When might’s not right

In November 2024, The Manila Dialogue on the South China Sea Diplomatic Roundtable was held in the Philippines to discuss the region’s shared interests in a free, open, secure, and rules-based maritime order

Global institutions are criticised for failing to act in moments of crisis, but opening up our multilateral bodies and the rules that have governed our region is a scary prospect. These are the conventions that have prevented unfettered resource extraction in Antarctica, or prohibited the use of military force to threaten smaller states.

Large and powerful countries often resist multilateralism because it can constrain their freedom of action. When you’re big, you don’t want to be told what to do.

By submitting to international rules or consensus-based decision-making, these countries see themselves as sacrificing strategic flexibility to pursue their own interests.

Small countries like New Zealand, meanwhile, typically invest heavily in multilateralism because it helps serve as the glue, the rule-maker, and at times the last resort for addressing our region’s most intractable challenges— especially when major powers can’t always be trusted to act in the common good.

Whether it is conflict, the delivery of aid, the rules of trade, the protection of basic human rights or the management of important shared environments such as Antarctica, multilateral institutions have helped deliver solutions where individual states often cannot. But they’re far from perfect.

For some time now institutions such as the United Nations and particularly the United Nations Security Council have been criticised for falling well short of public expectations. Not only have they been accused of being costly and inefficient, but of failing to act in moments of crisis.

A meeting of the United Nations Security Council on Food Security and Climate Change

Anyone familiar with how multilateralism works knows that these challenges often stem from their members, who are ultimately responsible for making decisions and backing them up with resources and action.

In order words, countries can choose to veto agreement on urgently needed action or block much-needed reform according to their own self-interest.

Paradoxically, this is both the strength and weakness of multilateralism.

One the one hand, it brings countries together and forces them to reach shared agreement. And once achieved, these decisions bring with them the legitimacy that comes with having the support of the entire international community. On the other, it allows a minority to impede action supported by the majority – limiting what is possible to the lowest common denominator.

But there are success stories.

The World Food Programme helps millions of people suffering from malnutrition and starvation every year. Others such as the multilateral development banks help tackle poverty and facilitate basic services to the poorest members of the global community.

Some organisations protect our rights to trade under predictable terms in foreign markets, maintain science-based technical standards that are essential for our global exports, or facilitate cooperation and information exchange that allows our planes to fly safely, our telecommunications systems to work, and our health and emergency services to respond quickly and effectively to natural disasters or disease.

In the Asia-Pacific region, our economic growth, security, and geopolitical influence hinges on the preservation of multilateral frameworks, but that doesn’t mean there cannot be evolution of the rules, membership and tasks undertaken so that new and hopefully more fair and functional arrangements can emerge.

Since 1946, the International Convention on for the Regulation of Whaling is just one of many international agreements aimed at reducing the exploitation of the oceans

Opening up our multilateral bodies and the rules that have governed our region is, however, a scary prospect.

These are the conventions that have prevented up until now unfettered resource extraction in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean, or that have prohibited the use of military force to threaten the sovereignty and territorial integrity of smaller states, to name but two.

For all its faults, multilateralism and the principles that underpin it — rules-based trade, respect for sovereignty, the peaceful settlement of disputes, freedom of navigation – are essential to New Zealand’s security and prosperity.

The more major countries are able to claim that the rules don’t apply to them or the more they are able to use their economic and military might to get what they want, the more dangerous the world is for the rest of us.

At the end of the day, multilateralism helps to connect states and economies and reduces the likelihood of conflict.

This year, New Zealand and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, or ‘Asean’, mark 50 years of collaboration and partnership.

The centrality of Asean in regional security architecture has basically meant our neighbourhood has prioritised consultation over conflict, and we should continue to support and invest in Asean for this reason.   

The unveiling of the official logo for the commemoration of the 50th Anniversary of ASEAN-New Zealand dialogue relations

Economically, multilateral agreements like the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, which encompasses 15 Asia-Pacific nations, represent a substantial portion of global trade and gross domestic product. These agreements facilitate trade liberalisation, streamline supply chains, and enhance economic resilience.

New Zealand’s active participation in such frameworks reflects its strategic interest in a stable and open regional economic environment, and we can be proud of the work done by ministers and senior officials over many years who have helped shape and deliver these agreements.

The potential decline of multilateralism presents several risks to countries such as ours. The resurgence of protectionist policies, exemplified by tariffs or the use of trade coercion for strategic ends, threatens to disrupt established trade relations and result in economic instability. Whatever the drivers of these decisions, for a country like New Zealand, these are harmful to our interests.

Furthermore, once big countries decide to go it alone, it’s much harder for smaller countries to regain a seat at the table – let alone deal with the economic fragmentation, escalated tensions, and diminished political influence.

For New Zealand, continuing our commitment to multilateral principles, while continuing to serve as the architect of new solutions and arrangements, is not just a diplomatic catchphrase but a strategic necessity.

• This article was first published on the newsroom website

The Foundation's Asia in Focus initiative publishes expert insights and analysis on issues across Asia, as well as New Zealand’s evolving relationship with the region.