Bridging the foreign policy divide

Posted By Prerna Mankad Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 5:15 PM Share

Paul J. Richards/AFP

It's not just the U.S. Congress and the White House that are at loggerheads these days. The United States faces gaping divisions between "conservatives" and "progressives" on issues ranging from counterterrorism to the effectiveness of foreign aid. Two recent initiatives swim against the partisan tide by seeking consensus amid the rancor.

The first, a new think tank headed by former U.S. Senators from both sides of the aisle, was hailed by the Washington Post's typically understated David Broder as "a good thing for the country."

The second, a creative project of The Stanley Foundation, takes a different approach. The foundation asks top experts of perpendicular ideological stripes to put aside their differences and address serious international issues together. Each paper in the resulting series, "Bridging the Foreign Policy Divide," is structured as a dialogue in which these opposing voices try explicitly to find common ground.

The first two papers, on the purpose of the United Nations and America's detention of suspects in the "war" on terror, have already been published. So what should the role of the United Nations be? Does America really benefit from the system? Is it justifiable for terror suspects to be detained indefinitely? The papers offer a range of perspectives and, refreshingly, leave it up to readers to form their own opinions while still offering constructive policy advice. It will be interesting to see what Ivo Daalder and Robert Kagan will offer on America's use of force, and how Francis Fukuyama and Michael McFaul will tackle the issue of promoting democracy in upcoming papers.

EXPLORE:HUMAN RIGHTS, TERRORISM, U.S. FOREIGN POLICY, UNITED NATIONS

Passport, FP’s flagship blog, brings you news and hidden angles on the biggest stories of the day, as well as insights and under-the-radar gems from around the world.