Global Governance

Last week I quoted the National Intelligence Council’s Global Trends Report, an analysis and forecast of the international political economy in 2025 and how future changes will affect American interests.  Although we are both in agreement that a global government system will arise, we have two drastically different ideas of how a more powerful UN or IMF will take shape.

The Global Trends Report predicts that worldwide governance will naturally form as a result of the Financial Crisis:

The crisis has increased calls for a new “Bretton Woods” to better regulate the global economy.  World leaders, however, will be challenged to renovate the IMF and devise a globally transparent and effective set of rules that apply to differing capitalisms and levels of financial institutional development.  Failure to construct a new all-embracing architecture could lead countries to seek security through competitive monetary policies and new investment barriers, increasing the potential for market segmentation.

While calls for global unity are optimistic, the market segmentation situation is unfortunately more realistic.  Even though the world desperately needs to adjust and adapt to a new global economy, existing powers will never willingly cede authority to a worldwide government.

On the other hand, my intuition tells me that the UN’s reach will grow as traditional economic interests cross boarders and as individual national governments refuse to assume the responsibility of acting as enforcer.  As conglomerates’ benefits no longer belong to one country, their stakeholders will seek international protection in larger venues.  This is how the transition will play out:

The Global Trends Report correctly suggests that with BRIC nations’ enduring economic growth, power will spread more diversely than it currently is.  “[T]he multiplicity of influential actors and distrust of vast power means less room for the US to call the shots without the support of strong partnerships.”  While the US will still remain a superpower, its strongman grasp over global affairs will diminish.  But, the report also importantly states, “Despite the recent rise in anti-Americanism, the US probably will continue to be seen as a much-needed regional balancer in the Middle East and Asia.”  So how can the two contradictory statements possibly be realized?

Current global institutions.

Calls for American intervention come when travesties occur in places like Darfur or Libya (surprisingly these calls came from the political left) or when preventative measure could be sought in Iran or North Korea.  But what happens the next time the US unfashionably wants to invade an Iraq?  Brittan won’t publicly endorse another unpopular war.  It cost Tony Blair his career.  Sooner rather than later, the US or, more precisely, powerful lobbyists will want to promote some undesirable agenda.  To avoid bad press, they’ll pass the responsibility onto someone else – a logical scapegoat with an image of objectivity and a worldwide reach is the UN.  The IMF already does the dirty work for US and European banks.  We also saw France’s success in the Libya situation, gaining international military support through UN outlets.  These precedents suggest that when facing impossible politically but “necessary economically” situations, the UN will assume these responsibilities as a convenient mask for the true powers behind the curtains.  So while the National Intelligence Council hopes for a noble rise to correct market failures, special interests will prevail.

Global Governance