the world must live and work together again

I spent almost three decades at the United Nations singing the praises of multilateralism, but today I am not so sure of its prospects.

a reaction

It began with a reaction against globalization that took two forms: economic and cultural. The economic response was straightforward. The poor and unemployed in the developed world began to feel that they had no stake in the globalized system, and sought to know why the policies of their governments benefited people as far-flung as China and India with their work. They each wanted to reduce the growing inequality in the “developed” economy and return to the safety of the old, more familiar economic methods, in which each generation assumed they would earn more and live a better life than their parents. Will spend

The cultural backlash stemmed from the same outrage but expressed itself in a different area: political condemnation of global trade led to hostility towards foreigners, as more and more people sought the convenience of traditional identities and ways of life. Often animated by the bitter working-class and lower-middle-class resentment of the global elite, the “people” used cultural inertia, religious or liberal politics in the name of cosmopolitan and technocrats, trade agreements, immigration, multiculturalism, and a whole concoction of secularism. rejected. Ethnic identity and nationalist authenticity. Some see the world as divided between “anywhere” and “anywhere”, in David Goodhart’s formulation: “anywhere” are people who are comfortable anywhere on the planet, from business-class lounges to five. go to star hotels and attend international gatherings, while “somewhere” rooted in one place, immersed in a religious culture, speaking one language and sharing an ethnicity.

political opportunity

Political leaders quickly seized the opportunity to take advantage of both types of backlash against globalization. Populist leaders such as Donald Trump, who rose to the presidency of the United States on the slogans “America First” and “Make America Great Again”, and many others – from Jair Bolsonaro of Brazil and Recep Tayyip Erdoan in Turkey to Victor Orban of Hungary and India’s Narendra Modi – successfully convinced his voters that he was a more authentic embodiment of his nation than the supposedly rootless secular metropolitan people he wanted to displace. From the Alternative für Deutschland and Austria’s Freedom Party in Germany to the Party for Freedom in the Netherlands and Marine Le Pen and Erik Zemour in France, neither of whom have won a national election, but which have come close enough to shift. National discourse. Such parties and leaders have combined nationalist fervor with popular prejudices to make nationalism the default model of national self-definition. (And should we now, after Ukraine, anoint Russian President Vladimir Putin as president of an oxymoronic “nationalist international”?)

If these were the trends that preceded the pandemic, they have intensified worryingly during the past two years. For many, the COVID-19 pandemic confirmed that in times of crisis, people rely on their governments to protect them; that global supply chains are vulnerable to disruption; And dependence on foreign countries for essential goods (such as pharmaceuticals, or even the ingredients that go into making them) can be fatal. Nations made aggressive efforts to obtain medicines, supplies and vaccines for their people at each other’s expense. There was a rush to reset the global supply chain and raise trade barriers: calls for greater protectionism and “self-reliance” arose. The Russian invasion of Ukraine forced all our countries to grapple with the limitations of state sovereignty, the credibility of the United Nations Charter, new disruptions to supply chains and trade, energy interdependence and a future of war.

a weak world

Ukraine and the pandemic have reminded us that what seemed like it was bringing the world closer to each other – and which we had until recently admitted – was vulnerable. The world economy had flourished since the start of globalization on the open system of free trade in 1980. It was already shaken by the 2008-09 financial crash and the US trade war with China. The novel coronavirus pandemic has exacerbated these challenges, with estimates suggesting that nearly a third of global trade fell in 2020, although a gradual recovery trajectory is now beginning to emerge. Now, sanctions on Russia have severely restricted trade, investment and financial flows in and out of that country.

COVID-19 has also convinced many that there should be fear of foreigners, that strict border and immigration controls are necessary, that countries cannot always expect useful help from their neighbors and allies, and that national interests must be protected. International cooperation should dominate. Instead, the emphasis is on sovereignty, nationalism and self-protection. The United Nations has every reason to worry about its continued relevance, with its perceived inertia in preventing war or even reducing aggression on the sovereign borders of one of its own member-states. For, a permanent member of the Security Council.

There is no doubt that the COVID-19 pandemic was a “mega-shock” to the global order. As sovereignty is reimposed around the world, and treaties and trade agreements are increasingly questioned, multilateralism, once the accepted mantra of international cooperation, could be the next casualty. The pandemic was already in danger of its destruction: Britain withdrew from the European Union (EU), the US withdrew from the historic Paris climate accord and President Trump pulled the United States out of the World Health Organization (WHO). Now, separatist voices portray themselves as being proven right.

The WHO’s response to the outbreak, along with the indulgence of the official Chinese line, points to the dwindling legitimacy of international institutions. Many of our global institutions and their agencies suffer from politicization, manipulation and lack of representation and independent leadership. If global governance was working effectively, the world would have recognized the coronavirus as soon as it emerged; A global alarm had previously sounded about its dangers; and identified and promoted best practices to be adopted by all countries to prevent or limit its spread. It didn’t happen is a damning indictment of our new world state of disorder.

regional implications

The phenomenon of “globalization” also has its own regional implications. Europe, once seen as the “poster child” for the virtues of regional integration, became a symbol of its borders, as the “idea of ​​Europe” quickly collapsed under the onslaught of the pandemic. The famous Schengen visa and the notion of border-free movement were the first casualties of COVID-19. EU countries threw up barriers at the first sign of the virus: it didn’t take them long to rediscover the losses and borders of much free movement of goods, services, capital and people, which they had sworn by for five decades. Early in the pandemic, Italy, the first major epicenter of the COVID-19 crisis, was denied medical equipment by its EU neighbors, who instead introduced export controls to extend solidarity to their fellow Europeans in the crisis.

need for more governance

Nevertheless, it is clear that the enormous complexity and scalability of our interdependence requires more global governance, not less. It is unfortunate to turn away from multilateral institutions at the first sign of weakness. In my 29 years at the United Nations, one of the important lessons I’ve learned is that the world is a better place when countries engage in dialogue, when they have a forum to talk about problems, which Instead of resorting to tit-for-tat reactions. issues on which they disagree. In the post-COVID-19 world, unfortunately, countries are turning their backs on such forums in a desire to minimize their exposure to external threats. External forces not only represent threats; They also include opportunities that visionary leaders must seize.

The only hope of the future lies in international solidarity. When the current pandemic is over, the world must learn lessons about what happened, and how international systems and institutions can be strengthened and radically reformed to prevent a recurrence. The same can be said of the ongoing war and sanctions. Instead of strengthening the capacity of our global institutions to deal with future crises, the world’s response to virus and war may well destroy the most fundamental feature that COVID-19 has uncovered – that of our common humanity. Idea. We should not let this happen. We must learn to live and work together again.

Shashi Tharoor, MP (Congress) left the United Nations in 2007 as Under-Secretary-General after being India’s candidate to serve as Secretary-General in 2006. He is the award winning author of 23 books including ‘Pax Indica’. 2012) and co-author of ‘The New World Disorder’ (2020)