Highlight 43/2022 – Negotiating the balance of power with the toss of a two-sided coin
Gwendoline Kwankam, 21 October 2022
In the context of international governance, effective negotiations would require powerful nations to engage on an equal platform with other non-powerful nations. Which begs the question: Is the concept of power determined by economic and military strength, the ability to maintain peace and security, or is it the ability to dominate?
Globally, there is a tussle for power when nations convene at negotiation tables. Power is assessed in terms of a nation’s ability to move a huge majority in their intended direction and gain majority votes, if not consensus. Negotiated outcomes will either leave parties: truly satisfied, subjectively satisfied,[1] or dissatisfied. Sometimes, wars could be the outcome of subjective satisfaction or outright dissatisfaction. War was once considered the preferred tool to ensure a nation’s security. However, in present-day society globally, war is no longer an acceptable representation or demonstration of power. It demonstrates a lack of power and has no good regardless of whether it is a civil war or one that transcends national boundaries. The ongoing non-international armed conflicts in countries of the Central African Region and the ongoing war between Ukraine and Russia has left global governance institutions with the challenge to help negotiate for the balance of power. Wars, whether international armed conflict or civil war, has deterring effects and hinder the attainment of several Sustainable Development Goals (SDG).
More than ever before, countries seek security and in the presence of uncertainties, negotiations seem to be the only option. It is, therefore, a huge irony for a nation involved in war to participate in global negotiations because if it cannot ensure its own internal governance, how can it positively contribute to global governance?
Global governance organizations need to seek better strategies to negotiate with countries facing these crises especially if they have persisted for a long time. This will help in the attainment of the SDGs by 2030, particularly in accelerating efforts to address: poverty, improve health, food security, water and sanitation, promote clean energy, environmental protection, sustainable industries, and responsible consumption and production, among other things.
The exclusion of South Africa in many of the worlds’ economic affairs contributed to the end of the Apartheid. Thereafter, South Africa gained true freedom and has become an honest negotiator in world affairs. The South African case provides a worthy example for international organizations to assess how they can exert pressure on oppressive states, those rife with conflict, or those that violate the international order by excluding them from global affairs.
Global governance should be structured in a manner that eases the tensions in negotiations and brings about the balance of power for a globally peaceful and healthy world. Global governance during negotiations must reject the use of force as an instrument for settling conflicts and promote greater interdependence between nations. It should prioritize and encourage dialogue in all forms as a means to reach a sustainable mutual agreement. Global governance institutions must guard the interest of the world at large and safeguard its independence to ensure a fair platform for constructive negotiations, withstanding the influences and pressures of more powerful nations. Only then, can we have the balance of power where negotiations are done fairly and durable solutions can be attained. Negotiating the balance of power is always with the toss of a two-sided coin.
Gwendoline Kwankam, Highlight 43/2022 – Negotiating the balance of power with the toss of a two-sided coin, 21 October 2022, available at www.meig.ch
The views expressed in the MEIG Highlights are personal to the author and neither reflect the positions of the MEIG Programme nor those of the University of Geneva.
[1] Subjective satisfaction refers to situations where a party agrees to an outcome because they feel that there is no other viable alternative.