To listen to world leaders speaking these days, one would think that the world has embraced multilateralism, as the guiding principle in international relations. From Brussels to Beijing the concept is lauded, often to distinguish countries or groups of countries from Trumpian America, which has turned multilateralism into a bogey, and often a punching bag.
But a closer look indicates that many countries are talking at cross-purposes. At one end you have the European Union, itself a quintessential multilateralist project grouping 27 member states, some of whom had spent the last century fighting each other.
At the other extreme, there is China, a country with great ambitions, and a great discourse that accompanies these ambitions, who however presents itself as the self-proclaimed leader of the global south, despite the fact that many countries, such as India, South Africa, the ASEAN states and others, question this Chinese role.
Put simply, multilateralism is when a group of countries agree to pursue a common goal in cooperation, and based on equality.
On the European continent, multilateralism was for fifty years the way the continent conducted business, and two organisations became a clear expression of this multilateralist path: the European Union (EU), and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). They both operate by consensus.
The EU is made up of 27 member states, all of which joined freely, and all of which can leave freely, as Britain did in 2020. The core idea is that the members share common ideas and values, they makes it easier to work together, through, for example, the single market and the euro, whilst maintaining their sovereignty and statehood. Despite all its flaws and problems, the EU is hailed as an excellent example of multilateral co-operation, and in its own right became the strongest, and most vocal multilateral organisation in the world.
The OSCE has in the past been the other pillar of European security and stability. It was born from the Helsinki Final Act in 1975, and today it has 57 member states, not only in Europe, where even micro states like Andorra and Monaco are members, but also the US and Canada to the west, and the Central Asian republics and Mongolia to the East. This was where the USSR, and its successor states, including Russia, interacted with the West. In the first years, the discussions were mainly on hardcore security issues such as arms control, recognition of borders, and human rights, which it considered an essential part of security. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the subsequent changes in Eastern Europe, it had to adapt, including by transforming from a “Conference” into an “organisation “ in 1994/5.
The OSCE had its annual Ministerial Council meeting in Vienna last week (4-5 December), the last major event of the outgoing Finnish Chairmanship. In this day and age the fact that 57 countries could meet, including Russia and the EU27, was in itself a success.
But there is little else one can say about the meeting. Key Foreign Ministers – for example the US, Russia, France and UK, stayed away, sending their deputies or other representatives. Many who came left early. The meeting did not agree on two issues that threaten the very existence of the OSCE, the 2026 budget, and the 2027 Chairmanship.
An irate press corps at the final press conference, questioned the absence at the press conference of the Finnish Foreign Minister, the OSCE Secretary General, and the incoming Swiss Chairmanship. One angry journalist asked if the Ministerial Council had in fact agreed on anything. The Finnish Deputy Foreign Minister passed the question to the Finnish Ambassador who had chaired the OSCE Permanent Council in the last year. The only thing he could think of was that the Council had approved the closure of the Minsk Group dealing with the Karabakh issue. What he did not say was that this had been jointly requested by Armenia and Azerbaijan and the decision was taken a long time ago. The Ministerial Council endorsed the decision formally.
I have been a detached observer at various OSCE Ministerial Councils over the years, including in Budapest, Lisbon, Istanbul and Helsinki. There was always a sense of history in these events. At the time of the changeover from “Conference” to “Organisation”, the OSCE had giants leading its institutions, including Max van der Stoel as High Commissioner for National Minorities, and Dame Audrey Glover, as Director General of ODIHR. Today the organisation is a shadow of itself.
However, one should not make the mistake of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The OSCE is needed, perhaps more needed, today than in the recent past. It must however focus on its core task, namely European peace and security.
Beyond the continent, on a global level, the UN is in crisis. It will take a lot of time, effort, and money, to fix it.
Three countries can help, or they can make matters worse: the US, Russia, and China. Trumpian America does not like the UN and has turned its back on multilateralism.
The shameful US national security strategy creates a wedge between the US and Europe, and sets a narrow vision of the world. Trump described the document as a "roadmap" to ensure the US remains "the greatest and most successful nation in human history".
Russia is today in no position to counterbalance the US position, even if it wants to. So, its role in the future world order will be one of an opportunistic spoiler.
China is another matter. It has the ambition to be a superpower and global player. It has good connections with the global south, although its claim of leadership is often overstated, and it pays lip service to multilateralism. It needs to be engaged, but with caution.
Attempts at multilateral initiatives in the South, for example BRICS, are increasingly dysfunctional.
Yet, multilateralism remains the best option for addressing the future. Some of the world's problems, such as climate change, simply cannot be tackled by one country, or one country working alone. But most of the institutions are greatly in need of an overhaul.
The European Union must take the lead. It must also engage with China on a case-by-case, topic-by-topic basis. This will be a long and laborious process. But the rules of the game, and the assumptions that underpinned them, have changed, or at best are being challenged. It is time for a global rethink.
Source: Monday Commentary is written every week by Dr Dennis Sammut, Director of LINKS Europe and Managing Editor of commonspace.eu
