The United States

In his recent biography of Dean Acheson, James Chace maintains that this post-war construction reflected a unique American realist tradition. Acheson knew the United States has had difficulty maintaining and manipulating the grand designs that appeal to hard-nosed realists as well as to liberal idealists. He appreciated that U.S. foreign policy has always been subject to pulls in various directions—by righteous zeal and rational legalisms, a penchant for both unilateralism and universalism, and a great energy that surges and ebbs depending on public opinion and the quality of national leadership.

To manage these contending forces, Chace asserts that Acheson combined strategy with practical workmanship. Acheson developed a set of core objectives for the world the United States hoped to foster, and he navigated towards them through pragmatic adjustments to events....Acheson committed the United States to alliances and international institutions to anchor these policies in a more lasting fashion—at home as well as abroad. In combination, his policies conveyed an overall sense of direction and established priorities for the use of U.S. power and influence.

During the 1990’s, the United States and the world have been waiting for the successors of the Cold War leaders to use U.S. power, prestige, and principles to transform the successes of the Cold War into a new agenda. The United States has needed to define its purposes and plans—to guide allies and friends, to warn enemies, and most important for a democracy, to cultivate the support of the U.S. public. Without a strategy, U.S. officials risk racing from crisis to crisis, each a new distraction, patching over problems until the paste cracks again. Scattershot responses dissipate the United States’ effectiveness as a coalition leader and may erode the existing structures of influence.

Looking ahead, the United States has four strategic objectives that would preserve and expand the political community it sponsored after World War II.

First, the United States needs to overhaul the ties with its two primary overseas partners, Western Europe and Japan, to better meet a new generation of challenges. Although the networks among the Trilateral countries are extensive and rich in content, it would be a mistake to take these ties for granted. Competition and conflict could lead to acrimony and even alienation....

Ongoing, healthy U.S. partnerships with Europe and Japan will go a long way toward ensuring security in two regions—the trans-Atlantic area and the Asia-Pacific—where instability has bred threats to the United States. These partnerships will also enhance the ability of the Trilateral counties to address the uncertainties of China’s and Russia’s futures. And Europe and Japan are the two partners the United States is most likely to turn to for collective action, whether to deal with transnational topics like the environment or whatever the problem.

Second, North America, the European Union, and Japan need to reach out to the next group of potential partners in this political community. The candidates are those nations that are building open market economies, creating middle classes, and developing representative democracies with respect for individual liberties. In varying degrees, moving at different paces, countries in Central and Eastern Europe, Latin America, and East Asia offer an opportunity to enlarge today’s democratic political community. Yet over the past year, the countries in these regions have struggled with enormous economic and political stress. Much is at stake in their success.

Third, at the edges of this democratic community are the three great challenges of Eurasia—China, Russia, and India—each in the midst of a massive transformation. China and Russia are experiencing staggering internal turmoil while they also are trying to redefine their places in the world. Our aim should be to offer a path to integrate China and Russia peacefully into this community if we can, while being prepared to shield against them if we cannot.

India, the world’s largest democracy, presents a different challenge. To grow and prosper, India will need to adjust to the global economy. To achieve stable security, India will need to lower the risk of conflict with its neighbors. Both tasks will be easier if India can develop a cooperative partnership with the Trilateral countries.

Fourth, the United States and the other Trilateral countries need to link these regions together within a global economic system of finance, trade, and information. That economic system needs to secure the benefits from integration, competition, and efficiency, while also coping with the inevitable stresses of capitalism on a global scale.

These four objectives offer a sense of direction for U.S. engagement with the world. They point to a future global architecture that should help the United States to promote security and economic interests it has in common with others, while also advancing representative government and freedom—political principles that the United States values. In the spirit of Acheson’s New World realism, these objectives might be attained through pragmatic adjustments to changing conditions and world events....