Building Foundation

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. 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.

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.

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). “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).

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 negotiation with both Europe and the United States Congress (Keohane, 143).

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.

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.

In recent history, multilateralism has been employed as a foreign policy tool.

CONFLICT MANAGEMENT ; PEACE BUILDING

Transition from traditional societal structures toward modernization has resulted in ethnic conflict that was encouraged when the imperial powers drew borders within and between domains of homogenous people to deliberately breakdown the societal makeup of various regions.; Ethnic conflict, in turn, has undermined both modernization and development and created a level of global insecurity that threatens the world’s economic and political stability.

Nation Building

Ethnic conflicts are born out of ethnonational movements which threaten the stability of existing states.; Disintegration of these states results from national ethnocentrism.; This type of ethnocentrism is the belief that one’s nationality is special and superior to other nationalities.; It is this disposition that breeds ethnic conflict.

In general, building nation-states was an invention of colonial powers and involved restructuring the world economically, socially and politically.

Conflict Management and Peace Building

Future efforts to address ethnic conflict should be proactive and focus on increasing the strength of civil society.; Increasing “the capacity of the political system to regulate competing interests without state repression and civil violence” will decrease the likelihood of ethnic conflict and regulate any conflicts that breakout.; Based on recent history, “profound social and political change does not have to be violent (e.g., South Korea and Poland).; Ethnic conflict can be reduced by increasing the effectiveness of state bureaucracies through the incorporation of multilateralism principles.; This will allow state bureaucracies to address social issues and decrease elite and bureaucrat insecurities which often lead to the instigation of ethnic conflicts (Bond).

According to Lepgold and Weiss in their book entitled Collective Conflict Management and World Politics, Conflict management can be facilitated by elements of multilateralism arrangements based on a Collective Conflict Management (CCM) system.; This system, when properly designed, is an internationalized response to threats and use of force and offers preventive deployment, selective enforcement and peace (Lepgold/Weiss 109, 113).

Both assertive and deliberative multilateralism have failed and will continue to do so as long as Great Powers fail to act in concert with Lesser Powers.; The United Nations has proven itself incapable and ill-equipped to manage conflict and ensure security within conflict zones.

Multilateralism encourages the modification of aggressive actor behavior and cooperation among actors.; Multilateralism provides mechanisms for proactive management of disputes, resolution of conflicts and peace building.; Multilateralism can be proactively applied and structurally incorporated on a systemic level to modify aggressive actor behavior thereby ensuring cooperative international relations between Greater and Lesser Powers.; Multilateralism will effect actor behavior to deliberately decrease the likelihood of global violence while encouraging actors to engage in behaviors that ensure current societies have a “chance” at productive and peaceful futures.

Albright, Madeleine Dr., (then United States Ambassador to the United Nations) Remarks. Available Online January 21, 2000.

Brown, Michael E. (editor) (1993).; Ethnic Conflict and International Security.

Gurr, Ted Robert (1994).; “Peoples Against States:; Ethnopolitical Conflict and the Changing World System”. International Studies Quarterly 38 (September) : 347-377.

Gurr, Ted Robert (1995).; “Communal Conflicts and Global Security”.

Holsti, Kalevi J. (1995).; “War, Peace, and the State of the State”, International Political Science Review 16 (October) :; 319-339.

Contemporary Racial and Ethnic Relations. State University of New York Press : New York.

Contemporary Conflict Resolution:; The Prevention, Management and Transformation of Deadly Conflicts.

Nietschmann, Bernard (1991).; “Third World War: The Global Conflict Over the Rights of Indigenous Nations” pp. 172-176 in Robert M. Jackson (editor), Global Issues 91/92. Florida State University.

Ruggie, John Gerard (editor) 1993.; Multilateralism Matters: The Theory and Praxis of an Institutional Form. Available Online. Nation-States Vis-à-vis Ethnocultural Minorities: Oppression and Assimilation Versus Integration and Accommodation” Available Online March 30, 1999.

An Alternative Approach to Multilateralism for the Twenty-first Century.; Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations, Jan-April 1997. Available Online.; March 29, 2000.

Nicotera, Anne Maydan (editor, 1995).; Conflict and Organizations: Communicative. State University of New York Press : Albany, NY

Beacon Press.

Stulberg, Joseph B. (1987).; Taking Charge/Managing Conflict.

Whittaker, David J. (1999).; Conflict and Reconciliation in the Contemporary World.

United States Government State Department.

Tags: building livestock barn, good livestock barn, livestock barn