Practical Internationalism: The United States and Collective Security

PRACTICAL INTERNATIONALISM: THE UNITED STATES AND COLLECTIVE SECURITY Richard N. Gardner T,he United States is seeking to redefine its world role in a dramatically new post-Cold War era. Three different philosophies are competing for public attention. One is a New Isolationism—a call to "come home America" to focus on neglected domestic problems. A second is a New Nationalism—an appeal for the unilateral exercise of American power now that there is no Soviet Union to stand in our way. A third approach —one that can best be described as Practical Internationalism—is the one that animates this essay. The New Isolationism is based on a double fallacy—that the United States cannot simultaneously afford both domestic revitalization and world leadership and that we can safely take a holiday from involvement in events beyond our shores. But the truth is that our six-trillion-dollar economy can afford both if, in the light of new priorities, we make wise decisions to adjust our defense budget and non-means-tested entitlement spending. And wise leadership can also help the American people toward Richard N. Gardner is Henry L. Moses Professor of Law and International Organization at Columbia Law School and Counsel to the law firm of Coudert Brothers. He served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs from 1961 to 1965 and as US Ambassador to Italy from 1977 to 1981. He is chairman of a group of American experts who are exploring with officials and academic specialists of the Republics of the former Soviet Union new ideas for cooperation on multilateral issues such as peacekeeping, nuclear weapons and missile proliferation, the environment, and human rights. He also served as Special Advisor to the Secretary-General of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, the "Earth Summit,," in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. 35 36 SAISREVIEW understanding that certain expenditures oftheir tax dollars overseas may be the most cost-effective way of investing in their welfare at home. To be sure, there is a powerful sense in which "foreign policy begins at home." The United States cannot be a world leader with a stagnant economy and a disintegrating social structure. But it is equally true that in an increasing number of areas "domestic policy begins abroad." Measures to prevent aggression and bring stability to the Middle East and the Gulf help assure access to oil supplies that are essential to our economy. Trade negotiations to open foreign markets to our exports can be critical to preserve American jobs and profits. Without international measures to curb proliferation the American people may face hostile nations pointing missiles armed with nuclear or chemical warheads in our direction. We need to help India and China phase out their use of chlorofluorocarbons if a cancer-inducing hole in the ozone layer over North America is to be contained. And unless we do more to help alleviate poverty and accelerate family planning south of our borders we will face a human tidal wave of unwanted immigration. The New Nationalism is also based on a fallacy—that the American people are prepared to have their country play the role of world policeman . Every time that question is posed to Americans in public opinion polls the answer is overwhelmingly negative. U.S. global unilateralism is also unacceptable to the people of other countries. The economics and the politics of the post-Cold War era are both pushing in the direction of cost sharing and decision sharing when it comes to questions of international security. Moreover, there is an increasing number of situations— several examples of which are noted above—where the United States cannot protect its interests without cooperation from other countries. Practical Internationalism reflects these new realities and calls for the maximum use of international institutions in the pursuit of American national interests. This is not the same as Utopian Universalism. As the world "practical" is designed to indicate, we will need to make use of a variety of bilateral, regional and global institutions with a constant view to their ability to serve U.S. interests. We will continue to need NATO, for example, as our insurance policy against military threats that might...