Sei sulla pagina 1di 3

simon.fiala@seznam.

cz

Stewart Patrick - Multilateralism and Its Discontents: The Causes and Consequences of U.S. Ambivalence
In: Stewart Patrick, Shepard Forman (Eds.). Multilateralism and U.S. foreign policy: ambivalent engagement (Center on International Cooperation Studies in Multilateralism), Boulder, Linne Reiner Publishers : 2002.

Notes:
9/11: The US has been made acutely aware that it doesnt stand aside contemporary global politics While isolationism is no longer an option, there are two strategies that the US has to consider. o Which one serves the US interests the best? How to engage with global politics congruently with the US interests and values? o Internationalism (multilateralism)? Reliance on international rules and frameworks of cooperation to address global issues It expands national capabilities, allows to share the burden of leadership, can ultimately win legitimacy for the American way Long term development of position rather than short term gains o Going it alone (unilateralism)? Unfettered freedom and sovereignty, unencumbered by global rules benevolent American hegemony o The choice between cooperation and going it alone is an illusory one. In the current state of world there are only possible variants of the former. Retreat from multilateralism? o Causes and consequences of US ambivalence toward multilateral cooperation o US dedicates only a tiny fraction of its budget for international affairs (compared to the military spending, for example) o The US often acted selectively within multilateral diplomacy demanded exceptions from international regimes declined to ratify some widely supported agreements often retreated from formal multilateral obligations o Half-hearted US multilateralism in terms of peace and security often acted unilaterally in terms of military action Kosovo 1999, Iraq 2003 Reluctant to participate in peacekeeping operations Ditched the UN in Africa Undermined arms control and disarmament treaties WMD, Chemical weapons, Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty, Ottawa Convention (landmines) Refused to fund IOs (e.g. the UN) Succumbed to unilateral sanctions towards other governments (e.g. Helms-Burton Act), rather than acting through international regimes o As the worlds leading power the US presumably has the interest in development of international rule of law. At the same time, it has manifested reluctance to do so. o The US notably failed in forging agreements regarding the global commons 1

simon.fiala@seznam.cz At the same time, US can be attributed with a large merit for constructing international regimes (such as FTAs) No other nation has done so much to create international institutions, yet few have been so ambivalent about multilateralism, so well positioned to obstruct it, or so tempted to act unilaterally. 7 The roots of the US ambivalence o Exceptionalism Faith in the uniqueness and superiority of the countrys founding liberal principles Leads to two directions: Crusading zeal Determination to preserve unique values and institution from external infl. o The separation of powers The congress and the presidential office act independently and often contradictorily, even though they are jointly responsible for drafting foreign policy o The US hegemony Unmatched capacities, incentives and opportunities to act alone Multilateralism presumes observation of rules, rather than exercise of power, presumes certain egalitarianism can be said to benefit to the weak Multilateral cooperation often found constraining US multilateralism today o Proliferation of treaties, establishment of a dense web of regimes US intensified participation More opportunities to manifest discontent o The US has supported an array of international regimes addressing security, economic and social issues Support for the WB, IMF, GATT WTO, NATO, NAFTA, APEC, G8 o But: selectivity Bullying, forum shopping Mantra: Multilateral when we can, unilateral when we must The Bush government abandoned enthusiasm for multilateralism o Trends reinforcing the US misgiving about multilateralism The absence of constraints in the unipolar world Fewer obvious incentives to engage in multilateralism US superiority provides justification for exercise of power and provides rationale for the unwillingness to observe rules o special role and responsibilities Globalization and the new multilateralism Unfamiliar world landscape, new threats and challenges o Often impossible to be managed unilaterally Blurred boundary between the international and the domestic New intergovernmental actors, diminishing space for the US to dominate, democratization of the international agenda Perceived encroachment of sovereignty o

simon.fiala@seznam.cz While the whole world is convinced that the US rule the world through puppet IOs, the US citizen feel powerless To some extend reasonable concerns: o IOs indeed lack transparency and democratic legitimacy o International norms spread to sovereign areas of health etc. Loss of sovereign law-making authority The reassertion of congressional power Politicization, decentralization, atomization of foreign policy, legislative activism But: views on multi/unilateralism in various issues do not follow neatly the democratic/republican cleavage The costs of acting alone and benefits of acting with others o US multilateralism will remain ambivalent and selective, but should be based on realistic estimates of trade-offs, rather than on narrow ideologies 21 o Acting alone often signified pursuit of a short-term gain over long-term benefits o Failure to act responsibly in terms of foreign policy may bring costs: It may Undermine formulation of coherent, constructive and efficient policies E.g. the sabotage of the UN and ICC Frustrate achievement of US objectives in various arenas E.g. the war in Iraq Sabotage collective responses to global issues E.g. the Kyoto protocol Undermine spread of global norms and regimes E.g. CTBT undermining the non-proliferation norm Injure US reputation as an enlightened world leader/benevolent hegemon US often perceived as recklessly pursuing its narrow national or internal political interests, holding itself above rules binding on other actors Its not just its rivals, but also its allies who manifest uneasiness with the current style of US leadership Undermining confidence of allies compromises the legitimacy of the US and encourages balancing, which in turn weakens the US position The central question: What is the appropriate role of multilateral cooperation in pursuing the national interests? o Depends on how we conceptualize national interests; in the global era the conceptualization must necessarily be reconsidered/broadened o In this era, unilateralism may be in rare cases the only way to break the stalemate. In most cases, however, it is unwise and unsustainable; Most of the modern challenges can only be addressed through cooperation o If the US is to assume the role of a reluctant sheriff, it needs to nurture its allies, be responsive to their concerns, be willing to compromise on issues and must restrain from use of power to serve its immediate interests when long-term development is at stake

Potrebbero piacerti anche