• Home
• /
• Opinion

The global order is more about common folk

Macron has described his ambition to establish a Davos for global governance.

At a time when multilateral and rules-based international cooperation is under intense pressure from growing nationalism and political short-sightedness, this week's Paris Peace Forum came as a welcome attempt at countering the zeitgeist and galvanising new faith in the simple idea that "international cooperation is key to tackling global challenges and ensuring durable peace."
Taking advantage of the mobilising power of the centenary of the end of World War I, French President Emmanuel Macron inaugurated the forum on November 11  together with more than 60 heads of state and government from across the globe as well as leaders from the United Nations, the World Trade Organisation, the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and UNESCO.
Notably, US President Donald Trump was not among the participants. As pointed out by Celia Belin, virtually everything about the Paris Peace Forum runs against the current US administration's sovereignty message, and its unilateralist and transactional approach to foreign policy. The opposition to these postures came through strongly, albeit diplomatically veiled, in the opening speeches by German Chancellor Angela Merkel and UN Secretary-General António Guterres. Their unapologetic defense of binding, institutionalised, multilateral cooperation as the only way to address the challenges of our time does not sit easily with politicians - left, right and centre - who are eager to "take back control" and place their own country "first."
Macron has described his ambition to establish a Davos for global governance. The Paris Peace Forum is, in its own words, "centered on those who seek to develop solutions for today's transborder challenges." It was an informal gathering that brought together like-minded actors from all spheres and levels of society. As such it reflected the move towards multistakeholderism that has shaped global discourses on everything from development, to climate change and internet governance in the past decade.
Applying this model to stimulate much needed debate on the interlinkages between peace and global governance seems only natural. Especially as it becomes increasingly clear that existing state-centric structures are unable to respond adequately to old and new transnational issues including climate change, extreme inequality, technological disruption, and persistent violent conflicts or humanitarian crises in places like Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Myanmar. Yet underneath the niceties of inclusion and the value of bringing in as many voices, perspectives, and resources as possible, multistakeholderism comes with its own downsides, which begs the question of whether the Paris Peace Forum is as much a part of the problem as it is of the solution.
To be clear, the problem does not lie with the inclusion of non-state stakeholders. There is nothing wrong with seeking to overcome the state-centrism that has hampered global governance and effectively marginalised or silenced the voices of ordinary people. The problem is if and when the noble aim of inclusion is pursued in a manner that twists the debate in favour of corporate interests and setting agendas. The Paris Peace Forum, however, did not distinguish. All were welcomed to contribute to solving the complex problems of peace and global governance.
Critical analyses of this phenomenon argue that multistakeholderism boils down to working with big corporations and professional NGOs and to substituting hard, rules-based regulations with soft law. Rarely does it give a stronger voice to "ordinary" people or the vulnerable.
The crisis of the rules-based order calls for fundamental reforms of the institutions and modi operandi of global governance. As we continue to grapple with this challenge, it seems equally pertinent and timely to revisit the relationship between the state, civil society, and the market in its current condition and ask whether the present balance is "fit for purpose" if we are to actually govern the globalised world we have created, or whether it is indeed time to take back control - only from the market rather than the multilateral system.
-IPI Global Observatory
Louise Riis Andersen is a senior researcher at the Danish Institute for International Studies