You say multilateralism, I say minilateralism... let's call the whole thing off

Posted By Daniel W. Drezner Tuesday, June 23, 2009 - 2:51 PM Share

~~Wise and benevolent overlord of the entire foreign policy realm~~ FP editor-in-chief Moises Naim has an essay in the latest issue of Foreign Policy about the need for "minilateralism" in global governance.

The pattern is clear: Since the early 1990s, the need for effective multicountry collaboration has soared, but at the same time multilateral talks have inevitably failed; deadlines have been missed; financial commitments and promises have not been honored; execution has stalled; and international collective action has fallen far short of what was offered and, more importantly, needed. These failures represent not only the perpetual lack of international consensus, but also a flawed obsession with multilateralism as the panacea for all the world's ills.
So what is to be done? To start, let's forget about trying to get the planet's nearly 200 countries to agree. We need to abandon that fool's errand in favor of a new idea: minilateralism.
By minilateralism, I mean a smarter, more targeted approach: We should bring to the table the smallest possible number of countries needed to have the largest possible impact on solving a particular problem. Think of this as minilateralism's magic number."

It's hard for me to disagree with ~~my master~~ someone making global governance arguments similar to my own, but agreement is boring, so here goes:

Even though Naim sets it up this way, I don't think this is an either/or question. There can be minilateralism within multilateralism. Indeed, there has to be a more exclusive club inside universal global governance structures for any decision-making of consequence to take place. The IMF and World Bank have their decision-making bodies, and the WTO has its own green room.
Naim might be underselling the benefits of multilateral organizations. They are cumbersome and slow, but they do confer legitimacy benefits that are real even if very difficult to measure.
Fortunately, minilateral and multilateral approaches often complement each other -- or, rather, minilateral approaches generate attractors, which leads to multilateralism. See: the GATT/WTO system, origins of.
Whether they have benefits or not however is kind of besides the point. The thing is, they're not going away. As hard as the Bush administration tried, they couldn't wish away the U.N. process on global warming. As much as China and Russia would like to rejigger global economic governance, they can't make the IMF disappear.
One last point, which Moises acknowledges but needs to be stressed again -- the best governance design in the world does not amount to anything if the great powers have radically different preferences. Institutions matter, but so do power and ideas.

EXPLORE:RESPONSE TO MINILATERALISM, GLOBAL GOVERNANCE, GLOBAL POLITICAL ECONOMY, INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS THEORY, MULTILATERALISM

(2)

HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE

APARICIO

9:27 AM ET

June 24, 2009

I agree with the critic

Yes. I agree on that.

Naim said:

" Take trade, for example. The Group of Twenty (G-20), which includes both rich and poor countries from six continents, accounts for 85 percent of the world's economy. The members of the G-20 could reach a major trade deal among themselves and make it of even greater significance by allowing any other country to join if it wishes to do so ".

The main problem of the WTO regime today is that it has been mostly decided according to the big powers interests. Take for example the agricultural excemption, which benefits US, EU and Japan mostly, or the TRIPS agreement, that benefits almost exclusivley the US and some European countries. So, a G20 iniciative would lack any legitimacy, and would mean problems in the long run.

Morever, the most crucial differences on trade issues exist between the G20 countries, on thing such as agricultural subsidies. A miniteralism is no guarantee of nothing.

However, we gotta remenber that GATT 1947 was signed, on practice, on a miniteralism approach, a Sterling-dollar diplomay, as Gardner said, and the world gradually joined the club.

BLUE13326

12:18 AM ET

June 26, 2009

'As hard as the Bush

'As hard as the Bush administration tried, they couldn't wish away the U.N. process on global warming.'

I think you're half-right here; while Bush was ambivalent about multilateral institutions, especially the UN, he did seem to believe in the process, and actually did come around to agree with the global warming crowd. But, his ambivalence displayed the inherent weakness in the U.N. system, perhaps an unforgivable sin to many on the left; and, I suspect when we have a true global power that could not care less about multilateral institutions that are diametrically opposed to some of its positions, we could see the whole thing collapse.

Sure, we can get a UN agreement on global warming; but not one that China will agree to that will limit its growth. So, you have the somewhat absurd position that we can institute a carbon emission scheme that includes nearly everyone--except the number one emitter of carbon. This may make liberals feel better about themselves, but as far as addressing the problem, it reveals the system to be little more than a farce.