Increasing American unilateralism Geir Lundestad, Director of the norwegian Nobel Institute in Aftenposten 20.08.01, translated for Targets by Stephane Thaize In more and more cases, USA chooses to go its own way. If the USA doesn't get exactly what it wants in international negociations, it refuses to follow agreements, even if those have broad international support. There are now a long row of such agreements: land mines, international tribunal, Kyoto, comprehensive test ban, biological weapons, mesures against tax paradises, fire arms, ... Even important agreements USA actualy ratified can be broken, if it doesn't get through with changes it insists on. The contribution to the UN and the project of missile defense are clear examples of that. USA has actualy always been an unilateral state. The whole ideological fondament is that USA is unique and that it has a special mission in the world. Isolation until the second world war was an other form of unilateralism. USA didn't want to participate in european politics because it had such a limited influence and because the american ideals could have been corrupted by european war nations. In other parts of the world, like the western hemisphere and the pacific ocean, where USA was able to dominate, there was not much isolationism. After the second world war, USA was so dominating in allmost all parts of the world, that it didn't have to worry that much about influence from outside. Influence went allmost only one way, from USA to the rest of the world. And western Europe invited so to speak americans to come in. In an unilateralistic time, NATO is the main exeption. Western Europeans and Americans has been working together. Europe was still depending on the USA; USA needed NATO as a political instrument towards a more and more independent continent. Main reasons I think that there are three main reasons why USA in the later years stood relatively alone in so many important international matters. First, USA's position is not as dominating as many people pretend. It is certainly the only remaining military super power, and also culturaly in many ways, but especially economicaly USA stands relatively weaker now than in the first decade after the second world war. USA's BNP stands now for 23 % of the world's production, and 40 % in 1950. While USA was for a long time the world's largest creditor nation, it has now the highest debts with an increasing deficit of the balance of commerce. USA controled international economical politics after the war. Nowadays Europe and Japan have consolitated their role. USA has conducted a quite defensive strategy for a long time; the smal and moderately larger countries lead the dance in many matters, ... Secondly, globalisation is increasingly a main factor in national matters. Especialy the small european countries are strongly influenced by globalisation; for USA, it is a new situation. Reactions are new too. Environement is the best example. Environement has been a national matter for many years. The focus is now set on global problems, and international organisations take mesures which represent a limitation of the freedom of action of the states. On the economical plan, GATT was a weak organisation; WTO even changes in some extend american economical politics. In our gobal time, even the death sentence in the USA has become an important international political matter. The third reason, and probably partly a result of influence of globalisation in the USA, we see a nationalistic reaction to the fact that other countries can limit the freedom of action of USA. Economicaly, this has lead to an increasing protectionism, which is a strong force in many unions, and consequently among the democrats. Politicaly and culturaly, those reactions came from the right side, forces which in a large extend brought George W. Bush to power. More so than in most other countries, politics in the USA evolve around local and national matters. How other countries react to american politics is so to say unsignificant for elections. Unilateralism is in that way nothing new with Geope W. Bush. Clinton was against the land mines agreement and an international tribunal. Kyoto would be dead in the USA regardless of who is president. But with Bush, this unilateralism is stronger than ever since the second world war. The huge power of the USA makes it possible for Americans to choose to stand alone without fear of marginalisation. Other countries can't do this. But the Bush administration makes a mistake if they think that they can go their own nationalistic way so often without weakening USA's leadership in the world. TARGETS - Independent monthly paper on international affairs Sloterkade 20 - 1058 HE Amsterdam - The Netherlands Ph. ++ 31 20 615 1122 - Fax: ++ 31 20 615 1120 See our website: www.targets.org _________________________________________________ KOMINFORM P.O. Box 66 00841 Helsinki Phone +358-40-7177941 Fax +358-9-7591081 http://www.kominf.pp.fi General class struggle news: [EMAIL PROTECTED] subscribe mails to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Geopolitical news: [EMAIL PROTECTED] subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] __________________________________________________
