Is it time to give up on global co-operation on serious issues like terrorismIJ The reality today is that we have to fight our own battle
looking at the contemporary world order, we will find confluences and paradoxes moving back and forth simultaneously. Divergence of national interests and hegemonic instinct of a few nation-states have resulted in visible cracks in international solidarity which was once the framework on which sovereign states were pursuing their foreign policies.
Fulcrum of the concept of global comity/governance was “united we stand, divided we fall”. But looking at the new world order, it is clear that the new theme is “divided we stand, alone we shall fall”. With growing unilateralism in foreign policy, redundancy of global governance and regional governance institutions and fissures in joint commitment to fight terrorism, it is safe to proclaim that global cooperation, which has been dead for a long time, is now merely reduced to a fiction. It is true that we are writing the obituary right now, but at the same time, the need is to redefine the word ‘global governance’ to understand the new world order.
Certain incidents in the global sphere have already shown that collectivism is now a myth in international relations and global governance institutes are nothing more than window dressing forums. For instance, the manner in which the international community dealt with Ukraine, South Sudan, annexation of Crimea by Russia or how it is responding to the crisis in the Korean peninsula, or split in the manner and methodology of combating terrorism and ISIS especially amongst NATO partners are strong examples of this. There are many who say what’s good and what’s bad but silent on punishing the evil, while there are others who don’t even say what’s good and what’s bad and are mere mute spectators.
According to the Global Terrorism database, about 40,000 lives are lost annually in terrorist attacks. The manner in which the international community is responding and intends to counter this menace is responsible for its growth. Terrorism is growing because the global community is not uniting to fight it together. They are governed by political and economic interests of their own nation-states.
Why is it that a terror attack in Beirut is not given the same weightage as the attack in ParisIJ Why should we come together if our terror attacks are merely considered business as usualIJ The monster of terrorism is capitalising on this disjoint commitment to combat terrorism. The message of global commitment to fight against terror would be far effective if it is supported by all major countries and regional groupings. A uniform response should be given, irrespective of whether the terror attack is in Pathankot or on Pentagon.
The Brics countries, despite meeting annually since 2009, have failed to move forward as an effective regional grouping. China has turned Brics into a platform to challenge Western domination and to counter Western-dominated multilateral lending institutions. Individualistic approach of China is undermining international cooperation on counter-terrorism. On the one hand, it is opposed to the Islamic movement in Uzbekistan being operated from Pakistani soil. On the other, it is thwarting India’s proposal at the United Nations to designate Masood Azhar as a terrorist.
China is prioritising its commercial interests in Pakistan over fight against terror. Notwithstanding the declarations of the Xiamen summit, the common ground among the Brics countries has been squeezed after Doklam. Trust between India and China is crucial to the success of Brics. Similarly, the Asean, which completed 50 years of its existence last year, is battling for relevance because of fragmentation and chaos among its members. Post the ‘One Belt One Road’ (OBOR) initiative and the South China Sea issue, China has posed a serious challenge to the unity and relevance of Asean.
like Brics and Asean, Saarc too is facing problems. Setting aside the objectives of economic and social cooperation, the Association is stuck in a tug of war between India and Pakistan. The Saarc caravan is going nowhere and it has become a byword for institutional dysfunction. The West has developed a kind of isolationist political thinking. US President Donald Trump refused to visit london because he feels “no love” for Britain these days. The ‘special relationship’ is now confined to strategic engagement. By backing leaders like Mullah Rasool from Nimruz, the US is back to recreating its 2004 suicidal policy of good Taliban and bad Taliban.
In this context, the failure of the UN to enforce global unity on issues like terrorism and to strengthen regional cooperation is a matter of serious concern. The UN knew right from its inception that global governance is going to be a tough animal to tame and that’s why they introduced an entire chapter (UN Charter-Chapter VIII) on regional arrangement but even that is now failing miserably. A few countries are hijacking the broader mandate of the UN to fulfil their selfish goals.
The entire global community has now taken a conscious call that it is time to write an obituary for the dead global co-operation as nations become gaggle of war horses who pull in different directions to give undue advantage to our enemy. Or is it time to renew our vows to the otherwise failed global co-operation on serious issues like terrorismIJ The reality today is that we have to fight our own battle. Our foreign policy must reflect the new realities of global governance.
(The writer is a Supreme Court lawyer and national media panellist, the Indian National Congress. Views expressed are personal)