Is a Neo-Isolationist America in the Cards? : House plan threatens tradition of bipartisan foreign policy

For half a century, under both Democratic and Republican administrations, America’s military and political ties with Western Europe have been the cornerstone of its foreign policy. Those ties have served as the foundation for European security and have been instrumental in helping to keep the peace on a continent where twice in this century U.S. armed forces did battle to repel aggression and restore freedom.

The Atlantic alliance has by no means been without tensions and troubles over its long history; disagreements between the United States and its European friends over Bosnia and, more fundamentally, over whether and how to expand NATO membership are only the most recent evidence of periodic strains. But it has been remarkably effective in safeguarding the security of its member states and--another of its essential if little-remembered reasons for being--in promoting and strengthening free institutions. Informed opinion on both sides of the ocean vigorously supports the continuation of this partnership under American leadership.

European leaders, however, indicate they are increasingly troubled about the strength and reliability of that leadership. Those concerns were first raised as a result of President Clinton’s sometimes casual-seeming, inconsistent and even indifferent approach to the hard demands of foreign policy. They have lately grown more urgent as a consequence of the House’s enactment of the so-called National Security Revitalization Act. This measure, even in its modified version, seems deliberately aimed at undercutting legitimate and necessary presidential authority and--by attacking U.S. endorsement of U.N. peacekeeping missions--hobbling and even eliminating American support for and participation in some vital international undertakings. House Republicans were strong for this legislation, though wiser heads in the Republican Party--among them former Secretaries of State Henry A. Kissinger and James A. Baker III--join with Secretary of State Warren Christopher and other Democrats in strongly supporting continuing American engagement with the world.

The more reflective and mature Senate probably will refuse to accept the House’s cramped and ill-informed vision of what America’s role in the world should be. Should things turn out otherwise, a well-directed presidential veto impends and in all likelihood would be upheld. Meanwhile, though, the narrow and restrictive view demonstrated in the House vote remains.

Concerned Europeans worry about an emerging American neo-isolationism. So do those many Americans--Republicans, Democrats and independents alike--who know from history the fearful toll this country and the world would confront should the United States abandon its leadership role.

Maybe, in the end, the House vote and the neo-isolationist sentiments it implies will prove to be something of a blessing in disguise. Maybe it will force both Americans who believe in their country’s indispensable global role and Europeans who worry about a retreat from that commitment to think anew about their relationship and the policies underlying it. Peoples on both sides of the Atlantic have perhaps come to take that alliance and its purposes too much for granted. Some hard, constructive and persuasive public rethinking about what those ties involve would benefit both this country and its European allies.