Beyond Borders
American foreign policy must look beyond the nation state and toward human security.
By
Gayle Smith
|
December 12, 2006
Anyone not immediately caught up in the whirlwind
of today’s Beltway foreign policy punditry would be driven to
hair-tearing at the back-and-forth between defenders of the Bush
Administration and the multitude of critics arrayed against it. That’s
because while President George W. Bush’s approach has obviously failed,
too many of its critics refuse to focus on why. Their alternatives
revolve around competence, with perhaps a bit of multilateral
fence-mending thrown in. But they also assume as valid the fundamental
tenet guiding the Administration’s approach, as defined by George
Kennan during the Cold War, that securing the national interest lies in
protecting "the continued ability of this country to pursue its
internal life without serious interference." While that approach might
have been relevant to the era of Cold War containment, it is untenable
today. In a globalized world, it is no longer enough to center our
foreign policy on a narrowly-defined concept of "national security"
that assumes the continued dominance of the nation-state. What is
needed is a fundamental change in the terms of the debate to include a
realistic assessment of a world that is both interdependent and
increasingly fragmented. What is missing is consideration of human
security–and why, if we are to promote effectively our sustainable
security, it must be incorporated into a modern American foreign
policy.
Read more here.
This article was originally published in
Democracy.