The Bush Administration’s Revolution in Foreign Policy: a Threat to America’s Future?

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines the term “Unilateral” as the following: “1. Of, on, pertaining to, involving or affecting only one side. 2. Obligating only one of two or more parties, nations, or persons, as a contract or agreement. 3. Emphasizing or recognizing only one side of a subject.” To the average American citizen familiar with issues abroad involving the United States and the late George W. Bush administration, similarities can confidently be noticed in the actions of Bush’s America and the definition of “Unilateral.” The United States has been making a gradual and conscious withdrawal from collective alliances in the interest of America as an individual, not as a team player. Of course, the romantic vision of an American “super-hero” nation, valiantly idealistic, and uninhibited, is more accurately suited for a unilateralist policy rather than weighed down by cumbersome alliances and lengthy democratic processes. “America: the Super Hero” is, nevertheless, a fictitious character and potentially devastating illusion.

An American course of action is commonly perceived as a course of action bearing only the best global intentions. After all, was America not the attractive, youthful nation who rebelled against the “tyrannical” domination of England? Wasn’t America the hero delivering Europe from impending annihilation during both World Wars? And all can rest assured that it was America who battled valiantly against a communist takeover during Vietnam. Surely America is the defender of Earth, delivering freedom and liberty to the doorsteps of underprivileged peoples. It would be absolute folly to claim America plays an inactive part in global security; but an even greater blunder would be to believe that America is always right. Nations are, like humans, imperfect. This is the precise reason that “America: the Super Hero” is no more possible than Superman’s physical existence. In a civilized age, it can be agreed that no single faction of peoples can rightfully dictate the course of action for all humanity; nor can that faction take a course of action wielding global consequences without taking into account the needs of others.

In order to remain sensitive to the priorities and needs of foreign countries, a carefully knitted system of checks and balances should be a formed. Such alliances as the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) were, in essence, the United States’ balancing system, designed to unite and protect nations against threatening forces, but most importantly, to keep the involved nations, such as the United States, from taking a course of action that might have negative consequences to other countries. Since George W. Bush, Jr. gained presidency in the year 2000, the checks and balance system of multilateral cooperation amongst foreign nations has been slowly dissipating, giving rise to a much bolder and exceedingly stark unilateralist policy. Ivo H. Daalder observes in America Unbound: the Bush Revolution in Foreign Policy that even in Bush’s first eight months of presidency, the United States suddenly backed out of the Kyoto Protocol (which, in essence, was a multilateral effort to cut down on the emission of dangerous heat-trapping gasses linked to global warming) on the grounds of being “economically illogical” (64). This refusal to work alongside fellow nations for the good of mankind was an early indicator of Bush’s unilateralist America. Soon added to Bush’s list of rejected multilateral contracts were, as Daalder states, “the Biological Weapons Convention, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and the International Criminal Court (ICC)” ( 64). September 11th finally served as “curtains” for the long standing multilateral America. Soon after the internal decision was made to regard the devastating terrorist attacks as “war-worthy,” America completely shed all multilateral leanings. As Clyde Prestowitz in Rogue Nation: American Unilateralism and the Failure of Good Intentions summarizes regarding America‘s response to help offers made by NATO, “The Pentagon took a few British special forces, but told the others, ‘Thanks but no thanks. It’s simpler without allies… We’ll call you when we need you’”(7). Prestowitz further claims, “a[n] [anonymous] top Malaysian leader told me, ‘The way things are going, pretty soon, it will be the United States against the world’” (7). While Bush’s “do-it-yourself” attitude obviously seems more instantly gratifying to America, it blatantly disregards the voices of the globe. Intercontinental cooperation, slow and cumbersome as it may be, is indeed a form of physical protection, but perhaps more importantly, it is an essential preservation of friendly relations between the involved countries. It is illogical to doubt the immense importance of peaceful multilateral relations, and absolutely foolhardy to ignore the consequences of damaging them. In the purest sense, a globe angry at America is obviously a globe likely to wish for America’s demise. It is certain that unilateralist America’s carefree serenity is fearfully frail and temporary, as long as it remains removed from the shield of multilateralism.

Another president to commence a foreign policy revolution was president Harry Truman, though Truman’s revolution was quite opposite in character to Bush‘s. Ivo H. Daalder explains in America Unbound: the Bush Revolution in Foreign Policy that in 1949, President Harry Truman approved America’s involvement with NATO on the basis that “U.S. power could more easily be sustained, with less chance of engendering resentment, if it were embedded in multilateral institutions” (9). Much like the infamous September 11th attacks, Pearl Harbor had vividly displayed an independent America’s vulnerability, though unlike George W. Bush, Truman set forth to ensure America’s future security through alliances which are, under the Bush regime, ignored. As Daalder explains, Truman would go on to create much of the foundation of national multilateralism, including the United Nations, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund amongst other agreements (9). Daalder further states that “[i]n creating these institutions, he [Truman] set a precedent: Even though the United States had the power to act as it saw fit, it accepted... that its right to act should be constrained by international law” (9).Truman’s view is a less conventional for the impulsive, counterfeit vision of “America: the Super Hero,” and suited more for the idealist, human nation that America is supposed to represent. The character of Truman’s policy would ultimately complete the hallowed definition of America that had been born and hastily grown since 1776: America, a nation of power, but not a tyrant. Unfortunately, a unilateralist America is one step away from nobility and another towards tyranny.

America would again see the importance of cooperation on September 11th , 2001. Watching the twin towers collapse into smoldering piles of ash and rubble was a painfully convincing reminder of America’s vulnerability, much like the disaster of Pearl Harbor over 50 years earlier. Daalder states that “[I]t was a view shared by Bush’s father, who three days after the [September 11th] attacks predicted: ‘Just as Pearl Harbor awakened this country from the notion that we could somehow avoid the call to duty and defend freedom in Europe and Asia in World War II, so, too should this most recent surprise attack erase the concept in some quarters that America can somehow go it alone in the fight against terrorism or in anything else’” (78). September 11th had obviously been interpreted in an entirely different manner by George Bush Jr. Just as Pearl Harbor had led America into multilateral institutions that would protect global interests during both World Wars, the September 11th attacks should have been a warning to return from an increasingly unilateral stance. Ironically, the very event that marked the repetition of history which should have redirected America, has served as an excuse (though hardly valid) to endanger it further.

Though at first, Bush’s unilateralist revolution may have seemed like courageous heroism to some, it’s negative, inevitable effects are already beginning to show. As Joe Klein observes in Politics Lost, From RFK to W: How Politicians Have Become Less Courageous and More Interested in Keeping Power Than in Doing What’s Right For America, “The Crusade… chosen by Bush, bloated with helium rhetoric and cemented in an unwarranted intellectual certainty, has left the country confused, depressed and weaker than it was when he took office” (245). Most Americans would personally agree with Klein’s statement. Frank Rich states in The Greatest Story Ever Sold: The Decline and Fall of Truth in Bush’s America, “a [2005] Washington Post/ ABC News poll found that a majority of Americans believed that the war in Iraq had not made the United States safer… a majority also… believed that the administration had ‘intentionally misled’ America into the war” (177). Not only is the revolutionary unilateralist policy greatly testing the patience of nations abroad, it is grating against the morale of Americans, which can be sensed in the noticeable air of cynicism regarding politics and politicians. Though most citizens may be unaware of the possible effects of unilateralism, they undeniably sense something wrong with a long-lasting retaliatory war carried out without allies. Americans are beginning to see that, as Joe Klein states in Politics Lost, From RFK to W: How Politicians Have Become Less Courageous and More Interested in Keeping Power Than in Doing What’s Right For America, “important global threats we’re facing… require American leadership, but they can’t be solved by unilateral American action” (246). American unilateralism has caused uneasiness amongst allies, enemies and even citizens in the few short years since its adoption. Such substantial early consequences should be a clear indicator of significant future problems.

Unfortunately, there seems to be no immediate sign in political reform. As Walter Pincus states in his 2005 Washington Post article, “Pentagon Revises Nuclear Strike Plan,” “The Pentagon has drafted a revised doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons… and represents the Pentagon's first attempt to revise procedures to reflect the Bush preemption doctrine.” Such a substantial change in nuclear legislation to benefit unilateral America is a grim indicator of many more years alienated from the protection of multilateral policies. As America continues to act on its own impulses, disregarding the wishes of its peers, it will consequently blunder further into a black oblivion of global resentment; unless, of course, the upcoming 2008 elections bring forth someone who remembers that America is a nation of power, but not a tyrant. It is important to remember that president Harry Truman’s multilateral America, the America that embraced the world with open arms and fought for liberty in both World Wars, understood that it operates best in league with the rest of the world.