Talk:Multilateralism

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics High‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Additional information:
/
	No existing task force includes this article in its scope; to propose a new one, please leave a message on the main project talk page.

Untitled

Shouldn't "politician UN" be "political UN"?

I was tempted to correct it but I was afraid maybe it is a UK usage? -rhk, 20040221

Utopian dream

The idea of mutilateralism is that with all the world's nations acting in concert wars can be avoided and trade and other issues can be better dealt with.

I think this is not the chief meaning -- rather, it's one POV. I'm not sure who it's prime supporters are, though.

Certain internationalists count on the U.N. as being some sort of idealized pure, unselfish body whose members all sincerely follow wonderful ideals (with the exception of America and its closest allies). By virtue of having a high-minded charter and organizations which espouse human rights, etc. supposedly the votes and actions of the UN should inevitably or automatically be good, noble and lead the world into peace and happiness. Is this a fair summary? --Uncle Ed 19:45, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't trilateralism and bilateralism be removed, as they are both forms of multilateralism and mean essentially the same thing?

Cleanup

I added the {{cleanup}} tag to this article after wading into the morass of dense, directionless paragraphs toward the end of the article. At the very least I plan to return to add some more headings. —Ryanaxp 21:58, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

My preference would be to simply cut the last four paragraphs. They are are jumbled mess that add little to the article. - SimonP 22:54, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

...And, after a bit of delay, I've gone ahead and done this. --Robth^Talk 16:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite/Severe Revision

I don't know who's still involved cleaning this page as it seems to be still under construction. I offer to research, revise and cut most of the last four paragraphs except for the section about difficulties in upholding multilateral organizations/pacts/treaties. I think the page needs section headers and a better division instead of just a few paragraphs here or there. Anyone who's watching the page please advise, I would hate to POV what could be a really touchy topic. Chenenko 22:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Challenges

The US in effect abandoned multilateralism in the 1980s under President Reagan. Washington walked away from the Law of the Sea Conference -- it was the first time a US Administration simply turned its back on a major global negotiation rather than stick it out to resolve disagreement one way or the other. Under Reagan, the US also withdrew from compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (and has never returned). It quit UNESCO. Finally, it began withholding dues, not to just signal unhappiness over a particular UN action or policy as had happened in the past, but to unilaterally require changes in the system.

Am I missing something or do these events not constitute a rejection of the multilateralism that had characterized American foreign policy up to Reagan's Administration? (See the insightful recap of these developments in Rosemary Righter, Utopia Lost, Twentieth Century Fund Press, New York, 1995, Chapter 8 "The Challenge from Washington.")Mjameswilkinson 03:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"All nations acting together, not regional groupings"

"Moreover, multilateralism involves all nations acting together as in the UN and does not involve regional or military alliances, pacts or groupings."

Why is it only multilateralism if all nations are involved, and not just multiple nations? 62.172.108.23 (talk) 13:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It means "many nations", not "all nations" ["omnilateralism?:)] And there's often an inherent POV element. Eg, the failed MAI was engineered by representatives of the world's wealthy nations to 'liberalize' investment without consulting Third World populations which would inevitably be adversely affected by it. I'm also reminded of craftily misleading terms like "the international community" and "the coalition of the willing" through use of which blatantly sectional interests have been represented as matters of widespread accord, even implying ethical accord. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 07:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New here; feedback welcome.

I just took a stab at copyediting the first couple of paragraphs. GGSloth (talk) 21:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]