# Posted 9:16 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

FOREIGN POLICY (THE MAGAZINE): When in DC, I always make a point of stopping in at the offices of Foreign Policy, the bimonthly journal of "global politics, economics, and ideas" sponsored by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. The staff there is friendly, hard-working and creative. Thus, it should come as no surprise that "FP" took home this year's National Magazine Award for General Excellence in the under-100k circulation category. (Although it's probably worth noting that The Nation somehow picked up a "Maggie" for its commentary and opinion columns.)

A sample of FP's high-quality work includes: the best article I've read on European anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, an in-depth look at the whether the Indian economic model is more sustainable than its Chinese counterpart, and a trenchant defense of free-trade from the myth of anti-globalization activists.

Admittedly, FP produces some duds, much like any publication. For example, its forum on post-war Iraq could've been lifted from the op-ed pages of a half-dozen newspapers. (Robert Kagan's contribution is definitely worth a look, however.)

In general, I'd say that FP does its best work when it explores in-depth those issues that newspapers can only treat anecdotally. Take the India vs. China article for example. Foreign correspondents are constantly producing spot reports that one country or the other. But they rarely compare the two. Moreover, the authors of the FP essay are well-versed in the expert literature on the subject, which journalists tend to ignore, thus reinforcing their selective perception and cultural predispositions.

In contrast, shorter essays in FP tend to provide a somewhat one-sided look at a given issue. Whereas newspaper op-eds do the same, you can generally rely on a given newspaper to run opposing opinion columns. Yet when FP runs opposing columns, it has to plan them months in advance so they aren't timely as those on the op-ed page.

On the other hand, FP needs to run short articles so that readers don't get turned off by the challenge of reading a 3,000 word article or nothing at all. Still, there are other kinds of short articles than can get readers hooked, such as FP's "Prime Numbers" and "Think Again" columns.

Finally, it's worth mentioning that FP takes a pretty firm multilateralist line on US foreign policy. This is both a product of its left-wing heritage as well as its more recent emphasis on globalization and the importance of transnational cooperation in a global era. While there's nothing wrong with taking that sort of position, it often results in FP running some less-than-insightful articles that reiterate the multilateralist conventional wisdom. (For balance, FP relies on Bob Kagan to function as the in-house neo-conservative, a responsibility he can't avoid because he's on the Carnegie payroll.)

So there you have it. FP is a damn good magazine. It isn't perfect, but it is definitely worth taking a look at everytime it hits the newsstand. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion