First the Towers Crumbled, Then Unilateralism

Along with buildings and precious human lives within the United States, something fundamental to the external orientation of this country has disappeared. For the past eight months, the Bush administration has followed a policy of unilateralism toward the rest of the world. Almost as a matter of routine, treaties were abandoned, multilateral cooperation refused and a posture of take it or leave it dominated U.S. foreign policy, in areas ranging from national missile defense to biological warfare and global warming.

As the World Trade Center buildings tumbled, American unilateralism crumbled as well.

In its place has arisen the administration’s determination to assemble the broadest possible worldwide coalition.

Treating terrorism as an act of war, the administration also insists that neutrality is impossible, that every country in the world must choose sides. President Bush is saying, “You are either for us or against us.”

Not only does this represent a fundamental reorientation of the Bush administration’s approach to the world, it is certain to cause major changes in a number of the administration’s most important foreign policy initiatives. These include national missile defense, multilateral regulation of environmental and arms control problems, our relations with India and our role in settling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The suddenness and completeness of the change raise disturbing memories of previous times when the U.S. lurched from unilateralism to over-engagement. There is also a worrisome parallel to the Cold War, especially the 1950s and 1960s, when U.S. policymakers thought and acted on the premise that neutrality was immoral.

Russia’s role is crucial in the global coalition that Bush seeks to build. Russia possesses a substantial foreign intelligence service, whose agents and sources of information are critical to the painstaking tasks of identifying and locating terrorists before they strike.

But the price for Russia’s cooperation surely will be measured by the Bush administration’s willingness to at least delay developing a missile defense.

Australia and New Zealand and the nations of Western Europe have invoked their defense treaties with the United States. All of these countries favor multilateral approaches to global economic, security and environmental problems.

Lastly, the cooperation of Arab and Muslim countries is vital to the success of the campaign against terrorism. It will be impossible to penetrate the terrorist networks without the help of agents from these countries whose native languages, places of birth, and religion are indispensable in gaining admittance to terrorist planning sessions.

These countries undoubtedly will seek assistance from the United States on matters important to them. For Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, this is unquestionably a greater U.S. engagement with Israel and the Palestinians. For Pakistan, it must be assistance in dealing with India and increased economic aid.

The political character of these trade-offs also calls into question U.S. insistence that countries are either for or against American policy. By definition, they are for their own national priorities and willing to help the U.S. in ways that assist them in realizing their objectives.

This raises the question of whether the rhetoric of war and all-out moral crusade is the best frame in which to put a global campaign against terrorism. That terrorism is immoral can never be in doubt. That most human beings require a moral justification to make great personal and national sacrifices is also undeniable.

But at least two problems remain: We must avoid raising impossible expectationsthat when disappointed contribute to violent swings toward disengagement. And we must be mindful that other countries’ flexibilities are based on their own needs and interests, not on ours.

The rhetoric and atmosphere of a moral crusade make both of these tasks almost impossible to achieve. The dilemma is present in Bush’s remarks that we must “answer these attacks and rid the world of evil.” Only the first is humanly possible.