Does Multilateralism Really Matter?

Politics Articles | December 18, 2005

The world today faces a crises of collective security, where the availability of weapons of mass destruction plus the proliferation of terrorism makes ‘the strong feel almost as vulnerable to the weak as the weak feel vulnerable to the strong. Our world is undergoing complicated and profound changes. Peace and development remain the theme of our times, yet they are far from properly addressed. Economic globalisation continues to evolve, but at the cost of a yawning gap between the North and the South. There has been a growing call for multilateral cooperation.

Before addressing the issue of ‘why multilateralism is called for’, it is imperative to understand the term ‘multilateralism’ as an approach to international politics in which a State seeks its goals through consultation and synchronization with other states, usually in formally structured regional or international organizations like NATO or the United Nations. This multilateralism presupposes that international and regional organizations, States and non-State entities would combine their efforts to fight the spread of deadly conflicts.

Among the various players, the United Nations remains the only institution with global legitimacy for conflict prevention, though NGO’s also play an integral role in conflict prevention, owing to their knowledge of and involvement in potential conflict areas. In such an international politic, a State pursues its interests and goals beyond its national borders, not alone, but in cooperation and coalition with other States. The opposite of multilateralism is unilateralism: a policy in which a State relies only on its own strengths, whether based on a strong economy, a high technological standard, or armed forces with sophisticated weapons. Larger States often act unilaterally, while the smaller ones may have little direct power at all in international affairs aside from participation in the United Nations by consolidating their UN vote in a voting bloc with other nations.

The US has become increasingly dominant on the world stage in terms of its military and economic power and concurrently, there is a perception developing that it is more inclined to act unilaterally in situations in which the rest of the international community has a stake, for instance in case of invasion of Iraq in 2003. The United States has rejected multilateral agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol, the International Criminal Court, the Ottawa Treaty banning anti-personnel land mines etc. where most of the international community broadly has given its consent.

According to the multilateralist ideology, if powerful nations such as the US go around deciding for themselves who will and who will not be invaded, then the world will collapse into a Hobbesian state of nature. Even if the Bush Administration fails to get the numbers in the Security Council, it would still be free to make its own decisions.

Signifying different meanings of multilateralism on either side of the Atlantic. Most Europeans believe in ‘principled multilateralism’ where gaining UN Security Council approval is not a means to an end but an end in itself, the sine qua non for establishing an international legal order. Most Americans are not principled multilateralists, but ‘instrumental multilateralists’, who like allies and like approval for their actions. For them, getting a few allies on board is multilateralism. To these American multilateralists the UN Security Council is not the final authority. It’s like a blue ribbon commission. If it makes the right recommendation, strengthens your case. If not, you can always ignore it. This age of American hegemony signifies the American style of multilateralism.

Though the essence of multilateralism lies in devising and applying the rules where the legitimate interests and points of view of different countries are accommodated, and the decisions are reached collectively. The threats facing the developing countries are grave. History has left the developing world with territorial, religious, and ethnic disputes. Such regional conflicts remain a threat to peace and stability of many developing countries. To counter these challenges there are regional bodies, like those flourishing in Asia such as the SAARC, ASEAN, and ACD etc. where countries treat each other as equals and commit themselves to regional dialogue, which lends a strong impetus to multilateralism, for which the UN stands.

We should foster a new security concept, which ensures security of all nations. In this world of great complexity, mutual trust and coordination are the prerequisites for an enduring universal security. The war on Iraq is a good reminder to us that willful abuse of force does not lead to serenity and unilateral action does not guarantee security. Globalisation is an inevitable trend, which responds to the growth of productivity and advancement of science and technology. However, it should not be a process that benefits some countries at the expense of others.

Our world is short sighted. It needs a completely reformed system to enable it to anticipate and prevent conflicts and crises, rather than a shortsighted approach consisting in taking emergency action too and at too high a cost only to achieve what is invariably an unsatisfactory result. Our world needs foresight if it is to map out a lastingly human course for future generations. This cannot be achieved through unilateralism or shortsighted nationalism. Rehabilitation in the long run will be achieved only through dialogue, mutual respect, consultation and mediation. Dialogues among civilizations help advance human society while conflicts among them benefits none.

Article Tags: United Nations

Source: Free Articles from ArticlesFactory.com

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Mr. Rohan Bagai is a law student at Amity Law School, New Delhi.