Minilateralism is welcome in a divided world

Grouping of small states allows for dynamic relationships that can add up to as much diplomatic strength as bilateral relations

Just like that, minilateralism is back. The slimmed-down cousin of geopolitics stalwart bilateralism, and multilateralism, is having a moment. In an age of a great, bloody, brutal war, this is surprising. But set against the much longer story of the retreat of the US, it makes sense.

Minilateralism is really just a technical term for small states and groupings of countries working together on a specific agenda or set of challenges, often informally. In contrast to working through the bureaucracies of the UN and EU, and even of large countries like Germany or the US, these smaller pacts can be more nimble and more narrowly focused. Across multiple regions, they are thriving. In the Middle East, countries like the United Arab Emirates and Israel are working on solar energy projects in Jordan and food security projects in India.

Even AUKUS, a security pact between the US, the UK and Australia, and the Quad, a ‘security dialogue’ between the US, India, Japan and Australia are sometimes called minilaterals. (I tend to be more sceptical of that, as they both involve the US, but the theory certainly holds: it may be better to use smaller alliances that don’t provoke such a strong response.)

In Latin America, four countries — Mexico, Argentina, Bolivia and Chile — are seeking to create a lithium association to protect their production and processing of the metal, which is valuable for new technologies.

A small nation can pursue alliances with other smaller countries, without undermining its primary relationship with major powers. Another advantage is political latitude — a smaller country is often sandwiched between major countries or closely allied to one, and has to beware its new relationships don’t impact its entrenched allies. Minilateralism is a solution, because the terms of engagement are usually narrow and, crucially, voluntary.

Old-world style threat

The real test of minilateralism will come when these overlapping, even competing alliances face an old-world style threat — for example, a war like Ukraine. Sweden and Finland offer a good example of how minilateralism can work — right up until the point when it doesn’t.

For decades, Finland and Sweden sought to balance Nato and Russia, working with both, but wary of falling too far into either camp. This was especially true for Finland, a country that shares a more than 1,000km border with its much larger neighbour. For both countries, for decades, neutrality prevailed. Sweden was rich and prosperous and Finland led the world in digital government.

Until the Ukraine invasion. Suddenly it became apparent that neither tech prowess nor social democratic policies could stop a war. What both countries needed was a nuclear umbrella, and within weeks both countries had expressed their desire to join Nato.

This, then, is the unknown aspect of minilateralism. It allows for dynamic relationships that can, perhaps, add up to as much diplomatic strength as bilateral relations.