Susana Malcorra

Former Foreign Minister of Argentina

Susana Malcorra served as foreign minister of Argentina from 2015 to 2017. In 2012, she was appointed by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon as chef de cabinet to the executive office of the United Nations. Malcorra also served as the United Nations under-secretary-general for field support from 2008 to 2015, and as chief operating officer and deputy executive director of the World Food Programme (WFP).

Current Status

As the world prepares for the commemoration of the 75th Anniversary of the creation of the United Nations, it becomes apparent that the institutional construct of global governance established after World War II is facing challenges from many constituents. In his 24th September speech at the United Nations, President Trump stated, “The future does not belong to globalists”.This declaration signals the stress on the multicultural paradigm.In part, I would argue, it is also a symptom of a certain degree of exhaustion. There is an intuitively recognized need for the multilateral agenda to regenerate itself to be fit for purpose to address the salient issues, trends, challenges and opportunities of this century.

At the center of this malaise is the UN itself. The most democratic institution ever established by humankind seems unable to provide answers to key questions that hamper its ability to respond and to have a real lasting incidence in the implementation of its mandates. Issues like the reform of the Security Council with its lack of representativeness, the paralysis often originated by consensus building among its membership of 193 members, and–even more worrisome- the tendency to defy the values and principles enshrined in its foundational Charter and its three intertwined pillars (Peace and Security, Development and Human Rights) look insurmountable in the current context.

On the other hand, the Bretton Woods institutions face the limits of their capacity to deliver on their mandate while feeling the increased pressure resulting from their inability to adjust to the power sharing of the world we live in.

WTO is also at a standstill due to the confrontation between major powers and serious limitations to push a new agenda after the incomplete and frustrating Doha round. Its central organ, the Dispute Tribunal, has collapsed and, in its weakened state, is unable to operate at a time of escalating tensions and disputes when it is most needed. While all of this takes place, many members sign bilateral or regional agreements to circumvent the international order with trade deals that replace trade rules.

Signatories of Agreements and Conventions leave them without any sense of global responsibility and, seemingly, without fully grasping the impact of weakening fundamental tools that governments agreed upon after arduous negotiations, often through many years of iterative processes and debates.

In times when our interdependency has become greater than ever, new waves of isolationism and reclusion are taking root and steadily gaining supporters.

In times when the most significant challenges faced by humanity are mainly borderless, the “sovereignty first” approach expands at an exponential rate. Climate change, migration, terrorism, cyber-security, nuclear proliferation, the integration of supply chains, taxation systems, pandemics, illegal trafficking (humans, drugs, weapons and money), and threats to oceans and bio -diversity are not able to coalesce enough interest and to build coalitions that have a real incidence in generating change.

When skepticism and cynicism prevail, and we collectively lack sufficient stamina to take on the hard work required rebuilding and retooling these aged institutions, there is a need for a focused effort to adjust and adapt to a very different reality.

Indispensable global public goods are often not valued as contributors to enhance better opportunities for all and as complementary to national and local interests. The notion of zero-sum game seems to dominate above a shared understanding of what are the best solutions for our common planet.

In the quest by some to move forward, there is an increased temptation to foster associations only among the likeminded. This, undoubtedly, is a shortcut to advance in dealing with some of the most urgent problems we face, while we prove unable to galvanize a constructive conversation in larger constellations.

We see “coalitions of the willing” spreading across the multilateral landscape. From Peace and Security interventions to Trade Agreements, to Development and Human Rights actions, the proliferation of smaller groupings that think alike is becoming a new standard.

One must accept that it is better to join (and to be joined by) just a few than not to actively participate at all. The danger is the creation of tribal approaches instead of global ones. This can yield some short- term results for the few who are ready to participate without maximizing the fruits brought by an all embracing engagement and, what is worse, it can lead to the creation of ecosystems with shared values that do not recognize (or antagonize) with others who differ. Without a legitimate and common space to address the differences, it could be almost insurmountable to narrow the existing gaps and divides.

Examples like the G7 and the G20 show how the attempts to reduce membership haven’t necessarily led to effectiveness in addressing the problems at hand. While coordination during the 2008 financial crisis allayed some of its most immediate effects, it is also the case that, in more recent times, new geo-politics dynamics have impeded its members from reaching actionable consensus.

The current governance arrangement is not bad in itself or from a theoretical standpoint. It is bad for the consequences it produces. In this short space, we could mention the main consequences: incapacity to seriously change the conditions that are rapidly destroying the planet; incapacity to modify the trend towards increased inequality and accumulation of wealth in a few hands; incapacity to grant basic welfare conditions -access to food, water, sanitation, health and education services, peace- to the majority of the world population.

Then What?

Explanations of the causes of this situation provide some rationality as to what we live through these days, but that is not what is needed. Our objective should be to find ways and means to redefine the contours of new institutional arrangements that give new meaning to the idea of common purpose.

Despite that the highest principles and values enshrined in the creation of the multilateral system are based on universal human rights, some “western bias” interpretations have shaped its manifestation for the past 75 years.

There is a lack of true recognition of a fast-moving world, in which member states of the United Nations -- now 193 -- have evolved beyond the original 50 signatories of the Charter. This is one central element of the described disarray.

The more explicit diversity among member states, the prevailing cultural nuances, the increased participation of civil society and private sector, the weight gained by sub-state actors like cities do not have enough room to be present in the design of new solutions.

The peoples, who often challenge the representation of their own political leadership, find it hard to relate to a global governance that is too far removed from them, with too much distance and the inability to communicate the role it plays in establishing frameworks that have an impact in meeting their daily needs and demands.

Complexity, therefore, underpins this multi-dimensional puzzle that looks already close to unsolvable if only the traditional actors, Member States, are considered.

Our goal should be to reset the course of this dated system based on the core values and principles humankind shares while recognizing that this humanity is not a monolithic block in all matters at all times. Respect for diversity while investing in building a solid commonality should set our direction.

The richness of our differences must be conceived as an asset, not a liability. The opportunities that come from solution searching from different angles should be valued as a unique capacity for human beings to improve the way they live together and share this common home, our planet.

The causes for the disarray of the world governance system are complex and intertwined. In addition, these causes can be considered in terms of time in very different manners. While some of the issues can be analyzed with a mid to long-term approach, others require immediate action. Thus, while recognizing its capital importance, we can consider that education, while fundamental in terms of sustainability of any type of justice and order in society, requires an approach that has a longer-term perspective than hunger.

Therefore, the actors that need to be called in this crisis must be varied, both in terms of their skills and knowledge as well as in terms of their capacity to act fast.

Possible Paths Forward

So far we have described the state of global governance as we see it. A mere description of the current situation is not enough since it can immerse us in a state of hopelessness that is not useful to meet the demands of the world we live in.

We must remember that we consider the current governance system as inappropriate not in itself, but because of the realities it generates and the environment in which it exists. In analyzing next steps, within the limits of this paper, we will resort to the famous dictum of Comte “savoir pour prévoir, prévoir pour pouvoir,” in other words, we need to know in order to predict and to plan, and with a clear plan, we can act.

Therefore, when analyzing ways forward, we must look into three initial large areas: (1) what are the main drivers that took us to this situation; (2) what is the situation that we want to achieve; (3) how can we reverse or put an end to those drivers and start building the future we want.

In considering point (1), if we look at the last forty years, we can see that two factors are very salient. First, the concentration of power that has consistently accompanied the concentration of wealth and its implication in increased inequalities. As an example, the last forty years have witnessed a worldwide weakening or even disappearance of organized labor and most types of influential interest associations. The second factor has been the concentration of media (in particular, new technological capabilities like Facebook and the like) in very few hands. This has transformed vast sectors of the population from citizens into consumers whose main concerns are their individual and immediate situations.

In terms of point (2), we are very fortunate in that a magnificent job has already been accomplished with the participation of all sectors of society. In an unprecedented effort, with the active participation of international organizations, governments, religious institutions, civil society, private sector, academia and private citizens, the world has defined in detail “the future we want”. It is spelt out in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which, in its 17 goals specifies the actions needed in each of the complex areas that form the reality of today to transform it into the reality of tomorrow.

Thus, conscious of what brought as to the situation in which we are today, and, with a very clear agenda of what we want to achieve, it is urgent to start working on point (3). For the ones who believe that is time for action, it is essential we explore possible scenarios moving forward. Some of these scenarios can be summarized as follows:

• Maintaining the status quo seems like the worst possible choice. Drifting institutions, driven by national, sectorial or localized interests, without a commitment to change the current situation will not achieve the final objective to the foundation or re-foundation of the new design as reflected in the 2030 Agenda. Many of the defenders of the current status are those who brought us here.

   

  Those who claim for strong global governance are mostly the ones who want to preserve the existing one. It requires a sincere and deep soul searching to decide and invest in something new and different. The driver might simply be that the current trend will end in the defeat of everyone, either through unmanageable conflict fueled by inequality or by the destruction of the environment.

   

• Associations of the “alike” appear to be an attractive alternative. We have belabored on the risks and limitations this approach brings to bear. It is still a less dangerous option because it allows for new issues of the XXI century to be discussed and, eventually, new solutions to be implemented among smaller groups of constituents. It is a “sub-global” way to address the global challenges mankind faces hence it is a “sub-optimal” one.

   

• Acceptance of broader participation by smaller groups for local decisions and implementations.

   

• The 2030 Agenda already gives the driving seat for implementation to each country and, within each country, to the multiple institutions within government, private sector, associations and civil society in general. No government alone can implement all 17 goals. But they can empower cities, communities and organizations to do it with direct knowledge of the needs and, therefore, with the ability to act fast according to the priorities of the real world.

   

• Reinforcement of universality without aiming at a full consensus. The sheer size and complexity of the institutions and problems we have, limit the ability to achieve full membership agreement in all issues at all times, without risking paralysis. Therefore, while leaving decision making and implementation in the hands of smaller actors, large international institutions could concentrate on:

   

   

1. Monitoring advancement in implementation on a worldwide basis to allow for comparisons and complementarity.

    

2. The notion of full consensus as the pre-requisite to decide could be replaced by thresholds that, depending on the issue at hand, establish the base to agree on and to recommend implementation of actions, for example in issues related to media concentration or destruction of the environment.

    

3. At a later stage, the ones who have not been early adopters can adhere to the agreement if they so choose.

    

4. This approach sets the incentives on solution searching and tends to neutralize potential spoilers who can very easily derail an agreement at a minimum cost.

    

• This proposal retains the legitimacy of universality while adding efficiency to the process.

   

1. All these negotiations should take place in an open, transparent and democratic setting. This is the case in terms of defining minimum thresholds to agree as it is in persuading others on the merits or demerits of a proposed solution. No one is left out from the process.

    

   Conclusions

    

   There should be no expectations that a perfect solution can be easily found. Each possible way to move forward has its pluses and its minuses.

    

   It is our view that a combination of the third and fourth alternatives maximizes the premises on which global governance has been adopted. It is as universal as one can envision without the limitation set by the notion of being “all in” or “all out” in each case.

    

   It enriches the current practice of coalitions (option 2) by setting the stage for negotiations that include all membership in the search for accommodation. It fosters the participation of citizens and reduces the capacity to manipulate public opinion.

    

   It could be that not all current institutional arrangements adapt easily to this new approach. One could think of pushing the model in those environments that seem more conducive to yield positive outcomes. The General Assembly could lead the way and test the approach to work around certain issues.

    

   Another testing ground could be the World Trade Organization. This model could be considered in order to address the prevailing deadlock to tackle some significant questions around services and technology.

    

   If this suggestion were to be considered there is no need for a revolutionary approach. It could be implemented in steps, to negotiate issues that members agree to, with agreed specific conditions, exploring the enlargement of stakeholder’s participation and with established timeframes.

    

   Should this proof of concept work, the existing fear to change by some and the negative mood towards the ability to get things done should be allayed.

    

   In the end, no matter how many theoretical options are examined, nothing can replace the mutual trust among players and their willingness to invest in a better world for all. And, in doing so, are we able to take our global governance to a stage in which we respect our differences but agree on core common values based on the rights of the peoples?

    

   This remains to be the key question: is it possible, in the current geopolitical environment, to seize the opportunity and to work on a way forward in which mutual trust and shared values are the locomotive of change? People, Planet, Peace, Prosperity and Partnership, as defined in Agenda 2030 need an answer.

If you would like to repost this article, please contact us for authorisation