Discover more from Global Shield's Newsletter
Global Shield Briefing (8 May 2024)
The tension between global action and national responsibility
The latest policy, research and news on global catastrophic risk (GCR).
The global in global catastrophic risk throws up a key problem. Collective action. Countries need to work together. At the same time, domestic interests drives the risk and stifle meaningful cooperation. Still, governments have a responsibility to their citizens to prepare for and respond to global crises and disasters. This to-and-fro makes for haphazard domestic and foreign policy efforts to reduce global catastrophic risk.
There is, perhaps, a way through. Prepare domestically and champion globally. As global catastrophic risk from various sources grows, countries need to take measures that prepare themselves for worst-case scenarios. This self-confidence, experience and credibility lays the foundation to champion global catastrophic risk reduction around the world, particularly in multilateral forums.
In this latest briefing, recent news around nuclear agreements and an international pandemic accord highlight the tension between needing both global action and national responsibility. The key to breaking this tension is just one country that wishes to take up the mantle. Avoiding catastrophe could be in the hands of one brave champion.
Championing GCR reduction on the global stage
In an age of strategic competition, tensions and disagreements between major powers are at their highest just as they need to work together to reduce global catastrophic risk. Combined with a fraying multilateral order, no country is leading on global catastrophic risk reduction while the risk itself is only growing.
Take nuclear risk as an example. Bilateral and multilateral arrangements on nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament are at the weakest point since the beginning of the Cold War. The new START treaty between the US and Russia remains their only major arms control treaty. It limits the deployment of nuclear weapons on both sides and contains strong verification and transparency measures. But it expires in February 2026 and Russia recently rejected the US proposal to begin talks on renewal. Russia revoked its ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) in November 2023, justified on the basis that the US has never ratified it. On 24 April, Russia vetoed a United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolution put forward by the US and Japan that would have reaffirmed a global commitment against deploying nuclear weapons in space. China abstained. This week, the US State Department urged Russia and China to commit that they would never allow artificial intelligence to make decisions on deploying nuclear weapons. Of course, no nuclear power has signed up to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).
Policy comment: Major powers are unlikely to agree, or effectively implement, substantive accords on a range of global challenges – particularly nuclear weapons, climate change, artificial intelligence and food security – in the current geopolitical environment. Politically sensitive economic and security issues dominate their domestic and foreign policy priorities. Other countries must step up to champion GCR reduction efforts. The UK and France (the two other P5 countries) as well as Japan, South Korea and Switzerland (current non-permanent UNSC members) are well-positioned to lead. Their UNSC membership, relations with major powers, global diplomatic reach and credibility, and high-income status affords them the capital to take GCR reduction seriously. Whoever leads, they must advance a multi-pronged approach: build a shared understanding of global catastrophic risk in the UN system, such as through developing and communicating global risk assessments; increase attention by placing it on the agenda of key forums; strengthen multilateral mechanisms for dealing with nuclear, climate, AI and pandemic risk; and help increase capacity of multilateral institutions to handle crises and disasters, like a proposed UN Emergency Platform.
Also see:
A new edited series called “Global Governance and International Cooperation: Managing Global Catastrophic Risks in the 21st Century”, which looks at a variety of angles for how the multilateral level plays a role on navigating the threats this century.
Finalizing an international pandemic agreement
Member States of the World Health Organization (WHO) are currently finalizing two years of negotiations for an international pandemic accord. The proposed text is to be adopted by member states at the 77th World Health Assembly on May 27 to June 1. Some major challenges in the negotiations have resulted in a trimmed-down text. The key areas of disagreement have been access and distribution of vaccines and other pandemic-fighting capabilities, and information sharing about new pathogens. Strong opponents have been concerned that the agreement will allow the WHO extreme sway over national responses to pandemics, though the draft agreement provides no such powers. Indeed, the draft resolution takes the unusual step of adding a clause specifically stating that the WHO has no authority to direct or mandate national laws and policies.
Policy comment: The process and text of the agreement demonstrates the value and limitations of international accords in general. The agreement sets out norms, principles, expectations and best practices for all countries to follow. It also works best when funding and investment is paired with the agreement. In this case, the World Bank and the WHO have established a joint Pandemic Fund that has raised over US$2 billion in seed capital from 27 contributors. However, as the draft resolution makes clear, national governments have the ultimate authority and responsibility. Indeed, by removing the pandemic component, some of the text is transferable to reducing global catastrophic risk at large: liability and compensation management (article 15); collaboration and cooperation on global action (article 16); whole-of-government and whole-of-society approaches to prevention, preparedness and response (article 17); and effective communication and handling of mis/dis-information (article 18). National governments should prioritize the finalization of the pandemic agreement. High-income countries should commit to the Pandemic Fund while more vulnerable states could seek funding to support domestic efforts (with the call for proposals closing on 17 May). More generally, they should apply the lessons from COVID-19 to other forms of global catastrophic risk, particularly as preparedness and emergency management are applicable to multiple threats.
Also see:
A useful summary of the implications of the Pandemic Agreement for the US.
“A framework for tomorrow’s pathogen research” by an independent panel of experts convened by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.
Preparing for the right-of-boom
Russian President Vladimir Putin has ordered Russian forces to conduct exercises to “practice the issues of preparation and use of non-strategic nuclear weapons”, according to a 6 May statement by the Russian Defence Ministry. In late April, a group of US Senators began a push to modernize the American nuclear program. The proposed bill is a response to recommendations from the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States in a report released in November 2023.
Policy comment: Major nuclear powers have focused their nuclear policy and doctrine on preventing the first use of a nuclear weapon. But there is insufficient research, policy or consideration to what would be required if a nuclear weapon was used in a conflict, and if it escalated into a nuclear exchange. Policymakers and diplomats should consider preparing for “right of boom” – the moments in the immediate aftermath of a first strike all the way up to the years and decades of follow-on effects. For example, de-escalation protocols would minimize further exchange after a first strike, and consequence management would help prepare for mass casualties and the possibility of nuclear winter. Governments – including and especially non-nuclear states – must reinstate or establish civil defense and civil preparedness for the possibility of nuclear war and other global catastrophes, as well as their own governmental continuity planning. Sabre-rattling by Russia and modernization of nuclear-weapons programs raises the urgency.
Also see:
A 2023 report by Founders Pledge on how philanthropy can support right-of-boom efforts.
This briefing is a product of Global Shield, the world’s first and only advocacy organization dedicated to reducing global catastrophic risk of all hazards. With each briefing, we aim to build the most knowledgeable audience in the world when it comes to reducing global catastrophic risk. We want to show that action is not only needed, it’s possible. Help us build this community of motivated individuals, researchers, advocates and policymakers by sharing this briefing with your networks.
Subscribe to Global Shield's Newsletter
The latest policy, news and research on global catastrophic risk