Debate on U.S. Foreign Policy

COLEAD's Assessment

America is engaged in a major debate on the direction of America's role in world affairs. We will help our readers via this page in searching for the key ideas in this debate and will engage them also with views and ideas which will help them seek better answers and inform them of the key issues.

Currently, the main "macro" debate is over whether America should follow our traditional policy of working with our allies and other friendly nations to build a more prosperous and secure world, or would that goal be better achieved by a more unilateral approach that relied more on military might rather than diplomacy, consensus, international agreements and treaties.

Most mainline American foreign affairs experts support an approach that favors diplomacy and cooperation with other nations and in international organizations like the UN, but also does not neglect the necessity of a strong military and, when necessary, the use of force. The preferred approach of these experts is to carry out such use of force through multilateral organizations such as the UN and NATO and in cooperation with other nations.

This has been for many decades the approach that most administrations have taken both Democratic and Republican since the end of World War II when the US helped to create the Marshall Plan to re-build Europe, the many international economic and financial organizations such as the World Bank, IMF, and the OECD. We help create the United Nations as a global forum and an organization of collective security and cooperation with its many specialized agencies. This built a structure of global and regional cooperation unlike anything earlier. It endured the Cold War, the addition of many nations from the South and the many conflicts around the world since 1945.

On the other hand, some influential thinkers and politicians now believe that that system has had its day and that such organizations and cooperation with other nations either do not matter or that they are relatively unimportant compared to the necessity of domination over other nations by the use of power. That thesis is now being tested in public debate and in the political process.

This debate started a number of years ago, but has come to the fore just in the last two or three years. The debate over the proper approach to climate change and how we should deal with our arms control and non-proliferation objectives and also the International Criminal Court was the focus not only of domestic debate but also impacted the views of other nations and their view of American objectives and purpose beyond just modalities. Our Approach to Afghanistan and Iraq further contributed to this dichotomy and the changed the view of others about America and its values.

Recent Pew Polls have reinforced the clear growing antipathy of much of the world towards the U.S. The question thus remains whether we should follow the earlier path of multilateral cooperation as a preferred option or seek more and more a unilateral approach. The question is which will gain for America a better outcome and greater long-term security?

New additions to this page on this debate will be forthcoming!

Supporting U.S. Engagement Abroad

Phone: 202.994.5519 :: Fax: 202.338.6820 :: 2101 E St. NW Washington, DC 20036 :: colead@afsa.org

Last modified: 05/02/08