The Stanley Foundation
Seeking a secure peace with freedom and justice, built on global citizenship and effective global governance.

James Traub is a contributing writer for The New York Times Magazine. He has written extensively about international affairs and the United Nations, and has reported from the Congo, Iran, Iraq, Sierra Leone, East Timor, Angola, Egypt, Kosovo, and Haiti. He has a forthcoming Stanley Foundation policy analysis brief on the prospects of an expanded G-8.
James Traub is a contributing writer for The New York Times Magazine. He has written extensively about international affairs and the United Nations, and has reported from the Congo, Iran, Iraq, Sierra Leone, East Timor, Angola, Egypt, Kosovo, and Haiti. He has a forthcoming Stanley Foundation policy analysis brief on the prospects of an expanded G-8.
(Photo by Greg Martin)
G-8? G-20? G-x?
Moving Beyond the Obsolete
Transnational problems and the rise of new powers may ignite new institutions, but the spark must come from Obama

More than 60 years ago, the abject inability of the League of Nations to prevent World War II, as well as the failure of central bankers to foresee the Great Depression, provoked a round of anguished introspection that led to the establishment of the global institutions we live with today—the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the World Trade Organization.

Today we stand at the threshold of another spasm of invention—“Creation 2.0,” as it has been called. Not a war this time, but a global financial crisis, the development of novel and interconnected transnational problems, and the swift rise of a new cohort of powerful states have exposed the limits of the post-war institutions, even rendered them obsolete.

Even the most hardened realists have come to accept this imperative. “We’ve got a new world now,” says Brent Scowcroft, the first President Bush’s national security advisor. “But we still have habits of mind of the 20th century and the Cold War, and all the institutions we have were built for a world which has disappeared.”
One fundamental difference with the post-war moment is that the great powers now have a club of their own—the so-called G-8, which consists of the leading Western democracies and Russia. And that’s a problem, because the West no longer has the monopoly on power, especially on economic power, which it enjoyed in the years after the war. Since 2007, the G-8 has extended to China, India, Brazil, Mexico, and South Africa a kind of ex officio status. But the global financial crisis has made this arrangement not only vaguely insulting but untenable; last November, President George W. Bush, no friend of multilateral institutions or of emerging powers, convened a meeting of an expanded G-20. The 20 leaders met again in London in April, and are scheduled to convene once again in Rome in July, alongside the G-8.

New Problems, Old Institutions
Just as a select group of Western countries can no longer set the world’s economic agenda, neither can they establish the rules going forward on trade, or on climate change. A recent Brookings Institution report argued that, in addition to the current financial crisis, “future G-20 summits should also drive the reform of the international financial institutions and address other major global concerns—climate change, poverty and health, and energy among others.” This “global apex forum” would operate not as an executive, decision-making body, as the Security Council is, but rather as an instrument to shape consensus on major transnational issues, which would ultimately be decided by organs with universal or near-universal membership, such as the United Nations.

The membership roles, and rules, of the Creation 1.0 institutions have also become obsolete. Look at the Security Council, whose five permanent members—the most exclusive club of all—represent the winning side of World War II. France and England belong to the P-5, but Germany, Japan, India, and Brazil don’t. The same is true of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), where Belgium currently enjoys the same voting power as China. Europe holds one-third of the 24 seats on the IMF board and, by tradition, determines the president of the IMF. The United States has the same privilege with the World Bank. The financial crisis has given the IMF a new centrality in global financial decision making. But it can scarcely serve as the central instrument for overseeing the global economy if the new Asian powerhouses are not fully dealt into the game.
There is also the need for entirely new, or greatly reformed, institutions for problems like climate change, or the proliferation of nuclear or biological weapons, which did not exist in 1946. In 2007, President Bush launched the Major Emitters Forum, a kind of “coalition of the willing” bringing together the 16 largest emitters of greenhouse gas to discuss climate change outside the framework of the United Nations. The Obama administration has embraced the group and re-christened it the Major Economies Forum; the president himself will be chairing the group’s meeting on the sidelines of the G-8 meeting next month. The negotiators hope to get a head start on the terms of a new treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocols, the UN convention that set numerical targets for the emission of carbon.

Political Will Needed for Something New
Creating something from nothing may prove much easier than changing the power structure of existing institutions. It takes immense political will to overcome the inertia that inheres in institutions—and even more in the distribution of power within those institutions. There’s no guarantee that these changes will occur any time soon.

That political will must come, as it did 60 years ago, largely, though not exclusively, from Washington. The Obama administration is very much preoccupied by crisis management just now. Nevertheless, there are real grounds for optimism. Unlike his predecessor, President Obama believes in multilateral institutions, including the United Nations. In his very first major foreign policy speech as a candidate, Obama spoke of the post-war institutions, noting that “Leaders like Harry Truman and George Marshall knew that instead of constraining our power, these institutions magnified it.” Obama has stuck to this theme ever since. In a recent speech in Prague, he asserted that, in order to control rogue regimes like that of North Korea, “All nations must come together to build a stronger, global regime.” And he marked the difference with the previous administration by ticking off the treaties that his administration would seek to write, or rewrite.
But commitment from Washington is only a prerequisite for change; all major states, including the new powers now taking their place at the global table, will have to accept that they have a stake in a new global order. Institutions work only if states accept that they magnify, rather than constrain, their power.

— James Traub
Share: Email Facebook Twitter

59th Strategy for Peace Conference 59th Strategy for Peace Conference
The Stanley Foundation convenes its Strategy for Peace Conference annually to consider key policy challenges, drawing on the experience and knowledge of invited experts from the public and private sectors.

At the conference concurrent roundtables are focused on each of the foundation’s three current areas of programming—climate changenuclear policy, and mass violence and atrocities. This year a fourth roundtable will focus on global governance. Roundtable discussion is intended to generate group consensus recommendations for policy change and multilateral action. More.

Courier Courier
The Summer 2018 edition of Courier considers the future of multilateralism. Is it a tool for applying a nation’s collective intellect to the world’s greatest challenges? Or is it an affront to state sovereignty and an indication of political ineptitude?

Also in this issue, we explore the UN approach to sustaining peace and the Security Council’s role in climate policy; how Cape Town, South Africa is modeling climate action at the local level; and the importance of educating youth on the potential of global citizenship. Summer 2018 PDF. Subscribe for Free.

Receive Materials Receive Materials
The Stanley Foundation publishes policy briefs, analytical articles, and reports on a number of international issues. To reduce our carbon footprint and cut waste, we almost exclusively, use electronic distribution for our publications. Sign up to receive our resources via e-mail.

Investigation U. Camper Photos Investigation U. Camper Photos
We had a great group of campers attend the Investigation U. program this summer. Click here for photos. For participants only, username: IU2018.

the latest the latest
Our bimonthly newsletter is filled with resources to keep you up to date with our work at the Stanley Foundation. Each edition includes news about recent publications and stories as well as features our people and partners.

You will also find many extras, from upcoming events to multimedia resources. 

Sign up for the latest to stay engaged on key global issues.

The Stanley Foundation: Part of COP23 The Stanley Foundation: Part of COP23
As a part of our efforts to limit global warming to 1.5° C, the foundation put forward policy ideas to achieve a global turning point in emissions by 2020, built upon efforts to catalyze global climate action by countries and sub- and non-state actors, and worked with journalists to strengthen coverage of the UN climate negotiations.