Crisis of multilateralism

At the same time, both at the regional and global levels, multilateral institutions have been and continue to be under increasing pressure to act beyond some of their own fundamental principles and norms. One of the most critical examples of the deficiencies of multilateralism relates to  the issue of the weapons of mass destruction (WMD), as clearly illustrated by the lack of progress in the multilateral negotiating machinery on disarmament.

On the other hand, at the regional level, it may be true that the European vision about integration elaborated over decades has been developing a sclerotic character, but this precarious  stage  is also due to an  ongoing crisis of  European leadership, which is only  a partial  chapter of a larger crisis of inspirational leadership at the universal level, as  made evident  by frequent  inadequate political and practical  reactions to  unexpected challenges.

A new kind of political  leadership is urgently needed in order to make  genuine  persuasion a priority tool in regional and global negotiations, in particular when the process of  bargaining  becomes perplexing  and difficult in dealing with  some highly  controversial matters on which achieving consensus seems to be a distant  dream.  As pointed out by the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in his recent remarks at Tel Aviv University, in Tel Aviv: “Leaders need to move beyond repeating the same phrases and expecting different results.” This is an imperative prerequisite for reaching win-win situations in regional and global negotiations.

A more enlightened, transformational  leadership is also necessary to reinvigorate the political dialogue between big powers as a precondition for successful negotiations at the level of G-7 and G-20 without which it is not realistic to anticipate positive results at the UN or at the World Trade Organization, to limit our examples to just two  universal institutions.

Returning to the regional context, it should be emphasized that Brexit is not simply a political divorce from EU with no effect whatsoever on immigration policy envisaged from a multilateral point of view.

Immigration was one of the problems invoked by the partisans of Brexit. The acceptance and fair treatment of migrant workers is, indeed, a challenge of paramount importance. There is no quick or easy way out of the daily difficulties of migrant workers. Their dramatic condition on all continents offers a highly visible example of collateral damage generated by current political and economic crises. Is there any general solution for the improvement of their situation? A legal answer not mentioned by mass media is provided by the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, adopted by the UN in 1990 and entered into force in 2003.

States party to this Convention -- whose adoption was an example of successful multilateralism -- have the legal obligation to ensure that all migrant workers and members of their families within their territory are treated fairly and without distinction for sex, race, color, language, religion or conviction, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, nationality, age, economic position, property, marital status, birth or other status. Unfortunately, the Convention has been ratified by only 48 countries from 193 UN member states. From ASEAN only Indonesia and the Philippines are parties to this Convention, while European countries are brilliantly absent from the list of high contracting parties.

Yet, it is not a Utopian expectation to assert that universal ratification and implementation in good faith of this multilateral legal instrument would have a positive impact on the situation of migrant workers worldwide. Why?

In accordance with one of the fundamental rules of the law of treaties, expressed in Latin as “Pacta sunt servanda”, every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith. Moreover, a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. Consequently, further political and diplomatic efforts for the universalisation of the relevant Convention on migrant workers are urgently needed.

The future of values

In Asia, people are left to contemplate what lessons Brexit could teach about the future of ASEAN. It should be recognized that the 10 ASEAN members have more difficulties than the EU to keep their group intact. ASEAN has no single visa system or a single currency and no parliamentary body to legislate on issues of common interest.

However, like all 193 UN members, ASEAN countries are linked by the fundamental values proclaimed in the UN Millennium Declaration of September 8, 2000. These values are: freedom, equality, solidarity, tolerance, respect for nature and shared responsibility. They are essential for the international relations during the 21st Century, but they are also in crisis, as clearly recognized by leaders of international organizations. Former UN Secretary-General Kofi A. Annan rightly emphasized that “globalization has brought us closer together in the sense that we are all affected by each other’s actions, but not in the sense that we all share the benefits and the burdens. Instead, we have allowed it to drive us further apart, increasing the disparities in wealth and power both between societies and within them. This makes a mockery of universal values.”