Global governance deficit
Korea can help shape the new global agenda
Lately, we see a diverse range of global challenges mounting, from climate change to regional conflicts. Climate change is accelerating exponentially. Regional conflicts are raging in Eastern Europe and the Middle East without any prospective way out in sight. But global institutions are too incapacitated to mitigate these worsening risks. Despite the Paris Agreement, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change lacks any binding power to enforce compliance. The U.N. Security Council has the binding power but has been in paralysis due to the veto power of its five permanent members (P5). The rekindled rivalry among the P5 debilitates any action to restore peace and stability with a damning impact on the credibility of global governance.
Big power rivalries also auger ill for any international efforts to fill the normative gap of emerging technologies. Technological developments in artificial intelligence, biotech, outer and cyber spaces are leaping forward, while normative efforts to minimize negative risks are moving at a snail’s pace.
These unfortunate trends will likely continue and worsen unless global consensus is restored. But the picture does not look good due to the twin divides prevalent in the international community in terms of wealth distribution (Global North vs. South) and value perception (Global West vs. East). These two divides have weakened the base for global consensus and caused the global governance deficit to grow.
The wealth gap is narrowing as the relative economic power of the Global South is rising in terms of distribution. It is being spurred by the strong growth of emerging economies such as India, Brazil and ASEAN. Accordingly, the voices of the Global South are growing on the international stage, both multilaterally and plurilaterally. But the bridging role of the Global South countries between the Global West and East is still weak, as most of them are undecided as to which side of the fault line they will stand on. A recent example is the mixed signal the Global South countries have sent in the wake of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. They cast the overwhelming support to a U.N. General Assembly resolution against the forceful annexation attempt by Russia of Eastern Ukraine. But many of them did not join the sanctions efforts by the Global West on Russia, either.
On the other hand, the value divide between the Global West and East is expected to intensify. The world views of the two camps are divergent, with different priorities on some fundamental values. These divergent views make it harder to find common ground on most global agendas, from climate change to security issues. A notable example is the lingering difficulty in raising the normative framework for cyber security. The Global East and West agree on the need to ensure responsible state behavior but could not agree on the specifics, as they put the opposite priority between state security and privacy.
Likewise, the value divide between the two camps is negatively affecting any effort to build consensus on the way forward to cope with the critical global challenges. A number of global institutions like the Conference on Disarmament cannot agree even on the agenda items for over 20 years since the major power rivalry came back in the beginning of the 21st century.
Both camps are trying hard to pull the Global South closer to their side. The final verdict will eventually come from the Global South, depending on which of the world views will prove to be more attractive. But for the moment, the world views of the Global West and East do not seem to provide the pulling power convincingly. The Global South is in the waiting mode to see which worldview will be a better fit to address emerging challenges.
It is incumbent on both camps to refine their worldviews in a way that puts forth more persuasive and future-oriented solutions. This competition must be encouraged for the sake of global consensus. It must be led by the United Statess and China, the two most powerful states and respective leaders of the two camps. The sooner the value divide is bridged through a constructive worldview competition, the better for the world and the future.
Korea has a special role to play in facilitating the global discourse on the new worldview. Korea is in the best position to contribute as a country that has overcome both the wealth and value divides. Korea has a strong self-interest in avoiding the collision course of the world view competition. Korea’s experience will help shape the agenda for the discourse acceptable to both the Global West and East and attractive to the Global South.
Kim Won-soo (wsk4321@gmail.com) is the former under-secretary-general of the United Nations and high representative for disarmament. As a Korean diplomat, he served as secretary to the president for foreign affairs as well as for international security. He is now the chair of the international advisory board of the Taejae Future Consensus Institute and a chair professor at Kyung Hee University. He is a guest editorial writer for The Korea Times.