BYU NewsNet - Opposing Viewpoints: Multilateralism

College Republicans; the inefficiencies of multilateralism

By Mary Pemberton

History shows that multilateralism is an unstable and inefficient method on which a country should govern its domestic policies and international foreign relations. Unilateral US foreign policy methods have been popular since long before the Bush Administration. Simple history lessons on US-China relations and even the US in the Cold War indicate that safety and efficiency arise from unilateral foreign policies, not multilateral constraints. We live in a unipolar world. Should other countries have the veto power over our US foreign policy decisions?

Although liberal policy entrepreneurs will develop persuasive and enticing arguments for why being motivated by hope will eventually lead to cooperation on a global scale, the fact of the matter is that the global community competes and strives to survive within an anarchic structure. Government leaders have the duty to protect their citizens by striving to reach all means by which they can ensure the survival of their domestic territory and economy.

Indeed hope has a place for itself within such an unpredictable realm, but not when a nation's leaders are hard-pressed to make rational and realistic decisions. If multilateralism means sacrificing the best interests of a nation's citizens in order to submit to the communist balance-of-power structure, which being constrained by the inefficiency of timely decision making and monetary equality, one must ask what is in it for the wealthy nations to be part of such a structure.

When a country is dependent on another, or when a country agrees to operate based on interdependence, the security dilemma becomes increasingly apparent. When a country knows that a break from ties or an outbreak of a defiant rogue state against the agreements made within a multilateral system exists, it creates fear, skepticism and conflict. It is important to consider the consequences of the violence that such a security dilemma would cause.

There are things to be said for small, struggling and powerless countries to aim higher and to band together while developing themselves. The benefit for powerless countries to make decisions and act multilaterally is that they can gain support, and thus strength, through multiplying their voices and will. Dependency will pull a country down and bring them into vulnerability toward their neighbors and aggressors. The United States isn't in need of these benefits, because we have an agenda that can be unilaterally upheld by our own power and can be enacted by our own strength.

A nation's sovereignty hinges on its ability to operate independently when making decisions. Would it really be correct to cease foreign involvement, or halt from making decisions based on what we know is right, just because another country does not agree with our views? The United States, being the most powerful country in the world, cannot hold back because of the common consent constraints of multilateralism.

Many liberal supporters of multilateralism have mentioned the argument that conservative unilateralists think of nothing but themselves and their own self-interests. I might ask them, where in the equation did anyone say anything about self-interests? A parent, with the resources and experience to make intelligent decisions, will make a decision that seems unfair and even cruel in the eyes of their child, however all adults know that the parent made the right decision. I argue that when the US acts unilaterally, they are, by all means, going to take into consideration the needs, wants and feelings of other countries, and thus make an informed and strategically intelligent decision.

Unless we, as a nation, want to set the example of promoting multilateral chains that cease territorial alliances and capitalist competition and encourage the veto power by any opposing nation, then we must uphold our name and continue to operate unilaterally when we see fit. Bring injustice to a halt, stop aggressors when we can and realize that our intelligence, economic advantage, military strength and leaders' capabilities may forever be envied, but that does not mean we need to submit our power to the global common community. Distinct bodies, distant paths, unified goals.

College Democrats; Dreaming of diplomatic competency

By Steve Pierce

Only one week after voters across the country rose up and gave President-elect Barack Obama a mandate for change in Washington, new polls out this week further confirm the American people's distaste for George W. Bush's disastrous policies, both at home and abroad. A record-high 76 percent of respondents disapprove of the current president's abysmal job performance. While a hefty portion of the populace's disapproval results from Bush and his cronies' mangling of our economy, we should not understate the catastrophic mishandling of foreign affairs that will forever be his legacy. Make no mistake; when the American people elected Barack Obama as their 44th president by a landslide on Nov. 4, it was not only a repudiation of the Bush Administration's disastrous economic policies, but also its abject failure abroad.

For eight years George Bush abandoned our allies and isolated the United States from the international community. He started an ill-advised war with no international support aside from the United Kingdom and a couple of countries that exist only in the space between his ears. Against the wishes and without the support of our allies, he saber-rattled endlessly toward a seemingly infinite number of countries, further alienating them from the international community and obliterating any chance of diplomatic progress. In short, he decided to go it alone - and what a marvelous mess he made all by himself. If one lesson endures from the Bush presidency, it should be that unilateralism does not work. Perhaps it was all fine and dandy during the Cold War, when America could simply point its nuclear arsenal at any given country and effectively spook that nation into submission. However, in a 21st century world where it seems that even goat herders in Kenya possess high-tech weapons systems, such "macho man" scare tactics are no longer viable.

Gone are the days when the United States could ride willy-nilly into any country in the world, be hailed as liberators, get some good press and leave within a week. The world now requires a more systematic, multilateral approach. The Iraq debacle serves as the most glaring example of the failure of unilateralism. More than five years after the war's inception, our troops are still in harm's way. Our military is horribly overextended, with some soldiers on their third or fourth consecutive tour of duty, fighting the same battles every single day. Some of these men and women haven't seen their families in well over a year. Such circumstances beg the question: How could this have been handled differently?

Imagine a different scenario. Imagine an alternate universe where we didn't blow off the United Nations and where we allowed U.N. weapons inspectors the time necessary to do their job and discover that there really were no WMD in Iraq. Imagine a world where we took the time to listen to our allies instead of hastily rushing into war without a comprehensive plan, and where, if we ultimately do have to take military action, our troops are not forced to go it alone, but have the full support - both monetarily and militarily - of the international community behind them. In this wonderfully idealized alternate reality (where George Bush is almost certainly not president), the world is a safer, more rational place. No sabers are rattled unnecessarily, no guns jumped too quickly. Doesn't such a scenario sound preferable to the diplomatic disaster of the last eight years?

The saddest part is that this dream could have been a reality under another, more responsible president. Instead, we've had a commander-in-chief whose negligence and irrationality has desecrated America's international reputation and cost an untold number of lives. Thankfully, we now have a president-elect who understands what George Bush did not care to grasp. Barack Obama knows that real leadership on the world stage means listening to your friends, talking to your enemies and negotiating before haphazardly pulling the proverbial trigger. He realizes that only through multilateral diplomacy can we confront our most urgent problems: a nuclear Iran, a disintegrating Afghanistan, a genocide in Darfur. He has the knowledge and the temperament to lead America in a 21st century global community, and to maybe turn those dreams of diplomatic competency into reality.