Through the Looking Glass: Editor's Note

I am not a big fan of editor's notes. As a reader, I always feel as though the authors' words should stand on their own. You don't open this journal to read my thoughts, so why waste your time? Every once in a while, however, a section deserves an explanation before you get to the authors' thoughts. A section entitled "Through the Looking Glass" merits just such an explanation.

The halls of Washington are filled with discussions about U.S. interests. Yet much of this discussion is introspective: what do we, as Americans, want from the world? What do we, the United States, want the world to do? And what should we, in Washington, do around the world to secure those interests? Such an introspective debate is appropriate to determine and pursue national interests and, as a government, to promote and defend the interests of its citizens, just as any other government would. To the extent that these debates ignore what the rest of the world wants, however, the United States risks losing the confidence, if not provoking the ire, of the rest of the world.

In this issue, we stand those introspective questions on their head. In essence, the looking glass is flipped around as strategic thinkers from around the world answer the question, "In an ideal world, what role would you want the United States to perform with your country and region?"

Their answers, in my opinion, provide one side's perspective on debates about benevolent leadership, perceptions of U.S. hegemony, and ultimately the rise and fall of great powers. How long can a superpower remain a superpower if it does not seek the same goals as the rest of the world? How similar must those goals be? The first question to ask is, How similar are those goals now?

We began answering these questions by attempting to draw responses from various regions of the globe. Although every country could not reasonably be represented, we believe the 12 articles included in this issue provide an appropriate sampler of world opinion. The pieces are presented roughly in order from those located furthest from to those nearest to the United States. Furthermore, the reader should not misconstrue the authors' viewpoints as representing the national consensus of their respective countries, just as a wide variety of assumptions, opinions, and recommendations exists among U.S. authors. In seeking out our writers, we made a conscious effort to avoid those that are, or hope to become, political leaders. Frankly, political figures may be constrained from expressing their individual thoughts and could in turn produce political statements. Most of the authors included here are preeminent figures in academia or think tanks. In many cases, they have spent some of their professional careers in the United States.

Our guidance to the authors consisted merely of a one-page letter. By giving the authors such latitude, at least two implicit differences in perspective appeared that are worth mentioning. First, no country, willingly or unwillingly, will arguably be involved as globally as the United States. When reading these articles, it is worth considering the scope of each author's perspective. How widely are they contemplating global concerns, or how narrowly are they focusing on national and local ones? Second, the degree to which each author relies on, or is ready to discard, the role of the nation-state in today's world is notable. What does globalization mean to, or even to what extent has it reached, each of these authors?

Although the authors' attention was not drawn to these two questions, they are implicit in the responses. I will not attempt to synthesize the answers in this space. Instead, in a future issue of The Washington Quarterly, we will ask a panel of U.S. authors to react to this section, discussing what can or should be incorporated into U.S. policy.

We asked the authors in this issue not necessarily to refer to current U.S. policy but...