ALLIANCE OR SECURITY?:

What Is "Multilateral"? (John Van Oudenaren, Policy Review)

[I]t is worth identifying some of the key conceptual issues that might be used to frame a more productive transatlantic discussion of multilateralism. Five in particular stand out: the importance of norms versus numbers, universal versus non-universal arrangements, the problem of ?dysfunctional multilateralism,? enforcement and the role of international organizations, and the relationship between multilateralism and European integration.

Norms vs. numbers [...]

Universal vs. nonuniversal arrangements [...]

Dysfunctional multilateralism [...]

Institutions and compliance [...]

Unilateralism and European integration

This is a reasonable enough discussion of the topic, but it unintentionally illustrates Daniel Drezner's point below. By the very question that he sets out to answer, Mr. Van Oudenaren has adopted what we might call the European position, that multilateralism is an end in itself. The question Americans must ask is: Why "Multilateralism"?

Perhaps we can get some purchase on the difference by looking at it this way: Most Americans, and more importantly the Administration, have determined that regime change in Iraq serves the security interests of the United States. Several major "allies" have determined that at least their own security interests are not best served by removing Saddam. The question, it would seem, is which is more important to us, our security or unanimity with other nations? The Democrats have pretty clearly chosen the latter and, in that sense, must be said to be willing to put U.S. national security at risk. Their end is the world alliance itself, rather than our security. There may be reasons why they are right to make that decision, but those are the terms in which it shouldd be discussed and the American people should have an opportunity to decide if they're willing to live with a party that thinks that way.

Posted by Orrin Judd at February 13, 2003 10:34 PM