logo
[Antara Haldar] Why global governance is failing

[Antara Haldar] Why global governance is failing

Korea Herald16-03-2025

The United Nations was established in 1945, succeeding the failed League of Nations, to pull humanity back from the brink of self-destruction. It was a bold experiment in collective security, designed to prevent another world war and manage conflicts through diplomacy rather than violence.
Yet, 80 years later, we find ourselves back on the precipice of disaster. Global temperatures have breached the 1.5 degrees Celsius threshold that scientists see as a Rubicon for reining in climate change over the long term. Public trust in institutions -- and in democracy -- is critically low, and geopolitical tensions are rising. What happened?
The UN has, justifiably, drawn criticism for a variety of reasons. The composition of the Security Council is antiquated. Violent conflict, and even genocide, still occur with alarming frequency. And the organization has proven to be generally ineffectual, overly bureaucratic, and unfair in its treatment of the Global South.
But the inadequately diagnosed problem is that the UN is bringing a 20th-century logic to bear on the 21st century's fundamentally planetary problems. Today's most urgent challenges -- climate change, pandemics, AI regulation, financial contagion, supply-chain disruptions -- do not respect national borders, yet UN institutions remain stuck in a framework of nation-states jealously guarding their sovereignty. Our international institutions simply were not designed to address essentially systemic issues indifferent to national borders. The UN is not just slow; it is structurally incapable of tackling such problems at scale.
With even conventional governance structures faltering in the face of heightened tribalism and nationalism, any proposed new paradigm of planetary governance runs the risk of sounding utopian. Fortunately, the world already has a serviceable blueprint: The European Union, for all its flaws, has demonstrated that a supranational federation can work, allowing previously warring countries to pool sovereignty in exchange for economic and political stability. Nor is this such a radical idea. In a 1946 Gallup poll, 54 percent of Americans believed that 'the UN should be strengthened to make it a world government with power to control the armed forces of all nations, including the United States.'
In 2024, by contrast, 58 percent of Americans thought the UN was doing a 'poor job.' This suggests that the UN needs to take a bolder approach. Big, planetary issues like global warming are what philosopher Timothy Morton calls 'hyperobjects.' They are 'entities of such vast temporal and spatial dimension' as to require a fundamentally different kind of human reasoning. To change how we think about such problems calls for both an intellectual and a psychological shift -- beyond the nation-state, or what Benedict Anderson famously called 'imagined communities.'
Intellectually, planetary thinking requires its own theoretical framework. This demand is not new. In the 20th century, John Maynard Keynes saw a need for a global currency and proposed the 'bancor' to replace the dollar-focused Bretton Woods institutions; Hannah Arendt advanced her own vision of planetary politics; and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin developed his concept of the 'noosphere' (collective human consciousness). In more recent scholarship -- from Johan Rockström's work on 'planetary boundaries' to Bruno Latour's description of our ecological age -- the intellectual elements of a new planetary paradigm are beginning to come together.
Psychologically, we need a new narrative. The historian Yuval Noah Harari argues that human civilization is built on shared myths: nationalism, religion, capitalism. If planetary governance is to succeed, it needs to tell a compelling new story, one that moves beyond outdated ideas about sovereign nation-states to acknowledge humanity's interconnectedness.
Rigorous planetary thinking must be accompanied by stronger local thinking. Improvements to our governance structures must look both 'up' and 'down,' as the Berggruen Institute's Jonathan Blake and Nils Gilman have put it. Global governance cannot succeed without resilient, empowered local structures. The nation-state would remain one element, but cities, regions and local networks would be given more attention and integrated into planetary decision-making. This kind of nested approach could offer an alternative to the outdated system of nation-states without requiring its wholesale dismantling.
The growing urgency of planetary crises -- from the 2008 financial crash to pandemics and climate change -- graphically illustrate the inadequacies of the UN in its current form. The UN itself emerged from the shell of the League of Nations, and now it is time to build anew. Governance must pivot from the nation-state-based logic of the Bretton Woods system to the planetary sensibilities of the bancor. Even if the United Nations had succeeded in uniting the world's nations, its current design would be unequal to a moment defined by inherently planetary challenges. It's time to imagine new communities centered on our planetary realities.
Antara Haldar
Antara Haldar, associate professor of empirical legal studies at the University of Cambridge, is a visiting faculty member at Harvard University and the principal investigator on a European Research Council grant on law and cognition. The views expressed here are the writer's own. -- Ed.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

N.Korea says damaged warship moored at pier after putting it in upright position
N.Korea says damaged warship moored at pier after putting it in upright position

Korea Herald

time3 days ago

  • Korea Herald

N.Korea says damaged warship moored at pier after putting it in upright position

North Korea said Friday it has successfully put in an upright position a warship that was partially capsized during a launch ceremony last month, and the warship is moored at the pier for more restoration works. The 5,000-ton destroyer tipped over and became partially submerged during the launch ceremony held in late May in the northeastern port city of Chongjin. North Korean leader Kim Jong-un ordered the full restoration of the warship before a key party meeting set for late June. In early June, a North Korean team restored the balance of the warship and moored it at the pier by safely conducting its end launching Thursday afternoon, according to the Korean Central News Agency. "The team will start the next-stage restoration after the reexamination by a group of experts into the overall hull of the destroyer," the KCNA said. North Korea said it will carry out detailed restoration work on the destroyer at a drydock in the northeastern port of Rajin, a project that is expected to take seven to 10 days. The South Korean military said Thursday the North Korean warship that had inclined at the Chongjin port returned to an upright position earlier this week, and that the North is expected to begin to drain water from the warship. The North's leader Kim witnessed the warship tipping over during the launch ceremony and condemned it as an intolerable "criminal act." As part of a probe into the warship accident, North Korea has detained some officials, including the vice director of the party's munitions industry department. (Yonhap)

A lingering Musk: Will ex-aide Elon get up Trump's nose?
A lingering Musk: Will ex-aide Elon get up Trump's nose?

Korea Herald

time4 days ago

  • Korea Herald

A lingering Musk: Will ex-aide Elon get up Trump's nose?

WASHINGTON (AFP) -- Donald Trump's sweeping domestic policy bill has careened into an Elon Musk-shaped brick wall, complicating its passage into law and risking a schism between the most powerful man in the world and the wealthiest. The US president's "Big, Beautiful Bill" -- the centerpiece of his domestic agenda -- could define his second term and make or break Republican prospects in the 2026 midterm elections. But the package is getting a rough ride in Congress over proposals to fund an extension of his 2017 tax cuts by piling on debt and cutting social welfare for the poorest Americans. Enter tech billionaire Musk, who dropped a nuclear bomb on the 1,100-page blueprint at a crucial stage in negotiations Tuesday, calling it a "disgusting abomination." And on Wednesday he called for Republicans to "kill the bill," and for an alternative plan that "doesn't massively grow the deficit." In its latest estimate released Wednesday, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said the bill would add $2.4 trillion to US debt by 2034. Musk, who last week ended his brief advisory tenure as Trump's cost-cutter-in-chief, tore into the bill in a prolonged denunciation. The South African-born tycoon has voiced concerns before, but his language was much more combative, coming across as a declaration of war on the Republican Party, if not Trump himself. The White House brushed off the criticism, saying Trump "already knows where Elon Musk stood," but the remarks will likely have gotten under the president's skin. The stakes could hardly be higher for Trump, who has made clear, with signature hyperbole, that he sees his bill as "arguably the most significant piece of legislation that will ever be signed." He has yet to respond personally to Musk's social media rant -- sustained over six hours and 13 posts on Tuesday and still going well into Wednesday. But Washington watchers aren't necessarily expecting a public falling-out. Behind the scenes, a careful circling of the wagons is underway, with pro-Trump pundits under orders to refrain from trashing Musk and to instead frame his broadside as what Politico called "principled self-interest." Still, for analysts contacted by Agence France-Presse, there may be choppier waters ahead. "It's the Lennon and McCartney of modern politics. Two egos, one spotlight, and a fragile alliance built on mutual benefits," said Evan Nierman, the founder and CEO of global crisis PR firm Red Banyan. "The moment either one sees more upside in conflict than cooperation, the breakup goes public." But political consultant and former Senate aide Andrew Koneschusky, a key player in negotiations over Trump's 2017 tax cuts, believes the Republican leader has nothing to gain by biting back. "Musk has more money. Musk's megaphone, X, is bigger than Trump's. And Musk was deeply embedded in the administration for months," he told AFP. "There's no telling what Musk heard or saw that could be embarrassing or problematic for the administration if the two were to go to war." Musk -- who has cash to spare for his political adventures, including $280 million lavished on Trump's election campaign -- slammed the Republicans who cleared the bill for Senate consideration and threatened to have their jobs in the midterms. And the de facto leader of America's "tech bro" community demonstrated his political firepower with a single tweet in December that blew up a government funding bill that had enjoyed bipartisan support. His take on the deficit implications of Trump's proposals is evidenced by copious independent research, and he was immediately backed by some fiscal hawks in the Senate. Continued interventions by Musk could be an ongoing headache for Trump, as he bids to shepherd his policy priorities through razor-thin Republican majorities in Congress. But cheerleaders of the package -- and independent analysts contacted by AFP -- believe the Tesla magnate may discover that his celebrity in Trumpworld relies on the say-so of its mercurial chieftain. "Musk may have had influence in December when his bromance with Trump was in full bloom," said Donald Nieman, a political analyst and professor at Binghamton University in New York state. "But his break with Trump and his massive unpopularity with voters makes it easy for lawmakers to ignore him. If anything, it helps Trump by distancing him from a man who has become a pariah."

US vetoes UN Security Council resolution demanding immediate Gaza ceasefire
US vetoes UN Security Council resolution demanding immediate Gaza ceasefire

Korea Herald

time4 days ago

  • Korea Herald

US vetoes UN Security Council resolution demanding immediate Gaza ceasefire

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — The US on Wednesday vetoed a UN Security Council resolution demanding an immediate and permanent ceasefire in Gaza because it was not linked to the release of hostages, saying it would embolden Hamas militants. All 14 other members of the council voted in favor of the resolution, which described the humanitarian situation in Gaza as 'catastrophic' and called on Israel to lift all restrictions on the delivery of aid to the 2.1 million Palestinians in the territory. The resolution before the UN's most powerful body also did not fulfill two other US demands: It did not condemn Hamas' deadly attack in Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, which ignited the war, or say the militant group must disarm and withdraw from Gaza. Acting US Ambassador Dorothy Shea, speaking to the council immediately before the vote, said the resolution would undermine the security of Israel. a close US ally, and diplomatic efforts to reach a ceasefire 'that reflects the realities on the ground." US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the resolution would only have empowered Hamas. 'Hamas could end this brutal conflict immediately by laying down its arms and releasing all remaining hostages,' he said in a statement. Israel's UN Ambassador Danny Danon thanked the United States for refusing to abandon the hostages. He said the resolution's failure to make the release of hostages a condition for a ceasefire would have put all the pressure on Israel and handed Hamas 'time, leverage and political cover.' But the US veto of the resolution — its fifth since the start of the war — was roundly criticized by other members of the council, who accused the United States of providing Israel with impunity. The Chinese ambassador to the UN said Israel's actions have 'crossed every red line' of international humanitarian law and seriously violated UN resolutions. 'Yet, due to the shielding by one country, these violations have not been stopped or held accountable," Ambassador Fu Cong said. Britain's UN Ambassador Barbara Woodward, a usual US ally, lashed out at Israel. 'This Israeli government's decisions to expand its military operations in Gaza and severely restrict aid are unjustifiable, disproportionate and counterproductive, and the UK completely opposes them,' she said. Pakistan's Ambassador Asim Iftikhar Ahmad said the US veto "will be remembered as a complicity, a green light for continued annihilation. A moment where the entire world was expecting action. But yet again, this council was blocked and prevented by one member from carrying out its responsibility.' Slovenia's UN Ambassador Samuel Zbogar, the coordinator for the council's 10 elected members, stressed that it was never the intention to provoke a veto, and therefore the resolution focused on the humanitarian crisis and the urgent need for unimpeded access to deliver aid. 'Starving civilians and inflicting immense suffering is inhumane and against international law,' he told the council after the vote. 'No war objective can justify such action. We had hoped and expected that this was our shared understanding.' Palestinian UN Ambassador Riyad Mansour said Palestinians are now urging governments to take 'real measures' to pressure Israel to get out of Gaza before it implements what he called an Israeli plan 'to destroy our people." And in the coming days, he said, the Palestinians will head to the 193-member General Assembly, where there are no vetoes, with a similar humanitarian-focused resolution. Unlike in the Security Council, assembly resolutions are not legally binding, though they are seen as a barometer of world opinion. The US vetoed the last Security Council resolution on Gaza in November, under the Biden administration, also because the ceasefire demand was not directly linked to the release of all hostages. Similarly, the current resolution demands that those taken by Hamas and other groups be released, but it does not make it a condition for a truce. President Donald Trump's administration has tried to ramp up its efforts to broker peace in Gaza after 20 months of war. However, Hamas has sought amendments to a US proposal that special envoy Steve Witkoff has called 'totally unacceptable.' The vote followed a decision by an Israeli and US-backed foundation to pause food delivery in Gaza after health officials said dozens of Palestinians were killed in a series of shootings this week. Israel and the US say the new system was designed to prevent Hamas from stealing aid previously distributed by the UN. The UN has rejected the new system. The UN says its distribution system worked very well during the March ceasefire and is carefully monitored. Gaza is almost completely reliant on international aid because Israel's offensive has destroyed nearly all food production capabilities. Israel imposed a blockade on supplies into Gaza on March 2, and limited aid began to enter again late last month after pressure from allies and warnings of famine. The war began when Hamas-led militants stormed into southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, killing around 1,200 people and abducting 251. They are still holding 58 hostages, a third of them believed to be alive, after most of the rest were released in ceasefire agreements or other deals. Israel's military campaign has killed more than 54,000 Palestinians, mostly women and children, according to Gaza's Health Ministry, which does not say how many of the dead were civilians or combatants. The ministry is led by medical professionals but reports to the Hamas-run government. Its toll is seen as generally reliable by UN agencies and independent experts, though Israel has challenged its numbers.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store