After the 2008-2009 GFC, major powers (including the United States and China) were either reinvigorating existing institutions or initiating new institutions in the region, a phenomenon that Kai He (Griffith Asia Institute) termed “Contested Multilateralism 2.0”. It has three distinctive features: First, the drivers of Multilateralism 2.0 changed from ASEAN during Multilateralism 1.0 to major regional powers such as the United States, China, Japan, Australia and South Korea; Second, Multilateralism 2.0 is comprehensive in addressing both traditional and non-traditional security and economic challenges; and third, Multilateralism 2.0 is not to exclude or replace other dynamics such as US-led bilateralism, but co-exist, compete and interact with each other. In the model of “institutional balancing – role identification”, He suggested that states employed different institutional balancing (inclusive, exclusive and inter-institutional) strategies in line with their role identities (order defender, order challenger and king-maker).

On 8 May, Griffith Asia Institute hosted a workshop titled “Contested Multilateralism 2.0 and Asia-Pacific Security” with generous support from the Korea Foundation. The workshop was attended by distinguished scholars from Australia, China, Japan, Korea, the United States and Singapore with heated discussions on Multilateralism 2.0 after the 2008 global financial crisis (GFC) and its implications on Asia-Pacific regional order and state strategies.

Debates on Multilateralism 2.0 and regional order

Participants heatedly debated and discussed the concept of Multilateralism 2.0 and its implications for regional order. T. J. Pempel from UC Berkeley suggested that Asia’s “rival regionalisms” might not include the United States in the future, but they will encourage both cooperation and competition among Asian states. While the Multilateralism 1.0 led by ASEAN focuses on Southeast Asia, Multilateralism 2.0 will turn attention to economic and security affairs in Northeast Asia. Mark Beeson from University of Western Australia argued that Asia’s multilateralism is inherently weak no matter whether it is Multilateralism 1.0 or 2.0. Dr Siew Mun Tang from the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (Singapore) suggested Multilateralism 1.0 led by ASEAN is still the best hope for regional cooperation, and Multilateralism 2.0 can only operate on the fringes of regional cooperation to complement ASEAN-led processes. Moreover, some scholars questioned whether the 2008 global financial crisis should be a starting point of Multilateralism 2.0.

Institutional strategies in Multilateralism 2.0

Participants also discussed different institutional strategies facing Contested Multilateralism 2.0. Xiaohong Lu from China Foreign Affairs University and Jingdong Yuan from Sydney University examined China’s institutional strategies in both economic and security arenas. Hidetaka Yoshimatsu from Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University discussed Japan’s multilateral diplomacy from Yukio Hatoyama and Shinzo Abe. Jaechun Kim explained the evolution of South Korea’s multilateral diplomacy, presenting the particular case of the Northeast Asia Peace and Cooperation Initiative (NAPCI). Nick Bisley from La Trobe University examined Australia’s shifting attitudes toward multilateralism, while Evan Keeble presented his co-authored paper with Melissa Conley Tyler from the Australia Institute of International Affairs on Australia’s multilateral diplomacy with the MIKTA (Mexico, Indonesia, Korea, Turkey, and Australia) initiative as a case study.

All participants agree that more dynamic institutional cooperation and competition among states have taken place in the Asia Pacific. Middle powers such as Australia, South Korea, Japan and ASEAN can potentially play more active and important role in shaping regional order transformation through multilateral diplomacy. The emerging Multilateralism 2.0 will co-exist and compete with existing ASEAN-oriented Multilateralism 1.0 as well as various minilateralism and bilateralism under US leadership.

Griffith University scholars Ian Hall, Haig Patapan, Luis Cabrera, Huiyun Feng, Michael Heazle, Wesley Widmaier, and University of Queensland scholar Andrew Phillips participated as chairs and discussants on panels. The workshop has provided a great opportunity for scholars to exchange views on this theoretically-driven and highly policy-relevant topic.

Article written by Diego Leiva, School of Governance and International Relations, Griffith University.