America's Global Role

Seven years ago the United States was at peace and the World Trade Center was the most distinctive feature of the New York skyline. Since the twin towers were destroyed, killing thousands, the U.S. has invaded two nations and embarked on a twilight struggle against the al Qaeda terrorist network worldwide.

Those struggles continue. The Iraq war has become deeply unpopular. Most Americans say .the war was a mistake, give the government poor grades for conducting the war, and say they want to withdraw U.S. forces. More than 130,000 troops are stationed there, and while the security situation has improved, there is still considerable doubt about U.S. progress there and how well the Iraqi government can sustain itself.

The war in Afghanistan is less controversial at home, but the U.S. and its NATO allies are still struggling to control the Taliban forces ousted from power in 2002. The al Qaeda group, damaged when it's Taliban allies were driven out, has rebuilt itself to some extent in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And the group now has spawned "franchises," small groups inspired by their example that have conducted terrorist attacks in Europe. Counterterrorism officials worry that these franchise groups pose a serious threat, because they're hard to spot and infiltrate

Yet despite the wars, all of the other problems and choices that have dogged the U.S. since before 9/11 remain. The U.S. remains, as it has for the past decade, the world's sole remaining superpower. The question of how we relate to the world -- whether on economic globalization, the environment, human rights, global health crises, relations with China and Russia -- needs to be addressed, whatever happens in Iraq. But much as the Cold War affected decision making for decades, so will the war on terror affect all these problems -- and these problems will shape the war on terror.

Despite the war in Iraq, using soldiers, diplomats and spies isn't the only way the U.S. influences the world. Most of the world watches Hollywood entertainment, surfs an English-language Internet on Windows computers, and eats at American fast-food franchises. In the modern world, a McDonald's is as likely to be a target for protests as a U.S. embassy or military base.

It's also useful to remember that the rest of the world doesn't always see us the way we see ourselves. Osama bin Laden's folk-hero status among some in the Islamic world, with bin Laden T-shirts for sale in Pakistan, is just the most recent example. Our status as both superpower and the world's largest economy continues to unnerve even some of our allies, who speak openly of an American empire.

Indeed, part of the response to the Sept. 11 attacks from around the globe -- particularly from the harsher critics in some Muslim countries -- has been to declare that the United States' support for Israel, globalization and authoritarian regimes inevitably fomented the rage that led to the attacks. Surveys show few Americans agree with that. Millions around the globe support the campaign against terrorism and still look to the United States as a role model for democratic government.

Friends and enemies

The war in Iraq shows both the strengths and weaknesses of the U.S. position in the world. There was never much doubt that the U.S. could dispatch the Iraqi army on the battlefield -- the U.S. is by far the world's strongest military power. Few mourn the Hussein regime, which had one of the world's most abysmal human rights records. Some in the Bush administration argue that building a democracy in Iraq could be the start of remaking the Middle East, with the positive example of a stable, democratic Iraq giving Arabs a real alternative to repressive regimes or Islamic fundamentalism.

Yet the war provoked massive protests around the world and deeply strained relations with some traditional allies. Some doubted American motives, claiming the U.S. was only interested in Iraqi oil. Critics argued that the U.S. shouldn’t be the one to decide which regimes are dangerous and which aren’t, without the approval of international organizations like the U.N. One of the Bush administration's most forceful arguments for war had been the potential for Hussein to develop weapons of mass destruction -- and when no evidence of those weapons was found, it damaged U.S. credibility worldwide. The U.S. govenment also misjudged the potential for an Iraqi insurgency, which has led to years of violence in the country.

In the run-up to the Iraq war, and in the divisions between the U.S. and many of its traditional allies, one influential analyst, Robert Kagan, dryly summed up the difference as "Americans are from Mars, Europeans are from Venus." He argued that Europeans have come to put their trust in diplomacy and cooperation, partly because of their history of bloody world wars and partly because they no longer have the military and economic clout to do otherwise. Americans, who do have military and economic power, are more likely to favor direct action to solve problems, Kagan wrote. For the same reasons, the U.S. is much more likely to "go it alone" rather than suffer the slow and sometimes torturous process of diplomacy.

Perhaps that is an oversimplification. But the question of when the U.S. should act alone and when it should defer to the wishes of others is important. Many international problems, such as terrorism, drug trafficking, the environment and health issues, can’t be solved by the U.S. alone. Even before Sept. 11, many other countries were frustrated by both the Clinton and Bush administrations' refusal to endorse treaties popular elsewhere, ranging from the international ban on land mines to the Kyoto global-warming accord and the creation of an International Criminal Court. In each case, the U.S. argued that the treaty as written would harm U.S. interests, while international critics argued the U.S. was ignoring the opinions of other countries.

Whether acting alone or in concert with other countries, a key fact about international problems is that they take time. For example, for well over a decade, the United States has tried to broker and sustain peace deals between Israelis and Palestinians struggling to coexist on a strip of land the size of New Jersey. While consistently backing the Oslo peace process beginning in 1993, the U.S. has tried several different strategies. After several years of intensive diplomatic efforts under President Clinton, President Bush first tried a "hands-off" approach, arguing that the two sides had to take responsibility for their own settlement. But West Bank violence increased, while many Arab nations contended that the intractable situation was a major cause of extremism and anti-Americanism. After the Iraq war, the U.S. joined with the U.N., the European Union and Russia in a new effort to promote a “road map” toward a peace deal.

A world market

War and terrorism are certainly critical foreign-policy issues, but so is economics. If there's any area where American foreign policy has been crystal-clear in the last two decades, it's been the government's steady support for free trade. In a series of pacts, most notably the North American Free Trade Agreement and the broader treaty that created the World Trade Organization, the United States has consistently pushed for more open markets.

Historically, nations set up trade barriers (such as requiring special licenses or charging a special tax or tariff on imported goods) to protect their own industries. Free-trade advocates argue that the world economy runs better when nations can buy and sell goods freely, lowering costs for consumers and encouraging growth. Free traders also contend that open markets spread democracy, saying you can't have a free flow of goods without a free flow of ideas.

Not everyone believes that, and mass protests by those who don't have become a regular part of global trade and economic summits in recent years. Labor advocates say free trade helps U.S. companies send American jobs to countries with cheaper workers, environmentalists contend national ecology laws are undermined by free-trade rules, while other critics say globalization and the WTO's ability to review trade policies undercut national cultures and sovereignty.

In a way, the global economy raises expectations for the United States around the globe. Environmentalists say since the U.S. produces the most greenhouse gas, it should take the lead in cutting emissions. Labor activists say since the U.S. is the world’s largest economy, it should lead in fighting sweatshops and child labor globally. The U.S. is the world leader in medical research, and so many in Africa look to us to act against the terrible AIDS epidemic sweeping the continent.