SAN FRANCISCO -- Although the United States didn't go to the United Nations for explicit authorization of an attack against Iraq, the Bush administration never abandoned attempts to craft a multilateral coalition in support of those efforts. But this government's view of "multilateralism" differs from those of its predecessors. Rather than working through existing institutions, the U.S. now believes in "a la carte multilateralism," picking and choosing its allies and mechanisms as circumstances dictate. While this strategy reflects a changing national security environment, it could have negative effects over the long term. It threatens to undermine the relationships that create the menu from which the U.S. can select in times of need.
As the world counted down the final hours to war, Washington highlighted the backing it received as it attempted to force the government in Baghdad to disarm. According to the U.S. State Department, 33 governments have lined up behind the U.S. campaign against Iraq. Reportedly another 15 have agreed to support the coalition but do not want to be named publicly at this time. Presumably, many of these are Arab states who fear a public backlash if their support was made known.
Attention has focused on the governments that have failed to join the U.S. effort. The most notable absences are France, Germany, and Turkey -- all U.S. allies -- although the Berlin government has provided support at home, effectively freeing up U.S. personnel for duty elsewhere and Turkey has belatedly granted much needed over flight rights.