In 2020, there will be no
commonly accepted normative base. Thus, there will be no genuine global
governance. Why is that? Global governance, essentially, is a reality in the
making; take, for example, the issue of security. Since the UN's 1994 Human
Development Report, security has become a global issue. While security
concerns intensify, its components mutually reinforce each other. The critical
impediment is that in addition to the realm of human and national security a
third one of global scale emerges. The latter encompasses for example scarcity of
resources, climate change or international terrorism.
While it could be expected that security concerns render global cooperation more
likely, the prevalence of national security interests in the midst of global
insecurity undermine the prospect of global governance. Here, the cause for
global governance gets normative. In 2020 even more so than today, the
abundance of problems on a global scale and the simultaneous lack of solutions
will cause a cognitive dissonance. Learning from psychology, the negative
consequences of such a state of mind can only be reduced if the conceptual approach
towards the problem and its solution changes. That change, however, is unlikely
to happen in favor of global governance.
Instead another antagonism is likely to unfold. Traditional organizations like
the UN will decrease in importance, while alternatives on the regional level of
the international system will continue to gain significance. Accordingly, as
opposed to economic globalization, the corresponding transformation in the
realm of security will create three relatively coherent regional entities:
North America, Europe and East Asia.
Global governance will
thereby retrograde into regional governance as a practical necessity at the
expense of global governance. The reason for that is that Germany, for example,
will only find its security-concerns satisfied alongside European integration.
In arcane opposition to the global competitors with whom there is no common
normative base, regional familiarities are more important than global accord.
Or take China and India; while not yet having acquired enough political power
to change the status quo decisively, they will have to overcome regional
animosities in order to succeed in global security-matters.
In 2020, the absence of a single organizing principle should be derived
from the myriad of competing control mechanisms. Stipulated by competing
normative approaches to the governance of national security and prevailing
transnational threats to security, regional governance is the obvious means. In
the ever more disaggregating realm of international relations there exists no
such thing as a grand logic that could rightfully postulate a measure of global
coherence. Acknowledging that would mean a crucial transition from programmatic
hubris to pragmatic temperance.
So far, any endeavor to establish a common set of universal norms and rules
will fail if it goes beyond an essentialist understanding of the alleged
commonalities. That is definitely not sufficient for global governance.
Security and global governance are intertwined, the one has to increase for the
other to originate. The higher the level of security, the more complex the
identity and the more inclusive the normative backup of our actions. And
that, against all odds, is a desirable objective.
Johannes Gunesch is studying for a Masters Degree in International Relations at Jacobs University Bremen
This article has been shortlisted for atlantic-community.org's "Global Governance in 2020" student competition.
Related materials from the Atlantic Community:
- Kyle Robert Coppin: Regional Organizations Will Gain New Powers
- Mansur Seddiqzai: Reining in the Nation State
- Tobias Weise: Global Governance in 2020: The Return of the State
- 0
