| |
Contributions from
the Column
Focus
Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul: Global Public Goods and development policy
Interview with Inge Kaul: “Today’s globalisation is not that conflict-ridden”
Mariama Williams: Why developing countries do not trust multilateral politics
Dirk Messner: Making multilateralism system work
3/2004
|
|
Making the multilateral system work
[ By Dirk Messner ] International institutions are, as yet, too weak to ensure the provision of global public goods. It is not enough to merely defend the multilateral system against attacks. Its shortcomings must be acknowledged in order to find ways to a better future.
Nation states cannot establish security, prosperity and freedom on their own. In a globally networked world, constant policy failure looms unless there is cross-border cooperation. Yet instead of a multilateral drive to shape globalisation, we are witnessing a manifest crisis of multilateralism. This is not only a question of the Iraq war or of stagnation in the cases of the World Trade Organisation and the Kyoto Protocol. With good reason, critics of multilateralism point to the international system's bureaucratic Molochs, the rapid spread of institutions and the (frequently ineffective) proliferation of international conferences, decisions and agendas. Moreover, elected politicians fear that the trend towards making decisions in systems of international negotiation will rob parliaments of their legitimate political power.
Talk of mulitlateralism’s failure, however, might yet prove premature. The US government is now learning that, while it can win wars single-handedly, it, nevertheless, depends on alliances and the legitimatising authority of the UN in order to establish peace, security and democracy. Perhaps, the shock of Cancún will soon lead to a willingness of the industrialised nations to compromise in the agricultural sector. A collapse of the world trade system would definitly not suit them.
Yet even if the pressure of global problems were to turn into a motor for multilateralism, that in itself would not iron out the weaknesses of the existing multilateral system. Shortcomings are becoming ever more apparent as the relevance of international coordination for national societies increases. Whoever (like the author) believes that multilateralism is necessary must name its problems. As in the European Union, a lack of institutional reform is threatening to result in an incapacity to act.
It is not enough merely to defend the present institutions against the attacks of unilateralism. The prerequisites of a more effective multilateralism must yet be fulfilled. International coordination means designing policy in complex negotiating systems without the institutionally embedded hierarchies known in national government systems. This implies a host of problems – such as the great number of participants, decisions based on the lowest common denominator, the length of the negotiating processes and, not least, the manifold opportunities powerful actors have to evade international rules.
Some initiatives to modernise the multilateral system are pointing in the right direction. With his “Millennium Research Project”, Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University is making contributions to ensuring that the Millennium Goals which the government leaders of almost all countries adopted (above all the halving of world poverty by 2015) do not remain meaningless words. His research network is developing strategies and best practices aimed at pursuing the goals systematically. Sachs is also highlighting the big finance gap between the multilaterally agreed aspirations and real international development cooperation. More effective multilateralism will need this kind of critically constructive monitoring.
For international development cooperation, the efforts and debates concerning budget financing, programme assistance and coordinated sectoral projects by the donor community are of similar relevance. The great crises of humankind cannot be mastered by single projects that are both costly and small-scale.
An agenda to strengthen multilateralism in development cooperation must go beyond these piecemeal approaches. Global policy needs a coherent structure of global governance. Therefore the agenda should include the following, certainly conflict-prone, questions:
– How can the effectiveness and efficiency of multilateral development organisations be strengthened? Which organisations have operational capacities? Which organisations should focus on coordinating, moderating or initiating programmes and agenda-setting?
– How can sector-oriented multilateral organisations (such as the WTO, the World Health Organisation and the United Nations Environment Programme) contribute to getting a grip on trans-sector problems (such as climate change, disintegrating societies and population growth)? How can contradictions within the multilateral system's fragmented rules be overcome?
– How is overlap – stemming from multiple jurisdictions and parallel agendas within the multilateral system – to be avoided? How can the cooperation of organisations be improved on the basis of their respective specialisation advantages? Which organisations or special programmes have become redundant and should be discontinued?
– How can actors (not only governments) from developing countries become responsible and appropriately represented players in the international system – especially in the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund? The buzzwords of the experts are voice, capacity-building and power-sharing. Reforms are necessary to increase the effectiveness and legitimation of the institutions. On the other hand, the actors in the industrialised nations must not withdraw from these institutions as that would degrade them to scarcely effective discussion forums – as has happened, for instance, to the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD).
– How can internationally agreed standards (such as, for instance, the central norms of the International Labour Organisation) actually be enforced? Otherwise multilateral institutions will remain toothless. What options are there for imposing sanctions? So far, due to the modus operandi of international law, powerful countries that flout international rules have been less hampered in their actions than actors who violate rules in the context of constitutionally regulated states. International agreements often lack mechanisms to punish rule infringements.
– What minimum standards should apply in future with respect to accountability, transparency and participation by societal actors? Anti-globalisation movements, civil societies accustomed to democracy, and parliaments claim the right to participate and cannot be simply disregarded.
The list of the challenges could easily go on. We are, indeed, dealing with Herculean tasks. For day-to-day politics, this is not a field that promises the quick score of “merit points”. But whoever is concerned with the future of global society will have to come to grips with the difficult fundamentals and preconditions of a more effective multilateralism. Europe's national governments and the European Commission must ask themselves whether they have appropriate strategies for the future of multilateral organisations and whether they provide them with adequate resources.
Most likely, pioneer groups and progressive “coalitions of the willing” (frequently also called “likeminded states”) will more and more often lead the way by seeking solutions to world problems even if other countries do not follow suit. The conference on renewable energy, which will take place in Bonn in June, will be an example for this trend. It is about linking governments with other actors that want to forge ahead quickly in this field.
Dr Dirk Messner
is Director of the German Development
Institute (GDI) in Bonn.
dirk.messner@die-gdi.de
|
