Unilateralism vs. Multilateralism

President Bush's new strategic doctrine says that while the US will seek to enlist the support of the international community for its policies, America will not hesitate to act alone if necessary to exercise its right of self defense. Many of America's allies say that they resent the excessive unilateralism of the Bush Administration's foreign policy, but even President Clinton argued that America must be prepared to go it alone when no alternative exists. So the debate about unilateralism vs. multilateralism has been greatly oversimplified.

International rules bind the US and limit America's freedom of action, but they also serve American interests by binding others to observable rules and norms as well. Moreover, opportunities for foreigners to raise their voice and influence American policies constitute an important incentive for being part of an alliance with the US. America's membership in a web of multilateral institutions ranging from the UN to NATO may reduce US autonomy, but seen in the light of a constitutional bargain, the multilateral ingredient of America's current preeminence is a key to its longevity, because it reduces the incentives for constructing alliances against the US.

Multilateralism, however, is a matter of degree, and not all multilateral arrangements are good. Like other countries, US should occasionally use unilateral tactics. So how to choose when and where?

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

To read this article from our archive, please log in or register now. After entering your email, you'll have access to two free articles every month. For unlimited access to Project Syndicate, subscribe now.


By proceeding, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, which describes the personal data we collect and how we use it.

Log in


Cookies and Privacy

We use cookies to improve your experience on our website. To find out more, read our updated cookie policy and privacy policy.