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 and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
RSS