By Muhammad Zeb, Peshawar
Global politics still performs the rituals of unity. Leaders gather, statements are issued, resolutions are drafted. Yet behind this choreography lies a growing reality: the institutions built to manage collective problems are struggling to deliver collective outcomes.
Multilateralism, once the organising principle of international order, is no longer failing loudly. It is fading quietly—undermined by power politics, selective commitment to rules, and a widening gap between global promises and lived consequences.
The Illusion of Consensus
At the heart of the crisis is not the absence of institutions, but the erosion of trust in how they function. International law is invoked inconsistently. Humanitarian norms are defended rhetorically but compromised in practice. The veto, once justified as a stabilising mechanism, has become a tool of paralysis.
Conflicts endure not because solutions are unattainable, but because agreement has become optional for those with power. For much of the global south, this has turned multilateral participation into a symbolic exercise—present at the table, absent from the outcome.
The Shift No One Announced
As global forums stall, cooperation has not disappeared. It has relocated.
Regional organisations—often overlooked in grand geopolitical narratives—are increasingly where action occurs. They respond faster to crises, navigate fewer ideological divides, and operate within shared economic and security realities. Their influence may be limited, but their relevance is not.
This is not a rejection of globalism. It is an adaptation to its limitations. In a fragmented world, proximity offers what universality currently cannot: urgency, accountability, and continuity.
From Grand Designs to Practical Politics
What is emerging is a more modest form of multilateralism. Less aspirational, more functional. Less concerned with global consensus, more focused on achievable cooperation.
This model is imperfect. Regional blocs can replicate the same inequalities seen at the global level. Smaller states may still struggle against dominant neighbours. Yet even flawed cooperation is often preferable to institutional paralysis.
In an era defined by overlapping crises—climate disruption, displacement, economic volatility—inaction is the costliest option of all.
A Moment of Choice for the Global South
For countries like Pakistan, the implications are both strategic and urgent. Overreliance on distant global institutions has frequently produced delayed responses and diluted accountability. Regional engagement, if strengthened with political seriousness, offers a chance to shape outcomes rather than merely react to them.
But this requires moving beyond symbolic regionalism. It demands institutions that function, dialogue that persists beyond crises, and leadership willing to invest in long-term regional stability rather than short-term tactical gains.
What Survives After Multilateralism
The danger is not that multilateralism will disappear, but that it will continue to exist in form while losing substance. If global institutions are to remain credible, reform is no longer optional—it is overdue.
Until that happens, cooperation will continue to operate at smaller scales, driven less by idealism than by necessity. The future of international order may not be shaped in grand halls or historic summits, but in regional negotiations where compromise is unavoidable and disengagement is not an option.
In a divided world, cooperation may no longer be universal. But if it is honest, grounded, and responsive, it may still endure.
