Breaking Allies' Dependency on American Military Power.

• Author: CARPENTER, TED GALEN
• Position: Some believe that the Clinton administration's foreign policy is too broad in scope, and that a debate on foreign policy issues is needed - Brief Article

WHENEVER the Clinton Administration's stewardship of foreign affairs is attacked, spokesmen drag the isolationist straw man out of storage and give him a good public thrashing. Although conceding that, for the first time since the rise of fascism in the 1930s, "there is no overriding threat to our survival or freedom," the President has emphasized that the U.S. must stay engaged in the world and not "batten down the hatches."

Clinton's assertion that Americans confront a stark choice between engagement and isolationism typifies the Administration's simplistic portrayal of the post-Cold War foreign policy debate. Last summer, Secretary of Defense William Cohen stated that Americans should not act "as if we could zip ourselves up into a continental cocoon and watch events unfold on CNN." Secretary of State Madeleine Albright routinely derides her critics as isolationists.

Such caricatures retard a debate on the real foreign policy options at the dawn of the 21st century. No one of any prominence is suggesting that the U.S. cut itself off from the world and create a Fortress America or a hermit republic. There are increasing calls, however, for Washington to focus its foreign policy resources, energy, and attention on those relatively few developments in the international system that can have a direct and substantial impact on America's security and well-being. Critics worry that the Clinton Administration is unwilling or unable to set priorities and distinguish between essential and nonessential matters.

Five challenges

A recent Clinton speech in San Francisco did little to allay that apprehension. The President outlined five "great challenges" requiring U.S. leadership: spreading peace; helping Russia and China achieve greater prosperity and political pluralism; combating terrorism, drug trafficking, environmental degradation, and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; expanding international trade; and promoting democracy around the world.

Not only is that a breathtakingly broad agenda, it implies U.S. omnipotence. An intelligent and sustainable foreign policy must consist of something more than a wish list of desirable objectives. There are distinct limits to the ability of any nation--even one as powerful as the U.S.--to shape the global political, economic, and strategic environment. For instance, the political futures of Russia and China will be determined largely by domestic developments in those two nations. Moreover, democracy...