Taking sides : clashing views on controversial issues in American foreign policy
著者
書誌事項
Taking sides : clashing views on controversial issues in American foreign policy
Dushkin/McGraw-Hill, c2000
大学図書館所蔵 件 / 全1件
-
該当する所蔵館はありません
- すべての絞り込み条件を解除する
注記
Includes bibliographical references and index
内容説明・目次
内容説明
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.
目次
PART 1. The United States and the World: Strategic ChoicesISSUE 1. Should the United States Continue Its Internationalist Policies?YES: Madeleine K. Albright, from Statement Before the Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. SenateNO: Frank Chodorov, from "Isolationism," The FreemanMadeleine K. Albright, U.S. secretary of state, reviews the most pressing social, environmental, economic, and military issues in the world and contends that to avert dangers to U.S. prosperity and security, and to seize opportunities, Americans must be more than audience, more even than actors. She contends that Americans must be "authors of the history." Frank Chodorov, a former editor of The Freeman, believes that internationalism is counter to the interests and even the basic instincts of most Americans. He argues that the American public is pushed into interventionism by its leaders.ISSUE 2. Should the United States Seek Global Hegemony?YES: Robert Kagan, from "The Benevolent Empire," Foreign PolicyNO: Charles William Maynes, from "The Perils of (and for) an Imperial America," Foreign PolicyRobert 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. Should the United States Follow a Unilateralist Foreign Policy?YES: Christopher Layne, from "Rethinking American Grand Strategy," World Policy JournalNO: Hugh De Santis, from "Mutualism: An American Strategy for the Next Century," World Policy JournalChristopher Layne, visiting professor of international politics and military strategy at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, contends that the United States should disengage from its commitments and follow a unilateralist, "offshore balancing" foreign policy by picking which power to support or oppose and which issues or crises to become involved in based on clear and direct benefits to the United States. Hugh De Santis, professor of international security policy at the National War College, argues that the United States is now inextricably part of an interdependent community of countries that must rely on one another to satisfy their respective interests and goals. Therefore, De Santis concludes, the United States should follow a strategy of mutualism, thatis, cooperation with other countries.PART 2. The United States and the World: Regional and Bilateral RelationsISSUE 4. Was U.S. Intervention in Kosovo Justified?YES: Samuel R. Berger, from "Kosovo: Peace and Redevelopment," Vital Speeches of the DayNO: David N. Mayer, from "Immoral, Unconstitutional War," The FreemanSamuel R. Berger, assistant to the president for national security affairs, contends that the U.S.-led, NATO intervention in Kosovo was both justified and successful. David N. Mayer, professor of law and history at Capital University in Columbus, Ohio, states that the intervention was a blunder that cannot be justified either in terms of humanitarianism or U.S. strategic interests.ISSUE 5. Should the United States Continue Its Current Policy With Russia?YES: Stephen Sestanovich, from Statement Before the Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. SenateNO: Peter Reddaway, from Statement Before the Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. SenateStephen Sestanovich, ambassador-at-large and special adviser to the secretary of state for the New Independent States (former Soviet republics), argues that although it is impossible to guarantee that Russia will become an economically viable, stable democracy, it is vital to take advantage of the opportunity to advance democracy and economic health in Russia. Professor of political science Peter Reddaway charges that it is misguided to ignore or downplay the dangers inherent in many Russian trends and contends that Russia faces a future full of uncertainty.ISSUE 6. Is the U.S. Policy of Strategic Engagement With China Ill-Conceived?YES: Aaron L. Friedberg, from "Arming China Against Ourselves," CommentaryNO: Chalmers Johnson, from "In Search of a New Cold War," The Bulletin of the Atomic ScientistsAaron L. Friedberg, professor of politics at Princeton University, contends that U.S. policy is working to increase Chinese military capabilities and that over time this will work against U.S. interests in Asia and elsewhere. Chalmers Johnson, president of the Japan Policy Research Institute, rejects attempts to portray China as an adversary and argues that treating China as an enemy may become a self-fulfilling prophesy.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 RepresentativesNO: Michael Ranneberger, from Statement Before the Subcommittee on Trade, Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of RepresentativesRichard 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 harm U.S. economic interests. Michael Ranneberger, coordinator, Cuban Affairs, 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 U.S. effort to promote a peaceful transition to democracy and respect for human rights in Cuba.PART 3. American Foreign Policy: The Domestic Side and Policy-Making IssuesISSUE 8. Should the President's Ability to Commit U.S. Forces to Combat Be Restricted?YES: John T. Rourke, from Presidential Wars and American DemocracyNO: John G. Tower, from "Congress Versus the President: The Formulation and Implementation of American Foreign Policy," Foreign AffairsJohn T. Rourke, head of the Department of Political Science at the University of Connecticut, contends that it is neither wise nor constitutional for presidents to unilaterally make the choice to go to war, the most momentous decision that a country can make. John G. Tower, chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations of the United States Senate, argues that the president needs broad flexibility, including the authority to use military force, to deal with rapidly changing situations in the world.ISSUE 9. Does the Media Drive Foreign Policy?YES: Patrick O'Heffernan, from "Sobering Thoughts on Sound Bites Seen 'Round the World," in Bradley S. Greenberg and Walter Gantz, eds., Desert Storm and the Mass MediaNO: Warren P. Strobel, from "The CNN Effect," American Journalism ReviewPatrick O'Heffernan, senior fellow at the Center for International Strategy, Technology, and Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology, claims that television news plays an ever more important role in determining the course of international relations. Warren P. Strobel, a reporter for the Washington Times who covers the White House, recognizes that news organizations do have an impact on what people know but contends that the supposed effects of television and other news sources are overestimated. ISSUE 10. Should Foreign Policymakers Minimize Human Rights Concerns?YES: Alan Tonelson, from "Jettison the Policy," Foreign PolicyNO: Michael Posner, from "Rally Round Human Rights," Foreign PolicyAlan Tonelson, a fellow of the Economic Strategy Institute in Washington, D.C., contends that the United States' human rights policy has collapsed and ought to be jettisoned. Michael Posner, executive director of the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, maintains that Tonelson's argument is flawed and that the United States should continue to incorporate human rights concerns into its foreign policy decisions.PART 4. United States International Economic and Environmental StrategyISSUE 11. Will the United States Remain a Global Economic Power?YES: Mortimer B. Zuckerman, from "A Second American Century," Foreign AffairsNO: Paul Krugman, from "America the Boastful," Foreign AffairsMortimer Zuckerman, chairman and editor-in-chief of U.S. News and World Report, takes the view that the entrepreneurial capitalism of the United States is composed of structural elements that are responsible for the unprecedented prosperity of Americans during the 1990s and that these elements are likely to persist and ensure that the United States has an advantage over other countries into the future. Paul Krugman, professor of economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, does not suggest that the United States is in danger of an economic crisis, but he does argue that it is unlikely that the United States will remain as the preeminent global economic power.ISSUE 12. Is Economic Globalization a Positive Trend for the United States?YES: Lawrence H. Summers, from Statement Before the Democractic Leadership Annual Conference, Washington, D.C.NO: Robert Kuttner, from "G
lobalism Bites Back," The American ProspectLawrence H. Summers, U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, writes that the movement toward international economic interdependence has greatly enhanced U.S. economic prosperity and national strength both domestically and internationally. Summers argues that the United States should continue to press for global economic integration. Robert Kuttner, the founder and co-editor of The American Prospect, argues that calls for virtually unchecked globalism are naive. Kuttner 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 BulletinNO: J. Kenneth Blackwell, from "The Kyoto Protocol: Using Provisional Science for a World Power Grab," Vital Speeches of the DayBill Clinton, 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. J. Kenneth Blackwell, treasurer of the state of Ohio, argues that the U.S. administration's support of the Kyoto treaty is based on inadequate climatological data and that abiding by the treaty will cause severe economic hardships for Americans.PART 5. United States Post-Cold War Military StrategyISSUE 14. Do Serious Threats to U.S. Security Exist?YES: George J. Tenet, from Statement Before the Committee on the Armed Services, U.S. SenateNO: Carl Conetta and Charles Knight, from "Inventing Threats," The Bulletin of the Atomic ScientistsGeorge J. Tenet, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, 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. Worse, says Tenet, many issues are now intertwined and many of the dangers are mutually reinforcing. Carl Conetta and Charles Knight, co-directors of the Project on Defense Alternatives, contend that the United States continues to spend vast sums on its military despite the fact that the Soviet Union is gone and no comparable military challenge exists, except as a distant possibility.ISSUE 15. Should the United States Immediately Build a Ballistic Missile Defense System?YES: Donald H. Rumsfeld et al., from Report of the Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United StatesNO: Lisbeth Gronlund and David Wright, from "What They Didn't Do," The Bulletin of the Atomic ScientistsFormer Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld and the other members of the Rumsfeld Commission unanimously conclude that the efforts by a number of overtly or potentially hostile nations to acquire ballistic missiles with biological, chemical or nuclear payloads pose a growing threat to the United States, its deployed forces, and its friends and allies. Lisbeth Gronlund and David Wright, senior staff scientists at the Union of Concerned Scientists, attack the Rumsfeld Commission report on the grounds that it assesses what is possible rather than likely, does not put the missile threat within the context of overall national security concerns, and contains imprecise and sometimes alarmist statements.ISSUE 16. Should Congress Ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty?YES: Tom Z. Collina and Christopher Paine, from "Test Ban Treaty: Let's Finish the Job," The Bulletin of the Atomic ScientistsNO: Kathleen C. Bailey, from "The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty: The Costs Outweigh the Benefits," Policy Analysis No. 330Tom Z. Collina, of the Union of Concerned Scientists, and Christopher Paine, of the Natural Resources Defense Council, urge that the United States Senate ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty on the grounds that the United States has no need to test further and that the treaty will serve to restrain nuclear weapons proliferation. Kathleen C. Bailey, senior fellow at the National Institute for Public Policy, writes that the Senate should reject the treaty because it would detract from U.S. nuclear capability and do little to halt nuclear proliferation.PART 6. The United States and International Organizations and LawISSUE 17. Should the United States Decline to Ratify the International Criminal Court Treaty?YES: John R. Bolton, from Statement Before the Subcommittee on International Operations, Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. SenateNO: Douglas Becker, from "Justice Knows No National Boundary," An Original Essay Written for This VolumeJohn R. Bolton, former Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs and current Senior Vice President of the American Enterprise Institute, contends that support for an International Criminal Court (ICC) is based largely on naive emotion and that adhering to the ICC treaty would weaken the U.S. international position. Douglas Becker, who is on the faculty of the Department of Political Science and History of Mount St. Mary's College in Los Angeles, rejoins that Americans, and indeed all people of the world interested in justice, should support the ICC because we live in an interdependent world, because the current system of ad hoc prosecutions is insufficient to embed the principles of human rights and justice in the international system, andbecause crimes are often transnational in nature.ISSUE 18. Is the United States Justified for Not Paying Its Back Assessment to the UN?YES: Cliff Kincaid, from "The United Nations Debt: Who Owes Whom?" Policy Analysis No. 304NO: Peter Trumbore, from "The United States: UN Deadbeat," An Original Essay Written for This VolumeCliff Kincaid, President of America's Survival, Inc., terms "false" the claims that the United States owes the United Nations more than $1 billion and further contends that no legal debt exists or can exist. Peter Trumbore, a professor of government at Clark University, maintains that the United States has a legal obligation to pay the UN membership assessment and that doing so is in the U.S. national interest.
「Nielsen BookData」 より