The challenge of producing a measured critical assessment of US foreign policy is posed most sharply with regard to the third world. That the US has behaved as an imperial power since 1945 is evident. But a critique that simply makes this point, runs a number of dangers:

  • It too easily encourages the view that the whole of world politics is in some way or another a product of US action. It does not try to locate the actions of the US government in a broader international context. In the critique of US policy with regard to Iraq, there is a tendency to suggest the US was responsible for the whole thing, from arming Saddam Hussein in the past, to having tricked him into invading Kuwait, or by refusing to let him avoid war. It was all the fault of the US.
  • Sole focus on US policy avoids an evaluation of the issue from within Third World countries - how forces within interact and how outside forces relate to them. If there is torture, oppression, and genocide in Third World states, this cannot be dealt with by saying that US policy in this context is 'dishonest'.

Facile critiques of US foreign policy have fed into Third World conspiracy theories. To say that the US is opposed to certain people, e.g. Palestinians, Iraqis, Muslims, or that US economic policies impoverishes those it affects, is to do no service to people living in the Third World. They need a guide, not on how 'evil' the US is, but how to deal with and get the best out of the situation, be they political or economic.

The US has greater strategic power than at any time since World War II. It is easy to overstate this, but wrong to ignore it. The question posed is how that influence can be put to better, rather than worse use, be this in North-South economic relations, or promoting democracy in the Middle East.

Those who have long sustained a critique of US foreign policy would be well advised to break their comfortable and absolute denunciations, and take the opportunities which present themselves. They may miss their chance.