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
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
Taiwan is confronting escalating threats from its behemoth neighbor. Last month, the Chinese People’s Liberation Army conducted live-fire drills in the East China Sea, practicing blockades and precision strikes on simulated targets, while its escalating cyberattacks targeting government, financial and telecommunication systems threaten to disrupt Taiwan’s digital infrastructure. The mounting geopolitical pressure underscores Taiwan’s need to strengthen its defense capabilities to deter possible aggression and improve civilian preparedness. The consequences of inadequate preparation have been made all too clear by the tragic situation in Ukraine. Taiwan can build on its successful COVID-19 response, marked by effective planning and execution, to enhance
RSS