U.S. Unilateralism at the UN: Why Great Powers Do Not Make Great Multilateralists

Abstract

The 1990s saw renewed interest by U.S. scholars in multilateralism as an important institution in international affairs. These scholars may have been sparked by former president George Bush's call for new world order in which U.S. government was to be more receptive to universal aspiration, cooperative deterrence, and joint action against aggression. Thus, Robert Keohane and others rediscovered U.S. commitment to multilateralism as of coordinating national policies in groups of three or more states. [1] It is fitting that Keohane's article appeared in Canadian journal devoted entirely to subject because multilateralism has long been major theme in study of Canadian foreign policy. One major addition to this literature in 1990s was by Tom Keating. [2] Indeed, Canadian practice of multilateralism might well serve as benchmark for judging U.S. commitment to it. There are, after all, grounds for doubting constancy of U.S. commitment to multilateralism. In negotiations leading to 1997 landmine treaty and 1998 international criminal court treaty, United States not only refused to lead world community but--in striking display of unilateralism--also refused to sign agreements supported by majority of states and most of its Western allies. This behavior led Economist, British magazine not usually noted as bastion of radicalism or anti-U.S. sentiment, to publish an editorial in December 1998 calling United States a two-faced, half-hearted friend rather than champion of international law. Important indicators of multilateralism are negotiation and support of new international norms. However, as editorial observed, the United States has sorry record of shilly-shallying, or plain obstruction, in development of international law. Instead of leading, America has ratified many human-rights treaties only after most other countries have already done so. A litany followed. It took 40 years to ratify Genocide Convention, 28 for Convention Against Racial Discrimination, 26 for even International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, most important treaty of all. Over 160 countries have ratified convention banning discrimination against women but not United States. Only two in world have not ratified Convention on Rights of Child. . . . And even when America has ratified treaties, it has often attached extensive reservations, making them inapplicable at home. It has also paid scant respect to monitoring mechanisms set up by treaties, and to International Court of Justice in The Hague. . . . Alone among its allies, it now opposes permanent international criminal court endorsed by 120 nations at UN conference last July primarily because it could not win an absolute exemption for its own soldiers. [3] In assessing commitment to multinationalism, UN also provides an important benchmark. But consider unilateralist behavior of United States at UN in selection of last secretary-general and ongoing financial crisis provoked by nonpayment of U.S. dues. [4] Any observer of UN General Assembly in 1980s would more likely be impressed with obvious unilateral nature of U.S. voting behavior. In last year of Bush administration--after end of Cold War and supposed creation of new world order--the U.S. representative to Forty-seventh General Assembly was moved to vote nay on 61 percent of final resolutions adopted by majority of membership. This record was unmatched even by Israel, second most nonaccommodating member, which had record of voting against majority only 45 percent of time. Accordingly, my purpose here is to examine this apparent paradox and to raise three questions: (1) Does U.S. behavior in General Assembly confirm or disconfirm claim of U.S. commitment to multilateralism? …