Part One: U.S. strategy in the 21st century: leadership through hegemony
Chapter II: Role and Place of the USA in the Twenty-first Century in the Research of American Political Scientists and Scholars of International Affairs
The Concept of “Rational Engagement”
As an example, it is worth presenting the views of Congressman Lee Hamilton (D), a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Representatives.28
Hamilton believes that the world leadership of the USA is historically inevitable for two reasons: (1) The USA is too great a country, too representative, not to be involved in world affairs; and (2) without the USA fulfilling its international role as a superpower, the world would be more unstable and dangerous.
He emphasizes that during the Cold War, the U.S. national interests amounted to containment of communism, while today they amount to the expansion and strengthening of the world community, based on market democracy. In spite of the USA being the sole superpower, it cannot accomplish that task on its own; it will need to cooperate with its allies.
Foreign policy must proceed from long-term interests, rather than consist of reactions to current problems and crises.
Hamilton is one of those politicians who opposes isolationism and supports the official course of “engagement.” He sees the “international politics” budget, currently standing at 1 percent of the federal budget, as clearly inadequate for discharging international obligations, such as the funding of the UN (the USA owes a large sum of money to this organization), the IMF, and the World Bank. Hamilton is convinced that one cannot aspire to a leadership role without an adequate financial base.
Of course, increased spending on foreign policy presupposes a strong economy, which depends to a large degree on the foreign economic activity of American business.
The leadership of the USA is also supported by a strong military potential. A diplomacy relying on military strength works better than one without such support. In Hamilton’s words, “Diplomacy and the threat of force must be orchestrated to achieve U.S. foreign policy goals.”
The theme of military intervention remains current to this day. When U.S. vital interests are at stake, the answer is obvious: Intervention must be used as an instrument of policy. “We should intervene, with force if necessary, to defend our borders, to prevent any single power from gaining control over Europe, Japan, Korea, or the Persian Gulf, and to protect ourselves against terrorism or weapons of mass destruction.” In the instances when the interests at stake are not vital but merely important, the answer is not so obvious. In such cases, it is better to act together with friends and allies on the basis of collective security.
Finally, foreign policy must be developed with a view to being understood by the American people.
Hamilton is a typical supporter of collectivist hegemony of the Western world, headed by the USA, on the basis of “rational engagement,” normally championed by the Democratic Party and American transnational corporation (TNCs).
28 Lecture by Lee Hamilton, “Changes in American Foreign Policy Over the Past Thirty Years,” Institute for the Study of Diplomacy (November 18, 1998).
The 21st Century: The World Without Russia
(Philosophical-sociological Essay)