Trade policy has become a partisan affair in Washington. Major trade bills in Congress typically pit pro-trade Republicans backed by big business against trade-skeptic Democrats aligned with labor unions. And as the two major parties arm themselves for the 2008 general election, trade policy promises to provide one of the sharper contrasts between them.
The United States' unipolar moment is over. International relations in the twenty-first century will be defined by nonpolarity. Power will be diffuse rather than concentrated, and the influence of nation-states will decline as that of nonstate actors increases. But this is not all bad news for the United States; Washington can still manage the transition and make the world a safer place.
Beijing is shirking its responsibilities to the global economy. To encourage better behavior,
Washington should offer to share global economic leadership.
Stopping three decades of unnecessary bungling.There is a feature of my seminars on U.S. Middle East policy at Princeton that I call "déjà vu all over again" -- with apologies to Yogi Berra. I ask students to assess the bungled efforts and missed opportunities of generations of U.S. diplomats and seek in them lessons for the future. They examine the hubris that drove the U.S. government to engineer the 1953 overthrow of Mohammad Mosaddeq's democratically elected government in Iran. This traumatic episode was conveniently forgotten by 1979, when National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski encouraged Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi to use force against the opposition, ignoring the warnings of U.S. diplomats on the ground in Iran that the shah's reign was doomed. Similarly, the United States forgot the lesson of the limited and United Nations-approved 1991 war in response to Iraq's aggression in Kuwait when it launched an ideologically inspired invasion of Iraq in 2003. Likewise, in 2006, Washington seemed to have forgotten the fiasco that followed Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon. Rather than learn from the past, Washington backed Israel's ill-advised attempt to deliver a knockout blow against another Lebanese foe, this time Hezbollah. My students and I conclude -- only half-jokingly -- that U.S. policymakers ought to take the class before taking office.
Political Geography:
United States, Washington, Middle East, and Kuwait
Policymakers consistently identify nuclear terrorism as one of the greatest threats facing the United States and the world. Indeed, the diffusion of technology, the rise of extremist ideology, and the steady spread of nuclear materials conspire to make nuclear terrorism an increasingly worrying prospect.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, Nuclear Weapons, and Terrorism
On 20 January 2009, either Barack Obama or John McCain will place his hand on a bible, swear to uphold and defend the Constitution, and become the forty-fourth president of the United States. The new president will immediately become responsible for the issues on which he campaigned, those that he ignored but for which he will nonetheless be held accountable, and all those unanticipated issues for which he will also be expected to devise solutions.
Here in Washington, the “silly season” is well and truly upon us. Observing the frenetic campaign cycle, with its endless media appearances, speeches and jostling for political position, it's easy to understand why conventional wisdom has it that no serious policy gets done in an election year. And yet, foreign policy remains front and center on the national agenda. As of this writing, at least one crisis, the conflict between Russia and Georgia over South Ossetia, has broken into the open, while another—that of Iran's nuclear ambitions—waits in the wings.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Human Rights, and Islam
Political Geography:
Russia, Iran, Washington, Georgia, and South Ossetia