Tag: Global order

Patronage or Partnership: An African Perspective on the Global Governance Initiative

Posted on By Musiime George

The global governance initiative (GGI) is animated by two fundamental facts. First is that central to China’s remarkable achievements over the past half-century has been the Chinese communist party (CPC), while the other is that, in addition to visionary leadership the CPC has had the ability to continuously evolve and adapt [both] itself and its outlook to a changing world. Proposing the GGI for the first time during the Shanghai cooperation organization summit, President Xi rationalized the initiative by pointing out three drawbacks of the current global governance system i.e. its waning authority, disproportionate representation of the global south, and the imperative for greater effectiveness pointing to the urgently need for reforms in this system.

To address these deficiencies, the GGI proposes five action points, not to replace but increase inclusivity and relevance of the current global governance systems to emerging challenges. By focusing on sovereign equality, international rule of law, multilateralism, a people centered approach and real results, the GGI also converges on the principles laid out in the UN Chatter. Currently, the world is grappling with a chaotic geopolitical and geo-economic landscape; novel areas of space and cyber space regulation, climate change, political and economic conflicts for which lasting settlement remains elusive due to unilateralism and a lack of commitment from some actors holding critical leverage. In fact, some analysts contend that today, “the international community is synonymous with the West.” This position, highlights the extent of the power wielded by some actors under the current order, resulting into nascent unilateralism- undermining the principle of sovereign equality.

It is also important to clarify that, the spirit of the GGI from both the proposing authority and a multitudinous of independent analysts is not to replace the existing global governance system. Instead, it is proposed as a political defibrillator-  a device to expand agency in the existing global governance framework that has been, superseded by the world it was created to adjudicate while it slumbered off. This also leads me to the question of why the GGI should matter to the global south and Africa in particular.

Foremost, Africa’s population and economic weight has been growing steadily and fast. For instance, the continent now accounts for between 18-19 percent of global population, projected to soar to about 25-percent by 2050. Also, albeit its share of global trade remaining low, initiatives like the African continental free trade area (AfCFTA), the gradual removal of trade barriers, and connectivity enhancing initiatives such as the BRI are already increasing the continent’s role globally. Nevertheless, Africa’s representation on the United Nations security council, World trade organization, or even international monetary fund voting power have all stayed disproportionately weak. In a case where many decisions made by these bodies directly impact on Africa and its peoples let alone unilateral actions that sidesteps their authority, for Africa, the call for reforms has been a long standing one.

Regardless, efforts to shrink the rhetoric-reality gap have come up against the high wall of sovereign inequality. It has been commonplace for Africa to be presented as an equal partner at global governance forums such as COP, the UN or G20. However, as majority decisions are made in Western capitals, predominantly by Western industrialized and economically powerful nations, African agency has not been felt and not just that, but also the continent’s most pressing challenges have often not received due attention. For instance, being most vulnerable to the adversities of climate change aside, a report by Action Aid international revealed that rich polluting countries still owe the continent US$36 trillion in climate debt. Conversely, this runs parallel with recent virulent wave of aid cuts to Africa in the West. In fact, this is no different for the UN security council which, despite 70-percent of its resolutions over the past 30 years concerning Africa has had no permanent seat for the continent. Moreover, only less than half of the continent’s 54 states have occupied the council’s rotating seats during the same time.

The legacy of patronage networks rather than genuine partnership. China’s efforts to offer alternatives the status quo notwithstanding, development aid, loans, even climate financing have oftentimes been structured in ways that reinforce historical dependency. To this, there is no better example than the reaction to Washington’s aid cuts that left everyone from HIV/AIDs programs in south Africa to internally displaced persons in Nigeria in disarray. Furthermore, the funneling of aid directly through large NGOs, has often bypassed and sometimes substituted in some sense state authority with international entities. Over all, whether it’s conditions that allow donors to set priorities for recipient governments, aid that dampens state capacity to mobilize domestic resources or elevates large NGOs over state authority, the one irrefutable upshot is weakening state sovereignty.

Similarly, in a world where the voice of a state is determined to a large extent by its economic power and military might, African states have found themselves caught in the crossfire of rivalries between the West and China or other emerging economies. The tariff war waged unilaterally by the US for example triggered sudden dips in commodity prices destabilizing the economies of resource intensive African countries. Likewise, as the continent looked to leverage South Africa’s leadership of the G20, both Marco Rubio and Trump conveniently chose to skipped the summit over supposed “problems with the country and very bad policies.” These some observers have opined include, alignment with BRICS and China, land reforms, and its position on the Gaza conflict. Whereas experts show that the absence of the US could not affect the success of the summit, Washington still took from this year’s summit and the African audience, a major stakeholder in global governance.

Despite being an undeniable fact that   regional blocs and treaties like the African Union and AfCFTA might be critical in circumventing the patronage trap, Africa still struggles to transcend a thickness of historical challenges related to the structure of current global governance and its colonial past. Therefore, the global governance initiative looks to actualize the existing multilateral system’s capacity for action towards its vision for the world at conception; a world animated by the principles of sovereign equality cooperation and fairness.

The GGI is proposed as a vehicle for reforms in global governance while to Africa and the global south, the initiative represents an apparatus for redefining engagement in international relations. By advocating for fairness, equality and consensus born of extensive consultation, the GGI not only reimagines the shared aspirations of all nations as envisaged in the UN chatter, but it also serves as an inroad to the community with a shared future for mankind. And for Africa, it highlights a pathway to increased African Agency, –proposes a way to transition from illusory partnership, into an Africa capable of actively partaking and influencing global governance decisions.

The writer is a research fellow at the Development Watch Centre.

The International Liberal Order is not Under Attack It’s Just Being Interrogated

Posted on By Moshi Isreal

Proponents of the International Liberal order have spent much of its lifespan trying to shield it from criticism. They’ve actively masked its shortcomings, dismissing any flaws and Inconsistencies. A fortune has been spent on media influence campaigns and another on military campaigns to re-inforce this ideal, all to keep the rules based order well made up and hide any signs of cracking. Whether these costly efforts to preserve the sanctity of the liberal order were worth it as opposed to facing the reality of its challenges remains an open question. But here we are, it did not work. At least not in the way that the costume designers intended. The make-up still flaked and the cracks still showed. But even then, the ever zealous stylists insisted: the show must go- on.

Now, more countries are asking questions about the undisputed beauty of the rules based order and predictably, those who spent years crafting its reputation and covering up its shortcomings view this mere questioning as an attack. They overreact because deep down they are aware that the package they are marketing is not complete but hoped no one else would notice or even dare to speak up about it. This panic has made China’s genuine interrogation of the liberal order come off as an outright challenge and attack. But China will not relent and the global south has picked up the scent too.

In his book 21 lessons for the 21st century, Yuval Noah Harari argues that many critics of the liberal system point out its problems but fail to offer solutions. On this point, I beg to differ. China has offered a workable solution. It’s not pushing for the overthrow of the liberal system but rather an upgrade. China’s proposal essentially keeps many of the good things about the liberal order; Free trade, international institutions, cultural exchange, sovereignty and non-aggression, democracy and human rights—at least in principle and advocates for it to be more just and inclusive. It recognizes that the fundamental problem of the liberal order lies in its western-centric nature. And this nature automatically breeds structural inequality for all the rest. And that is China’s biggest crime in the eyes of the liberal order’s stylists: insisting that the system live up to its aspirations.

The liberal order has seen inequality widen among and within nations. The gap between the rich and the poor has significantly increased. When it comes to income, the richest 10% globally make 52% of the global income while the poorest half make only 8%. The wealth gap is even more astounding with the richest 10% owning 76% of global wealth while the poorest just owns 2%. This disparity extends to climate injustice. The wealthiest nations emit more greenhouse gases in total and per capita compared to the poorest nations and yet it’s the latter that bear the brunt of the consequences; floods, drought, food insecurity, and displacement.

We have recently gone through a global pandemic that claimed millions and tested the strength of global solidarity and are now facing a global economic downturn coupled with a surge in regional conflicts that risk escalating into something worse. The InfoTech and Biotech sectors are increasingly running out of control of public oversight, unemployment and the threat of future unemployment are on the rise and many countries are now looking to build physical, economic and ideological walls instead of bridges.

China, more than any nation seems to recognize this impasse and is proposing an alternative approach to global political management. China’s current political ideology and system are always misunderstood either deliberately or out of ignorance. The Chinese managed to borrow the best ideas from ideological currents of the modern world; Nationalism, communism and liberalism.

The Chinese are nationalists at the core with a strong identity that they revere. They have adapted a ‘socialism with Chinese characteristics’ that respects their unique identity and national realities and have chosen to participate and contribute to the global liberal order through their opening up and consistent advocacy for the rule of law and respect to international institutions. The Chinese have not made the mistake of assuming that one system is better than all and fits all national contexts. They have applied logic to international relations and let humans control the system instead of having systems control humans. They have chosen ideological pragmatism instead of ideological purity.

Should China continue on its current trajectory, it will avoid the classic trap of ideology. Essentially, humans should inform and shape ideology instead of ideology governing and informing humans. Ideologies should evolve with new experiences, data and moral insight. When ideologies inform humans, they risk becoming too rigid and form into dogma. This creates a system that resists change, punishes dissent and caters to the few. China’s concept of whole process democracy caters to all—this is why it has had a lot of success with lifting millions out of extreme poverty which is arguably the most democratic outcome of our time.

On the other hand, the West’s democratic systems or most liberal democracies allow for endless democratic processes but often produce very undemocratic outcomes. Question is; what’s the point of choosing a leader every four or so years if the life of most citizens remain unchanged or even worsen? I propose we should adapt a system that would give both in a form that respects national contexts.

While the West has managed to democratize to some extent internally, this success has failed to reflect on the international stage. This could simply indicate that while the liberal ideology in its pure form may work most of the time within western societies, it needs some adjustments when applied globally and within different national contexts.

Currently, we are witnessing the logical conclusion of liberalism within western societies. Ironically, it is liberalism itself that enables the rise of illiberal actors, who reject the very system that elevates them. In other words, liberal societies can elect a fascist or communist leader or leaders that generally reject liberal norms. In theory, the system is designed to contain such outcomes or their consequences through checks and balances but what happens when a liberal system fails to contain illiberal ideas or allows for its tenets to be dismantled from within? This is no longer a hypothetical because current upheavals within Europe and the United States indicate we are already at this stage of the equation.

A system that promised progress seems to have hit a wall and can now only offer paralysis. The liberal order is crashing in on itself—stuck in a cycle where the tools of democracy can be used to un make democracy itself. Even worse, the stylists are stuck in a loop. If they push too hard against the flaking of democracy within then they create a whole new monster. They will be viewed by the citizens as resisting or impeding the democratic will of the people—fighting against the very system they advertised as perfect.

So, the choice is no choice at all, let the will of the people prevail no matter how dangerous or fight against the people and hope for the best. It’s a fight to save the aesthetic—an image of a system that has to be seen as working and offering hope to all. But illusions cannot govern forever, eventually the people begin to see through the make-up, the show can no longer go on as usual, the system must either evolve or collapse under the weight of its own contradictions. China is ringing the alarm now, it’s not attacking the liberal order, it’s just ahead of the curve.

The writer is a senior research fellow at the Development Watch Centre

 

Non-Aligned Movement Offers us Hopes for a Multipolar World

Posted on By Admin

By Nnanda Kizito Sseruwagi.

The world’s bipolar power structure which had determined the security policies of the two global powers, the USA and USSR, collapsed with the disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991. This left America as the sole power with global dominance. I think that the inherent structure of unipolarity and the U.S.’s strategic position as the unipolar moral whip of Western neo-liberal democratic principles threatens any prospects for world peace and makes conflict likely. However, I also observe that the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) is steadily pushing against the U.S.’s unipolarity, and promises to collapse it without dissenting into war as is normally feared by hegemonic stability theorists.

Unipolarity is where a single state exerts military and economic power, and social and cultural influence over other states and eradicates competition on the landscape of international relations. The prevailing global geopolitical dispensation rests on the United States’ institutional and ideological dominance, with an international order expediently designed after the Second World War to sustain America’s primacy in great power politics. But that privilege is about to change with the collaboration of NAM’s 120 member states with China and Russia.

Whereas the American hegemonic order seems secure against would-be hegemonic challengers like China and Russia, NAM seems to perennially and steadily resist and challenge the liberal basis of U.S. hegemony, which is presented as a transparent, democratic political system. Supported by but not absorbed by China and Russia, members of NAM are making it harder for America to enjoy its cherished post-war world order.

I am inclined to agree with one of the world’s leading experts in the field of security studies, Prof. Barry Possen, who argues that unipolarity is in decline and that the world is shifting towards multipolarity. Multipolarity is where power is distributed among several states with similar amounts of power/influence. A great political scientist and international relations scholar of global repute, John Mearsheimer, shares a more controversial view, arguing that America’s liberal international order was flawed from its inception and thus destined to collapse.

America designed a world order where world states had to yield their decision-making authority to American-controlled international institutions. However, since the majority of states organized under NAM now greatly care about their sovereignty, autonomy and national identity, they have rebelled against and outgrown the US’s policing. America’s self-righteous hubris as the world’s policeman, and the hypocrisy with which it preaches and enforces Western liberal-democratic values ostracized it from the global south, hence indirectly propping up its nemesis, China. However, China has not yet marshalled sufficient power to contend with America to the point of toppling it from unipolarity to bipolarity. And for China’s strategic stability as an influential world power, it might never push the U.S. to that tipping point.

As the largest grouping of states worldwide after the American-dominated United Nations, and with its hallowed principles of mutual non-aggression, mutual non-interference in domestic affairs, equality and mutual benefit, and peaceful co-existence, and with China closely tied to supporting these principles, the Non-Aligned Moved seems to pose a serious challenge to the Hegemonic Stability Theory (HST). Therefore, it is no longer persuasive for proponents of the US’s unipolarity to claim that the international system will be destabilized to a clashing point of war (Thucydides trap) if America ceases to enjoy the place of a single hegemon.

Proponents of the HST usually rely on the Pax Britannica (the period of relative peace between great powers when the British Empire enjoyed global hegemonic dominance) and Pax Americana (where relative peace was experienced in the world after the end of World War II when the United States became the world’s dominant economic, cultural, and military power) as evidence for the stability of hegemony. However, they forget that the central mechanism in hegemonic stability theory which revolves around the provision of public goods by a powerful actor has been disproved by China, which has extended public goods to the majority of global southern countries without exercising hegemony, and most importantly, while supporting the principles of non-alignment.

 

 

Members of NAM are most likely to further dilute the U.S.’s influence as a sole global power by endorsing, supporting and even joining multipolar institutions and initiatives like BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, South Africa and other countries), and the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI)- a global infrastructure development strategy adopted by the Chinese government in 2013 to invest in more than 150 countries and international organizations. The highlight and promise of BRICS is its attempt to redesign the global financial architecture and liberate it from the tyranny of America’s Bretton Woods institutions. It is unimaginable for the U.S. to retain its unipolarity if its financial web is torn apart with the support of NAM for BRICS and other like institutions.

For all the criticisms that might be levelled against the NAM, it has stood the test of time. Its member states are loosely and flexibly bound together by enduring principles that seem simple but whose strength lies in their simplicity. By declining to take positions with any power bloc, NAM members might be the biggest architects of global peace since the Second World War. They have pursued and promoted amicable coexistence on the international stage, exposing Western moral hubris in the ongoing genocide against Palestinians by Israel, and many other conflicts. This stance has challenged the unipolar posture of America in the world and demonstrated a desire and possibility for a more multipolar international system.

The writer is a lawyer and Research Fellow at the Development Watch Centre.