Recent developments around the WTO Ministerial as well as a further escalation in global risks highlight the inadequacy of the current global governance framework – the realization of this seemingly apparent truth while increasingly acknowledged does not seem to be matched by readiness for new ideas, approaches and frameworks. One track that BRICS+ Analytics has emphasized as key for expanding communication lines and rendering global governance more inclusive is the “integration of integrations” path via cooperative arrangements among the regional integration blocs of the world economy. We now proceed to explore the potential of “hemispheric governance” via cooperative arrangements among the platforms of the four Hemispheres – the Northern, Southern, Western and Eastern Hemispheres. In particular, we look at how hemispheric governance could be incorporated into the existing global institutional framework as well as which regional integration blocs and forums could serve as the connectors between regionalism, hemispheric governance and global institutions.
Defining the essential economic and geopolitical characteristics of the four hemispheres will to some degree hinge on the contrast effects between each of the two hemispheric antipodes (North vs. South and East vs. West). With respect to the Northern vs. Southern Hemisphere this may be the theme of the intensity of geopolitical risks, with the concentration of all superpowers in the North (all of G7, all of NATO, all nuclear arsenals) and the significantly greater escalation of geopolitical tensions compared to the Southern Hemisphere. At the same time, within the East-West dimension, the defining factor is the distribution of economic weight, with the Western Hemisphere being the most concentrated in terms of country GDP (US economy dominance), while the Eastern Hemisphere is the most diverse (a more even distribution across Europe and Asia).
The four quadrants formed by the intersection between these four hemispheres present varying patterns of economic weight and power concentration. The North-Western part (intersection between the two respective hemispheres) elicits a clear dominance of the US economy. In the South-West, nearly half of the region’s weight is accounted for by Brazil (another case of a dominant power). In the South-East, the intersection between the two respective hemispheres identifies Australia and Indonesia as the largest economies in the region, resulting in something that is more akin to a duopoly in that part of the world economy. Finally, the North-East presents a case of “overcrowded competition” across a large number of powers, with China being the largest heavyweight, but not nearly in the same dominant position as the leading economies in other quadrants. The Hemispheric QUAD composed of the largest economies from each of the four quadrants would then be represented by the US, Brazil, Australia and China – two representatives from the developing and two from among the advanced economies. A more inclusive version of a Hemispheric QUAD would bring together the four hemispherical platforms, each being represented by a rotating presidency or a G-20 Troika-like arrangement.
Table 1: Hemispheric QUAD
| West | East | |
| North | US | China |
| South | Brazil | Australia |
Interestingly, there is already a QUAD arrangement within the WTO that acts as an informal mechanism for attaining breakthroughs in trade talks – it is also composed of two representatives from the Global South and two from the advanced economies – typically Brazil, India as well as the US and the EU respectively[1]. According to the WTO, Australia also featured as part of this group in some of the discussions on agricultural issues (also within the extended Quint format), making the WTO QUAD quite similar to the Hemispheric QUAD outlined above. In this respect, the experience gleaned from the operations of the QUAD in the WTO may serve as an important guide with respect to developing the concept of hemispheric governance and the use of QUAD-like mechanisms to streamline the operations of international organizations and platforms. Perhaps the creation of hemispheric governance could be introduced gradually into the current global economic architecture (perhaps with a possibility to operate in organizations and platforms such as the G20, COP, the IMF and the World Bank) via creating such informal QUAD-like mechanisms designed to facilitate discussions and break deadlocks.
In terms of the role of hemispheric governance in the current global institutional framework, one of the potential platforms for hemispheric representation could be the G20 via a separate engagement group for regional blocs and regional integration arrangements (the regional 20/R20). A Hemispheric QUAD (its more inclusive version that comprises hemispheric platforms with all member economies) within the R20 could work with the respective regional blocs on propagating economic stimuli and global initiatives across the various parts of the global economy, rendering the G20 more inclusive and effective in reaching out to the global community. Another possible platform for hemispheric governance could be the UN and its governing structures – the regional principles are already employed by the UN via using regional groups for the allocation of seats in United Nations bodies.
The future of hemispheric governance would hinge to a significant degree on the evolution of regionalism and the “integration of integrations” among the leading regional integration blocs. If a common platform for regional integration blocs were to be formed (something that is absent in the current global governance construct), a Hemispheric QUAD could potentially play a coordinating role within such an arrangement. In this respect, mega-regionalism would be a natural gateway to connecting the “integration of integrations” path across regions to semi-globalism and hemispheric platforms.
One potential mega-regional platform for such a connection could be APEC – the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, a forum that is positioned in all four hemispheres. Like the G20 (that is also present in all four hemispheres), APEC could explore the possibility of raising its outreach/inclusivity via inviting the African Union as an observer – currently all APEC observers are regional organizations, including the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) that is also one of the regional blocs positioned in all four hemispheres[2]. For APEC, a more global (rather than solely regional) outreach would serve to revitalize the stature of this platform after a prolonged period of soul-searching and a lack of sense of purpose. In this respect, within a global governance construct that incorporates regional integration arrangements and their development institutions, APEC could become the key connector between regionalism/mega-regionalism and semi-globalism/globalism.
Alongside APEC the African Union could play a crucial role in “hemispheric governance” as Africa is the only continent in the world with presence in all four hemispheres. A further potential element in the emerging hemispheric governance could be the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) that brings together developed and developing economies from across all hemispheres – this platform comprises a significant part of the economies in the APEC region (UK being a prominent exception). Another platform positioned in all hemispheres is BRICS+, reflecting the diverse presence of the Global South economies across the globe. We note the prominence of blocs with a central role of the developing economies – BRICS+, African Union – that could lead the formation of the “hemispheric platforms” of economic cooperation.
Overall, hemispheric governance may have a niche and a future in a world economy that is encountering dead-ends in the maze of obsolete governance mechanisms and intellectual paradigms. Perhaps the most important benefit of hemispheric governance is that it is based on the objective realities of geography (fixed factors) rather than thought-up blocs and alliances that may have an inherent element of instability and antagonism versus outsiders (variable factors). In this respect, semi-globalism and hemispheric governance may be a way to aggregate existing myriads of regional alliances into a more coherent and tractable framework of “extended/inclusive regionalism” that is based on the objective factors of geography rather than on the division lines of ideology. Using geography as an anchor or as a building bloc creates thus a more equitable and objective setting that serves to attenuate regional and country-to-country rivalries.
[1] https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/org3_e.htm#:~:text=One%20group%20is%20seen%20as,stick%20to%20a%20common%20position.
[2] Interestingly, Kiribati, the only sovereign nation in the world spanning all four hemispheres, happens to be one of the smallest in the world by land area. At the same time, it also has among the largest Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) areas in the world.
Yaroslav Lissovolik, Founder, BRICS+ Analytics
Image by WikiImages via Pixabay