Toward the United States as a Responsible Power

Throughout the history of the republic, the United States has alternated among three ways of interacting with the rest of the world. For much of the early part of its history, the United States was isolationist, essentially little concerned with the area beyond the continent. The United States has also behaved as a great imperial power, using its enormous military strength to control others and get its way in the world. The most notable bout of imperialism occurred at the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth century, when the United States acquired Puerto Rico, Cuba, and the Philippines in a relatively quick war against Spain. And the United States has also been what we might call a responsible power, participating in international institutions, and using its economic, political, and military resources to do good in the world when it has been asked to do so.

Each of these behaviors - isolationism, imperialism, and responsible multilateralism - has been championed by Americans with a particular view of the role of the United States in the world. The isolationists hold a view of the United States as an autonomous power who should be wary of "entangling alliances" and overextending U.S. power. In their view, the American self ought to be extremely narrowly defined. Political advocates of isolationism include George Washington and, more recently, Patrick Buchanan.

The champions of empire hold nearly the opposite understanding of America's self and its role in the world. In their view, the United States is the embodiment of the virtues and aspirations of humanity. Our values - democracy, capitalism, and individual rights - are and ought to be practiced by the rest of the world. Moreover, since the United States has the intellectual and material resources to lead (what Joseph Nye calls soft and hard power, respectively) we should do so - others should acquiesce. And because we are great, our interests are great - we are rightly concerned with what goes on elsewhere in the world, and it is not unnatural for us to want to try to affect, if not control, outcomes everywhere. Political advocates of empire most famously include Teddy Roosevelt and George W. Bush and the nineteenth-century admiral Alfred T. Mahan.

The advocates of responsible multilateralism understand the United States as one of several great powers in the world. Their view is that the American self cannot be isolated, but nor should it be hegemonic. Our economic and military power might be great, but we had better use it responsibly and with the assent of others. Responsible multilateralists see the United States as living in an interdependent world. Advocates of responsibility believe that we should not be shy about America's democratic values, but we cannot impose them. If we throw our weight around, Americans might win in the short term, but we lose respect and defuse our power in the long run. We are better off working with others to strengthen international institutions and safeguard U.S. interests in peace and stability. The political champions of responsibility included Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and more recently Jimmy Carter, and, to a certain extent on odd days, Colin Powell.

We are now at a point when the advocates of empire are again ascendant. They have arisen at a propitious time for their view. Globalization means the United States can think of itself as having truly global economic and political interests. Isolationism does not make sense for an interdependent economy. Further, the advocates of responsibility have been defeated politically in the United States, while advocates of responsibility in the Democratic and Republican parties have acquiesced to the advocates of empire.

The dangers of imperial aspirations are great. All empires fall: They overreach and are unable to control everything, all the time, everywhere; or their hubris prompts others to mount coalitions to challenge their ascendance; or their domestic populations revolt against the enormous costs in blood and treasure required to maintain an empire.

Rather, while we can be an empire at least in the short run, we should resist the siren call of imperialism. Responsible multilateralism is a much more prudent project.

Endnotes

1. Catherine Lutz, Homefront: A Military City and the American Twentieth Century (Boston: Beacon Press, 2001). [Return to text]

2. The White House, National Security Council, The National Security Strategy of the United States of America (September 17, 2002): 18, http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.pdf (PDF). [Return to text]

3. National Security Council, National Security Strategy, 18. [Return to text]

4. Time.com, "Living in Terror," Cover Archive sec., February 24, 2003, http://www.time.com/time/magazine/archive/covers/0,16641,1101030224,00.html. [Return to text]

5. Michael Brissenden, "Plavsic Pleads Guilty to War Crimes," News Online, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, December 19, 2002, http://www.abc.net.au/am/s749749.htm (accessed December 26, 2002). [Return to text]

6. Marlise Simons, "Crossing Paths: Albright Testifies in War Crimes Case," New York Times, December 18, 2002, sec. A. [Return to text]

7. U.S. Department of Defense, Quadrennial Defense Review Report (Washington, DC: U.S. GPO, September 30, 2001): 30 and 62, http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/qdr2001.pdf (PDF), see also George W. Bush, "Remarks by the President at 2002 Graduation Exercise of the United States Military Academy," (West Point, NY, June 1, 2002), http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/06/20020601-3.html. [Return to text]

8. Defense Department, Quadrennial Defense Review Report, 2. [Return to text]

9. Defense Department, Quadrennial Defense Review Report, 14. [Return to text]

10. Ralph Eberhart, quoted in Philip Shenon and Eric Schmitt, "At U.S. Nerve Center, Daily Talks on the Worst Fears," New York Times, December 27, 2002, sec. A. [Return to text]

11. For a more extended discussion of the doctrine of preemption, see Neta C. Crawford, "The Best Defense: The Problem with Bush's 'Preemptive' War Doctrine," Boston Review, February/March 2003, http://bostonreview.net/BR28.1/crawford.html. [Return to text]