Multilateralism vs Unilateralism

This need only be a concern for weak countries. Those countries that are strong enough to act alone do not need to worry about nebulous and unreliable ‘goodwill.’ Moreover, if the action is taken in the name of universal principles, like “freedom” and “justice” then people in other countries will in time come to see the error of their ways in opposing the action in the first place. If a state has the strength to act alone, and is convinced of the righteousness of its cause, it should not hesitate to act.

Unilateralism does not entail an absence of consultation and discussion with allies and other interested states. It merely reserves the right, when discussion and consultation has not secured international support, to take action alone. Some acts, like waging a war to defend one’s own nation or free another from oppression, are too important to be discarded just because no other country is willing to share the burden.

Military action can bring great benefits to states. Having been freed from dictatorship, people can freely contribute to their country’s economy and bring prosperity for themselves and their families. Many such countries have natural resources which are attractive to companies from any state, thus many states could have a direct financial interest in supporting post-war reconstruction even when they did not support the original war. And in cases with no such benefits, simple humanitarian spirit should compel these states to aid reconstruction. Ultimately, unilateralists should be prepared to extend their unilateralism to reconstruction as well as war.

Too much talk can impede action. Too many points of view can cloud the issue. Whilst cooperation with other countries should be pursued as far as possible, no concessions can be offered that compromise key objectives, and unlimited time for negotiation cannot be afforded. One should not let threats get bigger and more unmanageable whilst one forlornly tries to form a coalition of the willing; when necessary, one simply must be prepared to act alone.

Multilateral bodies only move as quickly as their least constructive members will allow. Worse, the consensus they reach may in fact be wrong or unrealistic, providing no real solution and creating other problems in the long term. Sometimes unilateral action by one state can provide leadership, behind which other, like-minded states can gather. Even if different states adopt different approaches, this policy competition can be productive, showing which ideas are most deserving of wider adoption.

Multilateralism undermines sovereignty by limiting the freedom of action of governments, and so can deny a people the rights of democratic decision and self-determination. Most importantly, in the post-Cold War, post-9/11 world, a nation and its leaders must have the right to define what constitutes a threat, and what form self-defence should take, without reference to other nations. If a government has an electoral mandate for action, then it should be able to do as it wishes, without allowing other states a veto over its decisions. This is particularly true when so many multilateral organisations give equal voting weight and even veto powers to undemocratic nations.