Soft Power and US Foreign Policy - Research Paper Example

Here Should the U.S. emphasize multilateral over unilateral initiatives in foreign policy? PRO: Yes, the U.S. should emphasize multilateral over unilateral initiatives because… 1. Multilateral cooperation help build good standing in international arena by improving the American image and reassuring other states about its behavior and goals. It is crucial as a confidence-building measure. 2. The country can achieve more in its foreign policy by ensuring more cooperative states such as in the area of economic and security/defense. 3. Multilateral policies assume the mantle of legitimacy since they have international support, hence, strengthening foreign policy. 4. Many important international institutions require multilateral cooperation. 5. Multilateral initiatives allows for more alliances. CONS: No, the U.S. should NOT emphasize multilateral over unilateral initiatives in foreign policy. 1. The U.S. may have a disadvantage in multilateral negotiations because some countries outstrip the American influence in many consensus-oriented fora such as the ASEAN, Asean Regional Forum and APEC. 2. Some of the benefits of multilateralism can be achieved in through other strategies such as bilateral agreements, which sometimes could be more forceful and effective. 3. It is less decisive in addressing immediate threats or issues that need immediate attention. The dominant opinion domestically and internationally is that the United States is better off pursuing a multilateral approach to its foreign policy instead of unilateralism. This is exactly what is being pursued by the current Obama administration. For example, in the current civil war happening in Libya, the US is working with the North Atlantic Territory Organization (NATO) and the Arab League in order to best solve the crisis. When several airstrikes were finally launched against Moammar Gaddhafi’s military installations, they were done within the auspices of NATO and were explicitly projected as international efforts with the French or the British, possibly taking the lead. American policymakers are careful to avoid the failures of the previous administrations in its foreign policies, particularly that which concerned the unilateral invasion of Iraq, including the policies that came to constitute the American War on Terror. The confidence-building capability of multilateral initiatives has been demonstrated by Japan – a state now held in high esteem by most of Asia – after its much derided status during the Second World War. Through its strategy, it was able to achieve a kind of diplomatic influence that sometimes surpasses that of the US. For example, through the years, Japan has cultivated strong economic relationships with member countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nation (ASEAN). Multilateralism’s benefit for Japan is quite clear. Today, the country has two major East Asian multilateral foreign and security policy options: the first is the ASEAN/ARF structure, which are now consisted of most of the states in Southeast Asia, South Asia and East Asia.1 Then, there was also the case of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which the first Bush administration encouraged and ratified under President Clinton’s watch. This initiative to engage Latin America, wrote Horwitz, helped redirect the foreign policies of thirty-four Western Hemisphere states in favor of closer political and economic ties.2 This engagement also facilitated the pursuit of common goals that led to the solution of common problems such as illegal drugs and immigration. Engaging other states and international institutions makes an initiative legitimate or, at least, provide a semblance of it that might otherwise be perceived as narrow political/military/economic interests of the US. According to Parmar, the popular critique against the recent Bush administration was that it had alienated the world by “by-passing international institutions, flouting international law and norms, and disregarding the interests and opinion of states.3 Anjali emphasized that the War on Terror has proven the importance of multilateralism because although the decisive battles in Iraq were largely the product of unilateral US military power, much of the success that has been achieved was through broad multilateral cooperation on a number of lower profile fronts such as intelligence sharing and economic sanction.4 The current administration is promising to repair the damage done by stating that the US would lead in the global arena but at the same listen to other states, highlighting “global solutions” to issues and problems as well as in advancing the American interest.5 Many important world organizations are also multilateral in character – the United Nations, the World Trade Organizations and NATO, among others. With globalization, the significance is magnified a hundredfold. This is demonstrated in the way China is fast catching up with the US by cultivating multilateral relationships with many states, earning several technological, economic and political advantages in the process. If the United States loses ground in this arena, it will risk being isolated, with states ganging up on America in trade, politics, defense, and a number of other areas. The previous argument underpins the last argument that highlights how multilateralism encourages more and stronger alliances. The fact that three or more states are included in multilateral negotiations, they encourage the reinforcement of relationship among the member states. Tien and Cheng expressed this particular importance militarily when they said, “multilateral security mechanism provide additional opportunities for cooperation and constructive dialogue.”6 Meanwhile, there are also those in policy circles that downplay the importance of multilateral initiatives in achieving foreign policy objectives. One of the reasons cited is that the U.S. maybe is at a disadvantage in this area. Japan is a case in point. The country has long thrived in consensus-oriented fora due to the Japanese financial dues and aid to many countries and even to world bodies such as the UN. According to Green, Japan’s tactical attention to this strategy allowed itself to exert influence, with the economic-driven influence combined with the web of contacts and consultations that the army of Japanese diplomats, politicians, business envoys and scholars have established through the years.7 Then, there is also the point raised in some sectors that bilateral agreements can be more effective than multilateral initiatives. For example, there is the case about the difficulty in ensuring international cooperation, wherein some countries can just free-ride on the agreement or violate the terms easily. According to Naya et al., bilateral agreements are better because it eliminates free-rider behavior; disputes can be resolved without disrupting the entire fabric of international relations; that they provide faster adjudication; and, allow parties to focus on a wide array of issues specific to the relationship as opposed to multilateral agreements that tend to be limited in dimension and have very little teeth.8 Finally, there is also the argument being raised with regards to the foot-dragging that often occurs in multilateral initiatives. Excellent examples in this regard are international agencies that, by their very nature, rely on persuasion and consensus-building.9 The time-consuming process is supposedly enough to justify why multilateralism is not always the more effective strategy especially when the need for swift and decisive action is called for, such as in responding to terrorist threats. As this paper has outlined, the benefits of multilateral initiatives far outweigh the advantages offered by unilateralism. After the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the U.S. we already have experienced pursuing a foreign policy that preferred the latter strategy. The result, however, was close to being a disaster. The American image and standing in the global stage have been damaged significantly. With this in mind, it has become imperative for the U.S. to engage other countries in its foreign policy strategy. There is a need for confidence building and more subtle ways to advance our interests than just exclusively flexing our muscles, which unfortunately alienated us from the rest of the world just recently. References Anjali, Ghosh. India’s Foreign Policy. New Delhi: Pearson Education India, 2009. Cooney, Kevin. Japan's foreign policy since 1945. New York: M.E. Sharpe, 2007. Falco, Mathea. Rethinking international drug control: new directions for U.S. policy : report of an Independent Task Force. Washington, DC: Council on Foreign Relations, 1997. Green, Michael. Japan's reluctant realism: foreign policy challenges in an era of uncertain power. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003. Horwitz, Betty. The Transformation of the Organization of American States: A Multilateral Framework for Regional Governance. London: Anthem Press, 2010. Naya, Seiji, Sandhu, Kernial, Plummer, Michael and Akrasanee, Narongchai. ASEAN-U.S. initiative: assessment and recommendations for improved economic relations: joint final report. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 1989. Parmar, Inderjeet. Soft power and US foreign policy: theoretical, historical and contemporary perspectives. New York: Taylor & Francis, 2010. Tien, Hung-mao and Cheng, Tun-jen. The security environment in the Asia-Pacific. New York: M.E. Sharpe, 2000. Notes Read More