US Administration, Its Approach to Crisis Management

The U.S. war against Iraq caused a significant rift between the George W. Bush administration and the governments of France and Germany. The debate regarding the West’s strategy toward the new world order began to heat up.

It was said that the world is facing a difficult choice between pluralism and international law and absolute U.S. hegemony. The fact of the matter is that, since the neoconservatives rose to power in the U.S., fears stemming from the stark differences between the two sides have increased in many EU nations.

European nations fully recognize that, in the shadow of the conservative movement, the current administration has specific goals it hopes to achieve. It hopes to single-handedly rule and direct the new world order by depending on its armed forces rather than diplomacy. The U.S. administration believes that the policy of pluralism (cooperation between two or more states to solve problems in the ’90s) was not effective in dealing with many conflicts and that it amounted to a waste of time and exacerbated crises.

Meanwhile, Europe believes that a dependence on pluralism in foreign policy will be more effective in restructuring international relations than U.S. unilateralism and hegemony. This does not mean that the EU wants to become an adversary of the U.S., at least not in the near future. Rather it means that the EU wants a pluralist system that allows the great powers, including itself, to share in international decision-making; it wants a system in which it can play a role in the international arena appropriate to its considerable strength.

However, the U.S. has seemed particularly intent on taking advantage of the disparity between its military might and that of other nations to unilaterally rule the new world order without the participation of other competing forces. The difference of opinion between the U.S. and Europe on the international order has emerged due to the former’s insistence on relying on force rather than diplomacy to solve any conflict or international dispute. Rather than unilateral moves, the EU prefers to rely on collective action via existing international organizations, especially the U.N. Security Council.

The unilateral approach is by no means new in U.S. foreign policy. During the Clinton administration, the U.S. took a number of unilateral positions, such as its stance on the reappointment of U.N. Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali and its rejection of the landmine treaty. The Clinton administration carried out military campaigns in Iraq and Kosovo without consulting the U.N. and bombed Afghanistan and Sudan without so much of a thought toward the international coalition.

It is true that the Republicans, who believe in international liberalism, and even the Democrats thought that the U.S. enjoyed the luxury of occasionally taking unilateral positions to suit its interests, which is itself a deviation from its core beliefs. In other words, the position in the Clinton era was one of unilateralism in times of necessity, while there remained a core interest in political pluralism. The Clinton administration would practice pluralism on those issues it deemed most important, like international trade and the environment.

The Bush, Jr. administration did not invent unilateralism in international affairs — rather it transformed it from an exceptional policy to standard practice. The neoconservatives that controlled foreign policy decisions in the Bush, Jr. era are fundamentally opposed to collective action. True — they have denounced isolationism. Yet they do not have any confidence that international pluralism or alliances can advance U.S. interests. They are opposed to international liberalism in principle. In their view, international liberalism is anathema to the nature of international relations that, in their minds, are built on power and not equality between nations. They therefore view it as a detriment to U.S. interests.