The big lesson from the Summit is that developing countries have yet to exploit the opportunities presented by the U.N. system
As global power shifts back to Asia, both giants are conscious that their ideas are different from the dominant view espoused by the West on how societies work, change, and can be influenced. In a nod to geopolitics, Asia needs to be involved more deeply from the very beginning in expert bodies on AI and GDP to shape global governance by defining global priorities, cooperation, and justice.
The Summit of the Future raises a set of fundamental questions on global governance: should the focus be on great power competition or continuing imbalance in the institutions, agenda setting, and global inequality? The former looks at the means and not the ends with a continuing debate on the meaning of justice.
Global goals do not resolve challenges; they support new forms of cooperation. The Summit resulted in a Global Digital Impact initiative and a Declaration on Future Generations, an inspirational call for national action. The concrete impact is an International Scientific Panel and a Global Dialogue on AI. An implementation map and intergovernmental consultations mirror how climate change came onto the global agenda 30 years ago. Climate change is now relegated to scaling up adaptation finance, and GDP will include sustainability. Developed countries continue to have the capacity to shape the global agenda.
The Summit did not agree to a clear pathway for Security Council reform and has called for categories of members. Reform of governance of global financial institutions is limited to a pledge to give developing countries a greater say in decision making and review of sovereign debt has been reiterated. Concerns of developing countries have got a short shift.
The problem here is one of definitions. Should the G-7, which continues to set the global agenda, be described as a club of victors of the Second World War or a group of former colonial powers? The U.S. established the G-7 in 1973 to set the global agenda in the United Nations as an anti-developing country body. The clash between Western capitalism and Soviet communism provided the former colonies who became the world’s poor more space and voice. While the world’s political geography was reshaped, the ‘poor’ remained trapped at the bottom of the economic and geopolitical hierarchy. The imbalance in the wider world is reflected in the United Nations.
For example, recent figures from the U.N. show that only 17% of the Sustainable Development Goals are on track. Developing countries hold $29 trillion in public debt, with $847 billion in net interest payments, and experienced a negative net resource transfer in 2022. In July, the first joint declaration by G-20 finance leaders on international tax cooperation ended with disagreement over whether the U.N. or the OECD is the right forum to advance the agenda.
Real change began with the re-emergence of China and India and their BRICS grouping, in 2009, but it still awaits the reversal of colonial imbalances in key areas. In 1950, the U.S. used 40% of the world’s natural resources having hegemonic power to set up multilateralism in a unilateral manner. With the reconstruction of Europe by 1970, their share had come down to 26%. Multilateralism evolved into treaties, having the authority to impact national policies. The G-7 share decreased to one-fifth in 2010, when Asia used half of global resource use. In a more equal world, the interests of the Global South gained a voice but not the ability to set the agenda. South Africa in 2023 had to file a case to determine obligations under the climate regime and this is a severe indictment of conference diplomacy.
Foundations of power
The foundations of power will remain with the West for a few decades even as the global trend is in favor of the Global South. In 1800, Asia consumed more energy than the rest of the world. In 1850, it consumed as much energy as the West. In 1950, the West’s consumption was three times the rest of the world. In 2000, the West consumed as much energy as the rest of the world. The imbalance in the sphere of technology and endogenous capacity is even more severe with China and India as outliers becoming global leaders only in certain areas. The trend is towards a more equal world in all its dimensions. In 2000, 4.6 billion people lived in countries whose combined GDP was just 20% of the 755 million people who lived in the G-7. By 2016, the GDP share of 17 developing countries as a percentage of the G-7 countries tripled to 63%.The Summit accepts this imbalance but focuses on how progress is measured rather than on measures to bridge the gaps.
The Summit recognizes that GDP focuses on the economic performance of societies but seeks to link it to sustainability. A broader understanding of prosperity considers non-monetary factors such as infrastructure, municipal services, affordable energy, educational opportunities, health care, and access to drinking water that better represent the urban living standards in a country. A focus on comparable levels of well-being is overdue.
The big lesson from the Summit is that developing countries have yet to exploit the opportunities presented by the U.N. system. While the international political process is open in procedural terms, it has been informed by consensual science developed by ‘official experts’, and this will be the case for global governance of AI and modification of GDP. Experts frame issues in a manner that determines the “problem” and how it should be “resolved”.
As global power shifts back to Asia, both giants are conscious that their ideas are different from the dominant view espoused by the West on how societies work, change, and can be influenced. In a nod to geopolitics, Asia needs to be involved more deeply from the very beginning in expert bodies on AI and GDP to shape global governance by defining global priorities, cooperation, and justice.
(Mukul Sanwal served as policy adviser to the Executive Director of UNEP and later to the Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC and was closely associated with Inter-Agency Relations in the Chief Executives Board of the U.N.)