Where We Stand: Our Principles On Protecting America's Interests Through International Institutions

The United States should use the form of international cooperation—international organizations, alliances, or coalitions of the willing—that best serves its interests, issue by issue and case by case.

The United States has global interests in security, regulation, and law. Protecting these interests often requires working with other nations to defuse threats to international peace and security, negotiate treaties and regulatory standards to address issues that affect multiple nations, and establish norms governing international relations. In many cases, American interests are served by these multilateral efforts. However, this is not always the case, and the United States must be prepared to reject multilateral initiatives that are not in its interests.

While working with organizations like the United Nations and with other governments offers important advantages, consensus at the multilateral level cannot be seen as an end in itself.

America is a founding member and was the driving force behind the creation of the United Nations. The United States has a strong desire to work through the United Nations to resolve matters of international concern. In an ideal world, the U.N. Security Council would address threats to international peace and security through swift deliberation backed by ample information, insight, impartiality, and the threat of force. Regrettably, however, both the United Nations and the Security Council are often unable to protect international peace and security due to divisions of opinions among nations—particularly when permanent, veto-wielding members of the Security Council perceive conflicting national interests.

The need to address threats to international peace and security remains even when the U.N. fails to act.When the U.N. does fail to act, the U.S. must be willing to go forward with the second-best option of a coalition or, if necessary, act unilaterally. In the more unpredictable post–September 11 world, coalitions of the willing will increasingly be the preferred method of international cooperation. Such coalitions allow for no institutional check on American power and, because they are entirely issue-driven, have the additional advantage of reflecting power realities in a world and focusing on addressing specific threats that will not be as easily derailed by unrelated issues.. Indeed, some of the most effective means for countering such threats—for example, the Proliferation Security Initiative—are currently outside of the U.N. system.

Participation must be focused on guiding the negotiations so that the eventual product supports U.S. interests rather than undermines them. For the United States, this requires both a healthy awareness of what those interests are and a willingness to walk away.

The United States has a long history of supporting international treaties that enhance freedom, commerce, security, and human rights, and its commitment to advancing these causes through international initiatives cannot be doubted. In recent years, however, there have been increasing efforts to use international treaties and law to impose policies that pose direct threats to national sovereignty or economic prosperity. The Unites States should not support or lend credibility to such efforts through participation.

A key example is the International Criminal Court (ICC).Long-standing international legal norms hold that a state cannot be bound by legal obligations that it has specifically rejected. The United States is not a party to the ICC and has specifically stated that it never intends to become a party. Therefore, claims by the ICC of jurisdiction over U.S. persons are illegitimate. In direct contravention of the norms and precedents of international law, the ICC claims jurisdiction over citizens of countries that have specifically rejected its jurisdiction. This unprecedented break with international legal norms has required the U.S. to take unusual steps to protect its citizens and military personnel.

Although it is unrealistic to expect every nation in the United Nations to follow America’s lead, the United States can and should be more effective in championing its positions in the General Assembly by focusing foreign assistance on economically and politically free countries that are more inclined to support American priorities and by seeking to build coalitions of economically and politically free countries.

The United States has numerous alliances around the world that need to be strengthened and adapted to support American priorities in the war on terrorism, addressing regional instability, and increasing interoperability and capabilities to deal with regional threats. To achieve this goal, they must be made more politically flexible. NATO, the world’s preeminent regional security institution, is a key example. While full, unqualified NATO approval of specific missions may prove difficult to achieve diplomatically in the new era, the Combined Joint Task Force (CJTF) mechanism offers more alliance flexibility. Such operations, while retaining members’ veto options, are likely to become the norm.

Unilateral action is not the preferred option for addressing threats, but it should never be dismissed as an option. Acting through the United Nations removes many legal and cultural concerns that may prevent sympathetic countries from supporting policies advocated by the United States. If U.N. support is not forthcoming, the United States should endeavor to work with allies or create a coalition of the willing as the second-best alternative. If this is not forthcoming, the United States should take unilateral action to protect its interests.

America is a nation that adheres strongly to the rule of law. Once it commits to a treaty or regulation, it will abide by that commitment. Therefore, the U.S.must be very careful not to sign a treaty or obligation that undermines its interests, regardless of the level of international support. As with the International Criminal Court and the Kyoto Protocol, America is better served by severing its ties with treaties and organizations that threaten its sovereignty, economy, or interests, even if such action ruffles international feathers.