Whose World? Multilateralism and Challenges to the Global Order - Russia's war on Ukraine

Some background

Some years after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Ukraine voluntarily gave up its nuclear arsenal, with guarantees of its territorial integrity from Russia, the UK and USA, contained in the Budapest Memorandum of 5 December 1994 which also gave the same guarantees to Belarus and Kazakhstan for the same purposes.

On 28 May 1997, Russia and Ukraine signed a treaty on friendship, cooperation and partnership based on the principle of?sovereignty and mutual respect for territorial integrity. It was followed by a renewed agreement by Ukraine for Russia to continue the lease of its Black Sea Fleet base in Sebastopol until 2017. On 21 April 2010, after Viktor Yanukovich became President of Ukraine, he signed a renewal of the lease up to 2042, with the then-President of Russia, Dmitri Medvedev, in return for a 30% discount in the price Ukraine paid for Russian gas. Russia had been paying US$ 90 million per year for the base, and the renewed deal was touted to help Ukraine out of recession and secure a US$12 billion support from the IMF. At the time, Ukraine remained committed to European integration and to joining the EU, and there was no significant desire in the country to join NATO.

Everything changed when Yanukovich abruptly and undemocratically abandoned the EU-Ukraine association agreement in November 2013. By then he had usurped much of the country’s assets and institutions through cronyism, exploiting weak market values due to his recessionary policies, and gangster corporate raids to extort tributes from over 7,000 companies. He is alleged to have overseen the money-laundering of up to US$ 70 billion abroad. Months of “Euromaidan” protests led to him signing an agreement to resolve the matter, following the failure of his attempts to introduce repressive measures. After he abandoned his duties and fled to Russia, ahead of an impeachment vote, he was removed from office by a parliamentary vote (by 73%) in the Verkhovna Rada.?Regardless the debatable constitutionality of the vote, and contrary to Russian propaganda that a coup was staged by western interests, he was also disavowed by his own party. Shortly afterwards, Russia invaded Donbas and Crimea, annexing the latter, to the disappointment of Yanukovich himself. Eight years later, on 24 February 2022, Russia launched a full-scale war on Ukraine with initial ambitions to re-install Yanukovich, and the goal to annex a greater swathe of Ukraine in a campaign with genocidal intent.

The preliminary regional and global consequences of this war

Three months after Russia’s latest war on Ukraine, the human consequences for Ukraine are: 8 million IDPs displaced in Ukraine, and 6.5 million refugees fled abroad; in addition, Russia has deported 1.4 million Ukrainian people across relatively remote parts of its vast territory, in violation of Article 49 of the Geneva Conventions. The economic cost includes over US$ 100 billion in damage to infrastructure, and a devastating impoverishment that is trending to 90% of the population if the war continues through 2022, vastly up from 2.5 % before. The economy is ravaged, and decades of progress have been lost.

As for Russia, the losses are also staggering, with the removal of Russian bonds from major indices, assets abroad frozen, and a huge exit of foreign investment.?Within the first month after the invasion, over 450 foreign companies had partially or totally withdrawn from Russia, and that figure is now estimated at 1,000, out of 1,200 tracked by Yale[1].?Industrial production, consumption, and investment are declining, and it is estimated by the IMF that Russian GDP will contract by up to 8-17% in 2022 – much less than Ukraine’s loss at 45% or more, according to the World Bank[2]. The IMF notes in its latest WEO: that “the severe trade and financial sanctions and the embargo on Russian oil and gas by some major economies will have a severe impact on the Russian economy in the medium term. The withdrawal of many foreign companies has hampered many sectors, including aviation, finance, software and agriculture. Russia's loss of access to technology and foreign investment is amplified, triggering a persistent decline in total factor productivity growth”[3].?Meanwhile, the Russian unemployment rate may rise from 4.6% in the first quarter to 9% by year’s end, with 2 million jobs at risk.?Apart from the destruction of its esteem worldwide, with 11,000 war crimes in Ukraine already being investigated and documented by Ukrainian and international teams, the worst is yet to come. Hundreds of thousands of liberal or democratically-oriented Russians have fled to neighbouring countries or beyond, as repression becomes increasingly totalitarian.?

And beyond Russia, the world at large now faces recession. In addition, although acute food insecurity has risen from 108 million people in 2016 to 161 million in 2021, aggravated by the pandemic and climate crises, Russia’s latest invasion of Ukraine three months ago may drive another 40 million people into extreme poverty and life-threatening food insecurity before the end of 2022, according to the World Bank. This is probably an underestimate -?as WFP has pointed out, Ukrainian grain feeds 400 million people in 23 countries. WFP buys 50% of its grain from Ukraine[4]. The damage this year is colossal, but the failure to plant crops in Ukraine for later harvests, will be absolutely devastating across the world.

Yet no sanctions have been imposed on grain or fertiliser exports or impeding humanitarian aid – it is Russia’s war against Ukraine and blockade of Odesa that is putting hundreds of millions of lives at risk.?For this reason, the Roadmap for Global Food Security–Call to Action of 18 May 2022 was supported by thirty-six countries and called on all UN Member States to keep their food and agricultural markets open and to avoid unjustified restrictive measures, such as export bans on food or fertilizer, which increase market volatility and threaten food security and nutrition at a global scale, especially among those in vulnerable situations already experiencing increased poverty, hunger, and malnutrition, and called on all members to ensure safe maritime transportation in the Black Sea[5].

Overall, according to OCHA: “there are 303?million people in need of humanitarian aid and protection in 69?countries across the world.?The number of people who need help has grown more than 10?per cent since December, and the amount of money needed to provide humanitarian assistance has climbed from $41?billion to $46?billion today”. Are we going to allow, through “servile diplomacy” and UN inertia, Russia to add another 400 million people to that??As George Soros opined at World Economic Forum on 24 May 2022, “civilization may not survive Putin’s war”[6].

?

Current imperatives – a sense of urgency for global food security

The Secretary-General’s initiative to create the?Global Crisis Response Group on Food, Energy and Finance has already moved the General Assembly to its recent resolution A/RES/76/264 on “State of global food insecurity”. But with 215 million already malnourished, the politics of response lag far behind the human reality.??

Regarding Russia’s seat and veto, as one of the permanent five members (P5) on the UN Security Council, although most of the world seems to not know or ignore this, “a party to a dispute shall refrain from voting”. This is a provision of UN Charter’s Article 27, paragraph 3, specifically relating to the P5, and in relation to Chapter VI (pacific settlement of disputes), where under Article 36 it may recommend measures in response to a conflict (Art. 33). Also relating to Ch. VIII (regional arrangements), Article 52 could pertain to NATO, OSCE, or Council of Europe, or any other coalition referred to the Security Council. Article 53 speaks to enforcement action (although NATO ignored it when it bombed Serbia in 1999).?Therefore, Russia cannot veto any decisions that the UNSC would take in relation to its unprovoked and aggressive war against Ukraine. Unfortunately, at the moment Russia invaded Ukraine on 24 February 2022, it held the chair of the UN Security Council, effectively blocking any sensible resolution. For the present and future, the problem may be the Chinese potential veto. And in that regard, anything that US President Biden can do to bring them on board would be encouraging, and notably he is now considering lifting some tariffs on trade with China[7].

Articles 41 (excl. armed force by UN) and 42 (for armed force by UN) lay out enforcement actions, including in the latter case, by air, sea, or land, or blockades. That can be relevant in regard to enforcement action against the Odesa blockade. Article 51 is the key: the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs. This is fundamentally important to the right of states threatened by Russia’s actions, to take collective action, i.e. to form a “coalition of the willing”, and this could be the key to breaking the Odesa blockade.?Although Turkey, under the Montreux Convention (1936) may refuse passage through the Bosphorus in times of war, especially of non-Black-Sea states, there is no reason why the Black Sea navies of Romania (frigates, corvettes, minesweepers, based in Constanta) and Bulgaria (frigate, corvettes, and some idle subs in need of repair, which NATO could fast-track by air deliveries of materials), and indeed Turkey (a substantial navy, subs, frigates, corvettes, etc.) which are NATO members, could form a “humanitarian flotilla” to break the blockade and/or provide safe conduct passage for grain exporting freight via commercial shipping traffic, or alternatively, by neutral/non-NATO countries such as Ireland, Israel, Egypt, Japan, Australia, in the Black Sea (with Turkey’s consent) and beyond, and all under the humanitarian R2P mechanism (Responsibility to Protect). This is similar to the proposal of Lithuania’s foreign minister, Gabrielius Landsbergis on 23 May 2022, noting that Ukraine will need to export 80 million tons of grain this year alone.[8]

In this regard, while the USA can move with Finland and Sweden to resolve Turkey’s PKK/YPG grievance as an obstacle to their membership in NATO, at this point it is more important that Turkey can commit to such a humanitarian flotilla.?The USA holds the presidency of the Security Council for another week. The US could engage China by lifting trade tariffs, and then move towards a resolution in the UN Security Council obliging Russia to lift the blockade of Odesa. Such a resolution could make reference to the recent UN General Assembly decisions demanding Russia withdrawal, but at the least it should refer to UN Security Council resolution 2417 (2018) condemning the starving of civilians as a method of warfare — as well as the unlawful denial of humanitarian access to civilian populations[9]. Both China and Russia, necessarily, were signatories to that resolution, and should be reminded of it now, to support a resolution to lift the blockade of Odesa and enable grain exports.

Such a new UN Security Council resolution should also contain a provision mandating a UN peacekeeping mission, including naval demining and escort capability for the safe passage of commercial cargo shipping to export Ukrainian grain from Odesa. Should the UNSC fail to make such provision, the concerned countries should form a “coalition of the willing” under Art. 51 of the Charter, get on with it, and simply inform the UN Security Council (as formally required). In either case, the measure should clearly delineate the geographic scope of the “safe haven/corridors”, including the maritime corridors, but also the city and hinterland of Odesa and all Ukrainian territory south and west of Odesa, as well as export routes overland through Belarus to Lithuania and indeed to/through Poland. In fact, ideally this measure should carve out a safe haven that would inherently prevent Russian military progress towards Transdniestria, Moldova.

The safe haven should also be protected by a limited No Fly Zone, guaranteed by the UN/coalition (or else by NATO countries). All of this should be argued, defended, and presented to Russia, as a mandatory enforcement of prior UN Security Council resolutions concerned, and that Russia itself supported, namely no.2417 “Protection of Civilians in armed conflict” which recognized for the first time the intrinsic link between hunger and conflict and the essential role of international humanitarian law (IHL) in preventing and addressing hunger in armed conflict[10], and no. 2573?“Protection of Objects Indispensable to the Survival of the Civilian Population”, and also with specific reference to the relevant UN General Assembly decisions of the past few months.?In regard to its resolutions, the Security Council also notably condemned the starvation of civilians as a potential war crime[11]. Russian naval and land forces in the vicinity of and east of the Dnipro should therefore be required to stand down and withdraw from proximity to the axis Odesa-Mykolaiv-Zaporizhia.

While it is up to Ukraine, and not outsiders, to decide Ukraine’s political strategy and negotiating objectives, none of the foregoing should be a problem in any way compromising Ukraine’s sovereignty or eventual negotiations priorities. It should be the international community through the UN enforcing humanitarian protection (R2P) with global food security as the objective that assumes the primary responsibility for this. Member states should invite the UN Secretary-General’s full and unequivocal support to get these measures through. It has been done before, mutatis mutandis, in other circumstances (e.g. UNPROFOR during the Bosnian war, and also viz Iraq, Libya, etc). And, most importantly, by clearly scoping this as a humanitarian exercise of limited scope (in time and space), it cannot be regarded by Russia as an aggression against it, let alone a so-called “existential threat”.?From that perspective, this would also be an exercise that cannot be considered as a continuation of the present “servile diplomacy/appeasement” that Putin hopes to impose with occasional nuclear threats, and that some European countries have succumbed to.?

?

The longer term and systemic UN reforms

On broader issues, a little history that should NOT repeat itself: as we all know, the United Nations Charter was signed in San Francisco on 26 June 1945, when the League of Nations was still in existence with forty-three member states, including some non-UN members. The League of Nations' General Assembly met for last time in Geneva, on 8 April 1946 and handed over its possessions and the Palais des Nations to the United Nations, declaring itself to cease to exist on 19 April 1946. Its last Secretary-General was John (Sean) Ernest Lester of Ireland. Less known is that, during the period when most of continental Europe except neutral Switzerland was overrun by Nazi Germany, the League, in neutral Switzerland, continued a skeletal existence under the leadership of Lester. Through his valiant efforts, although its budget was slashed by 75% during the war, it had been supported by remaining free member states.?The League also had symbolic?contributions by its occupied members’ governments-in-exile (including Belgium, Czechoslovakia, France, Greece, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland) and other neutrals such as Portugal and Ireland.

Lester felt that war could have been avoided if nations abided by the founding vision of Woodrow Wilson and remonstrated with world powers: “The League did not fail; it was the nations which failed to use it”. It was not weakness of the League that caused WW2, he would argue. History may judge differently, but there are lessons for us today.??Of the new United Nations, Lester said: “Success will depend on how it is used, on the justice, wisdom, and courage of leaders and, above all, on the vision and determination of the common people”.??Lester knew the failures that led to WW2 were failures of national leaders “that contented themselves with lip service, that could not face the lesser sacrifices to avoid the greater, and to those peoples & States which foolishly imagined they could be lookers-on”.??

As for the EU, Paul Spaak on 25 March 1952 signing Treaties of Rome that gave birth to the political, economic, cultural, democratic & voluntary convergence that became European Union, said it was a matter: “above all of a particular conception of life that is humane, fraternal, and just”.?That is what globalisation should also be about, through a continuously-evolving multilateralism, including today the reforming of the UN.??The story of multilateralism and of dynamic world order must be seen as a continuous evolution. We may have hiccups, but we cannot afford setbacks: it must be more effectively humanised, democratic & inclusive.??

The UN has been very successful in many spheres - we do not forget the worldwide regulatory roles of UN agencies that make the global commons safe for all. When we fly, we land safely thanks to the UN’s ICAO. Our vaccinations are regulated thanks to the WHO. ITU regulates global telecommunications. Food safety standards are supported by FAO. Food aid is brought to starving peoples by WFP. UNICEF supports the rights of children and their well-being. The Seabed Authority operates under UNCLOS. IMO regulates maritime traffic. And so on. Nor should we forget the UN's role in the successful de-colonisation of former empires and the development of their independent ex-colonies, as well as the largely successful deployment of humanitarian aid and peacekeeping forces in post-conflict situations.

The fact the UN consists of 193 member states today, so many more than the original 51, is partly a success of the UN itself, as is the almost exponential growth in the body of international treaties, laws and norms that help better govern human and state interactions today. But the structures of the UN have not evolved in tandem. The Bretton Woods’ IFIs and the World Economic Forum are additional, and complementary in various ways, but not part of it.

The UN has been very successful -?except in the security sphere?to the extent that a P5 power usurps international law and/or uses its veto to obstruct global norms or rule of law, enabling impunity. Because of the P5 veto, the UN has most notoriously failed the Palestinians and many others where the UN Security Council’s own resolutions, or the Geneva Conventions, human rights, or international law have been flouted.?For that we must blame the P5 powers themselves, and not the staff, volunteers and UN peacekeepers around the globe. But a more politically-proactive Secretariat could help make a difference for the better.

The 11the UNGA special session convened in accordance with the 1950 “Uniting for Peace” resolution, enables the General Assembly to take up matters of international peace and security when one or more veto powers are preventing Council action.??In a resolution adopted on 4 March 2022, the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva also agreed to establish a commission to investigate violations committed during Russia’s unprovoked military aggression on Ukraine. Its special session on 12 May?examined the deteriorating human rights situation in Ukraine stemming from the Russian invasion and accumulating evidence of thousands of war crimes. However, part of the problem with tackling impunity and war crimes is the fact that many countries, especially USA, but also Russia and indeed Ukraine, have not ratified the International Criminal Court.?Even on the matter of children’s rights, the USA remains the only country which has still not ratified the UN Convention on Rights of the Child – even though it was instrumental in its development.

The global diplomatic chatter over the past four months since Russia’s all-out invasion of Ukraine has been anything but inspiring. Notwithstanding the appearance of Euro-Atlantic solidarity with Ukraine and sanctions against Russia, the cacophony of contradictory voices – especially between the P5 veto-wielding powers - has not helped solve matters, despite three overwhelming resolutions in the UN General Assembly to censure Russia. One would think that they would have had some importance in galvanising a?prise de conscience?in Moscow, a re-set, or at least a pause to take stock and re-visit Putin’s flawed assumptions that led to the latest war.

Or for that matter, an immediate UN pitch at the highest levels of the Secretary-General, to engage in shuttle diplomacy between capitals concerned, not least Kyiv and Moscow. His predecessors, from Dag Hammarskjold through U Thant and down to Boutros-Boutros Ghali, and Kofi Annan, did so in their times. Secretary-General Guterres has finally done so: he has lately been in Moscow and Kyiv, followed by other visits in Africa, but with little seeming gusto for laying out a “global position” or vision at a political level, neither on the war between Ukraine and Russia, nor on wider issues.

The Secretary-General’s report on Our Common Agenda, of September 2021, does however call for stronger governance of key issues of global concern, but is otherwise lacking in transformative vision, and thin on structural reforms. It is planned to hold a Summit of the Future in 2023 to advance ideas for governance arrangements in global public goods or the global commons, but this may not be enough.

In his own follow-up, Secretary-General Guterres has already appointed a High?Level Advisory Board on Effective Multilateralism back in March, but this is likely to be a slow-moving if not underwhelming exercise[12].?It does not, for example, build on the exhortations of former Secretary-General Boutros-Boutros Ghali, ailing in his last year at the time, in April 2015 as he addressed those of us gathered in Baku, and?spoke of?the UN as an old institution in a changing world; “we need to adapt to drastic change and new technologies. The UN is made of member states, but in today's world, states are no longer the only players and a new world order needs to factor this in”.?Civil society organisations as well as corporate giants and digital media represent new forces.

In this regard, the aspirations and claims of civil society globally today are increasingly formulated more explicitly in the language of human rights because awareness of the dignity of every human person has become a common acquisition - except by brutal dictatorships.?More & more people worldwide realise they not only have a stake in national & global governance but can also play an active role. Citizen awareness is growing exponentially, despite some autocratic cases of so-called security measures, social media repression, or outright full-spectrum surveillance.??Only by acting collectively, and that means individually-contributing, can we limit the unhealthy concentration of power in the world, whether political, economic, corporate, or cultural. Apex power must be transparent and held accountable, democratically. Not only consumer power & social media, but also explicit anti-authoritarian & non-violent civic activism will continue to mobilise & make the voices of people heard. Works, protests, and discourse of various dissidents and activists (such as Sakharov, Havel, Walesa, Sharp, Popovic, Tsikhanouskaya, Thunberg, et al.) arguing against tyranny and irresponsible power, will continue to inspire younger protest.

And this brings us to the point, a tippling one.?There are critical tipping points where quantum or paradigmatic change may be required to avoid catastrophe – and one could argue, such a time is yet again, now.?The number of IDPs and refugees in the world now exceeds 100 million – for the first time on record - 1% of humanity, and growing fast[13]. If?displacees from natural disasters are included and those fleeing Ukraine, the figure is 120 million – as many as all of Egypt, Ethiopia or the Philippines.?The UN now rests perilously on the edge of its own irrelevance & oblivion, as President Zelensky rightly cajoled. The United Nations is inspired by the humanity of those we failed, to never repeat the scourges of war, but it is only credible if it acts morally to save the living. To do even this most effectively requires systemic, institutional, and Charter change.??No more than Sean Lester refused until after its very replacement, to give up on the League of Nations, we must refuse to give up on the United Nations. Its flaws and dysfunctionalities are too evident, with long overdue reforms endlessly debated and stymied. But we as yet have no alternative. Nor is there any replacement in view, despite the prospect of global chaos and annihilation, for the multilateralism which still holds the world falteringly together for the decaying world order as we know it.

The result of lax engagement by leaders, and inherent dysfunctionality of the P-5 veto, is that the global machinery to prevent and resolve conflict isn’t working[14]. This is partly a design flaw at the origins of the UN Charter, but also a weakness in leadership, not only at the 38th?floor, but in other quarters. There is little evidence of a global attempt to advance broad systemic UN reforms. Yet, it is possible to reform the UN:?the UN Charter of 1945 was amended by the UNGA on 17 December 1963, 20 December 1965, 20 December 1971. In fact, it was in 1971 that Taiwan lost its place as “China” on the UN Security Council, to be replaced by the Peoples Republic, as a result of a manoeuvre in the UNGA. It is therefore NOT unthinkable that Russia could lose its UNSC permanent seat and veto too, and Ukraine’s permanent representative to the UN in New York, Serhii Kyslytsya has been vocal about ways to do just that, questioning the automaticity with which the Russian Federation succeeded to the USSR seat.

It is possible to amend Art. 108 viz P5 veto.??But it is an absolute global disgrace of P5 sclerosis – and UN institutional inertia - that no further amendment to the UN Charter took place?in the past 51 years. It could be argued that broad-based support must be built for the General Assembly to get a substantial two-thirds majority to amend Article 108, and drop the requirement of P5 consensus (5/5) in favour of QMV (qualified majority vote): 3/5. The latest Liechtenstein VETO initiative that passed by consensus in the UNGA is a small step forward, but insufficient in itself to effect real change[15].??Yet,?UN history shows it can be flexible enough by dint of precedents & innovation, even if jurisprudence is knife-edge; it just needs the “will” to become the “way”. We must keep the pressure up, as Zelensky does.

In this regard, one must note the?fifth IGN-Intergovernmental Negotiations on Security Council Reform (co-chaired by Denmark and Qatar) meeting was to have been held on 12-13 May to serve as an opportunity to reflect on the progress made and the way forward for Security Council reform, further to the “Co-Chairs Revised Elements Paper on Convergences and Divergences on the question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council and related matters”.?It seems that progress has been made in expanding the areas of convergence and narrowing down the areas of divergence, to take the Intergovernmental Negotiations on Security Council Reform forward during the 77th?session of the General Assembly in September 2022.

In light of the egregious Russian aggression against Ukraine, there now seems to be strong and growing support among Member States for limitations to the veto, with two initiatives seeking to limit the use of the veto, namely the “Political statement on the suspension of the veto in case of mass atrocities” presented by France and Mexico and the “Code of Conduct regarding Security Council action against genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes” elaborated in the framework of the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency Group (ACT Group), which is now supported by more than 120 Member States[16].?

There is also growing general agreement on the need for the increased representation of developing countries and small- and medium-sized States, including Small Island Developing States, as well as the wider recognition and broader support by Member States for the legitimate aspirations of the African countries for an increased presence in the Security Council.

There are many more specific reflections this author could share, such as on the inadequacy of the voluntary self-regulating UN Global Compact and OECD principles of corporate governance for today’s global corporate regulation, or the need for better enforcement mechanisms in regard to the Global Commons, let alone where do we stand on other UN reforms.

In an extensive paper variously used and revised for this author’s seminars on?Multilateralism and Globalisation, perceptions and consequences of globalization are explored and the case is made that notwithstanding many benefits, there are diminishing returns from certain aspects of globalization, under neo-liberal conditions. There is increasing competition and rivalry between great powers, and diminishing competition in increasingly concentrated markets. It should be the other way round: cooperation between great powers, and no more collusion and domination of markets.??Diverging trends and values complicate the need to converge on remedies let alone ideals, and can hamper effective multilateralism. Social inequality is rising in tandem with increasing polarization, and a gross deterioration in the quality and courtesy of political discourse. Degraded rhetoric and growing demonization, especially during the recent Trump US presidency, reflect a loss of ideals, amplified by social media and fake news leading to a tangible and dangerous decline in the politics of compromise and cooperation, not just nationally but globally.

In this context this author explores the problem of market concentration as it affects free and fair competition, the changing nature and role of the media, media independence, and the quality of journalism. This author also argues that globally-dominant monopolies and oligopolies distort markets, constrain entrepreneurship, and ultimately undermine good governance by engaging in regulatory and state capture[17]. Massive concentrations of individual wealth enjoined by growing inequality and three major erosions of authority in developed countries (political, religious, and scientific) have fuelled rising populist extremism and manifested ‘clear and present dangers’, borne out in the “Capitol Riot” in Washington, D.C. Combined, they threaten the fabric of our societies and global stability, and this has all been dramatically worsened by the COVID pandemic impact and the aggravating onset of near-irreversible climate change - and the global ramifications of the Russian war against Ukraine.?

This raises a challenge to states and to international or supra-national institutions, of preserving institutional integrity, democratic processes, and the rule of law, and restoring social equity. It calls for active citizen engagement, amplified by responsible social media, to hold leaders accountable, and to direct political change, transforming democracy. But convergence can only prevail if capacities for peaceful negotiation, arbitration, and dispute resolution underpin efforts at consensus-building, and are matched by a concerted effort to reduce income and wealth disparities. At the same time, now is the moment to not only reform the veto-power and membership aspects of the UN Security Council, but to also develop a global convention settling the question of the international legal standing of multinational/global corporations, mandating an obligatory code of conduct with the necessary mechanisms for independent review, enforcement, and regulation of competition.

A similar convention should tackle the issue of the growing impunity of trans-national super-rich or Ultra-High Net Worth Individual billionaires. Oxfam points to the inequity of the ten richest men in the world having doubled their wealth during the pandemic and says: “They now have six times more wealth than the poorest 3.1 billion people.”[18] Or, in other words, if they gave up their wealth, the poorest 3.1 billion could be six times better off.?

Eradicating corruption and money-laundering, and obliging corporate and individual social and environmental responsibility should lie at the core of these conventions, which should also set limits on the accumulation of individual power and wealth, and ensure the possible disqualification from public office of those whose wealth or income exceeds a specified level but whose disregard for the rule of law and democratic accountability induces flagrant abuse of economic, social and human rights. This will also require some measure of reform of capital markets and international financial institutions, based also on the lessons of the past decade since the sub-prime crisis and the recession of 2008, and the depressing effect of the current pandemic.

Although?the G7 have given some prominence to the fight against corruption, the latest Corruption Perceptions Index shows, “despite commitments on paper, 131 countries have made no significant progress against corruption over the last decade, and this year 27 countries are at a historic low in their CPI score.[19]”?Implementation of the UN Convention Against Corruption remains woefully low.

Looking forward

How can Europe divided at its heart in Ukraine by its largest member, heal its wounds & become whole all across our continent? How can Ukraine best be rebuilt? How best can Russia be reformed to play a crucial positive role in repairing the harm done to Ukraine and this world? Or will it become the object of a revival?of the "International Trusteeship System" in Chapter VII of the UN Charter? Whilst that is highly unlikely today, a return to nuclear non-proliferation, arms limitations, disarmament and the global reduction and elimination of all nuclear weapons, as well as positive actions to address global challenges such as pandemics, mass migration and climate change, would be highly advisable. How can security across Europe, and indeed the world, be best guaranteed on an equitable and just basis?

Ukraine’s President Zelensky today may seem the greatest advocate of UN reform, as his country pays dearly for the UN's stunted failures, root of which lies in the ill-fit-for-purpose UN Security Council and its P5 architecture and veto. Leaders of democracies, G7 plus, and others, should coalesce around rising calls for UN reform, and work multiple elements through the UN General Assembly where majorities can help shape new architecture, galvanising most of the world and saving hundreds of millions from famine and poverty.

We may also need a “Sanctions Policy Review Commission”. Let us not forget the impassioned ethical grounds that led former UN colleagues Denis Halliday (Ireland) and Hans von Sponeck (Germany) to resign their roles as UN Humanitarian Coordinators in Iraq, almost three decades ago. Today, as the US chairs the Security Council for May, Passblue reports: “International sanctions on Russia and, by extension, on Belarus for its support of Moscow, have frozen a huge chunk of the world’s trade in wheat and fertilizer”.?Although the sanctions per se do not obstruct export of wheat and fertiliser, such exports are affected by the damage of the war itself, the occupation or?blockade of Ukraine’s ports, the financial sanctions imposed on Russia, and the logistical problems brought about by the same, including large-scale western voluntary divestment from Russia. This is unacceptable and a direct contributing factor to food insecurity. We cannot allow another situation where “collateral damage” being the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent children and adults, let alone hundreds of millions, becomes politically acceptable whilst being morally repugnant.

After the last devastating World War II, and demise of the empire-based League of Nations, the United Nations was an attempt to build a global community, the governance of which would be based on sovereign equality. Multilateralism was to be based on the rule of law, and international relations conducted through principled, as distinct from transactional, politics[20]. In recent decades, however, national and global governance-related politics have been transformed by two major phenomena: (a) the almost-quadrupling of the number of member-states through de-colonisation and the often-violent splintering of some larger states; and (b) the diversification and growing influence of non-state actors, most notably civil society organisations and movements, and the globalising corporate sector, but also by organised criminal and terrorist networks. The digital era and its burgeoning platforms have also enabled connectivity to become trans-frontier, and cyberspace has become its own global domain.

One amongst many reform initiatives is the campaign “We The Peoples” launched by Democracy International – a global coalition for democracy, which calls for a more inclusive reform of the United Nations. The campaign already includes more than 200 global civic organisations behind it.?It calls for a UN World Citizens’ Initiative, an instrument that would allow citizens’ to put items on the Agenda of the UN; a UN Parliamentary Assembly, which would give citizens a say in who represents them at the UN; and the creation of a UN Civil Society Envoy office, which would strengthen the involvement of NGOs at the UN, beyond the accreditation already possible at ECOSOC. The call has been joined by organisations from around the world, including Avaaz, Greenpeace, and ActionAid and the Nature Conservancy.

These and related phenomena demand a new approach to multilateralism that is inclusive of legitimate actors, and that excludes the illegitimate and criminal through a global networked rule of law, with a new constellation of enforcement agencies that respect human rights and rights to privacy and that avoid the intrusion of surveillance technologies that undermine personal dignity and empower obscure forms of tyranny. While huge progress continues on multiple tracks through new treaties and conventions in various fields, major global paroxysms that turn human progress backwards must be avoided. We are in such a global civilizational crisis right now - and need a new worldwide fabric of resilience. The only way to go is forward, together.

Francis M. O’Donnell

28 May 2020

[1] https://som.yale.edu/story/2022/almost-1000-companies-have-curtailed-operations-russia-some-remain?

Other estimates give 1,200 departed.

[2] https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2022/04/10/russian-invasion-to-shrink-ukraine-economy-by-45-percent-this-year

[3] European Parliament: Economic repercussions of Russia’s war on Ukraine – Weekly Digest, 17 May 2022 https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2022/699539/IPOL_IDA(2022)699539_EN.pdf

[4] David Beasley, WFP, at the Global Food Security Call to Action Meeting of Foreign Ministers, at UN Headquarters, New York, 18 May 2022: https://media.un.org/en/asset/k1g/k1grzeugy4

[5] Roadmap for Global Food Security–Call to Action, New York, 18 May 2022 https://reliefweb.int/report/world/chairs-statement-roadmap-global-food-security-call-action

[6] Bloomberg, 24 May 2022: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-24/george-soros-warns-civilization-may-not-survive-putin-s-war

[7] See this:?Ukraine: China’s Desired Endgame: https://www.stimson.org/2022/ukraine-china-endgame/

[8] https://www.newsnpr.org/lithuania-proposes-to-form-a-naval-alliance-to-lift-the-blockade-of-ukrainian-ports/

[9] Note especially the Russian welcome of that res.: https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/sc13354.doc.htm

[10] UN Security Council press release on resolution 2417: https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/sc13354.doc.htm

[11] UN Security Council press release on resolution 2573: https://www.un.org/press/en/2021/sc14506.doc.htm

[12] Secretary-General’s High?Level Advisory Board on Effective Multilateralism.?

https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/note-correspondents/2022-03-18/note-correspondents-secretary-general%E2%80%99s-high-level-advisory-board-effective-multilateralism-comprises-12-eminent-current-or-former-global-leaders-officials?

[13] On IDPs, see IDMC report for 2021: https://www.internal-displacement.org/global-report/grid2022/?Figures subsequent to Russia’s aggression in Ukraine are now substantially higher. On refugees: see UNHCR: https://www.unhcr.org/news/press/2022/5/628a389e4/unhcr-ukraine-other-conflicts-push-forcibly-displaced-total-100-million.html

[14] See Brookings recommendations: https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/will-ukraines-tragedy-spur-un-security-council-reform/

[15] The “Liechtenstein” initiative: https://reliefweb.int/report/world/general-assembly-adopts-landmark-resolution-aimed-holding-five-permanent-security

[16] Statement by Luxembourg, to the Co-Chairs of the Intergovernmental Negotiations on Security Council Reform (on behalf of the three Benelux countries: Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg), 12 May 2022: https://newyork-un.mae.lu/fr/actualites/2022/ignunscreform.html

[17] Obama Administration’s Council of Economic Advisors (April-May 2016): The Benefits of Competition. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/page/files/20160502_competition_issue_brief_updated_cea.pdf

[18] Oxfam, 17 January 2022: https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/ten-richest-men-double-their-fortunes-pandemic-while-incomes-99-percent-humanity

[19] Transparency International’s CPI: https://www.transparency.org/en/news/cpi-2021-highlights-insights

[20] The “politics” of political: how the word has changed its meaning; Academic Insights for the Thinking World, Oxford University Press, November 2018: https://blog.oup.com/2018/11/politics-of-political/