EU-LDC Network Conference 2004
|
Multilateralism at risk - Beyond Globalisation - 2-3 April 2004,
Brussels
Session 2: Frustrated multilateralism - the consequences -
Summary
Recent
events in the global, political and economic arena, such as the UN
crisis instigated by the war in Iraq, the collapse of the WTO
meeting in Cancun, and the growing anti-globalisation movement have
led to a reversal in multilateral thinking, and a setback in the
globalisation process. This session therefore focused on the current
state of frustrated multilateralism, its consequences in developing
countries, and the role of the EU in the context of frustrated
multilateralism.
The first speaker, Fredrik Soderbaum, argued that the
alternatives of multilateralism have been reduced since 9/11, and
that the current world order can be explained as a tension between
the US approach and the EU approach. The US approach, centred around
the global war on terror, also referred to as the “unipolar
movement”, is characterised by militarised leadership and military
strength. The US approach is believed to be incompatible with the EU
approach, also referred to as the “regionalist movement”, which
focuses on plurilateralism and multilateralism built upon
international law. The regionalist movement can be characterized by
complexity, involving a variety of non-state and organizational
actors; being open and compatible with an interdependent world
order, without competing with multilateralism; and providing
substance and solution to multilateralism by giving a foundation to
regional movements. Further differences between the two approaches
are that the EU approach is based on rational and secular choices,
soft power, and long-term institutional arrangements that favour
participation, whilst the US approach is characterised by temporary
ad-hoc solutions, exclusive coalitions, and short–term
institutional settings.
The main question raised
by the speaker was which one of these two approaches represents the
preferred form of future multilateralism and globalisation. It was
argued that the regionalist movement implies region-to-region
relations resulting in regional multilateralismor “multiregionalism”,
which would be the more regulated and therefore the preferred form
of future multilateralism and globalisation. Furthermore, it was
believed that the interregional arrangements make the global
environment more stable and predictable, while at the same time
providing solutions and compromises to US unilateralism.
The second speaker, Knud Erik Jorgensen, discussed what role the
EU plays in contemporary frustrated multilateralism; to what degree
multilateralism plays a role in the EU’s identity politics; and
what the connections are between the European identity, interests,
and policies in contemporary frustrated multilateralism. The speaker
believed that the image often presented as the US being unilateral
and Europe being multilateral is profoundly wrong. The EU is far
from being a pure multilateralist, since many relationships of the
EU are strictly bilateral, and the EU is not framed from taking
unilateral actions. Instead, multilateralism has to be looked at and
analysed in a blurred fashion, where no pure multilateral strategy
or unilateral strategy exists, and where each actor puts available
strategies together in a preferred mixture.
The second speaker further commented on the issue of threats to
multilateralism, and the consequences of frustrated multilateralism.
It was believed that threats could emerge from within states as well
as from outside the institution of multilateralism. States can
undermine institutions from within, and NGO’s, civil society,
political parties can undermine institutions from outside. The most
serious threat to the multilateral institution was believed to come
from within. It was further argued that the EU currently cannot, and
does not have the capacity to change the institutions from within,
whilst the US have this capacity, and do use it in order to
influence and change the institutions within the current
multilateral system.
On the consequences of frustrated multilateralism, it was
believed that these will appear in the form of instability,
unavailability of collective goods, and the creation of core groups
with a few actors negotiating and agreeing on policies to be
accepted by many. However, the main question to be raised is whether
many want to accept what few have negotiated and decided on. Four
future scenarios of multilateralism were presented. In the first
scenario, one would hope that the good old days come back but this
was believed to be not very likely. The second scenario would
involve more tomorrow of what we have today, i.e. a gradual break-up
of multilateral institutions being replaced by unipolarity. The
third scenario would involve new institutions/powers appearing.
Finally, the fourth scenario presented would involve more of
“minilateralism” to save the little from what is left of
multilateralism.
The third speaker, Alice Sindzingre, analysed the national
consequences of frustrated multilateralism and, more specifically,
the consequences from the reform failures of the IFIs on a political
and economic level in developing countries. It was argued that no
consensus on the form of globalisation or policies to be implemented
exists, but that the main reason for frustration is the lack of
representation within the architecture of multilateralism. Thus,
further reforms in terms of representation are needed within the
IFIs. In relation to this it was argued that as Member States are
represented individually, the EU currently lacks representation in
many of the multilateral institutions, and has so far failed to put
forward a common position. It was further believed that as long as
development policy in the EU is not united, it will be difficult to
present a common view, and influence multilateral institutions from
within.
On the specific consequences in developing countries, it was
claimed that the IFIs programmes have proven to deliver zero growth,
particularly in Sub-Sahara Africa. A negative correlation is even
found between policy reform and growth in developing countries, as
shown inter alia by the IMF’s independent evaluation unit. It was
argued that policies can only partially explain the lack of growth
in developing countries, for there are many other factors at stake.
These constitute of e.g. the structural characteristics of
developing countries –such as geography and demography- and
institutional development. Many institutions have pointed to the
importance of these other factors that are not sufficiently
addressed by the IFIs. For example UNCTAD has a very different
diagnosis of the problem of lack of growth than the IFIs
-UNCTAD’s view is based on e.g. commodity dependence,
poverty traps and debt traps- and, consequently, relevant policies
are often significantly different from the ones presented by IFIs.
The speaker further concluded that the political economy effect of
reform failure in developing countries was erosion of the state in
terms of lack of credibility and capacity of government, in addition
to the lack of credibility and legitimacy of IFI reforms.
Among the several issues raised in the round table discussion,
one was how the EU can make the US move in the preferred direction.
It was believed that it is important to engage and inform the US
public on EU policies and opinions with EU lobbying in Washington
and New York, to create a media structure in the US to inform the US
public on alternative views, and to present a common EU position as
an alternative to the US.
The discussant of this session, Alfredo Valladao, said that the
EU fails to take into account the paradox of multilateralism, i.e.
in order to guarantee the multilateral system it is necessary to
have some form of unilateral capacity of action. Multilateralism
namely is a rule-oriented system, and rules only exist if you can
enforce them, which requires some kind of unilateral strength of
action. The EU currently does not possess the latter, since tensions
within the EU’s own integration process inhibit the capacity to
present a common approach.
Session 2: Speakers
Chair: Rehman
Sobhan (Professor, Chair of the Centre for Policy Dialogue,
Bangladesh)
Speakers:
Fredrik Soderbaum (Researcher, Goteborg University, Sweden), Knud
Erik Jorgensen (Associate Professor, University of Aarhus, Denmark),
Alice Sindzingre (CNRS, Paris and SOAS, London)
Discussant:
Alfredo Valladao (Professor, Institute of Political Studies Science
Po-Paris, Chaire MERCOSUR)
Back
to Conference
2004 index
|
