Depending on Friends
Will the New Multilateralism Last?
By Louis R. Golino
November 20, 2001
WASHINGTON – In the wake of September 11, it would appear that President Bush’s war on terrorism had led him to abandon his assertive go-it-alone unilateralism and recognize the value of a helping hand from friends.
Indeed, in working to forge a U.S.-led coalition to fight the war in Afghanistan, the administration has paid far more attention to the views and interests of its allies than it did before the terror attacks. One example is the sensitivity Washington has shown to widespread concerns in Europe and the Muslim world about the inadvertent killing of innocent Afghan civilians.
Another is Washington’s keen interest in working with the United Nations for humanitarian and political solutions to the Afghan crisis. To that end, the administration prodded Congress to pay a $582 million installment on America's $1 billion debt to the international body at the beginning of the war.
And Secretary of State Colin Powell has just announced a resumption of U.S. efforts to revive the Middle East peace process – long a top priority for America’s Middle East and European allies.
But these gestures don’t amount to a fundamental change in U.S. foreign policy, and trouble could be brewing with the same allies who are now standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Washington against terrorism.
Richard Haas, the State Department's director of policy planning, characterizes the administration's approach to foreign policy as “multilateralism a la carte.” This means that U.S. willingness to consider the views of other nations will depend on the issue.
This is not an approach America's allies see as a fundamental departure from the more unilateral pre-Sept. 11 posture, irrespective of whatever merits it has. In the allies’ view, international cooperation is not a one-way street.
"The so-called 'international community' cannot just be a vehicle to address mainly U.S.-specific concerns," says Steven Everts of the Centre for European Reform in London.
There are still many signs of holdovers in Washington’s pre-Sept. 11 way of thinking. For example, the Bush administration's continues to oppose the Kyoto global warming protocol, the International Criminal Court and the U.N. small arms pact. On these and related issues, U.S. allies are waiting for the U.S. to propose alternatives it finds more palatable.
The war on terror has been a catalyst for greater understanding between the United States and its allies. At home, polls show it has also increased support for internationalism among the American public.
But if the new U.S. multilateralism is to last, it is critical that it be extended to issues besides those directly connected to terrorism.
Indeed, unless the Bush administration broadens its international agenda to include more issues of concern to allies, its partners overseas will conclude that Washington is interested in cooperation only on its own terms. And that would be a terrible waste of the international solidarity that has been forged since September 11.
Louis R. Golino is a senior public affairs specialist with the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress and News Editor of the Atlantic Community Initiative, a think tank devoted to improving transatlantic relations. These are his own views.
Copyright 2001, Global Beat Syndicate, 418 Lafayette Street, Suite 554, New York, NY 10003 http://www.nyu.edu/globalbeat/syndicate).