Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T18:11:57.388Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Beyond Coalitions of the Willing: Assessing U.S. Multilateralism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 September 2012

Stewart Patrick
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Contemporary debates over the appropriate balance of unilateralism and multilateralism in U.S. foreign policy reflect disagreements not simply about the practical effectiveness of these alternative options but also about their legitimacy. Advocates of multilateral and unilateral action alike tend to bundle prudential calculations with normative claims, making assessments about costs and benefits difficult to disentangle from ethical arguments about fairness, justice, morality and obligation. Greater clarity may be possible by classifying U.S. foreign policy into six analytical categories, based on whether the aims pursued are nationalist, internationalist, or cosmopolitan and the strategies adopted to realize them are unilateral or multilateral. Each set of aims has different ethical justifications that generate and help to explain divergent attitudes and judgments about the role of multilateral cooperation in U.S. foreign policy. The article sheds new light on alleged U.S. unilateralism, showing that the U.S. decision to go it alone–or to act with others–can be motivated by the desire to advance the narrow interests of the United States, to advance the interests of all states, or to advance the interests of humanity at large. The article suggests that purely nationalist policies, whether pursued through unilateral or multilateral means, will become increasingly untenable and illegitimate as world politics becomes institutionalized and as humanity becomes integrated, albeit slowly, into a single cosmopolitan community.

Type
Articles
Information
Ethics & International Affairs , Volume 17 , Issue 1 , March 2003 , pp. 37 - 54
Copyright
Copyright © Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Tucker, Robert W., “Alone or With Others,” Foreign Affairs 78 (1999), pp. 15–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 For a recent survey, with case studies, see Patrick, Stewart and Forman, Shepard, eds., Multilateralism and U.S. Foreign Policy: Ambivalent Engagement (Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner, 2002Google Scholar).

3 Simmons, P. J. and de Jonge Oudraat, Chantal, eds., Managing Global Issues: Lessons Learned (Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2001Google Scholar).

4 Franck, Thomas, The Power of Legitimacy among Nations (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990Google Scholar).

5 Dole, Robert, “Shaping America's Global Future,” Foreign Policy 98 (Spring 1995), p. 36Google Scholar.

6 Rosenfeld, Stephen S., “American Power Plays,” Washington Post, December 26, 1997, p. A29Google Scholar.

7 Rice, Condoleezza, “Promoting the National Interest,” Foreign Affairs 79 (2000), pp. 45–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Shanker, Thom, “White House Says the U.S. Is Not a Loner, Just Choosy,” New York Times, July 31, 2001, p. A1Google Scholar.

9 Patrick, Stewart, “Don't Fence Me In: The Perils of Going it Alone,” World Policy Journal 18 (Fall 2001), pp. 2–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 According to former president George H. W. Bush, the attacks erased “the concept … that America can somehow go it alone in the fight against terrorism, or in anything else for that matter.”Drozdiak, William, “Crisis Forces Shift in Policy As Bush Assembles Coalition,” Washington Post, September 17, 2001, p. A9Google Scholar. See also Nye, Joseph S. Jr., The Paradox of American Power: Why the World's Only Superpower Can't Go It Alone (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002Google Scholar).

11 Krauthammer, Charles, “Unilateral? Yes, Indeed,” Washington Post, December 14, 2001, p. A45Google Scholar; and Daalder, Ivo H. and Lindsay, James M., “Unilateralism is Alive and Well in Washington,” International Herald Tribune, December 21, 2001Google Scholar.

12 Patten, Christopher, “Jaw-Jaw, not War-War: Military Success in Afghanistan Has Encouraged the US To Ignore European Doubts about Confronting the ‘Axis of Evil,’” Financial Times, February 15, 2002, p. 16Google Scholar; and Erlanger, Steven, “Europe Seethes as the U.S. Flies Solo in World Affairs,” New York Times, February 23, 2002, p. A8Google Scholar.

13 Podhoretz, Norman, “In Praise of the Bush Doctrine,” Commentary 114 (September 2002), pp. 19–28Google Scholar. See also “The National Security Strategy of the United States of America September 2002”; available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.pdf.

14 Ruggie, John Gerard, “Multilateralism: The Anatomy of an Institution,” in Ruggie, John Gerard, ed., Multilateralism Matters: The Theory and Praxis of an Institutional Form (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993), PP. 3–47Google Scholar

15 Charles Krauthammer dismisses the U.S.-led Gulf War coalition as a case of “pseudo-multilateralism” in “The Unipolar Moment,” Foreign Affairs 70 (Winter 1990/1991), pp. 23–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16 Jackson, Robert H., “The Political Theory of International Society,” in Booth, Ken and Smith, Steve, eds., International Relations Theory Today (University Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1995), pp. 110–28Google Scholar.

17 Quoted in Slevin, Peter, “U.S. Backs Rules Against Arms Spread,” Washington Post, January 25, 2002, p. A15Google Scholar.

18 Bull, Hedley, “Society and Anarchy in International Relations,” in Butterfield, Herbert and Wight, M., eds., Diplomatic Investigations: Essays in the Theory of International Politics (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1966), pp. 35–50Google Scholar.

19 See Pogge, Thomas W., ed., Global Justice (London: Blackwell, 2001Google Scholar).

20 Grieco, Joseph M., “Anarchy and the Limits of Cooperation: A Realist Critique of the Newest Liberal Institutionalism,” International Organization 42, no. 3 (1988), pp. 485–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21 Linklater, Andrew, Men and Citizens in the Theory of International Relations (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 1982), pp. 80–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22 Bajpai, Kanti, “U.S. Nonproliferation Policy after the Cold War,” in Malone, David and Khong, Yuen Foong, eds., Unilateralism and U.S. Foreign Policy: International Perspectives (Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner, 2003), pp. 217–47Google Scholar.

23 Burgess, John, “Clinton's Remarks on Sanctions Open Rift,” Washington Post, December 3, 1999, p. A30Google Scholar.

24 Graham, Thomas and LaVera, Damien, “Nuclear Weapons: The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and National Missile Defense,” in Patrick, and Forman, , eds., Multilateralism and U.S. Foreign Policy, pp. 225–45Google Scholar.

25 Sanger, David E., “U.S. Goal Seems Clear, And the Team Complete,” New York Times, February 13, 2002, p. A18Google Scholar.

26 Spiro, Peter J., “The New Sovereigntists: American Exceptionalism and Its False Prophets,” Foreign Affairs 79 (2000), pp. 9–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

27 Bolton, John R., “Should We Take Global Governance Seriously?” (paper presented at the American Enterprise Institute conference, “Trends in Global Governance: Do They Threaten American Sovereignty?” Washington, D.C., April 4–5, 2000Google Scholar).

28 Crossette, Barbara, “Helms, in Visit to U.N., Offers Harsh Message,” New York Times, January 21, 2000, p. A1Google Scholar.

29 Luck, Edward C., “The United States, International Organizations, and the Quest for Legitimacy,” in Patrick, and Forman, , eds., Multilateralism and U.S. Foreign Policy, pp. 47–74Google Scholar.

30 Moravcsik, Andrew, “Why Is U.S. Human Rights Policy So Unilateralist?” in Patrick, and Forman, , eds., Multilateralism and U.S. Foreign Policy, pp. 345–76Google Scholar.

31 Brown, Bartram S., “Unilateralism, Multilateralism, and the International Criminal Court,” in Patrick, and Forman, , eds., Multilateralism and U.S. Foreign Policy, pp. 323–44Google Scholar.

32 Bolton, John R., “Address” (speech given at the UN Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects, New York, N.Y., July 9, 2001Google Scholar); available at http://www.un.int/usa/o1_104.htm.

33 Bull, Hedley, The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics (London: Macmillan, 1977CrossRefGoogle Scholar).

34 On the “compliance pull” of international rules, see Franck, The Power of Legitimacy Among Nations.

35 Quoted in Sanger, David E., “Another Bush's ‘Vision Thing’,” New York Times, January 20, 2002, sec. 4, p. 3Google Scholar.

36 Elliott, Kimberly Ann and Hufbauer, Gary Clyde, “Ambivalent Multilateralism and the Emerging Backlash: The IMF and the WTO,” in Patrick, and Forman, , eds., Multilateralism and U.S. Foreign Policy, p. 408Google Scholar.

37 Reinicke, Wolfgang, Global Public Policy: Governing without Government? (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 1997Google Scholar).

38 See Kaul, Inge, Grunberg, Isabelle, and Stern, Marc, eds., Global Public Goods: International Cooperation in the 2Ist Century (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999CrossRefGoogle Scholar).

39 Mapel, David R., “The Contractarian Tradition and International Ethics,” in Nardin, Terry and Mapel, David R., eds., Traditions of International Ethics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), pp. 180–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

40 Sen, Amartya, “Global Justice: Beyond International Equity,” in Kaul, , Grunberg, , and Stern, , eds., Global Public Goods, p. 116Google Scholar.

41 Wedgwood, Ruth, “Unilateral Action in a Multilateral World,” in Patrick, and Forman, , eds., Multilateralism and U.S. Foreign Policy, pp. 167–89Google Scholar.

42 International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, The Responsibility to Protect (Ottawa: International Development Research Centre, 2001Google Scholar).

48 This figure will rise to 0.13 percent of GDP when the United States implements President Bush's pledge in March 2002 to create a Millennium Challenge Account, which will increase U.S. foreign aid by $5 billion, or 50 percent, over three years.

44 Kahn, Joseph, “Treasury Chief Accuses World Bank of Harming Poor Countries,” New York Times, February 21, 2002, p. AllGoogle Scholar.

45 Jones, Dorothy V., “The Declaratory Tradition in Modern International Law,” in Nardin, and Mapel, , eds., Traditions of International Ethics, pp. 42–61Google Scholar.

46 Reisman, W. Michael, “Unilateral Action and the Transformations of the World Constitutive Process: The Special Problem of Humanitarian Intervention,” European Journal of International Law 11, no.1 (2000), pp. 3–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

47 Brilmayer, Lea, American Hegemony: Political Morality in a One-Superpower World (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994), p. 26Google Scholar.

48 Zoellick, Robert B., “A Republican Foreign Policy,” Foreign Affairs 79 (2000), pp. 63–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Reisman, W. Michael, “The United States and International Institutions,” Survival 41 (Winter 1999/2000), pp. 70–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

49 Malanczuk, Peter, “The International Criminal Court and Landmines: What Are the Consequences of Leaving the U.S. Behind?” European Journal of International Law 11, no. 1 (2000), p. 5CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

50 Lewis, Neil A., “U.S. Is Set to Renounce Its Role in Pact for World Tribunal,” New York Times, May 5, 2002, sec. 1, p. 18Google Scholar.

51 On the “binding” value of international institutions, see Ikenberry, G. John, After Victory: Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and the Rebuilding of Order after Major Wars (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000Google Scholar).

52 Krisch, Nice, “Weak as Constraint, Strong as Tool: The Place of Law in U.S. Foreign Policy,” in Malone, and Khong, , eds., Unilateralism and U.S. Foreign Policy, p. 62Google Scholar.

53 Smithson, Amy E., “Chemical Weapons,” in Patrick, and Forman, , eds., Multilateralism and U.S. Foreign Policy, pp. 247–65Google Scholar.

54 Schmemann, Serge, “U.S. Links Peacekeeping to Immunity From New Court,” New York Times, June 19, 2002, p. A3Google Scholar.

55 “National Security Strategy,” pp. 3,21,25.