new world architecture

8/6/2019 New World Architecture

1/3

1

Time for a New World Architecture

by

Dr. V. Antwi-Danso

The call for a new global architecturehas come in various forms, especially sincetheend ofthe Cold

War and has intensified as intra-statewars, war-lordism, religious and ethnic conflicts also escalates. Itis

becoming increasingly clear that the post-War global architecture put in place since 1945 has been

overtaken by theinevitabilities of global realities. That architecturewas structured on four main pillars,

within a state-centric mentality. The four pillars arethe United nations Organization (UNO) withthe

remit to basically ensure world peace and security, including equitable global development; the

International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD or the World Bank) withthe basic remit

of ensuring the reconstruction of war-torn Europe and the nurturing of development in developing

countries; the International Monetary Fund (IMF) whose remitwas to ensure the management of

global finances to avoid unbridled balance-of-payments (BOP) disequilibria, whose resolution throughcompetitive devaluation had engendered the beggar-thy-neighbour syndromethatin turn had triggered

the Great Depression of 1929-33; the International Trade Organization (ITO) whichwas meant to

ensurethattradewas regulated to avoid tradewars. Incidentally, this last could not be formed. At its

last meeting in Havana, Cuba, 1947, misunderstandings and thethreat ofthe US to walk away caused a

compromise channel to be created for trade negotiations the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade

(GATT-47). Gradually though, various Rounds of trade talks culminated in theestablishment of World

Trade Organization (WTO) December 1994, coming into effect, January 1, 1995. Effectively therefore,

the four main pillars for global governancehad been complete. These four pillars have propped the

global design in terms of security, finance and development, as well as trade. Indeed, global behaviour

and/or normativeethic have all emanated from, or been measured by, the yardsticks crafted by theseinter-governmental organizations. But as may be clearly seen, the structure, design, and

remits/purposes ofthe said organizations are state-centric. They have not been designed to cater for

non-state actors. Incidentally state behaviour invariably affects the behaviour of non-state actors. Mis-

governance, especially dictatorship, breeds activism in non-state actors. Most ofthe intractable intra-

statewars, especially on the African continent may be attributed to bad governance. In muchthe same

way, theinternational system can create conditions for increasein the activism of non-state actors. The


2/3

2

proliferation of Multinational Corporations (MNCs) and/or Transnational Corporations (TNCs), especially

in the 1970s and their exploitative activities, especially in theThird World, is testimony to the fact ofthe

international system breeding them. Again, the many Third World proxy wars, especially since the

1960s, had much to do with the Cold War international system. In all these the pillars of the global

design, whichwehave alluded to above, namely, the UN, the World Bank, the IMF, and the WTO, have

been incapable of addressing issues that emanate from the activities of non-state actors. What they

have resorted to have been ad-hoc and/or fire-fighting measures as the problems crop up. For example,

the increase in private sector activities throughout theworld caused the World Bank to create other

banks (the International Finance Corporation IFC-; the Multi-lateral Investment Guarantee Agency

MIGA-; the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes ICSID- are all part of the

World Bank Group that deal specifically with non-state actors). The IBRD and the International

Development Association (IDA) remain focused on the state. The IMF has failed miserably in its remit.

The many financial crises (Germany in 1966; the collapse of the Bretton Woods system of fixed-but-

adjustableexchange rate regime - 1971; Mexico Peso crisis of 1982 and 1994;the Korean currency crisis

of 1997; Argentina 2000; and the recent global economic and financial crisis of 2008). At its inception,

the IMF was intended to possess at least fifty per cent of global liquidity in order to sustain the fixed-

but-adjustableexchange rate regime. At no point sinceits inception has the IMF been ableto own two

percent of global liquidity.

Even thoughthe WTO is member-driven and rule-based, powerful nations always ensurethatthe rules

are skewed in their favour. Itis the reason why the Doha Round, a beautiful Round that for the firsttime

links trade and development, is hiccupping badly. Take also for instance, the Economic Partnership

Agreements (EPAs) thatwere supposed to have been signed (by December 2007) between the EU and

the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) group of countries. Article XXIV ofthe WTO allows for such a

thing but only in so far as one Free Trade Area (FTA) or Customs Union is engaged with another.

Throughoutthe ACP there are no well-delineated FTAs and/or customs unions, commensuratewiththeEU. Meanwhile, a greater percentage of ACP countries are listed as Least Developed (LDCs), who already

enjoy the General System of Preferences Plus (GSP++), usually called Everything-But-Arms (EBA). Again

Article XXIV was to encourage the formation and strengthening of regional integration. However, the

EU, wanting to use the WTO to its advantagehas decided to create new regional blocks (like the East

and Southern Africa-ESA), and also, signing with individual countries, thereby clearly undermining the

existing regional blocks.

The UN, on the other hand, has also created a platform for Civil Society participation. Meanwhile,

unable to deal with the activities of non-state actors, where the security of individual states is

concerned, the UN introduced the concept of Peace-Keeping, which is no-where found in the Charter.And sinceit could notestablish a Standing Army (as per the Charter demands), ithas no choice butto

use mercenaries (personnel drawn from willing armies of member-countries) in all its peace-keeping

operations. Indeed, peace-keeping has now become synonymous with the UN, as if as itwerethe UN

was only meant for this purpose. And these mercenaries are attimes exploited to do the dirty job of

the powers thathave a vested interestin a particular issue or conflict. Attimes, the UN is even ignored.

Unilateralism goes unpunished. Suchwas the case in Yugoslavia (1992) and Iraq (2001). At times, it is


3/3

3

manipulated. Powerful countries that have vested interests force resolutions through the Security

Council and ensuretheir passage. They are ready to offer troops (Iraq 1991; Libya 2011) and when on

the ground, they are the ones who interpret the Resolution. Just imaginewhat is happening now in

Libya. NATO has flown morethan ten thousand (10 000) sorties, including 4000 strike attacks. Not less

thatten ofthe strike attacks have been deliberately directed on the compound of Gaddafi, one ofwhich

killed his son and others. Whatwas the mandate ofthe UN? Regime change? Assassination? And will

thosewho perpetrated this behauled before the International Criminal Court (ICC)? Onewould have

thoughtthatwhilethe application of military force, as allowed by the UN Charter is being enforced, the

Security Council would look for options to bring about peace. Non-state actors are being supported to

cause more carnage and destruction. True, the Russians throughtheir African Envoy, Mikhail Margelov,

are seeking a way out ofthe impasse. A little too late? But should it be the Russians or the UN? The

Chinese are also in Benghazi. Is itto protecttheir oil interests?

Clearly then, theworld has a foundation that can no longer supportthe superstructure. Every one ofthe

pillars is being wantonly abused by states thathavethe power to do so. Let member states invokethe

spirit of Article 109 ofthe UN Charter to find a way of re-crafting a new global architecture.

Vladimir Antwi-Danso is a Senior Research fellow atthe

Legon Center for International Affairs and Diplomacy (LECIAD)

University of Ghana, LEGON, Ghana

[email protected] / [email protected]

233-244-613282

new world architecture

Documents