Global Issues and States

2013/05/22

abstract

The 21st century is a century of global issues. No sooner had the new century begun when a string of events such as the 9/11 terrorist attack, global public health crisis, and the international financial crisis, which led to increasing global tensions and heralding major changes regarding global issues, i.e., challenges arise, agendas shift, and priorities transfer with serious consequences, and challenging the bottom-line of human survival at the expense of the transformation of civilization. Men, states and the world will fall a prey to these global problems, and states will bear the brunt of sustaining human development. At present, global issues have become the severest challenge to states. In the past, it was the visible enemies that were most feared, while today, instead, it is the invisible enemies. States remain in the center of the stage, though they cannot cope with, nor control, the global issues alone. Nor can a superpower effectively cope with the issue alone. It all attributes to global issues, which. Since global issues know no national borders, they break up the clear division between international and national confines and transgress as well as challenge national sovereignty, wills, interests and power continuously. States are in a passive position to react. The relationship between global issues and states are so complex and entangled that their interactions bear on not only the foundation of the international system—the fate of the nation-state, but also on the reform of the system and the reconstruction of norms. 

Global issues emerge from the system of nation-states. States with their fixed borders and eternal existence are no longer in consistent with global issues and the governance of the issues in terms of time and space. The former’s limitation and exclusiveness constitute the biggest obstacle. The systematical clash between global issues and states is inevitable. States are surely subject to the great impacts of global issues. We are living in such an era: our unswerving certainty towards the old international political space is giving way to the new, though opaque, restriction and probabilities. The challenges of global issues to states and their solutions have become a core issue to states. 

In the era inflicted by rampant global issues, only those states that can fit and overcome the issues can survive and develop. States should not regard global issues as liabilities which states are obliged to accept. On the contrary, states should regard them as a chance and as an opportunity for change and growth. States should understand that the power and space they took for granted in the past has now been eroded, constrained and shared. They must know their position, their advantages and disadvantages and know how to make use of them or shun them if necessary. Thus, it is important to rethink the nature and potentiality of nation-states. States are fundamental stakeholders and indispensible in respect to addressing global issues. States can act as a proactive designer and basic supporter by playing their extraterritorial role in at least the functional areas of addressing governance of individual global issues. Although their role is crucial, they should not become a monopoly. By the onset of the new century, states will play a role, new though equivocal. 

I. Two Visions on Global Issues
When global issues put national interests of states at stake, different perspectives on managing those challenges and opportunities are justifiable. Since national attributes, stages of development, and social anxieties vary, so do their primary concerns and sensitivities over the international distribution of interests, obligations and costs that are incurred. States vary in defining and gauging the global issues in term of the scope of threat, intensity of damage, seriousness of consequence, cause of formation, alternative responses, estimation of costs, and relevance to national interests. In short, how states calculate the attributes of the global challenges will determine the extent to which they will come into consensus and cooperate in response to global issues.

On global issues, a few developed countries turn to an absolutist approach to perceive the world and the rest of the countries. They have a strong will and tendency to declare global issues as serious global challenges and call for other countries to follow their suit in fighting the challenges though they often judge the challenges by the threats and damages only to their own in the first place. This has more often than not caused great mistakes and flaws in observation and practice. 9/11 is a good example to the point. The United States launched a global war against terrorism after the terror attack. President Bush declared in his speech to Congress, anti-terror war is not only a fight for America, but also for the world and for civilization. This is a fight for the belief of progress, pluralism, tolerance and freedom. He attributed terrorism to the hate of American democracy, and he asked every country to make the decision, "You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror." Sure enough, that resulted in the great mistake of counter-terrorism: the more counter-terror attempts, the more terror attacks. 

Of course, European countries are quite enthusiastic on the global issues of climate, health, etc. Their activism on global challenges has stirred up consciousness of global response and global cooperation. The consideration of morality aside, however, a basic goal is to develop and scramble for the green market. 

Some of the developing countries cherish their own values on global issues, including the legitimate right to sovereignty, independent development and cultural traditions with the priority on particular national conditions and special interests. They emphasize historical perspectives, special conditions, and alternatives. They emphasize fresh experience and creativity. They prefer relativity of space, time and subjects. They believe that compromise and revisionism are normal and in consistent with intrinsically complex and intertwining global issues. But this vision is not without danger. It can sometimes undervalue common threats and common interests and localize global issues and their solutions. In addition, intra-developing countries’ problems, shortcomings, conflicting special interests and lack of well-established communication channels often impede further integration with newly-emerging countries. Moreover, given the large variety of interests between the newly-emerging powers other marginalized developing countries, it is becoming more difficult to cooperate and coordinate on their interests and assertions. 

Therefore, the two viewpoints have their different priorities, merits and shortcomings. A possible solution would attach attention to those global issues with attributions of universality, seriousness, likelihood of coordination and cooperation, and those with attributions of particularity, relativity and diversity. Both viewpoints should overcome their respective shortcomings. Both should try to sincerely communicate and understand each other. Both should try their best to expand the possibility of pursuing common interests, to bear their common but different responsibilities and to prevent internecine conflict because of parochial national interests. Governance of global issues does not encroach national power. Instead, it provides national power with a new and greater space to wield. The two viewpoints have to further widen their subjective visions, to recruit and support various NGO forces in dealing with global issues, to establish common identity, common interests and unanimity of general interests, to bear common but different responsibilities, to form composition of forces, and to overcome the serious limitation of states for sake of their common cause to respond to global challenges more effectively. 

II. National Agenda Globalized
The world is undergoing an extremely important period of the transformation of international system. The globalization of national agendas is one of the most important trends in international politics.

National agendas cover paramount national affairs, bear down on vital interests and draw the main attention of a nation to what it dares not to overlook. However, the focuses of nations vary based upon their histories, the changes in the world trends, the evolution of the world system, and evolution of states. It is a general direction and trend that evolutions take place in a way from special to general, from individuals to entirety, and from nations to the world. The rise of global issues and their impacts on the world brings historical change to national agendas, i.e., national agendas are being globalized.

In addition to dealing with purely internal affairs, traditional national agendas have long been dealing with foreign affairs of politics, diplomacy and military focusing on territorial borders, security, conflict management, and diplomatic negotiations to eliminate the “security dilemma” to preserve a nation’s external environment of survival and development. 

Thanks to globalization, the Westphalia system has been breached and transcended time and again. States’ central position and supremacy have been weakened and the issue of sovereignty has undergone profound changes. In the traditional international system, the national agenda is trying to define the individual issues and their borderlines before addressing the various problems. When it comes to the contemporary national agendas confronting global issues, they try to define social issues, such as the greenhouse effect, global warming, extreme climate, ozone destruction, extinguishing biodiversity, deforestation, desertification, environment pollution, epidemic diseases, poverty issues, demographic issues, food supply, energy security, terrorist attack, transnational crimes, maritime pollution, etc. Global challenges of the kind have become mainstreams in national agendas and in systematical interactions. 

In face of the new subjects, states are redefining the goals to pursue. The goals point to human survival and development, to harmonious coexistence between men and nature, and to intra-social harmony and sustainable development. At the same time, states have to give up the old mindset in thinking about issues individually because the nature of issues has changed fundamentally and quietly. The majority of issues are no longer individual but public by nature, which call states to take on a comprehensive mindset. In other words, they have to think systematically to include all the individual actors. States have to rethink their limitation. They are confronting ever growing difficulties in responding to global issues. Firstly, given their own weaknesses, states are vulnerable and hesitate to address numerous global challenges, which in turn lead to explosions of global crisis. Secondly, the old and out-of-control power centers of states are doomed to compete and collide with emerging powers. Thus, global issues will inevitably give rise to the change of national thinking and behaviors and the latter will in turn lead to the reconstruction of international norms and transformation of the international system. In the meantime, the globalization of national agenda will inevitably lead to globalization of the global agenda, which is all the more conducive to the transformation and transcendence of the system and its norms.

All in all, of the issues that draw attention to the world nowadays, global issues has renewed states’ agendas, international agendas or global agendas respectively as well as interactively. This will not only help to concentrate attentions of nations and the world, but also drive nations and the world to look for win-win games and coordination actions. 

III. Emerging Powers and Global Issues
The great changes took place in the first decade of the 21st century were historically significant. Despite growing global challenges, equally growing globalization brought about unprecedented opportunity for development. A number of developing countries have seized the opportunity to become emerging powers. The “China Tide” is coming along with exactly the tide of the new century. The rise of China is recognized as the most important event affecting the world in the decade. With its oriental culture and comprehensive national strength, China has become an important force of global influence. The rise of Asian emerging powers is a major symbol of the global rise of emerging powers. Asian countries respond to global challenges in a style of pragmatism and collectivism. They respect diversity, believe in building consensus rather than producing contradictions, persisting on principle as well as pragmatism in addressing problems, prefer evolution to radicalism, and pay more attention to mechanism and results. The success of Asia is not only helpful to coping with global and regional issues, but also helpful in promoting the rise of Latin America and Africa. According to the prediction of S&P and the World Bank, the coming decade will be the era of Latin America. Citibank contends that Africa will receive the baton from Asia and end up with a region of the highest economic growth. Despite the eruption of global financial crisis, the group of emerging powers represented by China and India and the group of the emerging middle powers have sustained economic growth and dynamic of development, account for a larger share of the world GDP, and became the engine and pillar of the global economy. As a result, the gravity of the world powers is increasingly shifting from West to East, which has greatly changed the distribution of the world power and enlarged the right of voice and decision-making of the emerging powers on global issues. Of course, the greater right of voice and influence in the global affairs requires greater obligation and responsibility.

All buzzwords like “BRIC”, “CIVETS”, “New 11”, and so on, imply a general trend that the hotspots of the global economic growth are shifting from the developed world to the developing world. According to PWC, the seven largest emerging economies on the globe will outstrip the G7 of Western developed countries by 2032 in terms of GDP.

In the late 2010, China invited South Africa to join the group of BRIC countries. South Africa is small in economic size, but is growing fast. South Africa represents Africa, the virgin and fast-growing continent with a great potential. By joining the “BRICS”, South Africa can help to drive the development of the whole continental Africa and cooperate with all the global emerging powers. Thanks to South Africa’s participation, the BRIC has turned into “BRICS”, which is good for integrating the two mechanisms of China-Russia-India cooperation and India-Brazil-South Africa dialogue forum, to form a new, larger intra-emerging power communication conduit, a mechanism and platform, by which major emerging powers can conduct policy communication more efficiently. The enlarged “BRICS” group will accelerate its mechanization and organization processes, accelerate their composition of forces and enhance their influence, enabling them to be more representatives of regions, more representatives of the interests of emerging powers and intensify their role in coping with global issues. However, “BRICS” is an open, inclusive organization, an important integral part of South-South cooperation and a bridge to South-North cooperation. On the Davos Forum 2011, the leadership of emerging powers has become the limelight: “the strongest atmosphere in Davos this year is the shift of the center of the world powers to China and BRICS.”

Intriguingly, the emerging powers of Brazil, South Africa, India and Turkey, the countries regarded by U.S. as the most important democracies, are more willing to stand by China rather than by U.S. on important global issues. From time to time, they find more agreements with China than with U.S. on some global issues. That is to say, the identity of developing countries is more important than the identity of “democracy” on global issues. 

The broad developing countries are victims in respect of global issues. They have suffered and borne the consequences and the cost of the disasters caused by developed countries since the onset of the industrial revolution. But they have no right of voice or right of decision on the issue. This is a problem that should be solved before global issues can be solved. At the same time, the development process of the developing countries is also inflicted by various global issues mostly social and environmental. The issue of sustainable development has yet to be solved. Therefore, developing countries must participate in the entire process of the governance of global issues to express their concerns of interests and to make the process fair, just and transparent.

In this respect, the issue of participation of emerging powers is put on agenda in the first place. As global issues are increasingly urgent, emerging powers play a greater role on the issues. Emerging powers should participate in the process at the levels of structure and decision-making, which becomes the core of the issue. 

On the G8 Summit 2007 in Heiligendamm, German Chancellor Merkel initiated the Heiligendamm process as an effective strategy to engage emerging powers, i.e., the “G8 5 dialogue”, the former including U.S., UK, France, Germany, Japan, Italy, Canada and Russia, the developed countries, and the latter including Brazil, China, India, South Africa and Mexico, the developing countries, to launch structural dialogue on the current global issues. But, since the two sides are actually unequal and the process is extremely complex, time will tell if the final goal will be fulfilled. For example, Russia is at once a member of G8 and somewhat characterized with an emerging power. In addition, Mexico is a developing country as well as an OECD member. Despite their commonalities, emerging powers’ differences are more apparent than their similarities. It is a daunting challenge even to sustain and develop their collective identity. Moreover, as it turns to sensitive issues, the process will face greater pressure, making the process of dialogue more difficult. Anyway, Heiligendamm is still an important breakthrough progress. The structural expansion of dialogue demonstrates the influence of emerging powers on global issues and a shift in the pattern of governance on global issues. It is essentially important that the two sides have exchanged ideas and shifted and shared the right of voice and decision-making power on global issues. The shift of governance structure and the resulting thinking over systematical alternatives have drawn the attention of the world. This process has promoted the preliminary formation of the collective identity of the “developing five”. Emerging powers have become promoters of the structural shift and trouble-shooters on the basis of identity and status, providing the mechanism of solution to global issues with efficiency and legitimacy.  Heiligendamm process is a dialogue between equal actors, a structural dialogue between two core panels. This mechanism defines the character of their interrelations. The two sides have covered some differences, reached some important results and built up confidence. The 2009 G8 Summit in L’Aquila had extended Heiligendamm process to 2011 and renamed it as Heiligendamm-L’Aquila process. Whatever the final historical mission of the process, reform is due to come. Emerging powers’ participation in decision-making on global issues is taken for granted. The Heiligendamm process should be viewed as a remarkable expression and driving force. 

The greatest impression the Copenhagen climate summit gave the world is the appearance of the so-called “BASIC” nations consist of Brazil, South Africa, India, and China, whose influence far outgrows climate change negotiation per se. Exactly due to the final effort made by “BASIC” and the U.S., the summit had reached the Copenhagen agreement, though it only serves as the basis and roadmap of future negotiations. 

Emerging power’s participation in the governance of global issues strengthened thanks to 2008 international financial crisis. Financial globalization amplifies financial storms. An American crisis turned a global one in a matter of one and half year. The negative effect of globalization and the flaw of international system erupted at once, which have profoundly impacted the conceptions, behaviors and policy adjustment as well as change of countries across the world and obliged international community to pay more attention to cooperation on the governance of global issues. Thus, the resulting effect of the crisis is extremely different from the 1929 great depression. Especially the dilemma-ridden major powers of the West, knowing too well of their inability of self-bailout, cannot but to invite emerging powers in responding to the crisis. Emerging powers thus play the role of rescuing the global economy from crisis and debacle. On the G20 summit held in November 2008, Brazilian President Lula called the summit as “a historical day”. G20 has held five summits in less than three years. This means that the world economic configuration has substantially changed. It is a change of mechanism regarding the global economic issue. G20 has transcended and even replaced G7 or G8. In other words, emerging powers are on an equal footing for the first time in setting agenda, formulating rescue plans and consulting on global economic blueprint, which have prevented the crisis from worsening and stopped a global disaster in time. The G20 has therefore become an important platform in responding to the severe economic and financial challenges and a platform of global economic governance to promote building a new, global development partnership. 
“BRIC” upgrading to “BRICS” is most obvious in the G20 summit. The numbers of the seats of the two sides are seemingly equal. But a close look may find that a few of the 10 members of emerging powers over-depend on the U.S.-led Western countries in economic, diplomatic and security terms, while South Africa is politically and economically more independent by staying away from Western interference, and joins together with the four “BRIC” countries in putting forward policy initiatives in line with the position of emerging powers against the unfair assertions of interests of the Western powers. South Africa has played another role by joining “BRICS”, i.e., it helps to form a “quota alliance” within the IMF. After the IMF quota reform, a consensus was built to raise the general quota share of “BRICS” to 14.18% voting power, a percentage still less than 15% that is required to block important proposals. Now with the 0.88% share contributed by South Africa, a country with a highly similar position, this key threshold is crossed and the “quota alliance” now has a substantially significant influence. Furthermore, this has largely reduced the cost of consultation otherwise by involving more members and reduced the risk of free-riders. “BRICS” is a reasonable choice for merging powers to unite, to develop independently and to participate in global affairs. 

Since the West was the epicenter of financial crisis and the resulting heavy loss afflicted on major Western powers, an opportunity was created for emerging powers to expand space on global issues and to secure more right of voice and decision power in responding to global challenges. That the emerging powers have increased their right of voice and decision power in the World Bank, IMF and WTO is a good case to the point. Dr. Nouriel Roubini said on 2011 Davos Forum that he saw the global economy as a "glass half-full and a glass half-empty", with robust growth in emerging economies and slow growth in the developed economies. A new global order will gradually set in and cooperation in response will follow up on regional and sub-regional levels. Profound changes are taking place in the world.

Meanwhile, signs of groundbreakings appear also on other global issues. The Obama administration is seen to have made some changes on climate change. It would like to bear a certain responsibility and consult with emerging powers on common response to the issue. Pirate attacks in the Gulf of Aden and Somali waters in 2008 have severely threatened international navigation and maritime trade security. Piracy had soon become a global insecurity. The U.S., the UK, France, Germany, China and India had dispatched navy convoy fleets to escort the commercial ships against Somali pirates. The speed of action, the firm of attitude and the tacit of cooperation among those countries were unprecedented. The best cooperation between established powers and emerging powers is seen in the areas of global public health and peace-keeping. 

That does not mean all is bright ahead. In the present world, there is nowhere else except the G20 that can rally major powers to conduct consultation, though in the second year of global recovery, debate was going on in G20 on the issue of an early-warning index of economic imbalance, reflecting the resolution of emerging powers to challenge the Western manipulation over the global economy. The Western powers have not realized the ramification of the rise of emerging powers at all. Instead, they are used to find scapegoat in emerging powers, while they lack self-inspection and a sense of guilt. The G20 proves to be an ambition and a crisis consciousness at most rather than a formal institution, let alone that it will transform from a short-term mechanism of crisis-management to a long-term mechanism of economic governance. The crisis drives countries struggling for survival and forces them to get together. Once the fear disappears, so will the rally of interests and countries will think of themselves as usual. Different speeds of recovery lead to different assertions of interests. In addition, since the European sovereign debt crisis has triggered overall chaos, global inflation has spiraled, wars of trade and currency are erupting, food prices have increased, the financial crisis has yet to be contained, reformation has yet to take place, and it is extremely difficult to reach significant agreement within G20. Political consideration will come back again. Developed countries wane, though emerging powers are by no means capable of setting agendas. The latter is busy with development. The platform of G20 is going to turn from an effective crisis-management instrument into a battleground between emerging powers and established powers. The chief economist Dirk Herman has the analogy in German newspaper, Handelsblatt: the G20 has put out the fire, now the water has dried up.” [①] “For the first time since the end of World War II, no country or durable alliance of countries has the political and economic leverage or the political will to get what it wants on the global stage. The world is entering into a G-zero period, though it turns out to be transitional period.” [②] The New York Times likens the G-zero periods to a “power vacuum”. Notwithstanding, China and U.S. outweigh other heavyweights on global issues and their relations will greatly affect the response to global challenges.

Anyway, never before have emerging powers involved so deeply in the increasingly intensifying global issues, nor had they so deeply affected the decision-making and the rule of the game in the international system. They are able to stop actions against their interests. They are an indispensible force of the global crisis management. This will bring about joint efforts of the world responding to the global crisis as well as to the great pressure on and challenge to emerging powers themselves. 

The trend of developed countries adjusting their relations with developing countries for sake of their cooperation and co-governance will help improve the global strategic environment. In this sense, emerging powers have obtained a new dimension in the mechanism of global issues management, and nation-states of the world have obtained a new dimension in terms of the global structure as well. This will help to solve the greatest conundrum and fundamental contradiction: states are impotent to deal with global issues on the level of governance. It proves to be a general historical trend that, thanks to their agreement on cooperation, co-governance and win-win values, the two groups of countries, the developed and the developing, are transcending traditional mindsets and zero-sum games involved in multi-tiered negotiations, consultations, decision-making, and implementation on global issues to fulfill their ultimate goal of sustainable development. 

IV. New Changes to International Negotiation
Negotiation is a core function of diplomacy, a process of bargaining, which aims at solving interstate conflicts, promoting common interests, conducting joint decisions, and solving interstate issues. In conventional international relations, negotiation is an “exclusive turf” of states.

Since global issues exert impacts not only on states but also on the fate of mankind, actors to be concerned and involved will by no means be exclusively states. The broad civics and civil organizations of global awareness and global identification also want to master their own fate and never want to consign them all to states. This leads to many actors in international negotiation. GNOs involve in the negotiation process so broadly and deeply that they exert powerful and world-wide pressure and composition of forces, promote compromise of states, monitor the execution of resolutions and actions and lay a strong foundation to the governance of global issues. However, the pluralization of actors will inevitably lead to multi-lateralization and globalization of international negotiations, making it more difficult to achieve result in the negotiations.

Since global issues break out across-the-board and vehemently, negotiations tend to diversify and international negotiations shift from the original parochial framework to a global scope. As states come to the table, multiple issues interweave with stakes interrelated, which directly affects international negotiations. Most issues can trade with each other if states are willing to do so for sake of their respective interests. Things will be different when those issues, a few, are ill-interchangeable, especially those that are crucial to national security. In the era of global issues, bargaining is a more complicated process. 

Global issues might very often become the source of conflicts and therefore forge a very complex relationship with the conflicts. The compounding of the complex relationship with other factors will aggravate the conflicts and lead to the situation that the strong will elbow the weak.

Given the challenge of global issues to national sovereignty, it is the bottom-line of states in international negotiation to prevent states authority from erosion, prevent the power of states from transfer, and prevent domestic policy from foreign intervention. Compromise is achievable with the subjects of negotiations that do not impair national control and authority. While on other subjects, state power tends to share with others or even to be compromised in the process of negotiation, which will make the negotiation more tit-for-tat, difficult and time-consuming.

International negotiations around global issues are systemic, interlinked and trans-disciplinary by nature, which are different from homogeneous, conventional negotiations. Therefore, states must be equipped with propositions, tactics and art of negotiation as well as an overall strategy that governs those propositions, tactics and art. States must also be prepared with general tactics to serve the national strategy and a lexicon that legitimizes the national strategy. This will largely toughen international negotiations, which requires higher qualifications and competencies for international negotiators. 

The coupling of conflicting interests with shared interests is the very precondition for the launch of negotiation and its success. Thanks to their particular distinctions, global issues can meet this condition. States have conflicting interests on global issues while they have to emphasize common interests and close cooperation for sake of the well-being of all the countries of the world and the future of the mankind. Therefore, consultation and negotiation will become rational choice of the countries on one hand, and on the other, negotiators will try their best to overcome the difficulties and be obliged to combine competition with cooperation, to achieve great success by accumulating small successes, to seek breakthrough in negotiation and to pursue win-win games. For example, although most environmental negotiations fall to the dilemma of “the tragedy of the commons”, the negotiations on protecting ozone levels and on controlling acid rains have achieved success. Why? Because, the two urgent crises have forced countries to get over the prisoner’s dilemma and make the choices in favor of the global good.
① Dirk Herman, “Fire is out, water dries up,” Handelsblatt, (Germany), Feb. 21, 2011.
② Ian Bremmer ( President of Eurasia Groupt) and Nouriel Roubini (Chairman of Roubini Economics), “We’d Better Brace for A G-Zero World,” USA Today, 16 Feb 2011.

author： YU Zhengliang