"Changing global institutions to reflect new power balances is in the Western interest"
What should Europe and the US do?
Video comments
Theme Intro
Reinventing Global Governance
Klaus Naumann on Global Governance
Changing global institutions to reflect new power balances is in the Western interest Go to expert page.
David Armitage on Global Governance
Changing global institutions to reflect new power balances is in the Western interest 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
Global institutions reflect the world as it was just after the Second World War. The UN (especially the Security Council), the Bretton Woods institutions, the WTO: all seem to increasingly suffer from limited effectiveness and an outdated structure and membership. Even NATO, although it has gone through a process of reinvention, seems to struggle with the challenges of the security environment. Should these institutions be changed in order to make responsible stakeholders out of emerging powers? Or are the institutions past their date of expiration, and should new institutions be set up? Do the global institutions reflect all necessary instruments of politics to deal with today’s challenges? And is changing these institutions actually in the West’s interest? And if so, how could the West go about fulfilling this herculean task?
Jonne / 06-12-2011 @ 15.56
Some interesting China related articles on the twitterfeed today: Its supposed future hegemony might very well be challenged by other new contenders. Considering the second article, I do not think the "self fulfilling prophecy" is a complete myth. Although the author may praise the US' role in opening China to the world he does a very poor job of looking at it from Beijing's perspective. China would probably regard its recent growth as natural rather than a gift by the US. Furthermore, it wants to appear strong to the outside in order to sustain domestic control, that is not necessarily synonymous with aggression.
Maarten / 12-12-2011 @ 19.02
I do agree that Daniel Blumenthal distorts the argument with, as you write, viewing things from a US perspective - and not, as you would expect, taking into account how things look from the Chinese side. But I think there is another element that might lead the self-fulfilling prophecy becoming a real mechanism quite soon: (republican) campaign rhetorics. With the US public and politicians starting to realize they won't be sitting on top of mount unipolar any time soon and seeing the power of China rise day by day, I see a clear possibility of future republican candidates running on an anti-China ticket (and possibly winning). Especially considering the "proved and tested" election potion of fear-induction, I think the self-fulfilling prophecy cannot be discredited as a unicorn amongst unicorns, as Blumental writes.
Mark Hendriks / 02-12-2011 @ 16.27
The slow response to the atrocities committed by the Syrian regime against its people makes two things clear. First, the international organizations tasked with keeping this world a stable and safe place, the UN in particular, are very good at writing condemning reports, but lack the strength of backing up lofty words with a strong and unified response. Second: talk about "Western interest" in these cases clouds the divergent policy priorities of different countries falling under that umbrella. This last point is well illustrated by the foreign policy article I just read on the difference in strategy of the EU and US in the human rights council on Syria (posted on the HCSS_RTW twitter).
gebladerte / 07-11-2011 @ 22.26
Global governance reform as well as global trade and financial regulation is imperative if we do not want to crash against the wall collectively by a severe crisis of trust. The change will happen one way or another. So it's better to do it gradually with other stakeholders than through a period of radical transformation with all chaos that goes with it (French Revolution). Examples of long-awaited breakthroughs in many processes could be liberalization of trade in agricultural products (Doha Round), share and transfer of intellectual property and technology, fighting climate change with carbon derivatives or investment in renewables, reform of the Security Council and IMF boards, a full-fledged Bretton Woods II (Tobin tax, Glass-Steagal act, etc.). All these issues cannot be dealt with in the current 'system' of global institutions but are nevertheless to be addressed collectively or otherwise they can create severe crises. Change would not be in the short-term interest, as the West would need to cede some of its power and prerogatives. Yet, nevertheless, it will gain in the long-term, 'cause by blocking reform we might all go down. Since the West has the most profited from the current system they have to make the first move. It's the classical problem of the commons.
gebladerte / 08-11-2011 @ 22.52
nothing much has changed since Treaty of San Francisco and Bretton Woods. No new more inclusive fora will change that. Moreover, BRICs are not monolithic entities. We'll enter a new era, with different paradigms. A neomedieval world. Then institutions do not matter that much anymore, anyway. Innovation and creativity is all that matters for every actor, from individuals to the IMF.
Mark Hendriks / 08-11-2011 @ 17.50
All fine and well gebladerte, but what's the road forward here? Should we design new international organizations or reform existing ones, and what should these new/redesigned institutions look like? What's the chance of that actually happeing? I think, for example, the G20 has a big chance of growing out to be a new international forum for dealing with global (especially political-economic) issues. Expanded membership of the UNSC is crucial, and stronger voting weights for new economically powerful states in the WTO and IMF will be more difficult. But with the economic crisis and China's increasing assertiveness in international politics and economics, I think we sooner or later have no other option than accept the reality that our current international organisations no longer reflect the status of China, India, Brasil and others. On global trade and financial regulation I am utterly sceptical. I agee with you its a worthy goal, but the harsh reality is that nothing much has changed since 2008, and no sign on the horizon that anything will anytime soon...
mr. Lageweg / 03-11-2011 @ 20.13
Do nothing together with the US in particular. Europe, very different from the US, has many countries with strong real economies (e.g. Germany, N-Italy, Switzerland, Austria and Sweden (not The Netherlands in the first place)). Apart from long lasting trans-atlantic and EU cooperation the model of balancing powers which is the driving force behind real economies should be recognized to become a standard for stabilizing these economies, cut debts to <<60% of GDP and therewith create the force to (1) whipe out any (pan-)american neo-liberalism and related network influences in the european banking system (2) create a new fundament for ost-politik (Europe-(B)RIC) (as the germans are already doing) and (3) create a basis for a sustainable EU for all current member states. European countries can achieve this easier without treating trans-atlantic relationships as valuable.
Jonne / 01-11-2011 @ 17.26
Expanding the UN Security Council would seem an essential move if the organization proponents aspire it to survive. The question is whether the West can muster the political will to act against its short term interests in order to facilitate a more legitimate supranational institution...
Eline Chivot / 16-11-2011 @ 16.47
The rules of the UN should also be modified; if not expanded, the security council should no longer include members that have the power to veto certain decisions - for example those regarding the application of a state which is willing to become part of the UN, as recently seen with Palestine. This would be a great step towards more democracy within global institutions.
Kiona / 01-11-2011 @ 16.15
Well functioning multilateral organizations are in the interest of the West. It is unrealistic to expect new emerging countries like China, India and Brazil to engage fully in the WTO, UN and the like so long as their influence remains disproportionally small in comparison to that of their Western counterparts. We have two options: business as usual or radical reform. The first will mean the UN and other international organizations will share the fate of the "Leage of Nations" and sooner or later become obsolete. On the contrary, if we radically reform there institutions and make them attractive to rising states by upgrading their current second-class membership, we have a real chance of maintaining a more or less rule based international (political/economic/military) order.
metal.days / 08-11-2011 @ 18.04
Where I'd would agree that a reform of international organisations that would put countries on a more-less equal level, it would surely create a sort of 'western' alliance that would put a strong enough counter balance against the emerging asian superpowers, this is absolutely unrealistic as you cannot take politics out of it, and certain states will never accept the developing states with an equal weight of vote as them ( see Russia and Ukraine for example).
It's a simple paradigm unfortunately that an alliance of western states will simply never work, as long as all the states should be equal.