The absence of a coherent U.S. foreign policy agendaexcept in the expansion of exports and investments to promising new marketsleaves U.S. policy decisions at the mercy of old and new prejudices, while ad hoc response to crises becomes more the norm than the exception.
For the cold war generation, U.S. foreign policy toward the Asia/Pacific region was simple, straightforward, and secure.
Expansion of the NATO military alliance is proceeding rapidly despite an overwhelming lack of public or congressional debate.
U.S.-Nicaraguan relations have been rocky ever since the end of the U.S.-sponsored war against the Sandinista government.
In the immigration debate, free marketers square off against cultural conservatives on the right side of the political spectrum; while on the left, civil rights and ethnic advocacy groups oppose environmentalists and job protectionists.
In the rush to pass tough spending cuts, Congress and the Clinton administration are avoiding making an obvious choice: welfare over warfare.
Washingtons increasing focus on promoting international investment and trade is evident in the smorgasbord of assistance offered to U.S. exporters.
After the cold war, Albania became a country of strategic importance to the United States.
A fundamental challenge facing policymakers and activists is how to set and enforce rules to protect workers from repression, exploitation, and danger.
The international community, which failed to act when the crisis began, now faces a major challenge in Burundi and, more widely, in Central Africa.