Global forums: Necessities or unnecessary burdens as reform calls grow

In the era of constant change, the modern world continues to grapple with a range of crises — geopolitical, economic, health, and climate related. Current examples abound: the Ukraine-Russia war, Israel-Gaza conflict, China-Taiwan tension, unrest in Korea, global trade crisis due to Trump tariffs, domestic political and economic strife in multiple nations, persistent health emergencies like Covid, and accelerating climate disasters. These challenges have repeatedly tested the resilience of nations and the global community.

 

To address similar difficulties, the earlier generation of leaders established a host of international forums to foster mature and peaceful dialogue and reason among countries. Over time, these have multiplied, creating an impressive roster of bodies aiming to promote peace, economic stability, and collaboration across borders. Few prominent ones and their sub-structures include global forums such as the United Nations, G-20, World Economic Forum, Global Diplomatic Forum, Tech Diplomacy Forum, Global Council for Diplomacy and International Relations, G-7, BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China), United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), World Health Organisation (WHO), and World Bank; regional forums including the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), European Union (EU), Indian Ocean Rim Association (IORA), Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), East Asian Summit (EAS), ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), Pacific Islands Forum (PIF), North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD), and Raisina Dialogue; and specialised climate-focused platforms like COP, Global Climate Forum (GCF), and the Global Forum on Environment and Climate Change.

 

Each organisation operates through a complex system of sub-committees or specialised bodies addressing specific thematic or functional areas. For instance, the UN alone has 13 main committees, 10 ad hoc committees, three advisory committees, and six other special committees. Some notable examples include the Disarmament and International Security Committee (First Committee), Economic and Financial Committee (Second Committee), Legal (Sixth Committee), Credentials Committee, United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), Counter-Terrorism Committee, Non-Proliferation Committee, Working Group on Peacekeeping Operations, Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), Commission on the Status of Women (CSW), Unicef, and the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL).

 

 

The scale and cost of global meetings

 

Consider the activity within the UN, for instance: In 2023, its Human Rights Council held 300 meetings, followed by the Security Council, which held 274 meetings, Other significant committees together held hundreds more, totalling well over 10,000 meetings annually across its key hubs in New York, Geneva, Vienna, and Nairobi.

 

Based on the number of annual UN meetings, it is safe to assume that other forums add many thousands of meetings to the worldwide calendar.

 

These gatherings mobilise delegates, heads of state, ministers, dignitaries, corporate entities, and support staff from 193 nations, contributing to a substantial travel footprint, often to far-flung and exotic destinations across the globe. The UN’s budget alone for 2023 was $9 billion, with the combined expenditure of all global and regional forums being exponentially larger. In addition, these translate to millions of man-days and an overwhelming amount of funds spent on travel and conferencing.

 

The rationale behind such investments is straightforward: To solve crucial problems collaboratively. Yet, their effectiveness based on past track records is increasingly being questioned.

 

Questionable impact and unmet promises

 

Despite their lofty mandates, most forums have repeatedly failed to prevent or resolve major conflicts and crises like:

 

*         Peace and conflict: No major body (including, and especially, the UN) has prevented any major conflict or war such as Ukraine-Russia and Israel-Gaza. Successful resolutions, like those between Azerbaijan-Armenia or Vietnam-Thailand or Rwanda-Congo B, emerged from direct bilateral talks or at best due to mediation by powerful nations, most notably the US.

 

*         Economic crises: High-profile economic platforms, like the World Economic Forum, annually draw top government officials, heads of states and corporate entities, but have not managed to resolve any economic crisis facing the world collectively or countries individually.

 

*         Climate change: Efforts at climate forums have yielded inadequate results, with the climate situation worsening over the years.

 

*         Humanitarian issues: Humanitarian crises continue to devastate millions, with little meaningful relief from these organisations: From the refugees in Gaza, including the glaring forced hunger on its innocent citizens, to victims of political persecution in regions like Nigeria at the hands of Boko Haram to several other geopolitical actions across the world.

 

*         State of democracy: The spread of democracy, another stated goal, has faltered, with many countries witnessing a rise in autocratic governance and weaker democratic institutions.

 

*         Health collaboration: A rare area of relative success is in health, where collaborative efforts have brought tangible progress. 

A call for reflection and reform 

Given this track record, it is critical for citizens and leaders alike to re-evaluate the necessity and relevance of many (if not most) global forums. There is an urgent need for transparency about what is being achieved and what might be lost — wasteful expenditures that ultimately burden national budgets (and thus its citizens), the time of government and private sector officials that could be better spent in solving urgent domestic priorities, the environmental damage from excessive travel, and the apparent ineffectiveness (in most cases) in crisis resolution.

 

Perhaps it is time to reconsider, reduce, or even eliminate many of these bodies that seem more an excuse for networking and leisure among the elite than vehicles for substantive change. The world, facing formidable problems and limited resources, cannot afford forums that prove to be more ceremonial than purposeful.

 

The writer is vice chairman, Bharti Enterprises