ABSTRACT
The United States has been known for its isolationist, neutrality and noninterventionist tendencies since independence as a result of the caution sounded by its founding fathers, such as George Washington, that future foreign policy makers should ensure they do not involve the state in any permanently entangling alliances. Things, however, changed after World War II when the US saw the need to exert its influence on the world stage to advance its interest by spreading their values through a multilateral system. The US has been accorded the founder of the current multilateral system after leading the creation of the United Nations and its agencies through funding and provision of leadership since 1945. The expectation is that being the founders of the present multilateral system, the US, as a leader, will always stick to a multilateral approach to world problems. This has often not been the case as a lot of the presidents have either resorted to unilateralism or multilateralism or both in tackling world problems. The September 11 attack on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon presents an era where America’s power has been tested by terrorists and what everyone looks out for is how her leaders will approach the issue. This research studies how the first two presidents, George Bush Jr. and Barack Obama, who came after the September 11 attack, approached the challenge in the context of going it alone or involving alliances. What the researcher realised is that generally, analysts are divided, up to date, as to which of the two leaders was unilaterally or multilaterally oriented. Basing on related literature about the issues and inferring from face-to-face interviews, the researcher discovered that the policies and approaches of these leaders were determined by factors such as level of relationship between the president and Congress, War on Terror, personal attributes of the leaders, national interest among others. These determinants to a large extent influenced how Bush Jr. and Barack Obama accepted or shunned unilateralism or multilateralism in executing their policies. After careful analysis, the study revealed that President Barack Obama firmly embraced multilateral approach to solving world problems while Bush Jr. preferred unilateralism on the average. It is recommended that, in spite of achieving the national interest, the US might show considerable commitment to multilateral agreements as an example of leadership for others to emulate. It is also recommended that Congress and the Executive be encouraged to maintain bipartisanship to promote programmes and policies of international interest. Finally, the US might consider increasing aid to terror prone regions since terrorism, in part, emanates from economic deprivation.
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Background
The growing interconnectedness and interdependence of states have brought about the development of several concepts by International Relations (IR) scholars to define the relationships, interactions and actions that are undertaken by actors in the international system. Prominent among these concepts are unilateralism, bilateralism and multilateralism. The approaches for implementing foreign policies of countries in the international system are particularly measured by these three terms. Thus, implementation of foreign policies of countries can be described as unilateral, bilateral or multilateral.
Unilateralism is an International Relations concept which connotes the situation where a single country attempts to undertake a course of action without regard for norms and principles set by multilateral international agreements. It is always a one sided action by one country and has the tendency to disregard the plight of other countries. Usually, powerful countries with enough resources are those who engage in unilateral foreign policies around the world. The United States (US) attack on Iraq against the stance of the United Nations (UN) is a typical example. Mr Kofi Annan, the then UN Secretary General in an interview with the Guardian newspaper reportedly reiterated that the US invasion of Iraq, which lasted for one month fourteen days, was illegal and a breach of the UN charter.
Bilateralism or bilateral cooperation in the international system connotes an agreement between two countries based on mutual benefits. Agreements set out in bilateral cooperation are binding on only the two states involved. The US, for example, had a bilateral agreement with Ghana before the sending of the two Guantanamo Bay detainees, (Mohammed Bin Atef
and Mohammed Salih al- Dhuby), to Ghana. Bilateralism continues to exist and is employed by countries to achieve mutual benefits.
Multilateralism is a concept in International Relations which denotes cooperation among several countries to achieve a common objective in the international system. Although the concept was active during the concert of Europe, it became prominent with the formation of the United Nations Organization (UNO) on 24th October, 1945. The US is said to be the originator of multilateral cooperation after World War Two (WWII) when the UNO was formed.
The foreign policies of countries have mostly been determined by their leaders. The decision to take an action in the international system unilaterally, bilaterally or multilaterally usually lies in the bosom of the foreign policy makers, especially the leader. The Foreign Policy Decision (FPD) usually taken by these leaders are viewed through these three conceptual spectacles. Thus, based on the process involved, foreign policy analysts are able to say whether ones action in the international system is unilateral, bilateral or multilateral.
Foreign policy analysts often attempt to align with one of these three concepts. The choice is usually based on the prevailing national and international attributes. While it is common to find states with strong military and economic might pursuing unilateral decisions at the expense of laid down multilateral principles, countries with weaker military and economic might most often depend on multilateral principles and protocols to settle their impasses.
Joseph Nye, in his article “America Can’t Go It Alone”, opines that certain classical issues are predominantly multilateral and to manage those issues inherently requires multilateral.1 He, however, hastened to add that not all multilateral agreements are feasible and therefore emphasized that, countries could resort to unilateralism occasionally.2 Nye went further to
assert that unilateral tactics sometimes lead to compromises which has the tendency to promote multilateral interest.3
International organizations such as the United Nations (UN), the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), International Monetary Fund (IMF), etc. whose interests are tied around building a just and an equitable international system, have been major advocates of multilateralism. In an article published by the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Cohen, Nye and Armitage emphasized that it is better for the US to invest in multilateral organizations than to undertake unilateral military actions in remote countries. The opinion of the authors of the report was that multilateral cooperation attracts many different countries to global projects and that will result in a balanced redistribution of global resources to achieve global action.4
The United States foreign policy decision making has been characterized by two of these three contending concepts: unilateralism and multilateralism. These two concepts have dominated US foreign policy decision making, and it is primarily based on the leadership that prevails at a particular period as well as the dominating domestic and international phenomenon. The prevalence of unilateralism and multilateralism in US foreign policy issues has conspicuous historical antecedents.
Firstly, ever since, George Washington, the first president of the US cautioned future US foreign policy decision makers to avoid any permanently entangling foreign alliances, both the citizens and the leadership of US foreign policy making abided by the warning. For almost two centuries (1776 to 1945), the foreign policy of the US was purely isolationism and neutrality in the international system. The US acting solitary in the international milieu is what has been tagged in the US foreign policy decision making history as unilateralism. It
was the Spanish American war that marked the first stage where the US decided to enter into the broader world stage to exert her influence in the international system.5
At any given moment, whether the decision makers of the day will choose unilateralism or multilateralism will depend upon what foreign policy objective they intend to achieve and the prevailing circumstances affecting the national interest of the state. Foreign policies are designed to achieve the national interest which means that for most countries they are prepared to forgo international multilateral norms if that could be a stumbling block on their way to achieving the national interest. For instance, John Ikenberry argues that every hegemon, after assuming victory, will do everything possible to exercise a unilateral leadership to exert its world order.6 Nye also posits that countries which develop buoyant economies are more likely to undertake unilateral decisions. His argument was based on the premise that developed countries have all the military and economic capabilities which are able to assist them to enforce their foreign policy interests.7
Holsti defined foreign policy as “ideas or actions designed by policy makers to solve a problem or promote some change in policies, attitudes, actions of another state or states, individual or non-state actors”.8
This definition is an indication that foreign policy is usually geared towards desire for change in policy of the state involved and the ability to influence the policies of other international actors.
In foreign policy decision making in the US, presidents are much more likely to be tagged unilateralist or multilateralist based on the modus operandi for achieving foreign policy objectives. In a post 9/11 era, two leaders have both successfully served two terms of eight years: George Bush Jr. and Barrack Obama. There is a growing contention as to which of these two adopted a unilateral or multilateral approach in their foreign policies. While a
greater number of foreign policy analysts believe that Bush Jr. was more of a unilateralist compared to Obama, others beg to differ by stating that Obama’s approach had no much variation from that of Bush Jr.
For instance, Lindsay contributed to the argument by emphasising that Bush Jr. was an undoubted unilateralist who held the belief that the best way to achieve the national interest was through a unilateral exercise of US powers. He buttressed his claim by citing the withdrawal of US from several multilateral agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol, the Anti- Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty among others.9 Tom Farer also described the Bush Doctrine as a unilateral action.10 On the contrary, John Lyman’s article in the International Policy Digest11 clearly backed the fact that Obama favoured multilateralism when he referred to Obama’s 2009 UN General Assembly address.12
Statement of the Research Problem
The UN was formed to bring different countries together to fight for a common objective with the aim of providing solutions in a multilateral approach to world problems.13 The role of the US in leading the formation of the UN, however, marked a diversion from George Washington’s preferred isolationism and neutrality.14
In American domestic political discourse, one major interesting element is the making and administration of the foreign policy of the state. A very prominent individual who comes to mind accordingly is the president. A consisted foreign policy principles of the president is often called a doctrine.15 In spite of the fact that there are legal structures responsible for the making of US foreign policies, yet it becomes imperative that at a certain point in time, the president is given the discretion to adopt a certain foreign policy approach to deal with
international problems.16 This shows that the ideologies, beliefs, statements, conduct, choices, etc., of the president are vital in US foreign policy administration.
On Tuesday morning of September 11 2001, the US experienced an extremely shocking crack in their homeland security. A group of terrorists, made up of nineteen young men, had managed to high jack four commercial planes of which two crashed into the historic and magnificent World Trade Center, one crashing into the Pentagon and the fourth high jacked plane, United Airlines Flight 93, crashed into a field in Somerset County, Pennsylvania.17 The incident, nonetheless, brought major changes in the foreign policy approach of the US towards the rest of the world. Laws on immigration were made tighter and the US went into war in Afghanistan, etc.18
In a post 9/11 era, two presidents have both successfully served their two terms of eight years each and International Relations scholars are interested in knowing which approach was adopted by each of the president. In the Grand Strategy roundtable analysis, John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago opined that the second term of Bush’s administration and the entire presidency of Obama followed a massive continuity with same basic goals.19
On the other hand, Lindsay argued that there were astronomic differences in the foreign policy perception of Bush Jr. and Obama.20 To his understanding, Bush had terrorism as his main agenda and rubbished the notion that allies and international institutions should limit America’s quest for freedom to wage war on terror. Obama, according to Lindsay, saw terrorism as a trans-national canker that needed cooperation from other countries to fight it.
Several comparative studies have been done extensively between Bush Jr. and Barack Obama on foreign policies towards areas like Africa, Middle East, War on Terror, Defence, etc. However, there is a lack of adequate literature that tends to extensively discuss unilateralism
and multilateralism as major concepts in a post 9/11 US foreign policy and how these choices played key roles in tackling the world problems that Americans faced. Yet, the issue of unilateralism and multilateralism continue to be relevant as to which of these two leaders adopted either of the concepts as his strategy. While some scholars believe Bush Jr. favoured a unilateralist foreign policy approach, others believe Obama preferred a multilateral approach. There are others who also believe there were no significant changes in the approaches adopted by either of the two presidents.
The aim of this research is to provide a post 9/11 comparative study of US foreign policies of George Bush Jr. and Barrack Obama in the area of unilateral and multilateral approaches to world problems.
Research Questions
- What factors determined the foreign policies of Bush Jr. after 9/11?
- To what extent did unilateralism or multilateralism affect the foreign policy orientation of Bush Jr.?
- What factors determined the foreign policy of Barack Obama?
- To what extent did unilateralism or multilateralism affect the foreign policy orientation of Barack Obama?
Research Objectives
The general objective of this research is to provide an insight into the foreign policy approach of Bush Jr. and Barack Obama through a comparative study. However, the following are the specific objectives of the study.
