As the United States shifts carefully away from the high level of militarization in its foreign policy that was a hallmark of the Bush administration, it becomes necessary to seek alternate strategies to protect our interests outside the country.

President Barack Obama's ambassador to the United Nations, Susan E. Rice, last week presented the U.N. piece of that alternate strategy at New York University's Center for Global Affairs and Center on International Cooperation in an important address titled, "A New Course in the World, a New Approach at the U.N."

The title of Ms. Rice's talk makes it clear that, yes, the Obama administration does intend to try to work more fruitfully with the United Nations than the basically U.N.-hating administration of President George W. Bush did, but also that the United States will expect much more from the United Nations itself as America begins to work more closely with it in tackling problems.

In looking at the speech, it is worth recalling that Ms. Rice was Mr. Obama's closest foreign affairs adviser during the 2008 presidential campaign. In fact, if the previous Bush administration secretary of state hadn't been an African-American woman named Rice, there is some reason to believe that Susan Rice would have been Mr. Obama's first secretary of state.

There is no reason to believe that she will, but if Secretary of State Hillary Clinton begins to flag or grow tired of the job, it would not be out of the question that Mr. Obama would turn to his ambassador to the United Nations to provide relief later in the game.

I make this point not to stimulate speculation about the future or capacity of Mrs. Clinton but simply to underline how important Mrs. Rice's presentation last week was in terms of Mr. Obama's foreign policy.

There is some evidence that Mr. Obama is interested in demilitarizing U.S. foreign policy, although it is mixed. The reason is partly that he feels that we had leaned too far forward in that regard under his predecessor. When Mr. Obama came into office, the United States had been involved in Mr. Bush's unnecessary Iraq war for nearly six years. The war in Afghanistan had been going on for more than seven years at that point. There were substantial numbers of U.S. troops in Germany, South Korea, Japan, Colombia, the Philippines and the Persian Gulf states.

The second reason why Mr. Obama feels that U.S. overseas policy should be demilitarized is that it is expensive, and, in pursuit of money to carry out his "home" policies, including stepped-up activity in education, health care, infrastructure modernization, measures to deal with climate change and, especially, providing stimulus to a reviving economy, one important place to find it is in America's bloated military costs. They now run above a half-trillion dollars a year.

The third reason is that he sees opportunities in the improved image of the United States in the world that seems so far to be an aspect of his election as president, and the positive response he has received so far to his stated approach to the world. Highlights of that element are his speech to the world's Muslims made in Cairo in June and the one he made to Africans in Accra, Ghana, in July.

The results of Mr. Obama's initial sorties into international diplomacy remain to be seen. The rest of the world is still at the "pretty is as pretty does" stage of looking at his opening words. For most of the world, especially in the Middle East, conviction will come only as a result of progress Mr. Obama makes toward achieving resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli snarl through a two-state solution.

Ms. Rice more or less put America's cards on the table in her New York speech. She stated that the United States was "rather dramatically changing our approach to the United Nations." The new order of the day would be "engagement."

She listed the problems that the United States and the United Nations faced: poorly guarded nuclear weapons and material, a universal economic meltdown, the nuclear ambitions of North Korea and Iran, al-Qaida and associates, genocides, cyber attacks, drug trafficking and other cross-border crime, pandemics and global warming. She offered U.S. leadership, full participation with friends and partners in cooperative approaches to the problems, and the United States accepting a larger share of the global burden.

With an eye toward the American audience, Ms. Rice pointed out that the world's problems represented a threat to America's security as well. She added, "In today's world, more than ever, America's interests and our values converge." In other words, the interests America pursues with globalization are increasingly identical to Americans' values and principles as a people.

Put another way, America's "doing well" becomes increasingly dependent on what used to be called its "doing good." I have to confess that is a stretch for me, but it could be true.

As usual with somewhat visionary speeches, their applicability to real life will come as the approach that Ms. Rice puts forward to the U.N. and the issues that it confronts -- with the new U.S. role in place -- is put into effect in practical situations.

The test will come shortly as the 64th General Assembly convenes next month. The U.S. role will be enhanced by the fact that it will be America's turn to be president of the U.N. Security Council in September. Another practical test will come in the form of a Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty review conference scheduled for later in the year. A major challenge will come from the fact that India, Israel and Pakistan, all three nuclear powers, have not signed the treaty. Ms. Rice said the United States would also start paying its U.N. dues on time. Good luck with Congress.

Ms. Rice's presentation sounded good and makes sense. It will now be interesting to see what happens.