Home Page

“M” is for Multilateralism; “D” is for Delusional

Uncategorized Comments (6)

by Robert Billyard

“You see, my dear ones, multilateralism is no longer an illusive idealism, it is now an essential.”

Recently, I received an email invitation to one of those grandiose whiz-bang international conferences on the problems of the 21st Century. There was an endless list of distinguished guest speakers and forums for discussion on an endless number of pressing issues. As I read through the email I kept looking for the “M” word, the really big “M” word that strikes fear into the heart of so many dastardly souls the world over. Alas, the word was not there and I was left to ask how can any one have a conference of this nature without the big “M” being there?

I sent a reply email humbly suggesting that the big “M’”- multilateralism- had better be there if the conference was going to ultimately have any effect. I was even so audacious as to advance the name of one of Canada’s foremost multilateralist advocates as a keynote speaker.

The reply came back that yes, multilateralism is the issue but there is such strong opposition to it. My point exactly! Multilateralism is the nut we have to crack, the river we have to ford, the mountain we have to climb, along with all those unilateralist asses we have to kick and whose feeble brains have to be re-programmed.

You see, my dear ones, multilateralism is no longer an illusive idealism, it is now an essential. It is in computer terms the “operating system” that will allow the global village to effectively address these diverse issues. The global village has been consolidated. We are now, like it or not, more interdependent than ever and interdependence requires greater co-operation and comity between nations. Global warming marks a dramatic change in our eco-system- the air we breath, the resources that sustain us, and once and for all bears witness that if it is going to be addressed effectively there is going to have to be a very high level of multilateral co-operation among nations.

Of course, the strong opposition to multilateralism is because its opponents have huge vested interests in maintaining the status quo. They are terrified of the “C” words- comity, co-operation, consensus, conciliation, coalition and the most dreaded of all- the common good.

A working definition for multilateralism is:

Multilateralism in international politics means that a state pursues its interests and goals beyond its national borders, not alone, but in cooperation and coalitions with other states.

But now, as times change, this definition requires an update. “Pursing its goals and interests” should read “Tempering its goals and interests” and “not alone” becomes “as a matter of necessity in cooperation with other states.” In other words multilateralism can no longer be a cast off, disposed of when it does not fit with individual national interests and goals.

In September 2002, Robert Kagan, another of those nefarious neoconservative bagmen, wrote an article in The Washington Post entitled: Multilateralism, American Style.

He leads off the article by stating:

If you’re the kind of person who worries about American unilateralism, here’s what should really keep you up at night: Even most American multilateralists are unilateralists at the core

Yes, American unilateralism does keeps a lot of people up at night, a lot more people dead and a lot more people in dire poverty.

Kagan gets really cute when he defines two types of unilateralism; the “principled” European version- complying with international law and convention; or the American- bloody well do as you want, “going it alone” version. No doubt one reason the Europeans practice the principled version is they are all too aware of the consequences of unilateralism- war! They have seen their countries flattened by war and just maybe
American arrogance wouldn’t be quite so flagrant if they had to build again on the ruins of New York, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and Los Angeles.

Kagan quite arrogantly ties American’s “multilateralism” to its hegemonic power, and concludes that as long as it has the hegemonic advantage America will define multilateralism on its own terms- which is of course, a naked self-serving unilateralism.

It doesn’t seem to matter to the US that it is becoming the global pariah, the bully in the global village. It fails to consider the distinct possibility that there is a price to be paid for an aggressive and arrogant unilateralism.
Kagan’s made in America brand of multilateralism has ruthlessly exploited 9/11 to trump anything that resembles real multilateralism and will continue to do so until other countries, most notably its allies, muster the courage to challenge it in a meaningful way.

The war in Afghanistan is being touted as a multilateral effort when in fact it has been America’s war from the outset. The reason NATO is there is because the US diverted its troops to Iraq and was unable to effectively conduct serial warfare, even though Kagan and his fellow neoconservatives claim their right to do so as part of the PNAC( Project for the New American Century.)

When one country insists on being unilateralist it follows that others must be submissive. When the unilateralist is the world’s singular superpower it means an endless list of countries must be willingly submissive and a tyranny is created- a tyranny of indifference, denial and underachievement.

Canada is one among many countries, specifically NATO countries, that can only plead guilty on all three counts: indifference, denial and under achievement. We fool ourselves by claiming we are acting multilaterally when in reality we are paying Washington’s tribute tax in lives and billions of dollars. We make fatuous conditions ( as recommended by the featherbrained Manley Commission) like another 1000 troops thrown into the fray for our continued commitment when in reality hundreds of thousands are required in a war that is spreading beyond the borders of Afghanistan and where costs are running out of control.

Economist Joseph Stiglitz, former head of the World Bank and Nobel Laureate estimates the cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are going to cost the US treasury between 5 and 7 trillion dollars, with an additional 6 trillion dollars spent by allied countries-namely NATO.

Stiglitz’s numbers are especially pungent when the original estimate of the cost of invading Iraq was a mere 50 billion dollars.

The price of unilateralism along with everything else is wanton blundering in fiscal devastation.

* * *
It is an interesting contradiction that when it comes to so called free trade agreements multilateralism is seen as the panacea to economic salvation. When in fact they are manifestos for corporate rights and privileges granting licence to capture and control smaller economies. A former US Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, once pointed out that you don’t have to invade a country militarily, just get control of its economy. This has since been a driving force in American foreign policy, the difference now is the military option is exercised indiscriminately.

Smaller nation states, with Canada being one of the first, are continually coerced into bilateral and multilateral free trade agreements to their detriment. But when it comes to a multilateral approach to problem solving, advancing social issues, fair wages, labour, industrial, and environmental standards the old stonewall is quickly erected; and we do not have far to go to find the villains who enforce this dichotomy.

It is an interesting sarcasm that US presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama want to re-open NAFTA- for believe it or not, some of the right reasons-but NAFTA is actually very much in America’s favour. It is not the culprit sought after by unemployed and low waged American workers. The real villain is corporate America which has out-sourced so many American jobs. Economists now refer to the US as having a “donut economy”- it is hollowed at the center, heavily reliant on cheap imports from China, excessive military spending and a corrupted stock market to drive it. The US mortgage scandal has been compared to a Ponzi scheme-funny money, chasing funny money that ultimately vaporizes.

The candidacies of both Democratic candidates and Clinton and Obama are really irrelevant as American Democrats suffer the same malady as Canada’s Liberals-both are all too willing to sell out to the corporatist ultra-right agenda. The only difference between the two candidates being: Hillary is asking for a second chance, Barack a first. Meanwhile in Canada, the feckless Liberals are awarding Harper’s conservatives a de facto majority government. Voters in both countries are left with no real choice, no avenue for reform, and multilateralism, as a frame work for change internationally a non-starter.

Kagan’s quaint definition of multilateralism is really no more than international bullyism that NATO, Democrats and Liberals alike all too willing to pander to when they should be insisting on other alternatives and genuine multilateral values. As long as this present situation persists the politics of denial and under achievement become a malignancy leading to less than desirable outcomes.

In the meantime, non-government groups that want to see change must make instilling multilateral values and mechanisms a key part of their agenda and everybody elses.

@ April 10, 2008