he realization in the US that the war in Iraq has been lost is perhaps the most momentous fact of international politics this year. The time of US unilateralism is objectively over. Whether US foreign policy will come to reflect this fact, only the future will tell.
Unfortunately, this also means that a unique opportunity has been lost. For only the US -- with all its power and sense of mission -- had the ability to establish a new world order at the beginning of the twenty-first century. To achieve this, the US would have had to subordinate its power to the goal of shaping the new order, much as it did at the close of World War II in 1945. Instead, the US succumbed to the temptation of unilateralism.
National greatness for a world power always arises from its ability to shape the world. If a great power forgets this, or loses the ability to act accordingly, it begins to decline. It is almost tempting to think that the US' great Cold War opponent, the Soviet Union, with its sudden disappearance 15 years ago this month, left its own Trojan horse for the US -- the poisoned gift of unilateralism.
Without a fundamental turnaround in the US political consciousness, the unilateralist amnesia of US foreign policy will have far-reaching consequences and leave a huge vacuum in the global system. No other nation -- not China, Europe, India or Russia -- has the power and the sense of mission to take on the US' role. Only the US was (and potentially still is) able to fuse realism and idealism, self-interest and ethics, in its foreign policy.
Only the US pursued a foreign policy that conceived freedom and democracy as its mission. This was not always and everywhere the case -- certainly not in Latin America. But where it did apply, the US' strength and willingness to seek international cooperation created an order whose institutions still hold the world together.
The UN, NATO, the IMF and the World Bank, the law of nations and international criminal law, even today's free and united Europe -- all are crowning achievements of US foreign policy. They mark the moments in history when the US' power was used to further a global order, while also pursuing its own interests in the most effective and sustainable manner.
The US' departure from this great tradition did not begin with the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Indeed, as early as the final years of the Cold War, the US began to view the whole system of international treaties and institutions as an obstacle to enforcing its own interests. The US' foreign policy elite increasingly came to perceive the US as a Gulliver tied down and oppressed by political midgets, with their laws of nations, treaties, and multilateral institutions. The existing world order -- created by the US itself -- was first devalued in American eyes, then weakened and finally consciously attacked.
Thus, the current debate in the US about the consequences of defeat in Iraq still falls short -- because, despite all the critiques of US policy, that debate is still premised on the unilateral use of US power. This applies to the views of the Democratic opposition as well as to the Baker-Hamilton report.
What is needed is a conscious, deliberate return of US foreign policy to multilateralism. This mental turnaround is, indeed, essential if things are to improve, because the situation in Iraq represents, above all, a defeat of the US' unilateralist orientation.
The Middle East, North Korea, Darfur, Central and East Africa, the Caucasus -- in none of these places can the US still act successfully on its own. And yet, without the US and its power, the prospects in all these places are still bleaker -- more dangers and more chaos.
The situation is the same with respect to global growth, energy, resource management, climate change, environment, nuclear proliferation, arms control and terrorism. None of these problems can be resolved or even contained unilaterally. Yet no attempted solution will get very far without the US and its decisive leadership.
This also applies to the future of the law of nations, the newly created international criminal law, and the UN. Unless these rules and institutions are further developed, globalization, too, will take an ever more chaotic shape.
Former US secretary of state Madeleine Albright once called the US the "indispensable nation." She was right then, and she is still right today. Only one power can rob the US of its unique position -- the US itself. The question today is whether the current crisis of US consciousness marks the beginning of the US' decline or, let us hope, the beginning of a return to multilateralism. Will the US hark back to the spirit of 1945 or, despite being sobered and disappointed, decide to stick to its lone and lonely path?
No other power will be able to assume the US' role in the world for the foreseeable future. The alternative to US leadership is a vacuum and increasing chaos. But within one or two decades maybe China will define the rules, if the US continues to reject its multilateral responsibilities. For all these reasons not only the US' friends have a vital interest in a US return to multilateralism. Given the dangers of unilateralism for the current world order, so do the US' enemies.
Joschka Fischer was Germany's foreign minister and vice chancellor from 1998 to last year. A leader in the Green Party for nearly 20 years, he is now a visiting professor at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School.
Copyright: Project Syndicate/Institute of Human Sciences
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
Ursula K. le Guin in The Ones Who Walked Away from Omelas proposed a thought experiment of a utopian city whose existence depended on one child held captive in a dungeon. When taken to extremes, Le Guin suggests, utilitarian logic violates some of our deepest moral intuitions. Even the greatest social goods — peace, harmony and prosperity — are not worth the sacrifice of an innocent person. Former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), since leaving office, has lived an odyssey that has brought him to lows like Le Guin’s dungeon. From late 2008 to 2015 he was imprisoned, much of this
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and