Erhalten Sie Zugang zu diesem und mehr als 300000 Büchern ab EUR 5,99 monatlich.
- Herausgeber: Ginkgo éditeur
- Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
- Sprache: Englisch
For over a year now, the world has been going through the ordeal of the pandemic. Multilateralism has suffered as a result. Far from creating a movement of solidarity, the virus has left it even more vulnerable.
However, the pandemic does not explain everything. Its fallout cannot conceal the underlying trends at the root of the current upheavals in multilateralism.
Leaders for Peace have taken multiple initiatives during the period in line with its two fundamental goals: to propose and to act.
The 2021 report takes up the proposals made, and provides a vision of a renewed multilateralism that forces us to consider the famous «world after». The fracture lines are clear. Competition instead of cooperation - Tension and a new Cold War - A return to the world before or ecological transition.
Fortunately, in the midst of multiple pitfalls, an area of consensus is emerging at the heart of international relations in order to renew multilateralism. And address the challenges of avoiding further fragmentation and preventing global order from being reduced to a simple logic of blocs.
With this in mind, Leaders for Peace has several proposals to offer. This report expresses our confidence in a multilateralism that supports new ideas in step with the changes of our century, as well as our confidence in extending the necessary innovations in diplomacy to civil society.
Faced with the combined effects of crises and the increase of violence, it is our collective responsibility to arm future generations through a pedagogy of Peace. This is the founding vocation of the Peace Schools: to ensure the transmission of the tools and methods of peace-building to make these young people producers of Peace in their own environments.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 105
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2021
Das E-Book (TTS) können Sie hören im Abo „Legimi Premium” in Legimi-Apps auf:
Ähnliche
The Peace Reform
Leaders For Peace
The Peace Reform
Pierre VIMONTRapporteur of the annual report
GINKGOéditeur
© Leaders pour la Paix, juin 2021
Conception et création de la couverture – Nidépices
© Ginkgo Éditeur pour la présente édition
ISBN : 978 2 84679 487 9
Ginkgo Éditeur
33, boulevard Arago
75013 Paris
www.ginkgo-editeur.fr
From the Washington Consensus to the Paris Consensus :a new path to Peace?
Leaders for Peace, like everyone, has suffered from the pandemic.
Diplomacy, mediation, pedagogy and negotiation—without making direct contact, without travelling to the field and without non-verbal communication—has clearly been difficult.
Nevertheless, we have taken multiple initiatives to support our two fundamental missions: to make proposals and to take action.
As in previous years, our proposals in 2021 have been outlined in this report.
I would sincerely like to thank the Ambassador of France, Pierre Vimont, for having kindly been our general rapporteur for the past three years. We have conveyed our vision of a renewed multilateralism to many heads of state and government, as well as to key leaders of multilateral organisations.
In terms of action, we have focused our efforts on the creation of the “Peace School” whose purpose is to promote a pedagogy of peace in around fifteen countries. A pilot project is being carried out in Côte d’Ivoire. The project has now been finalised under the active leadership of our Executive Director, Donia Kaouach.
In addition, we are pursuing other actions such as the “Smart Peace Prize” to highlight initiatives that promote a culture of peace in early childhood facilities.
In this report, we have set out some of the conclusions drawn from our many discussions and work over the past year.
A global epidemic with rare examples of multilateralism
The coronavirus has led to a decline in multilateralism. It chose its camp - that of competition rather than cooperation.
Initially, as it crossed borders one by one, the virus was more of an agent of globalisation. But as responses gradually emerged, it became the point of contact between nations.
Whereas, during the previous crisis of 2008/2010, multilateralism was strengthened by the mobilisation of the G20 at the level of heads of state, in this pandemic, tensions between nations appeared to be more numerous and more aggressive. Masks, tests, and vaccines have all been the subject of multiple guerrilla tactics.
We are forced to admit that President Trump put a great deal of effort into making the situation more tense. His successor, Joe Biden, and his secretary of state, our friend Antony Blinken, are working hard to regain lost ground.
A new cold war
The pandemic broke out just as the rivalry between America and China had begun to take on the appearance of a new cold war.
Tensions began to heighten. The “Thucydides trap” had been sprung and the rivalry between the world leaders and its runner up, owing to its systemic nature, set in for the long term.
The strength of this rivalry, and the propaganda that comes with it, results in various negative effects such as the weakening of world growth, the pressures exerted on those who are attached to their independence like Europe or Africa, and the blockages of the multilateral system.
The radicalisation of this tension would be dangerous for world peace.
To cope with this new global situation, we are counting in particular on the exceptional energy of the new Director General of the World Trade Organization, our friend Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, also founding member of Leaders for Peace.
Planetisation, a new world order
Fortunately, in the midst of multiple tensions, an area of consensus is emerging at the heart of international relations. This area is still narrow, but in order to work towards a renewal of multilateralism, we will need to rely on these partial consensuses, which we hope to gradually expand.
This consensus for the future of the planet is based on a widely shared condition: the protection of the planet is an emergency for the protection of humanity. Joe BIDEN’s words, when he joined the Paris Agreement, are not so different from those of XI Jinping, when he signed the agreement.
The American initiative of 22 and 23 April 2021, allowing forty heads of state to speak out on the subject during this difficult period, however, bodes well.
Indeed, the competition for the leadership of the process appears to have begun; Europe and many others do not want to abandon their leading position, but this jostling for position only strengthens the credibility of the project.
It is rare that we fight for a cause that has no future.
The opening of diplomacy to civil societies
Can the Paris Agreement take over from the Washington Consensus? We can hope so, for the sake of the progress of multilateralism.
The prospect of peace can only exist when nations accept goals that go beyond their own interests. These higher goals should apply to all countries.
This is the case today with the planetisation of our consciousness. Of course, this new field of common concerns can also become a new battleground for the great powers. The number of “summits” is increasing on all continents.
Faced with this risk of dispersion, we can count on civil society, and in particular young people from all over the world, who have understood that their future and the planet are directly united.
This report expresses our confidence in the extension of the necessary innovations in diplomacy to civil society.
Jean-Pierre RAFFARIN
Former French Prime Minister
President of Leaders for Peace
Speech of the French President,Emmanuel MACRON,à l’occasion de la conférence annuellefor the annual conference of Leaders for Peace, 2021
Mr President, dear Jean-Pierre RAFFARIN,
Madam Director-General,
Ladies and gentlemen,
I am very pleased to be speaking at the annual “Leaders for Peace” conference. I remember our discussions, a few years ago now. You have invited me to share my thoughts on multilateralism and peace in 2021. This subject is particularly topical this year, marked both by the prospect of an end to the epidemic – meaning we must conceive the “world after”
– and the return of the influence of the United States in an effective multilateralism forums, which is an encouragement to rediscover the path of an effective multilateralism, suited to the power relations of the 21st century.
Your 2019 report on the subject clearly set out the picture of an undermined, challenged and weakened multilateral order. Ultimately, we have three questions to address on this point:
Firstly, should we seek to return to the “world of before”, going into reverse, if you will? Or should we choose to start the transition, by nature more uncertain, perhaps more dangerous, to a new multilateralism, redesigned for these new power relations and the lessons learned from the crisis?
Some seems to think that the current crisis is merely an interlude, that the vaccine will take things back to how they were. That is, I believe, a historical mistake. I deeply believe
we are at the end of a cycle. We now know how much our growth trajectories at the turn of the millennium were a dead end: they generated highly inflammable inequalities within our very societies, while consuming the planet’s natural capital and, in a way, they exacerbated pre-existing geopolitical tensions. From California to the Sahel and to the Pacific, all of us are now suffering the consequences, and these consequences are particularly damaging for the most vulnerable States and the most fragile societies, for the countries that are already the poorest.
We therefore need to conceive and shape the next cycle. Our response, in France, and collectively in Europe, means seizing the opportunity of this last warning shot to determinedly shift our development trajectory. I am convinced that what we have long called the “Washington Consensus” is now dead and buried. On november 11 th of last year, we sought to bring about a “Paris Consensus”, a new universal consensus, at the Paris Peace Forum, to bring a transition towards new economic, social and democratic models. We need to continue shaping and consolidating this consensus, and your thoughts on the subject will help us progress.
The second major question is, in my eyes, what we are to do with “commons” such as the climate, health, biodiversity and the Internet. At the end of the last century, we defined a shared agenda and conceived these common goods of humankind. Of course, the achievements were tentative, often uncertain; our awareness was only a few years old. I particularly have in mind the fight against terrorism and against hate content online and on social media. But these common goods are a now an essential aspect of the new multilateralism. Should we preserve them for the benefit of all, or resign ourselves to seeing them eroded by exploitation, overconsumption and predation?
Since the beginning of the pandemic, I have promoted the vision of the fight against Covid-19 being a “global public good”. This vision, which was not evident, has given rise to the creation of the Access to Covid-19 Tools Accelerator (ACT-A), helping provide the poorest countries with diagnostics, therapeutics and vaccines, and to strengthen their health systems for the fight against the pandemic. We can be proud of what has been accomplished, but we know that we must go much further: when it shared, last month, the first vaccine doses with Africa to vaccinate healthcare workers, France sparked what I am absolutely convinced will be a vast movement of solidarity in the fight against Covid-19. I have called on my G7 partners to join it as soon as possible. And we know what we have to do, at the G7 and the G20: a profound public health response to learn all the lessons of the crisis and overcome this pandemic, which can only be achieved if we fight this battle cooperatively and universally.
Beyond this short-term response, where confidence in multilateralism is at stake, we need to reform the international health architecture to strengthen our collective security in the face of pandemics. Success will depend on our ability to bring “public health peace” – meaning to preserve international health cooperation from rising geopolitical rivalries. And that is possible. Some 40 years ago, at the height of the Cold War, humankind overcame smallpox thanks to cooperation between scientists and doctors from around the world, including Russians, Chinese and Americans. It is this public health agenda that we must address today.
The same goes for the environment: if the fight against climate change or against the collapse of biodiversity were to become hostages to rising rivalries between great powers, we would be certain to be building our own dead ends, our own failures for today and for tomorrow. The path ahead is narrow and perilous, because we failed to act earlier, it must be said. But there is cause to be reasonably optimistic: with our European, African and also Chinese partners, we preserved climate multilateralism and the Paris Agreement for four years, despite the exit of the United States that could have caused its collapse. The coalitions of actors formed at the One Planet summits, bringing together national and local governments, companies, philanthropic foundations and civil society organizations have enabled us to make progress in overhauling our economies, bringing tangible results.
Joe Biden’s climate summit last month, attended by all the G20 leaders, showed that preserving the environment can be a shared fight, and above all marked the return of the United States of America and their catching-up. It is now urgent to speed up the transition and increase the level of ambition: COP26 in Glasgow in November must, if you will, be the Bretton Woods of the 21st century, defining the organization of productive systems in the “world after” with our new gold standard: climate neutrality.
