In the Quest for Multilateral Cooperation

December 15, 2023

About the author:

 

Humanity is grappling with an unprecedented multi-dimensional litany of existential challenges amid an incoherent global governance. The conventional West-centric dictates that have served the geopolitical purposes of the West over the past seven decades have now come to a bottleneck. The existing global order has ostensibly outlived its relevance.

 

The evolving dynamism and paradigm have dawned upon us that the changing world could never be the same as before. All nation states, including the reigning hegemon, must learn to live with the new reality of multi-polarity where "embracing diversity" with inclusivity is the evolving order of the day. This constitutes the pre-requisite of multilateral cooperation underpinning the global governance.

 

Yet, in reality, humanity is now left with a heavily fragmented world order with dysfunctional global institutions following the onslaught of the coronavirus outbreak.

 

Parallel to this, the impact that the common challenges brought upon the prevailing global order is unprecedented. Western supremacy and the accompanying deeply rooted exceptionalism are now openly contested. Normative condescension by the old colonial powers of the West to their former colonies in the developing world is increasingly challenged.

 

The Global South's growing disillusionment with the current international order can no longer be concealed. An evolving alternative order in the world of multi-polarity is in the making, though the trajectory ahead is anticipatedly bumpy as the global trust deficit widens.

 

Never before has the latitude for genuine multilateral cooperation been suppressed in almost all dimensions of human endeavors. Unilateralism cloaked in the outfit of economic nationalism and political populism is rearing its ugly head again, thus lending momentum to the de-globalization zeal. The prognosis for multilateral cooperation continues to look bleak. Silo mentality is mushrooming. Regional economic integration, once touted as the bulwark of multinational cooperation, is now put to test.

 

Chipping of the foundational architecture for economic integration is occurring more rampantly than ever before through exclusionary mini-lateral engagement. The roll-out of the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity (IPEF) is a clear case of the proverbial elephant in the room.

 

Washington may seek to justify the inception of IPEF in the name of ensuring resilience of supply chains. However, excluding China - a country equipped with a full gamut of industrial supply chains - is in itself a travesty of multilateralism.

 

The inception of the U.S.-led IPEF, which constitutes part of Washington's Indo-Pacific strategy, was purportedly designed to target China by locking out the nation from the global supply chain, on the pretext of ensuring supply chain resilience, and making purported over-reliance on the Chinese supply chain attributable.

 

In essence, this runs contrary to the interests of economic integration in Asia Pacific that the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) was intended for. In this context, mini-lateralism is being weaponized as an exclusionary geopolitical tool.

 

Resorting to hostile exclusionary mini-lateral partnership will only further exacerbate the trust deficit in the prevailing global governance. The misplaced selective mini-lateralism is a great disservice to the inclusive multilateralism underpinning the global order.

 

Amid the evolving global order, mini-lateralism may make a good complement to multilateralism for a good cause, but certainly not as an alternative designed to substitute the latter, much less as a wedge driven by an insidious hegemon in the web of global cooperation and solidarity.

 

The world sees Washington's actions for what they are in the aftermath of the pandemic-induced supply chain disruption. As Beijing is dubbed the "most serious competitor" by Washington, the latter's insidious moves were visibly calibrated to slow down China's economic progress. The anguish of Washington for fear of being displaced as the sole global leader is evident.

 

Parallel to this, ASEAN, the comprehensive strategic partner of China, was dragged into the Sino-US face-off when the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity (IPEF) was announced with supply chain resilience as one of the four pillars promised.

 

Under the prism of Washington's Indo-Pacific strategy, ASEAN as a regional bloc is pivotal as it makes an ideal target for the US wedge driving bid to turn against China.

 

In this regard, small and vulnerable nation states, notably from the developing Global South, tend to fall easy prey to mini-lateral partnership cloaked in the outfit of multilateralism, primarily to have their priorities addressed.

 

In the case of ASEAN, concern for potential supply chain disruption is real and relevant. This explains why some ASEAN member states must bank on the hedging strategy to avert over-reliance on the Chinese supply chains, though they insist on positions of not picking sides in the China-U.S. geopolitical rivalry.

 

To Washington, mini-lateral collaboration did not begin with the IPEF. In recent years, it has become the favored form of security cooperation mooted by the U.S. in the Asia-Pacific region. The revival of Quad since 2017 and the establishment of AUKUS in 2021, each with cross-continental membership, provide relevant examples exemplifying the trend.

 

In this context, "like-mindedness" rooted in "political value identification" that is trumpeted by Washington deals another blow upon multilateral cooperation. In the name of preserving supply chain resilience, calls for "friend-shoring" have openly been made to woo U.S.-invested and foreign ventures in China to relocate their industrial establishments to the like-minded countries. Political system and ideological affiliation are both made the key criteria based on the whims and fancies of the U.S., albeit not without exception so long as it serves the geopolitical interests of Washington. Vietnam, a socialist state of different polity, is a clear case in point. Again, China is the real target of the US gameplan.

 

The reigning hegemon, holding sway over the world governance for the past seven decades after WWII, is more obsessed with offering such binary choices as "democracy versus authoritarianism" to the international community.

 

Specters of the Cold War were resurrected from the old toolbox to perpetuate the political divide. Under the prism of zero-sum mentality, the perceived decline of the West's dominance sparks the renewed Sinophobia in the West that justifies their so-called "counter-authoritarianism" move.

 

In this perspective, rekindling the Cold War spark in the name of "crusading for democracy" is certainly not a viable option for humanity. It is no solution to the quagmire confronting humanity, and will only flare up at various flash points across the world, thus pushing the globe to the edge of Armageddon.

 

Yet, in reality, common sense does not seem to prevail. Ideological lines are deliberately drawn much to the detriment of multilateral cooperation, which is supposedly a cross-divide endeavor transcending the ideological barriers. The thinly veiled intention of insulating, isolating and alienating China from the rest of the world is conspicuously apparent and provocative.

 

To this end, Washington has become hellbent on ramping up the negative portrayal of Beijing from a mere bogeyman to an authoritarian demon posing threat to the world. Decorum of diplomacy is totally left in disregard. The overwhelming discourse power of the West-controlled international media is being used to the hilt as a propaganda tool against China.

 

Under the prevailing "rules-based order" dictated by the U.S.-led West, China's wings of pursuing excellence are clipped in all dimensions by the reigning hegemon with the omni-present hurdles of pan-securitization of almost all aspects of human endeavors, with or without links to national security of any one nation. After all, the pan-securitization architecture is devised to serve the US interests by presenting a conducive global environment deemed safe to Washington. The collateral damage that goes with it is that trust gap will continue to widen at the expense of multilateral cooperation.

 

Under the prevailing framework, global order is getting increasingly out of sync vis-à-vis the rising aspirations of the developing Global South. The latter which had long been denied its fair share of say in global governance is on a quest for a coherent global leadership in the face of various challenges.

 

The spectrum of exigencies, ranging from food and energy insecurity to climate change, is elevating to an unprecedented catastrophic level. Shared destiny of humanity has now been growing more pronounced than ever before as the collective survival of humanity is at stake.

 

From the perspective of weak and vulnerable nation states, they have legitimate rights, on par with others, to determine the trajectory of their own development. All models of governance are rooted in the respective civilizational norms and societal priorities varying across the world. There is no single model or benchmark of governance that fits all nation states.

 

In the present context, the coercive imposition of the Western model of governance on others, particularly developing and least developed nations, irrespective of the local social conditions is, in itself, hegemonic in nature. And these countries, in most cases, are doomed to fail as the templates of Western democracy and human rights are totally alien to their people.

 

In retrospect, the humanitarian disasters sweeping across Iraq and Afghanistan could have been averted had the "regime change" by force not been enacted by Washington. The weaponization of democracy and human rights based on the belief of "might is right" shows flagrant disregard for human rights of the highest order, largely blinkered by the perpetrators' hegemonic greed and arrogance.

 

All this does not augur well to the global pursuit of multilateral cooperation, as the less developed Global South looks set to be further marginalized. The aggravated disparity between the Global North and South will only serve to further accelerate the pace of resetting the existing global order.

 

This is beyond the control of any single nation state. The U.S.-led West, instead of accusing China for attempting to supplant the existing order with an alternative choice of its own, should learn to be more accommodative with inclusiveness in the prevailing multi-polar world.

 

After all, time and again Beijing has been reassuring Washington that it has no intention at all to supplant the US primacy. The latter should be confident enough to excel and spearhead breakthroughs in human endeavors instead of being hellbent on stifling the competitiveness of others.

 

As the reigning global leader, Washington would have all the competitive advantages in nurturing multilateral cooperation had it been more inclusive and self-confident. Only then would we be able to address the common challenges concertedly under the framework of a more coherent global order.

 

 

 

 

Please note: The above contents only represent the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views or positions of Taihe Institute.

 

This article is from the November issue of TI Observer (TIO), which explores global views on multipolarity for both China and the rest of the world. If you are interested in knowing more about the November issue, please click here:

http://www.taiheinstitute.org/Content/2023/12-04/1212075245.html

 

——————————————

ON TIMES WE FOCUS.

Should you have any questions, please contact us at public@taiheglobal.org