September 30. - October 01. 2021
“The New Multilateralisms” Closed Expert Dialogue
The second – and first on-site – expert dialogue, titled "The New Multilateralisms", of the research project "Rethinking Multilateralism" and the associated study group, took place on Thursday, September 30, 2021, and Friday, October 01, 2021, on the premises of the Schader Foundation in Darmstadt. Within the framework of the project funded by the Friede Springer Foundation, the two-day conference aimed to consider multilateralism as plural and thus reconstruct different global understandings of multilateralisms.
The diverse ideas of China, Russia, and the USA on multilateralism were brought to the center of the discussion while exploring whether competing and seemingly mutually exclusive understandings of multilateralism can still be reconciled in our increasingly fragmented world.
In hybrid discussion sections, external experts and moderators joined via video conference: On the first day, moderated by Dr. Liana Fix (Körber Foundation, Hamburg), Dr. Alexey Gromyko (Europe Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow), and Prof. Charles A. Kupchan (Georgetown University and Council on Foreign Relations, New York) provided stimulating input on Russian and U.S. perspectives on multilateralism. On the second day, Michael Kahn-Ackermann (China advisor Mercator Foundation and translator of "All Under Heaven" by Tingyang Zhao) and Prof. Dr. Dr. Nele Noesselt (University of Duisburg-Essen) gave insights on the Chinese perspective under the discussion guidance of Prof. Dr. Heike Holbig (Goethe University Frankfurt).
Multilateralism as means to an end or an end to itself? Russian and American perspectives
Focusing on Russian and U.S. perspectives, the group explored fundamental questions about the suitability and utility of multilateralism and its relationship to other concepts: To what extent is multilateralism an "empty signifier"? What is the relationship between multilateralism and different forms of government? What is the link between conceptions of sovereignty and divergent views on multilateralism? And what is the significance of trust in the context of multilateralism?
In addition, the American and Russian possibilities of action were explored: The question of the inclusivity and exclusivity of multilateral formats was linked to questions of interests and/or values: Should multilateralism be understood as a tool and/or an organizing principle? Is multilateralism to be defined as a means or an end? And which view dominates among Russian and U.S. foreign policymakers?
China – Between “real” and “false” multilateralism
Another central discussion was the attractiveness of multilateralisms, their intersections, and differences in the context of their legitimacy on different levels (input, output legitimacy, effectiveness, participation, etc.). "Multisectorality" was defined as the central concept, describing the necessary efforts to organize cooperation across the different sectors. Here it became apparent that the difficulty of ratifying binding arrangements under international law, resulting not least from the domestic political polarization of the USA, is driving the trend toward small-format, flexible, and informal multilateral arrangements. Although these formats are generally assumed to be more effective, it is at the expense of legitimacy and the danger of possibly neglecting global interrelationships. Because there is a lack of a (new) concept of order and what global order there is, is so divergent, the question – provided that many dimensions are equally subsumed under "multilateralism" – arose whether the concept of multilateralism itself offers any analytical value, or if it instead promotes misunderstandings if fundamentally different actions are meant by the term.
These problems were particularly evident while discussing China's perspectives: The analysis exposed how Chinese foreign policy appropriated these "genuinely Western" concepts of multilateralism for their own use (e.g., the distinction between "real" and "false" multilateralism, which Chinese officials have increasingly used). With this, the question of whether China is intentionally interpreting and appropriating these concepts moved to the center of analysis – viewing China as a possible discourse power/discourse hegemony as well as scanning general problems of translating and/or adopting Western concepts against the background of the history and separation of China's political spheres.
Bridging and dividing multilateralisms
Then, the discussion evolved into a fundamental debate about ways to deal with separating and connecting elements of "Western" and "Eastern" discourses. Can multilateralism be shaped so it can work across systems, and if so, how? Which unifying narratives can be identified? And what role should and can the antagonistic system – the defined "other" – play in a world faced with coherency and bloc formation as well as competition and simultaneous interdependence?
Overall, the discussion among the research and study participants from different academic disciplines allowed for a productive "irritation" of substance, distinction, and value of diverse understandings of multilateralism. It is crucial to trace these various multilateralisms to understand global processes.
Further information on the event can be found on the Schader Foundation website.