A defense against allegations of unilateralism
Chris DesBarres
senior
The Bush administration has come under fire throughout its term for adopting unilateralism over multilateralism, thereby threatening international stability and the efficacy of American alliances. Two speeches, the West Point speech and the "axis of evil" speech, signaled to some a new doctrine of unilateral security. However it should be emphasized that President Bush did not signal a drastic new approach to American defense; rather he reiterated the common-sense notion that a state's primary function is to guarantee the safety and security of its citizens.
The point of Mr. Bush's "new" doctrine was to remind other states that, while Washington would seek to gain the approval of the international community, it would defend itself alone when necessary. A quick review of the facts indicates that President Bush has rarely acted unilaterally and instead attempts to safeguard the interests of the United States within existing international frameworks.
The first example critics often cite is the United States' failure to ratify the Kyoto Protocol on global warming. This argument, however, becomes exceptionally weak when one learns that the Protocol was signed by President Clinton and that the Democrat-controlled Senate in 1997 passed a resolution 95-0 expressing opposition to the Protocol. To expect President Bush to magically find the 66 votes necessary to ratify the treaty is pure naïveté, and his refusal to attempt to do so in no way demonstrates U.S. unilateralism.
The next example critics cite is President Bush's withdrawal of signature from the Rome Statute to create the International Criminal Court. What many of these critics fail to acknowledge, however, is that the Rome Statute required the ratification of only 70 out of the 191 nations recognized by the United Nations, and although 88 nations (including human-rights stalwarts Congo, Nigeria and Sierra Leone) have now ratified the treaty, this number represents a paltry 46 percent of the international community. Furthermore, only two of the 10 most populous countries (Brazil and Nigeria) have ratified the treaty. What we are left with, then, is a treaty that makes unprecedented claims about national sovereignty yet enjoys the ratification of less than 50 percent of the existing nation-states and less than 40 percent of the world's population. This treaty represents global multilateralism?
A third case critics make against the President is the United States' withdrawal from the Antiballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, yet again we find that President Bush did not act unilaterally. First, the ABM Treaty existed as a bilateral treaty between the United States and the Soviet Union, thus making it difficult to claim that the United States acted against the will of the entire international community. Second, the United States withdrew from the treaty under the terms of the treaty, and thereby violated no international norms or laws. Finally, immediately after withdrawing from the ABM Treaty, President Bush negotiated a new arms reduction treaty with the Russian Federation, as well as issued a flurry of diplomatic communiqués and joint statements reaffirming the importance of Washington's ties with Moscow. Although the President shelved one treaty, he quickly replaced it with another, again calling into question claims of unilateralism.
Fourth, if ever there were a time when President Bush could have acted unilaterally with little international condemnation, it would have been immediately after the Sept. 11 attacks. Yet what do we find? The United States did not attack until more than three weeks after the attacks under an international coalition that included more than 40 nations. Furthermore, the attacks began only after the Taliban failed to heed an international ultimatum demanding bin Laden's arrest and transfer to American forces.
Finally, critics argue, the present case of Iraq demonstrates President Bush's unilateralist approach. Little doubt exists that the President has wanted to attack Iraq since the day he came into office. But more than two years later, even in the face of obvious deceit by Saddam's oppressive regime, the President has restrained from beginning military operations. We find the President exercising extreme patience when dealing with French and German obstructionism —obstructionism to the point where these two nations, along with Belgium, have refused to acknowledge their NATO commitments to Turkey.
Where is the wild cowboy Bush? Where is the president who disregards the concerns of other nations and instead embarks on dangerous policies that fly in the face of the international community? The answer is he doesn't exist. President Bush, while he may be many things, is not Rambo, and he is not a dangerous unilateralist.
Chris DesBarres
senior
off campus
Feb. 12
All Viewpoint Stories for Tuesday, February 18, 2003
