LOS ANGELES: In the weeks since Sept 11, an erroneous assumption has taken hold, both inside this country and abroad, about the foreign policy of the Bush administration. Let us call it the Myth of Abandoned Unilateralism. According to this myth, the Bush administration’s foreign policy underwent a radical transformation after the terrorist attacks. Beforehand, or so the myth holds, the US tried to deal with the world as a sole superpower, avoiding international agreements. Since Sept 11, it reversed course and has chosen a new, multilateral approach.

The reality is otherwise. If you focus on actual policy positions rather than mere style and tone, the Bush administration has changed far less than have the perceptions of it. In the weeks since then, the Bush administration has moved with great fanfare to form a coalition of nations against terrorism. So has the administration cast aside what was earlier deemed unilateralism? It has not.

It has not altered its position on the Kyoto treaty or the test ban treaty or any of the other issues that were the basis of the earlier judgments. It has not changed its views on missile defence. Sure, the Bush administration is asking for help from other countries now. But look carefully and you will find that it also is careful to avoid tying itself down or turning decisions over to international or multilateral organizations. Before the Gulf War, the first Bush administration placed great importance on showing that it had authorization from the UN Security Council. This time, the US gave only a glancing nod to the UN. Neither do US military forces act under a NATO command, as they did in Kosovo two years ago. In fact, in some ways, the war against terrorism will make the US more unilateral than before. Take the proposal for an international criminal court. For years, the Pentagon has opposed such a court on grounds that its creation could open the way for US soldiers to be unfairly prosecuted for war crimes.

The Myth of Abandoned Unilateralism reflects, above all, the desire of US allies, to close ranks with the Bush administration. That is understandable. In the process, however, the Bush team’s erstwhile critics seem to be changing their views more than is the administration itself. For its part, the administration is not any more or less unilateral than it ever was. —Dawn/LAT-WP Service (c) Los Angeles Times.