Threats of the US Unilateralism on the Rule of International law - Essay Example

Introduction The consistent unilateral stances on the part of the United s ever since the 9/11 attacks and even before the event proved to world that the country wishes to achieve its goals whether or not the international law or even its allies endorse it. Not only that the country has been promoting a sense of unilateralism and destroying the existing chains of Multilateralism, but also been debilitating the position of various organisations such as the United Nations and NATO. This raises particular concerns as to what would be consequences of such US actions on the international rule of law. This paper penetrates into the bounds of unilateralism that the US has been persistently demonstrating to the international organisations as well as to the rest of the world, in particular after the September 11 attacks. It also discusses the impact it has had on the stability of global order and the international rule of law. Threats of the US Unilateralism on the Rule of International law United States, being the strongest country in the world with all the necessary strength to proceed with any activity that it desires, has for the most part taken the course of unilateralism in its actions. The sort of individualism that the US has been seeking does not go beyond the alliances that it shares with other countries, but also deviates from the laws and norms that are accepted internationally. There happen to be several laws enacted internationally restricting countries to take action that threatens, by any way, the world stability and global order. When it comes to military action against any country, these laws tend to be very strict. Countries are not allowed to despoil or threaten to despoil the sovereignty of others without any legitimate reason. The stance of United Nations and Security Council in particular happens to be very critical in this regard, yet the history reveals that United States pays no or negligible heed to what the UN deems peaceful and violent. The US unilateralism happens to be unique in its kind. It is not to state that America does not refer to the opinions of its allies and international laws in the pursuit of its actions but it is true that it never expects a 'no' from them. As long as all or any of the international agencies are willing to cooperate with the US motives their views are welcomed, but it does not allow anyone to object or go against what the US desires. America always looks up to its allies and international organisations for their support rather than their criticism on its actions. Panich (2003, p238) says that that the notion of " 'With us or against us', is explicitly intended to allow for maximum unilateralism of strategic and tactical military action by the imperial state itself". When it comes to what it deems necessary for its national interest or for global 'peace', the United States considers itself as always right, thus eliminating the importance of anyone else's views. The US has occasionally shown disregard for what the other members of NATO consider about its global strategies. The NATO, albeit based on an alliance between the US and Europe, also seems today as the US-only organisation. The Europe having no say in US global security agenda also perceives the American commitment to European security with scepticism. Kagan (2004, p67) illuminates that "during the Cold War, the United States would calculate how its actions would affect Europe's security. Today it need not worry as much". What the US did in Iraq without the NATO's support simply affirms that although the country sought European support but never did it respond to European concerns on the matter. The strength that the US has mustered in the Post Cold War period allows it to pursue its international goals without giving due consideration to what the other powers including the United Nations, believe. The US goes beyond breaking the international rules and none of the organisations has any power to stop it. Hendrickson (2002, p40) says that "its larger message, however, is dictatorial in tone: If you want to support us, fine. If not, we intend to proceed as planned". The international laws and alliances also seemed to be helpless with regard to US military actions in Iraq. This unilateralism is considered to have provoked in the wake of the terrorist attacks on the United States. The country waged a war on terrorism on any country that showed any signs of antagonism against the US. The targets were obviously the political unstable countries with no power to defend against the United States. McCormick (2005, p200) states that "the Bush doctrine represents an aggressive revival of the principles of American exceptionalism, and much of the rhetoric emanating from Washington DC particularly since the terrorist attacks of September 2001". It started with Afghanistan and reached Iraq. The US military action on Afghanistan was nonetheless supported by its allies as well as international law enforcing agencies, but the Iraq invasion was certainly not. This is what signifies the country's unilateralism, i.e., the US proceeded with the war when the international rule of law supported it and did the same even when the law condemned it. The US consistently displayed the traits of unilateralism even before the terrorists attacked the World Trade Centre. The Clinton administration, although not strongly, pursued the American hegemonic goals without consulting the international institutions. Kagan (2004, p69) strongly argues that "in 1994, for example, the Clinton administration sent troops to Haiti without the Security Council's authorization, which came only after the fact. In 1998, it bombed Iraq in Operation Desert Fox over the strong objections France and Russia expressed before the Security Council". These all events suggest that Bush administration should not be blamed solely for its unilateralist actions, it is rather the American power that drives any leadership to go beyond the boundaries of laws. Chace (2003, p2) also argues that "Americans have never shied away from using force unilaterally, either in defense of their own borders or on behalf of foreign regimes whose security Washington viewed as vital". This is truly evident in the foreign affairs in the light of history. The wars that the America has fought until now and the military stances it has taken against other countries in the world, only reflect that the United States always remains ready to achieve its goals either multilaterally or unilaterally. This what strongly reflected in the post 9/11 foreign policy of the United States; go to any extent to protect American interests even if the world objects to it, by claiming it to be on the way of global security. This unilateralism on the part of the United States is in itself dangerous for the global order. McCormick (2005, p202) refers to the scope of US unilateralism as "bypassing international organizations, and mainly ignoring the opinions of the European Union, the United Nations, or NATO". In this way, the organisations and institutions that were meant to promote global peace, security and legitimacy have consistently been rendered fragile by the United States. The most interesting part of all this is that it was United States who happened to be behind the formation of these law enforcing organisations and now it happens to be the one debilitating its legitimacy. Kagan (2004, p71) puts forward that "despite its role in helping to create the UN and draft the UN Charter, the United States has never fully accepted the organization's legitimacy or the charter's doctrine of sovereign equality". The country that supported the UN to proliferate global peace and security, itself gets forward paying no heed to the UN laws. The message it plausibly gives to other countries is that these institutions are meant to reinforce the American security, rather than that of the world. The world order that has been shaped by the United States based on power rather than legitimacy poses significant threats to the international rule of law. Not only that it has put to question the potency of these international security organisations, but also paving way for other countries to refuse to obey them. This also strengthens the view that the UN is so hypocrite that if countries other than the US pursue such illegitimate activities are openly punished, but when US performs such acts, it remains strangely silent. Hendrickson (2002, p35) mentions that, "the new outlook sees the United States as possessing a blank check to use at will in addressing the perceived exigencies of the national interest and international security". The international law finds itself weak against the US unilateralism because the country tends to be the greatest supplier of funds to these institutions. When the United States ever considers it necessary to consult the UN concerning a potential military or economic action against any country, it knows how to either convince the UN leaders or refuse their opinion. When American decided to wage a war against the Afghanistan, it made clear to the United Nations that it wanted to take the actions regardless of what UN desires. Hendrickson (2002, p36) also argues that "even when the Bush administration makes an approach to international institutions, as it did in its September 2002 demands on the U.N. Security Council, it does so with the explicit reservation that it intends to pursue its chosen course". That 'chosen course' obviously had been the unilateral decision on the part of America to pursue military actions to secure its boundaries. The United States further debilitated the international laws when it mistreated the prisoners of war in Iraq. The evidences of US ruthlessness in the Guantanamo Bay prison shocked the whole world. The problem was that when the most powerful country who has to be an ideal to the world performs such an action, there could be no way by which a peaceful international order could be promoted. McCormick (2005, p205) elaborates that, "... questions were raised over the decision of the Bush administration to hold hundreds of accused terrorists at Guantanamo Bay, without access to lawyers and without charge". These acts were even strongly opposed in the US closest ally, the Great Britain. Such actions on the part of the United States seriously threaten to violate the international order and stability. Kagan (2004, p70) also says that "by invading Iraq without the Security Council's approval, the United States has torn the fabric of the international order". It is so because the US has shown no concern or respect to the United Nations' decree as to the legitimacy of the war. Moreover neither did the European Union nor the NATO approve the war. Hence, the country is intentionally or unintentionally destroying the world order that was based upon Multilateralism, collaboration and commitment to global security. This is likely to create an atmosphere in which the existing ties between several countries might break in view of the US expectations towards its allies. The country has established an approach that tests the allies' commitment only on the basis of their support to the US ambitions. The growing aggression in Europe and other parts of the world concerning the US unilateral actions strengthens the threat that the current situation might lead to consequences detrimental to international rule of law. Hendrickson (2002, p36) propounds that "the new course in Washington raises disturbing questions about the kind of international order-or disorder-the world will experience in the coming years". Conclusion Ever since the 9/11 attacks on the WTC, the United States has been pursuing its global security agenda through military actions even when it confronted with strong opposition from the United Nations and also from NATO. Although the traits of unilateralism had been present in US action even before the 9/11 attacks as displayed in Haiti in 1994, the country's drive to exceptionalism became much evident after the event. It therefore lies in the roots of American power that crusades for the accomplishment of its goals whether or not other support it. The unilateral acts on the part of US are likely to have dire consequences for the persistence of international rule of law. The contempt of UN and NATO's view, the stance of going against the international laws of war in Guantanamo Bay and the persistent unilateralism in the US actions are provoking an uncertain situation for the continuation of global security and stability. It might also lead to a decline in the acceptance of UN and the international laws that were once devised to promote security on a global level. In this way, the American actions in the name of global order, would very likely result in a highly evident global disorder in the near future. References Chace, James 'Present at the Destruction: The Death of American Internationalism', World Policy Journal, Spring 2003, pp. 1-5 Hendrickson, David C. 'Imperialism Versus Internationalism: The United States and World Order,' Gaiko Forum, 2(3), Fall 2002, pp. 35-42 Jervis, Robert 'Why the Bush Doctrine Cannot Be Sustained', Political Science Quarterly, 120(3), 2005, pp. 351-377 Kagan, Robert 'America's Crisis of Legitimacy', Foreign Affairs, 83(2), March/April 2004, pp. 65-87 McCormick, John 'American Exceptionalism; The Implications For Europe', Journal of Transatlantic Studies, 3(2), 2005, pp. 199-215 Panich, Leo 'September 11 And The American Empire', Interventions, 5(2), 2003, pp. 233-240 Read More