14 January 2023, NIICE Commentary 8490
Datngenlut Suchiang
The United States (US) has often been charged with unilateralist tendencies regarding its foreign policy. Nevertheless, it is essential to understand American unilateralism and what drives the US to resort to it. The debate goes back to the post-War era, when it experienced a division between working alone or with Europe to address challenges, particularly at the height of Communism. Major historical events have shaped the discourse on unilateralism and its operation in the United States. A consensus exists about how 9/11 and, subsequently, George W. Bush’s proclamation of the war on terrorism profoundly made the unilateral option more pronounced than ever for the US political establishment. As Robert Kagan noted, “America did not change on September 11. It only became more itself.” Thus, the ultimate necessity of ensuring and guaranteeing the American people’s security meant that US policymakers would choose to act alone at the expense of multilateral ventures.
An important concept that has driven US unilateralism is ‘exceptionalism’, which is deeply embedded in American political culture and society. It rests on the belief of the US as a distinct entity occupying a unique place in history, bestowed with a sacred duty to provide global order while reforming it in its image. Underlying ‘exceptionalism’ is the belief in the enduring and universal nature of US cultural, socio-political and economic values that must be transmitted worldwide. It further rests on an active foreign policy and the righteousness of its actions. In Of Paradise and Power, Kagan urged the United States to chart its trajectory, for only it could guarantee security and world order. For Charles Krauthammer, as the provider of a security umbrella for many countries, it had “no alternative but to be unilateralist.”
Historical isolationism has been a factor influencing American unilateralism. Notable was Donald Trump’s message of putting ‘America First’ after his Presidential win in 2016. Accordingly, Nikolas Gvosdev echoed the concern that the US was “disconnecting itself from multilateral institutions and procedures,” which it had played a significant role in building. Subsequently, the US withdrew from key international treaties like the Paris Agreement and the Iran Nuclear Deal, among others. Another argument for unilateralism is its effectiveness and dynamic nature compared to multilateralism, which has sometimes hindered necessary swift actions due to tedious procedures and protocols. The necessity of a multilateral consensus has been its major drawback, making it an unattractive option for US policymakers. As Frank P. Harvey argued, the greater the security risk, the more likely Washington would rely on unilateralism to protect America.
Opposition to American Unilateralism
The US retreat from multilateralism has been viewed with concern and frustration. Anxieties have arisen regarding multilateral institutions’ effectiveness without the United States’ participation and the cost of addressing problems without its leading role. Charles William Maynes critiqued US unilateralism for its absence of restraint, colossal scope and intrusiveness. Tom Sauer remarked that unilateralist actions by a major player like the US could have long-lasting and unprecedented consequences for the world community. Wenzhu Dong argues that it has weakened the US by tarnishing its global image and soft power and has encouraged resentment toward US hegemony.
Although a traditional ally, Europe, too, has been an opposing voice. Edward Said asserted that Europe has to take the lead in counterbalancing American unilateralism. Phillipe Sands and Davis Robinson reiterate that the beginning of European concerns was the State of the Union address delivered by President Bush in 2002 after 9/11 about an ‘axis of evil’ referring to Iran, Iraq and North Korea, which went against endeavours at transatlantic collaboration and dialogue. Several other US actions have piqued European powers, such as withdrawal from its commitment to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol or the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972. Presently, its 2021 withdrawal from Afghanistan, repeated threats to Russia in early 2022 threatening European security, and its submarine deal with Australia in late 2021 have been a cause of vexation for European leaders.
As significant players, Russia and China advocate for a rules-based order based on the United Nations (UN) principles and the importance of international law. They strongly advocate for a multipolar world order based on multilateral partnerships. Following on, they have been one of the most vocal critics of American unilateralism, denouncing its human rights perspective, interference in domestic affairs, and unilateral sanctions, among others. In essence, Russia and China emphasise respect for territorial sovereignty and equal participation of states in global governance. While supporting the UN resolution to tackle COVID-19, China urged countries to adhere to the collective struggle amidst US objections. Further, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov spoke out against American exceptionalism at the UN and reiterated the significance of international law amidst the Russia-Ukraine crisis.
Defying American Unilateralism: The Case of India
India has been one of the foremost critics and defiers of American unilateralism, given its commitment to cooperative and respectful partnerships to address issues of mutual concern. Since the 1980s, pragmatism has been the foundation for India’s global initiatives advancing and defending its fundamental interests through multilateral involvement in groupings like the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, BRICS and QUAD, among others, while defying international regulations where necessary and being ready to execute such rules where interests coincide. India acknowledges that in a highly globalised world marked by non-conventional threats like terrorism, cybercrime and climate change, only through collaborative ventures can these problems be met.
Hence, when it comes to American unilateralism, India has yet to receive it warmly. In a speech at the JG Crawford Oration at the Australian National University, External Affairs Minister (EAM) S. Jaishankar remarked that the era of unilateralism was at its end. Jaishankar and his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, also stressed the need for a just and polycentric global order amidst the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Moreover, it has consistently defied the US imposition by consuming discounted Russian crude oil despite the warning of consequences, citing it as being in India’s interest. The EAM reiterated that India would continue to buy the oil despite the United States’ call for collective efforts to isolate Russia economically.
India has endeavoured to revamp multilateralism by calling for the democratisation of global institutions like the UN Security Council, committing itself to sustainable development and combating climate change through the Paris Accord, the Global Solar Alliance and the Coalition for Disaster Resilient Infrastructure, amongst others. Considering the aforementioned, India has persevered in raising its voice, urging countries to respect multilateral efforts to achieve common goals.
Road Ahead
As the world battles with numerous transnational challenges, global powers should pursue actions that consider the next generation’s future. As the dominant superpower, the onus is on the United States to balance its national interests while prioritising global cooperation and revitalising its role as leader of multilateral arrangements. Simultaneously, major powers like India must continue to be champions of multilateralism, adhering to UN principles and international law. Multilateral collaboration, as the most robust approach to solving problems that cut across national borders, must be reformed to meet 21st-century issues.
Datngenlut Suchiang is a PhD scholar at the Centre for Russian and Central Asian Studies, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India.
