[author name scrubbed], Specialist in International Relations ([phone number scrubbed]) [author name scrubbed], Specialist in National Defense ([phone number scrubbed]) In 2003, the 108th Congress is expected to face early challenges in foreign, defense and trade policy. As the global campaign against terrorism continues and a possible war with Iraq looms,Congress must complete action on the FY2003 appropriations bills and begin consideration of thebudget for FY2004. Congressional actions are likely to reflect the reality that the September 11,2001, terrorist attacks on the United States (hereafter referred to as 9/11) have, in some fundamentalways, changed America and the way it looks at the world. For many, 9/11 destroyed the illusion thatthe United States is invulnerable to attack from a determined enemy. The Administration andCongress are shifting U.S. policy and resources accordingly. The new priorities appear to include the following: First , in order to diminish U.S. vulnerabilities to attack that were exposed by 9/11, a whole new structure for "homeland security"is being built. Second , the United States and a coalition of countries are continuing a worldwidecampaign to destroy Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations that target U.S. citizens and facilities.While the initial phase of removing the Taliban government and destroying Al Qaeda bases inAfghanistan was successful, the effort to defeat the terrorists is by no means finished. Theintelligence community believes that Al Qaeda is regrouping in Pakistan and elsewhere. Many keyleaders have not been captured or killed and the organization is believed to be capable of mountingnew threats. Third , the United States is intensifying its efforts to remove what the Administrationand many in Congress consider the related threat of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in thehands of "rogue" governments. The concern is that they might be tempted to use such weaponsagainst the United States and its allies or to supply them to terrorist organizations. The U.S.showdown with Iraq is the main focus at present, but President Bush has identified North Korea andIran, as well as Iraq, as forming an "axis of evil." In October, 2002, North Korean leaders admittedthat they have an ongoing nuclear weapons program in violation of international agreements. Sincethen, they appear to be reactivating nuclear installations shut down under a 1994 agreement and haveexpelled International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors, threatening a full-scale international crisis. While the world rallied in support of U.S. actions after 9/11, the Administration and Congress must also contend with the fact that many countries are becoming increasingly wary and evenalarmed about how unconstrained U.S. military power might be used and the direction of U.S.policy. Some concern has been present ever since the United States became the sole superpower ina less predictable world, in contrast to the U.S.-Soviet balance of power which existed for half acentury. However, worries seem to have been heightened by the perceived U.S. shift of focus fromthe war against Al Qaeda to Iraq and the "axis of evil"and by the U.S. assertion of a doctrine ofpreemption. Other countries still seek and welcome U.S. leadership on global issues, but they increasingly complain that the United States is deciding and acting on its own and pursuing narrow self-interests. They see the Administration as consulting partners only after decisions are made, when theirassistance is needed, and without taking their views into account. Such complaints are even voicedby close U.S. allies in Europe and Asia who wonder whether the U.S. is downgrading long-standingalliances as it pursues short-term "coalitions of the willing." International grievances about U.S.unilateralism include a litany of complaints about specific U.S. policies, such as its opposition to theInternational Criminal Court, rejection of environmental agreements like the Kyoto Protocol, andits withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Some urge the Administration to seriouslyaddress allied differences on these issues; others see U.S. positions as correct and view some of theprotestations as hypocritical and self-centered. Congress faces other new issues and challenges that are in some ways related. As it deliberates and votes on accepting seven new members into NATO, the 108th Congress may reexamine the rolethat U.S. alliances play in the new circumstances. There is concern among some observers that ifU.S.-allied differences continue to mount, they could begin to erode the foundations of relations. Since the end of the Cold War, there are fewer clear and present dangers that absolutely necessitateformal alliances. Increasingly, voices can be heard in the United States, Europe, Japan, South Korea,and elsewhere that question the need for them. Some in other countries are beginning to see closeassociation with U.S. policy as making them more vulnerable to terrorist or WMD threats. On theU.S. side, some go-it-alone advocates see allies primarily as an impediment to U.S. freedom ofaction, while not contributing much to U.S. strength, especially given that the gap in their militarycapabilities and spending has continued to widen. At present these seem to be minority views. Others would probably still argue that U.S. policy should continue to define U.S. interests in termsof broader shared allied interests. There is concern that the current U.S. preponderance, if not usedin a multilateral way, might be difficult to sustain and could even hasten the emergence of competingpower centers or coalitions. Many would argue that strong alliances are still among the greatest U.S.assets and sources of long-term U.S. political, economic, and military strength. Congress faces issues concerning continuing U.S. assistance and engagement in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, and other recent conflict areas and may also need to prepare for a possiblelong-term and costly military presence in Iraq. This again raises for Congress the controversialquestion of "nation-building" and the appropriate U.S. role in post-conflict peacekeeping andreconstruction efforts. Many argue for leaving such efforts principally to other countries. At present,the United States is drawing down its forces in the Balkans. However, some experts argue that itwould not serve U.S. interests or the prospects for stability in these countries, if the U.S. were towithdraw completely. Congress will likely review U.S. foreign aid priorities after 9/11 and take up the President's large new foreign aid initiative, the Millennium Challenge Account, which would substantiallyincrease foreign assistance to developing countries with a record of good performance in key areas. The initiative may derive at least in part out of recognition that poverty makes countries breedinggrounds for terrorism and other ills, such as the spread of HIV/AIDS and other infectious diseases. It is believed to be a root cause of strife and instability in many parts of the world. At the same time, other challenges remain on the congressional agenda. These include oversight of U.S. foreign policy toward regions and countries of the world, including rising powerssuch as China and major countries undergoing significant transition such as Russia. Congress islikely to continue to focus considerable attention and resources to fighting HIV/AIDS and othercommunicable diseases, especially in Africa and Asia. Transnational problems such as internationalcrime, drugs, environmental problems, and human rights concerns remain important congressionalconcerns. The global economy has profoundly changed international relations and the ability of governments to control developments even within national borders. International developmentsimpact on the domestic policy as never before. The benefits of globalization are considered farreaching, spurring world productivity, economic growth, and access to information. Along with thebenefits come significant new challenges that may require further congressional attention.Globalization brings economic dislocations in some areas. Financial uncertainties threaten differentregions. In the trade area, the 108th Congress will likely face decisions on approving one or morefree trade agreements and monitoring the negotiations on others which the Bush Administration hasinitiated or proposed. The negotiations include bilateral, regional, and multilateral trade liberalizingagreements. Many believe that strong U.S. leadership in a multilateral framework will be necessary to find cooperative solutions to world problems. Others remain suspicious of international organizations andreluctant to enter into agreements that they believe would cede a degree of U.S. sovereignty to them. The 108th Congress will confront underlying ambiguity, controversy, and uncertainty regarding the proper directions and priorities for U.S. defense policy when it opens in early 2003-a hugechange from the degree of underlying consensus which marked the opening of the 107th Congressin early 2001. Before the attacks of 9/11, U.S. strategic priorities and military contingency planningwere centered almost exclusively around preparation for possible hostilities with threateningnation-states. Since 9/11, the Department of Defense (DOD) has been waging a war of episodicintensity against active terrorist and terrorist-related forces throughout the world; since early 2002,it has been preparing for a war against Iraq, if diplomatic efforts fail to eliminate any weapons ofmass destruction it may possess. At the same time, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld has been vigorously propounding the underlying assumptions of the technology-driven "Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA)," and,accordingly, emphasizing lightness, mobility, technological sophistication, and hardware overfirepower, sustainability, size of the force, and quantity of weapons and units. He has done this overvarying degrees of doubt and opposition from within and without the military services and theirsenior uniformed leadership, the Congress, and nongovernmental commentators and analysts ondefense issues.