Far and wide, multilateral cooperation is championed as a principal response to a volatile global landscape characterized by transnational challenges, complexity, and turbulent great power relations. At the same time, many lament multilateralism to be amidst a paramount crisis of identity. New actors and powers are keen and increasingly capable of challenging the norms underpinning the traditionally Western-led, liberal international order and multilateralism adhering to it. Some argue that an era of unipolarity, and thus U.S. hegemony, is drawing to a close. China has come to depict itself as a fundamentally multilateral actor and is actively envisioning the design of multilateralism from its own normative stances. Rising powers, such as India, are increasingly eager to convey their views on how cooperation ought to be compiled and whom it should benefit. This thesis analyses the strategic narratives on multilateralism and the international order as put forth by China’s and India’s foreign policy statements. Three research questions were posed to direct and frame the analysis: How are the concepts of international order and multilateral cooperation described in foreign policy statements delivered by China and India? What kind of values or norms emerge as salient for China’s and India’s strategic narratives on multilateralism and the international order? How are these values and norms connected to China’s and India’s historical narratives of themselves on the international arena? Strategic narratives (Miskimmon et. al, 2013) provide a lens through which to examine how political actors construct shared meanings of the past, present, and future of international politics, in order to sculpt the behaviour of domestic and international actors. Examining the research questions via the lens of strategic narratives enables scrutiny into the themes of intentionality, communication as persuasive power, and the role strategically reconstructed concepts can exert on reality. In the case of China, three strategic narratives were identified: 1) a narrative of China’s origin story, depicted as a basis for both its future glory and its benevolence as a partner 2) a vision of “true” multilateralism, compiled of the three pillars of the existence of distinct civilizations, hegemony as antithetical to multilateralism, and sovereignty as a key value in multilateralism 3) a narrative of China being “ahead of times” and “on the right side of history”. In the case of India, three strategic narratives were identified, as well: 1) the narrative of insiders and outsiders, entailing an interplay of domestic and foreign policy 2) a vision of “temporal balance”, depicted as unique and inherent to the Indian civilization 3) a vision of the desirability of the diffusion of power, viewed to lead to justice and greater democracy in international relations. While the analysis primarily illuminates upon the strategic narratives on multilateralism and the international order as posed by China’s and India’s foreign policy, the results of this thesis also expand into future research themes such as emerging conceptualizations of democracy on the level of international relations, the persuasive power of fuzzy concepts, as well as the manner in which concepts may travel and assume novel, localized versions.

The topic of this Master's thesis is 'Unilateralism and Multilateralism in U.S. Foreign Policy with Regard to NATO Between 1993 and 2004'. The purpose of the study is to find out how and why has U.S. foreign policy oscillated between unilateralism and multilateralism with regard to NATO. The theoretical framework of the thesis is built around neorealism and neoliberal institutionalism. These two theories, however, are not used to explain U.S. foreign policy. Instead they are used as world-views according to which the Clinton and Bush administrations practice foreign policy with regard to NATO. In practice these two world-views result in unilateral and multilateral strategies. Unilateralism is coupled with neorealism and multilateralism with neoliberal institutionalism to form two models. The realist-unilateral model is centered on military power and capabilities. States behave rationally according to their national interests and seek relative gains. Thus, cooperation is not a viable course of action. The liberal-multilateral model, on the other hand, uses Robert Keohane's concept of 'complex interdependence' to explain relations among states. The core elements of this notion are: 1. multiple channels connect societies, 2. absence of hierarchy among issues (thus the boundary between domestic and foreign becomes blurred) and 3. military power is not used against other governments to resolve issues. Moreover, this model is organized around international organizations that are used to further foreign policy objectives. According to both models, the U.S is perceived as a leader or a hegemony in the world. The hypothesis presented at the beginning of the thesis is that Clinton is more multilateral than Bush in his foreign policy with regard to NATO. The unilateral and multilateral strategies of Presidents Clinton and Bush are tested through three indicators: U.S. foreign affairs (Function 150) and military budgets, Clinton and Bush's national security strategies and finally military operations. The hypothesis is verified, for Clinton practices a more multilateral foreign policy than Bush. However, the differences between Clinton and Bush tend to be overemphasized. Both presidents have used unilateral and multilateral strategies to different degrees. The departure from either the neoliberal-multilateral or neorealist-unilateral model can partly be explained in terms of domestic power politics and the strategic situation of the U.S. Therefore, a worldview alone does not suffice to explain multilateral or unilateral strategies. It has to be coupled with other explanations. The primary sources of the study are Clinton and Bush's national security strategy document and budget data between 1993 and 2004. Congressional web pages, presidents' speeches and NATO's documents have also served as important sources for the study. The theoretical framework builds on Kenneth Waltz's, Robert Keohane's and G. John Ikenberry's research.