Countering Aggressive Rising Powers: A Clash of Strategic Cultures

The United States has to contend with rising powers ranging from the prc, which is already an economic and political great power and potentially a military threat, to Al Qaeda and the network of Islamist terror organizations, whose means to power remain limited but whose will to power and aggression are great. In the middle are states that already or may soon possess nuclear weapons. Each of these powers has its own “strategic culture” that affects its decision-making, and attention needs to be paid to how the strategic habits of today's rising and aggressive powers might intersect with U.S. strategy.     

Making Democracy Work in Bolivia

The struggle to build stable democracies in weak Latin American countries mirrors the Herculean task faced by fragile states in many other parts of the globe. Within Latin America, the fault lines between competing visions of the state, the economy, and national identity are particularly stark in Bolivia, which is divided along ethnic, geographical, and socioeconomic lines. That country's new president, Evo Morales, has the mandate that would permit him and his government to transform Bolivia in a way that would set a powerful example for countries throughout the region. The United States can and should support his efforts as long as they are designed to deepen and broaden the roles of democracy and a free-market economy in Bolivia.     

The Costs of Respecting Sovereignty

Respect for sovereignty can be an effective tool to manage relations between states, drawing boundaries of acceptable behavior. But there are also clear costs of respecting sovereignty. A foreign policy based on a principled defense of sovereignty can be, in fact, morally wrong, politically illegitimate, and strategically dangerous. This does not mean that sovereignty should be broken wantonly, but only that prudential judgment must be exercised to weigh the costs and benefits of respecting the sovereignty of a state. In the end, our security and our values, not the principle of sovereignty, should be the metric by which we should judge the necessity and legitimacy of U.S. actions.