A World in Disarray: American Foreign Policy and the Crisis of the Old Order

by Richard N. Haass

The premise of this approach is that the principal objective of the foreign policy of any government ought to be influencing the foreign policy of other governments rather than the nature of the society over which they preside.

The White House staff became much too large in size, function, and influence. Process is no panacea, but it can protect presidents, who too often opt for the decision-making process and staff they feel comfortable with and want, not the ones they need.

The argument being advanced here is that the requirements for order must be expanded and adapted to the realities of our interconnected world. The goal should be to build consensus around a larger approach to sovereignty, one that includes obligations beyond borders.

the agenda the United States should promote should be less one of “democracy” (much less elections, which in the absence of checks and balances and strong constitutions can have antidemocratic outcomes) than one of reforms that reduce corruption, increase opportunity for girls and women and the space for civil society, increase the rule of law, introduce educational reform away from rote learning and toward critical thinking, and promote economic reform that reduces the role of government and the energy sector.

If America comes to be doubted, it will inevitably give rise to a very different and much less orderly world. One would see two reactions: either a world of increased “self-help,” in which countries take matters into their own hands in ways that could work against U.S. objectives, or a world in which countries fall under the sway of more powerful local states, in the process undermining the balance of power. This is a prescription for greater instability at the regional level, less concerted action at the global level, and heightened chance for great-power competition.

The cold truth is that the alternative to a U.S.–led international order is less international order.