IN the aftermath of two catastrophic conflicts within a mere two decades, the architects of the post-World War II international order embarked on forging a new system. What was conceived was a structure wherein states, irrespective of size, could shield themselves from adversity through membership in international organizations. These entities were designed to bind powerful nations, deter unilateral actions and aggression, and empower smaller states with a voice they couldn’t otherwise wield. This system, known to us as multilateralism, has since endured an abundance of formidable challenges. Its institutions, crafted to uphold the benefits of global integration, have long fostered international collaboration in security, economics, trade, culture, etc.

HOWEVER, in the wake of the 2008 global economic crisis, we began observing a decline in the efficacy of global summits. The world watched on as disagreements steadily escalated into trade wars, unilateral sanctions, technological skirmishes, and, ominously, kinetic conflicts. A multitude of coalitions of the willing, both new and reinvigorated, today make a burgeoning reality of “minilateralism,” a phenomenon that takes centerpiece in this edition of Horizons.

MINILATERALISM embodies an alternative model of international cooperation, uniting likeminded states and those driven by shared interests into ad hoc alliances of diverse forms. For many Global South nations, traditionally marginalized in international decisionmaking, minilateralism offers newfound avenues to forge and leverage alliances. Notably, middle powers emerge as pivotal players in this evolving international landscape, with nations like Türkiye, Kazakhstan, India, or South Africa poised to wield substantial influence on emerging minilateral platforms.

FOR the powerful, yet relatively declining West, critical questions loom large: Can exclusive, treaty-based alliances like NATO be rejuvenated to withstand the test of time? Will bold initiatives like AUKUS naval alliance yield desired results? Is the Quad, with its multifaceted objectives in the Asia-Pacific, a more fitting cooperation model for Western interests, and are these alliances mutually reinforcing?

THE contours of minilateralism take shape prominently in China’s international engagements as well. As some of our authors point out, echoes of China’s Belt and Road Initiative resonate with the “Shanghai Spirit” of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, emphasizing peace, development, cooperation, and mutually beneficial solutions. Similarly, the BRICS+ format, with four new entrants and many others knocking on its door, underscores the ethos of inclusive development and “respect for diverse civilizations.”

YET, proxy conflicts and regional tensions remain litmus tests for these evolving formats. In the Middle East, the Israel-Hamas War and ensuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza underscore the immediate need for effective cooperation, minilateral or otherwise. In West Africa, ECOWAS members grapple with political instability and violent regime change, facing the dual challenge of internal strife and external influences.

AS old multilateralism began to exhibit signs of strain, the global community’s response has often resembled the five stages of grief, progressing from denial to acceptance. After a decade and a half, it is time that we accepted our minilateral realities and made the best out of them.

Back to Table of Contents