The buzz around minilateralism is growing

Minilateralism has become a vital tool in the 21st-century’s international relations toolkit. The approach has gained traction for its efficiency and practicality in addressing specific issues, often involving trilateral and quadrilateral partnerships and thriving on informality and task-oriented problem-solving. Minilateralism is built on the premise that a smaller group of stakeholders with shared goals or common problems can often coordinate and reach agreements more effectively than in a large, multilateral setting, where diverse interests can lead to gridlock and inefficiency.

Recent manifestations of minilateralism have demonstrated its relevance and impact in a world where complex issues require swift and focused solutions. The grouping of Australia, the UK and the US, known as AUKUS, seeks to enhance defense and security cooperation among these three nations. The Quad, consisting of the US, Japan, India and Australia, addresses regional security challenges in the Indo-Pacific region. The Five Eyes intelligence alliance, involving the US, the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, has long played a significant role in global security and intelligence sharing. And the I2U2 initiative brings together India, Israel, the UAE and the US on one platform, reflecting the growing trend of minilateral partnerships addressing diverse issues.

The rise of minilateralism has also been associated with emerging middle powers and states with moderate influence that are seeking viable ways to tackle complex problems. These partnerships enable more focused and rapid action than broader multilateral efforts, making them attractive options for countries looking to advance their interests on specific fronts.

According to a Foundation for Strategic Research report, the effectiveness of minilateralism depends on the evolution of bilateral relations that are priorities for the involved players. It also notes that the most contentious minilateral initiatives appear to be extraregional and secondary to regional players’ interests and resources. This emphasizes the importance of aligning minilateral efforts with the specific needs and dynamics of the regions they aim to address.

Minilateralism’s notable characteristic is an emphasis on shared interests rather than shared values or ideological alignment

Minilateralism’s notable characteristic, as Nickolay Mladenov of the Washington Institute has pointed out, is an emphasis on shared interests rather than shared values or ideological alignment. This allows nations to collaborate on critical issues without needing complete agreement on every aspect of their worldview, making minilateral formats nimbler and more flexible than traditional diplomacy.

Importantly, minilateralism does not render multilateralism obsolete. Instead, it highlights the need to find a balanced approach that leverages the strengths of both systems to address specific and global challenges. The buzz around minilateralism reflects a broader debate about the best ways to manage international relations in the 21st century. Another perspective suggests that bilateralism has reached saturation point and multilateralism is yielding limited results, leading to the rise of minilateralism. This trend reflects a shift from geopolitics to geoeconomics as countries seek to tap into economic synergies to advance their strategic objectives.

Ultimately, the effectiveness and appropriateness of minilateralism depend on the issue at hand and the need for inclusivity and broad-based cooperation. A hybrid approach that strategically employs minilateralism within the broader context of multilateral cooperation may be the most effective way to navigate the complex tapestry of global interrelations. This approach combines the agility and focus of minilateralism with the broad-based legitimacy and comprehensive reach of multilateralism, offering a flexible and pragmatic approach to addressing the challenges of our time.

In the context of the Gulf Cooperation Council and the broader Middle East region, the concept of minilateralism carries significant relevance. The Gulf/Middle East landscape is characterized by a complex web of geopolitical dynamics, diverse national interests and many security and economic challenges. Minilateralism can offer these countries an effective way to address their unique concerns.

Minilateralism can offer the countries of the Middle East an effective way to address their unique concerns

The region has witnessed numerous conflicts, rivalries and shifting alliances, making traditional multilateral approaches often unwieldy and ineffective. Minilateral mechanisms, with their task-oriented and informal nature, can provide a more pragmatic approach. For instance, countries in the region could form minilateral partnerships to address specific security threats, such as regional instability or the proliferation of nonstate actors. These partnerships could unite like-minded nations with a shared interest in maintaining stability and security, allowing for quicker responses and more effective coordination.

Moreover, the economic challenges in the Gulf and Middle East, such as diversifying economies, energy transitions and regional trade dynamics, also lend themselves to minilateral cooperation. Minilateral initiatives can foster economic synergies, enhance trade relations and address common challenges like water scarcity and food security.

In the complex geopolitical ecosystem surrounding us, minilateralism brings fresh air and offers a promising approach for the GCC and Middle East countries to navigate their complex landscape and address pressing security and economic challenges. By strategically employing minilateral mechanisms alongside multilateral engagement, these nations can perhaps ward off the vicious cycle of violence and unlock new opportunities for cooperation, effectively enhancing regional stability and advancing their shared interests.

• Ehtesham Shahid is an Indian editor and researcher based in the UAE. X: @e2sham