With the advance of successive US presidential election campaigns, debate on American foreign policy also intensified, maybe with the exception of the 1968 elections, where foreign policy was not the major issue of that campaign season. Normally, amid a complicated international environment, regional conflicts, together with the escalation of terrorism, foreign policy and its choices are imposed on electoral discussions as an important issue no party can avoid. At stake is the vision of how to conduct America's relations with the world. Today, there are two schools of thought on American foreign policy, as expressed in the campaign debate. The first school believes that regardless of the failure of American foreign policy during the last decade, the US remains the leading and indispensable force able to do what other countries cannot. This vision motivated Bill Clinton to enlarge NATO and extend its presence to Russia's threshold, believing this would be without consequence. He also believed that engagement with China would encourage its transformation to a democratic system on the American model. This was the same vision that encouraged George W Bush, who otherwise built his presidential campaign against the concept of “nation building”, to launch two major wars/projects of nation building. Despite that the failure in Iraq and Afghanistan have cast clouds on this vision, its supporters still warn that there is no way to isolate oneself from today's threats. They insist the US will only be safe if others live in peace or flourish — a world where democracy is recognised together with the rule of law, freedom of expression, access to information, freedom of speech and human rights. This school concludes that only America possesses the power and the will to establish this world and the responsibility to shape it. The second school believes that the US president should protect American interests, not export American values, and that the only nation Americans should build is their own. Americans should not be sent into harm's war just to defend their principles. This school believes that Washington should lead an alliance of the willing with those who have the same ideas to stop the proliferation of the most dangerous weapons of the world, and to deny terrorists the tools they need to stage catastrophic attacks on the American homeland. As long as the US economy depends on the global economy, this school believes that US foreign policy should promote and protect global growth by reducing the possibility of war, while giving powerful nations an interest in stability through trade and investment. This school distributes responsibilities to America's allies: Europe can take the lead in bridging the gap with Russia, taking into account the latter's strong economic ties with countries such as Germany, France, Britain and Italy. As for the Middle East, the United States must protect Israel's security. However, not necessarily to support every Israeli action against the Palestinians. Nor should any American president hesitate to negotiate with America's enemies in case there is something of value to be gained in any region of the world. Together with these schools, there is another vision provided by American political scientist Ian Bremmer in his new book Superpowers. He defined his vision as “the independent America”; namely a nation that declares its independence from responsibility to reform the world. The American people would not support costly interventions in countries they do not care about. Any nation can get what it wants in the world, and there are a number of countries that possess adequate power to face US pressure. America, therefore, should stop issuing promises it knows it cannot meet, or threats it knows it will not be able to implement. Bremmer asks about the lessons from the war in Vietnam, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. These lessons prove that, “Whatever your strength, it is difficult to defeat an enemy that cares more about the war than you do.” Consequently, America should not escalate its war with Russia on the Ukraine, as the crisis receives more attention from Russia than America. And those calling for an “independent America” know well that the US should not push the Palestinians and Israelis towards a peace deal that none want, and should not support dictators in the Middle East while claiming to defend freedom and human rights. America should let those most exposed to the threat of the Islamic State group in the Middle East and Europe to take over leadership on the issue. Let countries take responsibility for their own security. According to this vision, it is not just that America cannot be the policeman of the world, but that it does not have the right to compel those who differ with its views to see things the way it does. Americans believe that democracy is the best system of government and that its commitment to democracy must be clear to others, who should simply agree with it. Some countries want US leadership, but others want less US intervention. They like American technology, movies, music, cinema and fashion, but they do not care about the form of American government, its international friends and how it manages their budgets. Bremmer warns Americans as they are following the debates of the presidential campaigns against those who talk about America's responsibility, without thinking about how much will it cost, advising them to reject those who claim that America is capable of doing everything. When Ted Cruz says the president must defend “unapologetically” freedom, and Hillary Clinton insists that the “United States has a deep commitment to making human rights a reality for millions of oppressed in the world”, do not forget to ask them how much such plans will cost. Bremmer concludes that it is time for a new Declaration of Independence — from the responsibility of solving the problems of others. He is aware that it is not easy for honest American presidents to ignore inevitable pressure from home and overseas to plunge America into new foreign conflicts. But the real promise of America to its people and the world is whether Washington can provide a convincing American model at home. What outlook will the new US administration adopt? The writer is former executive director of the Egyptian Council for Foreign Affairs.
