How to read the alphabet soup of global 'clubs'

This week's summit of Western Hemisphere leaders reflects a churn in the membership of many multinational bodies – and a search for common values that endure against rising global challenges.

In this 2013 photo, President Obama greets Cuba's President Raul Castro in Johannesburg at the memorial service for the late Nelson Mandela.

With the rapid changes in the world, countries are more wary these days of the clubs they join and the company they keep. A perfect example is this weekend’s Summit of the Americas, being held in Panama with 35 heads of state and government attending.

Cuba, which was kicked out of the Organization of American States (OAS) in 1962, has been invited to rejoin the hemispheric gathering, held every three years. But it has said “no thanks.” And yet President Raúl Castro is attending anyway. He might even shake President Obama’s hand.

The OAS has another problem. Its charter compels it to “promote and defend” democratic norms. Yet it welcomes Cuba’s reentry, and does little about one member, Venezuela, as it drifts toward dictatorship. Other than geographic proximity and a similar colonial history, why does the OAS even exist?

The Americas are not alone.

The European Union faces the possible exit of Greece from the eurozone for its violations of economic norms, and Britain threatens to leave in a few years over differences on immigration and other issues. Ukraine’s attempt to enter the EU in 2013 led to a conflict  with Russia. The Group of Eight nations then kicked out Russia as a member, returning itself to the original G7, or “the West.”

But the G7’s own purpose was put in question in 1999 when it welcomed the creation of the G20, which includes large “emerging” economies such as China. Even within the G20, a group known as the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) has tried to define common interests, although more so in what it opposes than proposes.

In Asia, the alphabet soup of multilateralism gets murkier with overlapping groups carrying such acronyms as ASEAN, APEC, EAS, and ADB. Now China, flush with cash, has set up a regional bank for infrastructure to compete with the World Bank and similar bodies. The United States opposes it, even arm-twisting allies not to join. But most are signing up. Meanwhile, the US and China, as the world’s two largest economies, talk about a “G2” grouping.

In this flux of club memberships, three institutions have endured with a large measure of clout. One is the United Nations Security Council, with its five permanent and veto-wielding powers, and the related UN agencies. Another is the International Monetary Fund, which can help bolster weak economies. And then there is the lesser-known “club” of wealthy nations known as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. These bodies set rules by consensus but have exercised great influence in shaping the world by either force, money, or rules.

Behind the recent changes in these clubs and their membership lies a desire to find common values and interests. As global challenges from terrorism to climate change have risen, each nation finds it cannot sail the stormy seas alone. They cherish sovereignty but need collective security and common solutions.

This morphing and churning of clubs is a good sign of a search for universal norms, even if some countries, notably Russia and China, try to distance themselves from humanity-encompassing ideals. Power may ebb and flow among nations. They might align along temporary interests, such as security or trade. But the best bonds between states are unchanging values, most often found in democracies. This weekend’s OAS summit will be a window on how one club of nations is doing.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to