|
Feedback From Communitarian Update
Number 47
We asked:
Multilaterialism v. Unilateralism
To what extent should American foreign policy take into account its allies' preferences?
Some argue that failure to consult alienates our potential partners and leads to the loss
of legitimacy, thereby undermining our objectives. Others argue that consulting our allies
on matters of great national interest forfeits our national prerogatives. (We assume that
"consulting" and then acting counter to the positions voiced will backfire.)
Here are all the responses we received.
If ever there was a false dichotomy, your Nye-Krauthammer argument is it. Foreign policy is
not dictated by a multilateral versus unilateral approach, but rather by a perception of national
interest. If our goals are achieved more expediously through multilateral organization, then that
will be applied, pace World War II. If our goal is impeded through mulitlateralism, it will be
rejected, pace Afghan War.
The only codicil to this argument is that a unilateralist should never admit he is acting alone,
even when that is the case. Contemporary world politics shuns a hegemon. Hence deliberation and
consultation are requisites of unilateral action.
Herb London
President of the Hudson Institute
Unilateralism, as practiced by the present Administration of the United States, is, by definition,
absolutely opposed to the very essence of communitarian principles. Besides, it provokes the same
attitude from the opponent, adapted to its "ways and means." Ergo, more terrorism (unilateralism,
no matter what) is due to happen. It makes me shudder when I see that most Americans favour unilateralism.
Can the Communitarian Network do something about it?
As a member of the communitarian universe, or humanity, thank you very much.
Marcelo Aftalion
sociologist & lawyer from Argentina
SASE member
In today's global village, unilateralism is completely inappropriate. All nations must find ways to work
together to solve problems, whether they are environmental, war, or disparity in wealth distribution.
The United States is the world's the sole superpower, and bears an even greater responsibility to lead
through consultation and collaboration. Certainly the United States has the might and strength to impose
its will almost anywhere in the world, but such a unilateral approach is short-sighted and will eventually
create even greater hostility toward the United States.
Rick Molz
Associate Professor of Management
Concordia University, Montreal
Arnold Wolfers put the general security policy choice facing countries well in his late 1950s discussion
of "going it alone" or "going with others," which has the advantage of not being framed in the "multilateral"
versus "unilateral" binary some people have been using to frame the current discussion.
I think the binary formulation oversimplifies in this rather highly interconnected world. In such a world,
any government needs to have discussion with others - perhaps its allies the most, but also others -- to get
a sense of how its actions will be received so that it does not get too surprised by the responses.
I think this is true even for the government of a country that can do what it plans to do by itself. It may
still be able to accomplish what it plans in the short term, but the reactions of others could well neutralize
or even un-do the longer term effects it is hoping to create.
Discussion is even more important if a country cannot do what it would like by itself, since even the immediate
and short-term effects depend heavily on others. On most things, capacity to affect events is dispersed broadly
enough that discussion is necessary. There may be worries about formalizing discussion rights as "consultation"
in some cases, but many governments have made formal or informal commitments to consult, and have to abide by
them if they want others to do the
same.
Where significant capacity is held by non-state actors, their attitudes and likely reactions have to be taken into
account, even if the government or governments contemplating action don't want to discuss the contemplated actions
with them directly.
MJ Peterson
Professor of Political Science
University of Massachusetts - Amherst
1. American foreign policy should first be aware of the preferences, not only of America's allies, but of other
countries which are currently indifferent and even opposed to U.S. foreign policies. In each policy issue, it is
important to understand each country's preferences. e.g. knowledge/ignorance base, fundamental beliefs, relevant
values, etc. The conditions under which each country's preferences might change can then be analyzed. We have much
redundancy for input - 2 eyes, 2 ears - yet usually act as if "communicate" means telling someone something.
2. Terminology is important. Until recently, the World Bank used "public involvement" as a generic term, "consultation"
for advisory relationships and "participation" for power-sharing. (The WB's current participation pages reflect power-sharing
rather than advisory relationships.)
3. In my experience (30+ years, 300+ projects, 8 countries), it is important at the outset to define what elements in a
proposal are open to consultation and which are not; this limits the development of unrealistic expectations. When a proponent
is unable to accede to the desires of a stakeholder, the reasons why can be indicated and a joint search for workable compromise
solutions can be undertaken. This approach seldom backfires. Visit the Library at www.connor.bc.ca/connor for relevant papers
and cases.
4. Increasing environmental pollution, dramatic climate events and the dubious ethics of key corporations and some governments
make unilateralism unattractive. Multinational cooperation seems a much more potent strategy.
Desmond M. Connor
Consulting Sociologist
Victoria, B.C., Canada
There should be no debate about the conclusion that ideally, we should consult other parties before acting on the world stage.
The subtlety arises from the fact that we, as the only superpower, could act without consulting others, if we wished to do so.
The wisest leaders of the most successful organizations create environments in which their employees or colleagues feel empowered
and participatory, however, regardless of their leaders' ability to force action. The U.S. should also strive to be such a
successful leader among nations.
Charles Freifeld
AlphaMetrics Capital Management, LLC
Boston, MA 02132
I am opposed to unilateral USA action in any matter (especially military invasion and significant environmental degradation)
which will have a potential catastrophic global consequence. We live in a very interconnected global society, for any one
nation to think that it can act in significant global matters alone is the height of both real world ignorance and ill-advised
national arrogance. The chances of long term success in significant global matters is greatly increased by broad coalition
efforts involving many global partners. Thank you for asking my opinion.
John P. Rider
USA resident and global citizen
Every great nation needs widely understood long-term aims which provide a focus for popular unity, a sense of national
identity, linking successive administrations and providing a lasting basis for international alliances. For half a century,
America's leading role in the Cold War provided that. A new focus is now needed: a determination to end poverty throughout
the world perhaps, or to save the planet from pollution and degradation - or both? We fear that the Sept.11th tragedy may
provide new Muslim enemies for those seeking a national aim that will keep the military-industrial war machine rolling.
This would be deeply divisive - within and between nations. (In Britain, Muslims are our biggest minority.) It will destroy
our hopes for a worldwide community of nations based on respect for international law. It will weaken or destroy the U.N.
which, despite its faults, offers the best chances for longer term world peace. It will destroy America's claim to leadership
of the free world.
David Donnison and Kay Carmichael
Glasgow, Scotland.
Thanks for this opportunity. Has it ever occurred to the American political leadership that whatever decision(s) taken on
terrorism affect the whole world? It is surprising though to hear Bush calling on the whole world to fight Saddam
Hussein/Osama Bin Laden etc while the decisions to support and groom the two "insane" men were made in the "dark of
the night," without consultations.
My people (the Baganda of Buganda in Uganda) have a saying: The dog you train can easily turn on you. The acts of violence
we have witnessed in the recent past came from people groomed, trained, supported and sustained by the Superpowers (America
being in the lead). Now that Bush is calling on the whole world to support his war against Saddam Hussein, just like it
was with Osama bin Laden last year, how ready are we to handle the aftermath? Who has evaluated the recent invasion in
Afghanistan? How much sanity has been replaced into the system after the Taliban rule? Maybe the most important question would be:
Then what happened in the early 90's after the Kuwait invasion? Why did the Americans and the whole team of friends and foes
remove themselves before finishing the job (removing Saddam)?
For heavens sake, we have had enough of Bush and bush wars and manners. It is not him suffering the consequences, it is not him
spending sleepless nights, but the people inside Iraq where the reign of terror is the order of the day, where death of the
suspected rebels is so rampant, where people are dying in large numbers because of the sanctions. Saddam is a mad man whose
existence is a threat to the whole world, but then why was he supported in the first place? Right now there are people opposed
to him and the American system knows where these people are. Why not work more closely with them as more people (inside Iraq)
are being identified and convinced to see sense and live beyond the daily intimidation? No. Bush has chosen his path: WAR.
Nothing is going to stop him. What happens to the people after the war is nothing at all as long as he is the American president
who removes Saddam Hussein.
Come on guys, it is high time we took stock of what is happening around the world and the suffering caused by rushed decisions
of the kind BUSH makes. We don't need another world war to remove one mad man while nobody is thinking hard about the aftermath.
By the way, do you think you have only Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden? What about Mugabe, Moi and Museveni? They too are
doing harm to their citizens and Bush seems not to notice the political atrocities committed in Zimbabwe, Uganda and Kenya.
Well, we must have one policy that deals with the dictators and political monsters in the whole world, build alliances and
giving meaningful support with the local groups is one of them. Unless and until there is proper governance that involves
the local people in any given country, BUSH will call upon the whole world to fight Saddam Hussein while he supports Museveni
and Moi to remain in power and Mugabe will continue to laugh at the Western world while misery, torture, hunger, starvation
and political atrocities are entrenched for ever.
Bush, Wake up. Saddam is even laughing at you. He says that you have only a few years to be in power, while his ruling
council has given him another EIGHT years. Mugabe insulted you the other day, he was asking about your legitimacy as the
USA president. Do I need to dwell on this?
Sandra Anna Maria Miwanda-Bagenda
journalist, United Kingdom
|
