Unilateralism: Right for America, Right for the World

There was much talk of coalitions after the traumatic events of last September. Critics of Washington’s policies hoped that their agenda of international cooperation would find new favour. They have been disappointed. What is right for America is regarded by the White House as right for the world.

The World Today Updated 23 October 2020 Published 1 February 2002 5 minute READ

Paul Rogers

In the aftermath of the atrocities of September 11, there was a palpable sense of support for the United States across much of the rest of the world.

Condemnation of the perpetrators was remarkably widespread and this was accompanied by an expectation that a broadly-based multilateral coalition of states would quickly develop, with Washington in the lead.

It was expected that this would contrast markedly with a widespread sense that the administration of President George Bush had been pursuing a singularly unilateralist stance since coming to power – a significant change from its predecessor.

Moreover, this was in contrast to opinion in Europe, and there was evidence of a developing transatlantic divide. Several months on, has there been any shift in US attitudes?

Subscribe to read all issues

Articles from the current issue are free to read by all, the archive is exclusive to magazine subscribers and our members. Subscribe or become a member to view articles from the archive.