Will global cooperation finally emerge from the doldrums this year? The international community’s recent agreement on a “rulebook” for implementing the Paris climate agreement seems to offer some hope, but opinion polls show that many remain concerned that a global economic recession or major geopolitical crisis could test the international system’s resilience. And it is not at all clear that the system will pass.
As it stands, perhaps the biggest barriers to international cooperation are political. Over the past few years, there has been an intensifying backlash against international cooperation, rooted partly in fears — stoked by populist political leaders in many countries — that transnational “elites” are trying to impose “globalism”: an “ideology that prioritizes the neoliberal global order over national interests.”
However, perspectives that refute this narrative seem to be gaining ground. Many world leaders believe that the Western countries squandered their influence over the international system by intervening politically and militarily in the affairs of others without any clear endgame.
Some also say that the global elite has only pretended to pursue socioeconomic change, while actually maintaining a status quo that has benefited it.
However, many believe that now, the vertical hierarchies that have long sustained the global order are being disrupted by the growing political and economic influence of horizontal networks. Even the US, it is often claimed, has moved from supporting the multilateral system to undermining it.
Yet, although belief in globalism — a top-down conspiracy to impose an international system that trumps national sovereignty — might be dead, globalization is alive and well.
As historian Yuval Noah Harari put it in his book Sapiens, history continues to move “slowly in the direction of global unity.”
An effective and resilient international order, comprising strong nation-states, thus remains essential.
World leaders do not question the need for such an order. Rather, the major political challenge to global cooperation lies in managing our diversified and pluralistic world within the established institutional architecture, while overcoming the tendency among some to associate any effort to shape globalization with globalism, internationalism or imperialism.
What would it take to build a more resilient system, capable of withstanding sudden shocks while maintaining its core functions? The answer is not cut and dried. While there has been important recent research into what makes a person resilient, there is no clear overarching explanation of what makes a resilient country or international system.
Nonetheless, humans seem to have a predisposition toward building broad organizing systems. In Sapiens, Harari chronicles efforts by merchants, prophets and conquerors, over millennia, to “establish an order that would be applicable for everyone everywhere.”
This leads him to the observation that humans are the only social animal “guided by the interests of the entire species to which it belongs.”
In practical terms, an updated international order must account for the four distinct developments that characterize the latest incarnation of globalization.
First, the world is moving toward a multipolar system, in which the US is no longer the dominant international force.
Moreover, we have entered the Anthropocene epoch, in which human activity is the primary influence on the climate and environment.
We now have the capacity to destroy other species so effectively that, as Edward Wilson said, we might well “eliminate more than half of all species by the end of this century.”
Third, sharply rising inequality has made economic inclusion and equity a priority for many voters. This will shape national politics for the foreseeable future and thus help to determine the fate of the current liberal order.
Finally, what World Economic Forum (WEF) executive chairman Klaus Schwab calls the Fourth Industrial Revolution is forcing us to consider “how technology is affecting our lives and reshaping our economic, social, cultural and human environments.”
For example, economist Richard Baldwin foresees arbitrage of wage rates in the service sector, enabled by digital platforms.
As a result, he has said, “hundreds of millions of service-sector and professional workers in advanced economies will — for the first time ever — be exposed to the challenges and opportunities of globalization.”
Given globalization’s shifting nature, it could be better understood in conceptual terms than as a historical phenomenon. This is the rationale behind the theme of the forthcoming annual meeting of the WEF in Davos, Switzerland: “Globalization 4.0: Shaping a Global Architecture in the Age of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.”
Figuring out how best to influence the course of globalization will not be easy, but here, too, humans seem to have a natural inclination.
Many scientists now believe that thinking about the future is humans’ defining characteristic and argue that “looking into the future, consciously and unconsciously, is a central function of our large brain,” and that planning for it results in less stress — and more happiness.
We are hard-wired to think about the future of our planet — and that future demands a more robust and resilient institutional architecture that accounts for the four key forces shaping “Globalization 4.0.” We should get to work on building it.
Lee Howell is a member of the management board of the World Economic Forum.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath