Is it still possible to reintegrate the world's hyper-power into a truly multilateral, multipolar arrangement?

It is certainly easier to identify the deeper motivations behind Washington's decision to adopt a resolutely unilateral stance than it is to accept its justifications for doing so.

As a global power with economic interests to defend throughout the world, the United States considers itself directly obliged to maintain planetary stability.

American military might exceed that of all the other militaries of the world, as the war in Iraq has shown o­nce again. Indeed, o­ne would have to go back to the Roman Empire to find a power equivalent to the US today. It is easy to understand how such a military power would create a tendency to use it.

Unilateral postures

In addition, American supremacy in technology, information technology, and culture are being progressively imposed o­n all civilisations of the planet.

This combination of vast interests and primacy has lead the US to repeatedly adopt unilateral postures in areas well beyond the sphere of foreign policy.

This attitude is manifested in Washington's rejection of the Kyoto accord, the International Criminal Court, the nuclear test ban treaty, as well as its decision to increase tariffs o­n imported steel, boost agricultural subsidies, and abrogate the anti-ballistic missile treaty.

The current position if the US is that multilateralism must never block or restrain American action. The statements of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld are revealing in this regard: ''The mission determines the coalition. And the coalition must not be permitted to determine the mission.''

It is the United States, and the United States alone, that has the ability to choose between unilateralism and multilateralism, at its whim. It should be noted that in the eyes of the American neo-imperialists, multilateralism it merely a manifestation of the powerlessness of weak states who have no choice but to ally themselves with each other to try and counterbalance American dominance.

It is important at this time that we examine the arguments for a multilateralism which - though for certain countries it may be motivated by recent history or immediate interests is grounded in

international law.

More appropriate approach

1. It is evident, to begin with, that the US has neither the means nor the will to take charge of and resolve the problems of the entire planet. Therefore they must win the consent of their allies and increasingly of other states.

2. Though American unilateralism, sustained by its military might, tends to favour coercive policies the carrot-and-the-stick approach - at the moment the world's most pressing concerns are primarily related to economic development. It is clear that in these conditions, a policy carried out in a multilateral context and founded o­n dialogue, diplomacy, negotiation, as well as the promotion of economic cooperation, is more appropriate than a unilateralist approach.

3. Under international law and the United Nations Charter, all states are equal. It is therefore up to them to assume the same responsibility for adopting resolutions intended to regulate conflicts.

4. The Pax Americana violates international law to the extent that it encourages preventive wars and marginalises at the same time the development of mechanisms to adopt international laws. Because such unilateralism - in the service of immediate interests - heavily mortgages the United Nations and the planet, it must be recognised as an extremely grave development.

5. The most important argument can be summed up in this formula inspired by the philosopher Pascal: ''democracy within the US; authoritarianism outside of it.'' In effect, while in the domestic arena the US government recognises the separation of powers and systems of checks and balances, particularly the restraint of the executive by the legislature and public opinion, internationally the US demands that governments and their peoples cede to their will according to the unilateralist conceit that what is good for the US is good for the world.

6. The most serious consequence of this tendency regards global militarisation. How can a unilateralist approach succeed in keeping China, India, and Pakistan from strengthening their nuclear arsenals? How can small countries be discouraged from trying to acquire less expensive but

more destructive weapons? How can the spread of terrorism be restrained?

In short, there is real reason to fear that terrorism will be used as the predominant motivation for all international action at a time when we should be directing our political will, energy, and resources entirely towards peace, development, and the fight against poverty. - IPS

Boutros Boutros-Ghali was Secretary-General of the United Nations from 1992-1996.