Editing Multilateralism (section)

== Comparison with bilateralism ==
{| class="wikitable floatright"
|-
|+Powerplay: Bilateral versus Multilateral Control
|-
| 
| Target State:<br />Small Power
| Target State:<br />Great Power
|-
| Small power(s) seeking<br />control over target
| Quadrant 1<br />multilateralism
| Quadrant 2<br />multilateralism
|-
| Great power seeking control<br />over target
| Quadrant 3<br />bilateralism
| Quadrant 4<br />multilateralism
|-
|colspan=3|Source: [[Victor Cha]]'s ''Powerplay: Bilateral versus Multilateral Control''.<ref name="Cha, Victor D 2010">Cha, Victor D. "Powerplay: Origins of the US alliance system in Asia." International Security 34.3 (2010): 165-166</ref>
|}

When enacting foreign policies, governments face a choice between unilateralism, [[bilateralism]] and multilateralism.

Bilateralism means coordination with another single country. Multilateralism has attempted to find common ground based on generalized principles of conduct, in addition to details associated with a particular agreement. [[Victor Cha]] argued that: power asymmetries predict the type of structures, bilateral or multilateral, that offer the most control. If small powers try to control a larger one, then multilateralism is effective. But if great powers seek control over smaller ones, bilateral alliances are more effective.<ref name="Cha, Victor D 2010" />

Thus, a country's decision to select bilateralism or multilateralism when enacting foreign policies is greatly affected by its size and power, as well as the size and power of the country over which it seeks to control. Take the example of [[Foreign Policy of the United States]]. Many references discuss how the United States interacts with other nations. In particular, the United States chose multilateralism in Europe and decided to form [[NATO]], while it formed bilateral alliances, or the [[San Francisco System|Hub and spokes architecture]], in East Asia. Although there are many arguments about the reasons for this, Cha's "[[powerplay (theory)|powerplay]]" theory provides one possible reason. He argued: <blockquote>...postwar U.S planners had to contend with a region uniquely constituted of potential rogue allies, through their aggressive behaviour, could potentially entrap the United States in an unwanted wider war in Asia... To avoid this outcome, the United States created a series of tight, deep bilateral alliances with Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan through which it could exercise maximum control and prevent unilateral aggression. Furthermore, it did not seek to make these bilateral alliances multilateral, because it wanted to amplify U.S. control and minimize any collusion among its partners.<ref name="Cha, Victor D 2010"/></blockquote>