Multilateralism at risk - Beyond Globalisation - 2-3 April 2004, Brussels

Session 1: Frustrated multilateralism - an introduction - Summary

In his introduction on frustrated multilateralism, Jan Pronk explained that any global governance systems consists of five crucial elements:

• Set of common values;

• Commonly stated objectives;

• Combination of common institutions;

• Common policies;

• Joint instruments.

These five elements can be applied to all topics of global governance, such as finance, trade, security, food, etc. Before the 2^nd world war there was no global governance system. The concept of development and values of international cooperation, of basic human rights, and of the sovereignty of states did not exist before the 2^nd world war. After 1945 there was a deliberate attempt to build a global governance system on the basis of the above five elements. This global governance system, which had the UN at its core, fulfilled a number of functions: firstly, the development of common values enshrined in e.g. the Charter of the United Nations; secondly, new institutions were created in the international economy and polity; thirdly, the system helped manage conflicts between states; fourthly, the system helped establish policies on the basis of international cooperation; finally, the system brought about world-wide negotiations on a range of different issues (e.g. trade, agriculture, finance). Jan Pronk noted that even though the system was not entirely successful, it pointed to the right direction, making the post-war period a period of progress compared to the period before the war.

This post-war phase came to an end in 1989 with the end of the cold war, changing both East-West and North-South relations. This can be seen as a crucial turning point for the following reasons: the idea of globalisation rapidly imposed itself; economic and identity conflicts within countries, which were paralysed before by the East-West divide came to the surface again; and from being a by-product of growth, poverty became to be determined by the intentional effort of rich countries not to share resources with poor ones. Within this new context, the global governance system has assumed a different –weaker- configuration and came to fulfill three more limited functions than those based on the five pillars. First of all, the system brought about new yardsticks for policy making. New concepts were developed, such as the relation between peace and development, a new approach to poverty and development based on rights rather than needs, and the notion of sustainability. Secondly, the system facilitated a one-sided globalisation, that is a market globalisation based mainly on trade and finance. Other issues like poverty and environment were sidelined. Thirdly, rather than addressing the root causes of global problems, the system became to be entrusted with the task of dealing with the consequences of global issues. The role of the global governance system was now to “pick up the pieces”.

In Jan Pronk’s view, 9/11 can be considered as a new turning point. This is because it interrupted any attempt to reform the global governance system and bring it back to its original idea and functions. If there wouldn´t have been a 9/11, the global governance system ought to have been reformed and strengthened in order to fulfil its tasks as originally established on the basis of the five pillars. Poverty ought to have been addressed not as a by-product of globalisation, but rather as caused by it. Sustainable development should have been stimulated rather than the one-sided market globalisation. A strengthened global governance system should have been created capable to address poverty, peace, and development within nation states, by making policies and institutions with respect to democratisation and human rights within countries more robust, and by helping to avoid escalation of conflicts. We didn´t manage to accomplish all this. There were international talks, but the situation changed dramatically since 9/11. Since then, paradigms like multilateralism and sustainability have been replaced by other priorities such as security. As a result, the global governance system has broken down in various fields. Given this current situation, there are three main options for the way forward. The ‘Kofi Annan’ option, according to which the breakdown in multilateralism caused by the Bush administration’s decision to unilaterally wage war on Iraq represents a temporary crisis with no long-term consequences: ‘one falls, one stands up again, one wipes the dust from one’s clothes, and one continues the road’. According to Jan Pronk, this analysis is incorrect as the system did not simply ‘fall down’ but was rather ‘shot down’. The option of resuming activities as if nothing had happened and continue with “picking up the pieces” will lead to the complete paralysis of the global governance system, as the latter will become a subcontractor of the US. The second option, advocated by the Bush administration, is to have two parallel systems: a weakened UN and a range of ad hoc ‘coalitions of the willing’ always led by the US, with the latter overwhelming the former. Clearly, this second option would not bring any benefit when dealing with global issues such as climate change and poverty, issues that call for a global approach. The third option is the reform of the UN to strengthen the global governance system. This option should also bring the US back into the UN, since one cannot deal with world problems if the US is out. In the US there are interests and forces pushing for a return to a truly multilateral approach based on the global governance system and there is also some awareness that specific problems cannot be solved but through a global approach. This option requires to approach the US and ask what are their terms on the basis of which they again want to become a full-fledged member of the global system.

To be effective, the reform of the current global governance system should hinge upon the following courses of action: Firstly, reform the UN Security Council, which means more permanent members and a gradual phasing out of the veto power (Europe could set the example here and opt for only one veto by having France and the UK to hand over their veto to a new common Europe. This would at the same time solve the problem of the non-veto power of Germany and it would help Europe to strengthen its own policies towards a common foreign policy); second, set up a body within the UN system, possibly a Court, to arbitrate in case of disputes between the Security Council and single countries; third, introduce new procedures with regards to policies and instruments whereby the world community as a whole could intervene in sovereign countries; fourth, build in the global governance system institutions which enhance the credibility of the system itself in the eyes of the people (e.g. a parliament of elected representatives in the UN system), where people that do not trust their own governments anymore can turn to; fifth, reduce the number of institutions in the UN system, as their proliferation is to the detriment of poor countries’ interests, due to the fact that they have a more limited capacity than rich countries; sixth, change the global agenda: address the new major problems particularly of the poor and the weak, discuss sustainable development rather than just development and leave development to the regional and thematic organisations, and discuss poverty as a result of globalisation; seventh, recognise that also at the global level real partnership arrangements between the public/private/third sector are needed. Jan Pronk concluded his keynote speech by spelling out the two conditions to make the reform happen. First, it is essential to give priority to the reform of the intergovernmental machineries like the G8 and the G20 meetings. If you start with the reform of these machineries, the international institutions will follow automatically. Second, ensure that the reforms are not the responsibility of those people who have a vested interest in the status quo, and create the conditions so that the reforms are in the hands of those who are accountable for the consequences of change on domestic issues like employment and poverty.

Session 1 - Speakers

Chair: Muchkund Dubey (Council for Social Development, New Delhi, India)

Speaker: Jan Pronk (Institute of Social Studies, The Hague, the Netherlands)

Back to Conference 2004 index