Global solutions for global problems

The election of Donald trump has stimulated discussion about a possible new phase of US isolationism. Although the power of the US is in decline, a total withdrawal of the US from global affairs would be a bad mistake at a time when we need to strengthen international collaboration to meet a series of global challenges.

We cannot be sure what exactly Trump has in mind when he talks about 'making America great again' but his claim that the US has been carrying some other countries is certainly arguable. Post-war US policy has always been about ensuring US primacy, not underpinning the security of other nations. Where that occurred it was coincidental to the US confronting its perceived global enemy, communism. The Cold War is long over and China is now the rising power, but the most important fact is that the whole notion of strategic confrontation is finished. The reality is that we simply cannot afford to think in anything but global terms: global action to deal with global problems.

The most obvious threat is global warming. By definition, the growth in greenhouse gases is a global problem, global in cause and global in effect. The scientific evidence indicates that global warming is now happening faster than predicted and approaching possible tipping points where greenhouse gasses in the arctic tundra and undersea will begin to enter the atmosphere. If this gets underway catastrophic runaway global warming will be unavoidable.

A related problem is the threat of global pandemic. So far we have been relatively lucky in this regard, outbreaks being identified and contained before they could become widespread. Global warming will exacerbate this problem because diseases generally like warmer conditions. It is the new phenomenon of global air travel that has made this such a challenge in the last few decades; prior to this, long sea voyages acted as quarantine mechanisms.

We also have a global economy these days. Most of things we eat, wear and use are acquired through global markets, and even the jobs we do and the places we live in are impacted by global conditions. Perhaps the main economic driver in the last decade or so has been the flow of raw resources into China, the transformation there of these materials into cheap goods and their ongoing sale in the rich western countries, especially the US. This engine has been slowing down, and along with continued financial instability and erratic energy costs, the global economy is looking increasingly sick.

Associated with this economic instability is the growth of robots in the workplace and home which will severely impact on employment on the US and Europe. The core technology for these electronic systems mostly came from the US, but manufacture is shifting to Asia. Soon enough robots will make robots, and the circle will be closed.

Underneath these growing structural problems we have a global economy where supply chains, marketing operations, transport systems and communication networks are all organised on a global scale. The underlying force behind this trend is the principle of economies of scale – the higher numbers of goods produced, the lower each unit cost.

Despite all this economic, commercial and infrastructural globalisation, we have only weak global governance structures. There is of course the United Nations, but it is generally considered corrupt and enjoys minimal respect, although its various agencies often do good work. In the past the UN has been particularly hamstrung by the refusal of the great powers, especially the US and Soviet Union, to hand over real power, particularly in regard to security matters. Because no one really cares the UN is allowed to stumble along run my mediocrities.

There is also the G20 which got real attention during the financial crisis of 2008. National leaders actually turn up to these meetings, something they rarely do at the UN. There is the opportunity for actual discussion and policy formulation at the highest level, but little formal process to ensure action.

An isolationist Trump administration could certainly push the US away from meaningful participation in facing global problems, something Trump has already threatened to do in relation to global warming.

Even one term of office could suck up the last leeway in terms of time for dealing with global threats, like global warming, even if it did simulate other countries to take up the slack. (China, for instance, might see leadership in facing up to global warming as an excellent way to push its claims to global power status.)

The arrival on the scene of elected leaders like Trump, Duterte in the Philippines, perhaps Le Pen and other nationalists in Europe certainly threaten the integrity of any supra-national organisation. As Brexit showed, any time these politicians wanted to curry favour with their core constituency they could just talk tough and thumb their noses at the organisations pursuing the greater good.

This would be disturbingly similar to what happened in the mid-war years to The League of Nations when the American isolationists kept the rising power, the US, out of it. Whatever the League's faults, when it failed the last chance of avoiding World War Two went with it. Then, once the World War Two ended, for forty years, in the context of Cold War, the chances of global cooperation were nil and the world teetered on the edge of nuclear destruction.

The creation of a genuinely powerful global body has always been the bete noir of the hard right, harking back to the great social revolutions of the eighteenth century. It has to be said that their concerns are not without foundation. And so how such an organisation would be created (or in the case of the UN, reformed) and how it would operate are critical matters? For instance, should it be a forum for nationally elected representatives, or should it be elected or appointed on a different basis?

The rise of the global Internet has stimulated some interesting ideas on how to run a genuinely global civilisation along new lines. However, the time constraint is now so serious we probably don't have time for such developments, and in any case sooner or later we have to return to the currently existing legal arrangements centred on nation states. We must at least start out by utilising the global fora currently in place and perhaps reform them as we go.

At the very least, organisations like the UN can provide fora for the open discussion of reports on global problems by qualified researchers. The complete failure of the mass media to do this is one of the main causes of the current crisis. For anything like democracy to work, reliable information and open debate is a necessity.

The difficulties facing any potential global authority are huge. For starters dealing with global warming will require a comprehensive and robust agreement and the resources to implement and maintain it. Reform of the global financial system and securing a fair system of international trade will require a similar effort. Getting rid of weapons of mass destruction, including nukes, would again present a huge challenge (although the UN has recently begun this process). Maintaining and improving disease control should be easier, but controlling the current head-long rush into robotic and AI systems will be an incredibly hard task.

To do these things organisations of appropriate scale and with appropriate resources will be necessary. But once the challenges are met, we can use the experience to move forward, doing things that we actually want to do to thrive, and not those necessary to just survive. Hopefully, understanding the challenge, the best minds will move into these organisations and make them work efficiently and with minimal corruption. In this way new generations of children around the world will have a life goal in the way kids used to want to grow up to be astronauts (or cosmonauts).

The global scale problems facing us are real, we have to move to address them, and we can do this but we need to move soon. Political arrangements around the world are in flux but generally not heading in the direction needed. At least they show people are ready for change, and even after a false start, we can and must work out new ways that enable us to act together as one species.