Original article on: www.neurope.eu/articles/94608.php

Obama as an omnilateralist - is he open to all?

Issue: 837 Posted: June,07 2009

During his State of the Union address in 2002, then US president George W. Bush unilaterally listed North Korea along with Iran and Iraq in the what he called the Axis of Evil. His motto was, “You’re with us, or against us!” Together with his Vice-President Dick Cheney, he became the incarnation of unilateralism, declarations and actions emanating from the White House without much ado or consideration for others. Few, even amongst the allies or foreign governments, and much less the UN were consulted when American unilateralism peaked with the war in Iraq. President Barack Obama, who went to the Middle East last week to woo Muslims, showed even before he became president that he was ready to listen and during his election campaign demonstrated an omnilateral approach, by raising most of his money not from a few big spenders – as Bush did, mainly from the oil industry - but from millions of small engaging donours in America, mainly through the Internet. This provided him with a much broader basis and political independence. Now he has proclaimed a policy of omnilateral openness towards Africa, North Korea and Iran, and made overtures to Cuba and the Taliban. Obama, whose father was Kenyan, had been particularly outspoken as a Senator on US policy towards Africa. Early on, he advocated opening dialogue with Iran, since he recognised that the war in Iraq strengthened Iran’s influence in the region, and he wanted Iran to play a more constructive role with Iraq. Obama also has supported developing an international coalition to handle the nuclear issue of North Korea, and says he supports “sustained, direct, and aggressive diplomacy.” In a September 2008 presidential debate, Obama said a lack of diplomatic engagement with North Korea led the country to significantly increase its nuclear capacity. In his first extensive interview since taking office as Obama went as far as pointing out his childhood in predominantly Muslim Indonesia to open up to his audience on Arab TV. On his first day in office he phoned major leaders in the Middle East and he was voted the “most respected” amongst world leaders in the West. So, is Obama the new Omnilateralist, opening the West to the rest and to all sides? Will his administration - to the Muslim world and others – really “seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect” as he said in his inaugural address? Will the Americans “extend a hand” if the others are willing to unclench the fist? Or is the American nation still so deeply “at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred” (Obama’s inaugural address) that Omnilateralism, namely governance for and by all, remains a dream of some Kantian idealists in Europe, but cannot persuade the new American leadership? An American move towards such Omnilateralism could lead to more participatory international politics which is a dire need not only for global goods like the trans-border environment, but now obviously also for regulating global finance to tackle the current economic crisis. Mere multilateral solutions through a Washington Consensus or the traditional institutions of the UN, IMF etc. might not suffice anymore, as too many major players – public or private, North or South, West or East— do not feel properly represented. While we widen the circles from G7 to G20, many more - also NGOs - want their voices heard. If President Obama starts to open the ears of the American administration (his new envoys abroad are told to “listen first”!) he might indeed meet high expectations and become the Omnilateralist, driving a popular omnibus, rather than a gas-guzzling SUV.

Dr. Wolfgang Pape is currently Policy Officer, International Affairs, in DG Enterprise of the European Commission after having studied and served in America and Asia. This commentary does not reflect the position of the European Commission and reflects only the personal opinions of the writer

The Challenge of Omnilateral Governance

“The mystery to be overcome is one all peoples share – how divergent historic experiences and values can be shaped into a common order.” These are the words of Henry Kissinger introducing his latest bestseller with the subtitle ‘Reflections on the Character of Nations and the Course of History’. However, the current ‘World Order’ is far from accepted and shared by all people(s). It is basically limited to governance by ‘nations’. However, the term ’nation’ originated in Europe under particular circumstances, notably following long-fought religious wars, and found its definition in the western concept of what nowadays is regarded as ’international law’ in order to rule between and among those ‚nations’. Only colonialisation -mainly by force- brought the concept to Africa, America and Asia, where ‚national’ borders were drawn by the conquerors irrespective of natural, native  and cultural identities on these continents.
As a result, the subsequently Western-dominated multilateral system of ‘nations’ is today in the globalising world increasingly dysfunctional, especially with its fiction of ‘national sovereignty’ badly operating in view of growing interdependence. The days of the so-called ‘international’ rules and institutions established by the West seem to be numbered for many critical observers. The present system’s protagonists in America as well as in Europe hardly show any willingness or capability to implement the necessary reforms in the relevant institutions, such as the UN, UNSC, IMF, WB, WTO etc. Our mostly militarily circumscribed ‘nations’ now are often falsely considered the only official actors in the ‘inter-national’ or rather global arena. Neither does it include all the major non-state stakeholders ranging from civil society and multinational corporations to various representatives of other global interests. Nor does it cover for instance the High Sea or (Cyber and Outer) Space beyond any national borders that urgently need comprehensive and legitimate governance by and for all, that is to say omnibus. Furthermore, the entities recognised as ‘nations’ in the official bodies of the current so-called multilateral order of the world, the two hundred-odd officially listed members of the United Nations (UN), hardly represent the weight of their various peoples and societies. Hence, amendments for enhanced global governance are needed to ensure not only a better weighting of representation, but also for opening of the current exclusively multilateral framework towards an omnilateral participation, namely by all stakeholders involved. Recent plurilateral initiatives, like the G20, ‘coalitions of the willing’ and certain members within the WTO for instance, have improved consensus-building amongst the few involved, but are far from legitimately representing a comprehensive global governance by and for all. Hence, notably in view of the highly advanced state of globalisation in terms of economics and notably finance, there remains the immense challenge to open up for omnilateralism with all relevant stakeholders worldwide to enhance the pyramid of multi-level governance at its very top. In addition, such opening upstream from the nation and region at the very top should also lead to enhanced governance downstream within nation-states all the way to the local level with people empowered by more proximity and participation in decision-making.

Dr Wolfgang PAPE, Bruxelles                                                                                         2016/01/05