When Diplomacy Flunks

Last October, in this space, I expressed my disagreement with the unilateralist strategy the U.S. had been considering regarding Iraq. My view was that a persistent go-it-alone attitude by the American government would strain relations with numerous vital allies and friends, and that a more divided world could emerge. Sadly, despite significant effort, diplomacy has failed, unilateralism has prevailed over multilateralism and the world has entered its first major regional war of the 21st century badly damaged. Would the alternatives to war have been more effective in disarming Iraq and promoting stability, democracy and prosperity in the Middle East? On the night of Mar. 19 that critical question became academic. The decisions had been made. Now we must assess the damage and try to pick up the pieces. Today's question is: Where will this failure of diplomacy and the resulting war take us?

What Shouldn't Happen Next

It is my deep hope that this war not be prologue to a new international order in which the U.S. acts according to its own rules, unconstrained by the norms of the international community, awarding itself the right to set and enforce standards of international justice. I strongly suspect that an order based on such aggressive unipolarity, if at all possible, would not long survive. Sooner rather than later, even old friends acting alone, or perhaps in concert with old foes, would find a way to "balance" a unilateral Pax Americana.

Of course, this war should not be the start of a clash of civilizations, either. In the 21st century mature civilizations should not clash, they should interact with and benefit from one another. Nor should this war mark the beginning of the end of the multilateral system that has been evolving since the end of World War II. Many now say this system has failed. It remains to be seen what has failed, or who has failed whom. The solution is not to destroy the system but to transform it so it can take on the new challenges facing it. We must insist on this, not simply because the rest of the world would benefit, but because the U.S.' own security and prosperity depend on it to an extent that is by no means minor.

The world will safely navigate the unipolar waters that flow from the end of the Cold War only if the U.S., as the triumphant superpower, uses its unmatched military strength as a guarantor of global security exclusively as a last resort; only if it holds itself to acting within the international institutions it so painstakingly helped to create; only if it uses its influence to persuade, unite and leading order to increase security and prosperity for itself and others.

Because the injury the present crisis has dealt the international system is great indeed, the system's reinvigoration is urgent--and possible. Many of the central problems facing the U.S. and the world at large simply cannot be solved without international cooperation. Sheer military might is not sufficient; in fact, it's a rare problem that can truly be solved by isolated force alone. Consider, for example, what has recently become the biggest security concern of this and many other countries: transnational terrorism (as well as organized crime, its not-so-distant cousin). It would be dangerously naive to think that terrorism can effectively be fought in isolation. Can criminals with their international trafficking in drugs and weapons--and the money involved--be defeated if countries refuse to work together? Never. This is a fight without borders, and combating terrorism successfully requires the support of friends, allies and, sometimes, even adversaries. Global threats call for global responses.

Restoring the International System

It is imperative to restore some normalcy to the international system. This will not be easy given the acrimony of late, but diplomacy must be given a real chance. It would, of course, be unrealistic to think the community of nations could anytime soon come up with a totally new grand design of international relations based solely on multilateralism. It is, however, realistic to adopt a more gradual approach, one in which a constructive agenda of issues to be tackled is commonly agreed upon by major players.

Old allies must go back to the drawing board together; they must agree on what the most dangerous threats to international security are, and on what a common strategy might be to confront them--something that should have been done following 9/11. Mending the transatlantic rift must be a priority. A first, significant step toward that would be acceptance by the U.S. and the EU of a multilateral approach to Iraq's reconstruction. Also of utmost importance is working together to accomplish a fair and lasting peace in the Middle East. And, among many other pending tasks, it is vital the U.S. and the EU get serious about honoring the international commitments they made at Doha, Qatar in November 2001 (to cooperate in concluding an ambitious WTO round of trade liberalization) and at Monterrey, Mexico in March 2002 (to increase substantially their aid to poor countries). Finding common ground for the pursuit of the Millennium Development Goals, adopted in 2000 by the international community--to halve by 2015 the proportion of people suffering from extreme poverty in the world--would also do much to bring these crucial allies back together.

If all this sounds idealistic, if these efforts seem unattainable or unrealistic or too difficult, think long and hard about the alternative: much more of what we started to see the night of Mar. 19.