During the Cold War, there was a strict limit on what could be agreed by way of action by the UN in the field of conflict prevention and resolution. But there was an understanding with clearly agreed rules of the road. Those limitations seemed to fall away with the ending of the Cold War, and shortly after, Presidents Gorbachev and Bush expressed great hopes for the new era in international relations that was dawning.
President Bush captured the Zeitgeist well in his famous 1990 speech before Congress, stating that: “A new world order can emerge: A new era – freer from the threat of terror, stronger in the pursuit of justice and more secure in the quest for peace. An era in which the nations of the world, east and west, north and south, can prosper and live in harmony…A world quite different from the one we’ve known. A world where the rule of law supplants the rule of the jungle. A world in which nations recognize the shared responsibility for freedom and justice. A world where the strong respect the rights of the weak.”
To recall those words is to measure the distance between the hopes we held then and the grim realities we face today. Instead of the new world order, we have growing disorder. The international architecture set up after World War II, which received a new lease on life in 1990, is proving unable to cope with the challenges of our time. We are groping with new uncertainty. Whether it is in peace and security, climate change, international justice or global trade, there has been little progress.
The Security Council is unable to ensure peaceful outcomes to crises like Libya, Syria and Ukraine. On the contrary, we even hear talk of a “new Cold War”. National borders are being called into question, posing serious threats to international peace and security.
READ ALSO: #EndSARS: Border re-opening offers Buhari opportunity to cut cost of living
On the economic front, the Doha trade negotiations have stalled due to bickering among states even though it is widely acknowledged that international trade has helped lift hundreds of millions out of poverty over the last few decades. Although the statements we heard at the UN this year are encouraging, the fact remains that the international community has so far proved unable to reach any binding consensus on how to deal with climate change.
The objectivity and effectiveness of the International Criminal Court, the creation of which was a major milestone in the struggle to end impunity, is being questioned. More fundamentally, following the end of the Cold War, the norms of the liberal world order are being challenged.
Even as elections have become almost universal since 1990, the failure of elections to resolve deep-seated political and social divisions, from Kenya and Egypt to Afghanistan and Thailand, has created doubts about the value of democracy as expressed through the ballot box. We should be careful not to create the impression that the street is an alternative to elections, which ensure peaceful, democratic rotation of leadership. Of course, democracy never was and cannot be a panacea. Democratic discontent is real. But the alternative surely is better democracy and not a retreat into autocracy.
Today, the virtues of an open world, of democracy and the universality of human rights and personal liberties, enshrined in the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, are under threat even in countries that have embraced democratic ideals.
How did we get here just 25 years after that seminal speech by President Bush? To my mind, three factors stand out.
First, the scale and speed of economic, demographic and technological changes are upending the political status quo. Everywhere, globalisation has eroded the capacity of states to control their citizens, their territories and the forces determining their future. Tax avoidance, illicit financial flows, organised crime, cybercrime, terrorism, climate change and migration are disparate phenomena that have in common the fact that they are proving increasingly difficult to manage through the traditional instruments of state sovereignty.
The globalisation of markets creates untold opportunities for savvy entrepreneurs and successful corporations, creating overnight billionaires, and helped lift millions out of poverty. But it is also generating disquiet among people who fear that their livelihoods are determined, or even destroyed, by forces beyond their control and that of their elected leaders.
I have the impression that many states, the bedrock of the international order, are experiencing extraordinary strains generated by political, economic and social pressures that they cannot wholly channel or control. Even long-established states are under stress. I need not remind you that the unity of the United Kingdom was called into question this past September. There are secessionist movements vying for statehood on the march not only in Europe but all over the world. But what is statehood if the state has no control over the dynamics that are shaping the country and its future?
Sovereignty is not just a legal norm; it also a test of whether a state can hold and exercise a monopoly on the lawful use of force, maintain the control of its territory and the loyalty of its citizens, and, I would add, the ability to craft and implement international agreements. Many states today fail that test.
The second factor is the experience of Afghanistan and Iraq, which has highlighted the limits of what military power can accomplish. The failure of military solutions has discredited belief in, and the legitimacy of, international action in many Western countries.
Some of the wrong lessons of military engagement have been learnt: it is not the use of force per se that does not work, but rather when it is used in the absence of a coherent political strategy adapted to the realities of deeply fractured societies. In my view, such a strategy is still to be developed to deal with religious extremism that preaches hatred and practices terror. Air power alone will not suffice. While the extremists may be contained, they will remain a potent force. Such groups cannot be dismantled in the absence of a concerted effort by regional and international powers to develop the inclusive political settlement and governance structures that will neutralise their appeal.
A third element which is threatening the established order is the failure to modernise the institutional architecture of world order to reflect the changing balance of power. Many developing countries have experienced unprecedented growth over the last decade and a half, which we should welcome. At the same time, because of demographic trends, the countries that dominate the world’s institutions represent an increasingly small minority of the world’s population. But the United Nations and the Bretton Woods institutions – IMF and World Bank – still have the governance mechanisms created in the aftermath of World War II.
As a result of this failure to accommodate change, the emerging powers do not feel sufficiently represented. As they gain in wealth and influence, they are increasingly contesting the international system.
Kofi Annan
Join BusinessDay whatsapp Channel, to stay up to date
Open In Whatsapp
