| |
Multilateralism
vs. Unilateralism
By Catherine Gordon
On Friday November 8, the U.N. Security Council voted unanimously
(15-0) to support a United States resolution for tough new weapons
inspections in Iraq. The U.S. diplomatic effort to go through
the United Nations surprised many observers, as did its success
in convincing members of the U.N. Security Council to approve
U.N. Resolution 1441. For now, the U.N. is involved and multilateral
cooperation is on the rise.
There was a revealing sideshow on Capitol Hill in October.
Right after passage of the U.S. congressional resolution approving
unilateral force against Iraq, and during the continued tension
from the D.C. sniper murders, Senate and House negotiators announced
they would exempt the Defense Department from an international
law that protects 850 species of migratory birds. Administration
spokesmen said the law hindered their ability to hold bombing
exercises. This will allow the incidental bombing of the habitats
of hundreds of thousands of migratory birds, including those
that are endangered.
If the means are the ends in the making, one wonders what kind
of world we are building for ourselves.
The General Assembly of the PC(USA) has stated that the starting
point of the Church's concern about the affairs of nations is
not national interest but is justice for all people and preservation
of God's creation. But the U.S. appears to be heading down a
dangerous path toward militarization, and encouraging it in
the international community as well.
Continued disrespect by the United States for international
treaties (on issues like the International Criminal Court, ABM
defense, biological/chemical weapons, and the environment) is
fueling a fire of anti-Americanism. We are becoming less secure.
Rather than supporting international treaties to help us in
non-proliferation, we are putting our trust in brute force and
preemption. As the war on terror continues, the United States
is fighting on ever-expanding fronts, and even extending military
aid and training to governments with extremely poor human rights
records such as Colombia and Indonesia.
Realist and Liberal Strategies
In John Ikenberry's recent article in Foreign Affairs entitled,
"The Lures of Preemption,"* the author discusses the
new strategy of preemption in light of our most recent foreign
policy strategies. For the last 50 years, he argues, the realist
Cold War policies of containment, deterrence and balance of
power, along with the liberal grand strategy of open trade,
democracy and multilateral institutional relations guided U.S.
foreign policy.
The realist strategy supported the establishment of major security
commitments around the world, such as NATO and the U.S.-Japanese
alliance. The great powers competed with each other but diplomacy
and the balance of power promoted peace and stability. This
liberal strategy supported the creation of the IMF and World
Bank, the World Trade Organization and other multilateral institutions.
The key to this strategy was the theory that an international
order based on the rule of law, in which the U.S. uses its power
to influence those laws in its favor, would most fully protect
the security and interests of the U.S., as well as increase
its influence and power.
The Strategy of Preemption or Offensive Defense
The foreign policy strategy of preemption, which was formally
introduced by the administration in September, is not new. Its
seeds were developed in the think tank Project for a New American
Century (established in 1997), whose members include the neo-conservatives
within the Bush Administration, such as Donald Rumsfeld, Dick
Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and Elliot Abrams. The project states
that the Bush Doctrine "is neither a balance-of-power realism
nor a liberal multilateralism but a reassertion that lasting
peace and security is to be preserved by asserting both U.S.
military strength and American political principles."
The three key elements of the Bush Doctrine, as outlined by
the Project for the New
American Century:
- Active American global leadership. The president
noted that our "enemies view the entire world as a battlefield"
and vowed to "pursue them wherever they are." He
also made it clear that he was willing to act preemptively
and quickly ("time is not on our side,"), especially
when threats from nuclear, biological and chemical weapons
are involved.
- Regime change. Though the president pulled no punches
when listing terrorist organizations as enemies, including
Palestinian groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, he also made
clear his determination to include rogue regimes as targets
in the war. "We can't stop short," he said. And
in "naming names"-North Korea, Iran and Iraq-he
clearly defined a meaning of victory.
- Promoting liberal democratic principles. "No
nation is exempt" from the "non-negotiable demands"
of liberty, law and justice. Because the United States has
a "greater objective" - a greater purpose - in the
world, Bush sees in the war not just danger but an opportunity
to spread American political principles, especially into the
Muslim world.
John Ikenberry dissects this new strategy and its seven elements:
- A unipolar world in which the United States has no equal
in military or economic strength must be maintained.
- A new analysis of global threats. In an age of terror there
is less room for error. Small networks of angry people can
inflict unimaginable harm. They are not nation states and
they do not play by the accepted rules of the game.
- Deterrence is no longer feasible. The new global threat
of terrorism cannot be deterred because the enemy is either
willing to die for their cause or able to escape retaliation.
The only option is offense. The use of force will therefore
need to be preemptive.
- Because terrorism cannot be deterred, the U.S. must be
ready to intervene anytime and anywhere to preemptively destroy
the threat. Because terrorists do not respect borders, neither
can the United States. It will be up to the United States
to determine when another nation has forfeited its sovereignty,
and the U.S. will do so on an anticipatory basis.
- Because the most important task is to eliminate the threat,
international rules, treaties, and security partnerships that
maintain the authority to sanction and limit the use of force
are seen simply as hindrances to the capability of the U.S.
to go after the threat and operate on its own terms.
- Because no other country has the military power to respond
to terrorists and rogue nations around the world, the U.S.
must play a direct and unconstrained role in responding to
threats.
- Finally, there is little value to international stability.
Instability might be the necessary price for dislodging a
dangerous and evil regime.
The Problems with the New Foreign Policy Strategy
What is needed for long-term success in the non-proliferation
of weapons of mass destruction are principled multilateral agreements,
institutional infrastructure, and international cooperation.
Unilateral action by the United States, who alone will decide
which states are threats and how to deal with them, will undermine
the multilateral relationships that ultimately will ensure non-proliferation.
In addition, Pakistan, China, or Russia could adopt a similar
strategy of preemption, and hostile states could speed up programs
to acquire weapons of mass destruction in order to deter the
United States.
The use of force to destroy weapons of mass destruction will
require significant economic commitments to help put the target
state back together after it is attacked. Peacekeeping and statebuilding
will be required at significant costs and will require multilateral
coalitions.
The new strategy also poses a major problem for maintaining
American unipolar power. When the most powerful state in the
world begins to throw its weight around without respect to international
law and conventions of other countries, there will be a backlash.
Other countries will not participate willingly in a new world
order where the United States plays only by its own rules. Ultimately,
the United States must continue to rely on and enhance the traditional
strategies of balance of power and multilateralism to ensure
its own security as well as promote international stability.
Excerpts from A Message to the Church and Nation
As members of the General Assembly Mission Council of the Presbyterian
Church (U.S.A.), we have been elected to provide leadership...and
instructed to implement the decisions of our General Assembly.
Those decisions not only establish direction for the church's
mission at home and around the world, but also guide our witness
in society...We offer this word to our church and to our government
out of our concern for peace and on behalf of many church part-
ners around the world who are deeply concerned about our government's
new doctrine of pre-emptive military action and its impact on
the Iraqi people. Our message is grounded in the Scriptures,
our Confessions, and the actions of previous General Assemblies.
- We are called to "overcome evil with good" (Romans
12:21). The Bible is clear that God has created us all with
the potential to use our gifts for either good or evil..."All
have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans
3:23); therefore, no person or nation dare indulge in self-righteous
condemnation of others. If the leaders of Iraq, the U.S.,
and every nation would allocate their resources to the well-being
of their people and of the community of nations, rather than
to instruments of war, and would refrain from the withholding
of economic resources in ways that further damage those who
are already poor, God's vision of shalom/salaam/peace would
be nearer to reality for all.
- We are called by our Lord Jesus Christ to his ministry of
reconciliation. Our Confession of 1967 makes clear that this
is not simply about relationships among individuals, but has
practical meaning for relationships among nations.
In each time and place, there are particular problems and
crises through which God calls the church to act.…God's
reconciliation in Jesus Christ is the ground of the peace,
justice, and freedom among nations which all powers of government
are called to serve and defend. The church, in its own life,
is called to practice the forgiveness of enemies and to commend
to the nations as practical politics the search for cooperation
and peace. ...Reconciliation among nations becomes peculiarly
urgent as countries develop nuclear, chemical, and biological
weapons, diverting their manpower and resources from constructive
uses and risking the annihilation of mankind. Although nations
may serve God's purposes in history, the church which identifies
the sovereignty of any one nation or any one way of life with
the cause of God denies the Lordship of Christ and betrays
its calling. (Book of Confessions. 9.43 and 9.45)
- We are called to be peacemakers. Our General Assembly declares
that "the church's faithful obedience to its calling
means active participation in the formation of the values
and beliefs of our society; seeking peace in the personal
and social relationships of our culture and exercising our
citizenship in the body politic to shape foreign policy"
(Peacemaking: The Believers' Calling).
- We are called as Presbyterians to consider prayerfully the
policies of our General Assembly as a basis for our Christian
witness as U.S. citizens. Affirmations from recent General
Assemblies:
- The 2002 General Assembly: "Based on our PC(USA)'s
Commitment to Peacemaking, the 214th General Assembly
reaffirms actions of previous General Assemblies calling
for the lifting of economic sanctions; and urges the U.S.
government to exercise restraint in its contemplated military
action against Iraq."
- Two previous actions called for lifting economic sanctions,
taken by the General Assemblies in 1998 and 2000. These
actions included the following provisions:
ending all economic sanctions against Iraq that make it
difficult or impossible for essential items to reach the
people of Iraq. (The 212th General Assembly further called
"upon the United Nations to lift the sanctions immediately,
and upon the U.S. government to abandon its insistence
on continuing them.");
the maintaining of safeguards, such as military sanctions,
that are designed to prevent the government of Iraq from
acquiring or developing the means of mass destruction,
in such a manner as not to prevent the delivery of items
mentioned above;
comprehensive efforts by the U.N., the U.S., and the governments
of the Middle East to remove all weapons of mass destruction
from that region, as part of the worldwide effort to eliminate
such weapons and end their development;
the government of Iraq to redirect its resources from
developing and deploying instruments of destruction to
enterprises that will benefit the Iraqi people;
all parties involved to actively and wholeheartedly seek
a negotiated solution based on diplomacy and not violence,
peace and not war.
In light of the foregoing, and the guidance of our General
Assembly, the General Assembly Mission Council of the Presbyterian Church
(U.S.A.):
- Calls upon all Presbyterians to
- pray for the leaders of the U. S, Iraq, and the members
of the U.N., that they may receive the wisdom that leads
to peace, not war, and that results in renewed commitment
to use their great resources for alleviating poverty,
hunger, disease, and rebuilding the lives, communities,
and nations that already have been destroyed by war;
- pray that Saddam Hussein will cooperate fully as United
Nations weapons inspectors prepare to re-enter Iraq and
will stop the oppression of his own people and threats
of violence against neighboring states;
- pray for all who are fearful over the prospect of war,
especially the families of all who will be placed in harm
's way in the event of military action, whether covert
or in open warfare;
- pray for the Iraqi people who have been not only victimized
by a repressive government, but also devastated by more
than a decade of destructive and ineffectual economic
sanctions;
- urge restraint on the part of our own government by
communicating to each one's Congressional representatives
the policies of our General Assembly, and especially our
desire for negotiated solutions to international problems
rather than the resort to military violence.
- Calls upon our President, Vice-President, Secretary of State,
Secretary of Defense, National Security Advisor, Attorney
General, and Congressional leaders to:
- speak in ways that encourage peace, rather than war,
and refrain from language that seems to label certain
individuals and nations as "evil" and others
as "good;"
- oppose ethnic and religious stereotyping, affirming
the value of all U.S. citizens and others around the world
who embrace the visions of peace found in Islam and other
faith traditions;
- guard against a unilateralism, rooted in our unique
position of political, economic, and military power, that
perpetuates the perception that "might makes right,"
and sets us over against the larger community of nations;
- allow the decisions of the U.N. regarding the return
of weapons inspectors to Iraq to run their appropriate
course without undue pressure or threats of pre-emptive,
unilateral action in the meantime by the United States
against Saddam Hussein or Iraq;
- end the economic sanctions, which have been an ineffectual
weapon against Saddam Hussein but have done untold damage
to the Iraqi people, especially to the children.
- Commends to individuals and groups this call to prayer and
action and the resources on the PC(USA) Web site (www.pcusa.org)
as a help in determining how God is leading each to respond
to this international crisis.
-General Assembly Mission Council
September 28, 2002
|
|
