Whether the goal of policy is promoting democracy and markets, alleviating humanitarian distress, maintaining American primacy or encouraging restraint in inter-state relations, there are many ways to pursue those goals. Although it is possible for a single foreign policy to reflect multiple emphases, trade-offs and opportunity costs are unavoidable.
One alternative is an approach characterized as “realism.” It stresses order among states, arguing that we can have order without justice and that other countries cannot be expected to help us in our efforts to achieve this. This is a narrow view of international affairs that leaves many Americans wanting more—a foreign policy with a purpose that transcends power and peace maintenance.
Another alternative is a more broad-based multilateral approach that embraces alliances and other informal coalitions of the willing to advance global stability. This approach aims to promote and strengthen those institutions, groups, and coalitions that can provide countervailing power against the great powers and middle powers with ambitions for global influence.
Both the realism and multilateral options offer challenges. For example, a policy of retreat into deceptively secure isolation will leave the United States vulnerable to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and missile threats from Iran and North Korea. Similarly, a foreign policy that prioritizes peace maintenance over the pursuit of justice risks creating vacuums that will be filled by forces hostile to the United States. Moreover, a policy that seeks to maintain American primacy on its own will likely prove unsustainable in a world that increasingly shows little respect for state boundaries.
About the Author
