ReportWire

Tag: global cooperation

  • Participation in the Multilateral System Remains High as Performance Drops, New Index Finds

    Participation in the Multilateral System Remains High as Performance Drops, New Index Finds

    [ad_1]

    The Multilateralism Index 2024 reveals a contradiction: while participation in the multilateral system has largely held steady or even increased, its effectiveness in addressing global challenges has declined.


    WASHINGTON, October 17, 2024 (Newswire.com)
    –
    Today marks the launch of the second edition of the Multilateralism Index from the International Peace Institute (IPI) and the Institute for Economics & Peace (IEP). The Index reveals that states remain engaged in the global multilateral system even as it increasingly struggles to address the crises it faces. 

    Key results 

    • The performance of the multilateral system declined across all five domains examined.
    • Peace and security showed the steepest deterioration in performance, with the number of armed conflicts rising from 39 in 2013 to 55 in 2022. 
    • Climate action and human rights also saw significant declines in performance, despite increased engagement from member states.  
    • Participation in multilateral institutions has increased in most domains, even as performance has declined, indicating a shift from cooperation to contestation.  
    • Inclusivity improved across all domains, with steady growth in NGO engagement and women’s representation in UN bodies.  

    The Multilateralism Index 2024 presents a complex picture of global cooperation over the past decade, examining five crucial domains: Peace and Security, Human Rights, Climate Action, Public Health, and Trade. It reveals a contradiction: while participation in the multilateral system has largely held steady or even increased, its effectiveness in addressing global challenges has declined. 

    Dr. Adam Lupel, IPI Vice President & COO said: “Over the past decade, we’ve witnessed a paradox in multilateralism. While participation in international institutions has largely held steady or even increased, the performance of the multilateral system in addressing global challenges has declined. This suggests a shift from cooperation to contestation at a time of transformation and rising global crises.” 

    The peace and security domain experienced the most significant deterioration in performance. Active armed conflicts increased from 39 in 2013 to 55 in 2022, with a notable rise in internationalized conflicts. The UN Security Council has seen more frequent use of the veto power, constraining its ability to respond to crises. However, states have not broadly pulled back from the UN peace and security architecture, and commitments in some areas, such as multilateral peacebuilding, have increased.

    Climate action presents another contradiction. Despite near-universal participation in the Paris Agreement and growing climate commitments, these commitments continue to fall  short of necessary targets. Projections show an 8.8% increase in emissions by 2030, in stark contrast to the 43% decrease required to meet the critical 1.5°C target.

    The human rights domain exhibits a counterintuitive pattern. While engagement with UN human rights mechanisms has increased, global human rights protections have steadily declined. Most strikingly, members of the UN Human Rights Council consistently scored lower on human rights measures than the global average, indicating that many states are engaging less to advance human rights than to shape the direction of the system. 

    Multilateral action on public health was significantly shaped by the COVID-19 pandemic, which reversed years of progress, particularly in areas such as childhood immunization. It also put the shortcomings of the global public health system in stark relief, spurring negotiations on an international pandemic agreement aimed at strengthening preparedness and response capabilities for future health crises.

    Trade is the one area where both performance and participation decreased. The paralysis of global trade negotiations and breakdown in adherence to global trade rules signal a shift away from multilateral approaches. This trend, combined with growing geopolitical tensions, creates challenges for global economic cooperation.

    Steve Killelea, Founder & Executive Chairman of IEP, commented: “The Multilateralism Index 2024 reveals a challenging trend: while engagement in global institutions has increased, their effectiveness has declined across key areas. There is a need to revitalize our multilateral system to address today’s complex challenges.”

    Despite these challenges, the Index highlights positive developments, particularly in the area of inclusivity. NGO engagement with the UN system has grown, and women’s representation has increased across many UN bodies. However, the Global South remains underrepresented in many areas, suggesting that geographic inclusivity remains a work in progress.

    As the world contends with interconnected crises, from conflict to climate change, the Multilateralism Index 2024 provides valuable insights into the current state of global cooperation. It underscores the need for thoughtful reform to ensure that multilateral institutions can effectively address the complex challenges of the 21st century.

    Source: International Peace Institute

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Russia’s adaptability to US sanctions stymied their effectiveness, economists say

    Russia’s adaptability to US sanctions stymied their effectiveness, economists say

    [ad_1]

    Waves of sanctions imposed by the Biden administration after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine haven’t inflicted the devastating blow to Moscow’s economy that some had expected. In a new report, two researchers are offering reasons why.Oleg Itskhoki of Harvard University and Elina Ribakova of the Peterson Institute for International Economics argue that the sanctions should have been imposed more forcefully immediately after the invasion rather than in a piecemeal manner.Related video above: Russia can only be forced into peace, Zelensky says to the United Nations Security Council”In retrospect, it is evident that there was no reason not to have imposed all possible decisive measures against Russia from the outset once Russia launched the full scale invasion in February 2022,” the authors state in the paper. Still, “the critical takeaway is that sanctions are not a silver bullet,” Ribakova said on a call with reporters this week, to preview the study.The researchers say Russia was able to brace for the financial penalties because of the lessons learned from sanctions imposed in 2014 after it invaded Crimea. Also, the impact was weakened by the failure to get more countries to participate in sanctions, with economic powers like China and India not included. The report says that “while the count of sanctions is high, the tangible impact on Russia’s economy is less clear,” and “global cooperation is indispensable.”The question of what makes sanctions effective or not is important beyond the Russia-Ukraine war. Sanctions have become critical tools for the United States and other Western nations to pressure adversaries to reverse actions and change policies while stopping short of direct military conflict.The limited impact of sanctions on Russia has been clear for some time. But the report provides a more detailed picture of how Russia adapted to the sanctions and what it could mean for U.S. sanctions’ effectiveness in the future. The paper will be presented at the Brookings Institution next week. Since the beginning of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the U.S. has sanctioned more than 4,000 people and businesses, including 80% of Russia’s banking sector by assets.The Biden administration acknowledges that sanctions alone cannot stop Russia’s invasion — it has also sent roughly $56 billion in military assistance to Ukraine since the 2022 invasion. And many policy experts say the sanctions are not strong enough, as evidenced by the growth of the Russian economy. U.S. officials have said Russia has turned to China for machine tools, microelectronics and other technology that Moscow is using to produce missiles, tanks, aircraft and other weaponry for use in the war.A Treasury representative pointed to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen’s remarks in July during the Group of 20 finance ministers meetings, where she called actions against Russia “unprecedented.””We continue cracking down on Russian sanctions evasion and have strengthened and expanded our ability to target foreign financial institutions and anyone else around the world supporting Russia’s war machine,” she said. Still, Russia has been able to evade a $60 price cap on its oil exports imposed by the U.S. and the other Group of Seven democracies supporting Ukraine. The cap is enforced by barring Western insurers and shipping companies from handling oil above the cap. Russia has been able to dodge the cap by assembling its own fleet of aging, used tankers that do not use Western services and transport 90% of its oil.The U.S. pushed for the price cap as a way of cutting into Moscow’s oil profits without knocking large amounts of Russian oil off the global market and pushing up oil prices, gasoline prices and inflation. Similar concerns kept the European Union from imposing a boycott on most Russian oil for almost a year after Russia invaded Ukraine.G-7 leaders have agreed to engineer a $50 billion loan to help Ukraine, paid for by the interest earned on profits from Russia’s frozen central bank assets sitting mostly in Europe as collateral. However, the allies have not agreed on how to structure the loan. __Associated Press reporter Dave McHugh in Frankfurt contributed to this report.

    WASHINGTON —

    Waves of sanctions imposed by the Biden administration after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine haven’t inflicted the devastating blow to Moscow’s economy that some had expected. In a new report, two researchers are offering reasons why.

    Oleg Itskhoki of Harvard University and Elina Ribakova of the Peterson Institute for International Economics argue that the sanctions should have been imposed more forcefully immediately after the invasion rather than in a piecemeal manner.

    Related video above: Russia can only be forced into peace, Zelensky says to the United Nations Security Council

    “In retrospect, it is evident that there was no reason not to have imposed all possible decisive measures against Russia from the outset once Russia launched the full scale invasion in February 2022,” the authors state in the paper. Still, “the critical takeaway is that sanctions are not a silver bullet,” Ribakova said on a call with reporters this week, to preview the study.

    The researchers say Russia was able to brace for the financial penalties because of the lessons learned from sanctions imposed in 2014 after it invaded Crimea. Also, the impact was weakened by the failure to get more countries to participate in sanctions, with economic powers like China and India not included.

    The report says that “while the count of sanctions is high, the tangible impact on Russia’s economy is less clear,” and “global cooperation is indispensable.”

    The question of what makes sanctions effective or not is important beyond the Russia-Ukraine war. Sanctions have become critical tools for the United States and other Western nations to pressure adversaries to reverse actions and change policies while stopping short of direct military conflict.

    The limited impact of sanctions on Russia has been clear for some time. But the report provides a more detailed picture of how Russia adapted to the sanctions and what it could mean for U.S. sanctions’ effectiveness in the future.

    The paper will be presented at the Brookings Institution next week.

    Since the beginning of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the U.S. has sanctioned more than 4,000 people and businesses, including 80% of Russia’s banking sector by assets.

    The Biden administration acknowledges that sanctions alone cannot stop Russia’s invasion — it has also sent roughly $56 billion in military assistance to Ukraine since the 2022 invasion. And many policy experts say the sanctions are not strong enough, as evidenced by the growth of the Russian economy. U.S. officials have said Russia has turned to China for machine tools, microelectronics and other technology that Moscow is using to produce missiles, tanks, aircraft and other weaponry for use in the war.

    A Treasury representative pointed to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen’s remarks in July during the Group of 20 finance ministers meetings, where she called actions against Russia “unprecedented.”

    “We continue cracking down on Russian sanctions evasion and have strengthened and expanded our ability to target foreign financial institutions and anyone else around the world supporting Russia’s war machine,” she said.

    Still, Russia has been able to evade a $60 price cap on its oil exports imposed by the U.S. and the other Group of Seven democracies supporting Ukraine. The cap is enforced by barring Western insurers and shipping companies from handling oil above the cap. Russia has been able to dodge the cap by assembling its own fleet of aging, used tankers that do not use Western services and transport 90% of its oil.

    The U.S. pushed for the price cap as a way of cutting into Moscow’s oil profits without knocking large amounts of Russian oil off the global market and pushing up oil prices, gasoline prices and inflation. Similar concerns kept the European Union from imposing a boycott on most Russian oil for almost a year after Russia invaded Ukraine.

    G-7 leaders have agreed to engineer a $50 billion loan to help Ukraine, paid for by the interest earned on profits from Russia’s frozen central bank assets sitting mostly in Europe as collateral. However, the allies have not agreed on how to structure the loan.

    __

    Associated Press reporter Dave McHugh in Frankfurt contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link