Challenges to multilateralism in the post COVID-19 phase

The corona pandemic has put to light the current debates on the multilateralism. While it is quick to blame coronavirus for disrupting multilateralism, the article illustrates that same is not the case. The article argues that multilateralism was under siege for quite a few years with early cracks appearing at the turn of the 20th Century. Pandemic has just thrown open inefficiencies and prevailing trends out in the open. The article proceeds by discussing early imaginations, early cracks, and the recent events that have accelerated the crisis of multilateralism. The article also discusses emerging post-pandemic world and charts out a role that India can play in the new world order.

Early Imaginations  

Post-World War II, the United States spearheaded the creation of multilateral institutions to bring countries closer, promote dialogue, and foster effective cooperation for peace and prosperity. Multilateralism was envisioned to uplift the international community from the widespread destruction of war with an underlying assumption that economic integration, inter-dependence, inter-connectedness will contribute to developing people to people contacts and friendly ties between the countries. Multilateralism relies on trust, mutual respect, cooperation, and member states ability to frame joint solutions to common threats and challenges. It operates through the wide architecture of organizations, institutions, governing bodies that share the foundational mission of according peace and stability to the international system. However, multilateral forums are not just the place for international cooperation; they also serve as platforms to pursue national interest and continue politics through peaceful means. Perhaps, partly due to this reason, the United States piloted their creation to infuse American political values of democracy, human rights, liberty, free market, into the international system to make them universal and legitimate. History of cold war years is replete with examples when multilateralism worked and produced meaningful results and instances when it did not and remained paralyzed in cold war rivalry. Despite functioning sporadically, multilateralism did evolve in a phased manner. For instance, as countries became independent, membership expanded, new groupings came up, specialised regimes emerged. However, it was in the post-cold war period multilateralism witnessed a smooth run. The demise of the Soviet Union positioned the United States in the unique position as a sole superpower capable of leading global response and effecting international cooperation on global security and trade matters. Multilateralism became a significant instrument of US foreign policy. It became possible because United States exercised self-restraint on the use of force, absence of concrete opposition, secured funding to institutions of global governance, and facilitating and meeting routine demands of cooperation on issues that either did not directly conflict with US national interest or fall under the category of shared interest. In the case of the United States, multilateralism attracted the financial investment and political will to uphold and sustain the feature insofar it fed into securing US national interest. And it certainly did. For instance, revival and expansion of GATT into WTO to include services, Intellectual property rights, and dispute settlement mechanism. As a sole superpower, it desperately needed a trading system with the likes of WTO, where it can discuss trade, tariffs, barriers, and even a new market for its manufactured products.

Early Cracks

At the turn of the century world saw unilateral American invasions, first in Afghanistan, and then in Iraq. Even though the actions were unilateral, they did not signal abject disapproval of multilateralism as the leadership and the US administration worked closely within the multilateral ecosystem to justify and exhibit to the world that their actions flow from the existing norms and operate within the established rules. But the recent decade has witnessed a retreat of multilateralism. Multilateralism is not only collapsed in its soul and spirit but also has been weaponized. There is a flux of unilateral actions, especially from the United States, Russia, and China. For instance, in 2007, Russia intimidated Estonia by inflicting a cyber-attack on their national systems. Russia intervened militarily in neighbouring states- Georgia (2008) and Ukraine (2014), and is also reported to rig the 2016 US Presidential election.

On the other hand, over the years, China has become assertive in the South China Sea. Now, China harasses its maritime neighbours, exerts claim over the disputed territory, and rejects the Permanent Court of Arbitration ruling. It has moved from staking claims to exerting them and now seeks to establish a sphere of influence in East Asia. Moreover, China has ‘weaponized’ the economic interdependence and connectivity to pursue geostrategic aims. China made the most use of the multilateral game by mastering the multilateral rules and in 2013 unveiled its grand project- Belt and Road Initiative. Arguably BRI is the classic example of weaponized interdependence. Through BRI, China disburses international development finance for infrastructure, energy, and connectivity projects.

However, due to the low economic viability of the project, they get leased out to China. For example, Hambantota Port, which is on lease for 99 years. Low economic viability, high-interest rates, and higher than GDP loan amount has pushed recipient countries into a debt trap (Narayanan, 2017). It appears China stands to exploit this debt situation to extract political and diplomatic allegiance to fashion a new kind of Sino-centrism. A centrality and supremacy which is not based on hierarchy or civilized status, but based on the political and economic dependency of other nations on China and its status as a developed nation. This weaponised interdependence is bound to generate backlash sooner or later. Furthermore, the United States has also shown severe disregard for multilateralism and, in many cases, even defaulted on its commitment towards multilateral institutions. In 2007, negotiations in the Doha round collapsed because the United States did not agree to make concessions on agriculture subsidies. Obama administration side-lined WTO and created regional trade blocks- Trans-Atlantic Trade Investment Partnership (TATIP 2013), Trans-Pacific Partnership (TTP 2015).

Recent Events (Arrival of Trump)

Disregard towards multilateralism accelerated and became publicly noticeable with the arrival of President Trump on the scene. The United States under President Trump has unilaterally withdrawn from Paris Climate Agreement, TATIP, TPP, UNESCO, UNHRC, and Iran Nuclear Deal. Moreover, it has cut funding to UN secretariat, field missions, and UN agencies (Whineray, 2020). Ongoing, United States spat with WHO serves as the burning example wherein the annual funding (approx. $400 million) has been halted because WHO delayed the pandemic call and supported the official Chinese line of communication. Under Trump, the US has increasingly pursued ‘transactional diplomacy’ wherein funding and aid to UN agencies and countries is put contingent on the nature and extent of political support the recipient shows towards defending US national interest. In a memo titled, America First Foreign Assistance Policy which was later reviewed by Foreign Policy it was explicitly stated that US mission to UN is of opinion that “all US foreign assistance should be re-evaluated to ensure that taxpayers dollars are spent to advance US interests, not to fund foreign legacy programs that provide little or no return on investment” (Lynch, 2018). For instance, the memo totalled up the US foreign assistance that went to three countries, namely, Ghana, Vietnam, and Zimbabwe. The assistance was then weighed against the political support the three countries gave for US interest in the UN. It was found that countries received a total of $580 million in assistance in the year 2016 and voted paltry 54, 38, 19 percent of the time (respectively) for the US positions (Lynch, 2018). Another example is US policy towards Iran. It has left no stone unturned to utilize the UN and its bodies to exert maximum pressure and sanctions to isolate Iran. Moreover, recently in 2020 United States, while acting unilaterally, assassinated Iranian military commander Qasem Soleimani- a sensitive and dangerous showdown that kept the potential to spark a major war. This targeted killing shows complete rejection and impatience to the multilateral process. 

The downward trend in multilateralism does not stop here. In the recent decade, World Trade Organization (WTO), an organization that was once envisioned to serve as a platform for trade negotiations, settle disputes, promote rule-based international trade has found itself inept in resolving trade disputes and virtually now stands irrelevant. The crack in WTO becomes visible from ministerial declarations. For instance, in 2015, the ministerial declaration did not reflect a consensus; in 2017, ministerial conference even failed to produce the ministerial declaration (Narlikar, 2020). The multilateral trade body faces problems with dispute settlement mechanism, Doha round of negotiations, and appointment of members to Appellate body. The member countries routinely challenge consensus-based voting system, special safeguard mechanism, national interest loopholes, special and differential treatment (S&DT) provisions, more so the self-declaration norm through which countries set their developing/developed status. Moreover, presently, the United States has blocked the appointment of members to the appellate body (AB). This has reduced the AB’s strength from seven to a symbolic one with a term of current Chinese Appellate body member-Hong Zhao ending in November 2020. If no member is appointed post-November 2020, the Appellate body will dissolve jeopardizing the entire dispute settlement process. Such level of paralysis is unprecedented since, in the past, WTO certainly faced occasional bottlenecks and deadlocks, but it did arbitrate and produce judgments on the global trade matters. However, since President Trump’s arrival, the organization has been increasingly pushed away and side-lined. The disregard becomes even more glorified when President of United States blatantly tweets, “Trade wars are good and easy to win” inflicting dent on the credibility of the multilateral body and the entire multilateral process (Trump, 2018). Indeed, the relevance of WTO today stands diminished, and the body is headed towards becoming obsolete. 

Confrontation with Pandemic

The crisis in multilateralism is not only limited to trade but also extends itself when it comes to addressing transnational and cross-domain challenges such as the Corona pandemic. Since the turn of the year 2020, the international community has been battling Coronavirus, which is reported to have originated in wet markets of the Chinese city, Wuhan. The United States has accused China of mishandling of the outbreak, misreporting information, and underreporting cases. It has also alleged China of artificially producing the virus in the PLA laboratory to deploy bio-warfare. On the other hand, China has pushed the narrative that it is an American disease accidentally brought into China by soldiers of the US army (Myers, 2020). That said, conspiracy theories remain omnipresent, and the origins of the virus remain contested. Surprisingly, the world does not have a vaccine to offer, which has led virus spread unabated into national boundaries with casualties and cases rising beyond controllable levels. Globally, over 6M cases and 3lac deaths have been reported with 1 lac deaths in the US alone. The pandemic has caused great damage to the global economic system halting the movement of people, goods, services, and capital. It has stretched healthcare systems in all countries until their breaking point. When confronted with such an unprecedented situation, the normative expectation of the international community is that great powers will cooperate, collaborate for drug research, and present a coordinated global response towards fighting pandemic. And hope from multilateral organizations is that they will facilitate this cooperation and operationalize the global response to protect the world society from the pandemic.

However, when there is a dire need for multilateralism, it is not only in short supply but also out of production. The Atlantic system, once upon a time ‘Champions of Multilateralism’ have failed to provide meaningful leadership at the time of the Corona crisis. Multilateralism is at an all-time low with institutions of global governance caught in cross-firing and great power rivalry. On the one hand, there is United States that stands adamant about making China pay for its malfeasance and opaqueness, on the other, China, which is thwarting and dodging any attempts that call for an investigation into the origin and spread of the virus. Further, the US has accused WHO’s Director-General Tedros Adhanom for toeing the line of Chinese authorities and serving Chinese interest allowing an outbreak quickly escalate to the pandemic by delaying the alert call. The accusation stands on the following grounds; first, WHO’s endorsement of Chinese claim that there is no people-to-people transmission of the virus, second, it supported China’s handling of the virus, third, criticized nations imposing travel restrictions to and from China, and finally for delaying the pandemic call (Mohan, 2020b). The perceived support towards Chinese interest has costed WHO withdrawal of United States annual funding amounting to more than $400 million. Further, the blame game and cross-firing has resulted in insulting remarks for WHO, such as ‘China-centric,’ ‘puppet,’ which has severely dented the credibility of the international institution (Mohan, 2020b).

It is not only WHO that is facing wrath of US-China rivalry, UN Security Council also stands paralyzed. China has blocked discussion on coronavirus. Till now, the security council has not declared coronavirus as threat to international peace and security. This is in contrast to UNSC response to Ebola virus (2014) which being an epidemic was unanimously accepted as threat to international peace and security (Yang,2020). Moreover, US has blocked the SC resolution on Coronavirus pandemic that calls for global ceasefire and cessation in hostilities. Irony is SC members agree on the objective of the resolution including US and China, however, disagree on the drafting and text of the resolution. Since March, the council is negotiating the text with Trump administration that is pestering for the resolution text to make direct reference of virus origins to Chinese city of Wuhan; attracting heightened criticism and disapproval from the Chinese diplomats (Lederer, 2020). Furthermore, since Trump has withdrawn United States funding from WHO there is contention over resolution giving implicit references to WHO. United States rejects any mention to WHO whereas Chinese supports WHO and maintains that any resolution to be effective has to include the role of WHO with an explicit mention in the resolution text (Lederer, 2020)

Hence, the waning legitimacy of institutions of global governance is clear, and it is apparent that they “suffer from politicisation, manipulation, lack of representation, and independent leadership” (Tharoor & Saran, 2020). However, it would be wrong to attribute pandemic for hurting their legitimacy and disrupting multilateralism. As evident from the discussion so far, multilateralism was under siege even before the pandemic. The occurrence of the pandemic has just exposed the inefficiencies, bottlenecks, the ‘prevailing trends’ out in the open. Here, it is important to reflect on why multilateralism is spiralling downward. It is because it has failed to adapt to the changing power dynamics of the international system. The world now neither exists in the unipolar, nor bipolar moment. Today, it functions in a multipolar world with each state working to maximise and secure its national interest. Multilateralism and its institutions were not designed to go on a ride with multiple powers. They were inherently designed as an extended arm of US foreign policy to inject American political and economic values into the system. The rise of countries like China, India, and South Korea has brought new realities on the table where each power looks for the opportunity to throw its weight around the system. As Will Moreland writes, we should not forget that “multilateralism operates in the geo-political context within which it exists” (Moreland, 2019). He further adds that “multilateralism cannot be preserved in amber, rather architectures must be adaptable to, and adaptable within to prevailing geo-political environment” (Moreland, 2019).

The current pandemic has brought the international community to an inflection point where there are two possibilities. Either the countries would take cognizance of the downward trend in multilateralism and work towards reforming it, or the multilateral process would entirely collapse, and countries will recede to isolation, protectionist measures, and nationalism. Currently, the system is headed towards the second possibility. To put in C Raja Mohan’s words, “Sovereignty is back, and Solidarity is under stress” (Mohan, 2020c). It is evident as borders are shut, trade halted, mobility grounded, and competition is on to procure critical goods. Countries have announced a reduction in external trade, investment to better insulate economies. A call for becoming self-sufficient has surged, which also reflects in Prime Ministers Modi’s call for Atmanirbhar Bharat. However, since multilateral order has benefited every country (especially China), it is hard to imagine that all countries will accept the retreat from multilateralism. Many would seek to reform and revive it. But the problem is who gets to do that? Which country or group of countries possess the necessary resources and required diplomatic capital to intervene in the great power rivalry and conduct mediation between Washington and Beijing. Therefore, the essential questions are, who mediates between them? Who takes the leadership in the post-Corona world? And, how will be the Post-Corona World?

Post Corona World Order

Any discussion on Post Corona World order has to start by accepting the fact that unipolar moment in the world does not exist. Although the United States still excels in GDP and defence expenditure, it has undoubtedly dropped its status as a superpower. The world has transformed from being unipolar to multipolar, with several contenders to power. The architects of the post corona world will have to first unanimously agree on the notion that rising powers deserve a fair share in rule-making and cannot be perpetual rule takers. Second, they will have to take into account their capabilities and capacities. Such a measure will be essential as it would help decide the amount of power and the nature of responsibility that can be accorded to a country in the international system. Moreover, any efforts aimed at constructing post corona world order would require active Chinese participation and cooperation. Today, China stands second to the United States in terms of the GDP, serving production house to the half of the world, and exerting significant control over global supply chains. Post-Corona world order will have to accommodate Chinese values, if not all, definitely the most subscribed ones. The world order would have to be constructed by cherry-picking and striking the right balance between the best of Chinese and American values so that the multilateral system does not find itself blocked and paralyzed. Furthermore, Corona pandemic has caused more deaths in western countries as compared to African countries. It reflects the resilience of the African population and their future potential. Since the African continent host at least 25% of the world countries and houses 1.2 Billion people, any discussion on the Post-Corona world order will have to take into account the concerns and challenges of the African people. The post corona governance cannot afford to side-line Africa and underestimate the future potential of the African people.    

More specifically, the reforms need to start by learning lessons from the pandemic. At WHO, the pandemic brought to the surface the consequences of voluntary funding to the organisation. Voluntary contributions render organization vulnerable to pressures and allow donors to drive the outcome and agenda. There is a need to increase the obligation of member states regarding disclosure of outbreak information and more powers to the WHO to facilitate early detection and independent investigation into the disease outbreak. Additionally, WTO also requires reforms to prevent future trade wars. This would require reforming the dispute settlement mechanism, Doha round of negotiations, appointment of judges, consensus-based voting system, national interest loopholes, special safeguard mechanisms, S&DT provisions, and even the self-declaration norm that allows countries to set their developing/developed status.

Furthermore, it goes without saying that UNSC is being driven under-represented for quite a few years, and there is a dire need to expand permanent and non-permanent membership and rethink veto power provision conferred to the permanent members. Architects of the post-Corona world would also have to revisit Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora & Fauna (CITES) to check for trade and killing of exotic species and their potential of causing zoonotic transmission. Since origins of the corona pandemic to date remain contested with WHO unable to prove its zoonotic transmission officially, there is a need to revisit the Biological Warfare Convention (BWC)-1975 multilateral treaty that prohibits the development, production, and stockpiling of biological weapons, to investigate 'other origin theories' of the virus. A more significant role of the UN Security Council would be required to push for such an investigation as the process is fraught with a huge political and diplomatic cost. Therefore, the architects will have to deliberate setting up an independent scientific institution that studies the origins of novel pathogens and reserves the capacity to investigate their source. That said, the post-Corona world will require significant reconstruction of global governance institutions and a higher degree of international cooperation to sail through transnational threats and extraordinary challenges

 Role for India

Amidst the pandemic, the world is watching what the two leading powers of the international system are doing and not-doing. With world opinion going negative for China and the US withdrawing funding from WHO and Trump running international blame game to consolidate domestic politics and cover mismanagement at home, a leadership vacuum is formed at the international level hampering a coordinated global response against Covid-19. Therefore, the responsibility of initiating such a response has been shifted to next-in-line powers (the middle powers) to intervene in US-China rivalry and remind them of their positional obligations. Mediation of the highest level is required, and it appears India stands in a unique position to conduct that mediation. Unlike European powers, arguably, India stands at a neutral footing maintaining and managing its relationship with both the great powers. India should make use of that stance and kickstart mediation and discussion for the reform process by bringing both the powers on the table. To do this, India should proactively engage with African, South Asian, Southeast Asian countries- ‘the Third World’ to galvanize support. At a regional level, India should upscale its engagement with Quad (US, India, Japan, Australia) and Quad Plus (New Zealand, South Korea, Vietnam). These are the countries that share the first-order values of democracy, human rights, freedom, liberty, and the free market. Their support and participation would be necessary to set strong foundations of the multilateral order in the post-Corona world. India, then, should utilize generated support in the upcoming positions at the multilateral institutions. For instance, in 2021, India will join the UN Security Council as a non-permanent member. In 2021 India will host the BRICS summit, and in 2023, India will host the G20 summit. In the coming years, while holding UNSC seat, India will progressively host two summits (BRICS & G20) where it will enjoy the power to set the agenda. Therefore, it is paramount India vigorously utilises all the three upcoming opportunities and lobbies hard to push the agenda of institutional reform at all levels.

Conclusion

To conclude, multilateralism was envisioned to bring countries closer and bring peace and prosperity to all. United States shaped post-world war II multilateralism to serve as an extended arm of US foreign policy and inject American political and economic values into the international system. Multilateralism moved sporadically during the cold war but also developed in the phased manner. Post- cold war, in the unipolar moment, it had its smooth run. The extended arm of US foreign policy was doing its job with US meeting out routine demands of cooperation on shared interests. However, at the turn of the century, multilateralism got a blow with the United States pursuing unilateral invasions. Since then, the cracks on multilateralism widened. The multilateral order has failed to (adapt-to) and (adapt-within) to changing geo-political realities. It has not only collapsed but also has been hijacked and weaponised. Therefore, it started to fail on its job i.e., safeguarding US national interest. This led its 'master' to pursue unilateral actions. The crisis in multilateralism accelerated with the arrival of President Trump on the scene. Under his leadership, US side-lined WTO, WHO, UNSC and unilaterally walked out of the Paris Climate Agreement, UNESCO, UNHRC, TPP, TATIP, and Iran Nuclear Deal. The accumulating stress and crisis in multilateralism came out in open when the world was confronted with the Corona pandemic. Pandemic just exposed inefficiencies, prevailing trends, and the great power rivalry that multilateralism shadowed for all those years. Today, when it is in dire need, it is not only in short supply but also out of production. The responsibility has been shifted to middle powers like India to remind the great powers of their responsibility and nudge them for cooperation. The wisdom lies in reviving multilateralism by reforming multilateral institutions as the post-Corona world will be abundant with challenges that transcend nationalities. India can (and must) take the lead in reviving multilateralism. Indeed, it should strive to establish a multilateral order that places the interest of humanity above the parochial national interest.

References

1.       Mohan, C. Raja 2020a, “Unanimous Approval of Resolution Seeking Probe into Covid-19 Origin and Role of WHO Will Be a Setback for Beijing”, The Indian Express, URL:  https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/world-health-organization-coronavirus-coronavirus-global-death-toll-cases-covid-19-cure-vaccine-c-raja-mohan-6416300/.

2.     Mohan, C. Raja 2020b, “With Global Institutions in Turmoil, India Needs to Be Pragmatic and Fleet-Footed”, The Indian Express, URL https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/world-health-organisation-coronavirus-crisis-india-delhi-china-un6356921/.

3.      Mohan, C. Raja 2020c, “Sovereignty Is Back. Solidarity Is under Stress, Will Need to Be Reinvented”, The Indian Express, URL: https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/corona-pandemic-us-europe-china-india-cases-c-raja-mohan-6350462/.

4.     Chotani, V & Iyer, G 2020, “Re-Envisioning the Future of Asian Regionalism in the Post COVID19 Era.”, ORF, URL: https://www.orfonline.org/research/re-envisioning-the-future-of-asian-regionalism-in-the-post-covid-19-era-66700/.

5.     Kapoor, N 2020, “BRICS and Its Future: The Challenges of Multilateralism.” ORF, URL: https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/brics-future-challenges-multilateralism-66053/.

6.     Mishra, A 2020, “India, Africa and the Quest for Reformed Multilateralism” ORF, URL: https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/india-africa-quest-reformed-multilateralism-66763/.

7.     Mattoo, A & Narlikar, A 2020, “Resuscitating Multilateralism with India's Help”, The Hindu, URL:  https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/resuscitating-multilateralism-with-indias-help/article31521059.ece.

8.     Shyam, S 2020, “A Revival of Multilateralism, Steered by India”, The Hindu, URL: https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/a-revival-of-multilateralism-steered-by-india/article31093421.ece.

9.     Tharoor, S & Saran, S 2020, “COVID Pandemic Has Exposed Fragility of Global Society, Governance - and Pointed to the Way Forward.” The Indian Express, URL:  https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/coronavirus-pandemic-shashi-tharoor-book-new-world-disorder-covid19-6335028/.

10.  Chinoy, S 2020, “India Can Absorb Shocks of Pandemic, Take the Lead in Reshaping Global Order”, The Indian Express, URL:  https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/covid-19-pandemic-unsc-china-coronavirus-global-cases-india-lockdowm-sujan-r-chinoy-6392238/.

11.    Swaine, D & Sachs, J 2020, “COVID-19 Pushes World to a Turning Point.”, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, URL: https://carnegieendowment.org/2020/04/13/covid-19-pushes-world-to-turning-point-pub-81557.

12.   Narlikar, A 2020,“The Malaise of Multilateralism and How to Manage It.” ORF, URL: https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/the-malaise-of-multilateralism-and-how-to-manage-it/.

13.   Whineray, D 2020, “The G2 at the UN: The United States and the People's Republic of China at the United Nations Before COVID-19”, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, URL: https://carnegieendowment.org/2020/05/01/g2-at-un-united-states-and-people-s-republic-of-china-at-united-nations-before-covid-19-pub-81825.

14.  Feigenbaum, E 2020, “U.S.-China Coordination Missing in Action on Coronavirus”, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, URL: https://carnegieendowment.org/2020/04/01/u.s.-china-coordination-missing-in-action-on-coronavirus-pub-81432

15.   Yang, L 2020, “The Coronavirus Requires International Security Cooperation.” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, URL: https://carnegietsinghua.org/2020/04/07/coronavirus-requires-international-security-cooperation-pub-81482.

16.  Pant, V. “A Redundant G20.” ORF, URL: https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/a-redundant-g20-63859/.

17.   Lynch, C 2018, “Haley: Vote With U.S. at U.N. or We'll Cut Your Aid.” Foreign Policy, URL: https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/03/15/haley-vote-with-u-s-at-u-n-or-well-cut-your-aid/

18.  Myers, S 2020,“China Spins Tale That the U.S. Army Started the Coronavirus Epidemic”, The New York Times, URL: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/13/world/asia/coronavirus-china-conspiracy-theory.html.

19.  Moreland, W 2019, “THE PURPOSE OF MULTILATERALISM A FRAMEWORK FOR DEMOCRACIES IN A GEOPOLITICALLY COMPETITIVE WORLD”, The Brookings Institution, URL: https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/FP_20190923_purpose_of_multilateralism_moreland.pdf.

20. Trump, D March 2, 2018, 4:12 PM, Tweet URL:https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/969525362580484098

21.   Puri, M, “India Must Leverage Its Global Clout to Spur Institutional Reform in the Post-COVID-19 Era”, The Wire, URL: https://thewire.in/diplomacy/coronavirus-multilateralism-reforms.  

22. Lederer, 2020, “US Objects to UN Resolution on Virus in Dispute with China”, The Washington Times, URL: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/may/8/us-objects-to-un-resolution-on-virus-in-dispute-wi/.

23.  Mukherjee, T 2020, “The United Nations Security Council and Securitization of COVID-19”, ORF, URL: https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/the-united-nations-security-council-and-securitization-of-covid-19-64079/.

24. Narayanan, R 2017, “The China Dream, Tianxia and Belt and Road Initiative: ‘Pax Sinica’ or Middle Power Coalition for Asia-Pacific”, USI Journal, period April 2017-June 2017, URL: https://usiofindia.org/publication/usi-journal/the-china-dream-tianxia-and-belt-and-road-initiativepax-sinica-or-middle-power-coalition-for-asia-pacific/

Pic Courtesy- UN Website at https://www.un.org/securitycouncil/

(The Views expressed are personal.)