americans’role in the world 101/arw 2006.pdf · 2011-12-19 · t he first edition of this issue...

A Discussion Guide for Community Forums

Building a More Secure Future

www.nifi.org Americans’ Role in the World

The first edition of this issue book began in the Midwest in the summer of 2002 when several dozen citizens met to discuss the role of Americans in the world. None of them were public officials, experts, orWashington insiders. They talked about their hopes and concerns about America’s future. They discussedwhat they were willing to do, and the costs and tradeoffs they were willing to accept.

People talked about global problems, such as land mines and AIDS, and described them as threats to thesecurity of their children and grandchildren. They also talked about capitalism and democracy. One manobserved that individual Americans and people working together in associations and business groups aresometimes better global citizens than the U.S. government. Some expressed concern about the arrogance ofAmerican power and what they saw as our tendency to bully and swagger. In response, others argued thatthe U.S. needs to use its military resources to deal with threats to international stability and security. As onewoman commented, people need to discuss the global role of Americans.

Participants in hundreds of forums across the country did just that during By the People, a project ofMacNeil/Lehrer Productions, under the auspices of the National Issues Forums, local organizations, and PBSstations. Before they were over, however, the discussions focused more sharply on how alternative roles forAmericans in the world might play out in achieving our future security as a nation.

This updated issue book is intended as a framework for those ongoing public discussions—and an invitation to join the continuing national conversation. This is not just a discussion about foreign policy and what the government, international corporations, or the World Bank should do to secure our future. It is also about what citizens can do. How we are seen by people in other countries may have an impact on our own security. We are, it seems, the world’s undisputed superpower, with awesome resources; yet weare not always well liked and, after 9/11, we do not feel as secure as we once did.

Foreign policy is routinely discussed in Washington by experts, but many Americans feel left out of discussions about our future security. They are neither informed about their options nor consulted abouttheir views, and they cannot see how, in any case, they could make a difference.

This book, therefore, invites a larger group to the table. Participating in this forum challenges us to thinkdeeply about how this topic affects us personally. How do we, as Americans, relate to other peoples of theworld? How will that choice impact our future security? Different directions can lead to different decisions,and you may find that you and your fellow participants in the forum contribute new ideas about this subject. Like other issue books in this series, our purpose is not to make the case for a particular point of view,but rather to frame a broad discussion informed by different points of view.

Strong But Not Safe 2As the only superpower left standing after the Cold War, America exercises global dominance. Yet, the September 11 attack showed us that we are not immune to the world’s problems. Powerful and prosperous, yet not universally liked, Americans are no longer certain about their security in the twenty-first century. This issue book presents four perspectives on the question of what kind of world we want our children and grandchildren to live in and what we will have to do to achieve it.

Preserving and Sharing Global Resources 5In the long run, our security will depend on whether we can keep “lifeboat earth” afloat. The developed world continues to use up scarce natural resources, while increasing poverty in the poor countries has led to deforestation, scarce drinking water, and the global spread of disease. As populations grow, these problems, which threaten all of us, will only get worse. To ensure a secure future, we must do more to support international collaboration and give up wasteful lifestyles.

Seeking Security through Free Trade 11Persistent poverty is the cause of much of the unrest that fuels hatred of the U.S. around the world. In this view, econo-mic growth through free trade is the answer. Wherever trade has substantially expanded, economic, political, and social conditions have improved as well. Prosperous nations do not threaten our safety. The surest path to our security is broad equitable growth in other countries.

Promoting Democratization and Human Rights 16Our security will be enhanced by the spread of democratic values and practices that will bring stability to other nations in the world. Democracies, for the most part, do not go to war with one another and do not support the kind of terrorist organizations that pose a major threat to our security today. To promote democratization and the spread of human rights, we must increase foreign aid and support nonprofit programs that strengthen citizen participation and democratization.

Using Military Power to Secure the Peace 22Only America has the military power to keep destructive forces in check and ensure international stability. We cannot afford to wait decades for the kind of stable, democratic prosperous world we would all like. We should use military power, when necessary, to deal with threats to our own security and to world peace. If others will not act with us to this end, then the U.S. should act unilaterally.

Summary: Continuing the Conversation 27

Comparing Approaches 28

What Are National Issues Forums? 30

Questionnaire 31

C O N T E N T S

Building a More Secure FutureI N T R O D U C T I O N

A P P R O A C H O N E

A P P R O A C H T W O

A P P R O A C H T H R E E

A P P R O A C H F O U R

Americans’ Role in the World

Strong But Not Safepolitical troubles of other countries will draw us in toincreasing numbers of conflicts. After September 11, weare not sure that overwhelming military might and wealthwill always protect us or make friends for us. Now that weunderstand we are not immune to global troubles, we asAmericans need to talk about how to protect ourselvesfrom the multiple threats to our security.

Why are we talking about how Americans can securetheir future in the world? Isn’t that the job of the govern-ment? Of course, the decisions government officials makeare a key determinant of the American global role. Butthere are many things only citizens outside governmentdo. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, for example,Americans mobilized against apartheid in South Africathrough demonstrations, letters to the editor, and eco-nomic boycotts. Their efforts, joined with those made by citizens of South Africa and many other countries,brought the system down and led to the country’s firstmultiracial election in 1994.

Americans currently make their mark as individuals inmany other ways. Some of us serve in the military or thePeace Corps. We are shareholders influencing the policies

AT THE START OF THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY, theUnited States, with less than five percent of the

world’s population, exercises overwhelming power andglobal influence. America is a nation whose dominance—militarily, commercially, and culturally—is unparalleledand unprecedented.

In 2005, the United States spent more on defense than the next 14 nations combined. The U.S. economy istwice as large as that of Japan, our closest competitor.Despite the growing economic power of China, India, andthe European Union, the United States will, for the fore-seeable future, dominate the international financial systemby providing the largest source of investment capital, thelargest market for foreign exports, and the most attractivemarket for investors. Our popular culture spreads—through movies, television, and the Internet—to every corner of the world.

Yet, with all this power, American citizens are uneasyabout their security and are not sure whether their chil-dren and grandchildren will inherit a secure, livable planet.We have doubts about the impact of globalization on ourstandard of living. We are uncertain about whether the

>>

I N T R O D U C T I O N

2 AMERICANS’ ROLE IN THE WORLD

“. . . global security means a

recognition of the seamless

web of expanding interde-

pendence in the world. . . .

We are now part of the

world, in that we share an

insecurity which has been

so customary in the lives of

almost all other nations,

unlike ourselves.”Zbigniew Brzezinski, National Security

Advisor to the President, 1977-1981

AP/

Wid

e W

orld

Pho

tos

NATIONAL ISSUES FORUMS 3

>>I N T R O D U C T I O N

of multinational corporations. We are business ownerswho export and import from many countries. And our houses, closets, and driveways are filled with foreign products.

Our churches and service organizations have interna-tional programs, some of which require only our money,while others require our talent and time. We send contri-butions to International Nongovernmental Organizations(INGOs), such as Habitat for Humanity, which buildshomes for poor people. We help save endangered speciesthrough the World Wildlife Fund. We take part in studentexchange programs, and we live in “Sister Cities” that connect our communities with those in other countries.

Despite these relationships, however, we don’t oftenask ourselves the important questions that pertain to ourfuture security. What do we mean by security? Is it prima-rily military security? Or does it include the availability of water or protection against the international spread ofdisease, or global threats to our economy, or increasingnumbers of international conflicts that tax our resources?

By deliberating, we have the opportunity to reflect onwhat citizens themselves can do about these challengesand to collectively discover what can guide our govern-ment as they undertake work on our behalf.

A Turning PointOpinion polls have repeatedly shown that, while

Americans are proud of this country’s global leadership,they are not much interested in, or aware of, what is happening in the rest of the world. But the attacks ofSeptember 11 provided a vivid reminder that we live in a world without borders.

Tropical forests, for another example, are the “lungs ofthe planet.” Destroying them may alter our climate, spreadtropical diseases, and endanger plant species that could be turned into lifesaving drugs. Turmoil in one regionspreads quickly to others and, often sends waves ofrefugees to American shores. National boundaries do little

to slow the spread of AIDS or international drug trafficking.Should we sign treaties with other nations and interna-tional organizations to deal with these crises, even if doingso restricts our options? The magnitude of these chal-lenges will only increase: by 2050 an estimated eight billionpeople will live in poor countries, more than the entirepopulation of the world today.

When we remove trade barriers, does it help the poorest people as well as the multinational corporations?Should we be concerned about the loss of jobs here andworking conditions elsewhere? What will be the environ-mental impact of globalization? How do we deal with a financial crisis in one country that spreads to world markets?

The attacks of September 11 provided a vivid reminder that we

live in a world without borders.A

P/W

ide

Wor

ld P

hoto

s

An unidentified baby is fed at a home for

HIV/AIDS and abandoned children in Soweto,

South Africa, December 1, 1998. An American

pharmaceutical company said it would provide

$100 million towards AIDS therapy research

and the training of doctors to fight the disease

in Africa, the continent hardest hit by the

deadly epidemic.


>>I N T R O D U C T I O N

How much does our own future security depend onwhether all people enjoy political freedom? What do wemean by democracy? We know we can’t wave a magicwand and create democracy in another country, but canwe help advance the process of democratization? Can wepromote human rights, even in undemocratic countries?Should we limit ties with undemocratic regimes, even

though it creates problems, such as oil shortages? Candemocracies be established or held in place by force, as inIraq?

The Iraq War has also raised a number of issues relatedto military security. Is it in our long-term interest to actunilaterally, with insufficient support from allies and inter-national institutions to offer hope for a peaceful resolutionof differences? What is the purpose of military power?When is the use of force likely to backfire and increase thevery tensions it seeks to resolve?

The questions to keep in mind as we enter this discus-sion are these: How can we use American influence,

wealth, and power, including the assets of citizens hereand abroad, to create the kind of world we want to leave toour children and grandchildren? What would a secureworld look like? How can we get there? What choices dowe really have?

This issue book presents four different perspectives as away of framing public discussion. Each approach describeswhat our global priorities should be and what costs andtradeoffs we should be prepared to accept if we move inthat direction. Each approach describes what we asAmericans might be doing to promote the well-being andsecurity of the planet, and, in the process, our own futuresecurity.

How can we use American influence,wealth, and power, including the assets of citizens here and abroad, to create the kind of world we want to leave to our children and grandchildren?

Stealing time away from their military

responsibilities near Balad, Iraq,

members of the Task Force 185th

Aviation Group have rebuilt parts of a

school, an agricultural center, and a

clinic, and, like Spc. Billy Bieliauskas,

are helping the children of Iraq by

handing out school supplies.

Mark Hertsgaard, The Eagle’s Shadow: WhyAmerica Fascinates and Infuriates the World(New York, NY: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2002).

The Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the AspenInstitute, U.S. in the World, Talking Global Issues With Americans: A Practical Guide (RockefellerBrothers Fund, 2004).

Foreign Policy (entire issue)(July-August 2005).

For Further Reading

AP/

Wid

e W

orld

Pho

tos

Preserving and Sharing Global Resources


each such increase, we release an extra 15.7 tons of carboninto the air. India’s population grows five times as fast butreleases less than one-third as much carbon.

The U.S. has the fastest growing population in thedeveloped world. It is also the largest contributor to globalwarming not only because of the size of its economy, butalso because it is only half as energy efficient as the rest ofthe developed world. Germany, for example, has theequivalent of ten nuclear plants invested in wind powerand has reduced global warming gases by 19 percent.

Our domestic environmental policies worsen our global environmental impact. The U.S. spends $800 billionannually on what advocates of this approach call “environ-mentally perverse” subsidies. Rather than developingscarce resources and environmentally ignorant technolo-gies, we need sustainable investments that help conservethe resources needed for future development and createnew kinds of jobs. Federal regulations can provide anequal playing field and push corporations to incorporateenvironmental costs into prices.

ONE OF THE STRIKING FACTS about internationalarrangements early in the twenty-first century is

that one nation, consisting of less than five percent of theworld’s population consumes 25 percent of the world’sresources and contributes disproportionately to the strainon global ecosystems. That nation, of course, is the UnitedStates. Proponents of this approach also say that the con-tinuing division of the world into haves and have-nots is a major obstacle to ensuring a sustainable future, becausepoverty is related to environmental degradation, such as deforestation, and to large population growth in devel-oping countries.

America’s RoleLet’s begin, say supporters of this approach, by taking

a look at ourselves, a people whose major health problem,these days, appears to be eating too much. The U.S. is atireless consumer of scarce resources like oil. Our popula-tion increases by about three million people a year. With

>>

A P P R O A C H O N E

In this view, global security will

depend, in the long run, on

whether human beings can sustain

the environment and resources

of “lifeboat earth.” A recent study

conducted by 1300 scientists in

95 countries found that 15 of the

24 ecosystems vital for life on

earth are degraded or overdrawn.

Unless they are attended to in

some serious way, this situation

will only get worse as the world’s

population continues to grow.

AP/

Wid

e W

orld

Pho

tos


>>A P P R O A C H O N E

Unfortunately, advocates of this view say, just the oppo-site is currently the case. Because of the rollback in federalclean air regulations, for example, power companies thathave not invested in clean technologies have a competitiveadvantage over companies that have been responsibleenvironmental stewards. And gas-guzzling SUVs continueto be exempt from mileage standards.

Even more disturbing, in this view, is our political failure to address these problems in the global arena.Rather than being a good international steward, we haverepeatedly acted as the spoiler on global treaties like the Kyoto Protocol, which went into effect in February2005, after five years of international negotiation. This agreement imposes, on the developed countries that ratifyit, mandatory reductions in carbon dioxide and othergreenhouse-gas emissions linked to global warming.Environmentalists consider it a beginning step in the des-perately needed efforts to deal with a critical problem.

The United States did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol,arguing that it would damage the American economy.Advocates of this approach argue, however, that new technologies will improve air quality and create new jobs.

The U.S. played a prominent role in negotiating the Lawof the Sea Treaty, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and the Statute of the International Criminal Court. But ithas failed to ratify them. Proponents of Approach One say that it is as if the United States signs on to internationalaccords only when they suit its purposes. This position isnot likely to increase our credibility when we preach to theworld about human rights and democratic values.

Sometimes individual citizens can do better. The initialInternet organizing efforts of one American citizen, JodyWilliams, led others to get involved, resulting in an inter-national land-mines treaty. This treaty has resulted in adramatic drop in land-mine manufacture, a nearly com-plete halt to exports, the destruction of 50 million minesin stockpiles, and a much lower number of victims; yet,the U.S. government has refused to sign the treaty.

Advocates of this view point out that none of theseglobal problems respect national borders. If some have notyet directly affected us, virtually all of them pose futurethreats. International collaboration, even if it means sacri-ficing some self-interest, is one way of sharing the burdensof dealing with these problems.

The Have-NotsEnvironmental crises can be fueled as much by poverty

as by profligate usage. As former president Jimmy Carterhas pointed out, “extreme poverty is linked intricately to a wider web of problems.” In Asia, Africa, and LatinAmerica, the poor, in an effort to feed their families, oftencut down forests, even though the land becomes infertilewithin a few years. Thus poverty increases, and foreststhat could produce tropical foods and potential pharma-ceuticals for export are destroyed.

Poverty also drives, and is driven by, population growth.Despite improvements in infant mortality, a baby is 13times more likely to die in Africa as in Europe or NorthAmerica. High child death rates encourage people to havemore children. And when there are more mouths to feed,more children continue to starve and die. Supporters ofApproach One also point out that a major consequence ofpoverty is the failure to educate women, even thoughevery additional year of women’s education has beenshown to reduce fertility by ten percent and means thather children are five to ten percent less likely to die.

Although contraceptive use has increased since the1994 Cairo Conference on Population, 350 million couplesstill lack access to health care for pregnancy, childbirth,and family planning. Meeting their needs would cost $3.9billion per year but would prevent 1.4 million infant

Jody Williams, right, speaks on Capitol Hill,

March 8, 2001, joining activists seeking

to ban the use of land mines. At left is

land-mine victim Song Kosal of Cambodia.

The United States has declined to join

139 other nations in a treaty to outlaw the

use of mines, which kill indiscriminately.AP/

Wid

e W

orld

Pho

tos



deaths, 23 million unplanned births, 22 million abortions,and 500,000 maternal deaths from complications duringpregnancy or childbirth.

Another major cause and consequence of poverty, saysupporters, is the failure to provide other kinds of primaryhealth care. More than 40 million people are now livingwith AIDS, 25.8 million of them in sub-Saharan Africa.This has a huge impact on economic development. Withthe exception of Zimbabwe, countries of southern Africashow little evidence of declining epidemics. In 2005 anestimated 3.2 million people in the region became newlyinfected, while 2.4 million adults and children died ofAIDS. There are more than 34 million orphans in theregion today and 11 million of them have been orphanedby AIDS. Most children infected with HIV were born toHIV-positive women, primarily in Africa. Drugs are avail-able to minimize mother-to-child spread during birth, butoften these do not reach the people who need them most.

Primary health care could also combat other diseases,such as malaria. Half a billion people are infected withmalaria each year and over one million die, mostly in Africa.Malaria saps at least ten percent of the family income ofsmall farmers in Kenya and Nigeria. Yet, malaria is pre-ventable, and in Eritrea, Brazil, Vietnam, and parts of Indiait has been defeated by providing bed nets and eliminatingthe stagnant water where mosquitoes breed.

Every Nation’s ConcernGrowing numbers of desperately poor people in the

developing world—an estimated eight billion by 2050—are putting increasing strains on water, forests, and other environmental resources. Supporters of this approachpoint out that by 2015 over three billion people will be living in water-stressed regions. In addition, half of theworld’s wetlands have been lost since 1900. Three-fourthsof global fisheries are overfished. Deforestation on a globalscale has increased. Since 2003, areas half the size ofSwitzerland are laid waste each year.

Environmental deterioration can lead to conflicts overscarce resources, which contributes to the flow of refugeesto the United States. It also worsens natural disasters.Deforestation and climate change can lead to flooding,drought, and ultimately, starvation.

Retreating forests, ozone depletion, dying lakes andscarce drinking water, the spread of AIDS, the refugeecrises, and starvation are not problems of any one nation,or any particular group of nations. These problems affectour future security, even though they are far away.

Previously rare and potentially fatal diseases like WestNile virus and Ebola were once confined to tropicalforests. With deforestation, these diseases have begun to

spread. West Nile virus arrived in one of the least forestedareas of the world in 1999—New York City. Four yearslater, nearly 10,000 people across the nation had contract-ed the disease, and 264 of them had died.

Is there anything we can do to stem these cataclysmicforces? Yes, there is, advocates of this approach say. Theypoint, for example, to the World Summit on SustainableDevelopment, held in Johannesburg in 2002, whichdemonstrated how advances can be made over the nextfew decades.

Retreating forests, ozone depletion, dying lakes and scarce drinking water,

the spread of AIDS, the refugee crises, andstarvation are not problems of any one

nation, or any particular group of nations.

Techa Tanga, displaced by warfare in Eastern

Sudan, cradles her five-year-old daughter,

who is suffering from severe malnutrition,

near the village of Yabus in the southern Blue

Nile region near the Ethiopian border. They

fled from attacks by the government and

militia troops on their village suspected of

harboring rebel troops. Since then, they have

not been able to get enough food; Techa has

lost four other children to malnutrition.

AP/

Wid

e W

orld

Pho

tos



lower cost than any collection of governments. Fifty moredollars per American per year in donations to these organ-izations could, for example, cut world hunger in half, andsupporters of this approach point out that 75 percent ofAmericans in focus groups have said they would be willingto pay this.

Nearly half the people on the planet live on two dollarsa day, less than most Americans pay for a gallon of milk. In 2004, almost one billion people went hungry each day. As proponents of this approach see it, distance no longerprotects us from the consequences that arise when millionsof people live—and too often die—in severe deprivationand disease. The well-being as well as the security of the

Heads of state from every major nation except theUnited States attended. So did approximately 50,000 representatives from hundreds of national and interna-tional nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) working to address these challenges. The possible impact of hun-dreds of thousands of NGO leaders working in their own countries is magnified by their cooperation withinternational NGOs, such as Doctors Without Borders,Save the Children, and Conservation International.

The NGOs are also tied to millions of people improv-ing their own communities through community-basedorganizations. Empowered by the global reach of theInternet, these groups could address global issues at much

With deforestation, previously rare and

potentially fatal diseases have begun to

spread. West Nile virus arrived in one of

the least forested areas of the world in

1999—New York City. Four years later,

nearly 10,000 people across the nation

had contracted the disease, and 264 of

them had died.

AP/

Wid

e W

orld

Pho

tos

76%-92%

51%-75%

29%-50%

16%-28%

2%-15%

No data

Percentage of the world’s population living on less than $2 a day

Source: World Development Indicators, World Bank, 2000



United States is threatened, according to supporters of this approach. President Carter put it this way: “The waron terror cannot be won unless we devote more effort to equitably sharing resources and meeting social and economic needs worldwide.”

In this view, we must judge all our actions on the basisof whether they help to create sustainable developmentand a healthy world that takes the security and well-beingof future generations into account.

What Can Be Done?Proponents of this view support a number of actions.

They favor ratifying major international agreements, suchas the Convention to End Discrimination against Women,the land-mine agreement, and the treaty on the use ofchild labor. In addition, Approach One supporters say, theU.S. should be a leader in multinational efforts to deal withglobal problems that include other governments, officialinternational organizations, such as the U.N., and NGOs,both national and international.

One such effort produced excellent results. Environ-mental NGOs and governments in Brazil, the U.S., and elsewhere helped provide new jobs for Brazilians, education about the Amazon forest as the lungs of the planet, and support for rain forests as a valuable eco-nomic resource to produce biomedicines and promoteenvironmental tourism. In collaboration with NGOs, the Brazilian government set aside a protected area in the Amazon region twice the size of the United Kingdom.

In this approach, the U.S. should do more to shareAIDS prevention and treatment knowledge and push drugcompanies to continue reducing prices and provide treat-ments at low cost to needy nations. Our governmentshould also increase foreign assistance, including currentsupport for international NGOs, to promote later mar-riage, family planning, and female education, which studiesshow lower fertility and infant mortality.

The U.S. could offer incentives, such as rewarding gov-ernments that transfer military expenditures to fundingthe basic needs of their people, and link increased aid toanticorruption measures through cooperation withInternational NGOs, such as Transparency International.

Another step that proponents of this approach favor isproviding increased support to agencies with a proventrack record for reducing poverty or ending conflict.UNICEF has improved the lives of the world’s childrenmore in the past 40 years than the world had done in theprevious 100. The U.N. has helped end conflict and rebuildwhere no one else would go—East Timor, Sierra Leone,and Liberia, for example.

Citizens themselves can work with other Americansand people around the world and contribute to NGOs tohelp solve global problems and increase internationalawareness of these issues. For example, ConservationInternational supports projects in Madagascar and the

Yucatan that address job creation, family planning, andenvironmental protection. Also the National ResourcesDefense Council and Mexican NGOs chased Mitsubishioff a whale-calving ground in Mexico. Citizens can con-tribute to or volunteer for groups engaged in citizen diplomacy. Religious groups and private citizens havehelped negotiate peace agreements in Burundi, Sudan, and Tajikistan.

In our everyday life, we can set an example of unselfishuse of the world’s environmental resources by cuttinghome energy use and giving up gas-guzzling cars. We canalso buy sustainable products, boycott bad ones, and sup-port companies committed to reducing global warming.Alcoa, for example, has a greenhouse gas phasedown.

What Critics SaySome people acknowledge the positive intent of this

approach but oppose the measures it favors. Both the dataand the diagnosis, they say, need to be carefully examined.In the late 1970s, for example, a U.S. government reportentitled “Global 2000” contained an alarming messageabout more world hunger and food scarcity by the year2000. The forecast was substantially wrong. In fact,according to the U.N.’s Food and Agriculture Organization,the number of malnourished people in developing coun-tries declined by 40 million between 1992 and 1997.

Critics say we are committing the same mistake againby giving too much weight to forecasts of rapid environ-mental decline and worsening conditions in developingnations. Danish political scientist Bjorn Lomberg, authorof the book The Skeptical Environmentalist, says that “weare actually leaving the world a better place than when wegot it.”

Prudent measures can and should be taken, say critics,to address the overuse of nonrenewable resources. But it isvirtually impossible for anyone to know what resourcesfuture generations will need, beyond clean air and water.The American way of life is about freedom of choice andabout developing technological innovations to deal withnew conditions. We also need to establish priorities, basedon what we know without question.

Furthermore, critics of this approach say we don’t needinternational agreements to get results. Americans arealready working to improve the environment in variousways, including state efforts to deal with greenhouse-gasemissions. For example, New England governors alongwith officials in Canada have agreed to a plan to decreaseemissions to 1990 levels by 2010. And Washington, D.C.’s,public-private partnership to reduce traffic congestion,which began in 1991, takes 20,000 cars off the road everymorning, reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 53,000tons.

There are other valid reasons, critics say, why weshould go it alone rather than sign on to many internation-al agreements. We need to protect American interests,



AP/

Wid

e W

orld

Pho

tos

Hazel Henderson, Beyond Globalization:Shaping a Sustainable Global Economy(Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian Press, 1999).

Peter Singer, One World: The Ethics ofGlobalization (New Haven, CT: Yale UniversityPress, 2002).

The Worldwatch Institute, Vital Signs, 2005(New York, NY: WW. Norton and Co., 2005).

For Further Reading

which, at times, differ from what the rest of the world seesas its needs. For example, while many countries see theneed for banning land mines, the United States needs landmines to defend South Korea from North Korean tankincursions. And, as long as the United States continues toplay a major role in international peacekeeping operations,we have to preserve our right to protect American soldiersfrom unjustified charges of war crimes before theInternational Criminal Court.

Some people also argue against increasing our assis-tance to developing nations, because it could be used bycorrupt or inept governments for their own purposes.More American money and interference is not the answerto the HIV/AIDS crisis in the rest of the world, these crit-ics say. What it takes is commitment by countries them-selves to do something about the problem, as has beenproven by the success of Thailand and Senegal in control-ling the rate of HIV infection.

Of critical importance, say opponents of this approach,is that we balance our global commitments to environ-mental protection, improving health care, and reducingpoverty, against our other commitments. Our first priorityas a nation has to be our own domestic problems, andspending billions of dollars trying to cure the world’s illswill deprive us of funds needed at home. Before undertak-ing a larger global commitment, we first have to attend toour own security and our own problems of poverty.

Tradeoffs • Environmental concerns should be more stronglyemphasized in international trade negotiations, eventhough this might reduce the potential economicbenefits from globalization.

• Concerns about environmental crises or increas-ing poverty may have to take priority over whetherother governments are democratic.

• Americans should change gas-guzzling habits for perhaps more expensive ways of living withinenvironmentally acceptable limits, even though, initially, some measures may have a negative impacton the economy.

• Abiding by international agreements and embark-ing on new, international efforts will be likely toredefine what we mean by long-term security andspread the burden internationally, even though insome instances—paying for emissions controls overpower plants—they subordinate our immediate self-interests.

• Confronting these global challenges can make mili-tary intervention less frequent even though theremay be occasions, such as the threat of genocide or a humanitarian disaster, when military interventionis needed.


If we want to be secure, other

countries have to be secure—

and the surest path to their

security is broad, equitable

economic growth, this second

approach says. We have seen

that economically stagnant

countries with high youth

unemployment often tend to

be strongly anti-American.

It is from these ranks of the

jobless and the hopeless that

terrorists are recruited.

efficiently. As long as no one nation tries to protect is own producers against global competition, buyers andsellers benefit. Buyers enjoy lower prices and a greatervariety of goods; sellers have access to a larger market fortheir goods.

Recent history suggests that global trade just plainworks. A World Bank report says that along with a ten percent increase in trade in 2004, developing countrieswere able to cut their foreign debt, because their econo-mies grew more than six percent per year. Cutting globalpoverty in half by 2015 is an achievable goal, given steadycommitment to reducing trade barriers, solid fiscal policy,and foreign aid targeted to facilitating growth. And, asglobal poverty declines, markets for American goods will increase.

In one country after another, globalization has producedbig gains for many laborers as well as entrepreneurs whohave figured out how to create successful businesses informerly stagnant economies. The result is not just grow-ing prosperity but other changes that most Americansapplaud.

ADVOCATES OF THIS APPROACH agree that persistentpoverty in developing nations is a cause of much of

the unrest that affects us in America. But they insist thatthe best way to stop this unrest is to help bring the poornations into the global economy. To do this, we must focuson promoting free trade throughout the world.

A Worldwide MarketplaceMost Americans are becoming aware that the global

marketplace affects each one of us directly. When you gointo a chain store in the local mall, you notice that most of the clothes are manufactured in places like Malaysia,Thailand, and Mexico. Clothes are cheaper than theywould be if they were made here in the U.S., where laborand other production costs are higher. By the same token,millions of American jobs depend on exports. For every$100 worth of goods we produce, $12 worth are sold overseas.

Advocates point out that opening every nation’s eco-nomic activities to the global marketplace encourages eachcountry to specialize in whatever it can produce most

A P P R O A C H T W O

>>Seeking Securitythrough Free Trade

©C

AR

EN

FIR

OU

Z/R

eute

rs/C

orbi

s


>>A P P R O A C H T W O

India, today, is an impressive example of the effects ofglobalization. One need only look at the transformation ofsouthern India in and around Bangalore, which hasbecome that country’s Silicon Valley. Within a generation,newly developed skills in information technology have“made millionaires out of ordinary people here because oftheir brainpower alone—not caste, not land, not heredity,”says Sanjay Baru, editor of India’s Financial Express. In thisregion, hundreds of thousands of young Indians, most ofthem from lower middle-class families now enjoy motorscooters, apartments, and social mobility.

As New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman pointsout, countries that are entering the global marketplace are also the ones that are “becoming politically more open,with more opportunities for their people, and with ayoung generation more interested in joining the world system than blowing it up.”

Another success story began in the 1980s, when inter-national NGOs like Opportunity International began making very small loans, called “microcredit,” to poor people in developing countries, helping them buy a cow, a sewing machine, or a bicycle. The pride of paying back a loan is as valuable as the goods the loan buys. In 2005,microcredit evolved into “microfinance,” including savingsand insurance. MIXmarket.org is a U.N.-funded Web sitethat coordinates a network of hundreds of lenders andinvestors. Information technology lowers the cost of track-ing microloans, so banks can adopt the microfinancemodel, recognizing that tiny profits with today’s poor can mean bigger profits as businesses grow.

Playing by the RulesThe United States has led the way in helping create the

institutions necessary for the efficient operation of theentire global trading system—the World Bank, theInternational Monetary Fund and, in 1995, the WorldTrade Organization (WTO), in which no nation has vetopower. Together, these organizations set the rules for

world trade, act as umpires to identify unfair practices,and provide a credit union on which nations can drawwhen they get into financial trouble. The WTO’s basicrules are similar to those that first facilitated trade amongour 13 original colonies; now everyone is learning to playby these rules.

Promoting trade has long been a bipartisan issue.President Clinton and a Republican-controlled Senate ratified the North American Free Trade Agreement(NAFTA) in 1993, lowering trade barriers between theU.S., Mexico, and Canada. Presidential candidate RossPerot infamously predicted in 1992 that NAFTA wouldmake “a giant sucking sound of jobs being pulled out ofthis country.” But almost two million jobs per year werecreated while NAFTA took affect in the 1990s, and bothU.S. and Mexican economies boomed. Saying “we areimporting from ourselves,” one economist estimates that60 percent of U.S. imports from Mexico are assembledfrom parts made in the U.S. Supporters also considerNAFTA a major foreign policy success, a lever for democ-ratizing our biggest neighbor.

In July 2005, Congress approved a parallel agreement to NAFTA called CAFTA, which lowered trade andinvestment barriers with six Central American countries.Among the poorest in the Western Hemisphere and tornby civil wars throughout the 1980s, these countries haveemerging democracies with the consensus that trade istheir best hope for growth.

Opponents of CAFTA are right in that it may costthousands of manufacturing jobs in the U.S. and returnonly a tiny increase in our exports. But members ofCongress from both parties regard this as a small price to

Onlookers applaud as President Bush

signs one of his administration’s top

priorities, the Central American Free

Trade Agreement, August 2, 2005,

in Washington, D.C. The deal removes

trade barriers with six countries.

AP/

Wid

e W

orld

Pho

tos



pay for long-term reduction of security risks by bringingthese countries deeper into America’s economic sphere.They believe that weak governments and desperate peopleso close to our borders are a far greater danger to us thanjob loss, which we can replace with new industries.

Supporters of this approach argue that, when the U.S.government fails to support free global markets, it notonly increases our taxes but also increases poverty world-wide. U.S. farm subsidies are one example. We grow farmore food than would be grown at market prices, then sellat prices below the true cost of production, or give oursurplus away as food aid. Farmers in poor countries can’tcompete, and their domestic agriculture fails to develop,thereby increasing the risk of famine. In this view, suchsubsidies are both harmful and inefficient and should beeliminated, even though many U.S. farms would not sur-vive a dramatic, rapid change in subsidies.

Security through InterdependenceSecurity and prosperity go together when we make new

trading partners and help them become as prosperous aswe are. Consider our historical relationship with Japan andcompare it with our present day concerns about China.

After World War II, the U.S. military worried abouttechnology transfers from American to Japanese firms. Bythe 1980s, trade relations had become so valuable to bothcountries that the mere thought of another military con-frontation was laughable. Instead, Americans worriedabout competition from cheap Japanese labor. Butincreased production meant that Japanese wages also roserapidly. Today, Japanese manufacturing workers are aswell-paid (and as worried about their jobs) as theirAmerican counterparts. Meanwhile, competitive pressureon American companies continues to drive quality

improvements. Japan is our most important ally in EastAsia, and its firms are major employers in the U.S. Bothcountries have benefited dramatically.

Despite worries about China, supporters of thisapproach say its growing economy is transformingChinese society. Tens of millions of Chinese are rapidlybecoming educated, skilled, and mobile. As in Japan,wages rise, domestic demand grows, Chinese productsbecome more expensive, and American workers becomemore competitive. Such changes also put pressure on the Chinese government to provide freedoms and allowinfluence to the emerging middle class. Moreover, the

9.9

7.1

9.1

2001 20052003

China’s economic growth(annual percentage growth rate of GDP)

Source: World Bank

The 10,000,000th Honda rolls off the

Marysville, Ohio, assembly line in this 2001

photo. Honda founder Soichuro Honda

decided late in the 1970s to invest heavily

in manufacturing facilities in the United

States. The resulting operations in central

Ohio were the start of a revolution that

would change the landscape of American

carmaking.

AP/

Wid

e W

orld

Pho

tos



Chinese military might find it hard to attack a tradingpartner whose business is critical to their economic survival. As Thomas P. M. Barnett, a leading advocate for a proglobal approach to military affairs argues, China’sstake in the global system is already too high for war to be attractive to them.

What Can Be Done?The U.S. government must make globalization a guiding

principle in public policies and international agreements,reducing or eliminating trade barriers whenever possible.We must also be willing to share technology.

Congress should resist pressure to provide protectionfor specific industries that insist they will be hurt by globalcompetition, or who argue that international competitionis unfair. At the same time, the government should provideadditional resources to retrain and relocate workers whoare displaced by foreign competition.

And, the U.S. must continue its support of the WorldTrade Organization and other international groupsdesigned to stabilize and regulate global markets.

Citizens may feel tiny and insignificant next to massiveforces like governments and big businesses. But the globaleconomy is about individuals,households, and organizations, notgovernments or even corporations. The emergence of a global informa-tion-driven economy can give theordinary person extraordinaryinfluence. There are a number ofways in which ordinary citizenshave acted to bring justice for thepoor and market economicstogether: In the late 1970s, anIndian teenager named Javed Abidireceived treatment in the U.S. for a spinal birth defect. As DavidBornstein tells in his book How to Change the World: SocialEntrepreneurs and the Power of

The U.S. government must make globalization a guiding principle in public policies and international agreements, reducing or eliminating trade barriers whenever possible.

New Ideas, Abidi returned to India with the startling ideathat people with physical challenges need not be hiddenaway or forced to beg on the streets. Americans communi-cated with Abidi and helped him start a now-thrivingorganization.

Another way is to help the poor start businesses bysponsoring microfinance programs that help people inpoor countries get loans. Such programs are created byordinary people who lobby their local supermarket or sug-gest that fair-trade coffee be served at church on Sundaymorning. With Internet communications and decreasingregulation, it is increasingly possible for ordinary people tobecome importers.

What Critics SayCritics argue that a rising tide does not necessarily lift

all boats; it sinks some, too. They cite studies showing thatglobalization increases local income inequality, at least inthe short run, and higher income inequality increases therisk that democracy will fail. Tensions between rich andpoor run high, both within nations and among them, feeding unrest, discontent, and terrorist acts of reprisal.These critics see NAFTA and CAFTA, for example, asunlikely to benefit the poorest people in the hemisphere.

They also describe ordinary Americans as increasingly at the mercy of global corporations prepared to “export”the jobs of ordinary Americans to low wage countrieswhere labor and environmental laws are weak.

Critics are concerned that U.S. companies have closedtheir eyes to human-rights abuses that would be intolera-ble to Americans. Chinese dissident Harry Wu alleges that50 million Chinese have worked in slave-labor programssince 1949, reminiscent of the Soviet gulag designed to“reprogram” those who objected to the Communist systemthere. We may not agree about America’s global role, butsurely we can agree that America’s prosperity and securityshould not be gained at the price of others’ human rights.

©C

opyr

ight

200

4 L

arry

Wri

ght.

All

righ

ts r

eser

ved.



Some critics argue that the loss of U.S. sovereigntyinherent in our membership in the World Trade Organiza-tion can lead to serious security breaches. Free trade, forexample, can open our borders to millions of shippingcontainers. The expected benefits of trade would evaporateif all shipping were properly and expensively inspected for terrorist threats, public health risks, and contrabandimports. A single primitive nuclear weapon smuggled in atrading container could eliminate all the benefits of freetrade in an instant.

Globalization makes immigrant smuggling, as well as the movement of would-be terrorists, easier. Chinesewishing to enter the U.S. illegally pay up to $35,000 to be smuggled in, at a rate of 20,000 to 50,000 per year.Mexican officials warn that NAFTA’s ending of import tariffs may spell ruin for millions of Mexican farmers—driving them to go north seeking work. According to oneU.S. congressman who opposes CAFTA, illegal immigra-tion rose 350 percent after NAFTA.

Others concerned with security point out that if theCommunist Chinese leadership really is aiming for war,then we’re now selling them the rope with which to hangus. Our military advantage depends partly on our econom-ic superiority, and “lifting all boats” is not a good idea ifour boat doesn’t always rise higher and carry bigger guns.

Thomas P. M. Barnett, The Pentagon’s New Map(New York, NY: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 2004).

Jagdish Bhagwati, In Defense of Globalization (NewYork, NY: Oxford University Press, 2004).

Hernando de Soto, The Mystery of Capital: WhyCapitalism Triumphs in the West and FailsEverywhere Else (New York, NY: Basic Books, 2000).

Thomas L. Friedman, The World Is Flat: A BriefHistory of the Twenty-First Century (New York, NY:Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2005).

For Further Reading

Cou

rtes

y of

Tra

nsFa

ir U

SA

More than 600,000 producers and their families in over 32 countries benefitfrom selling their coffee, tea, and cocoa on Fair Trade Certified terms.

Other critics believe economic growth and technologi-cal progress can easily do more harm than good. Moreeconomic activity means more stress on the environment.Every factory and office building built anywhere addsgreenhouse gases, more energy use, and more solid waste.New “clean technologies” may come with frightening newrisks, such as genetically modified organisms.

Tradeoffs • Ultimately, global trade is good for everyone, such as when it brings new Japanese- and Korean-owned automobile plants to the U.S., even though itmay cause job losses in some American industries.

• Increased globalization provides the economicresources needed to solve global problems, eventhough it might also lead to increased vulnerabilityto terrorism or environmental degradation.

• Ending U.S. agricultural subsidies could help millions begin to feed themselves, even though thetransition for American farmers and agribusinessesmay be difficult.

• Globalization will reduce poverty, but not in theshort-term.

• Globalization encourages American values such as flexibility, the willingness to do new things, and tolerance for what is different, even though it hasalso encouraged “McDonaldization,” a standardizingtrend that wipes out some regional flavors and local traditions.

• Reducing trade barriers may strengthen undemoc-ratic regimes in other countries.


Cold War adversaries. Supporters also point to the linkagesbetween supporting democracy in Iraq and a more stableMiddle East. Democracies do not go to war with oneanother, nor do they fund terrorists.

When a government’s dealings with other nations arecontrolled by the interplay of majority and minority opin-ion, rather than by the whims of an individual or specialinterest, that state is unlikely to attack others impulsively.Consider, for example, the strong cooperative relationshipsbetween the U.S. and its former adversaries, Japan andGermany, since their re-creation as Western-style democ-racies after World War II. Furthermore, countries thatrespect human rights, such as freedom of speech, are lesslikely to have to contend with separatism or civil war as aproxy for the interplay of opinions.

Peaceful interactions have traditionally been ascribedonly to the relationships between democracies. However,the authors of The Democracy Advantage note that there is “growing recognition that democracies are also more

ADVOCATES OF A THIRD APPROACH say that the challenges of our troubled world require political,

not just military, economic, or technical solutions.Although democracies are not all alike, our goal asAmericans for the twenty-first century should be to helpcitizens in countries throughout the world develop a cul-ture of democracy that both builds on local traditions andprotects basic human rights. After all, democracy andhuman rights are our core values as a nation and havemade us what we are. In this view, both our governmentand we, as citizens, must do all we can to support democ-ratization elsewhere. This approach honors our nation’slegacy as a founder of the United Nations and as author ofthe Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Above all, say supporters, the spread of democracy andhuman rights is central to our security interests becausethese will result in more stable, peaceful, societies thatcould be friends or partners of the United States. This isparticularly important with Russia and China, two former


>>

“Our governmental capacity

to help build new democratic

states must be as great as our

capacity to destroy autocratic

regimes.”Transatlantic Working Group,

German Marshall Fund

Promoting Democratizationand Human Rights

AP/

Wid

e W

orld

Pho

tos

Critical

In danger

North Korea

BhutanBurma

Laos

Nepal

BangladeshPakistan

Afghanistan

Ukraine Uzbekistan

LebanonIraqSyria

Egypt

Bosnia andHerzegovina

Guatemala

HaitiDominican Republic

Venezuela

Colombia

Peru

Paraguay

Yemen

Somalia

KenyaEthiopia

RwandaBurundi

Sudan

Uganda

Zimbabwe

Chad

Tanzania

Central African Republic

Equatorial GuineaDem. Rep. of the Congo

Guinea

Liberia Ivory CoastSierra Leone


>>A P P R O A C H T H R E E

peaceful overall, even in their relationships with auto-cracies.” In short, democracies are less likely than otherforms of government, to become involved in conflicts of any sort.

Supporters of this approach argue that progresstowards democracy can fill the dangerous political voidsleft by so-called failed states, which numbered over 20 in 2005. A failed state is one that can no longer performbasic functions, such as education, security, or governance,usually due to fractious violence or extreme poverty. Onesuch country is Somalia, which, according to the ChicagoTribune, risks becoming “a patchwork of mini-states, some of which increasingly resemble areas of Taliban-controlled Afghanistan or insurgent-patrolled Iraq.”

Failed states have repeatedly provided safe havens forterrorists, warlords, and drug traffickers. They cannotcope with—indeed they are a cause of—complex humanemergencies like famine. As the world becomes moreinterdependent, developed democracies, such as the U.S.,increasingly struggle to provide security for their own citizens while trying to deal with political collapse in therest of the world.

During the twentieth century, U.S. security was threat-ened by ideological dictatorships like Nazi Germany andthe Soviet Union. Today small groups of warlords, drugmafia, and religious or ethnic terrorists prey on failingstates. Proponents of this approach say terrorists andfanatics have more difficulty in widening their appeal inthese countries when the governments are elected andhave popular support.

As it is pointed out in The Democracy Advantage,“democratic government is a bulwark against state failure.”

The authors cite a study of 75 potential predictors of statefailure from 1955 to 1996. Lack of democracy was foundto be one of the three most important factors.

Democratization in other countries will also contributeto solving global problems, because people will participatein politics, deliberate about their community problems,and decide what to do about them. Instead of beingthrown in jail for criticizing the government, NGO leaderswill be able to access international support for innovativeapproaches to sustainable development. The number of political refugees fleeing human-rights abuses will bereduced. And, although dictatorships often promote eco-nomic development that benefits a few people, supportersof this approach say that governments accountable to theirpeople are far more likely to address major internal issuesof environment and poverty.

At the international level, the impact of democracy is even greater. International cooperation among democ-racies, not reliance on military, economic, or technicalsolutions, is the key to alleviating major global problems as well. Most democratic governments, with the exceptionof the U.S., were quick to support the international treatyto ban land mines for example.

The Spirit, Not the LetterPromoting democratization throughout the world,

say supporters of this view, is the most effective means of serving the United States’ interests. A successful democratic system based on the rule of law safeguardsindividual liberties, protects against political repression,offers outlets for public dissent, and provides for orderly,

About two billion people live in failed states or in countries that are in danger of political collapse.

Source: The Fund for Peace and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace



nonviolent transitions of power. When a government isresponsive to its citizens’ needs or can be removed bypeaceful means that are perceived to be fair, it is unlikelyto be violently overthrown.

Supporters of this approach acknowledge that anabstract concept like “democracy” is sometimes used torefer only to the export of America’s democratic system,including free and transparent elections, a representativegovernment, and a system of checks and balances. Andthey favor moves towards such democratic institutions.They argue, however, that the United States shouldencourage the process of democratization by defendingand encouraging individual human rights, political liber-ties, and citizen participation, without necessarily trying toexport carbon copies of our own democratic institutions.Human rights like freedom of speech and religion, equalprotection under the law, the presumption of innocenceuntil proven guilty, and the freedom of conscience are uni-versal, even if the institutions supporting these values differ.

Democratic systems, wherever they are found, might be best viewed as works in progress. Many nations areengaged in political struggles that move them closer to, or farther from, the underlying goals of freedom, access,and equality. Among the former Soviet states, for example,Ukraine has recently demonstrated that a citizenry canrevitalize old dreams of political freedom.

There, in the fall of 2004, the “Orange Revolution”—huge, organized, and largely peaceful protests distin-guished by the orange flags waved by protestors—led tothe nullification of an election marred by fraud and thedioxin poisoning of opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko.Yushchenko’s triumph in the subsequent presidential

run-off is an example of democratization, a dynamicprocess, rather than democracy, a static concept that cannot be easily imposed in any case.

Global Report CardThroughout the 1980s and 1990s, many nations opened

up their political systems, expanded freedoms, and recog-nized human rights. During those decades, 81 countriestook significant steps toward democracy, in many casesoverthrowing authoritarian, one-party regimes. As of2005, Freedom House rated 89 countries as “free,” 58 as“part-free,” and 45 as “not free” based on a combinedmeasure of political rights and civil liberties. One hundrednineteen countries qualified as “electoral democracies,”based on political rights, such as party competition andaccess to the electorate, as well as regular elections.

Proponents of this approach acknowledge that furtherprogress will not be easy and that appearances can bedeceiving. Political access and respect for human rightsvary widely among so-called democratic nations, demon-strating that democratization is a process, not an immedi-ately attainable goal. The Ethiopian elections in 2005 hadmore opposition candidates than ever before, politicaldebates were openly aired on state broadcasts, and foreignobservers were welcomed; yet, the opposition claimedwidespread vote buying and harassment of voters in thecountryside. The breakup of the former Soviet Union led15 of its component republics to adopt some form ofWestern-style democracy without the civic traditions inplace to ensure that free elections translated into trulydemocratic and open societies. In some countries, such asBelarus, the individuals brought into office in their firstelections have held onto power ever since.

Waving orange flags, tens of thousands

of supporters of opposition presidential

candidate Viktor Yushchenko participate

in a rally in downtown Kiev, Ukraine,

on October 23, 2004. The inscription on

the flags reads “Yes, Yushchenko.” His

supporters demanded that Ukraine hold

a free and fair presidential election.

AP/

Wid

e W

orld

Pho

tos



Yet, supporters argue, if this strategy is to be effective,the U.S. needs to demonstrate its own commitment topolitical and human rights both at home and abroad. On the home front they are concerned, for example, thatthe recent detention policies, police powers, and civil-rights violations engendered by the U.S. Patriot Act may damage the credibility of America’s efforts to spread democratic principles to other nations.

They also point out that, while the United States maysay that it is promoting democracy and supportinghuman rights abroad, it has been willing, throughout itshistory, to sacrifice these values in the name of morepressing concerns. In the 1980s, for example, the U.S.government was willing to support repressive militaryregimes in Central America to counteract the influenceof communism in that region.

Today, as part of its antiterrorism effort, the UnitedStates works closely with several nations that show littleregard for civil liberties or human rights, includingPakistan and Saudi Arabia. In these states, which stifledissent, control the press, and suppress political opposi-tion, dissent and misery are readily channeled into rageagainst the United States. In Pakistan, Islamist madrassasand the terrorist groups that they supply prove irresis-tible attractions to young men who have no other meansof acting to better their own lives. By way of contrast,neighboring India—which has the second largest Muslim population of any country in the world—is a vibrantdemocracy, not a breeding ground for terrorism. Suppor-ters of this approach say that alliances with undemocraticnations will, in the long run, undermine America’s effort to create a secure place for itself in the world.

Supporting an independent process of democratizationwould result in stronger and more durable democracies,

say supporters. The varying needs of other societies, villages, clans, transitory populations, or particular com-munities may dictate that democratic institutions take adifferent form than they do in the United States or even a similar form to that taken in the U.S. in the 1780s.

India, for example, has incorporated some forms of traditional rule—granting limited legal independence

to Muslims and other groups, and to local governing bodies known as panchayats. Porto Alegre, Brazil, hasinstituted a democratic participatory budgeting process in which poor citizens work with local officials, explorethe details of the local budget, and contribute to decisions about priorities.

Supporters of this approach also point out that democracy is not only about elections. Nor does democ-ratization only take place at the national level of politics. In Botswana, for example, the International Women’sDemocracy Center, in collaboration with the BotswananNational Women’s Federation, is promoting public deli-beration and decision making on HIV/AIDS at the grassroots level.

AP/

Wid

e W

orld

Pho

tos

Neema Soratgar, right, an independent

candidate, talks to women in a women’s

center in Kabul, Afghanistan, August 31,

2005. Canvassing votes from this deeply

conservative Muslim country was just one

of a string of challenges facing the 582

women running in the September 18 polls,

the next step toward democracy after a

quarter century of fighting. Another was

security. Taliban rebels threatened to kill

women if they took part in the election.

We must support our government inactions that reward democratic nations

while refusing to support those that willnot move toward democracy.



What Can Be Done?The U.S. must make democratization a priority in con-

ducting its foreign policy, This means, for example, thatsupport for democratization should be weighed moreheavily than military alliances, strategic resources, andarms sales that bolster dictatorial regimes. In other words,we must support our government in actions that rewarddemocratic nations while refusing to support those thatwill not move toward democracy.

By the same token, we must not only increase U.S. aidbut we must make it contingent upon the good governanceof recipient nations with respect to human and civil rights.

Since 9/11, foreign-student enrollment in this countryhas declined due to antiterrorism measures that dampenforeign-student interest. In this view, we should removethese obstacles and do more to promote foreign universitystudent exchanges. Student councils, protest demonstra-tions, and outspoken newspapers and radio stations onU.S. college campuses provide foreign students with exposure to democracy.

Our government should also make more use of theUnited Nations experience of other countries to supportdemocratization. Canada, India, Finland, and Sweden are experts at training peacekeeping troops, while France,Italy, and Ireland are good at police training. In Africa,according to a Rockefeller Brothers Fund report, “TheUnited Nations is a gold mine of people who have builttheir own nations and helped rebuild others, with specialexpertise in holding elections and in re-creating infra-structure.”

Many of those who favor this view say that we mustalso take a hard line when it becomes necessary. Thismeans utilizing trade embargos to exert pressure on roguenations that threaten us or their neighbors. And it maymean, as a last resort, forcible international takeovers ofdictatorial regimes engaged in extreme measures, such assystematic genocide.

Individual citizens can set an example of democracy in action by volunteering in, or donating to, organiza-tions that support the development and welfare of nationsabroad, by promoting local, grassroots democratization, orsupport groups that register voters and monitor elections.

Citizens can lobby the government to increase foreignaid to nations that respect the human rights of their citi-zens and to withdraw aid and allegiance from nations thatviolate such rights. We can also boycott goods that comefrom undemocratic regimes.

What Critics SayFew question the importance of America’s role as a

champion for democratic ideals and practices abroad.There is widespread agreement that the United Statesshould continue to perform actions, such as monitoringelections to ensure fairness, and to employ U.S. aid pro-

grams as both “carrot and stick,” encouraging democraticpractices and preventing human-rights abuses.

However, critics note, while the ideals underlying dem-ocratic systems have universal appeal, societies undergoingdemocratization do not always deliver what people expect.Not only are many superficially “democratic” governmentsactually defined by authoritarian, repressive rule, but also,legitimately democratic governments often fail to solve theproblems of the people they serve. Poverty, natural disas-ters, illegal drugs, AIDS and other illnesses, the burden offoreign debt—all can drain a local economy and preventdemocratically elected leaders from delivering what theyhad promised.

We Americans have been led by our unique experienceto make unrealistic claims about the magical powers ofdemocracy, critics of this approach say. If the United Stateswere responsible for ushering in a democratic regime—and then did little more to assist development in thatnation—the United States is likely to be blamed when thatgovernment fails. This is made worse when the UnitedStates adopts a patronizing attitude that other countriesare our students and that we are going to teach themabout democracy.

Some opponents of this view are skeptical of themotives of the U.S. in promoting democracy abroad. Toooften, they say, “promoting democracy” really means “promoting capitalism.” In dealing with societies in whichtradition, social structures, or religious beliefs sustain undemocratic political systems, our role is best limited toprotesting egregious human-rights violations and prevent-ing those nations from taking hostile, aggressive actionagainst other states.

Critics say that it is even unwise to sacrifice trade ties or otherwise use economic leverage to penalize undemoc-ratic states. The primary criteria for global engagementshould be to serve our economic welfare and protect U.S.interests, especially its security interests. The U.S. has a major interest in Afghanistan—a major interest indemocratizing that country, in fact. Without the supportof Pakistan—essentially an undemocratic regime—wecould not succeed in Afghanistan.

Democratization strategies carried out by NGOs havetheir own pitfalls, some critics point out. In the MiddleEast, they could empower militant groups, fail to dislodgerepressive regimes, or provoke resentment. They can’twork where an entrenched regime punishes those whomight be interested in promoting democracy. Finally, theseless drastic interventions can be costly and reduce fundingavailable for other domestic or military needs.

It is particularly unrealistic to commit to U.S. militaryintervention whenever tyrants threaten human rights or democratic regimes. Although many proponents ofApproach Three would not endorse this tactic, a numberof others do. Critics point out that, taken to its extreme,such a commitment would justify constant and costly

For Further Reading

Benjamin Barber, Strong Democracy:Participatory Politics for a New Age (Berkeley, CA: The University of California Press, 2003).

Michael McFaul, “The Liberty Doctrine,” Policy Review 112 (April/May 2002): pp. 3-12.

United Nations Development Programme,Human Development Report 2002: DeepeningDemocracy in a Fragmented World (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2002).

Julie Fisher, Nongovernments: NGOs and the Political Development of the Third World(West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press, 1998).

Morton H. Halperin, Joseph T. Siegel, andMichael M. Weinstein, The Democracy Advantage:How Democracies Promote Prosperity and Peace(New York, NY, London, England: Routledge, 2005).



American involvement in every region of the world. Suchintervention is most dangerous, and least likely to succeed,when it involves attempting to impose our political struc-tures and practices on an unwilling and unaccommodatingculture. This has costs, as U.S. interventions from Koreathrough the current Iraqi occupation amply show. Soldiersand civilians die or suffer devastating physical and mentalscars. Occupation and reconstruction are extremelyexpensive. And a botched military intervention launchedin the name of democracy will result in a country that isunstable, undemocratic, and hostile towards the UnitedStates. In some cases support for free elections could leadto a regime hostile to the U.S., such as one comprised ofIslamic fundamentalists.

Tradeoffs • In the long run, promoting democratization is cru-cial to global stability and to U.S. security interests,even if it may, at times, require military force.

• Democratic political change in developing nationswill reduce the conditions that spawn terrorism eventhough focusing on this goal may risk neglecting

other worldwide crises, such the depletion of naturalresources or the spread of disease.

• Ending our support for dictators will enable demo-cratic opposition leaders to gain strength, eventhough this may require that we reduce our depend-ence on foreign oil.

• Overall, support for free elections that include disparate voices in the political process will enhancethe long run prospects for democracy even though it may lead to Islamic fundamentalists gaining political ground in the short run.

Indian election officials carry electronic

voting machines and other election material

atop elephants to the remote village of

Barkhashung in Dispur, constituancy of the

Indian state of Assam.

AP/

Wid

e W

orld

Pho

tos

In the summer of 2005, the U.S.

occupation of Iraq raised new

questions for Americans, reexamin-

ing how best to address threats to

the international order and U.S.

security. With Saddam Hussein in

custody, the search for weapons of

mass destruction closed, and an

increasingly violent Iraqi insurgency

underway, Americans continued to

explore how employing military

power might make the world as

safe as possible for themselves and

other peace-seeking countries.

make to the challenge we face as a powerful but less thanuniversally liked people.

Supporters of this approach say that because the U.S.now has greater military strength than any nation—andmore than most nations working in combination—it shouldact to keep destructive forces in check. In the twenty-firstcentury, writes military commentator Eliot Cohen, “the U.S.military. . . has become, whether Americans or others like it or not, the ultimate guarantor of international order.”Indeed, even if we wanted it, no international organizationhas strong enforcement power. So, rather than shrinkingfrom our role, we need to acknowledge the key role theUnited States plays and use every means at our disposal todeal with threats to our own security and to world peace.American power is a force for good, in this view, not justfor our own welfare as a people, but worldwide.

THROUGHOUT THE COLD WAR, much of our nationaldefense enterprise rested on the assumption that

enemies would not attack us because, by doing so, theywould risk provoking an overwhelming retaliatory attack.Would-be attackers were deterred, for fear of what ourresponse would be.

Now, in a sharp departure from principles that guidedAmerica’s global engagement for half a century, a new doctrine put forward by the Bush administration calls forpreemptive attacks against terrorists and against hostilestates that might threaten us with weapons of massdestruction. In other words, we will attack first, if we have reason to think they might attack us. This strategysignals a major change in the uses of American power, one that is likely to have effects far beyond Iraq. It is partof the response that proponents of our fourth approach

AP/

Wid

e W

orld

Pho

tos

Using Military Power to Secure the Peace

>>

A P P R O A C H F O U R



>>A P P R O A C H F O U R

©A

LE

XA

ND

ER

DE

MIA

NC

HU

K/R

eute

rs/C

orbi

s

The Indispensable PlayerThe United States has for years played an indispensable

global role. The demise of the Soviet Union in 1991 endeda massive threat from a single adversary. But in the imme-diate post-Cold War period, the United States respondedto a series of smaller but still serious challenges, evenbefore the second Bush administration solidified as doctrinethe idea of using our military power to secure the peace.

Through the 1990s, the United States conducted bombing raids in the Balkans as part of a NATO action.American troops served peacekeeping missions in theMiddle East and in the Kosovo province of Yugoslavia. The U.S. confronted North Korea when it was first discov-ered to be developing nuclear weapons. And it workedwith the U.N. Security Council to enact sanctions againsthalf a dozen violators of international principles.

In 1991, the United States went to war against Iraq after it invaded its neighbor, Kuwait. If Iraq’s occupation of Kuwait had not been challenged, Saddam Husseinwould have controlled the huge oil reserves of Iraq andKuwait. By taking the lead in that war and defeatingSaddam Hussein, the United States protected its owninterests as a major oil consumer. It also led a coalition to defeat aggression on behalf of the world community.

This policy was exemplified again when the U.S.attacked Afghanistan in response to 9/11; and again, in2003, with the advent of the Iraq War. And while the period following the removal of Saddam Hussein has pro-duced a violent insurgency, an influx of Islamic terrorists,and the possibility of an Iraqi civil war, supporters of thisapproach say doubts about our strategy need to focusmore on faulty implementation—the caliber of post-warplanning by the Defense Department—than on the policy itself.

In each of these instances, the situations that provokedan American response—aggression, nuclear proliferation,mass starvation, massive natural disasters, the violation of international agreements—were threats to the kind ofworld order that Americans value.

These and other U.S. initiatives in the 1990s helped toanswer a very practical question: Why should politicalchaos halfway around the globe be of any concern to theUnited States and its citizens? The answer, say advocatesof this approach, is that U.S. security and prosperity aretightly linked to global stability. Disorder in other areas ofthe world disrupts trade and investment, increases immi-gration pressure, jeopardizes access to vital resources, andstimulates other countries to arm themselves. Disorderalso makes it easier for terrorists to operate throughoutthe world. Americans cannot feel secure in a world whereoutlaws run free. Evil must be confronted by force.

Paper TigerSometimes a simple show of force can quell threatening

developments. For example, when the democraticallyelected government of the Philippines faced an armedcoup in 1989, then-president George H. W. Bush instruct-ed U.S. fighter planes to fly over rebel bases. It sent a message to rebels that an overthrow of a democratic government would not be tolerated.

However, when the U.S. fails to take advantage of itsmilitary strength, because of fear of public opposition toanything but a “surgical strike,” it can lead to dangerousconsequences. For example, supporters of this approachpoint out that, after the Gulf War, the United States didnot forcibly remove Saddam Hussein. Nor did the UnitedStates force Iraq to allow U.N. inspectors to operate effectively in the country to assess its capacity for nuclear

An elderly Iraqi man celebrates

the capture of Saddam Hussein

in Bagdad, December 15, 2003.

Before the U.S. invasion, Hussein

had terrorized many of his own

people for years.



and biological warfare. After attacks on U.S. embassies inKenya and Tanzania in 1998, and then again after an attackon the Navy’s vessel the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen in October2000, the U.S. failed to deliver a decisive response.

America’s enemies are made bolder by half-heartedactions and our reluctance to use force, proponents of this approach say. Only with assertive leadership andaggressive measures when necessary can America protectits interests and maintain world peace. When the U.S. isreluctant to play this role, instability and conflict increasearound the world, eventually arriving at our doorstep.

To the argument that the U.S. should not be the world’spoliceman, supporters of this choice say we cannot affordnot to be. The events of September 11, 2001, are dramaticproof of the continuing need for an effective intelligenceapparatus and a fully engaged American military and for-eign policy that recognizes and preempts threats from terrorists and rogue states.

This does not mean, say supporters of this approach,that the U.S. should intervene anywhere and everywhere.Yet they point to the policy results of the terrible events inLebanon more than 20 years ago for guidance. In 1983,after a suicide truck bomber killed 241 U.S. Marines and

Navy seamen in their barracks in Beirut, the U.S. with-drew, Lebanon descended into civil war, and Syria movedin. Nor should America repeat some of the poorly plannedinterventions of the 1990s, such as those launched inSomalia and Haiti. But “at a time like this,” writes colum-nist Charles Krauthammer:

The imprudent ones are those who simply want to lop off one tentacle of the terrorist threat, the one that perpetrated September 11. Doing that will give us satisfaction, a sense of accomplishment,and an entirely false sense of security. The nextattack, catastrophic beyond our imagination, is waiting to happen.

Preemptive Unilateral ActionFor 50 years, we presumed that our enemies were

rational and calculating, unwilling to risk either massivedamage or their own self-destruction. Given the kinds of adversaries that we now face, say advocates of thisapproach, those assumptions are no longer adequate as abasis for U.S. defense policy. As President Bush put it in a speech at West Point in June 2002:

We cannot defend America and our friends by hoping for the best. . . . If we wait for threats to fullymaterialize, we will have waited too long. . . . We must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans,and confront the worst threats before they emerge. It is one thing to achieve agreement in the United

Nations condemning terrorism or to pass resolutions likethose that required Iraq to disclose, destroy, and abandonall nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. It is quiteanother matter to agree on collective action to enforce suchresolutions. For the United States, say advocates of thisapproach, the question is what to do when nations blatant-ly violate international agreements and thumb their nosesat the authority of the United Nations and its resolutions.

The U.S. Navy destroyer U.S.S. Cole was struck in

Aden, Yemen, by a bomb on October 12, 2000,

killing 17 crewmembers and injuring 39. Officials

believe suicide bombers manuevered a small

boat next to the destroyer and detonated explo-

sives. Proponents of Approach Four criticize the

U.S. failure to deliver a decisive response to

such attacks. They say America’s enemies are

made bolder by half-hearted actions and our

reluctance to use force.

“We cannot defend America and our friends by hoping for the best. . . . If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long.”

AP/

Wid

e W

orld

Pho

tos



This also means that we will, according to this doctrine,prepare to act unilaterally on occasion. Fighting a war aspart of a global partnership is, of course, desirable bothbecause of the legitimacy it confers and as a way to sharethe burden. However, advocates of this approach say, itcannot always be achieved. Most recently, they point tothe efforts the U.S. made to rally the U.N. to force Iraq tomeet its international agreements—a process that turnedinto a tar pit of indecision.

When unilateral U.S. action is the only alternative, theessence of responsible global leadership is to do what noother country—or group of countries—is willing to do,what must be done to thwart a menacing danger. Althoughsupporters of this approach acknowledge that the unila-teral approach hinges on excellent intelligence and anAmerican public willing to support a protracted, and cost-ly, military engagement, they argue that this is the roleAmerica must play in the world of today. As Secretary ofDefense Donald Rumsfeld put it, “It’s less important tohave unanimity than it is to be making the right decisionsand doing the right thing, even though at the outset it may seem lonesome.”

What Can Be Done?In this view, the U.S. must maintain its position as the

world’s only superpower, which will require substantialinvestments in military research and development, andadvanced weapon systems. We must be prepared to act,preemptively and unilaterally if necessary, when hostilestates armed with dangerous weapons appear prepared to strike against us. And this means that the governmentshould consider reinstating the draft to ensure that thereare enough capable recruits to carry out multifaceted U.S. operations.

The report of the 9/11 Commission recommended a number of steps, such as better communication amongintelligence agencies, that should be put into action inorder to reform our intelligence gathering and analysisinstitutions. These changes are critical if we are toreduce the likelihood of another terrorist attackand avoid another intelligence failure like the mis-information about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

The U.S. should also press our allies to join us in coordinated international efforts to shareintelligence information, carry out joint training,take concerted action against potential terrorists,and reverse the proliferation of weapons of massdestruction.

It will also be important, proponents ofApproach Four say, to expand military assistanceprograms in developing countries.

Ultimately, military force depends on citizensfor its power. Former Secretary of State Colin

Powell reflected in his memoirs about his Vietnam tour of duty and what he and other commanders learned from the experience. “Many of my generation . . . vowedthat when our turn came to call the shots, we would notquietly acquiesce in half-hearted warfare for half-bakedreasons that the American people could not understand or support.”

Thus, it is important that as citizens, we accept the significant commitment of U.S. ground troops and theincrease in American combat casualties as an unavoidablepart of those engagements. We should also support rein-statement of the draft as the only fair way of meetingincreased needs for military manpower, and we should be prepared to serve or for family members and friends to serve, if called.

We should support higher taxes to pay for a buildup inthe defense budget and accept the fact that some domesticprojects will have to be deferred for a time.

Finally, citizens must anticipate that aggressive actionagainst rogue governments and terrorists may prompt yet more violent reprisals against the United States.

What Critics SayThis new policy is seriously misguided, say those who

oppose this approach, both as a next step in the effort tocontain terrorism and as a direction for U.S. actions overthe longer term. Far from making the world a safer place,pursuing this course is likely to make the world more dangerous.

A large military force with broad capabilities carries a constant risk that decision makers will be prone toengage in violent conflict just because we can. It can alsoundermine much of what the United States cares aboutand stands for in the world. And, it has the potential tolead us into a swamp of foreign commitments that, over time, will be divisive and sap all of our resources.Although we are the richest nation on earth, we cannot

©C

opyr

ight

200

5 C

hris

Sla

ne. A

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.



For Further Reading

Chuck Hagel, “A Republican Foreign Policy,” Foreign Affairs (July/August 2004): pp. 64-76.

Nicholas Lemann, “The War on What? The WhiteHouse and the Debate About Whom to Fight Next,”The New Yorker (September 16, 2002): pp. 36ff.

Thomas M. Magstadt, An Empire If You Can KeepIt (Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2004).

Joseph S. Nye, Jr., The Paradox of American Power:Why the World’s Only Superpower Can’t Go It Alone(Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2002).

The 9/11 Commission Report (New York, NY: W.W.Norton, 2005).

Foreign Policy (entire issue) (July-August 2005).

afford to intervene militarily everywhere. It would becheaper to address the social, economic, and political causes of instability.

This approach also advocates a “one size fits all”approach to foreign policy and misjudges what U.S. military power can accomplish, say critics. Declaring war on states that sponsor and protect terrorists is a very dangerous undertaking, more likely to activate terrorismthan to quell it. Military action on our part is likely to lead to an endless spiral of violent reprisals.

In particular, say critics, the assertion that the UnitedStates must often go it alone by taking unilateral action is dangerously wrong. According to Michael Lind of theFinancial Times of London, this strategy allows other powers the benefits of movement toward peace while onlythe U.S. spends its treasure and the lives of its young peo-ple. The essence of world leadership should not consist of insisting on our right to unilateral action because wehave more military might than any other nation. Rather,the U.S. should use its influence and power to act as aleader, building a broad coalition of nations. For example, attempted terrorist attacks on New Year’s Eve, 1999, wereprevented because Canada, Jordan, and other countriestracked down the perpetrators before they reached the U.S.

America’s international standing is the crux of ourcapacity to lead. However, while anti-Americanism inEurope, the Middle East, and Asia has abated somewhatsince the start of the war in Iraq, the United States remains broadly disliked in most of the 16 countries thePew Center surveyed in 2005. Announcing in advance that we will use force without regard to the opinions ofother nations may hurt us more than it hurts those nations hostile to us.

Critics also argue that this approach ignores less riskyapproaches to military challenges. Libya, for example,responded to years of multilateral diplomatic pressure andgave up nuclear weapons. Russia and Ukraine have askedour help in destroying their dangerous materials and ajoint U.S./Russian program has provided 40,000 Russianscientists with funding for peaceful research so they don’thave to look for work in places like North Korea. Also, forone percent of the current defense budget, we could buyall of the nuclear bomb material in the world and take itoff the black market.

Using force to strike at other nations that have not

attacked us is a violation of one of the cardinal principlesof the international order, say critics of this approach. TheUnited Nations charter and various decisions of the WorldCourt have prohibited the use of force that is not under-taken in self-defense, unless sanctioned by the U.N.Security Council.

Preemptive attack, say critics, sets a dangerous prece-dent for other nations. Among nations, as among childrenon a playground, there will be a lot more mayhem oncethe precedent is established that it is acceptable for anyoneto hit someone else when they think they’re about to gethit. In that instance, India could attack Pakistan, or Israelcould feel justified launching preemptive attacks on thePalestinians.

Tradeoffs • Because force is sometimes the only answer, theremay be need for a draft that disrupts the lives ofthose drafted, separates families, and does not always seem equitably distributed among eligibleAmericans.

• The future security of the Middle East and thedemocratization that it makes possible representhuge advances in our security, even though wagingthe war in Iraq and Afghanistan costs the UnitedStates an estimated $1 billion a month.

• Especially in wartime, U.S. interests require that wemaintain close relations with governments, such asPakistan and Saudi Arabia, even though they are notdemocratic.

• We need to respond directly and perhaps preemp-tively to countries that threaten our security, eventhough this may weaken international organizationsin the long run and may provide justification for unilateral action by other countries.

Military action on our part is likely to lead to an endless spiral of violent reprisals.


Or ask our younger citizens, who have served onbattlefields in the Middle East. What are “good” reasons to undertake military action? Are we more or less secure because of military actions in recent years?

In this book, and in our deliberation with otherAmericans, there are many “pros” and “cons” to beweighed about the different approaches that mightguide us in assessing our future security. Perhaps no one approach can prove adequate, everywhere, all of the time.For no matter how strong, militarily, our nation is, norhow wealthy or wise, we can’t guarantee what the futurewill bring.

As individual Americans, too, we may not be as power-ful or wealthy or wise as we would like to be. We have reason, therefore, to talk with each other about how wemight best organize ourselves to achieve the kind of worldwe want to leave for our grandchildren.

Four-hundred years ago, when Europeans began to settle this “new world” called America, poet JohnMilton wrote, “The world was all before them, whereto choose. . . .”

In a sense, it still is today. What choices will we make?

WE HAVE BEEN TALKING about issues that reacharound the world. It is difficult to choose which

path we should follow. Yet, decisions must be made,and we have a voice in making them.

Questions come more easily than answers.• Ask Americans whose lives have been devastatedby increasingly ferocious hurricanes, such asKatrina. Ask those have lost loved ones to AIDS or other tropical diseases they never heard of tenyears ago. Should we not do more to deal with problems-without-borders, such as global warmingand the worldwide spread of disease?

• Ask those who have lost their jobs when industriesmove to other countries where labor is cheap orwho know that children provide that cheap labor insweatshops. Should we stop opening our markets toinexpensive foreign products and curtail free trade?

• Ask those refugees and other immigrants whohave seen democracies collapse or the rise of dictators. Is the building of democracy our mostimportant task throughout the rest of the world?

• Ask some of our older citizens, who rememberwars and the threat of wars in the twentieth century.

>>

S U M M A R Y

Because of America’s

strength and influence,

what we as Americans

decide about our future

security affects our lives

and the lives of others.

Continuing the Conversation

AP/

Wid

e W

orld

Pho

tos

©D

avid

But

ow/C

OR

BIS

SAB

A

AP/

Wid

e W

orld

Pho

tos

AP/

Wid

e W

orld

Pho

tos

Persistent poverty fuelsmuch of the hatred thatthreatens the U.S. today. U.S.security depends on raisingthe standard of living in therest of the world. To helpachieve that, we must pro-mote the principles of freetrade. Chiefly, this meansknocking down the barriersthat have heretofore protected businesses—Americanbusinesses included—from global competition.

What Can Be Done?• Make reducing trade barriers the guiding principle in

public policies and international agreements.

• Resist pressure to provide protection from global com-petition for specific industries.

• Provide more resources to retrain and relocate workersdisplaced by foreign competition.

• Support citizen actions aimed at promoting higherwages for workers in foreign companies that sell prod-ucts in the U.S.

What Critics Say• A world dominated by global corporations focused

on maximizing profit is hostile to the interests of mostpeople and increases the gap between the rich and the poor.

• Companies in other countries from whom we buycheaper products may allow human-rights abuses.

• Globalization makes immigrant smuggling and themovement of would-be terrorists easier.

Tradeoffs• In the short-term, free trade can cause wrenching

dislocations for American workers and encouragesweatshops or child labor in some other nations.

• Globalization may lead to a certain standardization of products that wipes away longtime cultural distinctions.

The most pressing problemsfacing us today are long-termthreats that acknowledge noborders and that are increas-ing in scale. Critical problemslike dwindling water suppliesand the spread of AIDS areserious worldwide threats thataffect all of us. We cannot dealwith these problems alone. We must commit ourselves withother nations to ensure a safe future for all of us.

What Can Be Done?• Take the lead in multinational efforts to deal with global

problems like AIDS and environmental pollution.• Accept and support the goals of international agree-

ments, even if they are less than wholly satisfying.• Provide primary health care and family planning, as well

as organized international campaigns against critical epi-demic diseases, including AIDS prevention and treatment.

• Preserve the world’s environmental resources by cuttingdomestic energy use and following other measures inaccordance with global environmental agreements.

What Critics Say• Spending billions of dollars trying to solve the world’s ills

will deprive us of funds needed for domestic programs.• We don’t need international agreements to get results. For

example, Americans are already working with internation-al NGOs in various ways to improve the environment.

• Many of the alarming forecasts about impending globalcatastrophes are contested opinions. No one can knowwhat the future holds.

Tradeoffs• The allocation of more money for international assistance

may mean cutting domestic and defense programs. • Conserving energy through measures like driving smaller

cars may have a negative impact on U.S. economy initially.


A P P R O A C H T W OA P P R O A C H O N E

>>

>>>>

Comparing ApproachesI S S U E G U I D E

Preserving and SharingGlobal Resources

Seeking Security through Free Trade

America is the only nationin the world with sufficientmilitary power to keepdestructive forces in checkand thus maintain stabilityaround the world. Becausehostile forces may presentthreats against the U.S., wemust be prepared to actpreemptively—and unilater-ally when necessary—to maintain our own security.

What Can Be Done?• Be prepared to act preemptively, and unilaterally if

necessary, when hostile states threaten the U.S.

• Consider reinstating the draft to ensure that there will be enough trained personnel to carry out multifacetedoperations.

• Reform the government’s intelligence systems along the lines recommended by the 9/11 report.

• Accept higher taxes and reduce domestic spending to pay for long and costly engagements.

What Critics Say• Pursuing this course may well lead us into an endless

spiral of violent reprisals.

• Preemptive strikes set a dangerous precedent for othernations.

• We cannot afford to intervene everywhere. It would becheaper to address the sources of instability.

Tradeoffs• In wartime, U.S. interests require maintaining close

relationships with undemocratic regimes, such as thosein Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

• Military intervention may produce unintended conse-quences, such as instability or even civil war.

• Wars can result in substantial casualties to both U.S.troops and civilians in the combat zone.

Democracy and humanrights are the core values forwhich this nation stands. Wemust do all we can to pro-mote democratization asthe most practical andpromising way to securepeace and stability. We mustsupport actions that rewarddemocratization, while refusing to deal with those coun-tries that will not move toward democracy.

What Can Be Done?• Increase public and private assistance to NGOs promot-

ing democracy in their own countries.

• Cut ties to foreign dictators who refuse to honor humanrights or democratic values.

• Expand programs of educational and foreign exchangesthat promote democratization.

• If necessary, use force to intervene when dictatorialregimes threaten the lives of their own or neighboringpeople.

What Critics Say• We need to understand what democracy can realistical-

ly achieve. In many countries, it has delivered consider-ably less than the people expected.

• Pushing our values and political system amounts to cul-tural imperialism.

• This approach, which would involve us in every regionof the world, is unrealistic and overly ambitious.

Tradeoffs • Support for free elections everywhere is basic to this

approach even though it may lead to the establishmentof Islamic fundamentalist governments.

• The U.S. may have to use force to support democracy.


C O M PA R I N G A P P R O A C H E S>>

THE EVENTS OF SEPTEMBER 11 were a savage reminderthat we live in an interconnected and interdependent

world. Although we are the most powerful nation in thatworld, we can no longer believe that our overwhelmingmilitary might and wealth will always protect us or assume



>>Using Military Power to Secure the Peace

that we are immune to the problems of the rest of theworld. This guide to deliberation is designed to help youthink about what our challenges, as Americans, are to bein the twenty-first century. An outline for talking throughthis troublesome issue appears on these pages.

Promoting Democratizationand Human Rights


ATIONAL ISSUES FORUMS bring together citizensaround the nation to discuss challenging social and

political issues of the day. They have addressed issues like the economy, education, health care, foreign affairs,poverty, and crime.

Thousands of civic, service, and religious organizations,as well as libraries, high schools, and colleges, have spon-sored forums. The sponsoring organizations select topicsfrom among each year’s most pressing public concerns,then design and coordinate their own forum programs,which are held throughout the fall, winter, and spring.

A Different Kind of Talk No two forums are alike. They range from small study

circles to large gatherings modeled after town meetings,but all are different from everyday conversations andadversarial debates.

Because forums seek to increase understanding ofcomplicated issues, participants need not start out with detailed knowledge of an issue. Forum organizers distribute issue books like this one, featuring a nonparti-san overview of an issue and a choice of several publicresponses. By presenting each issue in a nonpartisan way,forums encourage participants to take a fresh look at theissues and at their own convictions.

In the forums, participants share their opinions, their concerns, and their knowledge. With the help ofmoderators and the issue books, participants weigh several possible ways for society to address a problem.They analyze each choice, the arguments for and againstit, and the tradeoffs and other implications of the choice.Moderators encourage participants, as they gravitate to one option or another, to examine their basic values as individuals and as community members.

The Search for Common GroundForums enrich participants’ thinking on public issues.

Participants confront each issue head-on, make aninformed decision about how to address it, and come toterms with the likely consequences of their choices. In this deliberative process, participants often accept choicesthat are not entirely consistent with their individual wishesand that impose costs they had not initially considered.This happens because the forum process helps people see issues from different points of view; participants usediscussion to discover, not persuade or advocate. The bestdeliberative forums can help participants move towardshared, stable, well-informed public judgments aboutimportant issues.

Participants may hold sharply different opinions andbeliefs, but in the forums they discuss their attitudes, con-cerns, and convictions about each issue and, as a group,seek to resolve their conflicting priorities and principles.In this way, participants move from making individualchoices to making choices as members of a community—the kinds of choices from which public action may result.

Building Community through Public DeliberationIn a democracy, citizens must come together to find

answers they can all live with—while acknowledging thatindividuals have differing opinions. Forums help peoplefind the areas where their interests and goals overlap. This allows a public voice to emerge that can give direc-tion to public policy.

The forums are nonpartisan and do not advocate a particular solution to any public issue, nor should they be confused with referenda or public-opinion polls. Rather, the forums enable diverse groups of Americans to determine together what direction they want policy to take, what kinds of action and legislation they favor and what, for their common good, they oppose.

Moving to ActionForums can lead to several kinds of public action.

Generally, a public voice emerges in the results of theforums, and that helps set the government’s compassbecause forum results are shared with elected officialseach year. Also, as a result of attending forums, individuals and groups may decide individually or with others to help remedy a public problem through citizen actions outside of government.

N

Forums are initiated at the local level by civic and

educational organizations. For information about

starting a forum and using our materials, write

the NIF Institute, 100 Commons Road, Dayton,

Ohio 45459-2777, or phone 800-433-7834.

On the Internet: www.nifi.org.

>>

>>

What Are National Issues Forums?

How to Start a Forum


QUEST IONNAIRE

1. Do you agree or disagree with the statements below?a. Supporting democratization in other nations will,

in the long run, enhance our own national security.b. When developing countries become more prosperous,

they are less likely to threaten other countries.c. America should not hesitate to use military force to

deal with threats to our national security.d. The U.S should take the lead in forging global agreements

on the environment.e. Free trade benefits U.S. consumers by lowering prices.f. The real threats to us are long-term global problems,

such as AIDS and pollution, that know no national borders.g. Our reluctance to use force before September 11, 2001,

encouraged terrorists to attack.h. Promoting democratization in other countries will

increase stability in the world.

2. Do you favor or oppose each of these actions?a. We should reduce or eliminate trade barriers

whenever possible.b. The U.S. should take the lead in global efforts to combat

the spread of contagious diseases like AIDS.c. Our goal as Americans in the 21st century should be to

help citizens of other countries develop stable democracies.d. We should cut ties with foreign dictators who refuse to

honor democratic values.e. The U.S. should reinstate the draft to ensure military

readiness.f. We should make it easier for foreigners to invest in

businesses in the U.S. g. Working with other countries to tackle chronic poverty

overseas should be a higher priority for the U.S than it is now.h. The U.S. should be willing to strike first against enemies

who have weapons of mass destruction and a proven willingness to use them.

Now that you’ve had a chance to participate in a forum on this issue, we’d like to know what you are thinking. Youropinions, along with those of thousands of others who participated in these forums, will be recorded in a summary reportthat will be available to all citizens, including those who took part in the forums, as well as officeholders, members of thenews media, and others in your community.

Strongly agree

Somewhatdisagree

Stronglydisagree

Not sure

Somewhatagree

Strongly favor

Somewhatoppose

Stronglyoppose

Not sure

Somewhatfavor

Building a More Secure FutureAmericans’ Role in the World


>> Q U E S T I O N N A I R E

3. Do you favor or oppose the statements listed below?a. We must work with other countries to address worldwide

problems like global warming, EVEN IF that means requiring all manufacturers to build higher-priced, more fuel-efficient cars.

b. We must promote free-trade policies, EVEN IF this sometimes causes American workers to lose their jobs.

c. We must end our support for dictatorial regimes, EVEN IF this means we have to cut down on our use of oil.

d. The U.S. must be willing to use force to deal with threats to our national security, EVEN IF that results in many casualties among U.S. service personnel and civilians in other countries.

4. Are you thinking differently about this issue now that you have participated in the forum?Yes No

If yes, how?

5. In your forum, did you talk about aspects of the issue you hadn’t considered before?Yes No

6. What, if anything, might citizens in your community do differently as a result of this forum?

7. How many National Issues Forums have you attended, including this one?1–3 4–6 7 or more Not sure

8. Are you male or female? Male Female

9. How old are you?17 or younger 18–30 31–45 46–64 65 or older

10. Are you:African American Asian American Hispanic Native American White/Caucasian Other (please specify) __________________

11. Where do you live?Rural Small town Large city Suburb

Please give this form to the forum leader, or mail it to National Issues Forums Research, 100 Commons Road, Dayton, Ohio, 45459-2777.

Strongly favor

Somewhatoppose

Stronglyoppose

Not sure

Somewhatfavor

National Issues ForumsThis issue book was prepared by the Kettering Foundation for National Issues Forums. It isan updated adaptation of an issue book entitled By the People: Americans’ Role in the World,written and edited by Keith Melville, Robert J. Kingston, and Marilyn Christiano and issuedby the Kettering Foundation in 2002.

Books in this series are used by civic and educational organizations interested in addressingpublic issues in locally initiated forums, convened each year in hundreds of communities.For a description of National Issues Forums, log onto the Web site: www.nifi.org. Individualsinterested in using National Issues Forums materials as part of their own programs shouldwrite National Issues Forums Research at 100 Commons Road, Dayton, Ohio 45459-2777, or call 800-433-7834.

Kettering FoundationKettering Foundation, a nonprofit, nonpartisan research institute located in Dayton, Ohio(with offices in Washington, D.C. and New York), was founded in 1927. It has providedbooks, materials, and moderator training for National Issues Forums since this nationwidenetwork was started in 1982. It is engaged in a wide range of activities to promote civic par-ticipation and enrich public life. For information about the Kettering Foundation, contact thefoundation at 200 Commons Road, Dayton, Ohio 45459-2799. Phone 800-221-3657.

Ordering InformationAdditional copies of this book may be ordered from NIF Publications, P.O. Box 41626,Dayton, Ohio 45441; phone 1-800-600-4060. It is part of a series that includes other topicssuch as terrorism, violent kids, campaign spending, public schools, urban sprawl, privacyand free speech on the Internet, gambling, jobs, alcohol, and Social Security and Medicare.For more information, or to place orders for these books, contact Kendall/Hunt PublishingCompany, 4050 Westmark Drive, Dubuque, Iowa 52002. Phone: 800-228-0810.

AcknowledgmentsSpecial thanks to our colleagues in the NIF network who helped to frame the original choiceframework and clarify the presentation: Ed Arnone, Kimberly Casey, Carolyn Coleman,Vernon Courtney, Ramón Daubón, William DiMascio, Patty Dineen, John Doble, SadieFlucas, Michael Jefferson, Migwe Kimemia, Craig Paterson, Taylor Willingham, and VirginiaYork. We are grateful to our reviewers, Margaret Karns, Nancy Roman, and Frank Rusciano.Finally, we appreciate the encouragement and support of David Mathews, president of theKettering Foundation.

Writers: Julie Fisher, Michele Demers, Neil Carlson, and Donna Schlagheck Editor: Ilse TebbettsDesign and production: Long’s Graphic Design, Inc. Copy Editor: Lisa Boone-BerryQuestionnaire: Julie Fisher, Ilse TebbettsCover photos: AP/Wide World Photos

Americans’ Role in the World: Building a More Secure FutureCopyright 2005Kettering FoundationAll rights reserved. ISBN: 0-945639-32-5

www.nifi.org

LGD-1049-NIF-7500-FG-6-06

A note about this issue bookEach book in this series for the National Issues Forums outlines a public issue and severalperspectives, or approaches, to addressing the issue. Rather than conforming to anysingle public proposal, each choice reflects widely held concerns and principles. Panels ofexperts review manuscripts to make sure the choices are presented accurately and fairly.

By intention, issue books do not identify individuals or organizations with partisanlabels, such as Democrat, Republican, conservative, or liberal. The goal is to present ideasin a fresh way that encourages readers to judge them on their merit. Issue books includequotations from experts and public officials when their views appear consistent with theprinciples of a given approach. But these quoted individuals might not endorse everyaspect of the approach as it is described here.

americans’role in the world 101/arw 2006.pdf · 2011-12-19 · t he first edition of this issue...

Documents