American Foreign Policy

So I'm in American Foreign Policy this semester. It has been interesting so far. Last class we were supposed to talk about what America's foreign policy should be. We've read The Pentagon Papers which espouse a completely Realist viewpoint. Simply put, the Papers surmise that America should do everything within its power to prevent other global, or regional powers from forming. The fear is that if they do, they will eventually come to rival and threaten the U.S. This is a relevant concern. I believe that American dominance can be maintained by following this plan...for a time. Yet, other powers will always rise due to any given set of circumstances and their evolution cannot be stemmed permanently. Then what can be done to keep the US as the sole, dominating country in the world?

After every great conflict, the international community reorganizes itself. After Napoleon, the Great Powers in Europe reorganized and tried to maintain a balance of power based on the Congress System. After World War 1, the Great Powers now understood they had to think more globally in scope and the League of Nations was formed. However, this institution had no teeth to enforce its resolutions...one might compare it to the US under the Articles of Confederation. The central authority could do little more than shake it's finger at Germany and Japan and say, "now guys, please stop doing that." After World War 2, the international community was again reformed. The UN gave even the smallest members of the international community a voice while relying on the major powers (making up the Security Council) to provide the muscle...and the central authority for the massive institution. Now with the end of the Cold War, the reformation of the international system to fit new circumstances is possible.

Because the US, indeed no country, can permanently prevent the rise of rival powers, America should not place primary importance on the success of this plan. It would be much more effective to get in league with advancing regional powers and become so engrained into those countries economically and politically, that it would be detrimental to their society if they were to try and break away from American influence. Speaking frankly, if the US is the sole super power, and all the regional powers are "client kingdoms" as they were called a few thousand years ago, we could remain at the top and wouldn't have to police the world because the regional powers would do it for us. In a sense, it reminds me of far flung island empires. If every outpost rebelled, the empire would be in trouble. If only one or two, they could quickly be brought into line again.

In the event that the US cannot integrate an existing regional power into the greater system, an alternative regional power must be encouraged by whatever means are political feasible. This may be the case with China. The only other country I can see as an alternative right now would be Japan. Japan already stands with the US on many issues and we have close ties. They would be an excellent candidate for regional power in the Far East.

What exactly is the nature of the relationship between countries that I am suggesting? For the most part, it would be similar to what the US and England/the US and Israel current share. However, this would be on a grander scale, including all the major regional powers. England, Germany, Israel, Egypt, Iraq, Australia, and China (or more likely, a revitalized Japan) to name the ones I can think of easily right now.