Is Europe the embodiment of authentic multilaterism, or has it reduced itself to being a mere collective of subtle, unspoken post-colonialism projects that pass off as initiatives of international cooperation and assistance?
Does the European Union today possess even the most essential modicum of ingredients within its systems to be a force for a just and humanitarian world? Or does it seek to tacitly continue patterns of an unequal and unjust world just as it did in the colonial era?
The world is changing at a rapid pace and political leaders world-wide are unable to forge a common vision of a world that is just and sustainable on the international stage. The United Nations has proven to be anything but effective. Clearly, the shelf-life of the hitherto unipolar world is over.
Trump’s vain attempt to impose his authority on the world does not seem to be going anywhere. A string of executive orders have marked his time as President. They are being challenged by the people and courts within the USA. Around the world, people and governments are trying to place strategies which will allow them to be autonomous rather than being at the receiving end of Trump’s orders. Trump has created an unequal world through his tariff-based way of making America Great Again. Democracy is limping in the US as it is in Western Europe. The Democrats use rhetoric with effect every now and then. But the Republicans have a stranglehold on the system and will wield power accordingly. Nor, for that matter, are the democrats ideologically too different from the Republicans.
An election held only to meet statutory requirements now every couple of years does not hand a country democratic credentials and claims to be a purposeful democracy. In the recent past, several elections in Europe are producing startling results with the far-right making advances – a political evolution which does not bode well for the countries that must come to terms with these new political facts, as well as the for the international community at large.
Technology and science have made the world more prosperous. Industrialization has advanced at a rapid pace and wealth has accumulated from such growth. New forms of technology have taken the place of what once was. It must be noted, however, that the products of science and technology have created great inequalities. While the rich have accrued wealth in much bigger quantum; meanwhile the poor are left in widespread and acute deprivation. Even the once populist slogan of ‘bread, clothing, and shelter’ (basic needs) has been discarded. It was once a catchphrase that offered hope to the poor and disadvantaged. The people have come to recognize that such political taglines merely carry empty hopes and broken promises.
Several countries of the Global South are blindly aping the West and entering a phase where they are run by oligarchies with overt support by ruling machineries. The richest have cornered a huge part of the wealth created through crony capitalism and inheritance. Multilateral efforts are failing to adequately respond to critical global challenges. The climate crisis, persistent poverty and inequality are simply named as problems-to-be resolved. While some have blamed the deadlock solely on rising geopolitical tensions between powerful countries, there is need to evaluate the key reason for failures of international cooperation is extreme economic inequality.
Today, the world’s richest 1% owns more wealth than 95% of human race. The immense application of wealth, driven significantly by increased monopolistic corporate power, has allowed large corporations and the ultra-rich who exercise control over them to use their vast resources to shape global rules in their favor, often at the expense of the weak and powerless. This nexus of extreme wealth inequality, corporate power, and political influence drives a movement toward global oligarchy, in which ultra-wealthy individuals – often enabled by the richest countries – exert disproportionate influence over policy decisions.
Powerful corporations and ultra-wealthy individuals often have an interest in maintaining this status quo by impeding international efforts to forge equitable multilateral solutions to crucial global problems, including efforts relating to tax cooperation, pandemic response, and sovereign debt.
The only salvation may lie in the current initiatives, largely led by Global South countries, to reverse the movement toward global oligarchy by replacing division with solidarity. All countries have an interest in eliminating extreme concentrations of wealth that drive political inequality. A more just multilateral order — where the rich pay their fair share, public health is prioritized over profit, and countries can invest in human rights — ultimately benefits everyone.
In a recent photo-op in one of India’s leading dailies, the Prime Minister Modi was seen surrounded by a small coterie of the reeking rich who virtually own and operate the country. They, it is, who uphold and perpetuate the imbalances between the social classes. Professor Himanshu, Centre for Economic Studies and Planning, JNU points out how “what is particularly worrying in India’s case is that economic inequality is being added to a society that is already fractured along the lines of caste, religion, region and gender.”
The rise of authoritarianism around the world also poses challenges that are hard to delete. They emanate from almost every region of the world, especially where the rich-poor gaps are most severely experienced. The effects are felt most in the Global South and their root conditions are located in political economy of Western polities. Elites in the West and Global South coalesce in ways that mutually enrich each other.
I began this article by suggesting that Europe has no inclinations of carrying forward authentic multilaterism in international relations. Instances of how EU’s policies and practices can perpetuate forms of colonialism, often in subtle and nuanced ways are several. Europe is but a mere collective of subtle, unspoken post-colonialism projects that pass of as international cooperation and assistance. While the European Union (EU) promotes itself as a champion of human rights, democracy, and cooperation, there are rather brazen ways in which it practices colonialism in more subtle ways than in the colonial era.
Economic colonialism, through which the EU’s economic policies and trade agreements create and perpetuate dependence on European markets and capital, limits the economic sovereignty of non-EU countries. European corporations often continue to exploit natural resources in non-EU countries, particularly in Africa, without providing fair compensation or benefits to local communities. In some cases, they create rifts between different ethnic groups in one country to acquire the dominance that accrue from the divisions.
The EU often ties aid and development assistance to political conditions, such as exerting significant influence over the foreign policy decisions of non-EU countries, particularly those seeking EU membership or economic integration. The EU’s promotion of European values and cultural norms can lead to the suppression of local cultures and identities tantamount to the racial practice of cultural colonialism. Its migration policies and border control measures amount to a form of “Fortress Europe” – a form of colonialism, where the EU seeks to control the movement of people from non-EU countries.
Multilateral agencies like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) have indeed been criticized for perpetuating colonial-like relationships between the Global North and the Global South. The World Bank and IMF provide loans to developing countries with conditions that often serve the interests of Western powers, rather than the borrowing countries. These institutions promote economic liberalization policies, such as privatization, deregulation, and trade liberalization, which can lead to the exploitation of natural resources, labor, and markets in developing countries.
The World Bank and IMF are suspect of promoting a neoliberal agenda that prioritizes the interests of corporations and wealthy elites over those of local communities and the environment. Developing countries often have limited representation and voting power within these institutions, making it difficult for them to influence decision-making processes. The World Bank and IMF have been criticized for imposing Western values, institutions, and policies on developing countries, disregarding local cultures, traditions, and knowledge systems.
The consequences of the above policy paradigms include conditional lending have led to a debt trap, where countries are increasingly indebted and vulnerable to external control. Economic liberalization policies exacerbate economic instability, advance inequities, and undermine local industries. The unbridled pursuit of economic growth and resource extraction has shown visible strains on eco-systems and has resulted in environmental degradation, displacement of communities, and loss of biodiversity.
The urgent imperative is for a new world order to come into the reckoning. The emergence of BRICS as an alternative and challenge to the current systems of domination and control by the affluent West has had a profound effect on Western domination. With almost no exception, western countries have not welcomed the creation of BRICS, even though it is clear that it will only advance interests the Global South politically and economically. President Trump has promised punishment on the BRICS by imposing tariffs that will hit hard. Ordinary Europeans and those in civil society circles do not applaud the creation of BRICS seeing that a collectivized Global South can bargain for justice and fairness in the, otherwise, skewed and lop-sided relationships between the rich world and the emerging countries in the Global South.
BRICS has shown potential by strengthening cooperation among developing countries. Their vision is that they will discover alternative and condition-free sources of funding, technology, and expertise. Similarly, Regional institutions, such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and the New Development Bank (NDB), provide alternative sources of funding and promote regional development.
Finally, by setting in motion participatory development processes that involve local communities, civil society, and governments, it is possible to prioritize local needs and promote more equitable development outcomes.
In what must be obvious, if the world were to acknowledge and correct the limitations and biases of multilateral agencies, we would witness the creation of a more just and equitable global economic order.
Ranjan Solomon, from Goa-India, is a human rights activist and political commentator.
