Should A Small Handful Of Countries Run the World? Why Or Why Not?
—
The magazine Foreign Policy recent ran an article pillorying the demise of two of America’s special relationships: the United Kingdom and Israel. It spoke to recent changes internal to both the UK and Israel and made sure to highlight several prolific diplomacy blunders on the part of the Obama administration. The article called into question several important issues related to how key relationships current shape the important events playing out on the world stage.
Yet the article also forced me to examine a much more fundamental question: Should a small group of countries run the world at all in this time period?
Consider a few things as you reflect on the same question:
- The established economic and political order came out of high-level discussions by the eventual victor nations in the final two years of the Second World War.
- Two vanquished nations–Germany and Japan–have become global leaders in terms of economic influence, diplomacy, and humanitarian support, yet they have no permanent seat on the UN security council.
- India, a country of over 1 billion people, and an emerging economic powerhouse, seems to contribute very little to any global institution in terms of leadership.
- The current model came out of the twilight of the colonial era–and seems to share much in common with the ethos of it.
Should the United Nations, International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and others reform themselves to rejigger the new ruling elite? Or, does it make sense to create a new system in which power, influence, and control are distributed differently?
♦◊♦
The current patchwork of systems, structures, and alliances seems incredibly tired. Although the UN security council considers itself the arbiter of global security, it seems that alliances such as NATO, and recently the Gulf Cooperation Council, make the real decisions about who goes to war. The various economic organizations seem committed to funding many governmental infrastructure projects, yet a couple of central banks really determine which countries maintain solvency and which ones enter into sovereign debt default. Consider the following things:
- The global middle class is growing exponentially. More people have economic power and influence than ever in the past.
- Several large and high-profile countries are seeking a more active foreign policy and military role but struggle to do so, including Japan, China, Brazil, Germany, and India.
- Many of the traditional global powers–the US, UK, France, and Australia–are stretched thin and eager to focus on domestic issues.
- The last 15 years have shown that many of the challenges facing the world today can’t be resolved by one country flexing its might (e.g., ISIS, Al Qaeda, and other such groups).
The world feels more multipolar now than ever in the past.
♦◊♦
What do you, citizens of the world, believe about fashioning a new global order? How much responsibility to the traditional powers deserve? How much do emerging nations deserve to put their fingerprints on the world in the 21st century?
I would especially love to hear from those readers who lives or work outside of the country.
Please share your comments below.
Photo credit: Flickr/David Ohmer