The world is in a pretty bad state right now,
sea levels are rising, temperatures are warming,
global powers are trying to dominate through technology,
and trade disputes and tariffs are pulling the world apart
rather than bringing it together.
Now all of this is going on in the middle
of a global pandemic.
Institutions like the United Nations have
helped stabilize the world for decades,
but they seem to be no match for today's problems.
They're struggling
to take meaningful worldwide action on climate change,
racial injustice and inequality.
And now they're stumbling on a coordinated response
to COVID-19.
But there is hope,
multilateral organizations like the UN, NATO, the IMF,
the World Bank, were all born from a global catastrophe:
the Second World War.
So in the 1940s, world leaders came together
to create political, economic
and military systems that would maintain peace
and a balance of power -- and, of course,
rebuild war-torn Europe.
It's just that now these institutions are,
well, pretty old. And the world looks very different today.
Plus, these institutions were created by and for the richest
and most powerful nations in the late 1940s.
They called all the shots, and let's be honest,
they mostly still do.
Some of today's most outspoken activists are starting
to hold that power to account and demand action.
People are dying,
entire ecosystems are collapsing.
We are in the beginning of a mass extinction
and all you can talk about is money
and fairy tales of eternal economic growth.
How dare you?
Can these global organizations change
or is it time for them to retire?
Let's go back about 75 years,
World War II, in which 60 million people had been
killed worldwide, had just ended,
a previously established international organization
called the League of Nations had just been dissolved,
and many countries were looking for ways
to prevent another world war.
51 nations came together in the spirit of multilateralism,
which is when countries form alliances
to pursue common goals,
they signed a charter creating the United Nations,
a body that would promote peace,
global security and human rights.
Five countries, the winners of World War II,
would have a bigger say by getting permanent seats
and veto power on the Security Council.
Around the same time, the U.S. and Britain led a meeting
of delegates from 44 countries at a place
called Bretton Woods in the U.S.
They wanted to stabilize global exchange rates
and reduce the hyperinflation
that had come from printing money to pay for war costs.
They decided all currencies will be pegged
to the U.S. dollar, again
revealing the power dynamics at the heart
of these global institutions.
The same group formed two organizations
that still exist today, the International Monetary Fund,
which seeks to promote global financial cooperation,
and the World Bank, which loans money to indebted countries
and funds economic development.
But the peace did not last long, just a few years later,
a sharp divide split Europe between East and West,
communism and capitalism.
The Soviet Union had emerged
from the war as a major Communist superpower. In response,
prominent capitalist countries in North America
and Western Europe decided to start a new organization
to defend themselves, and once again, consolidate power.
In 1949, they
created the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO.
These global institutions have
had some major wins over the years.
The UN played a leading role in the
Treaty on Nuclear Non-Proliferation,
which is still in effect today.
The World Health Organization eradicated smallpox.
And in 2018 alone,
the World Bank committed nearly $962 million
to job programs seeking to reduce poverty around the globe.
But there's been some massive failures as well,
these global alliances didn't
prevent genocide in Rwanda in 1994,
or in South Sudan in 2010.
UN peacekeepers and programs have faced accusations
of sexual abuse in the Congo, corruption in Iraq
and spreading cholera in Haiti.
Though 193 countries are part of the UN,
three of the countries with the most power --
the U.S., China and Russia --
are increasingly focused on their own interests,
and rarely align.
Disagreements amongst them have led to the UN failing
to take collective action on the destruction
and displacement of the Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar,
or resolving the bloody conflict in Syria.
And now these global institutions are failing
to come together to address the coronavirus pandemic,
member states like the U.S. and China are
locked in a blame game, as well as a trade war.
And many other countries are turning inward,
some even hoarding supplies
and setting unilateral travel restrictions.
All this doesn't exactly scream "global cooperation,"
so where do we go from here?
In parts of the West, a growing nationalist movement has
brought a wave of authoritarian leaders to power.
It's led the UK to separate from the European Union
and the U.S. to pull out of alliances
like the Paris Agreement on Climate Change
and the Iran nuclear deal, which it had itself negotiated.
From this day forward,
it's going to be only America first, America first.
And five non-Western countries
that represent nearly half the world's population are
leveraging their own economic power.
Known by the acronym BRICS,
the countries have formed their own bank
to rival the IMF and World Bank.
Here's the thing:
The UN and other multilateral organizations have always
relied on the leadership
and economic commitment of the largest world powers.
These institutions are only as strong as their members,
and it really comes down to their will,
and their sense of responsibility.
Major superpowers don't necessarily
need multilateralism in the same way
that smaller countries do,
they have the might to act alone.
But that doesn't mean there aren't advantages,
even to the richest of the nations.
The World Health Organization, for instance,
collects and shares vital information
from countries around the world.
If the U.S. withdraws in 2021,
as President Trump has indicated,
it could lose a lot of sway over global health initiatives,
including ones that could help distribute vaccines
and drugs to fight COVID-19.
And we're still a connected world
with common problems to solve,
no matter how many borders are closed
or how many walls are built.
From the #MeToo movement to Fridays For Future
to Black Lives Matter,
activists across the globe are taking to the streets
and demanding real change.
Could these movements lead to new ways of organizing
and wielding power?
Can they hold our stodgy global institutions to account,
or even maybe replace them?
There's no doubt
that multilateral organizations have been a necessary tool
in keeping the world stable for the last 75 years,
but times are changing, and they will need to as well.
UN Secretary General António Guterres recognized this.
The nations that came out on top
more than seven decades ago have refused
to contemplate the reforms needed
to change power relations in international institutions.
Inequality starts at the top, in global institutions,
addressing inequality must start by reforming them.
So are there enough good bones
to preserve and reform these institutions
or is now the moment to build something new?