Panel
Mini-Lateralism? Political and Economic Alignments in this Transformed Era | Asia Summit 2024
Milken InstituteDino Patti Djalal, Dato Onn Hafiz Bin Ghazi, Ford Hart, Kishore Mahbubani, Veerle Nouwens
- Contextual Shift in Global Governance: Conventional wisdom suggests multilateralism is struggling due to ineffectiveness in addressing major conflicts (e.g., wars in Europe and the Middle East), prompting a search for alternative cooperative models like minilateralism.
- Definition of Minilateralism: Defined as ad hoc initiatives by a small number of like-minded countries seeking to advance shared goals and values through informal means, often focusing on specific security or economic issues rather than broad, inclusive mandates.
- Key Examples Cited: The Quad (US, Japan, India, Australia), AUKUS, the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF), and the Supply Chain Resilience Initiative (SCRI) are identified as primary manifestations of this trend.
- Geopolitical Driver: The rise of minilateralism is widely attributed to the emergence of a more powerful and assertive China, prompting nations to form "like-minded" coalitions that were not possible within broader, more diverse multilateral frameworks.
- Trust vs. Inclusivity: Panelists note a divergence where minilateral groups prioritize pre-existing trust and alignment for speed and efficacy, whereas traditional multilateralism prioritizes inclusivity and the resolution of disagreements among diverse actors.
- ASEAN's Resilience and Role: Kishore Mahbubani emphasizes ASEAN's "geopolitical competence," noting it has maintained peace in the region for 45 years and fostered high levels of trust among 10 diverse members, contrasting it with South Asia's inability to convene regional cooperation.
- Economic Growth: ASEAN's economy grew to 1.3 times the size of Japan's (up from 1/8th in 2000) and contributed more to global growth (2010–2020) than the European Union.
- Relationship with Regionalism (ASEAN):
- No Direct Conflict: Panelists argue that minilateralism (e.g., Quad) does not undermine ASEAN centrality, as the Quad is not a formal alliance and ASEAN members maintain cooperative ties with all four Quad nations.
- Functional Complementarity: Minilaterals are viewed as supplements that address specific, urgent issues where consensus in larger bodies (like ASEAN) is difficult to achieve due to the "lowest common denominator" nature of multilateral decision-making.
- Future Tension: Concerns remain regarding how countries will prioritize resources and diplomatic bandwidth between inclusive bodies (like the East Asian Summit) and exclusive minilateral groups.
- China's Strategic Positioning:
- BRI Characterization: The Belt and Road Initiative is described not as a true minilateral, but as a coordination of over 100 bilateral agreements, lacking the formal cohesion of minilateral alliances.
- BRICS Expansion: The inclusion of new members like Saudi Arabia and Iran, and Malaysia's interest in joining, highlights a trend of "expansionist" multilateralism among the Global South, distinct from Western-led minilaterals.
- Performance and "Results" Orientation:
- Speed of Implementation: Minilateralism is credited with cutting bureaucratic red tape to achieve faster results, exemplified by the Singapore-Johor Special Economic Zone (JSSEZ).
- JSSEZ Specifics: Progress on the JSSEZ is being driven immediately through the establishment of an Investment Certification Centre (INC) and a Talent Development Council (JTDC), with key infrastructure (RTS link) targeted for completion by 2026.
- Structural Critique of Multilateralism:
- Inefficiency: Large organizations like ASEAN and the UN are characterized as slow, cumbersome, and often paralyzed by the need for consensus, leading nations to seek agile alternatives for urgent security and economic challenges.
- Legitimacy vs. Effectiveness: A fundamental tension exists between the high legitimacy of inclusive bodies (like the UN General Assembly) and the high effectiveness of exclusive minilateral groups.
- Global South Strategy: For nations with constitutional restrictions on alliances (e.g., Indonesia), minilateralism offers a diplomatic pathway to engage with major powers without violating non-alignment policies, serving as a "happy meeting place" for flexible cooperation.
- Historical Continuity: Several panelists argue minilateralism is not a novel innovation but a historical norm (dating back centuries), where like-minded states naturally coordinated on specific issues before the rise of formal 20th-century institutions.
- Future Outlook: The panel concludes that the international system will likely see "all of the above," with countries simultaneously investing in diverse groupings to manage limited strategic bandwidth, balancing the need for broad legitimacy with the need for targeted effectiveness.