Minilateralism: The new trend in diplomacy

Minilateralism, a form of diplomacy involving a small number of countries focusing on specific issues or interests, is increasingly shaping global diplomatic dynamics. Here’s an analysis of how minilateralism is changing the dynamics of diplomacy.

This approach contrasts with multilateralism, which involves large, often global groups of nations, and bilateralism, which involves direct relations between two countries.

Minilateralism offers several advantages and is reshaping how countries engage with one another on various issues.

The idea of minilaterals is not new: bilateralism, multilateralism and minilateralism have co-existed in global governance since 1945.

Minilateralism

International collaboration and global governance have strengthened as a result of the multilateral frameworks created after World War II.

But throughout the years, obstacles to decision-making, institutional inertia, and entrenched interests have hindered these global venues’ capacity to act collectively.

As a result, minilaterals are now viewed as a different path for forming alliances and coalitions “of the willing” to address challenges of regional and international importance.

The rise of minilaterals is associated with stagnation in reforms, and the perceived failure of multilateral organisations to achieve global cooperation on the most pertinent issues facing the international community.

• The frustration with multilateralism has emerged as these forums largely failed to fulfil the objectives they set out to achieve, be it the maintenance of international peace and security through the United Nations (UN), or the next round of trade negotiations within the World Trade Organization (WTO).
• The COVID-19 pandemic has also highlighted the weaknesses of multilateralism; countries largely chose to go it alone or with preferred partners, rather than use multilateral platforms for coordinating efforts to respond to the pandemic

Characteristics of Minilateralism

The growth of minilaterals is thus often viewed as a solution to address the inefficiency of multilaterals.

• While minilaterals cannot replace multilaterals to achieve global cooperation, they can supplement the work of multilateral organisations by providing a platform for diplomacy, confidence-building, and cooperation.
• This lies in the simplicity and ease that minilaterals are associated with, as opposed to the complex, long-drawn negotiations required in multilateral frameworks.
• Minilaterals involve a limited number of countries, typically less than ten, which allows for more focused and flexible discussions.
• Issue-Specific Focus: Targets specific areas of common interest, such as trade, security, climate change, or technological innovation.
• Informal Structures: Often operates through informal or semi-formal mechanisms, rather than the rigid structures of traditional multilateral institutions.

Advantages of Minilateralism

• Rapid Decision-Making: Smaller groups can make decisions more quickly and adapt more readily to changing circumstances.
• Focused Agendas: Allows for in-depth discussions and targeted solutions on specific issues, avoiding the broad and often diluted agendas of larger groups.
• Common Interests: Bring together countries with shared interests and priorities, fostering more effective cooperation and stronger commitments.
• Trust Building: Easier to build trust and mutual understanding in smaller, more manageable groups.
• Experimentation: Provides a platform for innovative approaches and pilot projects that can later be scaled up or shared with broader groups.
• Tailored Agreements: Enables the creation of tailored agreements that suit the specific needs and capabilities of the member countries.
• Adaptability: Can evolve more easily to include new issues or members as circumstances change.
• Complementarity: Can complement broader multilateral efforts, addressing gaps or providing momentum for stalled negotiations in larger forums.

Disadvantages

• Forum shopping: Minilateralism, however, also carries the risk of diminishing responsibility in global governance, weakening important international bodies, and engaging in forum shopping.
• Non-binding goals: Rather than encouraging legally enforceable goal commitments, minilaterals encourage voluntary and non-binding ones.
• An easier way for nations: Minilateral agreements are a desirable substitute for multilateral agreements for nations who are progressively demonstrating a preference for “soft law” arrangements that are simpler to establish.
• Compliance issues: But this also raises questions of responsibility and compliance, which can work against the goals of international collaboration and global governance.
• Ineffective on state policy: The voluntary, non-binding and consensus-based nature of minilaterals may be less effective in shaping state policy, interests and behaviour.
• Undermining international organizations: Preference for minilaterals may also undermine the efficiency and legitimacy of international organisations. This will reduce the incentive for countries to engage with multilateral frameworks.
• Impact of bilateral relations: In 1999, the Trilateral Cooperation and Oversight Group (TCOG) was established between the US, Japan and South Korea in response to North Korea’s intensifying nuclear programme. However, the minilateral floundered due to the historically strained ties between South Korea and Japan.
• Leadership changes: Change in political leadership may also influence the foreign policy priorities of a country, which may in turn affect a member’s willingness to participate in a minilateral. An example is the failure of Quad 1.0.

Impact on Global Diplomacy

Shift from Multilateralism:

• Erosion of Large Institutions: Growing frustration with the inefficiency and slow pace of traditional multilateral institutions like the United Nations or the World Trade Organization has led to a shift towards more nimble minilateral formats.
• Selective Engagement: Countries are increasingly selective in their diplomatic engagements, choosing to focus their efforts where they see the most potential for concrete outcomes.

Regional Focus:

• Regional Cooperation: Minilateralism often emphasizes regional issues and cooperation, leading to the formation of regional groups such as the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad) involving the US, Japan, India, and Australia, which focuses on security issues in the Indo-Pacific region.

Sectoral Initiatives:

• Specific Sectors: Minilateral initiatives often focus on specific sectors, such as climate change (e.g., the Climate Vulnerable Forum), technology (e.g., the D10 group of democracies focusing on digital and technological governance), or trade (e.g., the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership).

Enhanced Bilateral Relationships:

• Strengthening Ties: By working closely in minilateral settings, countries can strengthen their bilateral relationships, creating a network of strong ties that can be leveraged in broader diplomatic efforts.

Power Dynamics:

• Influence of Middle Powers: Minilateralism allows middle powers to exert greater influence on specific issues, which might be diluted in larger multilateral settings dominated by great powers.
• Balancing Power: Smaller groups can balance the influence of major powers, ensuring that their voices and interests are represented.

Examples of Minilateralism

• Quad (Quadrilateral Security Dialogue): Involving the US, Japan, India, and Australia, focusing on security and strategic issues in the Indo-Pacific region.
• AUKUS: A trilateral security pact between Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, focusing on military and technological cooperation.
• Mekong-Ganga Cooperation: An initiative involving India and several Southeast Asian countries focusing on cultural and economic cooperation in the Mekong region.
• Climate Vulnerable Forum: A partnership of countries highly vulnerable to climate change, working together to address climate issues and advocate for stronger global action.

Why in the news?

Amid escalating tensions in the South China Sea and growing concerns over Taiwan, the US is actively bolstering its regional defence strategy to counter China’s increasing threats and ambitions in the Indo-Pacific.

• This initiative has led to the formation of a new strategic alliance dubbed the “Squad,” consisting of the United States, Japan, Australia, and the Philippines.

Conclusion

Minilateralism is reshaping the landscape of international diplomacy by providing a flexible, efficient, and focused approach to addressing global issues.

It enables countries to form strategic alliances based on common interests, facilitating more effective and timely responses to emerging challenges.

As global dynamics continue to evolve, minilateralism is likely to play an increasingly prominent role in the diplomatic strategies of nations, complementing traditional multilateral efforts and providing a valuable tool for addressing the complex issues of the 21st century.

Read: Bilateral, regional and global groupings and agreements involving India and/or affecting India’s interests

-Article by Swathi Satish