Some thoughts on the Olympic Games and cosmopolitanism

Right now my city, Rio de Janeiro, is hosting the Summer Olympic Games. It is in many ways a great moment, and it is especially good to see people from so many parts of the world together in relative harmony. In other words, a good example of cosmopolitanism. The cosmopolitanism in the city today reminds me of the attempts of multilateralism that marked Brazilian (and world) foreign policy in previous governments, but that now seem to fade away. The two terms, cosmopolitanism and multilateralism, are not exactly synonyms, but are closely related: multilateral policies should work in bringing peoples together in a more cosmopolitan world. Concerning that, I think of a multilateralism that does not work in bringing people together through cosmopolitanism, and one that can work in that way.

When the Cold War was over, multiple theories were presented to explain what would happen to a world without the tension between two superpowers. Some suggested that the US would reign as a lone superpower; others that it would embrace some form of benign hegemony, in a New World Order. Others still believed that US power was in decline, and that the World would see more multilateralism in the 21st century. This last view was especially dear in Brazil, but as the 21st century progresses, it does not seem to hold as much water anymore.

One great example of multilateralism substituting American hegemony was the integration of Western Europe, but that does not seem to be the case anymore. It is true that beginning shortly after WWII European countries experienced growing levels of regional integration, culminating with the European Union and the Euro in the 1990s. But even then, economists warned politicians and the general public that such a level of integration was not possible, at least not without a central government in Europe. Successive economic crises, Brexit, and the harsh questioning of immigration policies show today that economists were right back then.

Another example of multilateralism celebrated in the 1990s was the growing importance of the UN. Successive humanitarian missions and interventions in several countries suggested that that UN could now surpass the dawn that marked the relationship between USA and USSR in the previous period. Optimism went so far as to discuss themes such as the ‘obligation to intervene’, substituting previous understandings of state sovereignty. But as the years go by, cases like Haiti, Rwanda, Sudan, and many others show that the optimism was at best too high.

Finally and more recently, Brazil and other underdeveloped and developing countries focused greatly on South-South Cooperation, trying to substitute the more standard paradigm of North-South Foreign Aid. This materialized in initiatives such as UNASUR and BRICS. Although presented as a new development, that was actually very reminiscent of The Non-Aligned Movement, The Group of 77, and other initiatives from the 1960s and 1970s. Now, as Brazil, Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Turkey, China, Russia, and several other countries face growing levels of economic and political hardship, attempts to “overcome American hegemony” seem but preposterous.

New forms in multilateralism in Europe, the Global South, and even the World (in the UN) did not work because they are not really democratic, as they claim to be. Behind a rhetoric of democracy, empowerment of the poor, and so on, they are just new forms of mercantilism: political elites trying to control the economy, not just at the national level, but the international one as well. The point was never to actually bring people together, but to maintain the status quo by avoiding real competition.

The multilateralism that can bring about cosmopolitanism, and that somewhat shows in the Summer Olympic Games in Rio, is one characterized by spontaneous order. People do come together: that is the natural ways of things. The desire to trade spontaneously brings different peoples closer to one another, and as they are closer they realize how much they have in common, and also what can be learnt from the differences. It is not always a peaceful dealing, but the more people are educated to tolerate the differences and to benefit from them, the more cosmopolitan they become.

A top down approach to cosmopolitanism is just a deformed clone of the real thing. Even if some results appear, they always seem to fall somewhere in the uncanny valley, and anyway, the results do not last very long. A bottom up cosmopolitanism is the real thing, and if only elites let it be, it can grow stronger, bring more wealth, and even a little more peace to the world.

5 thoughts on “Some thoughts on the Olympic Games and cosmopolitanism

  1. Wow, you’ve painted a pretty bleak picture. I’m glad you ended on a high note. Do you believe that multilateralism from the bottom up will work better?

    • Yes, I do. Actually, I believe it already does. There are examples of multilateralism that are really focusing on free trade and free exchange in general.

  2. Quite an interesting analysis by Mr. Rosi. Though I like the analogy between the international system and the Olympics, I disagree on a number of issues:

    I believe we should avoid being taken away by any sort of hype. The world still is heading to multilateralism in 21st century. It just won’t happen as fast as optimists thought in the wake of the 2008 Great Recession, when rich countries where down and emergents were booming. By the same token, it isn’t permanently halted as pessimists forecast now, because the crisis in the emerging countries will wane eventually. You see, even during the present context, the quota reform in IMF was undertaken – a true sign of multilateral tendencies in the system.

    The same goes for European integration. Although the current crisis is a deep one, it doesn’t point to the end of the project, and it certainly doesn’t prove the pessimists of yore to be right. After Brexit, the Union is hurt but alive. I believe it will serve as an ultimate test that will make the EU reborn stronger after reforms. And the decline of a post-European UK will just serve as a counterexample.

    The author holds to security issues – which is the most dysfunctional aspect of the UN – in order to discredit multilateralism through the organization. In fact, it is more functional if your consider Human Rights (especially after the reform that created the HR Council), refugee policy, UNESCO, the ICJ, Climatic Change and many other issues.

    Even if we consider just security, the UN went much farther than Mr. Rosi points out. The issue of ‘obligation to intervene’ was object of further debate and the UN report ‘In larger Freedom’. Better concepts such as ‘responsibility to protect’ and ‘responsibility while protecting’ where developed. A stalemate was hit only after that Libya intervention failed miserably. Still, there is a lively debate on multilateralizing security issues.

    South-South cooperation was never meant to replace North-South cooperation. It is about a strategy of group-balancing in order to claim due responsibility in system of States in which power relations were (still are, I think) changing in favor of emerging countries. If you put clumsy Hugo Chávez aside, there was never any goal or rhetoric of “overcoming American hegemony” (in fact, most emerging countries cooperate closely with the US to improve the international order). A ‘rise of the rest’ is emphasized by Obama himself in many speeches. In addition, I deem the relation between this scenario and the non-aligned movement as plainly anachronic without a Cold War-style superpowers contest.

    In a nutshell, I disagree that “New forms of multilateralism (…) did not work because they are not really democratic”. I believe that they work, but just not as fast, as steadily or smoothly as we would like. They develop at a slow pace. Just put into a temporal perspective and you’ll see: our multilateral institutions are now stronger and more functional than 15 years ago. And then, they were better than 15 years before, and so on.

    • Hello Gabriel,

      It is very hard to deal with several aspects of multilateralism (security, economy, etc.) in about 800 words, but my basic point would be this: in close examination, much of the multilateralism of the last 20 years (or even more) was mercantilist or even socialist in nature. At least, it was not entirely libertarian, despite many claims for free trade and freedom in general. Therefore, it did not produce as much advances as it could. Following that, I am very suspicious of people who say “I like free trade, but…”. It seems to me that in general these people are not in favor of free trade at all. On the other hand, I am not denying that we had advances towards a more free and prosperous world. I am just saying that the advances would have been much greater if not stained by mercantilism, socialism and other forms of top-down control. I really hope that you are right, and that with more liberalism we will achieve greater advances in the years to come.


Please keep it civil

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s