Diplomacy & Defense Think Tank News

At the beginning of a new decade, we suggest to look at the longer-term. Let’s consider the world of multilateralism two decade from now, i.e. well beyond the timeline of the 2030 Agenda. The setting in 2040 is likely to differ substantially from today. Things change, and the job of scenario-building is to imagine different futures without merely projecting existing trends or historic examples. Scenario-Building also provides us with ideas about what we need to do to land in the space we see as most preferable.

At the beginning of a new decade, we suggest to look at the longer-term. Let’s consider the world of multilateralism two decade from now, i.e. well beyond the timeline of the 2030 Agenda. The setting in 2040 is likely to differ substantially from today. Things change, and the job of scenario-building is to imagine different futures without merely projecting existing trends or historic examples. Scenario-Building also provides us with ideas about what we need to do to land in the space we see as most preferable.

A decade ago the world was struggling with the repercussions of the global financial crisis in 2007 and 2008 that emerged in the interconnected transatlantic financial system. At this critical moment in time, the G20 was elevated from a meeting of finance ministers and central bank governors to the level of heads of states and government. By including a number of rising as well as middle powers non G7 countries the first G20 summit in Washington in November 2008 made clear that current cross-border challenges cannot anymore be dealt with by the old powers of the traditional establishment. At the subsequent summits in London (April 2009) and Pittsburgh (September 2009) the G20 displayed an astonishing level of international cooperation by agreeing on wide-ranging commitments that helped to calm down international financial markets and strengthen the crisis response of international financial institutions. These early initiatives led some optimistic observers to conclude that the system worked.

A decade ago the world was struggling with the repercussions of the global financial crisis in 2007 and 2008 that emerged in the interconnected transatlantic financial system. At this critical moment in time, the G20 was elevated from a meeting of finance ministers and central bank governors to the level of heads of states and government. By including a number of rising as well as middle powers non G7 countries the first G20 summit in Washington in November 2008 made clear that current cross-border challenges cannot anymore be dealt with by the old powers of the traditional establishment. At the subsequent summits in London (April 2009) and Pittsburgh (September 2009) the G20 displayed an astonishing level of international cooperation by agreeing on wide-ranging commitments that helped to calm down international financial markets and strengthen the crisis response of international financial institutions. These early initiatives led some optimistic observers to conclude that the system worked.

A decade ago the world was struggling with the repercussions of the global financial crisis in 2007 and 2008 that emerged in the interconnected transatlantic financial system. At this critical moment in time, the G20 was elevated from a meeting of finance ministers and central bank governors to the level of heads of states and government. By including a number of rising as well as middle powers non G7 countries the first G20 summit in Washington in November 2008 made clear that current cross-border challenges cannot anymore be dealt with by the old powers of the traditional establishment. At the subsequent summits in London (April 2009) and Pittsburgh (September 2009) the G20 displayed an astonishing level of international cooperation by agreeing on wide-ranging commitments that helped to calm down international financial markets and strengthen the crisis response of international financial institutions. These early initiatives led some optimistic observers to conclude that the system worked.

Motivation

Close to 15 years have passed since the adoption of the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness, which generated unprecedented efforts to advance effective development co‐operation with a central focus on developing country ownership. Under today's international development co‐operation realities, involving inclusive agendas, strategic divergence and increasing competition, discussions on ownership, harmonization and alignment have lost traction. Yet the reality and practices of development co‐operation relationships show strong continuities.

Purpose

This special issue examines how the principle of ownership may be understood and advanced under these new conditions. National ownership is prioritized in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development yet has so far been marginalized by a predominantly piecemeal response and by the rise of ‘mutual‐benefit' co‐operation.

Approach and Methods

This special issue takes an inductive approach to studying specific cases and actors bearing on the challenge of understanding and advancing ownership today, in order to inform future policy and research. The contributions to this special issue mainly draw from qualitative research designs that present detailed research inquiries into specific country and actor cases, drawing from interviews, structured desk reviews of policy documents and the rich body of literature on development effectiveness. They are complemented by two contributions that respectively present quantitative research and probe the critical and post‐development literature for additional insights.

Findings

Findings point to an increasing prevalence of pragmatism and self‐interest among all actors, to the detriment of national ownership. Broad co‐operation agendas, a sense of urgency interpreted as a search for quick results, and more diverse, interest‐ and outcome‐driven forms of multi‐stakeholder partnerships all entail a more assertive and proactive approach on the part of external actors. Under these conditions, local initiative may either become stifled or reasoned away. Given this, today's dominant approaches to co‐operation raise concerns about their ethics and sustainability.

Policy implications

Ownership remains both a requirement and a desired outcome of international co‐operation and is key to the effective use of public funding. A key requirement to revitalizing the debate on and practice of ownership is to gather better evidence as the basis for informed scrutiny. To this end, policy makers need to reprioritize independent evaluation at both the individual and collective level.

Motivation

Close to 15 years have passed since the adoption of the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness, which generated unprecedented efforts to advance effective development co‐operation with a central focus on developing country ownership. Under today's international development co‐operation realities, involving inclusive agendas, strategic divergence and increasing competition, discussions on ownership, harmonization and alignment have lost traction. Yet the reality and practices of development co‐operation relationships show strong continuities.

Purpose

This special issue examines how the principle of ownership may be understood and advanced under these new conditions. National ownership is prioritized in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development yet has so far been marginalized by a predominantly piecemeal response and by the rise of ‘mutual‐benefit' co‐operation.

Approach and Methods

This special issue takes an inductive approach to studying specific cases and actors bearing on the challenge of understanding and advancing ownership today, in order to inform future policy and research. The contributions to this special issue mainly draw from qualitative research designs that present detailed research inquiries into specific country and actor cases, drawing from interviews, structured desk reviews of policy documents and the rich body of literature on development effectiveness. They are complemented by two contributions that respectively present quantitative research and probe the critical and post‐development literature for additional insights.

Findings

Findings point to an increasing prevalence of pragmatism and self‐interest among all actors, to the detriment of national ownership. Broad co‐operation agendas, a sense of urgency interpreted as a search for quick results, and more diverse, interest‐ and outcome‐driven forms of multi‐stakeholder partnerships all entail a more assertive and proactive approach on the part of external actors. Under these conditions, local initiative may either become stifled or reasoned away. Given this, today's dominant approaches to co‐operation raise concerns about their ethics and sustainability.

Policy implications

Ownership remains both a requirement and a desired outcome of international co‐operation and is key to the effective use of public funding. A key requirement to revitalizing the debate on and practice of ownership is to gather better evidence as the basis for informed scrutiny. To this end, policy makers need to reprioritize independent evaluation at both the individual and collective level.

Motivation

Close to 15 years have passed since the adoption of the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness, which generated unprecedented efforts to advance effective development co‐operation with a central focus on developing country ownership. Under today's international development co‐operation realities, involving inclusive agendas, strategic divergence and increasing competition, discussions on ownership, harmonization and alignment have lost traction. Yet the reality and practices of development co‐operation relationships show strong continuities.

Purpose

This special issue examines how the principle of ownership may be understood and advanced under these new conditions. National ownership is prioritized in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development yet has so far been marginalized by a predominantly piecemeal response and by the rise of ‘mutual‐benefit' co‐operation.

Approach and Methods

This special issue takes an inductive approach to studying specific cases and actors bearing on the challenge of understanding and advancing ownership today, in order to inform future policy and research. The contributions to this special issue mainly draw from qualitative research designs that present detailed research inquiries into specific country and actor cases, drawing from interviews, structured desk reviews of policy documents and the rich body of literature on development effectiveness. They are complemented by two contributions that respectively present quantitative research and probe the critical and post‐development literature for additional insights.

Findings

Findings point to an increasing prevalence of pragmatism and self‐interest among all actors, to the detriment of national ownership. Broad co‐operation agendas, a sense of urgency interpreted as a search for quick results, and more diverse, interest‐ and outcome‐driven forms of multi‐stakeholder partnerships all entail a more assertive and proactive approach on the part of external actors. Under these conditions, local initiative may either become stifled or reasoned away. Given this, today's dominant approaches to co‐operation raise concerns about their ethics and sustainability.

Policy implications

Ownership remains both a requirement and a desired outcome of international co‐operation and is key to the effective use of public funding. A key requirement to revitalizing the debate on and practice of ownership is to gather better evidence as the basis for informed scrutiny. To this end, policy makers need to reprioritize independent evaluation at both the individual and collective level.

How security technologies impact state-society relations

Local actors and foreign powers are scrabbling for influence in Iraq and Syria

The direct, violent confrontations between the US and Iran are over for now, but conflicts in Iraq and Syria are far from resolved. The fragmented nature of the Iraqi and Syrian states and the presence of multiple militias backed by foreign actors mean that conflicts can easily escalate. The current turmoil and potential power vacuum may also provide fertile ground for the Islamic State (IS) to return.

Kuala Lumpur (KL) is home to refugees from Myanmar, Afghanistan, Somalia, Pakistan, Yemen, and other countries, who have built networks of support and protection in a country that does not formally recognize their status as asylum seekers or refugees. Digitalization and internet access in this environment play a mix of roles; they keep families in contact, connect refugees to wider community networks, and are a channel for UNHCR to share information with asylum seekers. At the same time, digitalization cannot break down the political and legal barriers that prevent refugees from leading fully engaged lives in KL.

Kuala Lumpur (KL) is home to refugees from Myanmar, Afghanistan, Somalia, Pakistan, Yemen, and other countries, who have built networks of support and protection in a country that does not formally recognize their status as asylum seekers or refugees. Digitalization and internet access in this environment play a mix of roles; they keep families in contact, connect refugees to wider community networks, and are a channel for UNHCR to share information with asylum seekers. At the same time, digitalization cannot break down the political and legal barriers that prevent refugees from leading fully engaged lives in KL.

Kuala Lumpur (KL) is home to refugees from Myanmar, Afghanistan, Somalia, Pakistan, Yemen, and other countries, who have built networks of support and protection in a country that does not formally recognize their status as asylum seekers or refugees. Digitalization and internet access in this environment play a mix of roles; they keep families in contact, connect refugees to wider community networks, and are a channel for UNHCR to share information with asylum seekers. At the same time, digitalization cannot break down the political and legal barriers that prevent refugees from leading fully engaged lives in KL.

Intervention and resistance at the infrastructural edges of Empire

The EU-Mercosur trade agreement, which was agreed in June, is already drawing criticism even before its ratification. The anticipated erosion of environmental protection and human rights in Brazil in particular have roused public resistance. However, in its admonishment, Europe fails to address all sides of the issue. By concluding this agreement, Brazil is putting itself at risk in terms of development policy. This is because even though its agricultural exports may benefit from duty-free access to the European Market (EU) market, the consequences for the country’s economy have far greater implications than the threat to the Amazon rainforest.

The EU-Mercosur trade agreement, which was agreed in June, is already drawing criticism even before its ratification. The anticipated erosion of environmental protection and human rights in Brazil in particular have roused public resistance. However, in its admonishment, Europe fails to address all sides of the issue. By concluding this agreement, Brazil is putting itself at risk in terms of development policy. This is because even though its agricultural exports may benefit from duty-free access to the European Market (EU) market, the consequences for the country’s economy have far greater implications than the threat to the Amazon rainforest.

The EU-Mercosur trade agreement, which was agreed in June, is already drawing criticism even before its ratification. The anticipated erosion of environmental protection and human rights in Brazil in particular have roused public resistance. However, in its admonishment, Europe fails to address all sides of the issue. By concluding this agreement, Brazil is putting itself at risk in terms of development policy. This is because even though its agricultural exports may benefit from duty-free access to the European Market (EU) market, the consequences for the country’s economy have far greater implications than the threat to the Amazon rainforest.

Marie Kolling udlægger situationen i Brasilien i liveinterview den 24. januar 2020 i Radio4