Turning to the third and final substantive policy domain affecting the conduct of U.S. foreign policy, this chapter considers the transnational policy problems that exist outside the security and economic policy domains of U.S. foreign policy, including threats to the global commons, illegal immigration, weapons proliferation, and restrictions on human rights and democratic freedoms. Global public goods—resources that affect people regardless of country of origin—are at the forefront of U.S. foreign policy making. Global policies involving U.S. interests center on environmental, energy, arms transfers, and human rights issues. The United States faces several difficulties in making transnational policy, such as domestic obstacles in Congress and self-interest motives that make the United States appear to be a free rider in some global policies. The United States, however, is the key figure in these global policies as it is the leading polluter, arms supplier, and democratization promoter in the world.

A number of issues present transnational policy problems for the country. Despite the emergence of a grassroots environmental protection movement in the 1960s and 1970s, the United States often resists international solutions for addressing climate change and other issues facing the global commons, such as the Kyoto Protocol. Domestic economic concerns loom in this policy area, particularly given that the manufacturing sector of the U.S. economy (already decimated since the last recession) might have to bear further hardship. Energy policies pose similar difficulties for the United States, which continues to consume more oil than any other country. Oil consumption is linked to security and economic policy because of arrangements for obtaining oil from such producers as Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, as well as domestic concerns over the environmental impact of “fracking” and other methods of extracting resources for energy production.

Americans derive part of their national identity from conceptions of its history as a “melting pot,” yet immigration remains a highly divisive issue in American domestic politics. A classic intermestic issue, the U.S. is home to the largest share of the world’s immigrants but struggles to ensure the protection of basic human rights for workers and their families. The threat of global terrorism adds another dimension to an already complex issue.

Although concerns over nuclear weapons and mutually assured destruction have diminished, worries about small and deadly weapons transfers are on the rise as these transactions are largely unregulated. Most arms transfers go to less-developed countries, which often have weak, repressive, and unstable governing bodies. The United States is the leading arms exporter and continues to capture more of this market fueled by pressure from multinational corporations. Concerns in this growing policy area include civil wars, backfire against the United States and its allies, and rewarding repressive governments.

The paradox of U.S. foreign policy is exemplified by global human rights. Although the U.S. government champions political and civil freedoms in its rhetoric, actual policies often have come with strings attached or not at all. Democratization or reform of political institutions through state- and nation-building is a complex process with which the United States has had mixed success. Iraq is one example of this paradox: as the United States has attempted to build an effective state, it is has been accused of human rights abuses against Iraqis. U.S. opposition to the International Criminal Court (ICC) is another example of this paradoxical behavior. The ICC represents global jurisprudence to ensure political freedom and human rights, which is similar to the rationale for U.S. courts of justice. However, the United States declined to participate in the ICC based on concerns that the country’s global primacy would make it a target for charges of war crimes and foreign aggression while undermining the constitutional jurisdiction of the Supreme Court . The ICC is just one example of an institution that poses a difficult challenge for the United States regarding leadership and constraint in foreign policy. Indeed, the United States must grapple with the deep seated global uncertainty about the legitimacy of its continued primacy. The world wonders whether since the United States is facing an unprecedented national debt, chronic trade deficits, and the tactical limitations of its military power in the face of unconventional threats and low-intensity wars, Americans ought not to take for granted their everyday life style and surroundings.

Whether the United States overcomes the paradox of its own world power is the critical question of the twenty-first century. National success in this complex foreign policy domain will require skillful management of a rocky, yet interconnected world order that is of its own making.