|
April 1, 2004
This is an interesting paper. It is by Lisa Martin and it is on multilateralism. She says:
"I begin by examining the concept of multilateralism, both in theory and in history. I then turn to an analysis of multilateralism, asking why the United States turned to multilateralism after World War II and evaluating its payoffs. The final section applies the insights developed in the rest of the paper to the future of multilateral organizations. It concludes that the current policy of “ad hoc multilateralism,” or turning to multilateral organizations opportunistically, fundamentally misunderstands the nature and motivation for multilateralism. Such a policy is therefore likely to fail, leaving the United States with a stark choice between expensive unilateralism and needing to rebuild its reputation as a reliable participant in multilateral endeavors."
She argues that :
"Multilateralism is remarkable in that it does not give a privileged position to the hegemon. If generalized operating principles are put into place, the hegemon is subject to the same rules as others. As noted above, multilateral principles were not respected fully. Yet it is striking that this immensely powerful state championed principles and norms that served to bind itself; it created institutions that were premised on the notion that even the United States would play by the rules it asked others to accept."
This is what the Bush Administration in the US has rejected. So has the Howard Government in Australia.
The rules of multilateralsim implied some notion of moral obligation and duty.
|
RE:The rules of multilateralism implied some notion of moral obligation and duty.
That's absolutely right, they implied notions of moral obligation and duty. And, as such, were really propaganda coups for the West in its struggle against World Communism. Because, contrary to all of its high-falutin' rhetoric about scientific socialism, Marxism-Leninism proved to be the coldest of all of the cold monsters -- ruthless and amoral, and beholden to no obligation or duty, other than its own fulfillment in worldwide revolution.
Multilateralism -- as something other than just the diffusion of costs and resources in international affairs -- always was, and will remain, a means serving a political end. And yes, what is notable is that the means bore within it a moral obligation, serving a moral end. How very Kantian.
But, the idea that America, an "immensely powerful state championed principles and norms that served to bind itself" is wool-headed and disingenuous.
America, in its pursuit of the Cold War, routinely flouted these very principles and norms, and the multilateral institution's wishes when they got in the way. When Allende, Sihanouk, Mossadegh, Diem, Arbanez, and yes, even Whitlam, did not follow the whims of Washington, the CIA promptly stepped in.
Moreover, the United States has shown a consistent policy vis-a-vis the International Court of Justice, utilizing their judgments when convenient, and ignoring them when inconvenient. One need only look to the mining of Nicaraguan harbors for a perfect example of this behavior.
Perhaps, both the Bush and Howard administrations have rejected the institutions that were premised on the notion that the US would play fair, even if other's didn't, and that this is somehow an abdication of moral obligation and duty. Perhaps.
But what is a greater abdication of morality than to reject something that is inconvenient honestly, is to lie, and give lip service to the promise of a rational humanity, while pursuing a self-serving, self-aggrandizing national agenda.
Even if one were to rationalize that the latter form of agenda, permeated by dishonesty, were somehow the path to a wonderful world of peace and prosperity, the unavoidable fact that it is accomplished with recourse to lies and untruths, precludes any kind of future based on morality or its necessary function, duty.
Paying lip service to multilateralism, which all but the most ardent of internationalistas ever do, precludes precisely its fulfillment.