Wealth Inequality Breeds Health Inequality

READ MORE

The declaration marked the heyday of multilateral optimism. But contrary to the millennial vision of global governance, international affairs today are dominated by entrenched mistrust between governments.

Sadly, the above-mentioned article by the six world leaders does not explain what went wrong in the 21^st century. Without such an analysis, however, appeals for changing course risk being little more than aspirational talk. To really make multilateralism great again, we have to ask: Why did things go astray?

The Adverse Effects of Nasty Surprises

Harold Macmillan, the British prime minister between 1957 and 1963, is frequently as having said that what he feared most in politics were “Events, dear boy, events.” This catchy phrase points to the proverbial overlooked elephant that has rampaged through international affairs in the last two decades. Apparently, unexpected events, escalating into major crises and global disruptions, have driven the international community apart and contributed decisively to the demise of multilateralism.

To their credit, the world leaders are aware of this. They accurately state that major crises remind us of how interdependent we are, referencing the global financial crisis of 2008 and the current COVID-19 pandemic. However, there have been far more important disruptions in the past two decades: the 9/11 attacks in 2001; the popular revolts in the Middle East in 2011, which escalated into civil wars in Libya, Syria and Yemen; the eurozone crisis; ��ܲ�������’s annexation of Crimea in 2014; the 2016 Brexit referendum in the United Kingdom; and the presidency of Donald Trump in the United States. More could easily be added to the list.

These disruptions shattered international cooperation. Economic crises intensified cleavages within as well as between societies. Austerity and social inequality championed populist and anti-liberal sentiments that were expressed through battle cries of “take back control” and “America First.” Following 9/11, the 2003 war in Iraq split the West, whereas the military confrontations in Libya and Syria continue to divide the international community. Russia was suspended from the G8 after its territorial aggression against Ukraine, closing an important channel of communication with the Kremlin.

The cumulative effect of these disruptions has been a significant decline in the willingness of governments to collaborate. International organizations and multilateral agreements have become political battlegrounds. Many administrations, including those in the United States, China, Russia, India, the United Kingdom and the European Union, prioritize policies such as decoupling, self-sufficiency and strategic autonomy. Consequently, the COVID-19 pandemic is unfolding as a dual crisis of global connectivity and global governance.

Credible Foresight Creates Trust in Multilateral Cooperation

In their article, the world leaders shied away from the conclusion that global disruptions are not only a result of, but also an important catalyst for many governments retreating from multilateralism. That is why they are missing the low-hanging fruit for policy innovation: Avoiding nasty surprises by cultivating anticipatory governance — for instance, by investing in multilateral foresight and forecasting capabilities.

Hardly any of the major disruptions in international affairs have come as a surprise. Genuine “black swans” are very rare: The 9/11 Commission Report pointed out that several American agencies had been collecting evidence that al-Qaeda was planning attacks; there were plenty of reports from the Middle East and North Africa region analyzing the widespread dissatisfaction with repressive governments and bad governance; experts had frequently warned about the global financial crisis, the eurozone and the pandemic; and the referendum in the United Kingdom and the elections in the United States could only have had one of two outcomes. So, the lack of preparations for the unexpected results had more to do with wishful thinking than surprise.

The exception to the rule is the annexation of Crimea. That the Kremlin would drastically change course instead of waiting out the developments in Kiev, which had proved a winning strategy for Moscow after 2004, came as a real surprise. But in all other cases, plenty of unheeded warnings lined the road to the tragedy of multilateralism.

Of course, governments’ reluctance to trust forewarnings is understandable. The track record of expert predictions is not that impressive. Quite often, they turn out to be wrong. And crying wolf has consequences: Policymakers might be criticized by their opponents, the media, courts of auditors or the public when they order, for example, vaccines but a pandemic does not materialize as expected. This happened in 2009 with the swine flu , when policymakers in Europe and the United States learned a lesson that partly explains the inadequate preparations for COVID-19.

But some predictions are better than others. Research has  that the best forecasters achieve up to 30% higher prediction accuracy than analysts with access to classified material. Diversity and multi-perspectivity are important criteria for the success of forecasting teams that consistently outperform their competitors. Policymakers should harvest this knowledge. Investing in multilateral  and forecasting capabilities promises not only to increase timely awareness of future events. Collectively anticipating risks and opportunities could also stimulate international cooperation and joint policymaking.

*[This was originally published by the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP), which advises the German government and Bundestag on all questions related to foreign and security policy.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Will Multilateralism Be Great Again? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Between May 26-28, Egyptians voted for a new president as yet another election was held. Abdel Fattah al-Sisi won with more than 90% of votes against his only opponent, the left-wing populist Hamdeen Sabahi. Sisi was widely-expected to win as the former army chief was supported by the state apparatus and large parts of the Egyptian elite. What surprised many, however, was the low voter turnout, which prompted the election commission to extend the voting process from two to three days.

Several nongovernmental organizations, the African Union, the Arab League and the European Union (EU) observed the presidential election. The EU mission encountered obstacles from the outset and was almost canceled. In the end, it could only be implemented in a reduced manner. As a result, EU representatives could not get a comprehensive picture of the situation in Egypt.

Therefore, the positive tone of the EU mission’s first statement after the vote came as a surprise. It essentially confirmed that the Egyptian authorities administered the election “in line with the law.” Despite describing the election’s political context as repressive, EU representatives highlighted that there was “broad support” from the Egyptian population who were in favor of the transitional government’s roadmap. However, no evidence was delivered for this. The decision to extend the election by one day was seen as in accordance with the law, despite being controversially discussed among Egyptian jurists.

Even more problematic was the lack of assessment over voter turnout. Instead, EU observers cited the 47.3% given by the Egyptian election commission. Given that many polling stations remained virtually empty, this number should have been addressed as highly suspicious. Moreover, the statement did not mention that the population was ordered to vote under the threat of punishment. Egyptian law entails an obligation to vote; however, this has never been enforced. Threatening enforcement of this law emphasized the desperate efforts by Egyptian authorities to achieve a high voter turnout in order to equip the new president with as much legitimacy as possible. Accordingly, this move should have been addressed by the EU.

Legitimizing the Political Process in Egypt

The real problem with the EU observer mission is not its questionable assessment. Rather the EU, through its political decision to conduct an observer mission, has lent a considerable amount of external legitimacy to the election process, which was not free and fair. The invitation by Egyptian authorities to the EU may have been motivated by fears of a low voter turnout that would have indicated a lack of support for Sisi. This made any act of external legitimization by the EU even more crucial for the Egyptian regime, due to the lack of internal support.

Apparently, the EU is more concerned with short-term stabilization in Egypt rather than long-term stability. It does not seem to believe in a successful democratic transformation of the country.

The legitimacy boost for the regime was even bigger as the mission had an explicit political element. Not only were election specialists part of the mission, but so too was a delegation of European Parliament representatives. Thus, it is not surprising that Egyptian state media interpreted the EU mission as a sign of support for the political process.

Apparently, the EU is more concerned with short-term stabilization in Egypt rather than long-term stability. It does not seem to believe in a successful democratic transformation of the country. Instead, the EU has sent a signal to the ruling Egyptian elites that the political process steered by them has been accepted.

However, in doing so, the EU not only alienates opponents of the regime such as activists that brought down Hosni Mubarak in 2011 — the same activists who were celebrated as protagonists of civil society demands for self-determination. Rather, the EU has also damaged its long-term opportunities to influence the situation.

If it becomes clear that Sisi cannot rule successfully due to a lack of societal support, one of two scenarios will emerge. First, state repression will intensify, something the EU will not be able to ignore in the long-run. Human rights organizations such as Amnesty International have already spoken out against unacceptable conditions, diminishing press freedom and excessive police brutality, including killings and mass incarcerations that go unpunished. The second situation could see a spread of discontent among the Egyptian population, leading to mass protests once again. If another leader is overthrown, the EU will face considerable difficulties in justifying its support for the current political process.

The concluding statement by a member of the EU mission, mentioning that the election was “democratic, peaceful and free … but not necessarily always fair,” is a mockery considering the current political climate in Egypt. In the eyes of its Egyptian critics, the mission completely discredited itself. Even if the final report, which is set to be released in a few weeks, details the election’s shortcomings, the first impression will stick: the EU has sided with repression in Egypt. Having failed to boycott the quintessentially undemocratic process in Egypt, the EU has virtually supported it.

*[This article was originally published by����and was translated from German to English by .]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

/

The post Egypt: The EU Election Observer Mission Was a Mistake appeared first on 51�Թ�.