Summary
Unilateralism versus Multilateralism. As Stewart (2018) points out in Chapter 1 of his book "The Sovereignty Wars: Reconciling America with the World," this is a long-standing debate in the field of International Relations. This debate has been crucial in the practical analysis of the international system's order. Stewart reverts back to the end of the Great War, citing the Lodge-Lowell debate regarding the impact on national sovereignty of the United States' participation, or lack thereof, in the League of Nations. This is to emphasize that 100 years later, the international system finds itself immersed in the same debate.
Following the end of the Cold War and as a consequence of globalization, the actors in the international system have diversified. NGOs have gained undeniable importance, and cooperation and multilateralism have been the primary mechanisms employed to address the new threats and challenges facing the international system. However, now more than ever, the question remains: What about national sovereignty? This question lies at the heart of this debate, as the sovereignty of states is a factor that governments must consider when signing a new agreement, joining a new NGO through the signing of a new pact, or simply ratifying a new treaty. This is because acting multilaterally implies working for joint interests rather than individual ones.
Burns (2018) and Daalder (2018), like Stewart (2018), argue how the administration of former U.S. President Donald Trump leaned towards unilateralism, "preserving" national sovereignty above the balance and order of the international system. Ultimately undermining the established order following the end of the Cold War while leading the other States to question the hegemonic role of the United States. These scholars point out how the former president reduced the influence of the United States on the international stage by underestimating its role in the system, and how his lack of strategy and knowledge led to a foreign policy based on "absolute gains." The Trump administration suggested a return to the pre-war dynamics, where power competition determined interstate relations and the order of the international system.
There were numerous misguided decisions that the former president made regarding his foreign policy. Those decisions were not only misguided in the sense that they disrupted existing multilateral and cooperative dynamics but also in the sense that they did not yield the desired results for the president. The immediate impact of these decisions was substantial, but the long-term impact they may have is the most alarming scenario.
Trump pressured his allies in Western Europe, imposed economic sanctions on them, withdrew from the Paris Climate Agreements, withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal, ended participation in the TPP, and even initiated the withdrawal of the United States from the World Health Organization amid a pandemic. As an immediate consequence in economic matters, his policies created an opportunity for China to assume a more significant role on the international stage. His withdrawal and isolationist tendencies provided an opportunity for the strengthening of Russia, and given the threat this posed, his allies found themselves in need of seeking new opportunities for cooperation. The long-term impact outlines a scenario where multilateralism is threatened.
Considering that international cooperation and the functioning of multilateral mechanisms are based on the good faith of states, what confidence can be placed in an order and a system where the hegemonic state refuses to cooperate?
Unilateralism versus Multilateralism
One reply on “Week #2 / Maria Rojas”
Maria,
You’ve essentially written the gist of my lecture for this week’s class in y our blog post! To be serious, you have done an excellent job stating the fundamental dilemma posed by unilateral vs. multilateral action. The international system that evolved after the Second World War was largely one crafted by the U.S., and it was based on the United States demonstrating, by example, the benefits of sacrificing some degree of sovereignty in favor of a rules-based international order.
But the former president, who is poorly educated, intellectually in-curious, and largely ignorant of history or U.S. foreign policy, saw everything as a zero sum game–i.e., I win, you lose. But we know that that is rarely, if ever, a recipe for success in international affairs. President Biden has spent the last 2 1/2 years trying to repair the damage done to a wide range of bilateral relationships and to multilateral organizations and agreements. There is much work left to do… –Professor Wallerstein