The dangers of unilateralism - Intentionally Controversial

When the European Union's head of foreign policy, Chris Patten, called Bush's axis of evil "dangerously absolutist and simplistic," not "thought through" and "unhelpful," and that the Europeans needed to stop Washington before it went into "unilateralist overdrive," notice had to be taken [Friedman, New York Times, Feb. 13, 2002] Regardless of whether you agree with our President's decision to tab Iran, Iraq and North Korea with the title "axis of evil," this blunt European reaction is worrisome. The problem is that this is only the latest occurrence in a long line of unilateralist rhetoric and policies that the Bush administration has undertaken.

Before Sept. 11, the Bush administration was truly shifting into unilateralist overdrive. America withdrew from the Kyoto Treaty, which dealt with environmental issues. The Bush administration threatened to, and eventually did, unilaterally withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia so that it could deploy its national missile defense system. The national missile defense system itself was unilateralist in nature. The Bush administration tried to sell the system to our allies, but they weren't buying. They realized that the U.S. was going to proceed with plans to deploy the missile defense system whether its allies approved or not.

After the terrorist attacks, there seemed to be an attempt at a multilateralist foreign policy. The Bush administration finally paid its United Nations dues as a signal of its new multilateralism. The administration wisely attempted to build a coalition against Al Qaeda. It used the momentum and moral high ground that America gained from the attacks to form a broad alliance.

However, this perceived turn towards multilateralism has proven to be just that, a perception instead of a reality. The U.S. "allies" have quickly realized that this "War on Terrorism" that Bush is fighting with his heart and soul is really America's fight. The coalition was built not so much for practical purposes, but more for the symbolism and logistical needs. Repeated offers of military assistance by European allies have been rebuffed by the Bush administration. Bush's decision to continue the War by expanding to the Philippines and possibly Iraq has been made unilaterally and against the wishes of many of our allies.

So what are the repercussions of this blatantly unilateralist foreign policy? The U.S. is using up its diplomatic capital. While the world was willing to cooperate with America after Sept. 11, that is not so much the case anymore. It is quite clear that as Europe continues its integration, most recently with the introduction of a common currency, the euro, it is increasingly willing to assert its own positions, independent of Washington.

This unilateralism alienates world powers, from Russia to China to Europe. Whether we like these countries or not, we need to do business with them. The U.S. cannot simply run wild, doing as it wishes. There needs to be more multilateralism in the formulation of the current administration's foreign policy. The Bush team needs to consider how our supposed allies and enemies will view their actions. While crudely grouping together the "axis of evil" the administration apparently forgot to think about how such a phrase would be perceived around the world. The Chris Pattens of the world are becoming increasingly willing to voice dissent towards unilateralist American foreign policy, and this is not something that can be ignored.