Tech Minilateralism: A New Frontier in Global Governance
In the evolving landscape of global governance, the rise of tech minilateralism represents a significant shift. Characterised by small, focused, and often informal alliances, minilateralism offers a nimble approach to international cooperation, particularly in the realm of technology. This article, derived from a wider research, delves into the concept of tech minilateralism, exploring its emergence, key characteristics, and implications for policymakers and other stakeholders in the tech ecosystem.
The Rise of Minilateralism
Fifteen years ago, a Foreign Policy article suggested that classic multilateralism – seeking political alignment among the circa 200 nations of the global order – had passed its expiration date. The author, Moisés Naím, argued that multilateral efforts had failed to produce tangible results since the 1990s across a range of critical global issues such as trade, pandemics, and nuclear proliferation. His solution? Collaborations between “the smallest number of countries needed to have the largest possible impact on solving a particular problem.”
While the history of minilateralism predates the 1990s, with the Group of Six (G6), predecessor to the G7, founded in 1975, the choreography of multilateral collaboration has traditionally been dictated by a few powerful states. However, recent years have seen a steep increase in the number of novel coalitions stepping into roles that the multilateral system has struggled to fulfil.
Analysts today, much like Naím, often attribute the rise of minilateralism to stagnant multilateralism. In an increasingly multipolar world, international organisations such as the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund have failed to undergo the fundamental changes needed to democratise global governance, resulting in decreasing legitimacy and functionality. From this viewpoint, minilateralism is symptomatic treatment rather than a cure. After all, minilateral partnerships rarely serve to democratise international relations: they
represent pragmatic and non-exclusive alliances tailored to navigate the complexities of multipolarity, particularly amidst growing great power rivalry. It is a natural strategy for countries like India, which have long pursued strategic autonomy – engaging with both the US and China while keeping both at arms’ length.
Characteristics of Minilateralism
Minilateralism is defined by several key characteristics:
1. Small Number of Participants: Minilateral alliances typically involve a limited number of countries, often no more than ten. This small size allows for more focused and efficient decision-making processes.
2. Informality: These alliances often operate with a degree of informality, avoiding the bureaucratic complexities that can hinder larger multilateral organisations.
3. Thematic Focus: Minilateral agreements are usually centred around specific themes or issues, such as the Indo-Pacific security cooperative known as the Quad, involving the US, Australia, India and Japan, and AUKUS, the Australia-UK-US partnership focused on delivering nuclear-powered submarines to Australia.
4. Multi Stakeholder Approach: Many minilateral alliances incorporate a range of stakeholders, including governments, private sector entities, and civil society organisations, to address complex, multifaceted issues.
Tech as a Growing Area of Minilateralism
While the concept of minilateralism isn't new, its application to technology governance marks a recent and significant development explored by StateUp’s Dr. Tanya Filer notes in her recent analysis for the Global Policy Journal. In an increasingly multipolar world, international organisations such as the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund have struggled to adapt, resulting in decreased legitimacy and functionality.
Small, informal formats may work well for emerging issues that require a dynamic response. Examples include the Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP) a trilateral for the joint development of a new fighter jet involving Italy, Japan, and the UK, as well as the Chip 4 Alliance which aims to strengthen the semiconductor supply chain between the US, South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan. Many other minilaterals have a broader scope that includes an important technology component, such as the G7 or I2U2 (Israel, India, the US, and the UK).
As the Australian Strategic Policy Institute notes, “[w]hile governments grapple with foreseeing the full impacts and setting policy direction, there’s a growing realisation that emerging and critical technologies will be extraordinarily important for societies, economies and national security.” The promise of a more flexible, informal and multi-stakeholder approach, as well as the appeal of navigating US-China tensions, make minilateralism an intuitive choice for technology collaboration.
Types of Tech Minilateral Alliances
Based on their objectives and methods, tech minilateral alliances can be categorised into four main types:
1. Security and Defence Alliances: These alliances, such as AUKUS and the Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP), focus on enhancing national security capabilities through military cooperation and technology sharing.
2. Economic and Supply Chain Networks: Alliances like the Chip 4 Alliance aim to strengthen economic resilience by securing supply chains for critical technologies, such as semiconductors.
3. Digital Governance and Infrastructure Partnerships: Initiatives like the Digital Nations (DN) and the Three Seas Initiative (3SI) promote cooperation in digitalization and infrastructure development, often to enhance regional connectivity and economic development.
4. Multidimensional Strategic Alliances: Broad-based alliances such as the G7 and BRICS address a wide range of issues, including technology, through strategic cooperation and alignment on global norms.
Case Studies: India, the UK, and Estonia
To illustrate the growing importance of tech minilateralism, we examine the roles of India, the UK, and Estonia in various alliances.
India
India is a prolific participant in tech minilateral alliances, driven by its commitment to strategic autonomy and economic resilience. Alliances include the Quad and the Trilateral Technology Dialogue (TTD). India’s engagement in these alliances is motivated by its need to reduce economic dependence on China and enhance its national security capabilities.
India’s approach to tech minilateralism reflects its broader foreign policy strategy, which balances engagement with both the US and China while maintaining strategic autonomy. This is evident in its participation in alliances that emphasise technology cooperation without explicitly targeting China, such as the TTD, which focuses on semiconductors, AI, and quantum computing or in India’s resistance to securitise formats like the Quad.
UK
The UK has been a key player in several prominent tech minilateral alliances, including AUKUS and GCAP. These alliances are aligned with the UK’s strategic interests in enhancing its military capabilities and securing its position as a global leader in technology innovation.
The UK seems aware of the fact that its global alliances are not self-evident in a post-Brexit context. The country recognises the importance of clear objectives, structured plans, and dedicated institutions to ensure the effectiveness and durability of minilateral cooperation. The AUKUS alliance, for example, is underpinned by a comprehensive plan with defined timelines and budgets, enhancing its prospects for long-term success.
Estonia
Estonia, a leader in digital governance, has played a significant role in tech minilateral initiatives such as the Digital Nations and the Three Seas Initiative. Estonia’s expertise in e-government and digital innovation positions it as a valuable partner in efforts to improve digital connectivity and governance across Central and Eastern Europe.
The success of Estonia’s involvement in these alliances highlights the benefits of technocratic, expert-driven formats that focus on practical outcomes. The Digital Nations alliance, for example, has been instrumental in sharing best practices and developing common standards for digital public services.
Policy Implications
The rise of tech minilateralism has several important implications for policymakers and stakeholders in the GovTech and digitalization sectors:
1. Strategic Clarity: Policymakers must ensure that the objectives of minilateral alliances are clearly defined and aligned with national interests. This clarity is crucial for maintaining focus and achieving tangible results.
2. Economic Interdependencies: Tech minilateral alliances must consider the economic interdependencies of participating countries. Measures to address these interdependencies should be feasible and proportionate to the scale of the challenges.
3. Balance Between Informality and Institutionalization: While informality can enhance flexibility and reduce costs, some degree of institutionalisation is necessary to ensure consistency and durability. Light institutional structures can help maintain the focus and momentum of minilateral alliances.
4. Transparency and Public Engagement: Policymakers should invest in transparency and public engagement to ensure that the activities and outcomes of tech minilateral alliances are visible and accountable. Dedicated websites and regular updates can help build public trust and support.
5. Unified Purpose and Commitment: For tech minilateral alliances to be effective, all participants must share a unified purpose and commit equally to the visibility and functionality of the partnership. This requires strong leadership and coordination among member countries.
Conclusion
Tech minilateralism represents a promising approach to international cooperation in the digital age. By leveraging small, focused, and informal alliances, countries can navigate the complexities of global technology governance more effectively. As tech minilateralism continues to evolve, policymakers and stakeholders must remain vigilant, ensuring that these alliances deliver on their potential to enhance global governance and drive technological innovation for the public good.
By understanding and engaging with tech minilateral alliances, leaders in government, policy, public affairs, and research can contribute to a more equitable and resilient global technology landscape. The future of tech minilateralism holds great promise, and its success will depend on the strategic vision, commitment, and collaboration of all involved.
.png)
