The terrorist attacks stirred every possible emotion in Americans, from a wrenching sense of loss to a fear of future attacks and anger toward the perpetrators. The attacks also stimulated an important national debate about why some foreigners could hate the United States so much as to wantonly kill its people, most of whom (outside the Pentagon target) had no involvement in the affairs of state. The debate has led to a wide array of proposals on how to improve America's homeland defense and the ability of our intelligence agencies to warn us of additional threats. In academic circles, a plethora of conference papers, books, and articles related to the attacks have contributed to the goal of helping Americans and their leaders consider the options as we chart a course through this dangerous era of global terrorism.

In that spirit, PS presents a symposium on American foreign policy in the aftermath of September 11th. The participants wrote the four articles that follow during the months of May through mid-September of 2002. Each article examines some aspect of America's relations with the rest of the world. In a departure from our normal, empirically based writing for political science journals, we use the opportunity of this forum to present a more normative overview of foreign policy. Kiki Caruson and I open the symposium with a broad analysis of “The Seven Sins of American Foreign Policy”—shortcomings that have detracted from the ability of the United States to maintain the high standing in the world that it enjoyed in the years immediately following the Second World War. Ignorance about foreign lands, a lack of empathy for poor nations, isolationist instincts, unilateralism, a tendency toward precipitate military intervention, an air of presidential imperialism inside the Beltway, and displays of national arrogance—here are the fault lines we examine.

In the next selection, entitled “Leadership at Risk: The Perils of Unilateralism,” Ralph G. Carter observes that, despite our tragic losses on 9/11, the United States has often been the object less of sympathy than criticism around the world—from friends as well as adversaries. As the title indicates, he attributes this decline in America's popularity to U.S. unilateralist policies (one of the seven sins of the first selection), such as the rejection of the Ottawa Convention banning land mines and, more recently, the treaty establishing an International Criminal Court. Carter underscores the costs involved in pursuing foreign policy objectives without a proper respect for other nations, and he argues that the “way to avoid these costs is for the United States to pursue its foreign policy goals in a multilateral fashion wherever possible.” Conceding this approach “will not always be politically easy,” he makes a compelling case that the goal of a safer world demands the building of partnerships abroad.

The third article is written by Glenn Hastadt and entitled, “Definitions of Responsibility and American Foreign Policy.” Hastadt explores the possibilities of a responsibility-based aproach to the study and practice of foreign policy. Central to the analysis is how one responds to the questions: what responsibility does America have to other states? And to the global community? He provides insights into five core responses to these questions that reveal important underlying philosophical perspectives on how best to pursue foreign policy objectives. He suggests that groups enjoying a shared or closely similar sense of global responsibility will have a greater chance of binding into a strong international coalition.

Steven Hook, the author of the final piece, examines “Domestic Obstacles to International Affairs: The State Department Under Fire.” His chief concern is the marginal status of the Department of State today. This institution, once the centerpiece of American foreign policy, has been “routinely neglected in each of its primary areas of responsibility,” including, Hook writes, “the development and articulation of foreign policy; the conduct of private and public diplomacy; and the transfer of foreign assistance.” He sees an increasing tendency for the White House to dominate foreign policy, especially with respect to military and economic matters. Even on the day-to-day issues of diplomatic relations and the administration of non-military programs, the State Department is left without sufficient resources to carry out its responsibilities.

In this critical time of introspection and planning for the future, we hope the symposium adds to the mix of ideas before the nation, as all of us seek ways to improve America's relations with the rest of the world and enhance the prospects for global peace and prosperity.