After eight years of the Bush administration generally following unilateral policies, the shift to multilateralism after
November has been an obvious one. The seemingly liberal obsession with global approval of our actions has and will, most likely, continue to shape Obama doctrine. In Foreign Policy Magazine, Gustavo de las Casas examines the similarities between our President and Austrian Foreign Minister Klemens von Metternich in the first half of the 19th century. He uses the events of the Austrian Empire to highlight where multilateral foreign policy may fail in generating original doctrine and ultimately, progress. A quick and interesting read, check it out.
But sooner or later Metternichian diplomacy disappoints its practitioners—not with what it does, but what it doesn’t do. It’s relatively easy to coordinate actions between countries that already want the same thing, as with the 1803-1815 Napoleonic Wars, when Metternich ultimately cemented an anti-French alliance based on a shared fear of Napoleon. When common goals don’t exist, however, Metternich-style diplomacy can’t create them. Take 1866, when Prussia—unconvinced that it shared the same goals as the rest of Europe—defeated Austria for leadership of the Germanic states. Austria left the ranks of great powers, a victim of its own belief in the tenacity of shared interests.
Agreed in that multilateralism is hardly a coherent strategy for foreign policy. Sure, all things held equal, it would be nice to make decisions with states that have coinciding interests and enjoy the respect of the rest of the world, but this idealism ignores the real conflicts of interests and predatory states that exist in the world.
Additionally, I think we will have to wait until Obama faces a real tough question concerning national security before we can fully recognize his admin’s transition to “multilateralism.”