Abstract
Multilateralism and minilateralism have historically worked together in Southeast Asia, the Asia-Pacific and the Indian Ocean region, where different models of multilateral cooperation fall within a continuum rather than distinct categories. The situation has changed with the emergence of the reference to the Indo-Pacific, as the increasing attention paid to regional actors by external powers, primarily through a security or strategic register, tends to favour tightened partnerships. The various Indo-Pacific “agendas”, “visions” and “strategies”, all agreeing on the reference to the “centrality of ASEAN”, do not intrinsically aim to weaken regional multilateralism. However, the multiplication of mechanisms and formats intensifies bilateral and minilateral sollicitations towards regional actors. The result is a bypassing of deliberation platforms, a dispersion of means and an overlapping of processes, which in practice weakens the coordinated pursuit of global security objectives in the region.
Introduction
In Asia, the regional security architecture was historically built around ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations), founded in 1967 at the initiative of its member states. Normative and institutional innovations at the regional level took the form of fora organised concentrically around the association (ZOPFAN, ASEAN+3, ARF, ADMM+). These arrangements aimed to foster the emergence of a regional security community, without compromising the principles of autonomy, sovereignty, and non-interference that regional players see as a prerequisite for political cooperation
Nevertheless, the opposition between multilateralism and minilateralism should be put into perspective, taking into account the continuum between these two formats, while at the same time questioning the articulation of the mechanisms and their longer-term contribution to the objectives of regional stability.
Thus, three preliminary observations can be made:
- Chronologically, multilateralism did not precede minilateralism at the regional level – they were instead co-constituted, with ASEAN being prefigured by several embryonic associations with a limited perimeterFor example, in 1961 the Association of Southeast Asia (ASA) was created by the Philippines, Thailand and the Federation of Malaya. In 1963, the Maphilindo grouping was formed between Malaysia, the Philippines and Indonesia., then facilitating the emergence of minilateral cooperation between its members.
- Concerning the method and the articulation of the formats, all Indo-Pacific pla-yers practice minilateralism to varying extents – for example, defence agreements with extra-regional powersThe Indonesian approach is opposed to any binding defence agreement. On this aspect, it diverges, for example, from Malaysia’s adherence to the Five Power Defence Arrangements set up in 1971, the mutual defence treaty between the United States and the Philippines (1951), or the opening of the Changi naval base (Singapore) to the US Navy.have coexisted with the development of more inclusive arrangements and the institutionalisation of regional multilateralism.
- Regarding the aims, minilateral partnerships have specific objectives without necessarily conflicting with the ambitions of multilateral arrangements when they are intended to foster functional cooperation between players pursuing common objectives; in this respect, they may reflect a “multi-speed” multilateralism, which is not always synonymous with fragmented objectives.
However, the multiplication of formats and arenas, and their increasing overlap in the context of intensifying diplomatic and strategic commitment in the Indo-Pacific region, are leading to the weakening of deliberative spaces, the dispersion of means, and the saturation of the agendas and operational capacities of the players involved. In practice, this weakens the promotion and coordinated pursuit of global security objectives in the region