In geopolitics, there have been recent bouts of optimism: from Chinese President Xi Jinping and his US counterpart Joe Biden’s meeting during the G20, to visits by German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and European Council chief Charles Michel to Beijing, to the staging of the Qatar World Cup — that have helped project a sense of unity.
But to what extent are these events proof of a global awakening to the wholly unproductive and even destructive nature of the ways in which ideological differences and issues of economic competition, principally between the West and China, have played out. Are these the first steps to a renewed faith in the need for concrete multilateral cooperation? The reality is that we over the last decade have witnessed a decline in high level geopolitical dialogue across ideological divides; and when dialogue did occur, it was remarkably superficial.
But this was not always the case. Other than eradicating smallpox around the world, multilateral cooperation has also seen success via the Montreal Protocol, which managed to reverse the destruction of the Earth’s ozone layer. And in parts of the world like the member states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, diplomacy rather than threats and sanctions has maintained the peace for over 50 years, with member states focusing on peace, stability and building prosperity. These accomplishments serve as a gold standard for international cooperation and proof that even states with disparate interests can unite in the face of threats. In a similar vein, negotiations between Margaret Thatcher and Zhao Ziyang in the 1980s over the handover of Hong Kong further indicate that high-level dialogue can reach successful conclusions, even when these conclusions don’t favor the old world order or the interests of the Western world as we know it.
More broadly, efforts to normalize geopolitics need to start with the proliferation of platforms that enable balanced dialogue to take place. Such platforms should aim to move dialogue away from contested geopolitical issues, and instead focus it on the development needs of nationstates and common values shared across geopolitical and cultural divides …
However, these examples all took place before the turn of the millennium. Yet the world now faces existential threats that are more imminent than ever.
Challenges such as the Russia-Ukraine crisis and the coronavirus pandemic are underscored — in a world with eight billion people — by deeper global inequities fueled by climate change, food insecurity, unequal access to resources, and poverty. Individually, these challenges serve as major obstacles to human progress and the search for equity by the disenfranchised global majority living in the so-called developing world. Collectively, they serve as existential threats to humanity and require a concerted global effort to address them.
Thus, whether it be through interregional or intraregional cooperation, the need for a return to era-defining negotiations and nuanced, productive geopolitical dialogue is a pressing one. Big powers have an obligation to the global community to work toward collaboration because too high a price has been paid for entrenched positions which belong to another era, which have obstructed the way toward fostering global peace and stability.
In stark contrast to the required level of urgency, the largest multilateral structures are caught up in these geopolitical tussles and — given their historical origins — are often tethered to and abide by the ideological positions of the West. Even those who advocate for global stability have been critiqued for pushing the agendas of the West or inappropriately directing capital to meet their ideologically driven mandates. Thus, it can be argued that the very organizations established for international collaboration are not achieving their function: One need look no further than the string of Conference of the Parties summits, which typically propose big changes often driven by the agendas of the West and struggle to achieve any real action as there is no real global buy-in.
There are continual arguments to explain this trend, which often collapse into debates about ideology, rather than seeking alignment around common values and solutions. The Western world and its allies often point to China and Russia as uncooperative actors who needlessly advance hostilities to drum up support for their domestic agendas. In response, China points to restrictive trade policies and arbitrary measures that seek to deter the growth of Chinese economic enterprises and China’s growing international influence.
Ultimately, these perspectives are unhelpful for geopolitical rivals which need — for the sake of the global majority — to overcome their ideological and cultural differences and accept differing viewpoints.
Indeed, as political leaders and commentators worldwide, especially those in the mainstream media, have become firmer in their convictions of a static worldview, room for competing viewpoints and visions of the global order have shrunk. Now, even identifying parties willing to engage in productive dialogue — let alone initiate such dialogue — has become challenging. While engaging in high-level dialogue is clearly not sufficient nor the panacea to remedy the suspicion and paranoia that characterize high-level geopolitical exchanges, the solutions needed to break the current deadlock can only be implemented following the resumption of high quality, balanced conservations.
However, the urgent necessity for global dialogue has not gone unnoticed by all. In particular, Olaf Scholz’s recent op-ed in the Foreign Affairs magazine warning against “isolating Beijing or curbing cooperation” has been used by many to highlight a keen faction among Western intellectuals that seeks a cooperative resolution to the world’s most pressing problems. When broadening one’s scope beyond the Western world, one easily notices that Scholz is not alone in stressing the importance of global dialogue. The global community can also look toward Indonesia’s President Joko Widodo, who has moved to broaden Indonesia’s international profile in an era when governments have succumbed to renewed nationalistic sentiment. In addition, those who fear the sidelining of domestic agendas for lofty multilateral goals can look towards ASEAN’s highly successful “solidarist internationalism” as a model for engaging the global community in productive ways. However, the backlash from Scholz’s comments shows that the voices in the loud minority are too adept at drowning out more reasonable ones and advancing jingoistic narratives.
More broadly, efforts to normalize geopolitics need to start with the proliferation of platforms that enable balanced dialogue to take place. Such platforms should aim to move dialogue away from contested geopolitical issues, and instead focus it on the development needs of nation-states and common values shared across geopolitical and cultural divides, such as a desire for stability and prosperity, as well as a growing concern for problems such as food security, climate change and extreme poverty.
Admittedly, the long road ahead is paved with many challenges. However, by facilitating productive discussions, these platforms will mark the beginnings of a renewed trust between nation-states and facilitate the transition into a new world order where collaboration is far more complex than that between the West and the rest. With time, more polarizing geopolitical issues can also be addressed through similar dialogue.
The author is the founder and CEO of the pan-Asia think thank Global Institute for Tomorrow.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.