Strategic Panorama 2009 - 2010 - IEEE

Florentino Portero Rodríguez
concealed their scepticism about the operational efficiency of the United
Nations system or their preference for ad hoc mechanisms. When convening
the meeting of the leaders of the member states of the G-20 Bush
gathered around a table the people responsible for the most industrialised
states and those of the emerging economies—in other words, those with
the interests and the authority to make decisions about the future of the
world economy. In Latin terms, this puts us more in the sphere of auctoritas
than of potestas.
To what extent is the new Democratic administration of President
Obama comfortable with this policy? In his political discourse first as
candidate and subsequently as president Obama stressed his criticism
of Bush’s «unilateralism» and his commitment to a more multilateral
diplomacy. In democracies political discourse is characterised not by its
rigour but rather by academic terms or expressions used in a distorted
manner to the benefit of the speaker. President Bush put the main items
on his international agenda before the United Nations. In some cases he
found backing, in others he did not. Like previous White House tenants,
he did not allow the right of veto of other Security Council members to
block the United States’ external action and pushed ahead by forging
alliances with nations that shared the same vision and interests. It does
not appear that the Obama Administration is going to question the
foundations of this policy. More than advocating multilateralism as it is
interpreted in Europe, Obama’s criticism of «unilateralism» is directed
more at the assumption of global responsibilities. What the Democrats
objected to in Bush’s policy is that the United States took upon itself to
decide on and carry out very costly military campaigns in remote places
as a matter of general interest and against the wishes of allies and major
powers. What is more, they denied the principle that the United States
was a nation with a special «mission» in defending democracy and preserving
international security. In their view the United States should not
make a greater effort than other nations. In this connection «multilateralism»
refers more to a better distribution of the burden of managing international
affairs than submission to the United Nations system. Criticising
the excessively complacent role which in their opinion the United States
has played on the international arena for decades, they propose an attitude
that is more open to dialogue and less interventionist and greater
restraint regarding the use of force. They believe that this will win them
the confidence they need to foster a spirit of greater cooperation between
the major powers and, accordingly, be able to share out the burden,
which they consider essential for moral, diplomatic and economic
— 115 —