Following the end of the Cold War, the United States has become the world's sole superpower and the trend of pragmatism in its foreign policy has become clearer and clearer. Pragmatism is, in the first place, the United States' traditional policy. After coming to power, unilateralism and pragmatism have become Bush's main foreign policy line. Alternate use of and complementary nature of pragmatism and unilateralism constitute the characteristics of the Bush administration's diplomacy. 
	
	
 Once coming to power, Bush insisted on deploying the National Missile Defense System [NMD]. The international community and even US western allies, including US neighbor Canada, have consistently opposed the plan. Despite the opposition, Bush went it alone. One of the main US diplomatic goals for this year is to persuade the international community to accept the NMD and Russia to agree to revise the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty [AMD] by flashing a carrot on a stick. At one time, he said the new US missile defense system would not pose a threat to the international security and would not trigger an arms race; on another occasion, he stated the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty signed by the Soviet Union and the United States in 1972 was "a product of the Cold War era," and thus has lost its binding force. He even claimed that to develop the NMD, the United States would be even prepared to scrap the ABM. Over the past year, Bush increased funds for research and testing for the N!
MD and accelerated the test frequency of the anti-missile system. Even after the adoption of the resolution on "maintaining and abiding by the "Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty" on 29 November at the 56th United Nations General Assembly, the United States still persisted in carrying out a fifth missile interception test. In a word, the US development of the NMD is for the purpose of "attacking other countries and at the same time preventing other countries from attacking it," thereby genuinely securing its status of being the "sole super power." 
	
	
 The Sino-US plane collision event that occurred on 1 April can best illustrate the US alternate application of the "two-isms" in its diplomacy. In the plane collision event, if one goes by the US logic, only the US spy plane is permitted to spy at other people's doorsteps; the host, on the other hand, does not even have the right to look after its doors and to protect its yard. The responsibility for the event, in which a Chinese plane crashed and a Chinese pilot perished, lies completely with the US side. The US side not only refused to apologize to China but also claimed that "US crew members were detained by the Chinese side." It was only because of it being deterred by the Chinese Government's firm position and due to the fact that the US crew members were still in China that the United States was compelled to offer an apology. But after the Chinese side released all the US crew members, major US political figures changed their stance immediately and threatened to use human rights, trade, and Olympics hosting issues to "retaliate" against China. 
	
	
 Since coming to power, Bush, proceeding from the US immediate interests, has also adopted the pragmatism and unilateralism position with regard to international treaties. This March, catering to the interests of the US oil and coal barons who have made large political donations to the Republican Party, Bush announced, without prior consultations with its allies, that the United States would not enforce the "Kyoto Protocol" which is aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the world. This announcement was met with unanimous condemnation by the international media. 
	
	
 In July, the Bush administration decided to let the "Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty" "freeze" in the Senate. Hard on the heels of that decision, the US negotiation representative Marie Chevrier announced in Geneva that the Bush administration would not support the implementation of the "Biological Weapons Convention" and that the United States strongly objected to the concrete enforcement plan of this convention. 
	
	
 The Bush administration either refuses to sign, ratify, or implement international treaties or asks for their revision. It only wants the international treaties that benefit the US security and economy and globalization. It does not want anything to do with the international treaties, mechanisms, and organizations that restrict or prevent US freedom. It does not want anything to do with countries and organizations that do not follow its orders or that always cause troubles to it. 
	
	
 After the 11 September attacks on the United States, the international community strongly condemned the terrorist acts and expressed sympathy and support to the American people. Supported by the world, the United States launched the "war against terrorism" of this century. Bush stressed that the war is not only the "US war" but also a "world war." The United States views itself as a "major force of anti-terrorism," for in the world only the United States has the capability to carry out the global war against terrorism. Bush said, "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists" and "any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." The United States wants all the countries in the world to stand behind it in the fight against terrorism and decides which country is its enemy or friend on the basis of that country's attitude toward it. It is in fact like using multilateral diplomacy to enhance US unilateralism. But the United States obviously practices pragmatism in its treatment of Pakistan -- a frontline state in the fight against Pakistan. Before the 11 September event, the United States kept its distance from Pakistan and imposed sanctions on it. But after declaring a war against terrorism the United States not only drew Pakistan to its side but also provided aid to it. Whether the United States will continue to treat Pakistan in a responsible manner, it is anybody's guess. 
	
	
 Attachments: rw1205us.pdf