Many problems that were once national are now global, and dangers that once came only from states now come also from societies—not from hostile governments, but from hostile individuals or from impersonal social trends, such as the consumption of fossil fuels.

Despite this sea change of new challenges, there have been only ripples of new thinking about how to address them. While the problems have become largely global and societal, the solutions have not changed accordingly. The United States must craft a new foreign policy adapted to a world of complex global challenges which require thoughtful and global solutions.

An Unchanging Approach to a Changing Paradigm

The failure to modernize US strategic thinking has had serious consequences. Almost six years after 9/11, the international community has achieved only modest improvement in international intelligence coordination and law enforcement to combat Jihadist and criminal networks, and the world has done almost nothing to address the underlying causes of Jihadism. Incredibly, even though Al Qaeda has tried to acquire nuclear weapons, the US government has underfunded efforts to secure loose nukes and fissile materials. US ports, cities, power plants, and transportation networks remain highly vulnerable, and almost nothing has been done to improve the ability to recover from a nuclear or biological terror attack.

Rather than meeting radically new security challenges with radically new approaches, the US government has fought the “war on terror” the old-fashioned way, that is to say, with military force. Literally and figuratively unable to grasp the real stateless enemy, President Bush waged war instead against a state, Iraq, even though its dictator had nothing to do with Al Qaeda. Not surprisingly, waging a 20th century war in the 21st century has not produced the desired results.

Policymakers also have not yet adopted a new paradigm for coping with economic globalization. Despite the profound transformation and rapid growth of the global economy in recent years, they have not gotten beyond tired old debates about “free trade versus protectionism,” and they have done little to modernize the international organizations tasked with managing the global economy. The breakdown of the Doha round suggests that the World Trade Organization may no longer be able to politically finesse the social consequences of free trade agreements in the Internet age.

The world community has likewise done far too little to stop global warming or the depletion of natural resources such as fish, farmland, and clean water. Indeed, the United States has failed to even follow, much less to lead, the modest international efforts that have been made on climate change.

The neoconservative experiment for radical transformation through unilateralism has ended in failure, having proved itself poorly adapted to the realities of the 21st century. The war in Iraq has demonstrated that raw US power cannot transform the Middle East—instead, it has shown that the unrestrained and careless use of that power can damage credibility and weaken alliances. Some foreign policy analysts from both political parties now argue that the United States should now return to 20th century realism, in other words, to a policy focused not upon changing other societies, but rather upon maintaining stability and maximizing national power. They correctly point out that neoconservative efforts to transform other societies through force were naïve and ill-conceived.

Despite this advice to turn to a traditional realist paradigm, US leaders must do better than just return to the balance-of-power politics of the last century, as the most urgent problems today—from Jihadism to global warming—do not respect national borders, and many of these problems are not state-sponsored. The United States cannot return to state-centered realism, because non-state actors like Al Qaeda are more threatening than any single state’s army or air force. Jihadism fomented by the Saudi educational system and terrorist training camps in failed states are far more dangerous than Russian and Chinese arsenals. US security depends as much upon Pakistani and British police efforts as upon its own. US prosperity, energy security, and environmental health are inexorably linked to the environmentally sustainable development of the rest of the world.

To address these changing realities, the United States needs to craft a new realism adapted to the facts of a new century. Such a policy will require a bipartisan paradigm shift as profound as that which occurred in the middle of the last century, when thinkers like George Kennan and Hans Morgenthau saw that the world had changed, that isolation was no longer an option, and that the United States needed to assume a role as global leader.

Today, leadership by the world’s only superpower is needed more than ever, but such leadership cannot disregard what goes on inside other societies. No nation can defend its own interests without blending them with the interests of others and seeking common solutions to common problems.

New Realities

Six trends are transforming the world. The global community must simultaneously come to understand and respond to all of them. One trend, of course, is fanatical Jihadism bursting from an increasingly unstable and violent greater Middle East. This trend had been growing for years, but the invasion and subsequent collapse of Iraq have fueled its growth. A second trend is the growing power and sophistication of criminal networks capable of disrupting the global economy and trafficking in weapons of mass destruction. Together, these two trends raise the terrible specter of nuclear terrorism. Al Qaeda wants nuclear weapons, Pakistan’s A.Q. Khan sold nuclear materials to rogue states, and former Soviet nuclear weapons are poorly secured. The existence of a black market for nuclear materials is well documented, and the proliferation of nuclear weapons to new countries has further increased the opportunities for Jihadists to obtain them.

A third trend transforming the world is the extraordinarily rapid rise of Asian economic and military power, particularly in China and India. The inclusion of these two countries, the most populous in the world, in international discussion has changed the nature of diplomacy, both through bilateral agreements and through international organizations. A fourth trend is the re-emergence of Russia as an assertive global and regional player, tempted by authoritarianism and militant nationalism, with a large nuclear arsenal and strong control over energy resources. The simultaneous rise of India, China, and Russia requires US strategic leadership to ensure that these powerful nuclear-armed nations may be integrated into a stable global order.

A fifth trend transforming the world is the growth of both global economic interdependence and of global financial imbalances, unaccompanied by the growth of institutional capacities to manage these realities. Globalization has made national economies more vulnerable to resource constraints and financial shocks originating beyond national borders, and growing global demand for energy has the potential to lead to geopolitical tensions or even a global energy crisis. Financial imbalances related to the US trade deficit and the accumulation of dollar assets by Asian nations could lead to a dangerous collapse of the US dollar.

The sixth trend is the globalization of urgent health, environmental, and social problems. Global warming and pandemics like AIDS do not respect national borders. Poverty, ethnic conflict, and overpopulation also spill over borders, feeding what Moises Naim has called the “five wars of globalization” (over drugs, arms trafficking, money laundering, intellectual property, and alien smuggling).

These six trends present the global community with problems which are international in their origins and effects and will therefore require international solutions. They cry out for political leadership which only the United States is currently capable of providing. If the world succeeds in preventing nuclear terrorism, defeating Jihadism, integrating rising powers into a stable order, protecting global financial market stability, and fighting environmental and health threats, the United States will surely deserve much of the credit. If the world fails to meet these challenges, the United States will just as surely deserve much of the blame.

A New Realism

The United States needs a new realism in its foreign policy if it is to meet the challenges of this changed world. Such a new realism must harbor no illusions about the importance of a strong military in a dangerous world, but it must also understand the importance of diplomacy and multilateral cooperation in a world in which what goes on inside of one country has profound impacts on other countries.

A new realist foreign policy will require that the United States alter its present course in several ways. First and foremost, the United States must repair its alliances. The United States cannot lead other nations toward solutions to shared problems if these other nations do not trust US leadership. US policymakers need to restore respect and appreciation for US allies and for shared democratic values in order to coordinate international efforts for global problems.

US leaders also must restore their commitment to international law and multilateral cooperation, which means many things. It means promoting expansion of the UN Security Council’s permanent membership to include Japan, India, Germany, and one country each from Africa and Latin America. It also means ethical reform at the United Nations so that this vital institution can help its many underdeveloped and destitute member states meet the challenges of the 21st century. Finally, it means expanding the G8 to include new economic giants like India and China.

Beyond the United Nations, a commitment to international law means that the United States must be impeccable in its own human rights behavior. The US government must join the International Criminal Court and respect all international treaties, including the Geneva Conventions. It should reward countries that respect the Universal Declaration on Human Rights—and it should negotiate, constructively but firmly, with those who do not. The United States must also start taking human rights in Africa seriously. The two most horrendous recent human rights abuses have taken place in Rwanda and now Darfur, and history teaches that if the United States does not take the lead on ending these abuses, no one else will. The United States should have sent a special envoy as soon as the mass killings began in Darfur and should now put pressure not only Sudan, but also on other states, like China, that have influence in Sudan. US diplomatic engagement and leadership is essential to put global, multilateral pressure on such regimes. One way of doing so would be to enthusiastically support the International Criminal Court, so that individual leaders who engage in or allow crimes against humanity know they will be held accountable.

On environmental issues, the United States must be the leader, not the laggard, in global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by embracing the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, and then, going well beyond it, leading the world with a man-on-the-moon effort to improve energy efficiency and to commercialize clean, alternative technologies. In order to lead, the United States should set an example for other countries, especially China and India, and cut fossil fuel consumption dramatically to work for a sustainable energy future. As the leading greenhouse gas emitter, the United States has a special responsibility to set and meet ambitious emission caps and alternative energy goals, to develop new technologies, and to promote those technologies in the developing world. Climate agreements must include tough and enforceable emission commitments from both developed and developing countries, as well as financial incentives and technology transfer assistance for developing countries.

In dealing with other states, the United States needs to stop considering diplomatic engagement with others as a reward for good behavior. The Bush administration’s reluctance to engage obnoxious regimes diplomatically has only encouraged and strengthened their most paranoid and hard-line tendencies. The futility of this policy is most tragically obvious with regard to Iran and North Korea, who responded to Washington’s snubs and threats with intensification of their nuclear programs. The United States must engage Russia and China more effectively, strategically, and systematically, respecting their legitimate interests while encouraging them to work cooperatively in building a stable, peaceful world.

Most urgently, the United States must focus on the real security threats, from which Iraq has so dangerously diverted its attention. This means doing the hard work to build strong coalitions to fight terrorists and to stop nuclear proliferation. There is a pronounced need for better human intelligence and better international intelligence and law enforcement coordination to prevent nuclear trafficking. US diplomatic leadership is needed to unite the world, including Russia and China, to sanction the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea, and to provide these nations with positive incentives and face-saving ways to renounce nuclear weapons.

The global community needs to intensify its efforts to lock down all fissionable material. The United States, specifically, must increase funding for the Nunn-Lugar program and for US Energy Department programs to secure former Soviet plutonium stocks and nuclear weapons. The United States must also work with Pakistan to make sure that their nuclear arsenal does not fall into the hands of Jihadists. The Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) needs to be upgraded and tightened in an effort to prevent states from legally developing their nuclear capabilities and then opting out of the treaty as they rush to build bombs.

If the United States wants other countries to take the NPT seriously, it must show that it takes it seriously itself. The United States should re-affirm its NPT commitment to the long-term goal of global nuclear disarmament, and it should invite the Russians to join in a moratorium on new weapons and further staged reductions in arsenals, beyond what has already been agreed, over the course of the next decade. US diplomacy should also seek to get the other nuclear powers to reduce their arsenals, to get the non-nuclear powers to forego nuclear fuel enrichment, and to agree to rigorous global safeguards and verification procedures. The United States also should ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, not only because it is good policy, but also to send a signal to the world that it has turned a corner and once again will be a global leader, not a unilateralist loner.

The United States also must lead the world in opening an ideological front in the war against Jihadism. There is a civil war within Islam between extremists and moderates, and the United States and its allies need to stop helping their enemies in that civil war. The United States needs to start showing, both through its words and through its actions, that this is not, as the Jihadists claim, a clash of civilizations. Rather, it is a clash between civilization and barbarity. The international community needs to present Arab and Muslim populations with a better vision than the apocalyptic fantasy of the Jihadists: a vision of peace, prosperity, tolerance, and respect for human dignity. There are a number of steps the United States can take to help accomplish this.

First and foremost, the United States must live up to its own ideals. Prisoner abuse, torture, secret prisons, and evasion of the Geneva Conventions must have no place in US policy. If the United States wants Muslims to be open to it, it should start by closing Guantanamo.

The United States also needs to pressure Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and other friends in the Arab world to reform their education systems, which are incubators of anti-US sentiment. Moderate US Muslims must be given a louder, more systematic voice in US policy toward the Middle East so that they can speak the truth about the West and be heard by their fellow Muslims. The United States also must re-engage the Middle East peace process, as peace would deprive the Jihadists of their most effective propaganda tool. The sole superpower must use all its sticks and carrots to strengthen Palestinian moderates and to achieve a two-state solution which guarantees Israel’s security.

The United States spends more than US$2 billion per week on Iraq, but it has left its own cities, nuclear power plants, and shipping ports vulnerable to terrorist attack. Resilience, or the ability to recover from an attack, is an essential component of national defense, and it lowers the utility to the terrorists of attacking. The United States must spend more to recruit, equip, and train more first responders and to drastically improve public health facilities, which, five years after 9/11, are not ready for a biological attack. Homeland Security dollars should be allocated to where they are needed most—to the population centers and facilities that Al Qaeda targets.

The United States needs to lead the global fight against poverty, which is the basis of so much violence. By example and diplomacy, the United States can encourage all rich countries to honor their UN Millennium goal commitments. A Commission on the Implementation of Sustainable Development Goals, composed of world leaders and prominent experts, should be created to recommend ways of meeting Millennium commitments.

In this effort, the United States should lead donors on debt relief, shifting aid from loans to grants, and focus on primary health care and affordable vaccines. The World Bank must focus on poverty reduction, and the IMF must be more flexible regarding social safety nets. The United States should promote trade agreements, which create more jobs in all countries and which seriously address wage disparities, worker rights, and the environment. Together with other governments, the United States should pressure pharmaceutical companies to allow expanded use of generic drugs, and it should encourage public-private partnerships to reduce costs and enhance access to anti-malarial drugs and bed nets.

Most importantly, the United States should promote a multilateral Marshall Plan for the Middle East and North Africa. For a small fraction of the cost of the Iraq war, which has created so many enemies for the United States, the nation could make many friends. A crucial effort in fighting terrorism must be support for public education in the Muslim world. Many Muslim students have no educational opportunities except for madrassas, some of which teach Jihad. It must be a major component of US aid policies to poorer Muslim countries, as well as of US diplomacy with all Muslim countries, to take education out of the hands of those who preach violence. Development alleviates the injustice and lack of opportunity that proponents of violence and terrorism exploit. To those who say the United States cannot afford an aid program to build pro-American sentiment in the developing world, I say the United States cannot afford not to.

The challenges facing all nations today are the shared problems of an interdependent global society. Solutions necessarily also must be shared. The United States must adapt its thinking to these realities and provide the leadership that only the sole superpower can provide in fostering the cooperation needed to solve the issues that face the modern world. The US government needs to see the world as it really is—so that the United States can lead others to make it a better, safer place. The United States should craft a new realism that looks at the world through cool eyes, but which is inspired by ardent principles. A new realism for a new century. I believe that such an enlightened and effective policy for the 21st century is possible.

BILL RICHARDSON is governor of New Mexico, United States, and former US Congressman, US Secretary of Energy, and US Representative to the United Nations.

© 2003-2007 The Harvard International Review. All rights reserved.