Trust in the age of fear. Multilateralism after 9/11

The aim of the article is to discuss the viability of unilateralism in present-day international relations in order to reflect on the evolution of multilateralism after 1989 and in particular after 9/11. In a dialogue with Mats Berdal (author of Sources of Adherence to Multilateral institutions on the same issue of the Review) who rejects “commonplace associations” of multilateralism with “disinterested and salutary behavior” and unilateralism with “arbitrary, irresponsible and abusive behavior” concluding that states should let pragmatism guide their choices, the thesis tentatively put forward is that after 9/11 some functional imperatives emerged which produced (a discourse on) a new more demanding form of multilateralism. This “advanced” multilateralism, popularized by the “order of democracies” image, implicitly stresses accountability as a means to foster trustworthiness among states. If the social environment is evolving in this direction unilateralism will be perceived as more disruptive not so much because it is “abusive” but simply because it is “irresponsible”. This new sensitivity may stem from the awareness that, in the future, the only alternative to increasingly ineffective balancing of enemies will be the cultivation of friends, as Michael W. Doyle has noted.