|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
E
Pluribus Pluribus? 2/9/2002 A penchant for unilateralism seems
to have become more popular in hawkish U.S. circles these days.
Recently, William Safire wrote in the New York Times about the United
States' accomplishments post-Sep 11 and inferred how it is essentially
reflective of a new paradigm - in which the U.S., by virtue of its
military (and presumably financial) might, can go it alone in this
world and need not resort to multilateral relationships. A review of
the facts, however, actually makes a stronger case for
multilateralism. A common definition of unilateralism is
"a tendency of nations to conduct their foreign affairs
individualistically, characterized by minimal consultation and
involvement with other nations, even their allies" (dictionary.com).
Clearly, within that definition, any belief that the U.S. has been
successful unilaterally in the war in Afghanistan or elsewhere (since
Sep 11) is untenable. While it may be true that some successful
arm-twisting of governments (like that of say, Pakistan, which
wholeheartedly participated in the creation and propping up of the
Taliban and Al Qaida), was possible due to the United States' power,
the U.S. would have had much more difficulty in the war if not for the
support of some nations neighboring Afghanistan and particularly from
the Northern Alliance. Indeed, the presence of "friendly"
forces on the ground in Afghanistan has been acknowledged by many in
our administration as being important in enabling the success (so far)
of the American campaign, and in reducing bloodshed and killings of
innocent civilians. This is not to say we may never have succeeded on
our own, but success would not have been as easy, and the so-called
"collateral damage" would have been much higher - making the
worldwide hatred or mistrust of the U.S. worse, in spite of September
11. In previous articles published elsewhere, I have strongly made a case for why the American response to Sep 11 in Afghanistan is more than justifiable even in light of possible deaths of innocent civilians. However, I fail to see the connection between that and unilateralism, nor can I appreciate the redeeming value of pushing unilateralism as the default approach to solving America's problems. For instance, do we really think that our European friends, or "allies" in the middle-east and Central Asia, would unconditionally and happily assist the United States if it repeatedly took the path of blatant unilateralism - even on justifiable causes? Let us not mistake the sympathy and support from some of our old friends and acquaintances, at a time of national shock, grief and need, for submission to U.S. "unilateralism" (as some would have us believe). We live in an era where technology has rendered nations and activities almost borderless, and where, absent the Cold War, the citizens of more nations worldwide have been brought to the doorstep of freedom and self-expression. At this juncture it would be naïve and foolish to throw away those fledgling gains by a retrogression into the same kind of behavior displayed in the past by other nations (proud of their power), which led to some of the most horrific destruction ever wrought. Do the unilateralists amongst us
want the "torch-bearer" of freedom, rights, and free markets
to flout international laws (that it partly engineered) whenever
convenient, while using its power to enforce the same laws on the rest
of the world, whenever convenient? Are there to be any self-imposed
limits or strict guidelines? Given the recent revelations about how
the present and past U.S. administrations have lobbied foreign
governments on behalf of powerful U.S. corporations, will we
eventually be asked to wage financial "war" on country X
where we outsourced our manufacturing jobs because that country raised
its minimum wage and that hurts U.S. businesses (and thus, U.S.
"jobs")? For those of us who are no experts
in foreign policy, a bottom-up view of this theory of unilateralism is
probably in order. How would my neighbor like it if I controlled the
town and decide to shift my weight around under the gentle
"persuasion" of my power? ("You know what 'Jim', you
better sell me the goods for 50% less, or else you're not going to do
business with anyone in this town"). As trite as it sounds,
within this country (and most others) we all live together as its
citizens or residents, with a pact (defined by the laws of the land)
to share the resources of the country for the good of all. Those who
flout those laws are condemned to prison (at least most of the time).
The states of this country have agreed to remain together as one
because of a similarly defined set of laws allowing mutual benefit
from being part of the union called the United States. Indeed,
competing businesses agree to stick around together and follow
mutually acceptable laws not because they love competition, but
because it is in their common interest to allow a competitor to be
present since they might be the underdog in a new market sometime in
the future. U.S. companies have global alliances routinely
regardless of the fact that their revenues might sometimes exceed the
GDP of the countries they do business in, because they understand the
need for local partners or alliances to successfully market and sell
their products to local citizens. Let me be clear that I am not arguing that unilateralism is always uncalled for. I am saying that we should exert our power unilaterally only under extenuating circumstances to protect ourselves.* Thus, strong action with a unilateralist inclination should be reserved for the most critical of situations - not as a matter of routine foreign policy. Allowing our country to become a law-flouting entity in the international arena is no different in principle to allowing states, corporations or individuals within our country to flout laws inside the U.S., whenever convenient. To put it another way, our government has put a stake in the ground that they are fighting on behalf of the civilized world. That is a noble cause, but it carries with it the responsibility of acting civilized at a global level, not just within our borders. As much as we may be tempted to
think of ourselves as invincible, we must remember that all the
"bunker busters" or cruise missiles did not protect us
against September 11, and we have to avoid setting ourselves up for
more hate worldwide as we learn how to prevent another September 11
from ever occurring. The only way to accomplish the latter is through
principled friendships and intelligent partnerships, not unilateralist
leanings without realizing how non-unilateral our approach has
been post September 11. Certainly, it would be foolish to
not acknowledge that the world is imperfect, with some constituents
(countries or groups) that will choose to defy common world laws, even
if we choose to abide by them. Such countries may even endanger or
take the lives of U.S. citizens in the future. But we need to remember
in our emotionally charged moments that such a situation is no
different than what law abiding individuals inside the U.S. face from
criminals and powerful, yet evil, individuals. Do we as individuals go
around as vigilantes, enacting revenge lawlessly every time? We don't
(most of the time), and that is why we call ourselves a civil society.
We live together fully acknowledging the imperfections of our laws,
our lives and our country, because of the belief that ultimately more
good comes out of it than harm, especially in contrast to an uncivil
lawless society. Let us not turn the world into something that we
would not let our country become and let us continue to focus on our
objective of common (international) good. As emphasized above, if
emergencies or extenuating circumstances arise (such as the tragedy of
Sep 11) let us find a way to respond appropriately on a case by case
basis. To make the multilateralist approach even more powerful, let us
empower the United Nations (that the U.S. co-founded post World War
II) instead of weakening it. Whether it is the anti-ballistic missile
treaty or the Kyoto (environmental) protocol, we need to work together
with the rest of the world and reverse our recent propensity to go it
alone. Let us not be misled by insufficiently thought-out
"unilateralist" strategies that defy the very foundation
that defines this country and its people. Finally, let us not compound any "unilateralist" tendencies by lobbying forcefully (on behalf of big businesses, especially the ones that do not pay much taxes) to dictate favorable trade agreements. Ultimately, strained relationships linger but businesses don't (just ask Enron). Close, balanced relationships with democratic nations will almost never hurt - those with non-secular and dictatorial nations inevitably does (as history has shown). I am reminded of what a manager once pointed out to me that an ineffective manager is one who spends 80% of his/her effort on the bottom 20% performers of his/her team. In that effort, the costs go up unbearably, while the best continue to leave. I am sure Wall Street is well aware of the pitfalls of adopting that approach, which allows the Street to focus on investing in the best. One of the proponents of making our Government run more efficiently and responsibly (like a good corporation) is President Bush. I would ask the President to apply those goals to our foreign policy and invest most in those friendly countries that best support our own values and goals, and build strong multilateral partnerships with those friends to ensure our future. All in favor of unilateralism,
please recall once again that E Pluribus Unum is as
multilateral as it gets. *Previously
this statement said "I am saying that we
should exert our power unilaterally only under extenuating
circumstances to protect ourselves, as we did post September 11."
Unfortunately this statement was worded in a way that was confusing
and seemed to convey the opposite of what I wanted to say. What I was
really trying to say with the September 11 analogy was that 9/11 is an
example of an extenuating circumstance - I did not mean to imply that
our actions after 9/11 were unilateralist or had to be
unilateralist. (It was all the better that they were not
unilateralist, but if we had to go after the Taliban and Al Qaeda on
our own it would have been fully justifiable.)
|
