The Asia-Pacific Security Lexicon (Upated 2nd Edition)

A LA CARTE MULTILATERALISM

5 A LA CARTE MULTILATERALISM A la carte suggests the idea of picking and choosing. The term a la carte multilateralism was coined by Richar d Haass, Dir ector of Policy Planning in the U.S. State Department fr om 2001 to 2003. In a speech in July 2001, Haass told a W ashington think-tank that “what you’r e going to get fr om [the Geor ge W. Bush] administration is a la carte multilateralism… we’ll look at each agreement and make a decision, rather than come out with a broad-based approach.”1 Haass’ use of the term came against a backdr op of debate about the Bush administration’s supposed pr eference for unilateral action, signalled by its r ejection of the Kyoto Pr otocol, the International Criminal Court and theAnti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. According to one analyst the formulation was intended to suggest that “multilateralism was not r ejected out of hand, but would be engaged only as and when the United States chooses to participate”.2 Treaties will “be judged one issue at a time, one negotiation at a time, one summit meeting at a time”. 3 As such, the term clearly shares much with ideas like “ad hoc multilateralism” or “coalitions of the willing” in which one leading state cr eates a multilateral group by “picking and choosing its allies and mechanisms as circumstances dictate”.4 01 A_Pac Security Lexicon 9/24/07, 9:03 AM 5 6 A LA CARTE MULTILATERALISM Advocates of an a la carte approach argue that it is realistic and pragmatic. Rather than accepting multilateralism as an end in itself, a la carte multilateralism puts emphasis on achieving outcomes. Satu Limaye has said the Bush administration’s approach more closely resembles “accountable multilateralism” in which “a pr emium is placed on making institutions achieve concrete ends”.5 Robert Kagan agr ees, arguing that, “contrary to fashionable wisdom, the debate today is not between multilateralism and unilateralism. It’s between ef fective multilateralism and paralytic multilateralism”.6 John Bolton, then U.S. Under-Secretary of State for international security af fairs, explicitly links the efficacy of a la carte multilateralism to its ability to serve the national inter est. “We’re making a national inter est calculation and whether it’s multilateralism, unilateralism or bilateralism, those are a means to an end. Those ar e like a knife, fork and spoon. They ar e all utilitarian tools to use, but the philosophical calculus behind them is what’s in our national interest.”7 Critics of ad hoc and a la carte approaches have argued that they do not r epresent multilateralism at all. 8 Former Clinton administration official Strobe Talbott has described the practice as “tactical multilateralism”9 while critics in Malaysia described it as “bogus multilateralism”.10 One U.S. newspaper r esponded to Haass’s speech with a critical editorial that r ead, “Translation: We’ll do what we want, where we want and with whom we want. Treaties are for wimps.”11 Scholarly analyses have noted how a la carte approaches differ from other forms of institutionalised multilateral cooperation in that they r eject the idea that the most powerful state should also be constrained by the same r ules as weaker states — the compr omise at the cor e of traditional multilateralism. Lisa Martin ar gues that what she calls ‘opportunistic multilateralism’ is a short-sighted strategy for even a powerful state. Operating without the inconveniences of multilateral constraints is a tremendous temptation for the powerful. It allows unfetter ed expression of power , and may maximize immediate payof fs… [But] turning to multilateral organizations only under duress and when it appears convenient demonstrates a lack of commitment, 01 A_Pac Security Lexicon 9/24/07, 9:03 AM 6 7 A LA CARTE MULTILATERALISM even explicit rejection, of the principles of multilateralism. This in turn leads other states to expect the United States to renege on agreements or operate outside the constraints of multilateral organizations when it is convenient to do so. This hollows out the cor e of such or ganizations, as they no longer pr ovide the self-binding function they once did. Multilateral organizations become marginalized, and cannot pr oduce the international agr eements and plans of action that pr ovided long-term stability and prosperity in the late twentieth century. International lawyer Philippe Sands has ar gued the...