Regional multilateralism: The next paradigm in global affairs
French President Nicolas Sarkozy gestures as German Changellor Angela Merkel, U.S.President Barack Obama and China Prime Minister Hu Jintao pose for a group photo session at the G20 Summit on November 3, 2011 in Cannes, France. (Getty Images)
January 14th, 2012
02:17 PM ET

Regional multilateralism: The next paradigm in global affairs

Editor's Note: Harris Mylonas is Assistant Professor of Political Science and International Affairs at George Washington University and Academy Scholar at the Harvard Academy for International and Area Studies. Emirhan Yorulmazlar is Fellow at the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs, Harvard University.

By Harris Mylonas and Emirhan Yorulmazlar - Special to CNN

The Cold War and the early post-Cold War periods were relatively easy to define and comprehend. The first was roughly the struggle between two superpowers forming a bipolar system where almost every state had to choose a side. What followed was a period described by Fukuyama as “The End of History” announcing the triumph of liberal ideas. The US was a global hegemon: selecting when to intervene, expanding NATO’s reach, and dominating international institutions. Following the 9/11 attacks unilateralism was exposed and thereafter multilateralism appeared - with its limitations. Today, “regional multilateralism” may be the next paradigm that can bring about peace, cooperation, and stability in global affairs.

The rise and fall of U.S. hegemony during the 1990s has been documented. The Unipolar moment, a Foreign Affairs article by Charles Krauthammer, encapsulates the main point in the title. It was a moment. Once this “moment” was over, Fareed Zakaria and others have been imagining a “post-American world.”

U.S. power and its global role remain at the core of the contemporary discussion. America still is - and probably will remain for a long time - the world’s undisputed leader in military, economic and technological power. However, the politics of austerity at home and pressing realities abroad necessitate a new U.S. foreign policy. The U.S. cannot go it alone.

Indeed, the U.S. has been refocusing its foreign policy and Obama has been using the term multilateralism repeatedly. Multilateralism is a prudent strategy for the U.S. and the international system at large, however it is incomplete. Multilateralism has reached its limits when it comes to Iran’s nuclear program, recognition of Palestine, the six party talks on North Korea, and Kosovo’s independence - to name just a few thorny issues.

In a world of diminished U.S. involvement and unsuccessful multilateralist endeavors, an alternative vision for global engagement is necessary. Instead we are faced with a reluctant China, an unprepared India, an European Union in the midst of a financial debacle and a host of regional powers that focus on their neighborhood rather than claiming a global role. Given these realities, regional multilateralism can serve as the way out from this dead end.

Regionally, the Middle East is as explosive as ever. The Western Balkans are doubtful about their future within the European Union and may again implode. The African continent has many ongoing conflicts and even more potential ones unresolved. In Latin America at least two alternative visions for the region are competing. The Far East is actively searching ways to live with the rise of China. These and other contemporary problems can be better solved at the regional rather than the bilateral or global levels.

This context highlights the importance of regional integration and multilateralism. Regional multilateralism is building on these very ideas. Bringing these two together is necessary in today’s world. The buds of regional integration are everywhere in the making but they have not yet been clearly connected with the principles of multilateralism.

The EU serves as an example of regional integration and others are following its steps. The African Union has also stepped up its peacekeeping efforts and moved toward further economic integration. However, the quest for regional multilateralism should not be confined by a conventional understanding of geography. For instance, Russia may be a force for stability both in the Far East and Central Asia, China may have a stake in the affairs of Latin America and Africa, and different parts of what we call the Middle East may integrate with parts of Central Asia or Europe. The very prospect of Turkey joining the EU may be a sign of such developments.

Cross-regional cooperation is key to regional multilateralism. The transatlantic dialogue model between the U.S. and Europe can and should be exported. For instance, in the Far East the U.S. and the EU both cooperate with ASEAN. China and Russia have extended their ties through the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. This however did not prevent Russia from establishing the Eurasian Union, in a way reclaiming its sphere of influence. The Middle East, on the other hand, is in dire need of broader - albeit imaginative - regional integration.

The inability of any one power to confront global challenges will lead responsible powers into the fold of regional multilateralism. The transition will be facilitated if it builds on existing regional integration structures. This way, every state will ultimately become a stakeholder in the international system.

For that to happen, regional leaders need to operate as focal points. They need to listen, persuade and inspire insiders, while coordinating with outsiders. This process is different from the traditional spheres of influence system. It is based not on Monroe Doctrine-type of arrangements and coercion but rather on reassuring security umbrellas and mutually beneficial trade blocs.

Within this new paradigm, emerging regional leaders - such as China, Russia, India, Japan, Brazil, Turkey, and South Africa - will play a more significant role within their regions while at the same time will take part in cross regional and global issues.

The views expressed in this article are solely those of Harris Mylonas and Emirhan Yorulmazlar.

soundoff (13 Responses)
  1. j. von hettlingen

    Indeed global multilaterialism is still a fledgling strategy and hence incomplete. That it had worked in the Libyan crisis was a matter of luck, due to the fact that Gaddafi had very few friends in the international community. Unlike the cases of Syria and Iran, neither China nor Russia was willing to veto against the U.N. Resolution 1973, imposing a no-fly-zone, allowing the France, Britain and the Nato to topple Gaddafi's regime. On regional level, multlateral actions are possible, as a general consensus is easier reached within a smaller circle of players.

    January 15, 2012 at 5:49 am |
  2. Ironicus

    I tend to think that individual foibles like greed for money or power or ideological conflicts will be the biggest factor keeping everyone at odds with each other. Human behavior does not follow a set plan.
    Destructive influences will always have a big impact whether from human behavior or natural events.
    If you do not factor these in, then your ideas are just rose-colored glasses. But I am being too negative, perhaps.

    January 15, 2012 at 12:30 pm |
  3. Marine5484

    The current Eurpean leaders are a bunch of money-grubbing, self-serving, bureaucrats entirely devoid of any sense of right or wrong. These people have no compassion whatsoever and that is contemptible.

    January 15, 2012 at 1:56 pm |
    • Marine5484

      Sorry folks for the missprint above. I meant to print "European", not "Eurpean".

      January 15, 2012 at 2:01 pm |
  4. knock off cartier style ring

    the time to study or take a look at the material or web-sites we have linked to below the
    knock off cartier style ring

    October 16, 2017 at 2:10 am |
  5. Ivy Mumme

    January 11, 2021 at 1:20 am |

Post a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.