If the 20th century was the ?American Century,? what will we call the 21st? This question could very well be decided by our next president, especially if he or she is in office for more than one term.

The end of the Cold War and the attacks of Sept. 11 have posed the U.S. with some very difficult questions concerning its role in the world. How is diplomatic power distributed in the world today? Why does it force nations into conflict? Why is there a trend toward international consensus? How and for what purpose should we maintain and expand our nation?s power and influence in this uncertain world?

The two major political parties of this nation have very different answers to these questions. Fortunately, issues like the Iraq war, Iran, Pakistan and the North American Free Trade Agreement have been frequently addressed in the current election cycle. Unfortunately, many issues concerning U.S. foreign policy remain largely ignored.

In Russia and China, the U.S. has two powerful conventional competitors or, at worst, two powerful conventional enemies. How will we challenge any expansionist tendencies of these nations? Should we actively condemn their records on human rights, or should we ignore them in the interest of progressing on issues in which there is agreement? Illegal separatism or lawful self-determination?

In Kosovo, Chechnya, Taiwan and Tibet what stands should we take? What to do with our proxy disagreements in Darfur, in Eastern Europe, with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, the Balkans, the Middle East and Central, South, East and Southeast Asia? Moreover, what of our economic and financial relationships in trade, in resource competition, and in local, state, and federal government debt?

We need to ask: Which international organizations are obsolete and in need of reform, and which ones are working or just in need of minor tweaking to be more useful to our interests? The United Nations continues to be something the U.S. can use when it agrees with the organization’s conclusions and ignore when it doesn’t. Is this the U.N. the U.S. desires in the 21st century? Furthermore, what role should the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the World Trade Organization, the North American Free Trade Agreement, the Group of Eight and others play?

We must also address relations with the developed world and especially Europe. I was distressed with the amount of serious Europe-bashing in the last few years by fellow Americans. To give one example, while French and Polish soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq, respectively, were dying for our side, the bashing often got to extremely inappropriate levels.

In general, there is so much in which the United States, Japan, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Europe agree ? such as nuclear proliferation, Islamic extremism, confronting Russia, trade and the environment ? that it is foolish for the U.S. and other developed nations to break apart into separate competing blocs. How will the nominees work with these nations to forward our interests?

And when should the U.S. step in for humanitarian intervention? Is it a moral obligation or not? When is it appropriate to use military force to stop genocide or extreme oppression? Should it require U.N. approval or just unilateral action when the U.N. is impotent? Is there a litmus test? Rwanda, Haiti, Darfur, Somalia, the Congo, Kosovo ? yes or no? When a strong conventional and nuclear power becomes the enemy of such an intervention ? such as Tibetans or Chinese Muslims in Xinjiang ? should we draw a line of realism and shut up?

What about poverty and America?s role in combating it in Africa, Asia and Latin America? Grants, direct aid, indirect aid, conditional aid or trade agreements? How will rising food prices enter into the equation? Should we focus on the urban poor instead of the rural poor? Is it possible to do both?

Add these questions to the already daunting list of our domestic problems, and there is an enormous amount on the plate of the next U.S. presidential administration. The reason this is such an important election is that unless we choose a majority or even a super-majority of the right answers to these questions, the 21st century may be the beginning of America?s decline.

Optimism forces us to believe otherwise, however, for if we do make more right choices than not, the 21st century may turn out to be not the beginning of our fall but the continuation of our rise.

David Lapidus ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in economics and mathematics.