The international system has changed in a dizzying way over the last three decades, since the end of the Cold War. Geo-strategic relations and global geopolitics have been reconfigured. Currently, as we near the end of the second decade of the twenty-first century, strategic global restructuring is characterized by uncertainties, and a new balance in power relations between the main actors has yet to be achieved. Since the end of the Cold War, different events have changed the course of these relationships. The first of these were the acts of global terrorism that characterized 2001, with the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on 9/11. Subsequently, there was the failure of the wars waged in Iraq and Afghanistan. The departure of the majority of US troops did not leave most of these territories with adequate governance; on the contrary, conflicts are maintained, and in some cases, they have become more acute in recent years. The third significant process was the global financial crisis, detonated by the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers in 2008. Added to this is a fourth element, the sustained increase in military spending by the major global powers, coupled with the development of new weapons linked to Artificial Intelligence and robotics. Simultaneously, there was the rupture of bilateral agreements on missiles between the US and Russia and the formerās departure from the Multilateral Agreement on Nuclear Weapons with Iran. In the fifth place, we can highlight the growing role of global communications, particularly that of social networks, with a direct impact on the way global and national events are perceived. These perceptions are limiting the spaces for decision-making by leaders and political authorities at all levels. In addition, they affect and violate the conditions of the electoral process in different parts of the planet. In the sixth place, the emergence of substantive changes in political leadership in all regions of the world merits special mention; the advancement of different forms of populism in the West is destabilizing democratic political systems. Finally, in seventh place, are the debates around the basic definitions of global public goods, the role of multilateralism and the importance of cooperation, at the political, economic, social and cultural levels, which have become politicized and polarized.
One of the consequences of these profound changes is the significant crisis of multilateral systems, both on a global and regional scale. Multilateralism has been degraded and particularisms and sovereignty have increased. Visions with strong nationalist weight are defined as āpopulist.ā One of the main characteristics of these āpopulist visionsā is economic protectionism, with increasingly acute expressions in commercial disputes, which generate conflict situations way beyond the commercial, with an impact on finance and global political relations.
In the 30 years since the end of the Cold War, the number of State actors and international organizations has multiplied, as has the configuration of large networks of people (both on a domestic and global scale) through social networks. At present, some States occupy important places in the economic, financial, political and military spheres, which were neither recognized nor achieved during the Cold War period. However, from the standpoint of the formality of international institutions, little or nothing has changed. The proposed reforms within the United Nations Security Council, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund have not advanced. The only real change was the creation of the Group of Twenty (G20), but with little impact on the framework of global relations.
Global threats have increased. The risks to humanity are greater, due to the absence of effective actions to face traditional threats, the re-emergence of nuclear tensions, the emergence of new menaces such as climate change and transnational crime and the emergence of a new global economic-financial crisis. Faced with these situations, we assert that no State or international actor possesses the capacities or conditions to confront the new global challenges on its own. No State, through any unilateral action, can halt the advancement of climate change; no State has the conditions, resources or operational deployment capacity to confront transnational crime. International organizations can champion and work towards ensuring a better exercise of basic human rights and the protection of people, but only if basic consensus is reached in order to coordinate the policies generated by the main actors. Only cooperation will make it possible to face the challenges and risks that emerge from globalization and interdependence, in addition to the tendencies emanating from these global processes. Hence, international partnerships and cooperation are essential for delaying the serious impact of climate change, the emergence of sanitary catastrophes and to stop the advancement of transnational crime and the emergence of serious tensions between actors with a global impact.
The International System in the Midst of a Global Strategic Restructuring
Global power relations are taking on a new shape; they are heading towards a reconfiguration of geo-strategic character that has yet to define the new balance of power. A deep crisis in the multilateral system and its institutions is taking place, produced by the breakage of large multilateral agreements as well as by growing nationalist and āpopulistā visions.
These changes are evident not only in the political-military spheres, but also in the economic field. Protectionism is growing in various parts of the world, and with it, it becomes possible to perceive that we are on the verge of a new great global economic crisis and commercial war. It is necessary to reinforce preventive measures and to develop minimal trust in order to prevent grave consequences for all States and their citizens. However, the US unilateral politics have led to a rupture in basic trust between important international actors like the European Union and Russia, as well as several Asian and Latin American countries. European leaders have expressed their lack of confidence in strategic agreements with the US. These agreements have a profound impact on atomic threats, particularly those reached by the nuclear powers and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) with Iran.
China is consolidating its political and military presence in the āSea of Chinaā and has expressed its openness to free trade and global interdependency in the economic arena. In order to achieve these goals, China has developed the One Belt, One Road initiative (also known as the Belt and Road Initiative) as a strategy of global interdependence. On the other hand, its foreign policy has sought renewed forms of cooperation with countries from different continents. The opening and promotion of renewed ties with Japan represents a significant new global trend. We can also point to its new relations with countries of the Central American Isthmus and the deepening of cooperative relations within the African continent. Many of these actions generate fear in different sectors.
Russia has stabilized its system under Putinās rule and has demonstrated its military capacity, not just in local and regional wars, but also in the Middle East. The launching of last-generation missiles has evidenced its military capabilities. Its participation in the Syrian Civil War has been decisive in the change in the correlation of forces. All future negotiations on the future of Syria should take Russia into account.
Once again, this warāwhich continues seven years laterāhas demonstrated that military power is insufficient to change power relations and that essential political consensuses are required. In this sense, the main actors in Europeāincluding Russia and Chinaāin recognition of the grave humanitarian crisis of our time, have agreed that the solution will only be reached through political negotiations. It is here that the role of the United Nations will be critical in deciding whether this is successful, as it represents the only instance that enables fundamental legitimacy and transparency, while also allowing for the design of the actions necessary to reach a post-conflict stage, one that will be inevitably complex. A situation that has yet to escalate to a military confrontation but that requires a fundamental role on behalf of the United Nations is the one marked by tension and crisis in Venezuela.
India has achieved important economic growth in the last few years and is looking to position itself as an actor capable of influencing the direction of global events, placing a strong emphasis on commerce, technological exchange, and most importantly, on South-South Cooperation.
In this context, Africa is still divided by wars and domestic polarization, which have led to important migratory movements towards Europe and Latin America. In the case of Latin American migrants, they hope to reach the United States and Canada.
Organized crime and the violence it entails are manifested in practically every region of the planet. Organized crime has a direct impact on many civil conflicts, as well as in post-conflict processes. International cooperation is, in this case, fundamental. Without it, it will be impossible to halt and reduce the erosion that organized crime has produced on democratic governance, the Rule of Law and democracy.
Even though Latin America is considered an area of relative interstate peace, it is the region with the highest rates of inequality and violence in the world. Homicide rates throughout the region reach figures equivalent to those reported in many international wars and cases of deep civil conflicts. Of the 52 cities with the highest levels of violence in the world, 42 are located in Latin America and the Caribbean, with more than 21 of them in Brazil and a similarly high number in Mexico. Even in countries with long democratic traditions and standards, such as Costa Rica, organized crime has become a substantial threat, and has increased the homicide rate to double digits. Organized crime is undoubtedly the main threat to democracy and stability in the Latin American region.
The multilateral intra-regional dialogue in Latin America is experiencing its deepest crisis, as is highlighted by the paralysis plaguing the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) and the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC).
In this time of crisis, Latin American cooperation and coordination organizations are not alone; other important institutions are also in crisis. The BRIC (grouping that refers to Brazil, Russia, India and China) is in a similar situation and the G20 has not managed to find the right path towards changing current global actions. Multilateralism at the global level has not created options or offered solutions capable of resolving the lack of organization, uncertainty and difficulties created by a lack of basic coordination within the international system.
Globalization produces a new set of demands with regard to the State, especially with regard to the link between the State, markets and society. The political crisisāfuelled by populism and nationalismāhas been unable to provide answers to this complex relationship. This directly affects our vision of multilateralism, democracy, peacebuilding and people themselves. There is no holistic global project that allows for the defence of global public goods. This is evidenced by the United States pulling out of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, their rupture of the Atomic Agreement with Iran, their lack of participation in the Trans-Pacific and the long debates and negotiations around commerce, trade and their institutions. The growing discrepancies between the different States involved in the Middle East crisis, particularly Syria, Yemen and others, as well as growing tensions on the Palestine-Israeli border further aggravate the situation. The African context reflects a similar situation.
Under these conditions, achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) laid out in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development seems like a distant possibility, particularly due to the impact that uncertainty and disrespect have on International Law, as well as the actions and growing tensions at the expense of international cooperation.
States cooperate as a result of the opportunities and circumstances in which they interact. At the same time, these contexts are determined by global, regional and national plots. Similarly, random events generate unforeseen frameworks that can either open or eliminate opportunities. Authorities evaluate these crossroads and their respective spheres of action in order to determine whether they generate enough opportunities and advantages to make cooperation advantageous, or, on the contrary, whether it is preferable, based on their perceptions, to confront the position of the other actors involved. Self-interest, by its very definition, often tends to win out, to hold a greater weight, to become the main priority. These dynamics happen where global interests meet a more general framework of action, one where global and regional public goods should be prioritized simultaneously, although this is not necessarily the case. Establishing an adequate balance demands an important political vision and an essential will both locally and within the multilateral system.
Depending on the decisions and courses of action taken, a concatenation of forces and situations will be established, one where cooperative relations, values and the principles shared by the different actors are either strengthened or weakened. The coincidence of basic interests enables and allows for the confirmation of spaces and instruments for establishing and coordinating policies. On the contrary, differences in perceptions, or the non-acceptance of the way the interests of āothersā are expressed, make it difficult and sometimes impossible for the convergence of these processes. In short, they inhibit the establishment of spaces for cooperation.
Within multilateral spheres, the resource most often used to avoid the convergence of interests and foster the development of resolutionsābinding or notāis by means of the āvetoā resource by a decision-maker, as a āzero-sum game.ā It is therefore necessary to reflect on whether cooperation assists or complicates synergy. In what contexts does one have precedence over the actions of others? In which areas has cooperation been shown to be more likely to succeed? The road ahead in the face of global threats must promote greater and more effective multilateralism, one based on the fulfilment of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which constitutes a global initiative towards achieving peace and security, sustainable development and the protection of human rights, all while caring for the planet as a whole.
The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development was approved by Heads of State in 2015. It is a plan of action for overcoming the grave problems faced by humanity, on the basis of a global alliance that places collaboration as the axis for articulation. As previously stated, cooperation is the only option for facing climate change, pandemics, global financial crises or global-reach terrorism. This is why this universal plan of action proposes goals in 17 areas, expressed in each one of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), to be achieved by 2030.
In order to reach the proposed goals, people are placed at the center; in this way, human beings can develop their capacities within contexts of dignity and equality, all while advocating for a healthy environment. The latter means protecting the environment while fostering prosperity. As such, societies can be free from fear and violence in an inclusive and just manner. Without peace, sustainable development is not possible. Without sustainable development, stability and peace cannot be achieved. Development, peace, governability and democracy demand effective participation and inclusion. Development and the 2030 Agenda demand more multilateralism through a world alliance based on solidarity and cooperation.
As the United Nations has pointed out several times, there is no peace without development, and without development, there will be no peace or respect for human rights. Sustainable Development Goal number 16 is at the heart of this global objective, as it promotes peace on the basis of respect for justice and the construction of solid institutions, which are fundamental for a civilized, peaceful coexistence that promotes prosperity.
Risks are also expressed in increasingly more evident ways for the entire planet around the global crisis, making it even more difficult to generate effective preventive measures. We lack the mitigation capacities to resolve the pressing global issues. Climate change, financial crises, the impact of the information and communication revolutions are all increasingly complex matters that affect global stability and create more uncertainty at all levels.
The Fourth Industrial Revolution is expanding rapidly within the framework of globalization and interdependency. Robotics, biotechnology and Artificial Intelligence are radically changing production. Their effect on the global economy is evident not only within the current superpowers, but also within small countries. Job loss, as a result of robotics, is growing. In turn, the technological revolution is changing the way we produce, and with that, the job market itself. Many adults and senior citizens lack the skills to adapt to these vertiginous changes. In many places, yo...