Neo-Rawlsian Grand Strategy: The Original Position and Foreign Policy

Back in August, when I was caught up in the Russo-Georgian fracas, I made some points about U.S Grand Strategy:

"In 1789, George Washington refused a crown and on January 20, 2001, George W. Bush had an opportunity to do something similar.It was the peak of American dominance in the world, the height of the Pax Americana and the peak of our "unilateral moment."

The younger Bush could have accepted his presidency and dedicated it all to preserving the rules and norms of the U.S.-developed international system by devolving influence to international institutions and the larger community of modern liberal states.Britain, France, Rome and Athens each stood upon this precipice at the peak of their power, but perhaps only one (if any) actually succeeded in peacefully passing the mantle of civilization.

So whither America in 2001? March 2003 provides a fairly candid answer.

The Pax Americana must end. The international system, founded on the ideas of capitalism and democracy, need not. One can only hope there is time still for the next American president to realize this." -- A.S Sieff, "One For All" Aug. 2008

Well it turns out folks who get paid to write, teach and research think much along the same lines (and they read Rawls too):

"The 'unipolar moment' will eventually pass. U.S. dominance will eventually end. U.S. grand strategy, accordingly, should be driven by one key question: What kind of international order would the United States like to see in place when it is less powerful?

This might be called the neo-Rawlsian question of the current era. The political philosopher John Rawls argued that political institutions should be conceived behind a "veil of ignorance" -- that is, the architects should design institutions as if they do not know precisely where they will be within a socioeconomic system.

The result would be a system that safeguards a person's interests regardless of whether he is rich or poor, weak or strong. The United States needs to take that approach to its leadership of the international order today. It must put in place institutions and fortify rules that will safeguard its interests regardless of where exactly in the hierarchy it is or how exactly power is distributed in 10, 50, or 100 years." --G. John Ikenberry, Foreign Affairs 2008