The bloc divide and the future of the UN – Analysis

The recently concluded 79th United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) has had little to no credible impact on increasingly severe global conflict scenarios, further hampered by the systemic and structural loopholes that limit the effectiveness and impact of the General Assembly (UNGA) have teased.

There are always convenient and popular opinions and arguments directed at the United Nations Security Council about its exclusive power distribution and power veto, which are alleged to create unfair global power distributions and solutions to global crises, with selected and targeted outcomes at the discretion of each permanent power. .

The time has come for a more impactful and effective UNGA, a departure from the normal role of exercising diplomatic, normative and dialogue-based domains of countries’ positions and contours.

Divided along geopolitical and ideological fault lines, the annual meeting was less effective, with too many mini-lateral and bilateral mechanisms operating simultaneously that further divided nations along ideological and economic baselines.

Regional and multilateral entities are also increasingly bloc-based, with the likes of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), the Eastern Economic Forum, the BRICS, the Indo Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) and other economic and trade-based organizations aiming to consolidate influence and increase friend-hearing. capabilities in their power competition.

The rise of so-called multilateralism and minilateralism in global politics would constitute a new influencing factor, led by state actors as main players, in the return to the conflict arena mainly based on high-intensity state-led conflicts that last have been seen during the Cold War.

The equal rise of non-state actors in this new power equation challenged this idea.

The emergence of the role of private industries and participation in the new economic and trade transition in terms of volumes, capital, technological expansion and progress and historical connection has been used by states as both an enabling and complementary role, and as a fallback option in their policies. power objectives.

These roles have also challenged both the limits and potential of states in flexing their ultimate regional and global incentives.

Initiatives such as the Blue Dot Network and the rise of digital and technological giants in the development of the digital economy and new crucial sectors, including the semiconductor industry, fintech and in the energy and technology transition, all created a new mix of the convolution of state and non-state interests, where corporatism and a profit-driven agenda have been both positive and counterproductive tools for states and private industries, and vice versa.

Many international conglomerates and corporations and multinational corporations (MNCs) whose profits exceed the GDPs of the least developed countries are now expected to expand their roles beyond profits alone. This is where the renewed focus on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG), Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) and Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) is now being rechanneled to the private sector for a more holistic synergy of private-public initiatives in promoting sustainability and resilience in common practices.

The responsibilities and roles in managing current and future global issues and challenges now no longer lie solely in the hands of state actors. The carbon impact and sustainability agenda, food security and supply chain, clean energy transition and diplomatic overtures and global normative stability are now no longer necessarily limited to the primary responsibilities of states, and that these international and transnational corporations and global institutions are now ready to these roles will be fulfilled to a greater extent by state actors.

What remains now about the role of state actors in the global balance of power and the effectiveness of the UNGA?

Without binding resolutions, states are not faced with obligations to adhere to declarations or decisions, and the UNGA remains the domain to exert diplomatic and normative pressure as a global voice.

At most, the UNGA can only function as moral support and legitimacy in a humanist symbol, but realism and practical realism dictate that the true power of change lies in key powers and players directly involved in crises, and this is where the UN Security Council still holds the key. and that the immediate superpowers involved still remain the most important game changers.

Although the new focus is now on engaging social power and the increased presence and influence of non-state actors, primarily the private entities, state-led initiatives and the overall power impact of states, still constitute the main driving force behind global peace and peace. progress.

Only states have the power to dictate important global norms and policies, prevent wars and conflicts, or start a major war.

Non-traditional threats and the role of non-state rogue states have now been largely compressed during the more than two decades of war on terror and concerted efforts to combat transnational crime and syndicates, although pockets of resistance still exist.

The greater threats from the coming global tensions and risks remain state-driven, with nuclear risks being the most concerning, while conventional deterrence and conventional warfare are now losing their efficacy and power.

New bloc-based entities, both defense and economic, torn between both blocs with the Western-led Pacific Deterrence Initiative, IPEF, AUKUS, Quad, Five Eyes Intelligence, the Squad and the growing ties and axis Moscow -Beijing-Pyongyang and Other non-Western alliances and mechanisms such as BRICS, Global South, SCO, RCEP and others have further divided the world and consolidated each other’s friend-hearing capabilities.

The sometimes conflicting roles and objectives of the G77, G20 and G7, as well as the declining influence of climate-based initiatives, further highlighted the increasing influence and power of national interests and power dictates based on great power projections and legitimacy based on power rankings. National interests take precedence over greater global or regional stability, and crises are now increasingly driven by a desire for power.

This has also further weakened the role of the UNGA, but even within these bloc-based entities, internal cracks and divisions have also become visible.

In global politics, where power is right increasingly determines the direction of global affairs; the most vulnerable face the greatest risks, and the powerful will seek to expand friendships, build alliances, and consolidate power. The weaker and vulnerable will seek to align themselves with existing and proven mechanisms of power capacity and deterrence, aligning themselves with the higher power to ensure their own survival and protection.

Sweden and Finland joined NATO because of these vulnerabilities.

Crises and conflicts around the world, from East Asia to the Middle East and West Asia, also exposed the lack of credible, sustained and unified responses among regional players themselves, as well as other actors affected directly or indirectly by these conflicts are affected.

These reflect the broader context of how nations continue to calculate their power returns and national interests in a calculated manner based on careful prospective considerations and calculations of consequences, adverse implications and strategic maneuvering of policies and responses vis-à-vis both the greater powers and the future survival of their own power and security status.

What remains most important for now is adherence to the global rules-based order and normative standards of peace and stability, respecting international law and the rule of law, and respect for the sanctity of freedom and democracy and the principles of sovereignty and the territorial integrity of states have been the main pillars of global peace and order for more than seventy years since the end of the Second World War.