The Bloc Divide And The Future Of UN – Analysis

The recently concluded 79th United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) provided little to no credible impact on the growing dire global conflict scenarios, further hampered by the systemic and structural loopholes that have plagued the efficacy and impact essence of the General Assembly (GA).

Convenient and popular opinion and argument has always been directed to the United Nations Security Council on its exclusive power division and power veto which have been argued to set unfair global power distributions and solutions to global crises, with selected and targeted outcomes of each permanent power's choosing.

The time has come for a more impactful and efficacious UNGA, a departure from the normal role of exerting diplomatic, normative and dialogue based domain of countries' stances and outlines.

Divided along geopolitical and ideological faultlines, the annual meeting has been less effective, with too many minilateral and bilateral mechanisms at the concurrent basis that further divided nations at the ideological and economic baselines.

Regional and multilateral entities are also increasingly bloc based , with the likes of Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), Eastern Economic Forum,BRICS, Indo Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) and other economic and trade based organisations who are out to consolidate influence and increase friendshoring capacities in their power competition.

The rise of so called multilateralism and minilateralism in global politics has said to shape a new influencing factor that is led by state actors as the primary players, in the return to the conflict arena that is predominantly based on state led high intensity conflicts last seen during the Cold War.

The equal rise of non-state actors in this new power equation challenged this notion.

The rise of private industries' roles and participation in the new economic and trade transition in terms of volumes, capital, technological expansion and advancement and historical affiliation has been used by states as both boosting and complementing roles, as well as a fallback option in their power objectives.

These roles have also challenged both the limits and potential of states in flexing their ultimate regional and global drives.

Initiatives such as the Blue Dot Network and the rise of digital and technological giants in the development of the digital economy and new critical sectors including semiconductor, fintech and in the energy and technology transition all created a new mixture of the convolution of state and non state interests, where corporatism and profit driven agenda have been both the positive and backfiring tools for states and private industries and vice versa.

Many international conglomerates and corporations and multinational companies (MNCs) whose profits are bigger than the GDPs of least developed countries, are now expected to increase their roles beyond profit alone. This is where the renewed focus on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG), Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) and Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) is now being re-channelled to the private industry for a more holistic synergy of private-public initiative in advancing sustainability and resilience in common practices.

The responsibilities and roles of managing current and future global issues and challenges are now no longer in the hands of state players alone. Carbon impact and sustainable agenda, food security and supply chain, clean energy transition and diplomatic overtures and global normative stability are now no longer confined to state primary responsibilities per se, and that these international and transnational corporations and global institutions are now geared to take over these roles from state players to a bigger extent.

What is left now on the role of state actors in the global power equation and the efficacy of the UNGA?

Without binding resolutions, states do not face the obligations to adhere to any declarations or decisions, and that UNGA remains the domain to exert diplomatic and normative push as a global voice.

At most the UNGA can only act as moral support and legitimacy in a humanistic symbol, but realism and practical realism dictate that true power of change lies in key powers and players directly involved in crises, and this is where the UNSC still holds the key, and that direct major powers involved still remain the primary gamechangers.

For as much as the new focus is now being inclusive of societal power and the increased presence and influence of non-state actors primarily the private entities, state led initiatives and the overall power impact of states still make the most important drive of global peace and progress.

Only states have the power to dictate major global norms and policies, in preventing wars and conflicts or in starting a major one.

Non-traditional threats and the role of non-state rogue actors have now been largely compressed throughout the more than two decades' war on terror and the joint efforts in combating transnational crime and syndicates, although pockets of resistance still persist.

The bigger threats of upcoming global tensions and risks remain state driven, and with nuclear risks being the most worrying where conventional deterrence and conventional warfare are now losing their efficacy and strength.

New bloc based entities both in defence and economic domains that are torn between both blocs with the Western led Pacific Deterrence Initiative,IPEF, AUKUS, Quad, Five Eyes Intelligence, the Squad, and the growing ties and axis of Moscow-Beijing-Pyongyang and other non Western alliance and mechanisms in the likes of BRICS, Global South, SCO, RCEP and others, further divided the world and consolidated each other's friendshoring capacities.

Sometimes conflicting roles and objectives of the G77, G20, and G7 as well as the dwindling influence of climate based initiatives further portrayed the rising influence and power of national interests and power dictates that are based on major power projections and legitimacy based on power rankings. National interests supersede greater global or regional stability, and crises are now increasingly being led by power pursuits.

This has also further weakened the role of UNGA, but even within these bloc based entities, internal cracks and divides have also been apparent.

In global politics where might is right is increasingly dictating directions of global affairs, the most vulnerable face the highest risks, and the more powerful will seek to extend friendshoring, alliance making and consolidation of power. The weaker ones and the vulnerable ones will try to align with existing and proven mechanisms of power capacity and deterrence, in affiliating with the higher power to ensure their own survival and protection.

Sweden and Finland joined NATO because of these vulnerabilities.

Crises and conflicts throughout the world from East Asia to the Middle East and West Asia also portrayed the lack of credible and sustained and unified responses among the regional players themselves as well as other players directly and indirectly impacted by these conflicts.

These reflect the larger context of how nations still calculate their power returns and national interests in a calculated manner and based on meticulous future considerations and calculations of ramifications, backfiring implications, and strategic manouvering of policies and responses vis a vis both the bigger powers and the future survival of their own power and security status.

What remains the most important for now is for the adherence to the global rules based order and normative norms of peace and stability, where the international law and the rule of law, and the respect for the sanctity of freedom and democracy and the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity of states have been the main pillars of global peace and order for more than seven decades since the end of WWII.