BUSH SPEAKS ON SECOND TERM MULTILATERALISM

President Bush returned from his European tour in February declaring the coming of a "new era of transatlantic unity." In what was considered a relatively smooth trip, Bush met with the European Commission and the Council of Ministers, as well as individual country leaders. Symbolically and diplomatically, this was a second-term president reaching out for global support rather than undermining it.

President Bush's second term in office has been defined by efforts to re-build teetering alliances.  On December 1, 2004 the president met with Canadian Prime Minster, Paul Martin in an effort to smooth relations and discuss trade disputes between their respective, neighboring countries. Following the meeting, Bush delivered a speech in which he not only demonstrated renewed enthusiasm for stronger international institutions but also gave several indications that his administration would conduct a more multilateral foreign policy during his second term in office. “We have important work ahead,” Bush explained to members of the press in Halifax, Nova Scotia. “A new term in office is an important opportunity to reach out to our friends.”

In what was his first major foreign policy address since his reelection on November 2, 2004, President Bush reaffirmed the maxim that “second terms open the way for second thoughts.” His assertion that his administration “is determined to work as far as possible within the framework of international organizations,” stood in stark contrast to the unilateral course pursued in Iraq. While his declaration that “America always prefers to act with allies at our side,” was, for many, contrary to a first term tainted by decaying international alliances.

Nevertheless, during his speech in Halifax President Bush laid the framework for America’s reengagement with the international community, setting forth a second term agenda with three distinct goals: building effective multinational and multilateral institutions, prosecuting the war on terrorism with the help of these institutions, and spreading democracy throughout the Middle East. In summary, Bush declared: “We’re hoping that other nations will work with us to make [international] institutions more relevant and effective in meeting the unique threats of our time.”

While the president’s Halifax speech suggests a more collaborative tone for American internationalism, it remains to be seen whether his actions will reflect his rhetoric. A month and a half following his speech in Canada, President Bush made a similar conciliatory gesture in front of a domestic audience, declaring during his State of the Union address that “in the next four years my administration will continue to build coalitions that will defeat the dangers of our time.” Most recently, President Bush extended a proverbial olive branch to tattered, European allies, stating during his tour of Europe, “I want to make sure the Europeans understand I know that as we move beyond the differences of the past, that we can work together to achieve big objectives.”

So what does this mean for the Bush Administration’s second-term, foreign policy? If history is any guide, not much should be expected of the president’s diplomatic overtures. A little more than a year prior to his appearance with Prime Minister Martin, President Bush issued a similar defense of multilateralism with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, in which he urged “all nations to put aside temporary disagreements and to recognize responsibility to work for the common good in the world.” The president’s subsequent actions did little to support his claim that “effective multilateralism, and neither unilateralism nor international paralysis, [would] guide [his] approach.”

Certainly there are those in America’s foreign policy circles, including individuals close to the administration, who are skeptical about the possibility of fundamental change in America’s international relations. John Hullsman of the Heritage Foundation opined in a recent BBC report that “ultimately, this will be multilateralism but on the Bush Administrations’ terms.” In addition, both Canadians and Europeans, who overwhelmingly oppose the war in Iraq, repeatedly referred to Bush's visits as merely “charm offensives”.

These doubts and concerns are well substantiated. For all the talk of a desire to improve alliances and global institutions, President Bush continues to reassert Washington’s perceived right to “flout” international law and wage pre-emptive war. He has insisted that multilateralism should be “measured not merely by following a process, but by achieving results,” and that “the objective of the UN and other institutions must be collective security, not endless debate.”

During his inaugural address on January 20, 2005, he all but committed America to a policy of interventionism on behalf of liberty and freedom. “All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know,” he declared, “the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.”

Ultimately, it is up to President Bush to prove history and his skeptics wrong. It remains to be seen whether President Bush will continue to be isolationistic in his foreign relations or whether, as Condoleezza Rice declared before the Senate, “the time for diplomacy is now.”


Updated April 17, 2006