Wednesday, October 5, 2011

Multilateralism: An Approach To Conflict Resolution And Peace Building

MULTILATERALISM: An Approach to Conflict Resolution and Peace Building

After World War II, Western nations (United States, England, Germany and France) embarked on a mission to create institutions based on multilateral agreements in an effort to manage their historical conflicts and rebuild their worn torn nations. The West�s ability to successfully incorporate multilateralism into its economic, political and security institutions have allowed these actors to manage conflict between each other and live in peace with each other for half a century. While historical examples indicate that multilateralism has been practiced as early as 19th century, post-world war institutionalization of multilateralism indicates that multilateralism can facilitate conflict resolution and peace building.

Theory

According to the Multilateralism Group of the Institute of International Studies at the University of California at Berkeley, multilateralism �is a particular way of bringing together international actors to support cooperation, incorporate principles of non-discrimination, diffuse reciprocity, and generalize institutional structures� (MacArthur Online). Bealey, Evans and Newnham agree that, in general, multilateralism is a �policy of acting in concert with others� to achieve mutual goals (Bealey 217, Evans & Newnham 256). Acting in concert, allows the actors to plan together; to settle or adjust by conference, agreement, or consultation; to act in harmony or conjunction; to form combined plans with others.

Concerts are generally the preliminary step to engaging in multilateralism because according to Charles and Clifford Kupchan, the concert is utilized by great powers as a decision making mechanism involving �informal negotiations and consensus� while posing no threat to state sovereignty (Ruggie, 18). According to Ruggie, a concert is �predicated on the notion of all against one� which binds concert members to a collective action. In fact, the Concert of Europe is heralded as an ongoing example of a security regime that employed multilateralism. The Congress of Vienna (1814-1815) and the Congress of Berlin (1878) are two additional historical examples of concerts and the application of multilateralism. Respectively these concerts led to the formulation of the rules of diplomacy that are still in effect and significantly changed the existing political situation in Eastern Europe. The value of these examples of multilateralism for conflict resolution and peace building is in their indication of actor�s preference for establishing an orderly and peaceful procedure by which to engage in establishing and maintaining relations. This actor preference indicates a behavioral change of these actors from their pre-World War dispositions.

Evans and Newnham, with concurrence from Stanojevic, also point out that multilateralism is currently the �dominant pattern of activity in most issue areas� (i.e., trade, global warming, sea bed). Multilateralism is dominant, compared to unilateralism and bilateralism, because of the increased interdependence driven by globalization. Because of its dominance, the United Nations and its predecessor, League of Nations, were permanently established as multilateral diplomatic organizations to facilitate multilateralism and conflict resolution.

Theoretically, according to Ruggie, generic multilaterailism has been a part of nation state development primarily in �institutional arrangements [that] define and stabilize the international property rights of states� (Ruggie, 8). More recently generic multilateralism has been used to define the multilateral institutional form because it refers to �coordinating relations among three or more states in accordance with certain principles� of conduct (Ruggie, 10). In its institutional form, generic multilateralism adds substance to the realist self-help factor taking it to a higher level in which it is considered within a collective framework which in turn affects individual actor security. According to Ruggie�s generic definition of multilateralism, this theory is expected to inject a collective pattern of behavior into an institutional form that incorporates the concept of multilateralism into its agreements. Once the pattern of behavior has been established, the parties de velop a collective reputation, �an indivisibility among the members of a collectivity with respect to the range of behavior in question� which socializes the institution (Ruggie, 11). Additionally, when multilateralism is successfully implemented actors are expected to behave in a reciprocal manner towards each other. In turn their reciprocity will generate cohesiveness among the members which will allow the actors to focus on long-term gains based on an aggregate over time (Ruggie, 11).

Theoretically and conceptually, multilateralism is the behavioral element of a multilateral regime. While a multilateral agreement creates regimes, multilateralism encourages the modification of aggressive actor behavior and cooperation among actors, while providing mechanisms for proactive management of disputes and resolution of conflicts between actors who wish to participate in a given international system. Conceptually, multilateralism is defined by its historical application to institutional formation during the postwar era. It coordinated national policies on the basis of established principles for managing property rights, which in turn ordered the relations of party actors prior to World War II. The concept of multilateralism has created norms, rules and principles that are increasingly utilized to stabilize international relations in an effort to decrease the overall influence of prewar anarchical international forces and maintain a cohesive stability to ensure c ontinued economic prosperity. This concept has been applied regionally to manage economics, politics, and security relations. The European Community (EC) is the most successful example of an economic and political regional multilateral regime. The EC has allowed Europe to move beyond balance of power politics and demonstrates the European actor�s commitment to the multilateral agreements that have enabled the EC to become an economic power of the 21st century.

History

Robert Keohane and John Gerard Ruggie agree that multilateralism began after WWII. Ruggie, in his book entitled Multilateralism Affairs: The Theory and Praxis of An Institutional Form, states that �the earliest institutional form of multilateralism� in the modern era began with the management of property rights (Ruggie, 14). According to Ruggie, these multilateral arrangements �were designed to cope with the international consequences of the novel principle of state sovereignty in an effort to�possess territory and exclude others from it (Ruggie, 15). In fact, the issues of state sovereignty by these newly created nations reinforced the need to engage in multilateralism because without multilateralism property rights were not recognized as valid by the relevant other actors in the given international system (Ruggie, 15). According to Ruggie�s definition of multilateralism, multilateral agreements are distinguished by the �kind of relations� they produce and not the �number of parties� to a particular agreement. �What is distinctive about multilateralism is� that it coordinates national policies on the basis of certain principles that order the relations of the party actors (Ruggie, 6-7). Therefore, the test of whether or not a multilateral institution truly exists is the principle on which the agreement is based and the state behavior that it encourages.

According to Keohane, in his book entitled After Hegemony, multilateralism was utilized by the United States in an effort to create and control an international trade and finance regime. Specifically, the United States� international trade and finance regime was developed to rebuild the European economy, contain communism and build a world economy. Keohane used this regime and its subinstitutions [International Monetary Fund (IMF), European Payments Union (EPU) and the North American Treaty Organization (NATO)] to illustrate the dynamics of post-war multilateralism. Keohane believes that multilateralism was the ultimate goal of United States economic policy in 1947/48.

By the end of the 1950s United States economic policy had successfully implemented economic multilateralism (Keohane, 147). The dynamics of multilateralism, and specifically the behavioral element of multilateralism, is evidenced in the extent to which the United States was willing to go to ensure that its postwar trade and finance international regime was established. Because the United States established trade and financemultilateralism, it was forced to inject dollars into Europe's economy to balance the global dollar shortage. This too is an example of the behavioral element of multilateralism because it prompted the United States to coordinate national policies (i.e. legislation -- Marshall Plan) on the basis of its hegemonic principles, which in turn ordered the relations of the party actors to this postwar economic regime (Keohane, 142). The United States maintained this multilateralism by controlling the �rule-making process� by balancing intervention and negotiati on with both Europe and the United States Congress (Keohane, 143).

Keohane also used one of the trade and finance regime's subinstitutions, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), as an example of the postwar's ecopolitical regime incorporating the concept of multilateralism into its institutional structure. According to Keohane, the IMFwas created �to help regulate international monetary relations and trade in manufacturing goods�. United States multilateral partners, Europe and Japan, entered into this relationship with the United States because these governments wanted to �achieve rapid economic growth with democratic political institutions and capitalist economies� (Keohane, 182). These complementarities of interest were encouraged by American leaders engaging in covert activities to �ensure that the ruling coalitions in power in Europe and Japan sympathized with the principles that the United States espoused for the world political economy�. In turn, both Europe and Japan relied on United States military protection� and realized that economically, �they had to reach accommodation with the United States if they were to recover from wartime destruction� (Keohane, 182). The IMF was an institution based on multilateralism because its party actors were willing to coordinate national policies on the basis of IMF principles, which in turn ordered the relations of the party actors. Based on the willingness of these actors to adjust their behaviors and national policies to accommodate the IMF regime, the IMF was an institution that embraced the concept of multilateralism both generically and formally.

The European Payments Union was an additional multilateralism effort between the United States and its European alliances.The EPU was basically a financial arrangement that was seen by the United States as an efficient and economically superior arrangement as well as �a way of promoting intra-European trade as a step toward eventual European participation in a liberal world economy�. It was the key element to gradually shift Europe to a full multilateral economic disposition which would liberalize both trade and payments (Keohane, 145). Both the IMF and the EPU allowed the United States to have �leverage over the evolution of European policies� (Keohane, 146) and the long-term attainment of its ultimate goal of multilateralism�. Although the IMF and EPU do not meet the definition of a formal multilateral regime� (Keohane, 150), the United States chose to engage in multilateralism because by doing so it could have power over the coordination of both Europe's and Japan's nat ional policies on the basis of IMF principles, which in turn ordered the relations of the party actors creating a stable ecopolitical international system.

Keohane offers NATO as an example of the security dynamics necessary for conceptualization of multilateralism. According to Keohane, the United States used its military strength to "constructed a liberal-capitalist world political economy based on multilateral principles and embodying rules that the United States approved� (Keohane, 136-137) to build a world political economy. The United States� relationship with NATO created a security influence for the north Atlantic area and Japan to agree to a multilateral relationship with the United States for the purpose of benefiting from a stable international monetary system, open markets for goods and access to oil at stable prices (Keohane, 139). The examples offered by Keohane indicate that multilateralism's conceptualization has, so far, been based on trade and money.

According to the above examples of the United States� utilization of multilateralism, multilateral institutions that incorporate multilateralism into their structures modify aggressive actor behavior and encourage cooperation among actors. Based on these examples, multilateralism would appear to regulate anarchy by creating a community that encourages self-management of party actors. Specifically, it encourages cooperation in the coordination of national policies, reduces mistrust between parties and increases focus on long-term cumulative gains (Lebow; Risse-Kappen). While multilateralism can be incorporated into international orders, regimes or institutions, it is not a given simply because an international order, regime or institution is based on a multilateral agreement.

But, can we create future multilateral regimes capable of both effectively and collectively managing international relations by conceptualizing multilateralism? According to Clemens and Cook in their article entitled Politics and Institutionalism: Explaining Durability and Change, institutions endure! Specifically, they endure "as a reaction against methodological individualism, technological determinism, and behavioralist models that highlight the flux of individual action or choice" (March & Olsen 1989 as quoted by Clemens and Cook, Online). Theoretically, the patterning of social life is produced by institutions that structure action. As we have seen from both Keohane and generic examples, multilateralism structured human relations in general and the postwar international system by effecting national policies. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that multilateralism can continue to promote external coordination of national policies which will in turn facilitate conflic t resolution and peace building.

In recent history, multilateralism has been employed as a foreign policy tool. The Clinton Administration was strongly influenced by academic theories which held that in the post-war era, military power would be less important than economic power and that the end of the Cold War would finally permit the United Nations to provide a workable system of global collective security (Britannica Online). The concept of assertive multilateralism was unveiled by then Governor Bill Clinton in 1991. Mr. Clinton delivered the details of this concept at Georgetown University in a speech entitled "A New Covenant for American Security". At that time, Bill Clinton advocated "shift[ing] the burden of maintaining peace to a wider coalition of nations of which America will be a part and exploring the possibility of establishing a United Nations Rapid Deployment Force that could be used for purposes beyond traditional peacekeeping, such as standing guard at the borders of countries threatened by aggression; preventing attacks on civilians; providing humanitarian relief; and combating terrorism and drug trafficking" (Snyder Online).


0

No comments:

Post a Comment