This diary is adapted from a discussion I had at a message board, in the comments at TPM Cafe and a philosophy that was articulated by author Melanie Rawn that I finally understood how to apply to the current situation.
There are several reasons why working through international organizations and multilateral efforts are preferable to individual national action. Those reasons are wrapped up in theories of when and how to use power. They also depend just as much on process as intent. But this is at it's core a pragmatic argument. It comes from two directions--one is that of self-preservation, the other is that of efficiency. I have decided to talk first about why using multilateral methods are preferable in and of themselves and in Part II to examine why the consequences of power are better dealt with when they result from a multilateral use of power.
A/N: Here is the link to Part II.
THE PROBLEM
The core of the power problem, both for the user of power and the person who it is being used on, is a lack of a control. That's why when you go through international organizations and are forced to seek consensus and to consider the points of view of others you get better results than going it alone.
You have a Hyper Power that can crush any one of its equivalent rivals, perhaps even a coalition of them, economically or culturally or militarily. The smaller states have a total lack of control over the Hyper Power and this generates fear because of the feeling of helplessness it creates. They can only respond to the Hyper Power and try to mitigate its actions but in the end if the Hyper Power wants to do something they are going to do it. Look at the helpless frustration some of us even here had in the last 3 years to varying degrees--no matter what we did, Bush and the GOP would beat us and go on inflicting damage. That kind of helplessness can and has turned to anger in the past. It's certainly a component of terrorism generally--the terrorists feel so helpless that they are driven to strike back in the manner they do as the only thing they can do.
I'm not equating frustrated Democrats in December of 2004 with terrorists, far from it, but look at the helpless anger you felt or that you knew others felt and imagine it magnified by even greater poverty, greater loss of life into a total lack of control. It is the saving grace and blessing of our system that we have a practical avenue to remedy our lack of control. The desire to lash out to establish at least some modicum of control over your own existence becomes almost hypnotically overwhelming--and in the international system, there currently IS no avenue to remedy lack of control other than violence.
The best way to ameliorate the consequences of the lack of control from the Hyper Power's perspective is to go through a consensus building period. That means going through either an arduous one on one process for each nation affected, or going through a time-saving international organization. But why should the Hyper Power concern itself with the lessors? If it's a Hyper Power then it has more than enough power to crush it's opponents and carryout it's goals. There are two reasons to want to blunt the consequences of helpless resentment: one based on efficiency and one based on self-interest.
METHODS
It takes a lot of resources to dominate other populations. Making war is expensive, establishing economic or cultural (propaganda) domination over another nation is also very expensive. The amounts involved are staggering, so much so that if you do it too often you have depleted your resources and become weak. Even if you don't go to that extreme the resources wasted in dominating others are resources you cannot use to strengthen your population or infrastructure. Oppressing people is almost always a waste of time and money--there is one exception I can see to this statement that I will deal with in Part II.
Another advantage of going the multilateral route is that often times a Hyper Power will only get a consensus when the smaller states see there is no other choice. If the Hyper Power only uses it's power when it must, or seems to use it when it must, the actual use of power is relatively non-threatening because smaller states can say to themselves "well they had no choice." This generates far less of the helpless feelings than when the Hyper Power simply ignores the smaller states because in the back of their mind is the thought that the Hyper Power could turn on THEM next. The multilateral forum is the most efficient forum for creating this necessity of feeling among the smaller states because they feel their views were aired and discussed and because the Hyper Power shows that it is focused on restraint.
Finally, when the Hyper Power finally strikes after reaching a consensus, even if it's one where everyone decides the hyper-power must act alone, they can bring to bear the maximum amount of resources. You not only have the least resistance to your actions, you have the chance to assert the greatest power at the proper point. Call it a political "Powell Doctrine." In addition, smaller states will often contribute after they are consulted and made to feel like they are more powerful than they are further lessening the drain on resources. Using other states resources in a way that accomplishes goals you want done while diminishing the drain on your own is about the most rational and efficient thing I can imagine.
In the interests of efficiency and long-term resource management, my argument is that multilateral actions are the preferred response to acting alone.
Having completed my discussion of the desirability of using multilateral methods in achieving goals, in Part II I will discuss the consequences that make multilateral action a preferred method.