The time of uncertainties

In a world at war, divided, polarized, increasingly unstable, what sense does it make to talk about the international community? Does multilateralism still have value? What margins are there for affirming and promoting human rights? There are no pre-packaged answers. Antonio Maria Costa says it bluntly. Economist, a long career behind him culminating in the role of deputy secretary general of the UN, a great experience. Yet, a "boiling world" like today's requires us not to sugarcoat reality in any way. That's where we need to start. «We cannot throw away what we built after the Second World War», explains Costa.
That idea of the common good born from millions of deaths and destruction, merged into the Declaration of Human Rights, into the birth of the United Nations.

However, those principles in many contexts have remained only on paper…
Yes, but we must also grasp reality as a whole. Let's start from Europe.
We have had recent tragedies and wars such as in the former Yugoslavia and now in Ukraine, but we must admit that Europe has never experienced such a long period of peace. On the contrary, Africa suffers from numerous conflicts: the colonial power invented borders, divided ethnic groups that previously lived together and collaborated. These conflicts are the legacy of our imperialism which has created a false geopolitics that is disrespectful of local peoples and traditions. In Asia, if we exclude externally fueled wars such as those in Korea and Vietnam, most states have lived in peace and this peace has brought progress. There are lights and shadows, in short…

The fact is that today the order born from the Second World War is being questioned. Especially after the war between Russia and Ukraine, for example, the UN seems to be blocked by crossed vetoes. How do we get out of this stalemate?
Unfortunately this is the case, but I must say that today the UN risks irrelevance not only through its own fault. In the history of the United Nations, we have had several general secretaries who personally fought for peace, the second Dag Hammarskjöld even died while seeking peace among belligerent countries. Today there are 192 countries, but very few count.
We should have the courage to reform the entire institution starting from the Security Council, according to a fair principle of representation. But this is where the problems come.
Today the United States, Russia, China, Great Britain and France have veto power.
But India also claims its seat, African countries, South America. Legitimate aspirations. The debate began over ten years ago and will continue for many years to come. Having said this, we must remember that the UN is not just the UN headquarters in New York, but a network of institutions working in the field.
Let's think of the FAO, the World Health Organization, UNICEF, UNHCR, UNESCO. On the field you can really make a difference.

The international community after the Second World War was marked by the role of democracies. Today most states have non-democratic regimes. What scenarios open up for the common good when there is no democracy? And why has the reputation of the so-called free world deteriorated so much?
It's true, democracy is experiencing big problems. There are some distortions. I think of the United States which today experiences a totally unequal income distribution. The difference in income between a salaried employee and a manager is growing frighteningly: today a manager can earn 3 thousand times more than the income of an employee. But there is a deeper problem.

Which?
Democracy appears to be in difficulty in solving problems. The idea of the inefficiency of democracy is spreading. This can be seen in Africa where generals and strongmen have long been used. But even in Europe there is an air of abdication of rights, a sort of disarmament in commitment and responsibility.
We are not dealing with totalitarianism, but with the widespread belief that there is no point in committing and that it is better to delegate to others. This is a deception, because problems are faced with everyone's responsibility.
We must start again from school with true "civic education". Teach young people who live in a community that even small gestures are decisive.
The lack of sense of belonging is evident and we need to work on this.

On the economic level however, globalization does not stop with paradoxical effects. In fact, goods, even illegal businesses, circulate freely, but not people and their rights. How can we think of building fraternity without this element?
If we talk about migration, the topic is very difficult to manage, like artificial intelligence and the environment. We need to put all the elements on the table: on the one hand there is a world of poverty that legitimately knocks on our doors, but there is the fear of hypothetical "invasions". On the other hand, there is a need for foreign workers to make up for staff shortages and the demographic crisis. At the same time, an economic crisis remains, creating deep tensions and inequalities. I don't have a solution, but we have the responsibility to find humane and merciful but also realistic solutions. Complicating things is a sort of geopolitical competition that risks fragmenting the world. There are many actual or aspiring powers (from the USA to China, from Russia to India) and therefore it is increasingly difficult to talk about the common good in a universal and shared sense because increasingly different points of view emerge. Each country intends the common good in its own sense. It is a situation of uncertainty that I fear will last a long time.

In all of this, we continue to spend a lot on armaments, to the detriment of development. In 2022 alone, over 2,240 billion dollars…
When talking about military spending, we must distinguish the concept of defense from that of the war industry.
I believe in peace because I believe in law. However, the principle of defense of one's own state cannot be abandoned. Security cannot be questioned because otherwise it would mean abandoning citizens to fear. In my opinion it is not logical to mix up the plans. Another matter is the arms industry, whose profit logic can be dangerous. In the case of Europe, defense spending has always been limited for the protection of the USA. The contingent European situation requires particular attention to the issue of defence.

It's fine to defend yourself, but what role can diplomacy play? Because it does not work?
I use a provocation: I would close our embassies because today they only have a symbolic value, especially those in Europe. The world has changed so much that diplomacy as a structure is no longer of much use. Embassies still have an economic promotion value. As a value, however, diplomacy is necessary and essential, even if it is increasingly difficult to propose negotiations. This is today's theme: it seems incredible, but negotiation is seen as weakness. Diplomacy and negotiations seem to be out of time in this period. We must not give up…

In such a contradictory scenario, what can individuals do?
I respond with a story. There is a fire in a forest, a little bird fills its beak with water to put out the fire. Another bird calls him back and says: «What are you doing? It's no use!". And the other replies: «My drop is worth it». He's right, everyone must do their part also because a small gesture helps motivate other people to do the same. We can work from the bottom to transform the mentality, especially of the younger ones. They can become dynamite for society.

So there is hope…
It has to be there. The negative elements of human affairs are often highlighted. But I, in my life, in my long career, have experienced so much humanity, so much good deeds, so much solidarity. Actions that aren't newsworthy but are real and show that we are not alone.

By the editorial staff
NP November 2023