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 viewpoint and have been selected for their liveliness and substance and because of 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 NO: Mark Leonard, from "When Worlds Collide", Foreign Policy Marc A. Thiessen, who serves on the minority staff of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, contends that globalists want to undermine 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 Seek Global Hegemony? YES: Robert Kagan, from "The Benevolent Empire", Foreign Policy NO: Charles William Maynes, from "The Perils of (and for) an Imperial America", Foreign Policy Robert Kagan, of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, contends that the United States has proved to be a relatively benevolent hegemon and that continued American dominance of the international system is necessary in order to preserve a reasonable level of international peace and prosperity. Charles William Maynes, president of the Eurasia Foundation, argues that promoting American global hegemony is not worth the costs. Ultimately it will fail, he asserts, and we will lose the opportunity to establish a new, less power-based international system. ISSUE 3. Has President Bush Created a New U.S. Foreign Policy Direction? YES: Charles Krauthammer, from "The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism", The Weekly Standard NO: Justin Raimondo, from "The 'New' Unilateralism: George W. Bush at the End of History", Antiwar.com, http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j061301.html Charles Krauthammer, a syndicated columnist and recipient of the Pulitzer Prize for distinguished commentary in 1987, states that the administration of President George W. Bush has rejected the premises underlying the foreign policy of the administration of President Bill Clinton and is following policies based on the premise that the United States is the world's most powerful country. Justin Raimondo, editorial director of Antiwar.Com, argues that the fundamental direction of U.S. foreign policy has not changed under President Bush, and he also criticizes Krauthammer for favoring an assertive, unilateralist U.S. foreign policy. PART 2. The United States and the World: Regional and Bilateral Relations ISSUE 4. Is U.S Membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Still Advisable? YES: Ronald D. Asmus, from Statement Before the Subcommittee on European Affairs, Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate NO: Christopher Layne, from "Death Knell for NATO? The Bush Administration Confronts the European Security and Defense Policy", Policy Analysis No. 394 Ronald D. Asmus, a senior fellow at the Council of Foreign Relations, contends that the United States should not only remain in NATO but should seek to expand the role and membership of the organization. Christopher Layne, a visiting fellow in foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C., contends that NATO's original mission has ended, that Europe and the United States often have different goals, and that the Bush administration should rethink the U.S. role in Europe. ISSUE 5. Is Russia Likely to Become an Antagonistic Power? YES: Ariel Cohen, from "Putin's Foreign Policy and U.S.-Russian Relations", Heritage Foundation Backgrounder NO: Anatol Lieven, from "Against Russophobia", World Policy Journal Ariel Cohen, a research fellow in Russian and Eurasian studies at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C., argues that the current Russian government espouses a nationalist agenda that seeks to reestablish Russia as a great world power and to undermine U.S. leadership. Anatol Lieven, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, D.C., contends that the negative view of Russia inherited from the cold war era leads to bad policies. ISSUE 6. Should the United States Give Greater Support to Taiwan Against China? YES: James P. Doran, from U.S. Defense Policy Toward Taiwan: In Need of an Overhaul, A Staff Trip Report to the Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate NO: Stanley O. Roth, from Statement Before the Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate James P. Doran, the senior professional staff member for Asian and Pacific Affairs of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, asserts that without a marked increase in U.S. support of Taiwan, the young democracy will be dangerously exposed to Communist Chinese attack. Stanley O. Roth, assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific Affairs in the Clinton administration, contends that U.S. foreign policy relating to Taiwan during the previous 20 years had generally been consistent and a "resounding success" and should not be markedly changed. ISSUE 7. Should the United States Move to Substantially Ease Current Sanctions Against Cuba? YES: Richard E. O'Leary, from Statement Before the Subcommittee on Trade, Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives NO: Michael Ranneberger, from Statement Before the Subcommittee on Trade, Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives Richard E. O'Leary, chairman of H Enterprises International, Inc., and a board member of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, contends that U.S. sanctions do not work and that they harm U.S. economic interests. Michael Ranneberger, coordinator of Cuban Affairs in the U.S. Department of State, maintains that Cuba continues to have one of the most repressive regimes in the world and that U.S. sanctions are an important part of a multifaceted effort to promote a peaceful transition to democracy and respect for human rights in Cuba. ISSUE 8. Is the United States Truly Interested in Assisting Africa? YES: Colin L. Powell, from Remarks to the University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa NO: Salih Booker, from "Bush's Global Agenda: Bad News for Africa", Current History Colin L. Powell, secretary of state in the Bush administration, details what he portrays as the United States' deep concern for Africa and the many U.S. programs designed to improve economic, social, and political conditions in the region. Salih Booker, executive director of Africa Action in Washington, D.C., argues that U.S. policy has often been irresponsible and that policy is apt to get worse during the Bush administration. ISSUE 9. Should the United States Support the End of Sanctions on Iraq? YES: Kathy Kelly, from "Challenging Iraq Sanctions: An Interview With Kathy Kelly From Voices in the Wilderness", Z Magazine NO: Robert J. Kerrey, from Statement Before the Subcommittee on Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs, Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate In an interview with South End Press editor Anthony Arnove, peace activist Kathy Kelly argues that the sanctions on Iraq are causing unconscionable suffering among the Iraqi people and should be ended. Robert J. Kerrey, president of New School University in New York City, contends that not only should the sanctions on Iraq continue but efforts should be increased to topple the regime of Saddam Hussein. PART 3. American Foreign Policy: The Domestic Side and Policy-Making Issues ISSUE 10. Should Halting the Flow of Drugs Be a Top U.S. Foreign Policy Objective? YES: Barry R. McCaffrey, from The National Drug Control Strategy: 2001 Annual Report NO: Mathea Falco, from "U.S. Drug Policy: Addicted to Failure", Foreign Policy Barry R. McCaffrey, director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy during the Clinton administration, contends that alleviating the threat that drugs pose requires cooperation between the United States and the countries of Latin America and elsewhere and that, in the end, success promises to ameliorate the corrosive effect of the production, distribution, and consumption of drugs. Mathea Falco, president of Drug Strategies, a drug policy research institute, argues that focusing on the foreign "supply side" of the drug problem cannot succeed and that the emphasis should be on the domestic "demand side" of the drug flow. ISSUE 11. Should the President Have Fast-Track Trade Negotiation Authority? YES: Harold McGraw III, from Testimony Before the Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate NO: John J. Sweeney, from Testimony Before the Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate Harold McGraw III, chairman of the Emergency Committee for American Trade, advocates giving the president broad authority to conclude trade agreements with other countries, subject only to "fast-track" review by Congress. John J. Sweeney, president of the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, contends that to ensure workers' rights and environmental safety, Congress needs to avoid limiting its review and possible amendment of trade agreements. PART 4. U.S. International Economic and Environmental Strategy ISSUE 12. Is Economic Globalization a Positive Trend for the United States? YES: Murray Weidenbaum, from "Globalization Is Not a Dirty Word", Vital Speeches of the Day NO: Robert Kuttner, from "Globalism Bites Back", The American Prospect Murray Weidenbaum, chairman of the Weidenbaum Center on the Economy, Government, and Public Policy 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 13. Should the Kyoto Treaty on Global Warming Be Supported? YES: Bill Clinton, from "Kyoto Conference on Climate Change Reaches Agreement to Limit Emission of Greenhouse Gases", Foreign Policy Bulletin NO: Charli E. Coon, from "Why President Bush Is Right to Abandon the Kyoto Protocol", Heritage Foundation Backgrounder 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 5. U.S. National Security Strategy ISSUE 14. Should U.S. Military Spending Be Increased? YES: Henry H. Shelton, from "Force, Forces, and Forecasting: Preparing America's Armed Forces for an Uncertain Future", Remarks Made to the National Press Club, Washington, D.C. NO: Carl Conetta, from "Toward a Smaller, More Efficient, and More Relevant US Military", Project on Defense Alternatives Briefing Paper Henry H. Shelton, a general in the U.S. Army and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, argues that the United States, its citizens, and its interests are threatened in many places in the world and across a wide range of issues. He contends that while the dangers may not seem as menacing as they did during the cold war, it is prudent to invest in force modernization in the near term to ensure razor-sharp forces for the long haul. Carl Conetta, director of the Project on Defense Alternatives at the Commonwealth Institute in Cambridge, Massachusetts, contends that U.S. military overspending derives from a lack of realism in threat assessment, an unnecessarily ambitious post-cold war military strategy, and failure to adapt to the specific challenges of the new era. ISSUE 15. Is Building a Ballistic Missile Defense System a Wise Idea? YES: Paul D. Wolfowitz, from Testimony Before the Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate NO: John F. Tierney, from "Administration's Policy on National Missile Defense", Congressional Record U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul D. Wolfowitz contends that the United States should build a ballistic missile defense system to protect Americans against the many hostile regimes that are investing enormous sums of money to acquire ballistic missiles. 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 deterrence and stability. ISSUE 16. Is There a Great Danger From Chemical or Biological Terrorism? YES: James K. Campbell, from Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism, and Government Information, Committee on Intelligence, U.S. Senate NO: Jonathan B. Tucker, from "Chemical and Biological Terrorism: How Real a Threat?" Current History James K. Campbell, a terrorism expert and a commander in the United States Navy assigned to the Defense Intelligence Agency, testifies before the U.S. Congress that terrorists can acquire and use lethal chemical, biological, and radiological weapons. Jonathan B. Tucker, a visiting fellow of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, argues that the threat of chemical and biological terrorism is not great enough to warrant a massive effort to prepare for and defend against an attack. PART 6. The United States and International Organizations and Law ISSUE 17. Did U.S. Military Action Against Yugoslavia Violate Just War Theory? YES: William T. DeCamp III, from "The Big Picture: A Moral Analysis of Allied Force in Kosovo", Marine Corps Gazette NO: Bill Clinton, from Interview With Dan Rather, CBS News, April 5, 1999, and Interview With Jim Lehrer, NewsHour, June 21, 1999, Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents William T. DeCamp III, a lieutenant colonel in the United States Marine Corps Reserves, argues that what occurred during the military campaign against Yugoslavia demonstrates that it would serve civilian and military leaders well to revisit just war theory. Bill Clinton, former president of the United States, explains his view that the reasons that the United States and other countries intervened militarily in Yugoslavia and the tactics that they used there were justified politically and morally. ISSUE 18. Should the United States Ratify the International Criminal Court Treaty? YES: Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, from Statement Before the Committee on International Relations, U.S. House of Representatives NO: John R. Bolton, from Statement Before the Committee on International Relations, U.S. House of Representatives The Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, in a statement submitted to the U.S. Congress, contends that the International Criminal Court (ICC) is an expression, in institutional form, of a global aspiration for justice. John R. Bolton, senior vice president of the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C., contends that support for an international criminal court is based largely on naive emotion and that, thus, adhering to its provisions is not wise. ISSUE 19. Should the Senate Ratify the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women? YES: Carolyn B. Maloney, from Statement Before the Committee on International Relations, U.S. House of Representatives NO: Christopher H. Smith, from Testimony Before the Committee on International Relations, U.S. House of Representatives Representative Carolyn B. Maloney (D-New York) argues that the United States should join the vast majority of the world's countries and ratify the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. Representative Christopher H. Smith (R-New Jersey) argues that the laudable goal of ending discrimination does not justify ratifying the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, because the treaty has many flaws.