US President George W. Bush's new strategic doctrine says that while the US will seek to enlist the support of the international community for its policies, America will not hesitate to act alone if necessary to exercise its right of self defense. Many of America's allies say that they resent the excessive unilateralism of the Bush administration's foreign policy, but even former US president Bill Clinton argued that the US must be prepared to go it alone when no alternative exists. So the debate about unilateralism vs. multilateralism has been greatly oversimplified.
International rules bind the US and limit its freedom of action, but they also serve US interests by binding others to observable rules and norms as well. Moreover, opportunities for foreigners to raise their voice and influence US policies constitute an important incentive for being part of an alliance with the US. America's membership in a web of multilateral institutions ranging from the UN to NATO may reduce US autonomy, but seen in the light of a constitutional bargain, the multilateral ingredient of the US' current preeminence is a key to its longevity, because it reduces the incentives for constructing alliances against the US.
ILLUSTRATION: YU SHA
Multilateralism, however, is a matter of degree, and not all multilateral arrangements are good. Like other countries, US should occasionally use unilateral tactics. So how to choose when and where?
No country can rule out unilateral action in cases that involve its very survival. Self-defense is permitted under Article 51 of the UN Charter, and pre-emptive self-defense may be necessary when a terrorist organization presents a strong or imminent threat. Bush's military action in Afghanistan was largely unilateral, but was carried out against a backdrop of support from NATO allies and UN resolutions.
Even when survival is not at stake, unilateral tactics sometimes induce others to make compromises that advance multilateral interests. During the Ronald Reagan administration, trade legislation that threatened unilateral sanctions if others did not negotiate helped create the conditions that prodded other countries to move forward with the creation of the WTO and its dispute settlements mechanism.
Some multilateral initiatives also are recipes for inaction, or are contrary to American values. For example, the "New International Information Order" proposed by UNESCO in the 1970s would have helped authoritarian governments restrict freedom of the press. More recently, Russia and China prevented UN Security Council authorization of intervention to stop human-rights violations in Kosovo in 1999. Ultimately the US decided to go ahead without Security Council approval. Even then US intervention was not unilateral, but taken with the strong support of NATO allies.
However, some transnational issues are inherently multilateral and cannot be managed without the help of other countries. Climate change is a perfect example. The US is the largest source of greenhouse gases, but three quarters of the sources originate outside its borders. Without cooperation, the problem is beyond US control. The same is true of a long list of items: the spread of infectious diseases, the stability of global financial markets, the international trade system, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, narcotics trafficking, international crime syndicates and transnational terrorism.
Multilateralism is a mechanism to get other countries to share the burden of providing public goods. Sharing also helps foster commitment to common values. Even militarily, the US should rarely intervene alone. Not only does this comport with the preferences of the US public -- polls show that two-thirds of Americans prefer multilateral actions to unilateral ones -- but it has practical implications as well. The US pays a minority share of UN and NATO peacekeeping operations, and the legitimacy of a multilateral umbrella reduces collateral political costs to America's so-called "soft" or attractive power -- ie, its aid and cultural initiatives.
Finally, in choosing between multilateral and unilateral tactics, Americans must consider the effects of the decision on its soft power, which can be destroyed by excessive unilateralism and arrogance. In deciding whether to use multilateral or unilateral tactics, or to adhere or refuse to go along with particular multilateral initiatives, any country must consider how to explain its actions to others and what the effects will be on its soft power.
US foreign policy should have a general preference for multilateralism, but not all forms multilateralism. At times, the US will have to go it alone. When the US does so in pursuit of public goods that benefit others as well as Americans, the nature of its ends may substitute for the means in making US power acceptable in the eyes of others.
If the US first makes an effort to consult others and try a multilateral approach, its occasional unilateral tactics are more likely to be forgiven. But if it succumbs to the unilateralist temptation too easily, it is likely to encounter the criticisms that the Bush administration is now encountering. In such cases, the likelihood of failure increases, because of the intrinsically multilateral nature of transnational issues in a global age and the costly effects on US soft power that unaccepted unilateral actions may impose. Even a solitary superpower should follow this rule of thumb: try multilateralism first.
Joseph Nye is dean of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government and author of The Paradox of American Power: Why the World's Only Superpower Can't Go It Alone. He is a former US assistant secretary of defense and former director of the US National Security Agency.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
There is much evidence that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is sending soldiers from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and is learning lessons for a future war against Taiwan. Until now, the CCP has claimed that they have not sent PLA personnel to support Russian aggression. On 18 April, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinskiy announced that the CCP is supplying war supplies such as gunpowder, artillery, and weapons subcomponents to Russia. When Zelinskiy announced on 9 April that the Ukrainian Army had captured two Chinese nationals fighting with Russians on the front line with details
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), joined by the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), held a protest on Saturday on Ketagalan Boulevard in Taipei. They were essentially standing for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which is anxious about the mass recall campaign against KMT legislators. President William Lai (賴清德) said that if the opposition parties truly wanted to fight dictatorship, they should do so in Tiananmen Square — and at the very least, refrain from groveling to Chinese officials during their visits to China, alluding to meetings between KMT members and Chinese authorities. Now that China has been defined as a foreign hostile force,
RSS