We are at a major turning point in the evolution of world affairs. The Cold War isn’t our guiding light any more. Nor, truthfully, is Sept. 11 – though it was an extraordinary wake up call. We are now awake, and we need to consider the implications of being the most powerful nation in an unfair and uneven world where cooperation and confrontation don’t mix easily but are both essential elements of the foreign policy mix.

For many years U.S. foreign policy has concentrated on seeking advantages for ourselves and our allies, often at the expense of others. In military terms these advantages have been demonstrated through a defense budget that outstrips all other nations and benefits the economy in every congressional district. Yet, as the nature of our adversaries changes, the cost benefit of much of this spending is coming under question.

Our need to keep ahead of others is also reflected in economic terms, both as regards the terms of trade that emerge from the endless rounds of trade talks (where the United States drives hard bargains) and in the commercial arrangements that drive jobs offshore for corporate benefit but at the expense of working people in this country. But in addition to problems inherent in military and economic policy, other problems are arising from the pace of modern life, with its easy travel and communications. These include international crime, and health and environmental issues, not to mention inter-national terrorism.

How does America want the world to evolve, and what are our responsibilities to ourselves and our neighbors on this small planet? How do we seek a proper balance between shorter and longer-term interests or between domestic and international concerns? The Camden Conference for 2004, “U.S. Foreign Policy for the 21st Century: Seeking a Balance?,” will attempt to answer these questions.

Finding our way and pressing our case was easier when we had only other governments to deal with. But now there are terrorist organizations and a range of other actors, including corporations and non-governmental organizations all putting pressure on policy makers. How will we balance conflicting demands in the 21st century?

The Camden Conference’s keynote speaker, Robert Kaplan, writing in The Atlantic Monthly, asks, as a practical matter, how should we operate to manage an unruly world? He recalls what he calls certain uncomfortable classical truths from Thucydides: Morality and patriotism can best be obtained through self interest; conflict is inherent in the human condition; and the law of nature precludes a republic of perfect virtue and demands instead a balance of forces among men and groups. Yet he thinks that the American elite, by contrast, “has come to believe that the solution for humanity is to adopt a few universally applicable remedies, such as democracy, respect for minority rights and free-market capitalism … [and has] trouble dealing with such facts as national characteristics ingrained by historical and geographic circumstance, and violence for its own sake.”

Kaplan suggests, in the July-August 2003 Atlantic Monthly, that we must have a sense that our supremacy is bent toward a purpose and not simply an end in itself. In many ways the few decades immediately ahead will be the trickiest ones that our policy-makers have ever faced. For a limited period, according to Kaplan, the United States has the power to write the terms for international society, in hopes that when the country’s imperial hour has passed, new international institutions and stable regional powers will have begun to flourish, creating a kind of civil society for the world. The historian E.H. Carr once observed “every approach in the past to a world society has been the product of the ascendancy of a single power.” Such ascendancy allows all manner of worldwide connections – economic, cultural, and institutional – to be made in a context or order and stability. There will be nothing approaching a true world government, but we may be able to nurture a loose set of global arrangements that have arisen organically among responsible and like-minded states.

These views may contrast with those of other Camden Conference speakers who have a sense that cooperative arrangements with other countries are already in place, notwithstanding the weakness of the United Nations, whose power base, arguably, has not reflected changing global realities.

As the cover of Joseph Nye’s book “The Paradox of American Power” points out, “Not since Rome has any nation had so much economic, cultural and military power, but that power does not allow us to solve global problems like terrorism, environmental degradation and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction without involving other nations. … Now more than ever, as technology spreads and non-governmental organizations ranging from transnational corporations to terrorists increase their power, American leadership must reorient itself toward the global community. … Military and economic power alone cannot ensure success and at times may undermine rather than enhance our objectives.”

Nye argues convincingly that in the new century the United States will rely less on traditional measures of power and more on the power that derives from the appeal of our culture, values and institutions – what he calls our “soft power.”

On Saturday and Sunday, qualified and well-known speakers will explore these questions in greater detail, first from a global perspective, and then with a regional emphasis. Ambassador Robert Oakley (the Institute for National Strategic Studies, National Defense University) will consider how we should deal with security matters, including the role of national and international forces, and the types of training required to attain both our military objectives and a sustainable peace. Debora Spar (the Harvard Business School) will review the role of corporate power, internationally.

What responsibilities do corporations, governments, non-governmental organizations and the media have in the realm of economic policy, and who can monitor these responsibilities? Should government support corporate interests, or is it the other way round? In short, what are the issues we should be concerned about as responsible citizens, and how can we be better informed? Frederick Barton of The Center for Strategic and International Studies will put a human face on U.S. policy imperatives, drawing on his experiences in Haiti, Bosnia, Angola and most recently Iraq, where he co-authored a report on post-conflict reconstruction.

In a session on Europe Charles Kupchan (Georgetown University and the Council on Foreign Relations) and Gianni Riotta, a U.S. correspondent for Corriere della Sera, will identify and comment on long term U.S. interests in an increasingly complex and changing region. Next Judith Yaphe (the Institute for National Strategic Studies, National Defense University) and Murhaf Jouejati (originally from Syria, now at George Washington University) will exchange views on the Middle East, with particular reference to prospects for eventual peace, stability and reform in a region currently in turmoil. Lastly, Don Oberdorfer of the School of International Studies at Johns Hopkins University will speak on China, Japan, the two Koreas and India, noting the intricacies of the balance of power and the absence of alliance systems in the region.

Before the close of the conference, members of the Maine congressional delegation will comment on their perceptions and roles in making U.S. foreign policy. The conference will wrap up with a traditional open period of discussion, question and answer, involving all our speakers, the audience, and our moderator, Rushworth Kidder, president of the Institute for Global Ethics.

Paul Diamond retired from the United Nations after 30 years of service in a number of positions including secretary of the General Assembly’s Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions and Director of Accounting. He currently serves on the Board of the Midcoast Foreign Policy Forum and has chaired the Camden Conference Program Committee.