Genuine multilateralism vital to world security

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.