There is a new periodical out now dealing with U.S. foreign policy and America’s place in the world, The American Interest. Vol. 1, No. 1 is out this week; I purchased my first copy today. It is led by such intellectual luminaries as Francis Fukuyama, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Samuel Huntington, among others. Up until now I have mainly relied on Foreign Affairs and The National Interest for in-depth analysis of international issues (along with papers printed out from various think tanks’ websites and books). Given my backlog of purchased but mostly unread periodicals within this genre, I’ll now have to decide if I can fit this new periodical into my reading schedule.

With so few Americans willing to buy and read books and periodicals dealing with international affairs, one might ask whether or not the market can bear another serious foreign affairs periodical. The two mentioned above that I read (or try to read) are just two of the more prominent ones; there are others out there.

In any case, The American Interest (TAI) is the result of a schism at The National Interest (TNI), a split that is hinted at but not discussed in the editor’s notes of the most recent editions of both periodicals. As I understand it, TNI was historically associated with more Wilsonian views, with both Republicans and Democrats who favored using U.S. foreign policy to promote democracy globally more influential. In recent years, however, many of its editors have come from the Nixon Center and have had more of a Kissingerian/Realist/Realpolitik point of view. Since Realpolitik is often at conflict with the views of both Neo-conservatives and Democrats such as Brzezinski and Joseph Lieberman, they bolted, and formed TAI. (The New York Times had an article on this several weeks ago; you have to pay for it through the archives.)

Some of the fault lines are clear from the most recent TNI editorial by Nikolas Gvosdez and Dimitri K. Simes, titled “Rejecting Russia?” The authors criticize the Bush Administration on precisely those issues where it is most supported by Democrats and Neoconservative Republicans – criticism of Russia and its internal politics, aggressive spread of U.S. influence in Central Asia in a manner confrontational to Russian interests, and the promotion of democracy worldwide at the expense of national security. Gvosdev and Simes freely agree that Russia’s behavior has often justified criticism, but make the argument that Russia’s intelligence services – probably its only effective government institution – are valuable assets in fighting Islamic terrorism and that certain U.S. actions have made Russian belligerance worse. They emphasize the importance of securing U.S. borders against illegal immigration, improving the intelligence services, fighting WMD proliferation and decreasing dependence on foreign oil, with the promotion of democracy as valid but secondary.

The fault lines are not always clear. One of my favorite realist writers, Robert D. Kaplan, has joined TAI. So has Sam Huntington, who although not usually labelled a realist for all practical purposes has been one. TAI’s first edition has Condoleezza Rice on the front cover trumpeting its interview with her, yet Rice, a protegee of Brent Scowcroft, himself a protegee of Kissinger, was considered a realist prior to 2001. The front cover emphasizes an article by Joe Lieberman, as if to say, “Hey, this is for Democrats, too.” Fukuyama, a writer I have come to view as having very muddled thinking, is the chair, but I’ll try not to hold that against them.

So I don’t know if I’ll read it on a regular basis, but I do suggest that you buy at least one copy and check it out.

Contributed by Kirk H. Sowell of Window on the Arab World, and More!