The Chicago Council on Global Affairs released last week a public opinion poll about Americans’ views on foreign policy issues. The findings show the American public's number one foreign policy worry is the country's standing in the world.

The Financial Times reported on the findings:

“The… survey found that 83 per cent of respondents thought that improving their country's world standing should be a "very important" foreign policy goal. This was the highest priority, ranking above the 80 per cent who saw protecting US jobs as very important.

“Americans understand the message that is coming from the rest of the world that the US is too unilateralist," said Steven Kull, director of the International Policy Attitudes programme at the University of Maryland.”

Below is a chart from the poll's report detailing Americans’ top foreign policy goals. (For more findings, view the poll's full report).

Here's the problem: these data were collected in July. Now that the American financial sector has collapsed, how much do you want to bet that Americans’ second priority–protecting American jobs–has now trumped the first? Historically, Americans tend to turn inward when times are hard. This is unfortunate, since the collapse has likely made the world less willing to trust American leadership, thus this foreign policy goal harder to achieve.

Jim Hoagland discussed this prospect in his Sunday column in the Washington Post. He called for the end of “financial unilateralism,” and noted the sober remarks of a US ally.

“Here for the U.N. General Assembly opening and to receive a humanitarian award at a black-tie dinner, Sarkozy, an unabashed admirer of the United States, had other sober advice worth considering. He spoke in a hotel ballroom filled with Wall Street financiers who underwrote the gala — but his words seemed aimed not only at them but also at Bush, Congress and ultimately the American nation:

“You cannot demand to lead and then say that you are not responsible when things do not work out. You cannot accept only the rewards and duck the bad consequences of your actions.”

Americans cannot take for granted a world leadership role that comes with little cost or sacrifice, as they have tended to do in the Clinton-Bush era. That role must be earned anew, and the costs cannot simply be passed down to our children and grandchildren. Otherwise, as John Maynard Keynes might have said, in the long run we are all poor.”

Hoagland and Sarkozy remind us that in harsh economic times it is even more important for the US to lead, and for the American people and government to be concerned when our leadership role becomes called into question. Understandably–and unfortunately–it's hard to see right now beyond our own financial worries. Let's hope I am wrong, and that Americans don't loose site of what was just in July a top foreign policy priority–improving the country's standing in the world.

Since tonight's presidential debate–if it happens at all–will likely stray from its agenda of foreign policy issues, let's see what the vice presidential candidates have been up to in the foreign policy department this week.

Reuters reports that Sara Palin visited with a variety of foreign leaders this week.

Only brief glimpses of Palin, running mate to Republican presidential nominee John McCain in the November 4 election, were permitted as she met with leaders from Georgia, Ukraine, Iraq and Pakistan who are in New York for the U.N. General Assembly.

Palin, who as governor of Alaska lacks foreign policy experience, could be heard chatting politely during the fleeting seconds the media was allowed to witness.

“There's plenty to do here, isn't there? Plenty to see,” said Palin to Iraqi leaders as she perched in an upholstered chair in a New York hotel, her hands folded in her lap.

“I have plenty to do at home also,” replied Iraqi first lady Hero Ahmed.

The exchange was warmer at Palin's meeting with Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari, who greeted Palin with a huge smile, called her “gorgeous” and said he understood why many Americans “are crazy about you.”

Palin told reporters the day was “going great.”

“The meetings are very informative and helpful. A lot of good people share an appreciation for America,” she said.

Prior to Tuesday, when Palin met with Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Colombian President Alvaro Uribe, she had never met a foreign leader. Aides say she got her first passport in 2006…”

Palin addresses the passport, along with other foreign policy issues, in this interview with CBS Evening News’ Katie Couric.

The Democratic candidate Joe Biden also addressed diplomacy this week.

In a speech Wednesday in Cincinnati, Democratic Vice Presidential nominee Sen. Joe Biden reaffirmed his commitment to diplomacy as a critical tool of global engagement, saying:

“There's a short list of the forces shaping the 21st Century…. we have an ability to affect them - if we use the totality of our strength. That means maintaining the finest fighting force in the world - not pushing it to the breaking point… rebuilding our alliances, partnerships and international institutions - not disparaging them… strengthening our diplomacy — not disdaining it… and using our economic might, not putting it in jeopardy.”

On Monday, American Abroad Media, the public radio program distributed through NPR, broadcast an excellent panel on the foreign policy challenges facing the next president.

They couldn't have picked a more qualified cast. The discussion featured five former Secretaries of State - Madeleine K. Albright, James A. Baker, III, Warren Christopher, Henry Kissinger, and Colin L. Powell, and was moderated by Frank Sesno, director of GW's Public Affairs Project and Christiane Amanpour, CNN chief international correspondent.

I highly recommend giving it a listen, or reading through the transcript.

The broadcast begins with each former Secretary of State offering their advice on what foreign policy issue the next president should address on day one.

Kissinger had some interesting advice:

“I’d probably answer the question by saying the first thing you ought to do is to get your principle advisors together and see whether you can achieve a consensus on these issues: Where are we? What are we trying to do? Can we do it?

And then, I would invite the rest of the world to– come in. But one of the problems early in an administration is a jockeying for position among various advisors who come in with strong opinions and then the president winds up in the position of adjudicating practical disputes that arise all the time.”

Next the panel discussed what America can do to improve its image in the world. Albright, Powell and Christopher simultaneously agreed that “closing Guantanamo” is the one policy that the next president could enact that would send a signal to the rest of the world that this administration is different from the past.

The discussion ends with each panelist confessing which candidate they support–as if you couldn't guess. General Powell made some intriguing remarks about his undecided status. In broad terms, one can understand why he would be torn. He has worked under a Republican administration, but he is also the first African-American Secretary of State. But, as Powell relates, his decision making process goes much deeper than that.

Last week there was a diplomatic row between the US, Bolivia and Venezuela. Bolivian President, Evo Morales, expelled the US Ambassador to Bolivia, Philip Goldberg, from the country, accusing the Ambassador of “conspiring against democracy.”

The expulsion comes at a time of social upheaval in Bolivia. Wealthy people from Bolivia's oil-rich provinces have been protesting against the populist Morales and his leftist policies.

Morales declared that the Ambassador was playing a role in inciting these protests by distributing aid to the breakaway provinces. The State Department called these accusations “baseless,” and reacted by expelling the Bolivian Ambassador from Washington. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez expelled his country's U.S. ambassador last week in solidarity with Morales, and the U.S. responded in kind.

Meanwhile, South American presidents have convened a meeting of the 12-nation Union of South American Nations, just founded in May. At the meeting the Presidents of the South American nations present–all except Peru, Guyana and Suriname–expressed solidarity with Morales, and their dedication to help resolve Bolivia's political crisis.

As Marcela Sanzhez of the Washington Post put it, “The Bolivian crisis is rooted in political and geographic divisions, exacerbated by the rise of indigenous power in a country once tightly ruled by a white minority of European descent. But at the Santiago summit, Chavez lambasted Washington, alleging that behind Bolivia's crisis was “a conspiracy financed and directed by the U.S. empire, just as it occurred here in Chile.”

About the breaking of diplomatic ties, Sanchez explained that South American leaders have moved past the “blame game”:

“No other South American president felt compelled to do the same — including left-of-center leaders such as Cristina Fernandez of Argentina, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva of Brazil, Michelle Bachelet of Chile, and Tabare Vazquez of Uruguay. They insisted instead that the summit deal with the Bolivian crisis and in doing so revealed a more autonomous region, much less obsessed with Washington and more preoccupied with finding solutions to its problems.

By the summit's end, the leaders condemned the destabilizing actions by some in the Bolivian opposition, offered to create a commission to accompany an urgently needed dialogue between Morales and the opposition, and supported an independent investigation into the killings that resulted from the outbreak of violence.

“We believe that the region's problems have to be solved in the region,” Chilean Foreign Minister Alejandro Foxley said in an interview with Chilean television on Tuesday. “I don't like going around making others responsible.”"  

Having returned from their posts, the expelled American Ambassadors speak. Ambassador Goldberg explained the situation in an interview with Public Radio International's The World program.

The former US Ambassador to Venezuela had a positive outlook about US-Venezuelan relations in an interview he gave to Univsion.

It's too early to tell what impact this will have on US-South American relations. But for now there is a gaping hole where diplomatic relations used to thrive in both Washington, Caracas and La Paz.

While most of the media's attention was turned to the speeches given at the recent Republican and Democratic national conventions, meanwhile, many of the nation's think tanks and non-profit organizations organized sidebar discussions about critical policy issues facing the country.

Two excellent examples of such events were both sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations, one each at the DNC and RNC. The panel discussion held during the DNC, about “Enhancing the U.S. Role in the World,” gathered a distinguished panel of more of the democratic-leaning foreign policy practitioners and thinkers.

These included: Former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright, Geoffrey Garin, President, Peter D. Hart Research Associates, Richard N. Haass, President, Council on Foreign Relations, Richard C. Holbrooke, Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Jessica T. Mathews, President, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Vin Weber, Chair, National Endowment for Democracy, and Timothy E. Wirth, Chief Executive Officer, United Nations Foundation.

Tom Brokaw, who served as moderator, thoroughly questioned the panel about some of the most pressing issues in US Foreign policy. I particularly enjoyed that last section in which he asked each panelist to confess what US foreign policy issue keeps them up at night. The answers were quite diverse.

It's definitely worth a listen.

The next week at the RNC in Minneapolis, CFR gave the Republican-leaning foreign policy practitioners’ a turn to discuss the pressing foreign policy issues at hand.

This time CFR's President Richard Haass was in the moderator's seat, questioning a panel comprised of: Kim Holmes, Vice President, of the Heritage Foundation, and two other CFR Fellows, Edward Alden, and Benn Steil. In this wide-ranging discussion, panelists touched on the role of the U.S. economy in world stability, recent aggressive moves by Russia, the evolving role of international organizations such as the UN, Iranian ascendancy, and the prospects for curbing global climate change.

It is also definitely worth watching, click here to do so.

This week saw new developments in the U.S.-India civil nuclear cooperation accord.  In case you’re unfamiliar, this deal would allow the US to ship atomic fuel to India, for use in its civil nuclear energy program, in return for international inspections of India's civilian reactors, to make sure they don't use this technology to make nuclear weapons.

As the AP exlpains, ”India has refused to sign nonproliferation agreements and has faced a nuclear trade ban since its first atomic test in 1974. But on Saturday, the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group of nations that supply nuclear material and technology agreed to lift the ban on civilian nuclear trade with India after contentious talks and some concessions to countries fearful it could set a dangerous precedent.”

Today, the AP reports that Condoleezza Rice and India's defense minister put the finishing touches on the deal, and the Bush administration hopes to formally send Congress the deal by the end of the day.

Yet,  ”Some in Congress are vowing a careful review of U.S.-Indian nuclear negotiations, which could doom the plan's passage this year. That would leave it in the hands of a new Congress and president, and it is unclear whether it would remain a priority.”

This would be a bad result for the Bush administration, as it considers this deal one of its top foreign policy goals.

News of the developments drew harsh words from outside observers.  Among the variety of worries expressed about how the deal has transpired and its consecuences for arms control overall, is that it sets a bad example for other potential nuclear powers (for example, Iran, whose nuclear program the administration and the international community is trying so hard to stop).

For example, Mira Kamdar opines in the Washington Post under the headline ”Risking Armageddon for Cold, Hard Cash”:

“The deal will tell other would-be nuclear powers–and nuclear rogues–that the old barriers to nonproliferation need not be taken seriously. They certainly have not been taken seriously by the United States. Other, less high-minded powers will surely follow the short-sighted example being set by Delhi and Washington.”   

Among the consequences of the deal, Kamdar argues, are the following:

“The historic deal will allow U.S. nuclear companies to again do business in India, something that has been barred since 1974, when New Delhi tested its first atomic bomb. (India tested nuclear bombs again in 1998, spurring Pakistan to follow suit with its own tests days later.) The pact will also lift restrictions on other countries’ sales of nuclear technology and fuel to India, while asking virtually nothing from India in return. All of that will undermine the very international system that India so ardently seeks to join.”  

Kamdar also argues the deal sets a bad example for US expectations from rising economic and military powers in Asia, namely, China: 

“Meanwhile, China cannot help noticing that the United States has engaged in bizarre doublespeak over what it expects of rising Asian powers. The Bush administration has told China that it must behave as a “responsible stakeholder” in the international system — meaning that China should expect no exceptions to global rules as it struggles to meet the challenges posed by its booming economy.

That, of course, is the precise context in which the Bush administration has lobbied for the nuclear deal with India. The White House has called upon China “to embrace energy security and nonproliferation principles that are in accordance with the international norms,” even as it pleads to exempt India from these very norms.”

But Kamdar concludes that the “real tragedy” about the US deal with India is this:

“A shocking 42 percent of Indians live below the World Bank's new poverty threshold of $1.25 per day. Even if India managed to match China reactor for reactor and missile for missile — a long shot at best — Delhi could do so only at the expense of precisely the investments in human and physical infrastructure that could make India into a truly great power… India's democracy has already paid a crippling price, and now the planet may too.”

An editorial in the New York Times took aim at President Bush for being so desperate for a foreign policy success that his administration “bullied and wheedled international approval of the president's ill-conceived nuclear deal with India.”

The authors issue a warning to the US Congress to “limit the damage from this damaging deal and maintain a few shreds of American credibility when it comes to restraining the spread of nuclear weapons.

Lawmakers should hold off considering the deal at least until the new Congress takes office in January. And they must insist that at a minimum, the restrictions already written into American law are strictly adhered to.”

When the Democratic party released their party platform two weeks ago I sifted through it to see where and how the word “diplomacy” was used. Now it's the Republican Party's turn.

There's good news and bad news with the the GOP report. The good news is that the platform's drafters dedicated a section to both Public Diplomacy and State Department reform. The bad news is, apart from the word diplomacy in the heading for the former section, the word is not used anywhere else in the entire report.

The good news first, from the section titled “State Department Reform”:

“Advancing America's values should be the core mission of every part of the federal government, including the Department of State. America's diplomatic establishment must energetically represent our country's agenda to the world. We propose a thorough reform of its structure to ensure that promotions and appointments are based on performance in supporting the nation's agenda. Our diplomats must be the best our country has to offer, and America's diplomatic abilities must be an integral part of America's national security system.”

At first glance I was glad to see the GOPs dedicating a section to State Department reform. But now once I read it through, there doesn't seem to be much meat there. The key issue that does need urgent reform isn't mentioned: funding for the State Department. Of course, I am just an outsider, but I am not aware of there being a big problem in the State Department with the promotions and appointments process. But if there is, I can't imagine it being a bigger problem than the whole funding issue.

From the section titled “Public Diplomacy:”

“Throughout the Cold War, our international broadcasting of free and impartial information promoted American values to combat tyranny. It still does, through Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and Radio/TV Marti, and it remains an important instrument in promoting a modernizing alternative to the culture of radical terror. Getting America's message out to the world is a critical element in the struggle against extremism, and our government must wage a much more effective battle in the war of ideas.”

Hmmm, not much meat here either. Just a nod to PD's usefulness in combating terrorism.

Alright here's the bad news:

While the report's drafters never mention the word “diplomacy,” they skirt the concept by talking about its constraints. For example, the reports drafters say US participation in multilateral institutions (a diplomatic activity) should never interfere with American leadership. From the section “Sovereign American Leadership in International Organizations:” 

The United States participates in various international international organizations which can, at times, serve the cause of peace and prosperity, but those organizations must never serve as a substitute for principled American leadership. Nor should our participation in them prevent our joining with other democracies to protect our vital national interests.”
Rather than emphasise the need for international cooperation, like the Demcorats’ platform did, this section goes on to address the GOP's pet issues that usually drive its agenda within international organizations:

Because the UN has no mandate to promote radical social engineering, any effort to address global social problems must respect the fundamental institutions of marriage and family. We assert the rights of families in all international programs and will not fund organizations involved in abortion.”

To be fair, the report does vaguely talk about international cooperation–without using the term diplomacy–in a paragraph introducing the section titled “Securing the Peace:”

“The Republican vision of peace through strength requires a sustained international effort, which complements our military activities, to develop and maintain alliances and relationships that will lead to greater peace and stability.”

Given the way the report avoides using the word diplomacy, do you think there is some political charge to the word? Could there be a perception that use of the world diplomacy implies being “soft” among Republicans? I sure hope not; it would be a sad day when diplomacy becomes a dirty word.

Continuing on Moises Naim's theme of fixing double standards in American foreign policy (mentioned in my last post), Brookings Institution press recently published a book called Alliance Curse: How America Lost the Third World.

Authored by Hilton L. Root, a professor at George Mason University's School of Public Policy, the book argues that US policy makers must break their habit of “forging alliances with dictators who do not share its values of freedom and democracy.”

From the book's press page:

“In Alliance Curse, Hilton Root illustrates how misguided foreign aid policy can backfire, stunting rather than advancing political and economic development, and poisoning relations instead of capturing hearts and minds. Partnering with dictators can produce perverse disincentives for those regimes to govern for prosperity, resulting in corruption, economic failure, and instability. These policies contradict America's image as the champion of freedom and democracy, making the developing world even more wary of its intentions.

Why does this self-defeating tendency continue? U.S. policymakers find that the demands of their constituents‚ security, affordable raw materials, access to markets‚ are most easily accomplished by cutting deals with autocrats. Democracies, even poor ones, are less likely to exchange policy concessions for aid. Accordingly, the most corrupt low-income countries, those generally under autocratic rule, receive the bulk of U.S. bilateral assistance. But the ill effects of this trade-off can linger for generations.

The linkage of U.S. aid to oppressive regimes erodes goodwill toward America among indignant populations. And when the foreign assistance dries up‚ as it invariably does‚ the dictators themselves frequently turn on America and end their cooperation. It is no wonder then that the United States faces major foreign policy dilemmas in the very countries that were major recipients of aid.”

Sounds like another book that deserves to be on the next President's reading list.

These, days, advice for the next President is not hard to come by. Everyone seems to be urging the next President to tackle issue x or cause y. But some advice stands out more than others. In particular, the opinion of two respected voices in the field of diplomacy is worth mentioning:

First, in an article published in the Sept/Oct issue of Foreign Affairs, Richard Holbrooke, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations from 1999 to 2001, offers the next president some advice on how to confront the many challenges that await him in the realm of foreign policy.

Holbrooke outlines a monumental “To Do” list:

“…The next president will inherit a more difficult opening-day set of international problems than any of his predecessors have since at least the end of World War II.In such circumstances, his core challenge will be nothing less than to re-create a sense of national purpose and strength, after a period of drift, decline, and disastrous mistakes.

He will have to reshape policies on the widest imaginable range of challenges, domestic and international. He will need to rebuild productive working relationships with friends and allies. He must revitalize a flagging economy; tame a budget awash in red ink; reduce energy dependence and turn the corner on the truly existential issue of climate change; tackle the growing danger of nuclear proliferation; improve the defense of the homeland against global terrorists while putting more pressure on al Qaeda, especially in Pakistan; and, of course, manage two wars simultaneously.”

For the most part, the areas Holbrooke recommends that the next President work on are–surprisingly–domestic in nature.

“To make progress on this daunting agenda, the president must master and control a sprawling, unwieldy federal bureaucracy that is always resistant to change and sometimes dysfunctional. He will also need to change the relationship between the executive and the legislative branches after years of partisan political battle; in almost all areas, congressional support is essential for success….

…To restore the United States to its proper world leadership role, two areas of weakness must be repaired: the domestic economy and the United States’ reputation in the world. Although the economy is usually treated as a domestic issue, reviving it is as important to the nation's long-term security as is keeping U.S. military strength unchallengeable.”

I recommend reading on.

Second, Moises Naim, long time editor and Publisher of Foreign Policy magazine, also suggested that the next US President rethink US foreign policy from the inside out. In the recent article published in the magazine he edits, Naim argues that the next US President must fix the US’ many foreign policy double standards. He writes:

“Here is one suggestion for the next president of the United States: Ask for an audit of America's foreign-policy double standards. Just producing such a list will be a salutary exercise. It will not only show how long the list is, but it will also open the official explanations commonly used to rationalize the contradictions to renewed scrutiny and, in the process, reveal the economic interests or political passions behind them. Understanding the logic that sustains each of the double standards now in place will help in deciding which ones should be jettisoned. Some will emerge as untouchable (Saudi Arabia), while others will be revealed in all their obsolescence (Cuba). Hopefully, some of them will be eliminated.

Of course, reducing U.S. foreign-policy inconsistencies and contradictions will not eliminate the powerful waves of anti-Americanism that have always existed and that have crested in recent years. But it will certainly reduce the rhetorical ammunition available to America's critics. For free.”

As election day nears, I’ll collect more sage advice for the next President on how to cure America's foreign policy ills.