Multilateral diplomacy: a new inflexion point

Multilateral diplomacy: a new inflexion point

Four years ago, I concluded a blog article on “The resilience of multilateralism” on an optimistic note by paraphrasing the famous quote from Winston Churchill: “multilateralism is not perfect. It is the worst form of international order, except for all other possible forms”. That reflection came from the impact of the COVID-19 crisis during which multilateralism was struck hard. The World Health Organization (WHO) was the target of harsh accusations, including being the centre of an evil conspiracy. The hostility was blind to stubborn realities about its intergovernmental decision-making structure and its emergence as a natural locus for international co-operation and solidarity. On that occasion, the WHO made some sense during the initial panic and disorder, while multilateralism proved its usefulness again. Everything would have been worse without it.

Now, I am still optimistic, although my optimism is more cautious and comes with a shade of anxiety. The present of the United Nations is indeed a reason to worry. However, its history proves that the world organization has its in-built resilience and capacity for adaptation to circumstances whose acceleration outpaces the ability of an organization often accused of burgeoning bureaucracy to react. Detractors seem to ignore that the organization itself cannot feed bureaucracy unless it flows from the decisions of all intergovernmental bodies that govern the United Nations system.

They, the governments of the United Nations, 

A lucid observer should consider that there are two United Nations in substance and power, although they work together.  The first one consists of the United Nations of the member states. They make decisions, establish mandates, allocate resources, and assume new areas of responsibility. The second one is the United Nations of the Secretariats and the international staff who serve the intergovernmental bodies, provide venues for dialogue, implement their decisions, go to the field, put in place diplomatic means to mediate disputes, offer development assistance, produce documentation, propose new concepts of global governance, manage knowledge, and give a voice to the moral authority of the United Nations.

Therefore, whatever comes in the evolution of multilateral diplomacy as a global governance instrument is not the merit or the guilt of faceless bureaucrats, but it is essentially the product of member states attitudes’ and wills. The history of the United Nations is amazing in many respects because the organization could function without modifying the Charter, despite fundamental changes in global geopolitics since 1945.

In my opinion, there have been some inflexion points that marked the evolution of multilateral diplomacy without altering its vocation. 

The beginning of the Cold War

The first was the Cold War. The vision of the new world organization was taking shape during WWII. It was meant as an extension of the concord among allies in times of war and intended to keep the future peace. The key element of the power configuration was the Security Council, the fruit of negotiation and compromise among the victors. The hard core of the whole organization was related to peace and security, and it was inspired by the logic of war. 

It started with the vision of the United States and the United Kingdom of a post-war political organization. The evolution of the war made imperative the subsequent association of the Soviet Union in the process, and the geographic realities also brought China on board. The addition of France, with less merits in defeating Nazi Germany, contributed to the emergence of a multilateral diplomacy formula which was more promising than the League of Nations. 

The United States, as a leader of the democratic world, felt quite comfortable with a General Assembly whose initial members were the former allies, vetted during the war, the majority of whom shared almost similar ideological values. The Security Council provided a convincing diversity and representativeness for its era given the territorial and demographic configuration. The United Nations started with energy and high expectations, under the spotlights, its road towards a more peaceful and stable world.

Soon enough, though, the Cold War dissipated the illusion of a common will and the view of the former allies on the new world order. Some of the provisions of the Charter were inapplicable from the very beginning, as the Security Council revealed incompatibilities among its permanent members.

The young United Nations has overcome the impasse, nevertheless. It was precisely the diversity and balance of power in the Security Council and between the Security Council and the General Assembly that led to an equilibrium, which lessened abuses in handling global issues without obviously eliminating them.

The decolonization process

The second inflexion point was the emergence of newly independent states due to decolonization. This fundamental geopolitical shift not only triggered a spectacular increase in the United Nations membership but also changed the distribution of power. The former allies no longer controlled the majority in the General Assembly. Moreover, decolonization had a powerful impact on the working agenda of the organization. Under-development was an inevitable and fundamental object of responsibility for the system. 

Looking at that era retrospectively, one can say that the United Nations admirably handled the new situation, alleviated the possible consequences of the Cold War, and created a new equilibrium. The UN podiums were a better place for confrontation between the two ideological systems than proxy wars. An exchange of vituperating speeches addressed to the entire world is less perilous than an exchange of missiles. New forces found a natural environment to express their own views on international order. Offering a space for a voice to the Non-aligned movement and the Group of 77 created an ideological buffer-zone which mitigated the risk of direct confrontation between the two superpowers. 

The United Nations creates fertile opportunities and incentives for dialogue on disarmament and development. Outer-space law and the law of the sea brought the maritime and outer-space powers to the same table and produced consensus. Perhaps the most important bridge between the two worlds was the impressive body of international human rights law, built around two branches of the tree, civil and political rights, the cup of tea of the Western world, and economic, social, and cultural rights, the favourite of its socialist counterpart.

The end of the Cold War 

Actually, the end of the Cold War, the third major inflexion point in the evolution of multilateral diplomacy, was partly the spin-off of the bridges erected by the United Nations. The world organization hosted an arena for confrontation, but one of neutrality, impartiality, and transparency. It allowed better reciprocal understanding and even honorable exit solutions in case of need. 

The early 90s came with a new infusion of enthusiasm, propitious Summits, new visions on peace-keeping, and newly assumed global responsibilities. An expression of what appeared to be a new beginning was the inclusion on the United Nations agenda, and in its terminology, the notion of “countries in transition”. This transition was charged with a double meaning: political transition (towards democracy) and economic transition (towards a free market economy). The main causes for tension and disputes for decades seemed to fade away. Long-live multilateralism! United Nations, we love you! 

Unfortunately, it did not last long.

The winner takes it all ?

To name the next inflexion point with just one word is difficult. We live the impact, and it is still a work in progress. Or rather, work in regress for that matter. It is also difficult to place it on the calendar!

I would venture to say that now multilateralism is again in crisis. When speaking about domestic governance, a key word is pluralism. That is not a feature in global affairs. After all, in geopolitical terms, the Cold War had a winner. And the winners have a natural inclination to take it all. The fall of bipolarism has led eventually to a chaotic world of sauve qui peut.

The “invisible hand” of the free market wields the upper hand mercilessly. With no legitimate counterpart, neoliberalism forgot about its limits and fell in love with its own reflection, like the antique Narcissus. Globalization has improved the economic performance of many countries, but social polarization has increased disproportionally. Most states are overpassed in economic power by companies that only produce virtual tools and services. 

Democracy flew over the world as a paradise bird, landed on the ground, and lost strength as the reverse of the mythical Antaeus. The world often looks like it is being governed by a new Olympus that is more and more distant from early problems and Gods making capricious and careless decisions inflicted on crowds of mortals. Technology has become a weapon that can be handled more easily by individuals and companies than by public authorities. Lies, propaganda, fake news, and misinformation are pouring from virtual skies. Truth has always had a scratched face, but at least there was a time when we could recognize it. Now it is increasingly hard to see it at all. 

As far as the United Nations is concerned, the organization has faced multiple challenges in the new millennium. Summit fatigue, hiatus in the negotiation of major disarmament treaties, multiplication of nuclear actors, asymmetric wars, loss of confidence, freezing budgets for greater responsibilities, and the list goes on. 

There is a deficit of statesmanship at the global level. Unilateralism, voluntarism, disrespect, and mistrust have started to erode the authority of the United Nations. Paradoxically, while there is an increasing reluctance to follow the benevolent hegemons, multilateral diplomacy is marginalized. Some twits have more power and echo than some General Assembly resolutions. 

Somehow, the multifariousness of the international community, as represented by the United Nations system, was reduced to a simple dichotomy: those who believe in multilateralism, and those who consider it an encumbrance of their power. There are leaders who despise multilateralism as a matter of principle. Those leaders are convinced that what is right comes from them, and what is wrong comes from others. Unfortunately, there are no leaders of similar calibre to counteract, to raise their voices in defending the United Nations. When they do so, they can hardly hide their hypocrisy and opportunism. The United Nations is supposed to serve the entire international community. Yet, such leaders see it as useful as long as it serves their own narrow interests, not global ones. 

The peak of the current crisis of multilateral diplomacy is the war in Ukraine which has undermined more than ever the international arrangements for peace and security as agreed at the end of WWII. The real debate is avoided, the floor is open to propaganda and reciprocal demonization. Whoever is not with us is against us. 

Certainly, there have been other crises, including one leading to the nuclear threat, but no one showed less interest in a negotiated peace than in this war. The providers of weapons have always been prosperous, but now we face again a cynical appetite for armament. Parties to conflicts do not seek mere victory but the complete annihilation of the opponent. They do not need the United Nations to do that.

The wounds inflicted on the United Nations are grave. But any exercise of imagination where the United Nations no longer exists will lead us to the law of the jungle. And that path will not be the intronization of the lion as king; it will be chaos and destruction. The United Nations is again at a point of inflexion. One cannot but hope that reason will prevail and the severely damaged system created in 1945 to preserve peace and security will survive.