On June 30, the Global South network explored the challenges that Global South countries face in the current world order, deconstructed the concepts of rules-based order and polarity, and explored avenues for Global South actors, from civic movements to state leaders, to foster change. Ideas and solutions to create a new and more just world order that serves Global South interests are not lacking. From the revival of the Non-Aligned Movement to the convening of a new Bandung Conference, and to the call for a United Nations (UN) Charter Review Conference, Global South stakeholders have opportunities to set a new tone on the international scene and to create new dynamics for reforming the world order. Challenges remain, but it is up to Global South actors to take their destiny into their own hands and to create global governance alternatives. Below are takeaways from a couple of our network members.
The Global South Needs its Own Vision and Vocabulary of “World Order”
Amitav Acharya, Distinguished Professor, School of International Service, American University, @AmitavAcharya
The Global South is diverse, but in general, most nations of the Global South believe that the current world order—created by the West and still dominated by the United States—is unpeaceful, unjust, undemocratic, and unfriendly to their economic and ecological interests. And it is failing.
Hence, the Global South should not be mimicking or adopting concepts and ideas originally developed in the West such as multipolar, bipolar, or unipolar. These concepts have not been kind to the Global South. When the world was multipolar, most of today’s Global South was under colonial rule. When the world was bipolar, as during the Cold War, only Europe had peace; the Global South was rife with war, intervention, and exploitation. When the world was briefly unipolar, in the 1990s, the United States promoted the idea of a “Liberal World Order” or “Rules-Based World Order.” But who made these rules? Whose interests do they serve? The liberal world order was essentially a privileged club of the West in which the Global South was largely marginalized.
Now we are said to be in a multipolar world, but it does not bode well for the Global South. On the contrary, the war over Ukraine has deeply harmed the Global South with food and energy shortages, discriminatory treatment of refugees, and threats of primary or secondary sanctions from the United States and The European Union.
Hence, the Global South needs a new way of thinking about the world order and a new plan of action to realize it. To this end, I have proposed the idea of a “Multiplex World Order.” The ideal of such an order:
- has no hegemony by any single power or bloc;
- is developed by multiple actors, not just big powers or corporations but also non-governmental actors and social movements;
- respects cultural diversity, multiculturalism and rejects the clash of civilizations idea;
- is connected by economic and other exchanges that are not led by the West, but by the Rest; and
- features a multi-level governance system in which regionalism plays a central role.
The Multiplex World Order is the better concept and vocabulary for the Global South than “Multipolar World Order,” “Liberal World Order” or “Rules-Based World Order.”
How to achieve a Multiplex World Order? I suggest the following steps, among others.
First, the Global South should call for a new Bandung Conference. I would call it Bandung Plus. The original Bandung Conference of 1955 did not include much of sub-Saharan Africa, which was still under colonial rule. South Africa was under the Apartheid regime. Bandung did not include Latin American and Caribbean countries. Bandung Plus should include those previously excluded states and devise a new set of rules—similar to the ten principles of the 1955 meeting, but with a more updated set of aspirations and demands of the Global South. These would include the renegotiation of the UN Charter to encompass norms of racial equality and more voice and leadership opportunities for the Global South in international institutions.
Second, the Global South should revive and reinvigorate the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). NAM served the interests of the Global South well during the Cold War’s US-Soviet competition and will be a good way to frame the Global South’s response to the US/NATO/EU-Russia rivalry or the US-China rivalry.
Third, the Global South should strengthen existing regional organizations through which it can articulate its demands and bargain with the major powers.
Finally, the Global South should undertake its own diplomatic initiatives, either through NAM or through regional or interregional groups, on important issues challenging world peace and stability. The recent African Union peace mission to Ukraine and Russia is a good example. Similar missions covering war, economic crises, climate stress, and refugee movements, for example, should be sent to the United Nations, and centers of major powers such as Washington, Brussels, and Beijing, to ease great power tensions, advance solutions, and press Global South demands for a more just and inclusive world order.
Requiem for the United Nations Security Council: Towards a UN Charter Review Conference
Tim Murithi, Head of the Peacebuilding Interventions Programme, Institute for Justice and Reconciliation, and Professor of African Studies, University of Free State and Stellenbosch University, South Africa, @tmurithi12
The world’s institutions are ill-prepared and poorly designed to effectively address global challenges such as major power conflicts, pandemics, the climate catastrophe, refugee crises, violent extremism, illicit profiteering from natural resources, and the regulation of artificial intelligence systems. In particular, the United Nations (UN), which was created to address the problems of the world in 1945, is no longer fit for purpose. The multilateral organization has outlived its usefulness; there is an urgent need to design a global institution that is reflective of the twenty-first century.
The UN was created with a recognition of the limitations of the League of Nations in mind. In particular, the League was unable to prevent the conquest of Europe by Nazi Germany and the Japanese invasion of China. History is repeating itself in the form of the powerful Permanent Five (P5) members of the UN Security Council (UNSC) repeatedly ignoring the legal provisions of the UN Charter and weakening the legitimacy of this international institution, by invading countries in contravention of international law. The dysfunctionality of the UNSC was exposed once more on February 24, 2022, when Russia was simultaneously chairing the Presidency of the Council and launching an illegal invasion of Ukraine. This war is impeding global stability. Ukrainians suffer the most from this conflict, which also inflicts great damage to Global South countries’ economies and human security. Yet, other major conflicts are also looming, for example between the United States and China over Taiwan, and it is unlikely that the planet can endure another full-blown major-power war. A confrontation between two nuclear weapons-bearing permanent members of the UNSC would leave us all in an extremely precarious state of affairs, but there are currently no effective mechanisms to constrain the UNSC’s permanent members’ actions.
The founders of the UN recognized that the moment would arrive when it became imperative to transform the organization, and they included a practical mechanism to review the body’s Charter. According to Article 109 (1), a UN Charter Review Conference should have been convened 10 years after the signing of the document. Today, it could be initiated by a majority vote of the members of the UN General Assembly (UNGA) and by a vote of any seven members of the UNSC, according to Article 109 (3). This provision means that the P5 members cannot veto any proposed UN Charter Review Conference. In practice, a dozen or more UN member states drawn from different continents would need to create a “Coalition of the Willing” within the UNGA, which would have to draft a Resolution to trigger and launch a UN Charter Review Conference. Such a Review Conference could, through the collective decision of the members of the UNGA, identify the key issues that need to be addressed, including reform of the UNSC. The Review Conference could also adopt a recommendation to substantially alter the UN Charter and introduce completely new provisions, including even a change in the name of the institution.
More than 60 percent of the issues discussed by the UNSC are focused on Africa, yet the continent does not have any representation among the P5 members of the Council. Given the fact that the P5 can veto all manner of decisions before the Council, it is a travesty of justice at its most basic level that African countries can only participate in key deliberations and decision-making processes as non-permanent members of the Council. UNSC negotiations and decision-making processes are, in effect, the highest manifestation of unfairness in the international system. If achieving fairness in negotiations among states is the preferred route to global legitimacy, then a fundamental transformation of the UNSC and the elimination of the veto for the P5 is a necessary pre-requisite action.
A [new] world order: What, why, and how?
Global South Experts Turn the Tables
By Aude Darnal Lead Author • Amitav Acharya • Tim Murithi
Grand Strategy
Every month, The Global South in the World Order Project convenes a meeting of experts from across the Global South to discuss international relations from their perspectives, disrupt conventional thinking, and inject non-Western viewpoints into prominent policy circles in Washington. This publication is part of the Global South Experts Turn the Tables series, which highlights insights from select participants from these discussions.
On June 30, the Global South network explored the challenges that Global South countries face in the current world order, deconstructed the concepts of rules-based order and polarity, and explored avenues for Global South actors, from civic movements to state leaders, to foster change. Ideas and solutions to create a new and more just world order that serves Global South interests are not lacking. From the revival of the Non-Aligned Movement to the convening of a new Bandung Conference, and to the call for a United Nations (UN) Charter Review Conference, Global South stakeholders have opportunities to set a new tone on the international scene and to create new dynamics for reforming the world order. Challenges remain, but it is up to Global South actors to take their destiny into their own hands and to create global governance alternatives. Below are takeaways from a couple of our network members.
The Global South Needs its Own Vision and Vocabulary of “World Order”
Amitav Acharya, Distinguished Professor, School of International Service, American University, @AmitavAcharya
The Global South is diverse, but in general, most nations of the Global South believe that the current world order—created by the West and still dominated by the United States—is unpeaceful, unjust, undemocratic, and unfriendly to their economic and ecological interests. And it is failing.
Hence, the Global South should not be mimicking or adopting concepts and ideas originally developed in the West such as multipolar, bipolar, or unipolar. These concepts have not been kind to the Global South. When the world was multipolar, most of today’s Global South was under colonial rule. When the world was bipolar, as during the Cold War, only Europe had peace; the Global South was rife with war, intervention, and exploitation. When the world was briefly unipolar, in the 1990s, the United States promoted the idea of a “Liberal World Order” or “Rules-Based World Order.” But who made these rules? Whose interests do they serve? The liberal world order was essentially a privileged club of the West in which the Global South was largely marginalized.
Now we are said to be in a multipolar world, but it does not bode well for the Global South. On the contrary, the war over Ukraine has deeply harmed the Global South with food and energy shortages, discriminatory treatment of refugees, and threats of primary or secondary sanctions from the United States and The European Union.
Hence, the Global South needs a new way of thinking about the world order and a new plan of action to realize it. To this end, I have proposed the idea of a “Multiplex World Order.” The ideal of such an order:
The Multiplex World Order is the better concept and vocabulary for the Global South than “Multipolar World Order,” “Liberal World Order” or “Rules-Based World Order.”
How to achieve a Multiplex World Order? I suggest the following steps, among others.
First, the Global South should call for a new Bandung Conference. I would call it Bandung Plus. The original Bandung Conference of 1955 did not include much of sub-Saharan Africa, which was still under colonial rule. South Africa was under the Apartheid regime. Bandung did not include Latin American and Caribbean countries. Bandung Plus should include those previously excluded states and devise a new set of rules—similar to the ten principles of the 1955 meeting, but with a more updated set of aspirations and demands of the Global South. These would include the renegotiation of the UN Charter to encompass norms of racial equality and more voice and leadership opportunities for the Global South in international institutions.
Second, the Global South should revive and reinvigorate the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). NAM served the interests of the Global South well during the Cold War’s US-Soviet competition and will be a good way to frame the Global South’s response to the US/NATO/EU-Russia rivalry or the US-China rivalry.
Third, the Global South should strengthen existing regional organizations through which it can articulate its demands and bargain with the major powers.
Finally, the Global South should undertake its own diplomatic initiatives, either through NAM or through regional or interregional groups, on important issues challenging world peace and stability. The recent African Union peace mission to Ukraine and Russia is a good example. Similar missions covering war, economic crises, climate stress, and refugee movements, for example, should be sent to the United Nations, and centers of major powers such as Washington, Brussels, and Beijing, to ease great power tensions, advance solutions, and press Global South demands for a more just and inclusive world order.
Requiem for the United Nations Security Council: Towards a UN Charter Review Conference
Tim Murithi, Head of the Peacebuilding Interventions Programme, Institute for Justice and Reconciliation, and Professor of African Studies, University of Free State and Stellenbosch University, South Africa, @tmurithi12
The world’s institutions are ill-prepared and poorly designed to effectively address global challenges such as major power conflicts, pandemics, the climate catastrophe, refugee crises, violent extremism, illicit profiteering from natural resources, and the regulation of artificial intelligence systems. In particular, the United Nations (UN), which was created to address the problems of the world in 1945, is no longer fit for purpose. The multilateral organization has outlived its usefulness; there is an urgent need to design a global institution that is reflective of the twenty-first century.
The UN was created with a recognition of the limitations of the League of Nations in mind. In particular, the League was unable to prevent the conquest of Europe by Nazi Germany and the Japanese invasion of China. History is repeating itself in the form of the powerful Permanent Five (P5) members of the UN Security Council (UNSC) repeatedly ignoring the legal provisions of the UN Charter and weakening the legitimacy of this international institution, by invading countries in contravention of international law. The dysfunctionality of the UNSC was exposed once more on February 24, 2022, when Russia was simultaneously chairing the Presidency of the Council and launching an illegal invasion of Ukraine. This war is impeding global stability. Ukrainians suffer the most from this conflict, which also inflicts great damage to Global South countries’ economies and human security. Yet, other major conflicts are also looming, for example between the United States and China over Taiwan, and it is unlikely that the planet can endure another full-blown major-power war. A confrontation between two nuclear weapons-bearing permanent members of the UNSC would leave us all in an extremely precarious state of affairs, but there are currently no effective mechanisms to constrain the UNSC’s permanent members’ actions.
The founders of the UN recognized that the moment would arrive when it became imperative to transform the organization, and they included a practical mechanism to review the body’s Charter. According to Article 109 (1), a UN Charter Review Conference should have been convened 10 years after the signing of the document. Today, it could be initiated by a majority vote of the members of the UN General Assembly (UNGA) and by a vote of any seven members of the UNSC, according to Article 109 (3). This provision means that the P5 members cannot veto any proposed UN Charter Review Conference. In practice, a dozen or more UN member states drawn from different continents would need to create a “Coalition of the Willing” within the UNGA, which would have to draft a Resolution to trigger and launch a UN Charter Review Conference. Such a Review Conference could, through the collective decision of the members of the UNGA, identify the key issues that need to be addressed, including reform of the UNSC. The Review Conference could also adopt a recommendation to substantially alter the UN Charter and introduce completely new provisions, including even a change in the name of the institution.
More than 60 percent of the issues discussed by the UNSC are focused on Africa, yet the continent does not have any representation among the P5 members of the Council. Given the fact that the P5 can veto all manner of decisions before the Council, it is a travesty of justice at its most basic level that African countries can only participate in key deliberations and decision-making processes as non-permanent members of the Council. UNSC negotiations and decision-making processes are, in effect, the highest manifestation of unfairness in the international system. If achieving fairness in negotiations among states is the preferred route to global legitimacy, then a fundamental transformation of the UNSC and the elimination of the veto for the P5 is a necessary pre-requisite action.
Recent & Related