 |
|
|
 |
|
|||
|
Thinking Anew: Security Priorities for the Next Administration Click here for a pdf version of the event summary On December 3, 2008, The George Washington University’s Homeland Security Policy Institute (HSPI) hosted a panel discussion titled “International Strategy: Re-Invigorating Our Role in the World.” This event, the third in HSPI’s Presidential Transition Roundtable Series: “Thinking Anew: Security Priorities for the Next Administration,” featured presentations by leading experts: Kristin Lord, Fellow, Saban Center for Middle East Policy, The Brookings Institution; Karin von Hippel, Codirector, Post-Conflict Reconstruction Project, Center for Strategic and International Studies; as well as comments by: David Meltzer, Senior Vice President, International Services, American Red Cross; and Jonah Czerwinski, Senior Fellow, Homeland Security, IBM Global Leadership Initiative.
Von Hippel, in turn, emphasized the challenge of improving the way civilian governments, military forces, NGOs and international organizations alike integrate
During the question and answer session, a question was raised concerning specific goals of U.S. public diplomacy within larger foreign policy objectives. Lord responded with several suggestions under the theme that the U.S. can and should legitimately try “to inform and advocate for specific policies overseas.” Her suggestions included “promoting values that are not exclusive to the United States, such as disgust of suicide bombings and promoting free trade,” helping people overseas better understand America, and incorporating a public diplomacy dimension into all U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives. In response, von Hippel noted that she is “more concerned with America understanding other cultures better, and less concerned with foreigners understanding Americans.” View Event Resource Page For more information, see the HSPI Presidential Transition Task Force website. |
To meet the international security challenges of the twenty-first century, Lord discussed the need for a more robust American public diplomacy strategy, structure and operations, calling U.S. public diplomacy efforts “a multi-disciplinary challenge that needs a multi-disciplinary response.” Globalization and other international changes have made strong public diplomacy “more important than ever” in the face of transnational threats such as terrorism, climate change and trafficking of goods and people that cannot be solved by individual nations alone. Public diplomacy must be an essential non-kinetic resource in an era where many security threats cannot be confronted by military force alone, and where use of such force may actually strengthen adversaries. In the current “information tempest,” America is required to communicate more effectively in a variety of new ways. U.S. public diplomacy must be nimble in an era where winning public support is “increasingly more important.” Among her recomm
endations towards that effort, Lord proposed “USA World Trust” a new non-profit organization to complement current U.S. public diplomacy efforts. With a goal of bringing “together new voices and talent,” Lord sees the World Trust as a dynamic agency that could tap into existing expertise and “translate it into useful formats for public diplomacy professionals” in the field. The new organization would also work with the private and non-governmental sector, provide grants and experiment with new media technology, all while bringing together U.S. government, private and foreign “media professionals in a way that is not currently possible.”
their foreign operations work in difficult environments such as Afghanistan, the Darfur region of Sudan, post-war Lebanon and throughout United Nations peacekeeping operations. It is vitally important to “translate learning” accomplished in Iraq on issues such as stabilization, nation building and democratization, for example, to existing civilian and military missions in Afghanistan. Von Hippel called current efforts “disappointing.” In Afghanistan in particular, von Hippel noted a “lack of integrated strategies on the ground” between the humanitarian, diplomatic and security communities; between bi-lateral relationships and multi-lateral institutions; and between various U.S. government agencies themselves. This required integration should focus on “forging consensus and figuring our priorities,” while attempting to bring together as many interested actors as possible to find solution sets to ongoing security and humanitarian issues. 
In offering comment on the presentations, Meltzer “110 percent” endorsed the strategy of focusing public diplomacy on a variety of concerns to American interests rather than just counterterrorism. While agreeing on the need for more vigorous American public diplomacy capabilities, he questioned whether the stated suggestion of the State Department coordinating an interagency strategy is viable considering the more than 24 different agencies involved in foreign assistance. Meltzer also offered that he is “often struck” at how the defense industry—governmental and private—is “embracing disaster assistance missions and humanitarianism,” and believes these new arenas further their strategic objectives. He noted that the defense industry’s work in the humanitarian field “undermines” the NGO community’s “ability to act as neutral actors and get our work done.” Meltzer did, however, affirm HSPI director and discussion moderator Frank Cilluffo’s point that NGOs operating in dangerous environments such as Afghanistan or Somalia often must rely on militaries for protection, calling it an option of “last resort.”
For his part, Czerwinski noted the positive role private industry has and can continue to play in public diplomacy. We need stable populations that view the U.S. as a stable partner; therefore, the private sector must serve as “more than a vendor for public diplomacy” in order to help create global partnerships. In many strategic areas of the world such as the Middle East, the private sector is perceived as being “much more legitimate” than the U.S. government, and has more resources at its disposal. Looking toward the future, Czerwinski suggested that much could be gained in terms of public diplomacy if America concentrates on bringing more than “the U.S. flag” to our current and future prospective partners.  |