Genuine multilateralism vital to world security

Bantarto Bandoro, Editor, The Indonesian Quarterly, Centre For Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Jakarta, bandoro@csis.or.id

From the strategic and military points of view, the war in Iraq is over. But the debate that best reflects the fundamental shift in world politics -- the debate over unilateralism or multilateralism -- continues.

From the outset and in the aftermath of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the U.S. has been bombarded by members of the international community for its harsh unilateral actions against Iraq.

Our foreign minister Hassan Wirayuda joined the chorus last week as he told an international security conference that the U.S. was now in a quagmire in Iraq -- a situation that might have been avoided if the U.S. had secured United Nations approval before invading that country.

It was the fiercest attack by Indonesia since the war in Iraq ended, and echoes the sentiment of many Indonesians, as well as those members of the international community that completely opposed the U.S.' unilateral actions -- actions that were taken without any feeling of restraint or constraint.

Although Indonesia supports Washington's global war against terrorism, such a stand does not prevent us from making criticisms against U.S. policies which, in reality, go against the interests of the majority of nations. President Megawati Soekarnoputri herself, at various international meetings, has emphasized the need for multilateralism as an approach to global problems.

Although one might consider the unilateralism-multilateralism debate in the international context to be a past issue, its continuation, particularly over efficacy, is of great relevance now, when the world community has yet to be given any significant results from the current strategy for combating terrorism and solving other pressing international security problems, like Iraq.

Hassan Wirayuda's strong criticism should be seen from such a perspective, as the situation in Iraq continues to deteriorate. Even with the capture of Saddam Hussein, it was premature to assume that resistance to the U.S.-led coalition would crumble.

Does multilateralism matter for Indonesia? The answer is definitely yes, particularly because of the intrinsically multilateral nature of transnational issues in a current global age. Indonesia's strong adherence to a multilateral approach, to which as it has long been adhered, is primarily based on its belief that, as principles or codes of conduct are the defining characteristic of multilateralism, then multilateralism equals institutionalism.

It is against such a background that Indonesia, together with the international community, rejected the excessive unilateralism of U.S. policy on Iraq, and instead called for collective action under international authority.

For Indonesia, multilateralism is a way to get other countries to share the burden of providing public goods. Sharing also helps foster commitment to common values. Such a mechanism was not only implemented from the beginning of the campaign against Iraq, but also in the postwar reconstruction of the country.

A suggestion that there should have been a "division of labor" -- for the U.S. to oust Saddam's regime and for others to put things back together -- is absolutely unacceptable and illogical. For Indonesia, it is simply that neither stage should be undertaken without the involvement and approval of international institutions.

A recent report said that the American envoy here was surprised and disappointed by the comments from the foreign minister. He was reported as saying that the objectives the U.S. had achieved in Iraq so far would not have been possible, had the U.S. followed Hassan's preferred multilateral approach -- which, for 12 years and through 17 UN Security Council Resolutions, had failed to change the situation.

Indonesia's criticism and the U.S.' disappointed response should not, however, split the two sides into opposing camps.

It is normal that the American envoy defends his country's Iraq policy against criticism, presumably because the UN had seemingly become an unreliable institution in relation to the U.S. policy, but more importantly, because a restored and free Iraq -- with the help of the U.S. and its allies -- would bring democracy to the country.

Thus, from this perspective, unilateralism for the U.S., in essence, is positive. Many of America's allies resented the excessive unilateralism of the Bush administration's policy in Iraq, but even president Clinton once argued that America must be prepared to go it alone when no alternative exists. Not all multilateral arrangements, as argued by Joseph S. Nye, are good. Like other countries, the U.S. should occasionally use unilateral tactics.

But this is not the way Indonesia, and others who opposed U.S. unilateralism, see the problem. Strong adherence to international law and multilateral institutions should be the basic approach to solving international problems, including that of postwar Iraq. Multilateralism must be an essential part of the global security paradigm.

One would have thought that if the U.S. were to consult others first and saw multilateralism as a possible option, its unilateralist tactics might have been forgiven. But even this has caused deep resentment among the majority of UN members because in reality, the U.S. succumbed to the unilateralist temptation too easily. As a result, the Bush administration cannot avoid being severely criticized by Indonesia and other countries for so quickly abandoning the multilateralism that could otherwise have fostered a framework of international cooperation on the Iraq issue.

While Indonesia's criticism can be justified both politically and diplomatically, the country should also recognize the inherent structural weaknesses of the UN body, which is unable to contain the U.S.' swift, unilateral, military action to deal with security issues in other parts of the world. International pressure that the UN be more assertive in its handling of international security issues has long been rising, and Indonesia continues to push for structural reform of the world body.

This suggests that the UN must not act as "a service provider" that only gives legitimacy to U.S. actions -- like in postwar Iraq -- because after illegally occupying Iraq, the U.S. turned to the UN to request legitimization of its action; under Resolution 1438, the U.S. was granted the status of "Authority" in Iraq.

Despite the issuance of this status, the U.S., as we see now, finds itself in a quagmire of guerrilla warfare. Our foreign minister is therefore absolutely right when he said that the quagmire could have been avoided had the U.S. secured UN approval before instigating war.

The U.S. perhaps needs to learn to cooperate with others and to look more closely at its own Declaration of Independence, which binds the U.S. to "decent respect for the opinions of mankind". Genuine multilateralism is therefore vital to solving current and pressing international security issues.