Context-
The Summit of the Future raised critical questions about global governance, primarily focusing on two issues: should the emphasis be on great power competition, or should global governance address the growing imbalance in global institutions and the inequality between nations? While the former focuses on the means of power and competition, the latter delves into more profound questions of justice, fairness, and the equitable distribution of global power.
Global goals, while significant, do not resolve the fundamental challenges that nations face; rather, they serve as mechanisms for fostering new forms of cooperation. At the Summit, notable initiatives such as the Global Digital Impact Initiative and the Declaration on Future Generations were launched to inspire national action. Concrete steps included the formation of an International Scientific Panel and a Global Dialogue on Artificial Intelligence (AI), which mirror the early stages of climate change discussions that took place decades ago.
However, the issue of climate change has now been reduced to debates about adaptation finance and incorporating sustainability into GDP metrics. Even with these initiatives, developed nations continue to hold significant sway over the global agenda, limiting the influence of developing nations.
Missed Opportunities in Institutional Reform
Despite the urgent need for reform in global governance, particularly within the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), the Summit did not agree on a clear path forward. Discussions around introducing new categories of UNSC members remained unresolved, reflecting a broader inability to address structural reforms.
Similarly, reform in global financial institutions was disappointing. The Summit produced a vague pledge to increase the influence of developing countries in decision-making processes, particularly in sovereign debt review. However, the concerns of developing nations, which are crucial for ensuring global equity, were largely overlooked.
The G-7 and the Question of Global Power
A key issue arising from the Summit is the definition of the G-7. Should this group be viewed as a coalition of victors from World War II, or as a gathering of former colonial powers that continue to dominate global governance? When the U.S. established the G-7 in 1973, it was designed to set the global agenda in a way that sidelined developing countries.
During the Cold War, the tension between Western capitalism and Soviet communism allowed former colonies—now the world’s poorest nations—more room for maneuvering. Yet, despite reshaping the world’s political geography, these countries remained at the bottom of the global economic and geopolitical hierarchy, a position that persists today.
Global Imbalances Reflected in the UN
The global imbalance of power is clearly reflected in United Nations (UN) institutions. Recent UN figures show that only 17% of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are on track. Developing countries collectively hold $29 trillion in public debt, with $847 billion in net interest payments. Additionally, these countries experienced a negative net resource transfer in 2022, exacerbating their economic struggles.
Global financial imbalances were further highlighted by the failure of the G-20 finance leaders to agree on whether the UN or the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is the appropriate forum to advance international tax cooperation.
The Rise of China and India: A Shift in Global Power
Real change began in 2009 with the re-emergence of China and India as global powers, particularly through their participation in the BRICS grouping. However, the global power dynamics remain deeply influenced by historical imbalances that stem from colonialism. For instance, in 1950, the U.S. consumed 40% of the world’s natural resources and used its hegemonic power to establish multilateral institutions.
Changing Global Power Dynamics
By 1970, following the reconstruction of Europe, the U.S. share of resource consumption had fallen to 26%, and multilateralism had evolved into a system of treaties with the authority to impact national policies. By 2010, the G-7 still maintained significant global influence, but Asia’s share of global resource use had grown to 50%.
Despite the growing influence of the Global South, these countries still lack the ability to set the global agenda. For example, South Africa had to file a case in 2023 to clarify its obligations under the international climate regime, highlighting the shortcomings of the current system of global governance.
Changing in Energy and Resource Consumption
Historical Energy Consumption Trends
The historical evolution of global energy consumption offers a clear illustration of shifting power dynamics. In 1800, Asia consumed more energy than the rest of the world combined. By 1850, its consumption matched that of the West. In 1950, however, the West’s energy consumption had tripled that of the rest of the world. By 2000, the balance had shifted again, with the West consuming roughly the same amount of energy as the rest of the world.
Technological Parity and the Role of China and India
In terms of technology and endogenous capacity, the imbalance remains severe. China and India are outliers, as they have become global leaders in specific areas. However, despite these advancements, the gap between developed and developing nations in terms of technological capacity remains vast.
Nevertheless, the global trend is moving toward a more balanced world. In 2000, 4.6 billion people lived in countries whose combined GDP was just 20% of the GDP of the 755 million people living in the G-7 nations. By 2016, this gap had narrowed considerably, with the GDP of 17 developing nations rising to 63% of the G-7’s GDP.
Rethinking Progress: GDP and Well-being
One of the key takeaways from the Summit is that traditional measures of economic performance, such as GDP, do not adequately capture the well-being of societies. GDP primarily focuses on monetary metrics, neglecting broader indicators of quality of life. The Summit proposed linking GDP to sustainability by incorporating non-monetary factors such as infrastructure, access to education, healthcare, affordable energy, and drinking water.
A Broader Understanding of Prosperity
This shift toward measuring comparable levels of well-being across nations is long overdue. A broader understanding of prosperity that includes non-economic factors is essential for addressing global inequality and improving living standards, particularly in urban areas.
The Role of Developing Countries in the UN
Procedural Openness and Expert Governance
One of the most significant lessons from the Summit is that developing countries have yet to fully exploit the opportunities presented by the UN system. While the international political process is open in procedural terms, it is heavily influenced by consensual science developed by "official experts." This expert-driven process shapes the way global challenges, such as AI governance and GDP modification, are framed and addressed.
Experts often define problems and solutions in ways that reflect the interests of the developed world, limiting the ability of developing nations to influence the global agenda. As global power continues to shift toward Asia, it is essential that countries like China and India participate more deeply in expert bodies that govern critical issues like AI and sustainability.
The Summit of the Future may not have provided clear solutions to the deep imbalances in global governance, but it underscored the need for progress in how the world measures development and well-being. The focus must shift from merely acknowledging global inequalities to actively creating pathways for developing countries to play a greater role in shaping the global agenda.
As the foundations of global power continue to shift toward the Global South, there is a growing opportunity to create a more equal and just world order. Developing nations must seize the opportunities within the UN system and other global institutions to ensure their voices are heard and their interests are represented in the decisions that will shape the future of global governance.
|
Probable Questions for UPSC Mains Exam- 1. How does the Summit of the Future highlight the limitations of global governance in addressing inequalities between developed and developing nations, and what reforms are necessary to ensure greater participation of the Global South in setting the global agenda? (10 Marks, 150 Words) 2. Discuss the role of GDP as a measure of economic performance and the need for broader indicators of well-being that include sustainability and social factors. How can these new metrics help bridge global inequality? (15 Marks, 250 Words) |
Source- The Hindu
