Russians see globalization and international institutions as in crisis. They offer to rescue this failing project—but on their terms, and with a readjustment of a world order that would be more to their liking.
At the October meeting of the Valdai Discussion Club, a group of Russian and foreign international-affairs specialists, the attendees assessed the process of globalization under the rubric “global revolt and the global order.” Russians described Western-led, neoliberal globalization as universally destructive economically, culturally and politically, and called it responsible for sparking a worldwide revolt.
Globalization is under assault on two fronts, suggested Fyodor Lukyanov, author of the upcoming Valdai conference report. One set of countries had no say in constructing the Western-dominated world order and considers it unfair, while in Western countries anti-establishment political parties and social movements, often backed by Moscow, reject globalization as an elite-driven project that benefits only a few. Together the two trends impede needed international economic and security cooperation.
Russia’s concern about globalization was confirmed at the highest level when President Vladimir Putin addressed the final conference session.
“Essentially the entire globalization project is in crisis today,” Putin said, attributing that crisis to the continued escalation of “the tensions engendered by shifts in distribution of economic and political influence.”
Putin cited the triumph of anti-establishment parties in developed countries, the vote of the British people to leave the European Union and Donald Trump’s capture of the Republican Party as evidence that, even in the wealthy West, citizens no longer accept the rule of “unelected and uncontrolled bureaucrats and political elites.”
Putin blamed the West for missing a golden opportunity, after the Cold War, to partner with the new Russian Federation and construct a more just and stable world order. Instead, he claimed, NATO governments chose to exploit Russia’s weakness and construct a Eurocentric, Atlantic-centric political-economic structure that disadvantaged Russia and others.
“They chose the road of globalization and security for their own beloved selves, for the select few, and not for all,” Putin said. “But far from everyone was ready to agree with this.”
Two recent worrisome trends for globalization — decreasing worldwide trade volumes and rising inequality between the world’s wealthiest people and everyone else — amplify the problem. The slowdown in international trade curtails income growth and poverty reduction in developing countries, while increasing inequality undermines popular support for globalization and for trade-expansion efforts within and between countries.
The anti-globalization mood sweeping the world alarmed representatives from emerging and developed economies alike.
Putin and other Russian speakers advocated strengthening the United Nations and international law to counter the global forces of fragmentation and disorder. In particular Putin stressed the importance of the principle of national sovereignty to “help underwrite peace and stability both at the national and international levels.”
The Russian prescriptions for preserving sovereignty and countering global fragmentation — revitalizing the U.N. and limiting foreign interference in countries’ internal affairs — enjoyed strong support from other foreign speakers at the conference. Even though their governments are heavily involved in destabilizing Middle Eastern regimes, the Iranian and Turkish ambassadors joined Russian panelists in blaming foreign interference for instigating the civil war in Syria. However, some U.S. and Arab speakers cited the mass deaths in Syria and other war zones, insisting that humanitarian imperatives can override sovereignty and permit international intervention to limit suffering.
Of course, preserving its veto power in the U.N. Security Council and emphasizing traditional interpretations of international law upholding national sovereignty remain among Russia’s tools for constraining U.S. foreign policy and buttressing Russia’s status as a global player.
For this reason, Russians struggle with the issue of Security Council reform. Former President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa and other foreign leaders consider such reform essential in the interest of international justice and representation. Putin acknowledged that some reform is needed, but he and other Russians insisted that this process had to proceed cautiously, incrementally and only by consensus in order to preserve the Security Council’s effectiveness.
Putin’s call for caution is partly due to his perception that Western powers have constantly manipulated global rules and principles to Moscow’s detriment. He cited as examples Western military operations in Serbia, Iraq and Libya, the U.S. withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and Western governments’ creation of “armed terrorist groups” as tools of regime change.
He also charged the West with abandoning its free-trade principles to apply sanctions for “political pressure” and promoting “closed economic alliances” such as the planned Trans-Pacific Partnership, which he contended violates the universal principles embodied in the World Trade Organization.
In her presentation Fu Ying, chairwoman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of China’s National People’s Congress, echoed Russian criticisms of Western-led globalization, but also acknowledged the benefits from existing international institutions.
After all, she noted, the “U.S. dollar-centered global economic framework spawned global-governance institutions and opened up the world economic structure,” and also helped China attain “unprecedented growth.”
Still, Ying articulated China’s desire to “reform” globalization’s defects — such as the unbalanced distribution of wealth and poorly regulated capital flows — to make the international system more “just and equitable.” Specifically, she called for strengthening the United Nations and international governance, and advocated an inclusive, multilateral framework.
Russian and Chinese speakers at Valdai repeatedly mentioned the Sino-Russian partnership as a more enlightened form of international cooperation based on mutual respect, agreed-upon standards and common interests. In particular they highlighted plans to join the Moscow-led Eurasian Economic Union and Beijing’s Silk Road Economic Belt in a flexible regional-integration project that would be open to all countries. The Russian speakers concluded that Russia-and-China-led globalization would have better prospects and yield better results than the failing Western-led globalization.
The conference was held in late October, and most participants expected Donald J. Trump to lose the U.S. presidential elections. His subsequent victory suggests that the United States also may be open to rolling back some dimensions of globalization while restricting others — more so than under the current administration of President Barack Obama, whose final trip to Europe as president was keynoted by a speech in Athens that vigorously defended the benefits of globalization based on liberal democratic principles.
Nonetheless, last week’s Marrakech Climate Change Conference in Morocco and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting in Peru suggest that many world leaders are ready to fight to defend globalization.
