Reform Multilateralism Now: A Chinese Perspective
New international principles based on pluralism, participation and partnership are needed to point the way forward.
Covid-19 has exposed the deep fault lines that exist between the ideals of globalization and the realities of global governance, as well as between the traditional ‘inter-state society’ and the emerging global society. Instead of co-operation and a global search for a way forward amid the pandemic, nation states have defaulted to a go-it-alone response.
The result is more disappointment with global governance that is already failing the world on climate change, terrorism and other issues. Qin Yaqing writes that new international principles based on pluralism, participation and partnership are needed to point the way forward.
THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC has been running rampant, sweeping the world in just a few months and taking away thousands of innocent lives. the spread of the virus has shown again the failure of global governance. More people are questioning the meaning of globalization and feeling perplexed by the uncertainties of the future.
the past decade has already witnessed a wave of anti-globalization and anti-multilateralism together with a strong comeback of populism and realpolitik. despite this, globalization is a reality and will continue; a world order based on multilateralism is and will continue to be the most relevant and reasonable form of global governance. At the same time, failures in global governance are conspicuous. this most serious public-health disaster has again shown the whole world that profound reforms are urgently needed for the security of humankind. the hope lies in a new multilateralism that values pluralism, participation and partnership.
Immediately after the end of the cold War, the American international-relations scholar John Mearsheimer predicted that Europe would go “back to the future,” drawing a miserable picture of renewed struggle among major powers in a Hobbesian jungle.1 this bleak vision has been extended by some to the whole world, where multilateralism would collapse, the struggle for power become the dominant theme of inter-state politics, and the “thucydides trap” seem to be the iron law of international relations. Recent evidence seems to prop up the prophecy. Brexit,
from multilateral institutions and, on top of it all, the spread of covid-19, together with hate speech and rampant disinformation, mark the world we live in.
“Pop-realpolitik” is the term I use to describe the combination of radical nationalism and hard realism that is haunting the world. this is marked by a narcissistic devotion to egoistical interests and a passionate worship of material power. It is represented by the revival of power politics, state-centrism and extreme nationalism: a new trinity of world politics that places the state as the exclusive authority in international affairs and radical nationalism as the way to motivate citizens against alien “others.” the rise of poprealpolitik goes against globalization, multilateralism and co-operation for global governance.
Of course, many factors work together to cause the rise of pop-realpolitik, but global governance failure constitutes a main driver. Numerous seemingly absurd phenomena in recent years are responses to huge deficits in global governance on crucial issues. so far, little substantial and sustainable progress has been made on climate change, nuclear proliferation, terrorism, pandemics and economic and financial crises. the worldwide outbreak of coronavirus is a telling example. At a time when co-ordination and co-operation are most urgently needed, we have seen nations going their own way, seemingly indifferent to thousands of deaths. Instead of coming together to face a common challenge, we see rhetorical attacks and abuses against “others.” Indeed, more than three decades since globalization began in earnest, none of the pressing threatening issues for humankind have been dealt with effectively. the deficits of global governance are stunning.
In the era of globalization, when transnational threats have become a serious challenge, an obvious discrepancy has appeared: On the one hand, there is exceptionally high demand for transnational governance and joint action for the global commons; on the other hand, the supply of such governance is terribly inadequate, leaving existing problems unsolved while new ones quickly accumulate, both in quantity and seriousness.
Almost from the very beginning, governance under globalization has been a much-discussed topic. Against the post-cold War backdrop, a general consensus formed on institutional multilateralism as a way to govern global and transnational issues. With the united states as the leading supporter, hegemonic institutionalism has been practiced through multilateral arrangements.2 the world was for a time infused with optimism, believing that the international system with a liberal institutional order would be able not only to solve problems brought about by globalization, but also to integrate emerging powers peacefully into the us-led international order.
despite the promising rhetoric and enormous efforts, expectations have not been met. the huge gap between the demand and supply of global governance has been widening and transnational problems have continued to accumulate. More seriously, there is a concurrent loss of confidence in multilateralism. Governance failure is, therefore, a direct cause of the rise of pop-realpolitik and constitutes an important condition for the return to unilateralism, state-centrism and power politics.
ONE world, two societies
Global governance has been sustained by multilateralism, which is still the most reasonable way to address transnational problems. Multilateralism as a principle and a mechanism is not to blame for the failure of governance. Rather, it is the changed reality of a world to which multilateralism has yet to adjust adequately.
One conspicuous new reality in the postcold War world is the coexistence of two soci“withdrawal”