- Institutions like the WTO have become cartelised because of their voting system that always favours powerful economics and imposes unfair strictures upon the developing world.
- The resulting disenchantment with formal multilateralism has led to the parallel pursuit of bilateral deals restricted to compatible or geographically imminent countries.
- The dominant western countries must not impose its ‘one size fits all model’ upon the whole world.
- The very models of development and growth propounded by the western countries form the basis for liberal international order and multilateralism.
- India being a major aspiring power in the world, must actively engage in reviving a healthy global order based on the liberal multilateral institutional framework.
As the world heads towards a neo-hegemonic phase dominated by China and the USA, it becomes imperative for us to understand and analyse the future of multilateralism. In contemporary times, the prominent multilateral institutions in the world are gradually losing their significance and relevance, like the United Nations. Inaction by the international institutions, growing discontent for international liberal order, lack of faith in dispute resolution mechanisms of international institutions and the dwindling relativism of International morality are some of the reasons for the decline in the culture of multilateralism in the world.
A discussion in the international sphere, especially amongst the European and American powers is taking place with regards to the future that lies in the multilateral institutions. This is happening because of a reversal trend of multilateralism. Due to several infringements and pressure points emerging between Russia, the European Union, China and the USA, the foreign policy and diplomatic strategy of these countries have become quite assertive and aggressive in nature.
With Russia eyeing to expand its sphere of influence in the Central Asian region, China’s ambition to become the next superpower in the world, the USA trying to retain its status as a leading global power and, Europe caught up in the web of its Geopolitical complexities confronting the desires and ambitions of the US, Russia and China triad, the Indian Subcontinent, Africa, middle east and East Asia have become in many ways the pawns in the game played by this hegemonic triad. This is leading to several deadlocks and roadblocks in the international order.
Discontent with multilateralism today
Institutions like the WTO (World Trade Organization) have become cartelised because of their voting system that always favours powerful economics and imposes unfair strictures upon the developing world. Even though new multilateral frameworks such as G20 and G7 have been able to bring up some stability in addressing the concerns and issues of geopolitics and geo-economics, a concrete legal and institutional framework is yet to be developed. The multilateral system is now under stress, its core goals and values are being challenged in a variety of quarters. The political discontent with multilateralism in several developed western countries such as the USA, UK and France can be attributed to the failure of global governance in the post-Bretton Woods system to prevent the issues of slow growth rate, massive underdevelopment, rising inequality, falling labour force participation, rising migration, social fragmentation and job insecurity associated with the process of globalization and rapid automation.
Since the past two to three decades, it has been largely acknowledged by several major countries that the existing multilateral system needs to be reformed due to swift changes in the economic, demographic and political significance and relevance of developed and emerging economies. Political rigidities in multilateral organizations charged with overseeing economic globalization – such as the IMF, World Bank, UN, WTO and others – have prevented adequate reform.
It is high time for India to bring about a paradigm shift in its foreign policy to successfully address the global concerns and issues of multilateralism.
The resulting disenchantment with formal multilateralism has led to the consideration of several alternatives, such as the parallel pursuit of bilateral deals or cooperation that is restricted to compatible or geographically imminent countries. Most of these alternatives have little chance of completely overhauling and restructuring multilateralism, however, the globalized world facing global confrontations requires an open, rules-based international order to make sure that the system works fairly for all nations and people. What is needed is to find the right balance between true multilateralism, defined as universal rules of the game, supported by numerous plurilateral agreements that permit greater flexibility to move an agenda forward when universal consensus cannot, or need not, be achieved.
The challenge is to design a set of legitimate, widely agreed general rules of engagement and negotiations, administered with impartiality by the representative and accountable arbiter institutions, such that all nations:
(1) refrain from harming others by not executing economic apartheid policies that empower one country at the cost of the other
(2) finding internal resolutions for cross-border spillages of an economic crisis that might adversely impact a foreign nation,
(3) find avenues for cooperation and improvement of relations based on common and shared values
(4) Improving cooperation in the provision of global public goods,
(5) promoting the global economic growth and development, and
(6) tackle the inherent global problems while retaining ample flexibility to accommodate a wide range of possibly divergent domestic policies, economic models, and paths of development.
Understanding India’s role
Even before Independence, India played a very important role in promoting multilateralism; India was amongst the founding members of the UN (United Nations) and supported all the global initiatives taken for establishing a new multilateral world order post World War 2. India played an active role in the initiatives like de-colonization, non-discrimination on racial and class distinctions, support of the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa, women empowerment agenda, promotion of gender equality and in the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the UN Human Rights Commission. It’s interesting to note that Mrs Hansa Jivraj Mehta, who was the Indian delegate on the UN Human Rights Commission, was responsible for changing the language of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights from “all men are created equal” to “all human beings are created equal”, highlighting the need for gender equality.
The foundations of western philosophy stress rationalism, methodological individualism, and Judeo-Christian values are not compatible with the eastern and Indic philosophical frameworks, which are based on dharmic values.
But as the times evolved and changed giving rise to cold war politics, India initially tried to remain non-aligned from both the Soviet and the American camps, but eventually was sitting in the Soviet Camp by the late 1960s due to its strategic and geopolitical compulsions. With the decline and fall of the Soviet Union and the liberalisation of India’s economy in the 1990s, India was ready to surge ahead with initiating and actively participating in several multilateral forums. With an active role in the G20 initiative and by navigating through several challenges in BRICS and SCO, India’s participation in the multilateral sphere has been successful. Despite this success, India is unable to achieve any strategic milestones that would aid us in furthering our national interests. The very models of development and growth propounded by the western countries form the basis for liberal international order and multilateralism. The foundations of western philosophy stress rationalism, methodological individualism, and Judeo-Christian values are not compatible with the eastern and Indic philosophical frameworks, which are based on dharmic values.
Shortcomings of the Multilateral institutions
The Chinese, Japanese and South-East Asian models and approaches to development and international engagement are also quite different from the western model. The dominant western countries must not impose its ‘one size fits all model’ upon the whole world. Recognising the shortcomings of the multilateral institutions on the economic front, the global economic commune has more or less accepted the view that the western models are not suitable as a universal standard. India too has not been able to conceptualise its goals and contribute to the process of restructuring multilateral institutions. There are several gaps between the conceptualisation and implementation of the policy goals, followed by, a lack of specialised intellectual human capacity in foreign affairs, lack of focused negotiators on the ground, lack of priority of resource allocation and a clear lack of leadership in the multilateral institutions. It’s quite disappointing to know that several norms and rules are being put in place where India would have no role in the framing of such rules or norms. Later lamenting of its universal applicability which would not serve India’s interest would be wasted efforts.
Most of these issues are a part of an internal lack of clarity on the doctrine of Indian foreign policy and the lack of discipline in the institutional structures and framework of external affairs. It’s high time for India to bring about a paradigm shift in its foreign policy to successfully address the global concerns and issues of multilateralism. India being a major aspiring power in the world, must actively engage in reviving a healthy global order based on the liberal multilateral institutional framework. If India doesn’t show interest in promoting multilateralism, there is every chance that it could get fragmented and eventually stagnate itself in silos.
(The author has a MA in political science and international relations. The views and opinions expressed are the author’s own)
Viswapramod is a PhD Scholar at the Department of International Studies and Political Science, Christ University, Bangalore. He has an MA in International Relations. Views expressed are the author’s own.
Aayush Pal 
Shobhil Shrivastava 
Dr. Niranjan B Poojar