Multilateralism or US hegemony:the case of the Bosnian crisis

• Main Authors: timy tien, 田鎔瑄
• Other Authors: 李本京
• Format: Others
• Language: en_US
• Published: 2002
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/64068496665812194112

碩士 === 淡江大學 === 美國研究所 === 90 === Entering the 21st century, the immediate challenge that we face and need to resolve in the arena of International Relations is security. The structural changes in the international system bring both opportunity and danger to the United States. Transatlantic security has traditionally been of US concern in overall global security since its involvement in the two World Wars. However, in facing a new world order that arose in the era of post Cold War, the US needed to redefine its European security strategy so as to adapt new approaches in responding to the change of transatlantic security relationship. This led to a problem: isolationism or hegemony? Which better served American interests? In examining the case of the Bosnian crisis, it seems that Clinton’s multilateral European policy secured American interests and won the US the assertive leadership that it presently enjoys among its European allies. The purpose of this analysis is to examine just how Clinton’s multilateral European policy gradually served to secure American interests in the face of shifting transatlantic relationships and how it responded to the challenges the Bosnian conflict posed for European stability in the post Cold War era. Perhaps America would be well served to examine how multilateral institutions and Accords between Europe and America was more effective than either isolationism or hegemony in achieving the transatlantic security goals they desired. A forward-looking American administration, learning from historical precedent, would be in a better position to achieve its interests in the modern international political system with the substantial aid provided by multilateral theory.