Example collocations logo

Multilateral in sentence

1507 examples of Multilateral in a sentence

European governments are only now reluctantly accepting the need to scale back their over-representation in multilateral bodies, recognizing that it undermines rather than enhances the EU’s overall influence by pushing other powers into separate arrangements.
But, while deliberation is taking place on how much Europe should retreat from its historical domination of multilateral bodies, there is little vision beyond this.
How can the EU expect other powers to apply multilateral principles that it ignores?
Only with a global liquidity-insurance system – underpinned by multilateral currency-swap arrangements – can countries pursue much-needed reflation, without excessive fear of capital flight and/or exchange-rate devaluation.
Indeed, the IMF, with its global membership and its accumulated international expertise, is best positioned to take the leading role in a multilateral approach to financial stability.
Multilateral consultations can help prevent countries from taking economic measures that negatively affect the financial and economic stability of other countries.
The coming weeks will make clear if the government leaders that are now calling for a Bretton Woods II are willing to give such an enhanced mandate to multilateral institutions such as the IMF.
This should become a topic of discussion at bilateral and multilateral meetings, not because it would lead to a formal agreement, but because it would focus attention on applying stringent sanctions or undertaking military action, which could then reduce the odds of proliferation.
The multilateral foreign-trade deficits of a saving-short US economy set the stage for perhaps the most egregious policy blunder being committed by the Trump administration: a shift toward protectionism.
Attempting to solve a multilateral imbalance with bilateral tariffs directed mainly at China, such as those just imposed on solar panels and washing machines in January, doesn’t add up.
It also reinforces both sides’ shift away from multilateral trade policy in recent years.
Most important, Europe was able to achieve it only by investing heavily in a multilateral trade system through the GATT and then the World Trade Organization.
And yet, while the EU owes much to the multilateral trade system, since 2006, it, too, has shifted to bilateralism, scoring its biggest successes with free-trade agreements with Latin America and South Korea.
Since 2008, when the WTO’s Doha Round of global free-trade talks collapsed, the Europeans have proved unable to bring the US, China, and India back to the multilateral negotiating table.
This is reflected in the EU’s reluctance to press emerging countries to become parties to the WTO’s multilateral Agreement on Government Procurement, as if it has accepted that this issue can be resolved only bilaterally.
Likewise, the US has no real interest in revitalizing multilateral trade negotiations, because bilateralism is much more effective in extracting concessions from emerging powers.
Europe has neither the same geopolitical interests as the US, nor, more important, the same means, which implies that it has a greater stake in revitalizing multilateral trade.
We already have a good mechanism for multilateral surveillance in place, but we should aim to focus it on the areas that really matter for economic union.
In 2015, the United States had trade deficits with 101 countries – a multilateral trade deficit in the jargon of economics.
In fact, the real reason the US has such a massive multilateral trade deficit is that Americans don’t save.
It is this chronic current-account gap that drives the multilateral trade deficit with 101 countries.
Without fixing the saving problem, the Chinese share of America’s multilateral trade imbalance would simply be redistributed to other countries – most likely to higher-cost producers.
That underscores the futility of attempting to find a bilateral solution for a multilateral problem.
The added deficits of Sandersnomics, or for that matter those of any other politician, would further depress America’s national saving – thereby exacerbating the multilateral trade imbalance that puts such acute pressure on middle-class families.
Under Harper, Canada drifted away from multilateral engagement, shirking institutions such as the United Nations in favor of a more aggressive, value-driven foreign and security policy that divided the world into friends and foes.
In Arab eyes, European officials implicitly plead guilty to these charges by pointing to Europe’s complex multilateral politics and the European Union’s bureaucratic nature.
Should Brazilians elect the far-right presidential candidate Jair Bolsonaro, they will join the wave of national populism threatening to raze the world’s multilateral institutions.
Nonetheless, this scenario (which the realist school might foresee) can be avoided, especially if we shore up the existing structures of multilateral governance, which can help us to manage shifts in the balance of power.
Even more alarming, spurning multilateral cooperation means dooming the world to resignation in the face of existential issues such as climate change, a negligent stance that the Trump administration has adopted with relish.
The invasion of Iraq in 2003 remains Exhibit A. But there are others, including the overreach (alongside the United Kingdom and France) of the UN Security Council’s mandate in Libya in 2011, and what Jessica Mathews has described as the “wasteland for multilateral commitments” in the US approach to binding treaties, including the Convention on Biodiversity, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, the Protocol on Torture, and, most relevant to the South China Sea, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
BackNext