Gabriel Elefteriu’s proposal at Brussels Signal for restoring global stability rests on four factors:
- First, a new system for managing great power relations.
- Second, we’ll need a new global security architecture.
- Third, we’ll need a new arrangement for global trade and economic relations.
- Finally, we need a new cooperation system for planetary protection.
I found the piece terribly skewed. Here’s an example:
The legacy UN system has clearly failed, and the US-led Western Alliance – broadly speaking – has also proven unable to deter major state aggression in Europe and the Middle East. This fact should not be in dispute, after Russia has literally invaded Ukraine and Iran has literally attacked Israel. Only China is still holding back over Taiwan, but it’s not clear for how long. It should be obvious to everyone that whatever “international security system” we think we still have in place right now, it is not working.
What’s missing from that statement? Leading the way in the chipping away at the “UN system” has been the United States, first by its invasion of Iraq and then by its destabilization of Libya, far in excess of the Security Council mandate it received for defending civilians there.
I think this statement of the creation of the United Nations Security Council is mistaken:
This was the original idea behind the P5, the permanent members of the UN Security Council. Their special right of veto reflected their great power status and role in shaping global affairs via the UN.
It ignores that the veto-wielding members of the Security Council were all Allies during World War II.
It’s also fraught with bad assumptions. Do the “four policemen” still want global stability? I would argue that China definitely does not. I think it’s looking for a new, different stability. I believe it is seeking the respect it believes it deserves which IMO would amount to primacy. That is intrinsically destabilizing. There can be only one.
Another bad assumption is that there is some sort of enforceable law to govern trade and economic relations. There isn’t and assuming there is weakens countries which abide by the rule of law.
I agree that restabilization is highly desirable but I would build it on somewhat different bases. First, we need to acknowledge that other countries have interests. We don’t seem to recognize that. Second, we need to start living up to our own putative standards.
Most importantly, I would stop seeking multi-lateral treaties in favor of bilateral agreements. In the past we have been able to negotiate those and adhere to them. Why not now?
Otherwise we should just recognize that it isn’t stability we seek but global hegemony. That comes at a price and I remain unconvinced we are willing to pay it or should be.