The Unipolar Moment 1992 – 2008: concept and examples

Unipolarity in international politics is the distribution of power in which one state

exercises most of the cultural, economic, and military influence. A hegemon has the

opportunity to shape the international system in according to its political values and

interests, but it also has to manage the system and to tackle international crisis. However,

in time political rivals may rise and challenge the order promoted by the hegemon.

After the fall of the USSR at the end of 1991, America was offered a historical

chance to impose itself as the world’s only superpower. In Krauthammer terms,

“American preeminence is based on the fact that it is the only country with the military,

diplomatic, political and economic assets to be a decisive player in any conflict whatever

part of the world it chooses to involve itself”. It is the combination of all four that makes

America the only comprehensive global superpower. New enemies were identified, and

new strategies have to be applied. The new dangers for the American security now, were

the spread of nuclear weapons, the terrorist actions of radical Islamists, and later the rise

of political rivals such as China of Russia.

The Clinton presidency 1993-2001

Major foreign policy principles

For the Bill Clinton Administration the United States was an “indispensable

nation”. The American foreign policy during Clinton’s reign at the White House focused

around two major foreign policy objectives:

The creation of a more stable and peaceful international system ;

The dissemination of democratic values abroad through the spread of

globalization, believing in the idea that national rivalries could be

appeased through global institutionalized cooperation.

Foreign policy actions

1

Through bilateral negotiations with Russia, the Clinton administration

successfully signed in 1993 the START II Treaty, followed one year later by the Mutual

Detargeting Treaty. The US also obtained a Ukrainian commitment to the

Nonproliferation Treaty as a nonmember state in return for enhanced economic

assistance.

The Clinton Administration also tried, however unsuccessfully, to persuade North

Korea to give up its nuclear arsenal. In 1998, America launched the military operation

“Desert Fox” against Iraq, due to the fact that Saddam Hussein was violating the UN SC

resolutions. 1 In regards to Iran, another country linked to the development of nuclear

weapons, and also considered a “state sponsor of terrorism” Clinton adopted the strategy

of economic sanctions.

Clinton was a great supporter of NATO enlargement and also of the European

Union enlargement. Secretary of state Madeline Albright was the main artisan of the

NATO enlargement. She infused a sharply defined sense of geopolitical direction into the

NSC 2 deliberations, with emphasis on Europe. In July 1997, after the Madrid Summit the

Atlantic Alliance expanded first time after the Cold War, when Poland, Czech Republic

and Hungary have been invited to join NATO. Due to the fact that the US had to had to

find a way to accommodate Russia, two months before the expansion, the NATO –

Russia Founding Act was signed. However, all states that opted for NATO membership

had to fulfill several criteria related to democratization, market economy, civil control

over the Army, the capability of being a security provider and not a security consumer,

and good relations to their neighbors. Additionally on the European continent, the

European Community stepped closer towards integration after the signing of the

1 After the Gulf War of 1991, Iraq was under UN SC resolutions 678/19901and 687/1991 thus having to remove and destroy all its chemical, biological and ballistic missiles. It then established the United Nations Special Commission relating to inspections and set provisions for it, and asked Iraq to abide by its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, agreeing not to develop nuclear weapons2 National Security Council is the principal forum used by the President of the United States for considering national security and foreign policy matters with his senior national security advisors and Cabinet officials and is part of the Executive Office of the President of the United States.

2

Maastricht treaty in 1992, which created the European Union. Furthermore, in 1995

Austria, Finland and Sweden joined the EU.

A joint US – EU effort led to the successful completion in 1994 of the Uruguay

Round of the GATT. As a result, on January 1995 the World Trade Organization has

been established, which was a major step towards the emergence of a global economic

order and a supranational solidarity.

In its relation towards China, Clinton tried to attract Beijing in the international

economic structures, especially using the gradual inclusion in the WTO, and to facilitate

the progressive integration of China’s economy into the world system, the US in 1994

extended most favored nation status to China. By doing this Clinton hoped that in the

long run a China that accepts international rules and it is drawn into greater economical

interdependence would be drawn into greater respect for human rights and democracy.

With strong U.S. support, Russia has begun an unprecedented transition to

democracy and free markets, undergoing fundamental changes in its political, economic

and social life. Clinton advocated for human rights by encouraging Russia to adhere to

international norms on human rights, promoted legal reform and the rule of law in Russia

through assistance, aimed at developing an independent judiciary and improving legal

decision-making and respect for the rule of law and strengthened independent media in

Russia by providing training, small grants and technical assistance to independent TV,

radio and print media across Russia. All those things were possible due to the special

relation cultivated between Bill Clinton and Russia’s president Boris Yeltsin.

Being the hegemon of the system, the US had to manage several international

crisis worldwide. In Europe, Yugoslavia was torn apart by ethnic conflicts. Due to the

lack of military capabilities the European powers were unable to intervene, and therefore

the US interventions under the NATO umbrella, in 1994-1995 in Bosnia and in 1999 in

Kosovo were decisive for the stabilization of the former Yugoslavian space. The US also

backed a United Nations humanitarian intervention in Haiti in 1994. On the African

continent, America contributed to another UN mission in Somalia, which however ended

3

with heavily fatalities for the Americans, but had an attitude of indifference towards the

Rwanda genocide from 1994 – 1995.

In the Middle East, The Clinton Administration played a central role in the peace

process between Israeli and Palestinians, supporting and contributing to several peace

plans such as the Oslo Peace Accords from 1993, and the Camp David II Negotiations

from 2000.

Documents highlighting the Clinton Administration worldview

“A critical priority for the United States is to stem the proliferation of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction and their missile delivery systems. Countries' weapons programs, and their levels of cooperation with our nonproliferation efforts, will be among our most important criteria in judging the nature of our bilateral relations”.

“Never has American leadership been more essential — to navigate the shoals of the world's new dangers and to capitalize on its opportunities.

This report, ... elaborates a national security strategy tailored for this new era. Focusing on new threats and new opportunities, its central goals are: To sustain our security with military forces that are ready to fight; To bolster America's economic revitalization; To promote democracy abroad.”

“…democratic states are less likely to threaten our interests and more likely to cooperate with the U.S. to meet security threats…”.

extract from : White House, National Security Strategy of Engagement and Enlargement. February 1995, http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/nss/nss-95.pdf

The George W. Bush Presidency 2001-2009

Major foreign policy principles

After the 9/11 terrorist attacks the American decision makers identified new

threats and new foreign policy objectives for the US, highlighting a dogmatic view about

4

the world, which was the product of its decision making apparatus which was formed

mainly by neoconservatives3, a branch from the Republican Party.

The American foreign policy during George W. Bush’s reign at the White House

focused around major foreign policy concepts such as:

After 9/11 new dangers were identified: terrorist actions promoted by

radical Islamist, the spread of nuclear weapons with the possibility that

such weapons might fall in the hands of the terrorists,

America has a global mission; it is a “benevolent hegemony” and the

majority of the world powers will accept the US global domination instead

of other alternatives;

Rogue states such as Iraq, Iran, North Korea represent a source of

instability for the international system and a potential threat for the

American security due to their antagonistic political regimes. Thus,

democratization through regime change should be an option in dealing

with them.

In 2002 the Bush Administration adopted a new security strategy which

focused around principles such as “unilateralism”, “preemptive strike” and

“regime change”.

Foreign policy actions

In reaction to the terrorist attacks on World Trade Center and Pentagon, the US

led a NATO invasion of Afghanistan, in October 2001, instigating the "Global War on

Terror". The campaign's official purpose was to eliminate al-Qaeda and other militant

organizations. Moreover, in March 2003 the United States invaded Saddam Hussein’s

Iraq, under the pretext that the baathist4 regime from Baghdad has strong links with Al

Qaeda and has secret program of Weapons of Mass Destruction. The situation was

different from the previous war in Afghanistan, due to the fact that there was no UN SC

3 The neoconservatives from G. W. Bush Administration were Richard Cheney , Vice president, Donald Rumsfeld Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz, Secretary Deputy of Defence and Lewis Libby, vice president’s chief of staff4 Ba’ath Party was a socialist and single party state which covered the history of the Republic of Iraq from 1968 to 2003.

5

resolution allowing the invasion and the war was waged by the US and a coalition of

willing. The 2003 invasion of Iraq raised several controversies both in US and

worldwide. Due to the fact that there was no UN Security Council resolution to allow a

war against Iraq, the US lost its credibility even among its allies. Besides those aspects,

severe critiques addressed to the Bush Administration are related also

to the post war situation from Iraq and the “nation building’’ process

started there.

During the George W. Bush reign at the White House NATO expanded over the

former soviet sphere of influence, in 2002 after the Prague Summit when Bulgaria,

Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovenia and Slovakia were invited to join the

Alliance, and after 2008 Bucharest Summit when Albania and Croatia were invited to be

part of the Atlantic Alliance.

As an effort to stop the spreading of nuclear weapons proliferation, on the other

hand, Russia and the US have cooperated on the North Korean nuclear program issue.

The Six- Party Talks, which formally commenced in 2004, involving the US, PR of

China, Japan, Russia, South Korea and North Korea, this being, a far reaching

acknowledgement that security of the Far East required some form of international

architecture. Also, George W. Bush has made clear that an Iranian enrichment program is

unacceptable, consistently stating that the United States will not allow Iran to possess a

nuclear weapon or the means to create a nuclear weapon. Subsequently, the US officials

worked within the United Nations to pass several resolutions calling on Iran to stop

enriching uranium, and also opted for the imposing of economic sanctions on Iran for

continuing to enrich uranium.

In the Middle East peace process between Israel and Palestine, Bush came with a

“two states solution” in 2002, but later the plan was abandoned. In the policy towards

Africa, President Bush has done work to reduce the HIV/AIDS epidemics in Africa, stop

the spread of Malaria, and rebuild broken nations from their genocidal pasts. And also,

On October 14, 2006 Bush signed a law imposing sanctions against people responsible

for genocide and war crimes in Sudan.

6

The unilateral style of foreign policy was also visible not only in areas related to

security issues. During the Bush presidency, negotiations in the 2005 continuing Doha

Round of the WTO were stalemated by contending American and European views

regarding agricultural subsidies. In the same year, the Kyoto Protocol came into effect

but without the commitment of the United States .

Due to Vladimir Putin’s new vision, Russia started to emerge as a geopolitical

rival. In 2002, Bush withdrew the United States from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in

order to move forward with plans for a missile defense system. Putin called the decision a

mistake. Russia strongly opposed the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, though without

exercising its veto in the United Nations Security Council. From Kremlin’s standpoint,

the expansion of NATO into the old Eastern Bloc, and U.S. efforts to gain access to

Central Asian oil and natural was seen as a potentially hostile encroachment on Russia's

sphere of influence. Furthermore, US – Russia relations were strained by 2007 US

announcement to build an anti-ballistic missile defense installation in Poland and Czech

Republic, by the 2008 Russian military intervention in Georgia and by a Russian –

Venezuelan joint naval exercises in the seas of Venezuela, which the US saw it as a

reaction to the American announcement of the anti ballistic missile shield. Russia and

the US also disagree on the independence of Kosovo issue, which followed in February

2008. While the US recognized the new states, Kremlin strongly opposed considering

that the recognition of Kosovo’s unilaterally declared independence as a "a terrible

precedent, which will de facto blow apart the whole system of international relations,

developed not over decades, but over centuries".

Despite the fact that during his speeches president Bush has criticized Beijing

several times for its human rights abuses, the US has supported China’s inclusion in the

WTO in 2001 and worked together on regional issues, including those pertaining to North

Korea and its nuclear weapons program.

7

Documents highlighting the Bush Administration worldview

“States like these [Iraq, Iran, North Korea]5, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States”.

President George W. Bush State of the Union Address, 2002

“ The U.S. national security strategy will be based on a distinctly American internationalism that reflects the union of our values and our national interests.

While the United States will constantly strive to enlist the support of the international community, we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self defense by acting preemptively against such terrorists, to prevent them from doing harm against our people and our country;

We must be prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients before they are able to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction against the United States and our allies and friends.

Traditional concepts of deterrence will not work against a terrorist enemy whose avowed tactics are wanton destruction and the targeting of innocents; whose so-called soldiers seek martyrdom in death and whose most potent protection is statelessness. The overlap between states that sponsor terror and those that pursue WMD compels us to action.

For centuries, international law recognized that nations need not suffer an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against forces that present an imminent danger of attack. Legal scholars and international jurists often conditioned the legitimacy of preemption on the existence of an imminent threat—most often a visible mobilization of armies, navies, and airforces preparing to attack.

The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction— and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack.

5 Author’s emphasis

8

The United States will not use force in all cases to preempt emerging threats, nor should nations use preemption as a pretext for aggression. Yet in an age where the enemies of civilization openly and actively seek the world’s most destructive technologies, the United States cannot remain idle while dangers gather”

The National Security Strategy of the United States, September 2002,

Recommended bibliography

Charles Krauthammer, “The Unipolar Moment”, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 70. No.1, 1991, pp. 23-33

Joseph Nye Jr. “The Future of American Power: Dominance and Decline in Perspective”, Foreign Affairs, November-December, 2010

John Lewis Gaddis, Surprise, security and the American experience, Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London, 2004

Zbigniew Brzezinski, Second chance: three presidents and the crisis of American Superpower, Basic Books, New York, 2007 [Romanian edition: A doua şansă. Trei preşedinţi şi criza superputerii americane, Antet, Prahova, 2009]

G. John Ikenberry, “Liberal Order Building”, in Melvin Leffler and Jeffrey Legro (editors), To lead the World: American Strategy after the Bush Doctrine, Oxford University Press, 2008

Robert Kagan, “End of Dreams, Return of History”, in To lead the World: American Strategy after the Bush Doctrine, Oxford University Press, 2008

Francis Fukuyama, “The Neoconservative Moment”, in Gary Rosen (editor), The Right War? The Conservative Debate on Iraq, Cambridge University Press 2005

9