A Feature of American Foreign Policy After the Cold War - Research Paper Example

 Part 1 Unilateralism is a foreign policy objective or strategy which entails individual action by one political actor. Unilateralism has been a foreign policy strategy in the United States since the election of George W. Bush in 2001 and represents unilateral political action on a variety of fronts. This type of foreign policy is contrasted with multilateralism, which means working in concert with others and establishing a consensus or agreement with other parties prior to undertaking political action. Unilateral intervention is intervention by one party against another or a league of others but importantly implies that there is one party “acting alone”. Thus, Israeli military incursions into the West Bank and Gaza Strip are unilateral military interventions by the state of Israel against the quasi or proto state encompassing the Palestinian Territories. It is important to keep in mind that the definition supplied for unilateral intervention is the traditional definition and definitions do evolve. Today in fact, military intervention is often described as unilateral if it does not first receive United Nations (UN) approval, thus internationalizing the intervention and making it multilateral. An excellent example of this new conception of “unilateral” intervention is the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, which occurred without UN approval but was undertaken by a coalition force led by the Americans and which included the United Kingdom, Australia, Poland and Denmark, amongst others. From a realist perspective, there are a variety of reasons as to why a state may engage in unilateral – as opposed to multilateral – action. First and foremost, unilateral interventions ensure that state behavior is less constrained. With unilateralism there is no need to reach out to partners or engage in bargaining or compromise. A unilateral actor behaves as he or she wishes and operates on his own terms. Unilateralism has increasingly become a feature of the international system and has been an active foreign policy objective of the United States since the election of George W. Bush. Although unilateralism has been a feature of American foreign policy for decades, this particular foreign policy strategy has been particularly tied to the Bush administration in the wake of 9/11. The joint invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan are perhaps the two most pronounced examples of unilateralism as an American foreign policy objective. Unilateralism is an interesting topic, especially since it is a rejection of years of multilateralism going back to the days of the Woodrow Wilson’s League of Nations, the successor to today’s United Nations. I would like to discover the instances of American unilateralism and explore why this particular foreign policy objective was used instead of pursuing multilateral action. I know that unilateralism is often quite unpopular and that the United States has engaged in unilateral action with increasing frequency since the attacks of 9/11. This paper will seek to explore concrete instances of US unilateral action and explain how this became a feature of American foreign policy after the Cold War. Part 2 American unilateralism and the international order The world forever changed the morning of September 11th 2001. The attacks on the World Center represented the most serious terrorist acts ever carried out on US soil. A watershed moment in world history, that fateful morning will forever be engrained in the American national psyche. From a political, social and economic perspective, the hijackings of 9/11 were unparalleled in scope and sheer devastation. In a fascinating article entitled “Measuring the Effects of the September 11 Attack on New York City”, it was estimated that the direct cost of the attack stood at between $33 billion and $36 billion to the city of New York (Bram et al 2005). In addition to the direct economic costs associated with terrorism and the threat of further terrorism, 9/11 also had important political ramifications. Importantly, political scientists have been wracking their brains trying to make sense the horrific violence undertaken the morning of 9/11 and further violence inspired by global jihadists bent on taking over the world. Psychologists sought to explore the psychological factors leading people to kill in the name of Allah, domestic-level theorists explored the domestic antecedents to terror including extreme poverty, a lack of education and political repression. System-level theorists however were at a loss to explain the attacks of September 11th and the ensuing War on Terror. The War on Terror represents a total American foreign policy shift which advocates the concept of unilateralism and unilateral military action in the face of a global terrorist threat. Seeking to address this dramatic change in US foreign policy, this essay asks the following questions: How has the international order changed in the face of US unilateralism and what are the global ramifications of this new foreign policy? Can international relations theory explain the War on Terror? If so, which explanatory theory best explains American unilateralism and the New World Order? Since unilateralism is integral to understanding the present international order, this essay will begin by defining the term unilateralism and explore how unilateralism became a principle foreign policy objective for the United States. We will argue that realism, as an explanatory theory of international relations, is the theory most applicable to the present international order. Realism, with its emphasis on state interest and behavior, best explains the present international order in which the world’s dominant power expresses its foreign policy objectives through unilateral action. Following an account of American unilateralism and its roots in realist political doctrine and the War on Terror, this essay will explore the impact of this policy shift on the international world order. Unilateralism as a Foreign Policy Objective American unilateralism has been both an explicit and implicit policy of the present Bush Administration since the aftermath of September 11th 2001. Although the United States has historically been committed to multilateralism, collective decision-making and international rules of law, in recent times the United States has rejected foreign policy precedent and has engaged in direct military action on a unilateral basis. Former US President Woodrow Wilson espoused multilateralism as a cure to the world’s ills and believed that concerted diplomacy, best channeled through international non-governmental organizations like the League of Nations (the precursor to today’s United Nations), was the best way to avoid international conflict and violence. Collective bargaining and international coordination in global affairs has a long and storied tradition in the United States. Arguing that the rules of the game had changed in the post-Cold War and post-9/11 world, George W. Bush’s famously remarked that “you are either with us or against us” and set the stage for American unilateralism on a global scale (Skidmore 2005). Described as part of the Bush Doctrine, this set of beliefs about the international order and world affairs paved the way for the application of unilateral military action as an important tenant of American foreign policy. A neoconservative worldview was espoused in the early years of the Bush Administration and the Bush Doctrine advocates unilateral action on the diplomatic front and justifies for preemptive war to safeguard US interests abroad. As the word implies, unilateralism allows the United States to act unilaterally in the sphere of foreign policy and diplomacy. Without a need for negotiation, consensus building or collective bargaining, the proponents of a unilateral agenda argue that the United States is less constrained in the exercise of foreign policy when it does not have to act in concert with partners. Unilateral military action has been justified in the wake of the attacks of September 11th and the most obvious case of this unilateralism was the decision by the United States to invade Iraq in 2003 after UN Security Council approval – a traditional international “seal of approval” for military action – was denied. In addition to this most obvious case scholars have traced a unilateral streak in American foreign policy since the early days of the Bush Administration when the United States butted heads with its traditional European allies on the issue of Anti-Ballistic Missile Defence and the decision to ignore the Kyoto Protocol on climate change. Now that we have established that unilateralism has been a central policy objective of the United States for almost a decade, what is the theoretical basis for this controversial policy shift can and what have been the implications for the international order? (Skidmore 2005) Realism and the Emergence of US Unilateralism Realists argue that states exist within an anarchic geopolitical framework and this framework is an inherent component of international relations. In fact, for realists the desire to maximize state interest within a situation of global anarchy is the most crucial component required in the understanding of political actors and state behavior. Proponents of the Bush Doctrine argue that the anarchic nature of the international order, exacerbated since 9/11 and the War on Terror, promotes unilateral action on a global scale. The result of aggressive American unilateralism is an entrenchment of hegemony and of the unipolar system. Accordingly, since realism can account for the changing face of the international order, it is the best system-level theory to understand American unilateralism, the global War on Terror and the New World Order. First and foremost for realist, states operate within an anarchic international environment. The international system is inherently unstable and is aptly characterized by widespread anarchy. Due to the absence of a suprastate or overarching Leviathan authority, realism argues that states are placed in inevitable and perpetual competition, described as the security dilemma. Because of the anarchic nature of international affairs, state actors are perpetually concerned with their survival. For realists, the international system is a “dog-eat-dog world” and ensuring survival is paramount for any and all states. According to Hans Morgenthau, pioneering German political scientist and an early proponent of realist thought, due to the inherent instability of the international system, the fundamental national interest of all states is to “protect [its] physical, political, and cultural identity against encroachments by other nations” (Morgenthau 1951). This anarchic environment is particularly relevant to understanding system-level analyses of a world order in which the United States, as global hegemon, acts to safeguard its interests in the face of global terror. The structure of the system – the distribution of power and capabilities state wide - is important because threats or challenges facing a state which affront the national interest should be “calculated according to the situation in which the state finds itself”(Waltz 1979). Thus, power and security requirements are paramount in attempting to define state interest and what motivates states to act. Today, states face a variety of challenges from non-state actors such as Hamas (Isreal/Palestine), Hezbollah (Lebanon), Al Qaeda (Global), ETA (Spain), the PKK (Turkey) or any host of other clandestine sub-state actors. While the challengers facing states may have changed since the days of Morgenthau, the fundamental anarchic conditions he describes have not. Since we have established that the international order is one in which anarchy reigns supreme – an apt characterization of the world order in which terrorism reigns supreme – how does unilateral action safeguard the interests of the world’s hegemonic state? (Waltz 1979). Structural realism is an important theory of international relations best articulated by Waltz in his Theory of International Politics. As a systemic approach to the study of state behavior, structural realism places emphasis on the structure of the international system – note that structure can be present under a system of anarchy – and this structure constrains overall state behavior. Accordingly, neorealists – as structural realists are often called – assert that the international order is characterized by its primary ordering principle, anarchy. Anarchy within the international system is directly caused by the fact that there is no central, overarching or omnipotent authority within the international system. Unlike domestic level analyses which view the state as the actor who is responsible for maintaining order and using a Weberian term enjoys a monopoly on the legitimate use of force, the international system is most aptly characterized by the lack of a central authority. The result is chaos within the international system. Accordingly, there are three elements of structural realism which define this theoretical paradigm as an extension of the realist tradition. First and foremost is the continued primacy of the political sphere; by this what is meant is the anarchic political structure of the international system. Accordingly, the anarchic nature of the international system for realists and structural realists alike is a necessary attribute of the world order. The second defining feature of structural realism is the belief that the state is the defining feature of the international system and the focus on the state as the most important actor in the international order. Power as an inherent attribute and goal of all states is an intrinsic component of this second feature of structural realism. This state-centric feature of structural realism which will need to evolve in the post-9/11 period. Since sub-state actors have gained more prominence in the international area through terror and terrorist acts, this aspect of realist doctrine will need to evolve. Finally, the third element is the acceptance of Waltz’s basic framework for the structure of the international system Additionally, structural change affects the behavior of states and the outcomes their interactions produce. It does not break the essential continuity of international politics. The transformation of international politics alone could do that. Transformation, however, awaits the day when the international system is no longer populated by states that have to help themselves. If the day were here, one would be able to say who could be relied on to help the disadvantaged or endangered. Instead, the ominous shadow of the future continues to cast its pall over interacting states. States’ perennial uncertainty about their fates presses governments to prefer relative over absolute gains (Waltz 1979). To conceive of international politics as a Hobbesian state of nature means not that warfare is constant, but only that it is always a possibility and that actors understand this. Although the anticipation of conflict may make it more likely, it can also lead actors to take measures to reduce the danger. The War on Terror can thus be justified as an attempt by states to pre-empt sub-state threats which have been caused by the existing anarchic international environment. Unilateralism then is a rational response to perceived threat in an anarchic and terror-filled world (see Waltz 1979). Unilateralism and Hegemony after the Cold War As the world’s hegemonic power, the United States has, in the Cold War period, resorted to unilateralism and expansive military might. A systemic level response to unilateralism has been a variety of soft-power strategies by second tier major powers (France, Germany and India) to counter the influence of the United States while not harming their economic ties with the world’s dominant economic and military power. Thus although balance of power theory has traditionally focused upon the military dimension of balancing and the Cold War remains perhaps the most poignant example of this theoretical paradigm, in a unipolar world dominated by the United States, second tier powers within the international system has used soft-power balancing strategies to restrain the global hegemon. An excellent example of this phenomenon was the united opposition of France, Germany and Russia to the United States-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. The international order, after the fall of the Soviet Union, is characterized by unipolarity with the United States alone at the helm of the current international order. Despite this profound change within the system, the system itself, according to structural realists, has not been transformed. Transformative of the system may occur one day, Waltz argues, but not until states become motivated by things other than self-interest and if anarchy no longer exemplified the condition of the international order. That is not the case and “until and unless a transformation occurs, [realism] remains the basic theory of international politics” (Waltz 1979; Sheetz 1978). Concluding Remarks Unilateral action on the political front has been a foreign policy objective of the United States under the stewardship of George W. Bush. Unilateralism explains the American decision to abrogated the Anit-Ballistic Missile Defence shield, the decision to ignore the Kyoto Accord and finally, the decision to invade Iraq in 2003. As an explanatory paradigm, Hegemonic Stability Theory, argues that a hegemon or superpower is necessary for the smooth functioning of the international system (the system can be economic or political). A hegemon is described as a superpower and has a preponderance of power in the military, economic and sometimes social spheres. According to neorealists, a hegemonic power shapes the system in its interests and maintains the system through coercion. Coercion today is expressed through unilateralism and unilateral military action by the United States. Why unilateralism? In a unipolar world, the hegemonic power must maintain its position of prominence in the international system. Unilateralism is how that goal is accomplished. Structural analyses have thus provided excellent insight into the functioning of the international order. American global hegemony has been reasserted through unilateral – as opposed to bilateral – action and according to realist doctrine, the United States is reaffirming its role as the global hegemonic power, thus contributing to overall system stability. According to this line of thought, the international order is maintained and promoted through the aggressive interest-affirming behaviour of the global hegemon. Although realists will one day have to move away from their state-centric approach to the international order, their focus on anarchy as a defining feature of the international system and power and security as primary motivations for state behavior make realism the most relevant theory of international relations in the post-9/11 unilateral world. REFERENCES Bergesen, A.J. and O. Lizardo. (2004). ‘International Terrorism and the World-System.’ Sociological Theory, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 38-52. Bloom, M. (2005). Dying to Kill: The Allure of Suicide Terror. New York: Columbia University Press, Bram, J., Orr, J. and Rapaport, C. (2005). ‘Measuring the Effects of the September 11 Attack on New York City.’ Economic Policy Review vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 44-69. Buzan, B. et al. (1993). The Logic of Anarchy: Neorealism to Structural Realism. , New York: Columbia University Press. Hellmann, G & Wolf, R (1993). ‘Neorealism, Neoliberal Institutionalism, and the Future of NATO’ Security Studies, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 2-43. Jervis, R. (2005). ‘Realism in the Study of World Politics’. International Organization, vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 971-991. Keohane, R.O. (1989). International Institutions and State Power: Essays in International Relations. Boulder: Westview. Paul, T.V. (2005). ‘Soft Balancing in the Age of U.S. Primacy’ International Security, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 5-41. Morgenthau, H. (1951). In Defense of the National Interest. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Morgenthau, H. (1948). Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Sheetz, M.S. (1998). ‘Correspondence: Debating the Unipolar Moment.’ International Security, vol. 22, no. 3, pp.168-174. Skidmore, D. (2005). ‘Understanding the Unilateralist Turn in U.S. Foreign Policy.’ Foreign Policy Analysis vol. 1, no. 2, 207-288. Waltz, K. (1979). Theory of International Politics. New York: McGraw-Hill. Waltz, K. (2000). ‘Structural Realism after the Cold War’ International Security, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 5-41; Weldes, J. (1991). Constructing National Interests: The United States and the Cuban Missile Crisis. University of Minnesota Press: Minneapolis. Read More