As the world becomes more interconnected, leaders face complex policy challenges. The ultimate objective of foreign policy is to use a nation’s resources, including military and economic might, to advance its interests and values. Leaders approach this goal with different strategies.
One debate involves how extensively a country should engage in global affairs: Should it strive to shape the world (engagement) or pull up its drawbridge and shield itself from it (isolationism)? The second major debate revolves around how a government should use its power and influence to address international challenges and threats. One view holds that a nation should talk its way through a crisis and seek peaceful solutions, even if it is required to use force. This strategy has been successful in reducing the threat of nuclear proliferation and building alliances that have kept the peace in Europe and Asia.
Another argument is that a nation should take a more aggressive approach to international problems and threats, even if it requires the use of force. This strategy helped evict Soviet troops from eastern Europe, bring democracy to Poland and the Czech Republic, stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, and end al-Qaida’s grip on Afghanistan.
A third position is that a nation should use its unquestioned power and influence to help bring about global stability and prosperity. This approach has helped create a zone of peace in Europe, tied the economic survivor countries of Asia to the West, and promoted democracy in nations from South Korea to the Philippines to Taiwan. This strategy may not be popular in some quarters, but creating an international order that benefits more people than is presently the case is profoundly in America’s self-interest.