Stephen VasciannieAS THE New Year comes upon us, where trends American foreign policy? Will the country opt for isolationism, preferring to build a Fortress America, concentrating inward without much regard to international prospects and realities? This is hardly likely: bearing in mind the lasting impact of September 11, and the prominence of inter-State coalitions in areas such as anti-terror, drug interdiction, as well as peace and security, the Bush Administration will certainly be active in the international arena this year.
So, then, what are the principles and considerations that are likely to guide American foreign policy in the near term? Broadly speaking, the post-September 11 question remains that of unilateralism versus multilateralism; the emerging policy will have to take into account nuances that arise in particular circumstances, but in essence, the United States is still to make the choice between engaging itself with the rest of the world as a single nation, or, alternatively, as part of a number of States working largely under the multilateral auspices of the United Nations.
Unilateralism is a tempting option for America. At the level of perception, the United States is regarded by most as the single remaining superpower, a classification which embraces several often divergent implications. So, for some, including many within the United States, the decade-long triumph over communism should remain the springboard for the single-handed dissemination of American values throughout the world.
On this view, for instance, the so-called Washington Consensus should be promoted with enthusiasm: the United States should promote liberalisation, privatisation, the removal of trade barriers, and liberal democratic principles even if its allies are lukewarm towards particular components of the American vision of the good society.
UNILATERAL TEMPTATIONS
Unilateralism is also tempting because the United States is such a powerful military and economic force today. It is now fashionable to speak about "asymmetries of power", but sometimes it seems phrases such as this do not fully capture the discrepancy that exists between American military and economic might as against other countries. In this context, though, some policy-makers in the United States are undoubtedly inclined to support unilateralism: the one-State approach would be consistent with the kind of one-upmanship that is attractive to some in inter-personal relations, and it would acknowledge the raw power of the American State vis-a-vis others.
Again in the wake of September 11, unilateralism may also be attractive to those who argue that the Al Qaeda forces viewed America as a single entity on the fateful day. America, as a symbol of "Western decadence" is not perceived in multilateralist terms by its enemies, and so, the argument runs, America needs to act decisively on its own to protect its national security and related interests. It is this line of argument which prompted President Bush to conclude that if the United Nations would not take action in respect of Iraq, then the United States would act alone.
This line of analysis has also prompted what some analysts perceive to be American paranoia in the current world dispensation. If the United States is a target and September 11 provided irrefutable evidence that it is then it must, of course, take measures to promote self-defence. But would anti-American hostility lead to discrimination against the United States in multilateral treaty regimes, and how far should America go in its definition of self-defence?
HYPOCRISY
In response to these questions, the unilateralist impulse has been to keep the United States out of the emergent regime of the International Criminal Court, on the theory that anti-American regimes will spare no effort maliciously to have American soldiers prosecuted (and persecuted) for actions in foreign lands. Similarly, with respect to self-defence, the United States through its unilateralist doctrine of pre-emption now seems ready to attack foreign countries on its own even if there is no decisive evidence that the countries concerned are planning an imminent attack on the United States. If the Axis of Evil speech was more than rhetoric, it implied American willingness to use force without regard to multilateral rules set out in the United Nations Charter.
But, perhaps, unilateralism is also attractive because some of the implications of multilateralism would place the United States at a distinct disadvantage. As Stephen Holmes, Professor of Law and Politics at New York University, reminds us in The American Prospect (November 2001), the pursuit of multilateralism sometimes requires the United States to embrace regimes that are unstable, dictatorial or
corrupt.
The coalition between the United States and others concerning Afghanistan required co-operation with Pakistan, a country which, at the time, could hardly have been described as democratic, and collaboration with some Arab regimes is fairly criticised as working with autocrats to deter fanatics. This opens America to charges of hypocrisy, for it is difficult to reconcile, say, the American embargo against Cuba on pro-democracy grounds, with American friendliness towards some Middle Eastern regimes that walk the long path around multiparty elections.
On the other hand, multilateralism works to the advantage of the United States in some contexts. In the first place, when the United States works with a group of countries through the United Nations to secure particular objectives, this reduces the perception that individual countries are simply acting out a relationship of servility with America. Countries may be prepared to voice their views through coalitions, and, in this way, the United States benefits from obtaining perspectives not guided primarily by bilateral power imbalances.
Moreover, if the central thrust of American foreign policy is multilateralist, this will undermine the notion that the United States is taking a "might is right" approach to international relations. For, if anything, the main advantage of seeking multilateral solutions to international problems is that it seeks to apply a democratic approach to those problems, giving each State the opportunity to express its views on particular matters.
As a part of this, adherence to multilateral principles will also give the United States the opportunity to rely on unilateral measures in specific cases, as a final option. If, for instance, the United States were to refrain from the International Criminal Court, but, give support for multilateral measures in respect of the Law of the Sea Convention, then there would at least be the perception that the United States does not see itself as deserving exceptional treatment in a wide range of international matters. But if, in contrast, the United States turns its back on multilateral solutions to common problems, it will stand accused of being concerned only about its own interests, and insensitive to the rest of the world.
This cannot be the objective of an American foreign policy team that includes Colin Powell and Condeleeza Rice.
Stephen Vasciannie is Professor of International Law at the University of the West Indies, Mona.
