‘World leaders are failing us’
To know where we stand, to see where we want to go and how, we need to hear from people who are in the heart of events. So, if we are interested in the state of the world today, there is no one more suited to tell us than Martin Griffiths, the under-secretary for humanitarian affairs at the United Nations since 2021. In a recent essay in The New York Times, the British diplomat, who is soon to leave office, declared that the leaders of the world had failed us, resulting in the suffering of millions of people. And what does Griffiths propose? Addressing the leaders, he exhorted them to “set aside narrow interests, division and conflict. Put humanity, cooperation and people’s hopes for a better, more equal world, back at the center of international relations.” Also: “We need leaders who are able and willing to harness our collective humanity, reinvigorate our trust in our common laws, norms and institutions and who have the vision and drive to deliver on the immense hope and ambition of the UN Charter.”
Not knowing whether America will remain powerful and engaged, or whether China will take its place as the greater power, leaders are encouraged to invest in nationalism and suspicion
When this is the distillation of the thoughts of a person who in recent years has been close to events in Ukraine, Gaza, Syria, Sudan and other fields of conflicts, we may be justified in feeling unease and sorrow. Because what Griffiths proposes might be possible in another world, but not in ours, in which humanity is accelerating away from such behavior. The UN Security Council is paralyzed by the conflicting interests of its five permanent members with veto power. In politics, nationalism is returning, as is protectionism in trade. Collective institutions such as the International Court of Justice show the magnitude of division, as each country seeks to belong to one or another bloc, which then either exploits these institutions to its own ends or accuses the rival bloc of “weaponizing” them in its favor. While America dominated the international system of governance which it established after World War II, most countries abided generally with the “common laws, norms and institutions” that Griffiths refers to. Today, each country knows that with the right allies it can do what it likes. America led the way in this, in Iraq in 2003. Now, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine; the intense activity of Iranian proxies in Israel, Lebanon and Yemen; Israel’s merciless Gaza campaign; the tension between China and its neighbors; the host of “middle powers” wanting to play a leading role in developments, all show that we are headed for a world in which consensus and cooperation will be ever more difficult. Even in quiet Europe, we see how political tensions within member-states can come to threaten the Union’s cohesion.
Not knowing whether America will remain powerful and engaged, or whether China will take its place as the greater power, leaders are encouraged to invest in nationalism and suspicion. The easiest road in politics is that of division, the fragmentation of society into ever smaller and ever more fanatical groups, through belligerence towards the “other,” inside or outside our borders.
Griffiths’ appeal to our better nature is a desire for a moral core which leaders ought to have, which could open a channel of communication between them. We know that we will not see such a thing soon – at least not before things get a lot worse.
