The era of big global deals is over. Trade, the environment, Syria—it’s just too difficult now that so many countries can claim a seat at the table. Expect to see more bilateral deals, or pacts between countries with a common interest. Sometimes those will be a good substitute for an overarching agreement but sometimes they will damage the interests of many in pursuit of those of a few. In the coming months, conservation questions including fish (or the lack of them, see p38), trade in endangered species (p30) climate change, farming subsidies and the threat of nuclear proliferation will all test how much will there still is for ambitious pacts to bind countries to a common cause. We are a long way from the heyday of the ambitious global deals, struck during the Second World War or its aftermath, when countries drew up rules to try to make such horrors less likely. Some pacts are still the cornerstones of international relations. The UN Security Council, which held its first session in 1946, is charged with the maintenance of international peace and is the only UN body with the authority to issue binding resolutions. The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank were founded in 1944; the World Trade Organisation (WTO), set up in 1995, succeeded the 1948 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. The 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) had its roots in these years. But the US cannot set the terms of such deals as it originally did. Russia, embittered by its loss of empire and with interests and allies often antagonistic to the US, frequently exercises its veto in the Security Council. The rise of new powers–China above all, but also India and Brazil—has injected strong new claims. The WTO failed in 12 years to agree new trade rules; even the 2013 bid to pick the “low-hanging fruit” left by the failed Doha Round became entangled in refusals to lift food subsidies. The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change failed in Copenhagen in 2009; current efforts are directed at talks in Paris in 2015, but the fear is that recession has allowed politicians to jettison “the green crap,” as David Cameron’s team is said to have called the policies, just as growth—and carbon emissions—pick up. The NPT is straining to the point of collapse. Coordinated action against Iran’s nuclear programme—with simultaneous sanctions by the UN, European Union and US—is the counter-example; many argue that it is a rare instance of sanctions working. The more likely model in the coming year however, is trade and other deals between smaller groups of countries—not always neighbours—which are clear on their common interest.
Read more big ideas;Rejectionist politicsThe politics of resentment will be a powerful, destabilising force in 2014 Secular stagnation The global economy might have been in trouble long before 2008 The new cold war US negotiations are stirring up tensions between two clusters of allies Beginning of the end of QE When central banks stop pumping money into the world's economies, there's no telling how markets will react Growth leaves wages behind It's not the size of the economy that counts, it's what you do with it Boom Cities Cities, rather than nation states, are proving increasingly adept at meeting the challenges of the 21st century Personalised Medicine Genetic testing will make treating illnesses cheaper and more efficient Cloud Scepticism Public concern about government surveillance will make users and regulators wary of remote data storage The new news Online media brands have changed the way we consume and produce journalism, and that's no bad thing Peer to peer living Disruptive marketplaces like Airbnb are shifting power away from hierarchies and towards networks of individuals Pop up everything Temporary venues have altered urban lifestyles forever
