In September 2009, the leaders of the 20 largest economies in the world met in Pittsburgh to discuss how to reshape the world economy in the wake of the global recession. This economic summit is just one of an onslaught of meetings that have been held within international organizations and among political leaders. September also saw the opening and closing of the 64th session of the United Nations General Assembly.
Amidst the General Assembly meetings, the Iranian government continued to make strides toward deepening their nuclear technology program. These violations of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) demanded a multilateral rejoinder. As a result, the permanent 5 members (P-5) of the UN Security Council, Germany, and Iran met to discuss the matter on October 1st.1
Undoubtedly, the growing threat of transnational issues, including environmental degradation, a weakened global economy, terrorist group infiltration, and nuclear proliferation demand a multilateral response. As such, it is important to analyze the developments of multilateralism in the form of official, track-one diplomacy and international organizations.
This news analysis will specifically address the UN General Assembly, the changing the economic concerns of the G-20, and issue-specific bodies for negotiation, notably on the question of Iranian nuclear development.
There is a vibrant scholarly debate on the idea of a shifting to multipolarity from the traditional post-Cold War United States unipolarity. In light of this new age of multilateralism, showcased by the recent outpouring of international meetings, the US clearly cannot solve these international issues alone.
The Traditional Form: General Assembly: September 2009
 September 22nd was the opening of the 64th Session of the General Assembly (G.A.). This is the annual meeting of the plenary body of the United Nations that brings together all members states. The diversity of the body is striking. President Ahmadinejad of Iran addressed the body as well as Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel along with Libyan President Muammar al-Qadafi and US President Barack Obama.
The United Nations General Assembly is the single most inclusive international body with representatives of all 192 members of the UN, as well as observer members such as Vatican City and the Palestinian Territories. Addresses from the nations in the G.A. allow the leaders to put forth what exactly the country would like to achieve. This agenda is laid forth from the highest level of the diplomatic hierarchy, the head of state or head of government.
The ceremonial gathering of the world’s leaders into a single room is the premier display of multilateralism. In a single meeting, the audience of world leaders heard claims by President Ahmadinejad that the Holocaust did not happen, as well as Qadafi’s assertion that the Security Council should be renamed the “Terror Council.” Ousted President Manuel Zelaya of Honduras addressed the Assembly via cell phone. Zelaya is currently residing in the Brazilian Embassy in Honduras’ capital Tegucigalpa and, therefore, could not make his timeslot for pleading his case before the world’s body of leaders.2
President Obama addressed the Assembly second, following President Lula da Silva of Brazil, since Obama represents the host country. The US always speaks second after Brazil according to UN tradition and protocol. President Obama reiterated his commitment to multilateralism asserting, “…it is my deeply held belief that in the year 2009—more than at any point in human history—the interests of nations and peoples are shared.”3 This idea of shared burdens is central to the idea of a new system of multilateralism. No longer can a single hegemon or dominate power police the world and address the issues pervading every country of the world, notably climate change, terrorism, health pandemics, and nuclear proliferation.
The President outlined four pillars that he believes fundamental to the future safety of the world—nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament, promotion of peace and security, preservation of the planet, and development of a global economy that benefits all people. It is clear that all these issues span the boundaries of the United States and require President Obama to receive support and consensus among the international community. His address to the General Assembly was the first step toward achieving this agenda through multilateral means.
In addition to a revived commitment to multilateralism and participation in the UN, President Obama commented on the nature of cooperation. “Those who used to chastise America for acting alone in the world cannot now stand by and wait for America to solve the world’s problems alone,” calling forth his international counterparts to take an active role in this multilateral system.4
Changing Size and Composition: G-20 Summit
 The G-20 Summit, held September 24th-25th in Pittsburgh, focused on a comprehensive review of the global financial crisis.5 The world’s 20 largest economies, represented in the G20, account for an astounding 80 percent of global economic output.6 The leaders issued a statement at the conclusion of the meeting that the G-20 would formally replace the G-8 as the mainstay of international diplomacy and economic leadership. The G-8 would turn instead to focus more on security concerns.
Few things have been more straining and troubling to the world’s governments in the last year than the economy. The ramifications of the recession have reached far and wide. Economic contraction has been a common symptom of the recession in most, if not all, economies. As such, a multilateral forum is necessary to address these economic concerns bringing together the states that are most influential in the global economy.
It is impossible to discuss the global economy without the input of the major emerging economies, such as the so-called BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, and China). The G-20 has greater legitimacy because of its enlarged membership. The group can now better address the economic issues because of its better representation.
The responsibilities laid out by the G-20 range from forming a new operational global financial system to reforming the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank. Other important agenda items are completing the latest World Trade Organization Doha Round and solving the unequal distribution of wealth between the rich and poor countries. This is an overwhelming agenda for any group.
Nonetheless, the newly bestowed clout to the G-20 is a major step for an effective multilateral response. Providing the forum for discussion in a formalized structure is an undoubtedly productive stride toward crossing some items off that very long and complex to-do list.
Members of the G-20:
| Argentina |
Australia |
| Brazil |
Canada |
| China |
France |
| Germany |
India |
| Indonesia |
Italy |
| Japan |
Mexico |
| Russia |
Saudi Arabia |
| South Africa |
South Korea |
| Turkey |
United Kingdom |
| United States |
European Union |
Issue-Specific Negotiations: 6-Party Talks with Iran
 The Iranian nuclear revelations overshadowed the G-20 Summit according to some scholars.7 Iran’s overt declarations to develop an advanced nuclear program are an extremely polarizing issue for the entire international community. In 2003, when Iran’s secret nuclear program was unveiled, Iranian leaders allowed international inspectors to oversee its program.8 However, since the 2005 election of President Ahmadinejad, hardliners have overtaken the program and continued on very confrontational lines. Iran’s nuclear ambitions are in direct contrast to President Obama’s pledge at the UN G.A. for a world without nuclear weapons.
Most recently, the nuclear revelations that arguably overshadowed the G-20 was the announcement of a second nuclear facility near the holy city of Qom. During the G-20 Summit, Presidents Obama and Sarkozy as well as UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown made a public statement chastising Iran for keeping secret its second nuclear facility and continuing to try to enrich uranium to the point of building a nuclear weapon. The three leaders warned Iran to take immediate action to stop its clandestine enrichment program, pointing out that the program is against the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) standards.9 The 3-country coalition gathered as a multilateral force to take a stance against the provocative actions of Iran.
The revelation of this second facility came just a week before a scheduled multilateral meeting between Iran and the five permanent members of the Security Council (United States, United Kingdom, France, China, and Russia) and Germany (N.B. often referred to as the P-5 + 1). The 6-Party talks with Iran took place in Geneva on October 1st. The Iranians met with the Under-Secretaries of the six nations to discuss its nuclear program. As a result, Iran agreed to allow inspectors to come into its newly discovered facility beginning October 25th, as well as export much of its low-enriched uranium to be converted to fuel outside the country.10
Undoubtedly, the outpouring of multilateral support for confronting Iran and its nuclear program is a result of a common threat and the need for widespread pressure against Iran. Many Middle East countries fear having another nuclear neighbor capable of detonating a nuclear weapon, most especially Israel, whose relationship with Iran has perennially been hostile. Westerners, like the US and Europe, also fear Iran’s ambitions to dominate the region and offset the stability of the Middle East.
The Future of Multilateralism: Copenhagen and Beyond
 Action by a single state to solve the world’s problems, even a relatively rich and powerful state such as the US, is no longer an option. As evidenced by the recent outpouring of international summits and meetings in different forms, multilateralism is here to stay. A chance for a multipolar world made up of many states joining the struggle to attack the gravest international problems is becoming more and more self-evident. New threats like transnational disease transmission and terrorist networks are redefining state sovereignty and ultimately requiring that states act in a multilateral capacity.
The future will have no dearth of multilateral meetings and summits. In December 2009, the world’s leaders will convene in Copenhagen to discuss updating the Kyoto Protocol on global climate change. An international consensus on how to tackle global warming and other issues of environmental degradation is necessary for effective change in the future.
As the President of the Council on Foreign Relations Richard Haas suggests, we are in an age of nonpolarity.11 Power is being transferred, in part, by virtue of the shifting composition and capacity of multilateral institutions. The United States must still play a pivotal role in asserting its power, but these highly multifaceted issues facing the world today cannot be dealt with by any single power.
For further information, please consult:
1 “Muted Media Response to Iran Nuclear Talks.” BBC. 4 October 2009.
2 “Zelaya addresses the UN via Cell Phone.” Foreign Policy. 29 September 2009.
3 “Obama’s Speech to the United Nations General Assembly.” 24 September 2009.
4 Ibid.
5 Akukwe, Chinua. “G-20: New Clout, New Responsibilities.” 4 October 2009. World Press.
6 Ibid.
7 “Iran Nuke Revelations.” Passport: Foreign Policy Blog. 25 September 2009.
8 “Iran’s Nuclear Program: Overview” The New York Times.
9 http://video.nytimes.com/video/2009/09/25/world/middleeast/1247464827910/cnbc-iran-warned-about-nuclear-site.html
10 Sanger, David E., and Nazila Fathi. “Iran Agrees to Allow Inspectors.” The New York Times. 4 October 2009.
11 Haas, Richard N. “The Age of Nonpolarity.” Foreign Affairs. May/June 2008.
| 
