https://www.usip.org/publications/2023/07/competition-china-us-should-double-down-multilateralism
According to a United States Institute of Peace publication, “minilateralism” is the current trend in international politics. It says, minilateralism is a foreign policy strategy between bilateralism and multilateralism that reflects the growing trend of middle powers preferring a multilateral world instead of choosing between the U.S.-China rivalry. QUAD, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the BRICS, G7, etc. are examples of minilateralism, which seeks to reduce the complexity of multilateralism and pursue practical solutions. Therefore, in the context of intensifying U.S.-China rivalry, the United States should not force other countries to choose between the United States and China. Also, the United States should carefully evaluate it and not overly rely on small blocs that may alienate non-aligned countries.
As the author says, multilateralism, which has been the mainstay of the world order, is being increasingly questioned for its effectiveness. This is because Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has revealed the lack of ability of international organizations to resolve international disputes such as maritime sovereignty and trade, and to manage global issues such as environmental protection and epidemics, while the rise of middle powers has increased the ability of regional organizations to solve practical problems. In addition, the international outlook, where the United States was the sole global leader, has changed significantly due to China’s substantial challenges, and U.S. allies are increasing their own military capabilities in response to China’s security threats, and Southeast Asian countries such as Singapore are increasing their military cooperation with China. As a result, the United States has lost some of its geopolitical weight, and the Biden administration, which declared that it would restore multilateralism, eventually adopted region-centered multilateralism and economic protectionism for national interests.
But whether this is a failure of multilateralism and a return to unilateralism, I am skeptical. There are more and more issues that require international cooperation, and the moment the United States chooses unilateralism and isolationism, China will step into the gap and try to seize international influence. If China works with other countries to set international standards that are unfavorable to the U.S., it will pose a major threat to the U.S. in all areas, including military and economic. Therefore, at least as long as the Chinese threat persists, the U.S. will have no choice but to pursue multilateralism, and what it lacks in multilateralism it will make up for in pragmatic, informal cooperation, as large organizations are nearly impossible to reform. However, regional and issue-oriented cooperation is an alternative to multilateralism, not a comprehensive and fundamental solution.
One reply on “week2 / Jungmi”
Jungmi,
This is an interesting blog post and reflection on multilateralism. I like the term you introduce: minilateralism. It certainly is true that many aspects of the multilateral system, including the United Nations, that were established following the Second World War have been gridlocked, thereby making it necessary to break things down into smaller issue-related pieces. Often, action can only be taken via “coalitions of the willing,” rather than through formal multilateral organizations. This was the case, for example, in the Balkan conflict in the 1990s, where neither the UN nor NATO could agree to act.
That said, I also agree with your point that there are some issues that can ONLY be addressed through full-up multilateral channels. Global climate change is certainly a good example. Yet, even on something that affects the entire world, progress was only made when China and the U.S. struck a last minute, bilateral deal that enabled the Paris Climate Agreement to be agreed. The question remains, however, whether the commitments both countries (as the largest producers of greenhouse gases) made in that agreement will be met. –Professor Wallerstein