Our old models of transnational governance are just that: old.
"Davos Man" was what the late renowned political scientist Samuel Huntington branded those who make the deep winter journey to the small town in Switzerland, of the same name, to attend the World Economic Forum, the world's most elite gathering of state leaders, multinational corporate chiefs, financial and economic gurus, and the world's richest people. The annual clock has struck - and the World Economic Forum meeting attendees gather today for a formal start tomorrow.
The world Davos Man lived in was abundant in clarity until a decade ago. The financial sector's wealth-generating innovations out-stripped nearly every other economic option and thus a world of diminishing friction for the movement of capital and freedom for the evolution of a global financial architecture became central to Davos Man's priorities.
Nations were out. Transnational economics and institutions in. Those developing nations that wanted to head up the global ladder needed to don what Thomas Friedman called "the golden straightjacket" and mimic the behaviors that had helped the US and West to generate phenomenal wealth, among hedge fund managers and those who traded in global financial instruments. Then they needed to send their next generation elites (usually the sons and daughters of the developing country's president) to Davos to become part of the club.
Over the last decade, however, clarity in Davos Man's ecosystem has been supplanted by confusion, a global financial meltdown, the rise of transnational terrorism, the triggering of costly wars, and the ascendance of beyond-finance issues like climate change, refugees, global poverty, and water. Global power today is being reshuffled to include other rising stars like Brazil, China and Turkey.
Today there are indicators that perhaps the last decade of disorder and distraction are ending, that gravity is returning to a revised global order, and that the World Economic Forum sessions in Davos may give us glimpses of what the next era of global governance and its key drivers will look like.
For America, the completion of the 9/11 Memorial provided closure that was, in many respects, more than symbolic. After all, in 2011 the U.S. further undercut Al Qaeda's global reach and assassinated Osama bin Laden. It officially ended the Iraq War and announced its timetable for withdrawal from Afghanistan. Taken together, the events of 2011 ended the post-9/11 era of security-focused US foreign policy.
Likewise, the financial crisis of 2008-2009 has faded as the fundamental driver of macroeconomic global policy. The euro zone has been left to deal with its current debt crisis largely on its own, as the rest of the world lets market pressure spur muddled results. The United States is showing signs of recovery in fits and starts as it puts the crisis behind it. On the whole, emerging market powerhouses like China have long since rebounded from the crisis and have returned to relentless growth. Most importantly, international cooperation in response to the crisis has not extended beyond it: the greater influence of institutions like the G20, so vital at the beginning of the global financial crisis, has since waned, and coordinated multinational policy has proved fleeting.
In 2012, it is now clear that a US security-driven foreign policy was just a decade-long detour that will not shape geopolitics in years to come. Likewise, the financial crisis no longer dominates policy, nor have its residual institutions engendered sustained international collaboration.
If the old global order is out, what is the new global order? If both the major security concern and the most significant economic event of the last decade have come and gone, where does that leave us? When the dust settles, where will global leadership and international governance come from?
These critical questions will drive the World Economic Forum debate in Davos this week, mainly because there are no simple answers. In the coming years, where will the world look for global leadership? When it comes to multinational institutions and the geopolitical balance of power, what model works?
While it is hard to predict what will work, it is easy to define what won't. Our old models of governance are just that. Old. Institutions such as the United Nations, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund remain largely crystallized in their post-WWII form, when they were erected to serve as governance structures for global issues, based on broad multinational membership and decisions made by vote. Today, these global institutions have lost their efficacy, as they remain largely the same -- while the challenges they face have grown larger and have changed dramatically.
First and foremost, these institutions always needed global leadership from sovereigns in order to function effectively. The United States is losing its ability -- and willingness -- to take the lead on this front, and no other nation or group of nations can coordinate to fill the gap. After the financial crisis, the shortcomings of existing institutions were clear, and the G20 rose to prominence as a result. But the forum has proven too diverse and fragmented, as its members' interests continuously fail to align except in response to the direst of crises. The result?
We have entered the era of G-Zero, where institutions cannot provide coordinated leadership, nor can any durable alliance of states.
But no viable international framework does not result in no framework at all. We just have to zoom in.