About the Book
This debate-style reader is designed to introduce students to controversies in American foreign policy. The readings, which represent the arguments of leading political scientists and researchers, reflect a variety of viewpoints. The readings have been selected for their liveliness and substance and for their value in a debate framework. By requiring students to analyze opposing viewpoints and reach considered judgments, "Taking Sides" actively develops student's critical thinking skills.
Table of Contents:
PART 1. The United States and the World: Strategic Choices ISSUE 1. Should the United States Resist Greater Global Governance? YES: Marc A. Thiessen, from "When Worlds Collide," Foreign Policy" (March/April 2001) NO: Mark Leonard, from "When Worlds Collide," Foreign Policy" (March/April 2001) Marc A. Thiessen, who serves on the minority staff of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, contends that globalists want toundermine the national independence of the world's countries but that doing so would be a mistake. Mark Leonard, director of the Foreign Policy Centre in London, United Kingdom, maintains that all countries will benefit if each increasingly cooperates with multilateral organizations and adheres to international laws, rules, and norms. ISSUE 2. Should the United States Have an Official Strategy of Preemption Against Potential Weapons of Mass Destruction Threats? YES: President George W. Bush, from "The National Security Strategy of the United States of America," National Security Strategy" (September 20, 2002) NO: Ivo H. Daalder and James M. Lindsay, from "Bush's Revolution," Current History" (November 2003) President George W. Bush's official National Security Strategy" argues that in an era in which "rogue" states and terrorists seek to obtain chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons of mass destruction, and in which terrorists have demonstrated a willingness and capability to attack the United States, the United States must be prepared to preemptively use force to forestall potential threats. Ivo Daalder, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, and James Lindsay, director of studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, argue that the Bush doctrine does not distinguish between "preemption" and "preventive war," and that the war in Iraq, the first war waged under the new doctrine, has been costly and damaging to the United States' image and its relations with its allies. ISSUE 3. Should Promoting Democracy Abroad Be a Top U.S. Priority? YES: Joseph Siegle, from "Developing Democracy: Democratizers' Suprisingly Bright Development Record," Harvard International Review" (Summer 2004) NO: Tamara Cofman Wittes, from "Arab Democracy, American Ambivalence," The Weekly Standard" (February 23, 2004) Joseph Siegle, Douglas Dillon Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, argues that large numbers of countries are continuing to democratize and, because of the increase in accountability associated with democratization, they tend to experience economic growth as fast as, if not faster than, other countries in the same region. Tamara Cofman Wittes, research fellow in the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, argues that U.S. efforts to promote democracy in Iraq and the Arab Middle East are likely to fail unless the U.S. government matches its rhetoric with a credible commitment to promote policies institutionalizing the forward movement of liberalism in Iraq and the region at large.PART 2. U.S. National Security Issues ISSUE 4. Was the War in Iraq Justified? YES: Robert Kagan and William Kristol, from "The Right War for the Right Reasons," The Weekly Standard" (February 23, 2004) NO: Paul Starobin, from "The French Were Right," National Journal" (November 8, 2003) Robert Kagan, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard", argue that the war in Iraq was justified for a variety of reasons, and that we still don't know conclusively whether Iraq might have been acquiring weapons of mass destruction. Paul Starobin, staff correspondent for the National Journal", argues that the French, chastened by their own failed anti-guerilla war in Algeria decades ago, were right in predicting a difficult occupation in Iraq. ISSUE 5. Is Iraq Linked to Terrorism? YES: Stephen F. Hayes, from "There They Go Again," The Weekly Standard" (June 28, 2004) NO: John B. Judis and Spencer Ackerman, from "The Selling of the Iraq War: The First Casualty," The New Republic" (June 30, 2003) Stephen Hayes, staff writer for The Weekly Standard", argues that evidence of meetings between Iraqi intelligence operatives and al Qaeda members suggest the possibility of deeper ties between the two than can be fully documented given the clandestine nature of their activities. John Judis and Spencer Ackerman, respectively senior and associate editors at The New Republic", argue that the Bush administration greatly exaggerated the intelligence information linking Iraq to al Qaeda. ISSUE 6. Should the United States Withdraw from Iraq? YES: Morton Abramowitz, from "Does Iraq Matter?" The National Interest" (Spring 2004) NO: Paul Wolfowitz, from "The Goal Is Worth the Fight," Statement Before the House Armed Services Committee (June 22, 2004) Morton Abramowitz, a former U.S. diplomat who heads the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, argues that Iraq is not as vital to the war on terror as many believe and that U.S. security and diplomacy might well benefit by withdrawing from Iraq in the course of a year. Paul Wolfowitz, deputy secretary of defense, argues that success in Iraq is essential to success in the war on terror, and that the United States needs to remain in Iraq until it has created the conditions for stability there. ISSUE 7. Should the United States Foster a Partition of Iraq? YES: Timothy Noah, from "Should We Partition Iraq?" Slate" (April 27, 2004) NO: Carl Bildt, from "The Dangerous Idea of Partitioning Iraq," International Herald Tribune" (May 20, 2004) Timothy Noah, contributing editor of The Washington Monthly" and author of Slate"'s "Chatterbox" column, argues that a managed partition of Iraq might be preferable to the ongoing conflict in that country. Carl Bildt, former prime minister of Sweden, draws on his experience as the European Union representative to the Former Yugoslavia to argue that fostering a partition of Iraq would unleash a civil and international conflict even more bloody than the one he dealt with in the Balkans in the 1990s. ISSUE 8. Is Building a Ballistic Missile Defense System a Wise Idea? YES: Brian T. Kennedy, from "Protecting Our Nation: The Urgent Need for Ballistic Missile Defense," Vital Speeches of the Day" (January 1, 2002) NO: John F. Tierney, from "Administration's Policy on National Missile Defense," Congressional Record" (June 12, 2001) Brian T. Kennedy, president of the Claremont Institute and editor of , contends that United States remains defenseless against attacks from ballistic missiles armed with nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons and that the national security focus on terrorism since September 11 has not diminished this threat nor the urgent need for a ballistic missile defense system. Representative John F. Tierney (D-Massachusetts) argues that it is not clear that building a ballistic system is possible, that trying to do so will be excessively expensive, and that the drive to acquire such a system could undermine nuclear detterence and stability.PART 3. The United States and the World: Regional and Bilateral Relations ISSUE 9. Is Pakistan an Asset in the War on Terror? YES: Teresita C. Schaffer, from "Strategic Trends in South Asia," Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, House International Relations Committee (March 17, 2004) NO: Alex Alexiev, from "The Pakistani Time Bomb," Commentary" (March 2003) Teresita Schaffer, director of the South Asian Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, notes many problems in Pakistan's domestic and foreign policies, but holds out the hope that Pakistan is getting more serious about cracking down on terrorists in Pakistan and pursuing peace in its troubled relations with India. Alex Alexiev, vice president for research at the Center for Security Policy, argues that Pakistani politics, and especially the Pakistani educational system, have become dangerously open to the influence of radical Islam. ISSUE 10. Is the "Roadmap to Peace" in the Middle East the Right Map to Follow? YES: David M. Satterfield, from "Resolving the Arab-Israeli Conflict," Statement to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (July 20, 2004) NO: Hussein Agha and Robert Malley, from "Ditch the Road Map. Just Get There, Already," Washington Post" (September 7, 2003) David M. Satterfield, principal deputy secretary of state for Near Eastern Affairs, contends that current Israeli plans to withdraw from Gaza offer an opportunity to move forward with efforts by initiated by the United States and members of the international community to promote mutual accommodation between Israel and the Palestinians. Hussein Agha, senior associate member of St. Antony 's College at the University of Oxford, and Robert Malley, Middle East program director at the International Crisis Group in Washington and former special adviser to the president for Arab-Israeli affairs, argue that the incremental process of negotiations and vague nature of the goals and criteria specified in the Road Map will doom it to failure. ISSUE 11. Is China More Friend than Foe? YES: He Yafei, from "China-United States Relations: Potential Foes or Partners," Vital Speeches of the Day" (November 1, 2003) NO: Ellen Bork, from "And Now for the Bad News...Trouble Ahead in the U.S.-China Relationship," The Weekly Standard" (March 22, 2004) He Yafei, director of the General Department of North American and Oceanian Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peoples' Republic of China, contends that China and the United States are friends and partners and will become better friends and partners in the future as their common interests and the mutual benefits each gain from the other continue to grow. Ellen Bork, deputy director of the Project for the New American Century and an Asian specialist for the Senate, has published various articles in The Asian Wall Street Journal", The Washington Post", The Weekly Standard", Humanitarian Affairs Review", and Forward". She argues that the current calm in U.S.-China relations masks underlying tensions over a wide range of social, political, and security issues that each country considers important. ISSUE 12. Should the United States Seek Negotiations and Engagement with North Korea? YES: David C. Kang, from "The Debate Over North Korea," Political Science Quarterly" (vol. 119, no. 2, 2004) NO: Victor D. Cha, from "The Debate Over North Korea," Political Science Quarterly" (vol. 119, no. 2, 2004) David C. Kang, associate professor of government at Dartmouth College, contends that the threat posed by North Korea is overblown because North Korea will continue to be deterred from acting aggressively and, consequently, that engagement offers the best strategy promoting economic, political, and military change. Victor D. Cha, associate professor of government and D.S. Song-Korea Foundation Chair in Asian Studies in the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University and Asia director in the National Security Council of the U.S. government, argues that North Korea remains hostile and opportunistic. Engagement - if used at all - should be highly conditional and that the United States and its allies should remain prepared to isolate and contain North Korea if engagement fails. ISSUE 13. Are U.S.-Russian Relations on the Right Track? YES: A. Elizabeth Jones, from "U.S.-Russia Relations in Putin's Second Term," Testimony Before the House International Relations Committee (March 18, 2004) NO: Sarah E. Mendelson, from "Wanted: A New U.S. Policy on Russia," PONARS Policy Memo No. 324," Center for Strategic and International Studies (January 2004) Elizabeth Jones, assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, argues that U.S.-Russian relations have made progress on nuclear proliferation and regional issues. Sarah Mendelson, senior research fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, maintains that Russia's internal politics are a key determinant of its foreign policies and that anti-democratic trends in Russia are creating increasing problems for U.S. foreign policy.PART 4. American Foreign Policy: Domestic Politics and Institutions ISSUE 14. Has the Department of Homeland Security Been a Success? YES: Tom Ridge, from Testimony Before the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs (September 13, 2004) NO: Michael Crowley, from "Playing Defense: Bush's Disastrous Homeland Security Department," The New Republic" (March 15, 2004) Tom Ridge, former secretary of homeland security, argues that the new department has made great progress in bringing together federal, state, and local security agencies and improving the coordination and information exchange among them to prevent terrorist attacks. Michael Crowley, senior editor of The New Republic", argues that the Department of Homeland Security is disorganized and underfunded and has not set the right priorities for best preventing new terrorist attacks. ISSUE 15. Does the Patriot Act Go Too Far in Constraining Civil Liberties? YES: David Cole, from Testimony Before the Senate Judiciary Committee (October 3, 2001) NO: Viet D. Dinh, from Testimony Before the Senate Judiciary Committee (November 18, 2003) David Cole, Georgetown University professor of law, argues that the Patriot Act and associated legislation inappropriately expands the grounds for detaining and deporting immigrants. Viet Dinh, former assistant attorney general and one of the key architects of the Patriot Act, argues that the Act has greatly assisted in the investigation, arrest, and successful criminal prosecution of almost 150 individuals implicated in terrorism and helped prevent new terrorist attacks on the United States. ISSUE 16. Is Immigration Good for the United States? YES: Barrington D. Parker, from "International Exodus: Visa Delays and Denials," Vital Speeches of the Day" (July 15, 2004) NO: Richard D. Lamm, from "Terrorism and Immigration: We Need a Border," Vital Speeches of the Day" (March 1, 2002) Barrington D. Parker, member of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, argues that restrictions on immigration since September 1, 2001 have reduced access of foreign students seeking to study in the United States with negative ramifications for U.S. universities, U.S. competitiveness in high-technology sectors, and U.S. security. Richard D. Lamm, former governor of Colorado, contends that greater restrictions on immigration are needed and that immigrants need to be monitored more closely in order to confront the problem of terrorists who are entering this country legally and illegally.PART 5. U.S. International Economic and Environmental Issues ISSUE 17. Is Economic Globalization Good for the United States? YES: Murray Weidenbaum, from "Globalization Is Not a Dirty Word," Vital Speeches of the Day" (March 1, 2001) NO: Robert Kuttner, from "Globalism Bites Back," The American Prospect" (March/April 1998) Murray Weidenbaum, the Mallinckrodt Distinguished University Professor of Economics, at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, asserts that opposition to economic globalization is based largely on 10 dangerous myths. Robert Kuttner, founder and coeditor of The American Prospect", argues that calls for virtually unchecked globalism are naive, and he points out a number of problems that the trend toward globalism has revealed. ISSUE 18. Is Outsourcing Good for the United States? YES: Edward Luce and Khozem Merchant, from "The Logic Is Inescapable," The Financial Times" (January 28, 2004) NO: Ronil Hira, from Testimony Before the Committee on Small Business, U.S. House of Representatives (June 18, 2003) Edward Luce and Khozem Merchant argue that cost savings, labor flexibility, and the rising productivity of largely non-unionized youthful labor forces in India and elsewhere make offshore outsourcing beneficial to both U.S. firms, who can use their savings to retain higher skilled workers, and U.S. consumers, who benefit from access to low-cost, high-quality goods and services. Ronil Hira, who is the chair of the R&D Policy Committee for the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers of the United States of America, argues that global outsourcing is leading to a loss of high-value/high-wage jobs in the natural sciences and engineering, which, in turn, undercuts U.S. innovation and leadership in the science, technology, and service sectors, attracts bright young people to countries other than the United States, and increases U.S. reliance on others for critical military and national security technologies.ISSUE 19. Should the United States Support the Kyoto Treaty? YES: Bill Clinton, from "Kyoto Conference on Climate Change Reaches Agreement to Limit Emission of Greenhouse Gases," Foreign Policy Bulletin" (January/February 1998) NO: Charli E. Coon, from "Why President Bush Is Right to Abandon the Kyoto Protocol," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder" (May 11, 2001) Bill Clinton, former president of the United States, contends that we have a clear responsibility and a great opportunity to conquer global warming by supporting the Kyoto treaty. Charli E. Coon, the senior policy analyst for energy and environment in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C., contends that the Kyoto treaty is fundamentally flawed and should not be supported.PART 6. The United States and International Rules, Norms, and Institutions ISSUE 20. Is It Justifiable to Put Suspected Terrorists Under Great Physical Duress? YES: Richard A. Posner, from "The Best Offense," The New Republic" (September 2, 2002) NO: Phillip Carter, from "The Road to Abu Ghraib: The Biggest Scandal of the Bush Administration Began at the Top," The Washington Monthly" (November 2004) Richard A. Posner, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School, argues that if the stakes are high enough, torture is permissible and that the use of torture should be left to executive discretion. Phillip Carter, a former U.S. Army officer who now writes on national security issues for The Washington Monthly", contends that the abuse of prisoners and potential terrorists dishonor the American military, damage national security, and undermine U.S. efforts to bring peace to Iraq and win the war against radical terrorism. ISSUE 21. Can Humanitarian Intervention Be Justified? YES: Kenneth Roth, from "Setting the Standard: Justifying Humanitarian Intervention," Harvard International Review" (Spring 2004) NO: Alan J. Kuperman, from "Humanitarian Hazard: Revising Doctrines of Intervention," Harvard International Review" (Spring 2004) Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, argues that while humanitarian intervention is extremely costly in human terms, it can be justified in situations involving ongoing or imminent slaughter, but that it should only be considered when five limiting criteria are met. Alan Kuperman, resident assistant professor of international relations at Johns Hopkins University, argues that the benefits of humanitarian intervention are much smaller and the costs much greater than are generally acknowledged because violence is perpetrated faster than interveners can act to stop it and the likelihood of humanitarian intervention may actually make some local conflicts worse.
