Contenu du sommaire : La Chine contre l'Amérique ?

American Power and the Struggle against Terrorism
The shift from a traditional realist foreign policy to a Wilsonian idealist one in the aftermath of 9/11 has brought about a significant deterioration of America's “soft power”. Power is the ability to influence others toward a desired outcome, not a fixed absolute granted by certain resources. A one-dimensional thinking that concentrates only on American military capacity is detrimental to the struggle against transnational terrorism.

A Fresh Start or Plus Ça Change? Transatlantic Security Relations in the Second Bush Term
The atmospherics and tone of transatlantic discourse have improved markedly in recent months. However, sustaining effective transatlantic security cooperation over the next decade will require narrowing lingering Europe-American differences over threat perceptions, strategy, and military priorities. If there is sufficient commonality of assessments and interests, Washington will remain reluctant to treat Europe as a full partner until it demonstrates a willingness to take on additional burdens of managing global security.

Mirror or Window ? Visions of America determine views of China
American views of the People's Republic of China (PRC) reflect differing visions of American national identity. Hence, debates within the U.S. about the nature of the PRC and prescriptions for America's “China policy” result less from disagreements about evidence than from disputes about interpretation and contestation about the preferred role for the U.S. in international affairs.

Liberalism and Militarism in the US from the Origins to the Post-Industrial Age
The three widely admitted sources of power - economic, military and cultural - have mutually influenced each other in the vibrant context of American liberalism. The nature of the state has also played a significant role, especially recently with the rise of the post-modern “virtual state”. So, the nature of American defense must be also understood by analyzing how today's American state has mobilized and integrated the three sources of power, all in the context of a historic liberalism that favours the exaltation of trade and business enterprise over military pursuits in the name of raison d'État.

The reelection of George W. Bush in 2004 shows that the 2000 presidential election debacle seems now quite distant. However, many unsolved problems remain this second time around, and it is doubtful that the elections of 2008 will dissipate a number of pending and troubling complex legal issues that need to be better dealt with. Although neither states legislatures nor the federal Congress admit to the urgency of electoral reform as the key to better democracy, it is a conclusion that most commentators seem to be drawing from the experience of 2000 and 2004.

Reaganites v. Neo-Reaganites
Although most conservatives have supported the preventive doctrine underlying the Bush policy, the neoconservatrice inspiration that guides it is at odds with a truly conservative foreign policy. Such a policy combines a belief in the power of ideals with a clear-eyed understanding of reality and the limits it sets on action. Reagan knew the difference between a conservative foreign policy and Wilsonian interventionism. Do his soi-disant heirs know it too?

Competing Models in the Proposed European Constitution
Comparing the EU's draft Constitution with the American Constitution is tempting for an American judge. It leads specifically to point out to the competing models in the draft Constitution. The nature of the project, between a treaty and a constitution, and its ultimate goal, between a federation and a confederation, and between a common market and a social democracy, are not clear-cut, thus leaving much leeway to interpreters and to the political and institutional practice.

Parameters for Partnership: Taking a New Look at the US-Mexico Relationship
The US-Mexico relationship has lost steam. A new partnership now needs new parameters, with a bold vision of the future along the lines of the Nafta when it was first put forward. Only a set of ambitious steps will help resolve common issues, particularly Mexican emigration to the US. We need to promote the emergence of a North American homeland, discuss the common defense of the region, and create a “Made in North America” label that will be the result of freer movement of goods, services and people within North America, and a signal of quality and competitiveness.