Search

This paper seeks to examine the tensions between trilateralism and multilateralism in the IBSA partnership. While one of the stated goals of the partnership is multilateralism and the reform of the United Nations (IBSA Communique, 2005), the trilateral partnership that IBSA embodies appears antithetical to the representation of broader interests in each member’s region. This issue came to a head in the months preceding the debates on UN reform in September 2005, when India, Brazil and South Africa each voiced their interest in permanent representation on the UN Security Council, but failed to win the support of their regional neighbours. More recently, it is evident in the prominence of India and Brazil in exclusive trade talks with the EU and US to save the Doha Development Round. The paper draws on the middle power literature, which sees middle powers as committed to multilateralism, but problematises this commitment by considering the growing economic and strategic significance of these states. Trilateralism is not pursued to the exclusion of North-South links, as evidenced in Brazil’s and India’s increasing closeness to the US. It is thus not an alternative to robust North-South relations, as older forms of South-South solidarity (NAM and G-77) were portrayed. The paper concludes thus that the IBSA partnership is not a successor of older forms of South-South solidarity premised on multilateralism, but rather a vehicle for the development and increased levels of participation in international affairs of its three members. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]