by Johanna Hoffman
Johanna Hoffman, a member of our Emerging Fellows program checks the possibility of shaping a conflict-free future in her eleventh blog post. The views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the APF or its other members. Big shocks create big change. 66 million years ago, the impact of the Chicxulub Asteroid sparked the fifth great extinction and the end of the age of dinosaurs. While exponentially smaller, the current coronavirus pandemic is likewise cataclysmic, unleashing a virulent contagion across the globe with no country left immune. Of the many issues illuminated by its continuing fallout, that lesson could be the most significant. In our modern world, problems in one region lead to problems in another - no country, no economy, no society is exempt. This understanding of trans-boundary connection could shock us into a new era of multilateral cooperation, one that could serve as both a source of international development and a bulwark against increasing conflict. With our current international institutions falling deeper into disinvestment, however, such a trajectory might sound farfetched. Nearly 80 years after their creation, the UN and WHO are losing influence by the day. Indeed, the United States, with the pandemic still raging, pulled out of the WHO in early June 2020, sending a blunt message to the world about the importance of global institutions. Yet their revitalization could pave the way for renewed cooperation capable of facing the large-scale climatic changes headed our way. Indeed, researchers insist that international coordination and true sharing of power is our only hope. As Richard Danzig, former Secretary of the US Navy, summarized the problem in 2018: “Twenty-first century technologies are global not just in their distribution, but also in their consequences. Pathogens, AI systems, computer viruses, and radiation that others may accidentally release could become as much our problem as theirs. Agreed reporting systems, shared controls, common contingency plans, norms, and treaties must be pursued as means of moderating our numerous mutual risks.” Danzig’s message is clear. Piecemeal strategies can’t address the magnitude of these transformations. Coordinated action is imperative. This does not mean that international institutions should be remade as mirrors of their current forms. Systems capable of negotiating the increasing scope and scales of mounting global uncertainty must reflect lessons learned from our more recent past. Current calls for racial and social equality, for example, have been given new energy in the wake of coronavirus. International systems can be reshaped to reflect and respond to those calls, reconciling their structures with the systems of white supremacy from which they were originally created. Doing so can create profound positive impact for climate adaptation and conflict avoidance, particularly in the areas of social resilience. Increasingly identified by researchers as essential in ameliorating adverse climate impacts, social resilience depends in part on increasing trust between people and institutions. When governing bodies and those they serve operate with attitudes of mutual faith and respect, plans move forward faster from idea to action. When hazards strike, proactive response strategies are more likely to be in place, helping protect those in need and allowing communities to more quickly begin to heal. Rebuilding international institutions by addressing long-standing issues of racial and social inequality could have massive ramifications for improved social resilience across governmental and community scales, helping to ensure more conflict free futures for us all. © Johanna Hoffman 2020
Comments