Sébastien Thibault for FP Analytics
Minh-Thu Pham
is the co-founder and CEO of Project Starling
In the 80 years since the United Nations was formed, multilateral institutions have played a significant role in setting the bar for how states should behave and giving governments a place to tackle the world’s biggest problems together. In recent years, however, there have been growing calls to strengthen institutions in which Global South countries already play a significant role and reform others to increase equity and representation.
In an interview with FP Analytics, Minh-Thu Pham, co-founder and CEO of Project Starling, talks about a shift in global governance where coalitions of actors are taking ownership of the issues that matter to them—such as climate change, pandemic protocols, and development goals—and moving forward with reform even if the full consensus of a multilateral group isn’t behind them. The following transcript has been edited for length and clarity.
FP Analytics (FPA): What is the role of multilateral institutions in leading global governance, particularly on cross-border challenges like climate change and financing for development?
Minh-Thu Pham (MP): Multilateral institutions are essentially the forums where governments can come together, discuss issues, set agendas, and—in a place like the United Nations—set norms and expectations on state behavior. They try to figure out problems together. Especially when it comes to the challenges you mentioned, governments can’t tackle these on their own; multilateral institutions allow them to burden-share, to solve and try to tackle problems together—meaning governments around the world and also civil society, the private sector, philanthropy, researchers, and other actors.
There are three main roles for multilateral institutions, in my opinion. The first is norm-setting and agenda-setting—governments coming together to ask: What should the world look like, and how should we as states and other actors within it behave? And based on that, they lay out and explicitly state what the norms and frameworks should be and how they think a problem should be solved. These institutions set a bar for where we want to be, whether on human rights or global finance or standards for global health, such as how we address a pandemic.
There are also norms around whether a state can militarily use force against another state, when that’s allowable or not. There are norms and principles that are set around development finance—like the pledge of 0.7% of gross national income for official development assistance—and norms around how we address taxation or debt issues, which has obviously been a big challenge recently. And there are groundbreaking norms on environmental issues, like the Montreal Protocol, the Kyoto Protocol, and the Paris Climate Agreement. When the world comes together to say, “This is what we think, this is how we agree we should behave,” it then sets a standard for citizens in the world and civil society and others to say, “This is what the world has agreed on, so now we’re going to try to hold you to it.”
The second role of multilateral institutions is for member states to task some part of the system with executing those frameworks and norms and decisions, whether that’s individual governments or the institutions they create—the agencies, funds, and programs across the globe. Then lastly, I’d say the third role is to review progress. This is why you have the range of conferences and convenings like UNGA80, the 80th session of the U.N. General Assembly.
FPA: With those three roles in mind, and given the complexity of the landscape of global governance, what do you see as the critical reforms necessary to improve equity and effectiveness? And are you seeing any interesting solutions or promising avenues for that work?
MP: The multilateral system that was created 80 years ago reflected the power balance at the time: There were five great victors of World War II, and they were the ones that essentially made the rules of the game. Those rules prioritized their own power but were rules they themselves also needed to abide by. Those powers said: “We want to constrain state behavior, including our own, by putting in place rules around using force, but also rules on how we might make the world a little bit more equitable.” But there have for a long time been calls for greater equity and more representation, because even if those rules have served us pretty well over the past 80 years—we haven’t had another world war—they have been less effective on issues of development, finance, and environmental issues. A lot of governments are saying that the system is not reflective of the power balances of today. So, how do we now adjust these institutions so that the rising powers and the countries bearing the brunt of numerous global crises have a greater say in the decisions being made in these institutions?
There have been calls for these critical reforms for a number of years, but it feels like it’s really getting to a tipping point now. A lot of governments, especially in developing countries, are starting to band together and realize that they have the numbers to secure the outcomes they want in institutions like the U.N., where they largely have the same voting power as the great powers, outside of the Security Council.
As an example, 10 years ago at the prior International Conference on Financing for Development (FfD3) negotiations, there was a big discussion around whether the U.N. should be a venue where global tax issues are addressed, but it was removed from the final document. Afterward, developing countries started talking to one another, asking how they can increase their power. And so in November of 2023, the developing countries led by the African governments brought a vote to the U.N. on a framework convention for global tax cooperation, a legally binding set of rules around global tax cooperation, negotiated in the U.N. Because these countries represented the vast majority of the global population, they were able to get that vote through despite the fact that most of the donor countries either abstained or voted against it.
That’s just one example of the kinds of reforms that are starting to happen now. And even the World Bank and the IMF are starting to look at how they can make their governance structures more equitable. We’re seeing the assertion of Global South countries saying they need a seat at the table, and we’re seeing donor countries being more sympathetic to that. I think the COVID-19 pandemic laid bare the lack of solidarity between those countries that have access to things—in this case, vaccines and treatments—and those countries that were bearing the brunt of the pandemic but didn’t have that access. Then, when Russia invaded Ukraine, and donor countries called for solidarity, a lot of developing countries felt that was hypocritical when they had struggled during COVID-19 without enough support. As a result, I think a lot of governments, particularly in the West, are saying: Maybe we need to give up a little bit of power in these institutions because developing countries have demonstrated to us that it hasn’t been equitable.
There is also a push within other institutions to include more voices. Under the Indian presidency of the G20, the African Union was brought in, and that’s a really important reform to try to make these institutions more equitable and representative. Similarly, the U.N. General Assembly is starting to demand a voice in peace and security issues, which has traditionally been the realm of the Security Council, particularly the five permanent members. There is a shifting of global governance, and it’s been accelerated because we’re moving from a unipolar world to a multipolar one. That results in a contest over who will have a say and how equitable institutions will be.
FPA: You’ve mentioned the trend of greater collaboration—including between less traditional partners—on united platforms. What is the role of Project Starling and other civil society and nonstate actors in these cooperative and cooperation-building projects?
MP: One question being asked is: What will be lost when you have a shift in power? I think some folks are legitimately concerned about whose principles, norms, and values will be prioritized if power is contested on the global stage. And I think international humanitarian law, human rights, cooperative security, use of force, rule of law—some of the core principles of the international system—there’s some fear that we’re going to lose those norms. So, you need actors who understand the need for the shift in power but will help shape this moment of transition in a way that preserves the shared norms and values that have served this system so well.
I think this is a critical role for Project Starling. We try to shift power to those who are most affected by global crises but in a way that still holds to those really important values that the founders of the international governance system embedded in the UN Charter 80 years ago and many international agreements since. We do so by connecting champion states—those countries that are multilateral-minded and really believe in the basic principles of international cooperation and the values of international cooperation—with thought leaders and advocates and try to help them to navigate and change this multilateral system together. In this moment of flux, we try to find the right actors and bring them together. We create the spaces, the analysis, the coalitions, to try to help transform the intentions of those actors into real outcomes. We strengthen support for multilateralism through holding dialogues, retreats, and events; providing research and analysis and commentary; and trying to shape global agreements. We try to build the coalitions that really matter, that’ll then lead to change, and then we try to make it stick in the longer term.
FPA: In this moment of flux, what is making you optimistic about the future of global governance and the way we come together and make decisions as a global community?
MP: If you look at the challenges around the world, there are many—environmental, developmental, technological—that are actually being served pretty well by multilateral cooperation. Even practical things like planes landing and taking off are dependent on multilateral cooperation. What makes me optimistic is that there is this dynamism right now where governments and outside actors—civil society actors, think tanks—are adjusting to this moment of flux and saying, actually, we can be really creative right now because we don’t know what the future will bring. This uncertainty gives us an opportunity to try to remake the system as we’re going along.
So, you see really interesting coalitions of players coming together around problems and then moving forward even if they don’t have full consensus. In September, for example, the High Seas Treaty went into effect. This is a treaty that was ten years in the making. Governments around the world, acknowledging the rich biological diversity in international waters, decided there needed to be a way to govern the high seas. After 60 countries ratified it, they agreed it would come into effect. And that just happened. Now, even if only a subset of countries have ratified it, there’s enough of a critical mass that if they come together to make policy to protect the oceans, it’ll start to have ripple effects even in those countries that haven’t yet signed onto it.
And in May, the Pandemic Agreement was reached within the World Health Assembly. This came about because governments around the world acknowledged there wasn’t a sufficient response to COVID-19 and wanted to do better next time. So, they came together to figure out an operational response, how they could share information and vaccines and treatments. There were a lot of questions around access and equity, but after three years, they were able to negotiate and agree.
The Compromiso de Sevilla is another example: Governments came together to figure out how they could pay for the development goals and steer development in their own countries. For a long time, this discussion has been about donor aid, and the cuts in donor funding have threatened a crisis. And in this agreement, governments said: We see very clearly what the challenges are, and we are ready to empower ourselves and take country ownership over our own development.
So, there have been some green shoots of multilateral progress that I think we need to learn from and build on. It’s not going to be the top-down multilateral system we’ve seen in the past. So, the question is: How do we shape and nurture multilateral cooperation and the coalitions needed so they reinforce shared norms, address current and emerging crises, and have a real impact on people’s lives?
FPA: And how do we do that?
MP: This is what Project Starling is particularly focused on. You look for who the charismatic leaders within multilateralist-minded states are, those leaders with coalitions of advocates and think tanks and advocates outside who believe in the same things and can build a movement or a campaign around those individual issues. That’s what happened with the High Seas Treaty. It’s what happened with the Paris Climate Agreement. We try to foster dynamic coalitions by bringing the right people together at the right time and then helping to inform them about the processes. It’s also important to build coalitions with governments that already have a seat at the table, to create this groundswell of support that leads to these big outcomes.
At the end of the day, for all of the people saying that the sky is falling, that multilateral cooperation is dead or dying or on life support, I actually think that’s not the case. If you’re sitting in the Global North, I can see how that is the overriding narrative because of what’s happening in conflict zones across Europe and the Middle East and Africa and because of governments pulling back funding. But actually, that has shocked people into action. If you are constantly relying on the same actors to do everything, there’s a moral hazard there, and we start to get lazy, and we start to rely on things. And then when it doesn’t come through, we think, well, the whole thing is dying or dead. But more and more governments and leaders and actors are stepping up and acknowledging its on them. We all have to own this. In any kind of project of international democracy, you do need everybody to step up. I think this is a dynamic period, and we’ll see where it goes.
Minh-Thu Pham is a political and policy entrepreneur, activist, and co-founder and CEO of Project Starling; she is also a Nonresident Scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. A former advisor to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, she helped to steer the UN through crises and renewal amid global threats and challenges. In various roles, she has built coalitions and led global efforts that have resulted in outcomes like the Sustainable Development Goals, two Financing for Development agreements, multilateral reforms, and support for democracy. Her mediation and facilitation have led to political breakthroughs and helped open up decision-making to those most impacted by crises. She started her career supporting post-conflict peacebuilding and refugees and was a boat refugee herself, proving what can happen when nations cooperate.
More on Debt Architecture
Fixing Foreign Aid
Episode 1: How have the recent cuts in foreign aid impacted countries in the global south? And how did so many countries become reliant on foreign aid to begin with?
Tackling Sovereign Debt
Episode 2: How can we ensure countries looking to finance their future don’t have to mortgage away their present?
Reforming Global Finance
Episode 3: What can the World Bank and International Monetary Fund do to ensure more countries from the global south have a seat at the table?