organization have constantly called out the United States of America over the above practices but the endeavors have met unresponsiveness. And therefore, while the U.S’ reaction remains an impediment, if unchecked, the once booming Multilateral Trading System is a route of demise.

Alan Collins Mpewo, is a Law and Senior Research Fellow, Development Watch Centre.

China’s Soft Power: An Effective Approach & A Lesson to The Rest of The World

Posted on By Daniel Balongoofu

The created rift between the west and a huge percentage of the rest of the world implies of how the western assertive approach to some realities in the international system may not be good for the west and the world at large. The United States with its allies were best positioned to attract and keep nonwestern countries on side if they understood what motivates them and stopped their wrong claim of acting like ‘big brother” of the house.

In a wider perspective, if we use Ukrainian crisis example, although 141 of the members of the United Nations General Assembly voted to condemn Russia’s military operation in Ukraine, it should be noted that most nonwestern countries have not imposed economic sanctions on Russia amidst calls by the west to completely isolate Russia.

The hardliner response by the west in form of military equipment supplies to Ukraine, sanctions to Russia and Russian led institutions have evidently not been bought by the rest of the world especially by the global south with countries like Brazil, China, India, Mexico, South Africa among others choosing intellectual pragmatism view that unilateral sanctions against Russia cannot help in resolving this crisis.

These countries which are arguably guided by principles of intellectual pragmatism and nonhegemonic aspirations have rightly refrained from signing onto resolutions that criticize Russia in UN forums and have suggested more binding and practical solutions in relation to respect to sovereignty, non-interference and the geopolitics of that region to mention but not limited to the Ukrainian question, actors that have sought indifferent means to the western led assertive, non-binding mechanisms to pressing issues in the international arena have been pooled to common ground leading to a birth of a much needed multipolar global order and formulation of new strategic partnerships and the most recent one being China that has been advocating for peace with the most recent proposal being Global Security Initiative (GSI) and the pivotal role Beijing played in ending several years of animosity between Tehran and Riyadh which Beijing blocked and saw two former arch enemies resuming diplomatic ties, a development international community welcomed as a step in bringing sustainable peace in the Gulf region.

Actors in the global south have increasingly sought for more binding resolutions as opposed to a more assertive global order, speaking of China, Beijing has mastered the art of seeking binding resolutions and softer means to power in the international system being good for the rest of the world because it limits contestation and the bleach of peace hence forth. Evidently, in the joint statement released by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Peoples Republic of China on the 10th of March highlighting what Saudi Arabi described as “the noble initiative of His Excellency President Xi Jinping, President of the Peoples Republic of China,” to restore diplomatic relations between the two nations. The statement as well highlights the series of cordial meetings in Beijing over seen by the Chinese government between the Iran and Saudi foreign envoys. Actually, Saudis’ statement mentions President Xi twice and 5 times China underscoring the role played by President and China as a country played in this deal.  It should be noted that the two nations were at the verge of war in the recent past as a result of the assertive notion that the prevailing global order ascertains. This is however challenged by Beijing’s soft power, a liberal tool that saw the normalization of diplomatic ties and a structure laid for the two nations to fully resume healthy diplomatic relations. This however, speaks volumes if subjected to the ends-based theory justified by the results if juxtaposed by the assertive means of the prevailing global order.

It should be noted that Beijing has heavily invested in soft power in the past decade notably evident through trade relations as a liberal approach to under guard the importance of peace and order in the international system., Beijing holds the biggest trade share in trade partnerships across the globe evidently being Europe’s biggest trade partner with trade worth 46.6 billion euros and the maximum being 55.5 billion euros as per September last year. China is also Africa’s biggest trade partner, with trade mounting to 282 billion dollars according to the Chinese customs authorities as per last year’s data. That said, in terms of trade, Beijing and Washington need each other for today, it is impossible for any single country to stand on its own and isolate China – the world’s second largest economy and arguably, the home of innovations. Therefore, with such a strong economic relation with actors in the international system, actors are bound to under guard their economic interests and underscoring the importance of peace limiting further contestation and a bleach of peace.

Another successful testament to Beijing’s soft power was on the 1st of July 1997 when Hongkong reverted back to China. It should be noted that in 1839, Britain invaded China and as a result, the Hong Kong occupation by the British. As a sparsely in habited island off the coast of southeast China. Beijing sought for more binding solutions to this problem evidently by the series of meetings undertaken to have Hongkong back under the main land China administration. Later in 1842, the treaty of Nanking was signed formally to end the war however British rule and occupation of the island was to continue for another 99years as agreed upon by the Chinese mainland authorities, this was however absolute evidence of the soft power tool that the Chinese authorities opted for and refrained from contestation which would result into further bleach of peace. Hong Kong at the time, with a bustling economy bigger than the Chinese mainland as a result of the British occupation was so important to Chinese mainland for economic cooperation and growth, therefore as a result, the Chinese authorities chose a more binding resolution with the British to safe guard their economic development and avoid the bleach of peace. This approach limited contestation till Hongkong was won back peacefully without military confrontation and notably with all the economic gains that the British had established in Hong Kong for the time.

Today, as Washington seems boxed in cold war mentality, power politics and block formation, Beijing is moving with their head high as an advocate of peace, and meaningful partnership which the world needs to attain sustainable peace and development which are key for if the world is to realize a community of shared future for mankind. Such efforts must be supported by all peace-loving citizens of the world.

Balongoofu Daniel is a Research Fellow with Sino-Uganda Research Centre.