Chaos in Middle East: Root Causes and Implications
Global governance is the sum of multilateral international mechanisms established by the international community to deal with various global issues. In the absence of a world government, various players, mainly countries, by virtue of international organizations and rules, enter into relatively stable contractual relations, the core of which is the raising of public goods. As of today, global governance is facing changes unseen in a century. Major power unilateralism and protectionism are wreaking damage, the raising of public goods increasingly difficult and governance deficit ever more prominent. Therefore it is ever more imperative to look further into global governance reform.
Changes Facing Global Governance
The world today is undergoing changes unseen in a century, bringing changes as well to global governance, which are seen in the following four aspects.
1. The change of power structure causes the loosening of the global governance system
With the collective rise of emerging countries and the relative decline of western power, the balance of power, on which global governance is built, has shifted from west to east, and the global governance system based on the power structure formed after World War II begins to loose. In the IMF and other core multilateral mechanisms, western developed countries have higher say in decision-making, while developing countries are relatively under-represented. In the past decade, emerging countries have provided a lot of public goods for world economic growth, but their institutional power in international affairs participation is insufficient, resulting in a certain degree of mismatch between the current global governance system and the world power structure.
As developing countries are more willing and better positioned to participate in international affairs, global governance has not seen prime days of democratization reform, however. The United States as one main member of the vested interest group, who believes that its first mover advantage under the current system is winding down, making it less passionate in supporting such a system. The Trump administration breaks its commitments and sabotages orders accordingly. In history, the US together with European countries pushed for the establishment of WTO arbitration mechanism, but in recent years, because of its increasing lost cases on certain issues, it accuses the WTO of having special provisions to safeguard the interests of developing countries and blocks the reform of its appellate body. As a result, the current global governance system is becoming less efficient, or even likely to collapse.
2. Major countries’ withdrawal leads to more global governance deficit
To address non-traditional security issues such as financial crisis, terrorism, cybercrime, and climate change and maintain the stability of global governance, major countries need to be on the same page through consultation and jointly provide public goods. However, some major countries, especially the leading ones, turn to withdrawing from global governance, which not only destroys the spirit of contract but also increases global governance deficit.
Since taking office, Trump believes that the US is getting less and less from the current global governance system, and thus has steered the US away from UNESCO, the UN Human Rights Council and other international multilateral mechanisms. The US withdrawal raises the risk of a further rise in global governance deficit on a number of issues. For example, as the US stepped away from the UN International Court of Justice and put its national interests above global justice, the consequence could be the frequent absence of justice and global fairness deficit. The Trump administration retreated unilaterally from the Paris Agreement which it believed was not conducive to revitalizing the traditional US energy industry, making it almost impossible to realize global emission cut goals. The Trump administration's trampling on the spirit of contract has gravely affected the global supply of public goods and further increased the uncertainties of the international situations.
3. Global governance rules have an urgent need for modernization
One important reason for current global governance changes is that the existing governance rules, already superseded by reality, can no longer meet various needs for governance. First, the definition of some concepts become controversial with the development of the times, making it necessary to revisit them and garner recognition from more countries. For example, the concept of competitive neutrality, which originated from Australia's domestic economic reform and aims to ensure a level playing field between public and private business, was adopted by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and gradually evolved into a common rule in international trade. However, emerging countries were not sufficiently engaged in the discussion of this concept, upgrading the meaning and standards of which now will be helpful for the modernization of global governance rules.
Second, new things that emerged with the progress of the times are not reined in by well-established rules in the existing global governance system. As new things are in the blind zone of governance, they are the easy objects of criminals as tools to threaten global security and bring cross-border and nontraditional new security challenges to all. A case in point is a digital currency.
While bringing convenience, it is also used as an intermediary currency for the financing of international terrorism and for illegal transactions such as new forms of corruption. Countries shouldn’t delay in their cooperation to regulate such activities and effectively prevent and control potential security risks. Yet so far the international community has not formed effective governance norms and rules governing digital currency. It is urgent for global governance rules to achieve modernization in the new financial sector.
4. The need for global governance reform on a regular basis has risen sharply
In this anarchic global community, reforms on a regular basis aim to address ills in collective actions, which confront global governance in various areas, such as low participation in and underperformance of discussions in the UN General Assembly and inefficiency of WTO negotiations. Mancur Olson, an American economist and sociologist, believes that organizations with large membership are all faced with such problems as difficult collective actions and frequent free-rider behaviors. To deal with that and boost decisionmaking efficiency, it is helpful by either downsizing decision-making group or providing selective incentives for some participants.
However, as the rivalry between major powers is becoming increasingly fierce in recent years, the current global governance system is not well positioned to provide effective consultation platforms and solutions in a timely manner for the alleviation of conflicts, and some international organizations even need to worry about their own survival. Given the prevalence of unilateralism and bullying and further uncertainties, it will be hard to prevent conflicts from getting worse if international rules become ineffective and major power rivalry goes beyond the framework of multilateral rules. Without timely upgrading international rules, global governance is likely to fail and the world order will, therefore, be more uncertain. Therefore, it is necessary for the international community to intensify global governance reform on a regular basis, frame major power rivalry within the confines of rules, and ramp up risk control.
Problems and challenges facing global governance reform
Global governance reform is urgent in the face of these changes. However, reform without properly addressing many existing problems and challenges will hamper its process and undermine multilateralism.
First, major power rivalry is not constrained by multilateralism, and global governance reform lacks support from some key major countries. Healthy and stable major-country relations are the cornerstone of the world order and the prerequisite for good global governance, as major countries are the major suppliers of global public goods and the main creators of the world order. The extent to which the international community can repair multilateralism will determine the future global picture. Nevertheless, some key major countries turn a blind eye to the urgency and necessity of reforming global governance.
Due to the objection from the US, the WTO dispute settlement mechanism is long overdue for its reform. On December 11, 2019, the WTO appellate body was forced to shut down with only one judge on duty, less than the statutory requirement of three judges. Worry arose subsequently about whether the world economy will thus be dictated by law of the jungle. In addition, some major countries are still undermining multilateralism with their unilateral acts, represented by the US Section 301 investigation that was typical of putting domestic law above international law. Such acts are not only detrimental to placing major power rivalry within the framework of multilateral rules, but also undermine impartiality in global governance reform.
Second, negative spillovers in developed countries cause a lot of uncertainties for global governance reform. During the election period in some developed countries, the interactive rivalry between domestic politics and global governance is particularly obvious. While providing prescriptions to domestic economic and social ills is the key to winning popular support for a candidate, it often takes longer to do so. By contrast, making comments on domestic issues or being tough in international affairs is in some way a shortcut for a candidate to win votes.
To cooperate with his election year, Trump stressed America first repeatedly in international affairs. He put American interests above the common interests of the international community by pursuing populism, unilateralism and protectionism and abusing long arm jurisdiction, the result of which is that he precipitates the unprecedented cold winter of global governance, and exposes global governance reform to the risk of becoming tools again. The international community should face up to such risks and prevent reform from derailing due to the domestic political demands of some developed countries.
Third, global governance rules lag behind science and technology advancement. To deal with a new problem, human society needs to explore in practice the law behind it and the way to deal with it for a long time. This depends on the development of basic disciplines, the popularization and dissemination of knowledge, and the improvement of people's cognitive level. The current reality is, such a process falls behind the urgent need for modernization of global governance rules, leading to the increase of systemic risks in global governance.
It requires a great deal of investment and awareness to modernize global governance rules. It is only through basic research that can we quickly capture the changes brought by scientific and technological progress to the international and national political and economic landscape, and by means of interdisciplinary crossover and the delivery of
research results can these changes be timely reflected in laws, standards and rules. Only by attaching importance to talents cultivation, especially those with both professional knowledge and global vision, can people improve the understanding of new issues, better engage in international dialogue and better participate in the modernization of global governance rules.
Fourth, the will for cooperation on global governance is weakened by counter-globalization thinking driven by individual rationality. In recent years, there have been incessant black swan events such as Brexit and the election of Donald Trump, as well as antiglobalization phenomena such as trade protectionism and political isolationism, creating an atmosphere that is not conducive to global governance reform. On one hand, the thinking of pure individual rationality is not good for the raising of global public goods, on the other there isn’t a persuasive collective thinking on a global scale, thus making countries hard to rally to global governance reform.
Facing the anti-globalization tide in some western countries, global governance calls for more than ever righteousness. The ideal reform will serve to mitigate the impact of realism and zero-sum thinking on righteousness. It remains to be an important issue of the reform on how to rally countries around such righteousness so as to raise a widely accepted global governance thinking, encourage active participation from all countries, and safeguard the common cause of global governance.
Global governance reform and China’s participation
Against the backdrop of changes unseen in a century, it is both essential and urgent for China’s active participation in global governance reform. It is important to on the one hand bring into play the role of global governance in conflict control and trust building by the means of governance rules modernization and on the other pay great attention to the interaction of global and national governance, advocate global righteousness, and build a community with a shared future for humanity.
First, China needs to actively participate in the negotiation of global governance rule modernization and evade the decoupling strategy and rule confinement by developed countries. The current global governance system calls for rule modernization. Adapting some concepts to the change of times and dealing with problems among countries within the framework of international rules will help to avoid the outbreak of violent conflicts and the harm caused by some countries’ decoupling strategy. In addition, in order to protect itself from being handicapped by unfair rules set by traditional hegemony, China should involve itself actively in setting rules for new things, put forward its perception on them, bring to the table a set of feasible modernization solutions, safeguard its national interests, and promote global governance reform.
Second, China needs to renew its concept of talents comprehensively, attach importance to the cultivation of professional talents, and improve its ability in the global governance reform. So far training program for international organization talents has been up and running in many universities and research institutes in China, but to be better positioned for the reform, China still needs to establish a comprehensive talents training system. To have a better grip on the changing world and lay a solid foundation for China’s participation in the modernization of global governance rules requires basic scientists at the international forefront; to study external risks and avoid negative spillovers from developed countries requires experts on country research; to see through international situation and put forward overall reform plans for global governance requires international strategy experts; and to enhance China's ability in global governance agenda and rules setting requires international law experts and industry standard engineers so as to enable China to better take part in international dialogue.
Finally, China needs to draw on its traditional culture, present China’s vision of global governance in a commonly understood narrative and facilitate collective actions on building a community with a shared future for humanity. China firmly advocates and acts upon the idea of building a community with a shared future for humanity, and believes that only cooperation among countries can deliver reform. At the same time, China takes Belt and Road Initiative as the top-level mechanism for global economic governance and promotes the idea of extensive consultation, joint contribution and shared benefits in global governance. However, in real practice, China sometimes encounters a misunderstanding or even smear from other countries. To address that, China needs to further strengthen its international narrative by making it not only reflect Chinese characteristics, but also respond to the concerns of the international community, not only clarify China’s position but also disseminate China's view on global governance in a more skillful and effective way.
Conclusion
The world today is at the transitional stage of global governance where the old has not been pulled down and the new is yet to be established. It is facing problems such as the threat of exit from established powers and the increase of public goods deficit, but it still maintains a certain degree of stability. Many historical facts have proven that the current system of global governance rules has successfully steered the world from wars and given rise to stability and development. Therefore, it is the best choice of the international community to conduct reform by on the one hand carrying on its fine heritage, and on the other hand, getting over conflicts and unilateralism with modernized rules and building a community with a shared future for humanity. In the face of many changes, China has been deepening reform and opening wider to the outside world, injecting strong impetus to the global governance reform.