ussia’s war in Ukraine has upended what one might call the world’s “peaceful progress regime.” It was a regime with three ingredients: globalization, which generates material prosperity worldwide; global collective action to address the negative effects of economic growth, not least rising inequality and climate change; and, perhaps most fundamentally, the absence of war.
These components were mutually reinforcing. According to the conventional wisdom, globalization – along with the existence of nuclear weapons and the deterrent effect of mutual assured destruction – made war increasingly untenable, and global collective action made globalization socially and environmentally acceptable.
This regime has now been fatally undermined by Russian President Vladimir Putin’s determination to redraw borders by force and reintroduce the threat of nuclear war. Moreover, many countries today have massive cyberwarfare capabilities that enable them to damage each other’s critical infrastructure – from electricity and water supplies to health and emergency services. An international arms race is inevitable.
The West’s response to Russia’s invasion has included freezing the Russian central bank’s assets, barring Russian banks from the SWIFT international financial messaging system, revoking Russia’s “most-favored nation” trade status, banning exports of technology to Russia, and much more. Together, these measures are likely to change the global financial landscape and the future of globalization. And in the longer run, they will induce Russia, China, and affiliated countries to develop alternative systems.
The war, and the pandemic before it, has also exposed the fragility of global supply chains. In the future, governments around the world will seek supply-chain resilience through greater diversification of sources and greater self-sufficiency. As more countries pursue incompatible political goals, the world economy will become more balkanized.
There will also be a major push for energy security. This will involve major economic disruptions, as it implies accelerating the transition to renewable energy sources in some energy-importing countries and promoting nuclear energy in others. Likewise, the quest for food security – currently threatened by the Ukraine war’s impact on supplies of grain and fertilizer – could lead to damaging beggar-thy-neighbor policies.
With the peace dividend vanishing and globalization partly reversing, the world has come to a crossroads. On one hand, there is what may be called the Great Unraveling: deglobalization, the collapse of global collective action, resurgent nationalism, environmental collapse, and the danger of large-scale wars, including one in which nuclear weapons are deployed. On the other hand, the current political crisis might mobilize a transnational collective spirit that could be harnessed for a new form of peaceful progress.
Is the “other hand” possible? At the drop of a hat, the Ukraine invasion has induced governments, with widespread popular approval, to set aside their narrow self-interests for the sake of collective action. The UN General Assembly Resolution condemning Russia’s invasion was supported by 141 countries. The challenge now is to mobilize this spirit in the interests of global problem-solving.
Countries must rise to this challenge at the G20, the G7, the United Nations, and other international forums. There simply is no alternative if we are going to address crises such as pandemics and climate change, along with the many other threats waiting in the wings: biodiversity loss, financial instability, antimicrobial resistance, water and food insecurity, digital disruption and manipulation, and so forth.
Building a new, benign world order requires reconfiguring the three pillars of peaceful progress, starting with new initiatives to maintain the international anti-war norm. Though we have entered an age of heightened geopolitical tensions, the sudden revival of nuclear, chemical, and biological warfare risks should be enough to convince all parties that threat containment is vital to their own interests. The Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons needs to be strengthened and broadened. Conventions banning chemical and biological weapons need to be made all-encompassing and verifiable. The Geneva Conventions establishing the rules of war need to be extended to cyberwarfare.
Moreover, the rules governing economic globalization need reform. Currently, global value chains are built largely for the sake of profit maximization. Though efforts to boost supply-chain resilience are already underway, there is little indication that they will make trade more environmentally or socially sustainable. To account for the social and environmental implications of trade (both within and across global value chains), businesses and governments should be required to report on their social and environmental impact, and trade rules should be reformed on the basis of these metrics.
Finally, we need a new multilateralism that highlights the complementarity between national and global objectives, so that we can seize on win-win (positive-sum) opportunities in the economic, social, and environmental domains. The resulting multilateral agreements should spread the gains from multilateral coordination so that all participating countries benefit.
Recognizing that such multilateral agreements will be particularly difficult to achieve in this period of conflict, leaders can start by assembling “coalitions of the willing.” A good example is Germany’s G7 proposal for a “global climate club” to accelerate the implementation of the Paris climate agreement.
The dangers of pursuing national self-interest in the face of global problems should be obvious. To avert the Great Unraveling, we must rebuild the foundation for peace and sustainable prosperity in a beautiful but fragile world.
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2022
a global affairs media network
Rebuilding the Foundation for Peaceful Progress
Image via Adobe Stock.
March 25, 2022
Russia's war in Ukraine has upended the world's "peaceful progress regime," and a new, more resilient way of encouraging collective action for the global good is necessary to face tomorrow's challenges, writes Global Solutions Initiative President Dennis Snower.
R
ussia’s war in Ukraine has upended what one might call the world’s “peaceful progress regime.” It was a regime with three ingredients: globalization, which generates material prosperity worldwide; global collective action to address the negative effects of economic growth, not least rising inequality and climate change; and, perhaps most fundamentally, the absence of war.
These components were mutually reinforcing. According to the conventional wisdom, globalization – along with the existence of nuclear weapons and the deterrent effect of mutual assured destruction – made war increasingly untenable, and global collective action made globalization socially and environmentally acceptable.
This regime has now been fatally undermined by Russian President Vladimir Putin’s determination to redraw borders by force and reintroduce the threat of nuclear war. Moreover, many countries today have massive cyberwarfare capabilities that enable them to damage each other’s critical infrastructure – from electricity and water supplies to health and emergency services. An international arms race is inevitable.
The West’s response to Russia’s invasion has included freezing the Russian central bank’s assets, barring Russian banks from the SWIFT international financial messaging system, revoking Russia’s “most-favored nation” trade status, banning exports of technology to Russia, and much more. Together, these measures are likely to change the global financial landscape and the future of globalization. And in the longer run, they will induce Russia, China, and affiliated countries to develop alternative systems.
The war, and the pandemic before it, has also exposed the fragility of global supply chains. In the future, governments around the world will seek supply-chain resilience through greater diversification of sources and greater self-sufficiency. As more countries pursue incompatible political goals, the world economy will become more balkanized.
There will also be a major push for energy security. This will involve major economic disruptions, as it implies accelerating the transition to renewable energy sources in some energy-importing countries and promoting nuclear energy in others. Likewise, the quest for food security – currently threatened by the Ukraine war’s impact on supplies of grain and fertilizer – could lead to damaging beggar-thy-neighbor policies.
With the peace dividend vanishing and globalization partly reversing, the world has come to a crossroads. On one hand, there is what may be called the Great Unraveling: deglobalization, the collapse of global collective action, resurgent nationalism, environmental collapse, and the danger of large-scale wars, including one in which nuclear weapons are deployed. On the other hand, the current political crisis might mobilize a transnational collective spirit that could be harnessed for a new form of peaceful progress.
Is the “other hand” possible? At the drop of a hat, the Ukraine invasion has induced governments, with widespread popular approval, to set aside their narrow self-interests for the sake of collective action. The UN General Assembly Resolution condemning Russia’s invasion was supported by 141 countries. The challenge now is to mobilize this spirit in the interests of global problem-solving.
Countries must rise to this challenge at the G20, the G7, the United Nations, and other international forums. There simply is no alternative if we are going to address crises such as pandemics and climate change, along with the many other threats waiting in the wings: biodiversity loss, financial instability, antimicrobial resistance, water and food insecurity, digital disruption and manipulation, and so forth.
Building a new, benign world order requires reconfiguring the three pillars of peaceful progress, starting with new initiatives to maintain the international anti-war norm. Though we have entered an age of heightened geopolitical tensions, the sudden revival of nuclear, chemical, and biological warfare risks should be enough to convince all parties that threat containment is vital to their own interests. The Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons needs to be strengthened and broadened. Conventions banning chemical and biological weapons need to be made all-encompassing and verifiable. The Geneva Conventions establishing the rules of war need to be extended to cyberwarfare.
Moreover, the rules governing economic globalization need reform. Currently, global value chains are built largely for the sake of profit maximization. Though efforts to boost supply-chain resilience are already underway, there is little indication that they will make trade more environmentally or socially sustainable. To account for the social and environmental implications of trade (both within and across global value chains), businesses and governments should be required to report on their social and environmental impact, and trade rules should be reformed on the basis of these metrics.
Finally, we need a new multilateralism that highlights the complementarity between national and global objectives, so that we can seize on win-win (positive-sum) opportunities in the economic, social, and environmental domains. The resulting multilateral agreements should spread the gains from multilateral coordination so that all participating countries benefit.
Recognizing that such multilateral agreements will be particularly difficult to achieve in this period of conflict, leaders can start by assembling “coalitions of the willing.” A good example is Germany’s G7 proposal for a “global climate club” to accelerate the implementation of the Paris climate agreement.
The dangers of pursuing national self-interest in the face of global problems should be obvious. To avert the Great Unraveling, we must rebuild the foundation for peace and sustainable prosperity in a beautiful but fragile world.
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2022
