"Regional organizations and ad-hoc multilateral fora will become more important"
What should Europe and the US do?
Video comments
Theme Intro
Reinventing Global Governance
Erik Jones on Global Governance
Regional organizations and ad-hoc multilateral fora will become more important Go to expert page.
Rem Korteweg on Global Governance
Regional organizations and ad-hoc multilateral fora will become more important Go to expert page.
Session 1 - Clip 7
Erik Jones intro " losing the power of collective action"
Session 1 - Clip 8
"Will the west continue to limp along?"
Session 1 - Clip 9
Rem Korteweg, Tomas Valasek and John Hulsman on an interest-based alliance
Session 1 - Clip 10
Tomas Valasek on NATO as a shifting coalition of the willing
Session 1 - Clip 15
Klaus Naumann on NATO, burdensharing and delegation of responsibilities
Session 1 - Clip 17
Erik Jones on "leaders and followers, the role of china and global governance'
Session 1 - Clip 19
Tomas Valasek, Rem Korteweg and Klaus Naumann on the impact of emerging powers on transatlantic cooperation
Session 1 - Clip 21
David Armitage "US and Europe have gone through difficult times before"
Session 1 - Clip 22
David Armitage on moving towards global solutions
Session 2 - Clip 2
Erik Jones on difficulties to improve global governance (UN, IMF, Doha)
Session 2 - Clip 3
Tomas Valasek on making China, India, Russia responsible stakeholders
Session 2 - Clip 6
Klaus Naumann on Global governance, decisionmaking and crises
Session 2 - Clip 14
David Armitage, Klaus Naumann, Erik Jones and John Hulsman on the need for early warning and rapid response in times of crisis
Session 2 - Clip 18
David Armitage, Klaus Naumann, John Hulsman, Rem Korteweg, Erik Jones and Tomas Valasek on making flexible institutions
Session 2 - Clip 19
David Armitage on the risk of in-group/out-group in flexible arrangements
Session 2 - Clip 21
John Hulsman, Klaus Naumann, Tomas Valasek, Rem Korteweg, David Armitage and Erik Jones on making global stakeholders of rising powers
Background
New regional organizations have emerged in recent years, competing with existing global institutions for attention and legitimacy; such as ALBA in South America, AU in Africa, SADC in Southern Africa, ASEAN in the Pacific and SCO in Central Asia. Western leaders have even floated the idea of creating a League of Democracies. In addition, new forums and multilateral frameworks, sometimes ad-hoc, have emerged, such as the BRICS summit, which have become new centres of decision-making. These novelties allow for more flexibility and give a voice to emerging powers. Yet as regionalism grows in a multipolar world, the risk increases that a global disconnect emerges, as states seek to advance their interests in more specialized groups of likeminded states. Does this herald the decline of global solutions? And is this development in the West’s interest?
Jonne / 29-11-2011 @ 16.09
In the words of a anonymous diplomat: The EU can either fall forward or it can fall backward. As the interest on Italian government bonds nears the 8% at the time of writing there is need for a conscious, although perhaps controversial, decision to push for further integration, even if that entails sacrificing some sovereignty. Whether you like this or not is not relevant anymore, as the alternative is so much worse. There's an informative piece on this topic on the HCSS_RTW twitterfeed.
artur / 15-12-2011 @ 16.45
But why you think this is the solution. For some reasons a lot of people believe that if Germany +Netherlands assume all other countries debt the EU will be saved. Why they don't discuss the possibility that it can topple Germany plus the rest of the EU. Print money. Drop the ballast. Then we can move forward!
Mark Hendriks / 08-12-2011 @ 18.23
I agree Jonne. And it looks like Europe will be pushed forward by pressure from the financial markets. I just read the epic piece on the future of Europe by der Spiegel, and share their opinion: It is time to stop complaining and start reinventing Europe. Let a core of European (euro) states take the lead and quickly transfer economic/financial/political powers to Europe. That's the only way to stop the crisis, help prevent similar catastrophes in the future and, in the long run, build a more prosperous Europe.
gebladerte / 18-11-2011 @ 16.28
Regional organisations are definitely on the rise as multilateral organisations stumble and stagnate. See the recently announced Trans-Pacific Trade Pact, while the Doha Round remains stalled. See the reinforced ANZUS and alliances with Japan, South Korea and the Philippines instead of a 'Global NATO'. The same counts for ASEAN, the SCO, UNASUR, AU, etc. The US is actively seeking out to to stay involved. Obama's Pacific Project with renewed emphasis on APEC en ANZUS is a very good step. Europe, however, is a bit stuck in its instutional corset and peninsular geography. Aran League, OIC, AU, SCO and even the Arctic Council are not really interested in more European involvement (with their talk of human rights and democracy). However, the EU can strengthen its Neighbourhood Policy, try to revitalise OECD and OSCE or get involved in and support new structures like the G20 or Medvedev's proposal of a Eurasian security pact.
Maarten / 07-11-2011 @ 12.55
As last weeks G20 summit makes clear: our current international organizations are no longer fit for purpose. We have rightly lost our belief in the IMF, WTO or UN as primary vehicles for solving the most important problems of our time. The G20 is a natural answer to the ineffectiveness and outdated structure of these organizations. Here, China is as much on the forefront as the US, has substantial influence on the agenda, and at least presents itself as willing to play its part in getting the global economy back on track (most importantly: by buying bonds in Europe). What the political consequences will be is another (and relevant) question, but at least China is adopting a role that reflects its economic position. We need to change our current international organizations or they will die a slow death, and we need to invest in new ones like the G20 and give them the necessary firepower to commit members to translating summit conclusions into hard action.
PNR / 07-11-2011 @ 13.29
While I agree with the statement and I am sure that many people would, the next step necessary of figuring out how change the current international organizations is the challenge. The plethora of issues related to the overall revamp of the international system (both at the national and international level) will likely prove to be too much to overcome to create meaningful change in the midst of the current crises. With domestic politics(aging population, joblessness etc) in many Western States taking precedence, the likelihood of any meaningful change occurring in the foreseeable future seems bleak.
PNR / 01-11-2011 @ 15.16
The current system of global governance is clearly not as effective as desired, particularity the systems that were set up in the post-war years during an era of bipolarity. Perhaps reforming the existing systems would be the most effective option, but it may also be the most difficult, as European and Americans will likely be unwilling to change the power structures that have benefitted them for so long. Particularly at a time when western governments are faced with a mass of internal issues and groups within countries wanting to remain more isolated, it will be an uphill battle to gain the support to change the structures of global governance that many people find ineffective to begin with. The set up of new regional organizations in recent years may actually be a positive development if they are able to establish themselves as legitimate forms of regional governance and could in turn serve as a representative of a regional position. I do not think that an increase in regionalism in a multi-polar world would necessarily lead to a global disconnect, but rather opens the opportunity for regions that have factors in common to present a degree of a united front, which may in turn allow for more effective negotiations and potential solutions at the global level.
Maarten / 03-11-2011 @ 12.42
PNR, I would be inclined to argue the opposite: regional organizations are more and more vehicles for powerful states (China and Russia in particular) to increase their regional political/economic/military influence. I see these regional organizations (SCO, CIS, and so on) as clever ways to enlarge zones of influence, sometimes explicitly oppose western interests. In the long run, they will make reaching multilateral agreements more and more difficult. We can't sit back, relax and enjoy the show. Making our current international organizations more attractive to those states is the only way forward that will benefit the West in the long run.