In a well written article, Moises Naim, Editor in chief of Foreign Policy Magazine outlines an alternative to the multilateral approach of dealing with global issues: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/06/18/minilateralism?page=ful.... He introduces the concept of minilateralism. That is "We should bring to the table the smallest possible number of countries needed to have the largest possible impact on solving a particular problem. Think of this as minilateralism's magic number." He points out that the number would be contingent upon the problem and what is practical in the circumstances. The fact is, as Naim points out multilateral approaches have hardly worked. The lethargy of the United Nations has inhibited progress in situations where a rapid response was required for example. Think the Rwandan genocide in 1994 (with US and Belgian special forces in the region, the genocide still wasn't stopped because the Security Council had to be consulted). The minilateral approach would go against the traditional concept of getting the agreement of as many nations as possible to work for an outcome that will be pleasing to all sides.
How would this concept be interpreted in recent world events? Would the U.S military interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq be justified because they saw it necessary to protect their interests as opposed to waiting for the UN to sanction any action. Can a country like say, Britain move into Darfur and "protect" civilians from the threat of militias and (like the Janjaweed who are said to be supported by the government of Sudan). Minilateralism may be abused and used as an excuse for countries to decisively act without being checked by other countries. And there is the age old concept of national sovereignty to deal with, even when the government in power is abusing its position and people. Naim points out some key areas where minilaterism can be very effective, like say climate change. Were the G20 to agree on a treaty, it would be an agreement among countries producing 75% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. That would be three quarters of the way to a problem we currently have no real agreement on. The same goes with trade, as the G20 constitutes 85% of the world economy. But then again a trade agreement among the richest countries may leave out the poorer countries, and so minilaterism may once again be used at the expense of many others.
International relations is plagued by an inability for everyone to agree. Truthfully it is a tough ideal to expect, but the problems remain and we still need to face them. In 1815 Prince Metternich called the Congress of Vienna to set up a new system in Europe where the balance of power would be maintained after Napoleon's domination of the continent. This agreement eventually broke down, but after 100 years. After WW1 the League of Nations was formed, it didn't last long and it gained the reputation of being toothless. It managed to thoroughly punish Germany which helped the likes of Hitler take advantage of a demoralized nation. And so we got WW2. The United Nations was born, and to its credit still stands. Its reliance on its members is its strength, or more appropriately, its weakness. Since the Security Council is always indifferent with the leading powers using their right to veto to cripple meaning fill action by the organization. The UN has become a peacekeeping force, intervention often seen as something they should never do. The difficulty of having so many members makes decisive decisions hard to make in this huge organization.
The problems of the world are huge and they cannot be ignored: terrorism, war, starvation, displacement, climate change, nuclear proliferation, trade inequality and financial crisis. The old way hasn't always worked, perhaps Mr Naim has a point, maybe the magic numbers work best, but at what cost?
