In 2018, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution to commemorate 24 April as the International Day of Multilateralism and Diplomacy for Peace. The contemporary world needs multilateralism far more than at any point in the past, precisely because it is now more deeply interconnected than ever before.

The far-reaching consequences of the Ukraine war, and especially the current U.S.-Iran conflict, have made it abundantly clear that there is little that can still be described as purely local; every major crisis now carries immediate global repercussions. The disruption of energy markets, supply chains, food security, and international financial stability demonstrates how conflict in one region quickly reverberates across the world.

Moreover, transnational challenges such as climate change, pandemics, and the regulation of artificial intelligence further reinforce the reality that no single nation, regardless of its power, can address these issues in isolation.

From rising global temperatures to public health emergencies and the ethical governance of emerging technologies, these are inherently global problems that demand collective solutions and coordinated international action. Accordingly, the principles of multilateralism and diplomacy for peace should not merely be aspirational ideals but the defining order of the twenty-first century.

Yet, at this defining moment in history, I find myself questioning whether this day ought to be celebrated at all. Perhaps it is more fitting to mourn the steady erosion of the very principles it seeks to uphold. Multilateralism today is not merely being ignored; it is being systematically weakened, if not outright dismantled, by those who once proudly presented themselves as its foremost champions and as the principal advocates of diplomacy in the service of peace.

At the beginning of the twentieth century, U.S. President Woodrow Wilson, through his doctrines of moral diplomacy and open diplomacy, laid the intellectual groundwork for the emergence of multilateralism in international politics. He advocated a decisive departure from the traditional balance-of-power model that had long governed interstate relations, envisioning instead an international order anchored in collective security, the rule of international law, and transparent cooperation among nations.

The very state that once positioned itself as the principal architect and guardian of the post-war international order now appears increasingly willing to sideline the norms and institutions it once urged the world to uphold

The........

© The Friday Times