The United States and Multilateral Security Cooperation in Northeast Asia

Abstract

Recently, multilateralism has become a major buzz word in Asian international relations. Nations in region are hopeful that multilateral negotiations will serve as a basis for managing region's problems. The argument here is that hopes that United States will commit such arrangements are misplaced. Given both America's history and current U.S. national interests, United States is likely make only a partial commitment multilateralism. Key words: U.S. foreign policy in East Asia, Multilateral Security - East Asia, Northeast Asia Introduction In recent years, East Asian political leaders and scholars have increasingly turned their attention possibilities for multilateral security cooperation in region. Most frequently, they have pointed Six-Party Talks joined by United States, China, South Korea, North Korea, Japan, and Russia as evidence that major powers with interests in Pacific can work together resolve differences while promoting stability and peace. Despite genuine success that these talks have achieved, however, there is not as much cause for optimism about long-term prospects for multilateral security cooperation in region. There are many problems that efforts establish such cooperation in East Asia are likely confront. But in this article I will focus most specifically on United States and likely course of American foreign policy. I argue that U.S. participation in future multilateral arrangements is by no means guaranteed. Moreover, when America's history and interests in region are considered, such participation appears rather unlikely. America's use of Six-Party Talks for dismantling Democratic People's Republic of Korea's (DPRK) nuclear program does not represent an enduring commitment multilateral security so much as it deploys rubric of multilateralism in pursuit of a specific American objective. Before examining why multilateral security cooperation seems so unlikely for United States, it is necessary understand exactly what term entails. At its most basic level, according John Ruggie, multilateralism coordinates behavior among three or more states on basis of generalized principles of conduct. He adds that multilateral security regimes would also include the norm of non-aggression, uniform rules for use of sanctions deter or permit aggression, and collectively sanctioned procedures for implementing them.1 In such regimes, even if there are disparities in economic, political, or military power among participating states, all members still generally expect have roughly equal measures of influence in them and share equally in their benefits. Robert Keohane, for instance, has explained that multilateral arrangements are expected by their members to yield a rough equivalent of benefits in aggregate over time.2 Participation in arrangements that fully meet these criteria has not historically been norm of U.S. foreign policy, especially in East Asia. Moreover, although all of important players in East Asia share certain common security objectives, United States has many priorities that do not match those of other states. Multilateralism and American Foreign Policy: A Historical Perspective Origins of Unilateralism Because of powerful role that United States played in forging new multilateral institutions during final years of World War II and early years of cold war, many people wrongly assume that there is a broad affinity for multilateralism in America's general approach world. In reality, however, American diplomacy during cold war was a relatively brief, limited departure from more longstanding trends. Isolation and unilateralism have historically been just as significant components of U.S. foreign policy as multilateralism has. Moreover, it is important recognize that America's eagerness form multilateral security and economic arrangements during years after World War II took place in an international context in which United States enjoyed what historian Melvyn Leffler has called a preponderance of power. …