Recent months have seen a notable emphasis on newer minilateral mechanisms, such as the U.S.-Japan-Philippines trilateral and the Australia-U.K.-U.S. (AUKUS) security pact. However, this narrow focus does not fully capture the broader trend of minilateral networking across countries and sectors, transcending recent Washington efforts and security concerns. It also fails to address the various opportunities and challenges presented by these minilaterals and how they may impact the future.
Asia has a long history of minilateralism. Despite definitional nuances, minilateral-type institutions involving a few key states have been part of the region’s institutional architecture for decades. Examples include the Malacca Straits Patrols agreement and the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC). These minilaterals have coexisted with multilateral institutions like ASEAN and U.S. bilateral alliances with countries in the region.
The current phase of minilateral proliferation is characterized by multi-actor and multifaceted collaborations. While U.S.-driven minilaterals receive significant attention, Asian countries themselves have utilized minilaterals to address a range of challenges, from India’s engagement in the Australia-India-Indonesia trilateral to Singapore and New Zealand’s participation in the Digital Economy Partnership Agreement.
China, while objecting to some minilaterals as containment efforts, is also establishing its own institutions. Examples include the Lancang-Mekong Cooperation framework and the expansion of the BRICS group. This growing trend of minilaterals presents both opportunities and challenges for the regional architecture, raising questions about efficiency, transparency, and inclusivity in the context of major power competition.
Addressing these opportunities and challenges requires a nuanced approach that considers tradeoffs between inclusivity and efficiency. As the strategic environment becomes more competitive, navigating evolving dynamics necessitates attention to socializing new institutions, fostering cross-institutional linkages, and managing evolving norms and practices.
The future trajectory of minilateralism in Asia remains uncertain, but there is potential for these collaborations to address regional challenges and complement multilateral efforts. However, without proper resourcing and support, minilaterals could further complicate the institutional landscape and entrench divisions. It is essential to recognize the complexity of challenges in Asia and the importance of collaboration in navigating them.
As Asia’s new wave of minilateralism evolves, the focus on this layer of the region’s institutional landscape is likely to continue, driven by a desire for greater collaboration and tangible results.