Isolationism: no longer is an option.

• Author: Blair, Tony
• Position: The World Today

INTERDEPENDENCE is the governing characteristic of modern international politics. Its obvious corollary is unity of purpose. Yet, the past few years have been marked by division. The trauma of Sept. 11 and its aftermath; wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; the Middle East Peace Process' backsliding regression; disagreement over the Kyoto Protocol on climate change; and a feeling of helplessness as we watch Africa, unique among the continents of the world, see its poverty intensify and its peoples ravaged by conflict, famine, and disease. All have contributed to a sense of alienation and discord.

In 2000, the international atmosphere was unified, even benign. Yet, in truth, the same issues were present: the unity often based in false hope. Today, the issues seem more raw, although they also are clearer. There is no pretence about the problems or the division. The question is: Can we find an agenda that reunities us? I believe we can. There is no shortage of goodwill to resolve the problems if the perception of them is plain. The remarkable response, not only of governments but, most of all, of people to the tsunami shows there is an abundance of the human sentiment of solidarity. Bill Gates' donation of $750,000,000-more than many countries' entire aid budgets--to tackle the killer diseases of Africa demonstrates the possibility of business compassion.

However, there is a more fundamental political reason for optimism. We may disagree about the nature of the dilemmas and how to resolve them, but no nation, however powerful, seriously believes today that these situations can be resolved alone. Interdependence no longer is disputed.

Pres. George W. Bush's recent inaugural address marks a consistent evolution of U.S. policy. He spoke of America's mission to bring freedom in place of tyranny to the world. Leave aside for a moment the odd insistence by some commentators that such a plea is evidence of the "neo-conservative" grip on Washington; I thought progressives were all in favor of freedom rather than tyranny. The underlying features of the speech seem to me to be these: The U.S. accepts that terrorism cannot be defeated by military might alone. The more people live under democracy, with human liberty intact, the less inclined they or their states will be to indulge terrorism or to engage in it. This may be open to debate--though personally I agree with it--but it emphatically puts defeating the causes of terrorism alongside defeating the terrorists.

Secondly, by its very nature, such a mission cannot be accomplished alone. It is the very antithesis of isolationism, the very essence of international engagement. It requires long-term cooperation--and it is based on enlightened self-interest. Freedom is good in itself. It also is the best ultimate guarantee that human beings will live in sympathy with each other. The hard head has led to the warm heart.

None of this means the hard head no longer will be applied. The U.S.--as is perhaps inevitable being the world's sole superpower--in the end is expected not just to talk about the world's problems, but solve them. America approaches all issues with a propensity to question what others assume, treat the pressure of pressure groups with resistance, and ask others to share responsibility.

No one could say the inauguration speech was lacking in idealism. However, if the...