August 12, 2020
The Death and Rebirth of American Internationalism
For the first three years of Donald Trump’s presidency, U.S. foreign policy hovered in suspended animation. Trump wreaked plenty of havoc: disparaging allies, issuing tariffs as if they were tweets, and exiting international compacts willy-nilly. But many in the U.S. foreign policy establishment held out hope that these perversions would be like a bad dream—an unsettling interval after which things could return to normal, not a decisive break in America’s approach to the world.
The time has come for Americans to rethink their country’s role in the world and fashion an internationalism suited to today’s realities.
This hope was not without justification. While the implementation of U.S. foreign policy has fluctuated widely across administrations, the overarching aims have remained remarkably stable since the end of the Cold War. From George H. W. Bush’s “new world order” to Bill Clinton’s “democratic enlargement,” George W. Bush’s “freedom agenda” to Barack Obama’s “rules-based international order,” the goal has been to extend the reach of democracy and free markets around the globe. During the Cold War, the United States and its allies built one international order, and the Soviet Union built another. For the past thirty years, the United States has sought to universalize the order that survived the fall of the Berlin Wall—a project we can call liberal universalism. Its objective—expanding an order that already existed—explains why there has been little innovation in international organizations since the end of the Cold War, whereas Washington has labored to increase membership in institutions that predate 1989.
Read the full article in the Boston Review.
More from CNAS
-
The Constitution’s Forgotten Term Limit on Military Power
Commentary
They designed the Two-Year Clause not as a technical appropriations rule but as a structural guarantee: that the army of the United States would remain, as one Federalist put ...
By Mark Nevitt & Matthew. B. Lawrence
-
Mined and Blockaded: Iran’s Unlawful Mining and the U.S. Port Blockade
Commentary
As I discuss below, whether the United States carries out the blockade in a legal manner will affect, among other things, allied States’ willingness to participate and the ove...
By Mark Nevitt
-
Commentary
Middle East Security / National Security Law
Continuing Crisis in Strait of Hormuz: Why Iran’s Hold is Illegal and U.S. Military Force Alone FailsIran has drawn explicit lessons from this disruption and is now seeking to institutionalize its control....
By Mark Nevitt
-
Legal and Operational Issues in the Strait of Hormuz: Transit Passage Under Fire
Commentary
The Strait of Hormuz has long been recognized as one of the world’s most strategically vital and legally complex maritime passages....
By Mark Nevitt
