U.S. Diplomacy

 Looks like Defence Secretary Gates’ call for more support for US “soft power” tools is a view also shared by those under his command.  A new poll of US military officers conducted by the US Global Leadership Campaign shows that they overwhelmingly support diplomatic tools to addressing the variety of security challenges the US faces. A majority of the officers also said that the US is doing too little to strengthen its use of non-military tools.

In a nudge to the State Department’s Bureau of Public Diplomacy, a large majority of the officers agreed (77%) that the degree to which America is respected by people overseas makes a difference to the effectiveness of our military overseas. Furthermore, a 62% majority of officers surveyed rate “restoring respect for America around the world by playing a positive leadership role in addressing major global challenges” as a very important goal.

From the poll’s summary of findings:

𐂃 Today’s military officers believe we face very different security challenges than we did during the Cold War and must use different tools and strategies to address those challenges.

𐂃 A significant majority of officers surveyed embrace a new paradigm in which strengthened diplomacy and development assistance are important companions to traditional military tools for achieving America’s national security goals. 𐂃 A majority of officers serving in the post-9/11 era have seen the benefit of non-military tools such as development assistance and diplomacy firsthand, particularly those deployed in Iraq or Afghanistan.

𐂃 These poll results suggest the next Commander in Chief must understand that a strong military alone is not enough to protect America and that military officers believe we must also improve diplomatic relations and do more to promote stability in the world by improving health, education, and economic opportunity in other countries.”

This support for the use of soft power comes from an unlikely, but extremely important source. The military knows that it cannot confront the national security threats of the 21st century without diplomacy in its arsenal.

Just released from Agence France Presse:

“Defense Secretary Robert Gates called for greater funding for U.S. diplomacy and foreign development aid July 15, acknowledging concerns about a “creeping militarization” of U.S. foreign policy.

“Broadly speaking, when it comes to America’s engagement with the rest of the world, it is important that the military is - and is clearly seen to be - in a supporting role to civilian agencies,” he said. “Our diplomatic leaders, be they in ambassadors’ suites or on the State Department’s seventh floor, must have the resources and political support needed to fully exercise their statutory responsibilities in leading American foreign policy.”

Gates’ speech was delivered as the keynote address of an event that the US Global Leadership Campaign held yesterday in Washington.

(Bush and Singh at the G-8 Meeting this week in Tokyo) 

The biggest headline emanating from this week’s G-8 summit in Tokyo had nothing to do with poverty alleviation, or climate change. Rather it had to do with negotiations between President Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh about a nuclear deal three years in the making.

Referred to as the 123 Agreement, the deal would allow the US to sell atomic fuel and technology to India provided that India open its civilian reactors to international inspections by the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA).

Proponents of this deal say it is a great business opportunity for the US, and would supply India with the equipment it needs to build more nuclear power stations. President Bush has also argued that the deal would have more intangible effect of empowering a friendly democracy (which borders US rival China) that has demonstrated what he sees as nuclear responsibility.

Opponents say: “It rewards India with civil nuclear help even though Delhi, which has refused to sign the (Nuclear Non-Proliferation) treaty, acquired nuclear weapons. In doing so, it weakens the treaty’s central bargain: that the original five nuclear powers (the US, UK, France, China and Russia) would help non-nuclear weapons states with civil power provided their ambitions stopped there.”

Critics are skeptical that India’s nuclear ambitions, will, in fact stop there–especially since India has already acquired nuclear weapons. Some critics even say that the deal could spark a nuclear arms race in Asia, or at the very least weaken campaigns to halt other nations’ (on the axis of evil, who shall remain nameless) nuclear enrichment programs. 

After Bush and Singh’s discussions at the G-8 summit, Prime Minister Singh announced that it will hold up his end of the bargain and comply with IAEA inspections, thereby declaring India’s intention to move forward with the deal.

The US Ambassador to India, David Mulford, saidin a reactionary statement: ”The US welcomes the government of India’s initiative to move forward with the US-India civil nuclear deal by seeking the IAEA approval for its safeguards agreement,” and said the US government will work closely with New Delhi, the IAEA, the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group and the US Congress to implement it “as quickly as possible.”

But there have been two major factors working against the deal and particularly come to a head now that signing the deal into law is in sight. First, domestic opposition within India may shut down not only the deal, but kick PM Siingh out of office altogether.  This week the left-wing parties in the Indian parliament quit the Prime Minister’s coalition over fears that the deal would ”give Washington too much influence over Indian foreign policy.” Hereis the text of the left parties’ grievances in regards to the deal. It states:

“The UPA Government came into existence in 2004 with the support of the Left parties on the basis of its Common Minimum Programme. The aim was to fight the communal forces and undo the damage they had done to the secular polity of India in their years in office. This required a set of interlinked policies to bring relief to the people, to protect India’s integrity and to pursue an independent foreign policy. By going ahead with the deal at a time when there is the crushing burden of price-rise and galloping inflation, the Manmohan Singh Government has clearly shown that it is more concerned about fulfilling its commitment to the Bush administration rather than meeting its commitment to the people of India.”

Ashley Tellis of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (and a Senior Advisor to the State Department on, among other things, the India-US nuclear deal) talked to NPR last week about how Indian concerns for maintaining independence, or rather its sovereignty, from other nations has created a stiff opposition to the deal within India. He gives some other interesting insights into the deal as well.

Yesterday the Prime Minister set the date of a vote of confidence in the Parliament, which, if lost, could force his government into early elections after four years in power, and scuttle the nuclear deal entirely.

The second, considerably formidable obstacle to sealing the India-UN nuclear deal is time and the US Congress (not a good mix). The BBC reports that the IAEA and the NSG may not bless the deal with enough time for Congress to pass the legislation required to make the deal US law before Congress closes the 2008 session in November. 

After that point, it’s hard to tell whether the incoming Presidential administration will share President Bush’s support for the nuclear pact. The AP reports, for example, “Christine Fair, a South Asia specialist at the RAND Corp., said that “the underbelly of this deal, as Bush envisioned it, was that, with our help, India was going to become a global power, and that meant becoming a global nuclear power. I just don’t know if McCain or Obama are going to embrace that.”

So far Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama has come out in supportof it. McCain’s position is unknown to me. Either way, according to Strobe Talbott of the Brookings Institution argues that either candidate, once President, may throw in some extra challenges to the Indian side of the deal.

It will be a race to confidence if this deal is to go through. I, personally, will root for sovereignty and time to come out on top.

Former Secretaries of State James A. Baker III (1989 to 1992) and Warren Christopher (1993 to 1997), wearing their hats as the co-chairmen of the National War Powers Commission, authored an op-ed in the New York Times yesterday, arguing on behalf of the findings of their commission’s recent report.

They write:

“The most agonizing decision we make as a nation is whether to go to war. Our Constitution ambiguously divides war powers between the president (who is the commander in chief) and Congress (which has the power of the purse and the power to declare war). The founders hoped that the executive and legislative branches would work together, but in practice the two branches don’t always consult. And even when they do, they often dispute their respective powers.

A bipartisan group that we led, the National War Powers Commission, has unanimously concluded after a year of study that the law purporting to govern the decision to engage in war — the 1973 War Powers Resolution — should be replaced by a new law that would, except for emergencies, require the president and Congressional leaders to discuss the matter before going to war. Seventy years of polls show that most Americans expect Congress and the president to talk before making that decision, and in most cases, they have done so.”

After discussing the pluses of their proposed statute, they conclude: “When it comes to war, Americans deserve better than a law that is ineffective and ignored. They deserve a law that will encourage future presidents and Congresses to work together to protect our nation.”

Another former Secretary of State,  Colin Powell  spoke to a group of young people at the Center for International and Strategic Studies this week. He was the keynote speaker at the kickoff event of a new CSIS initiative called “Next America” aimed at getting young people engaged in international affairs in advance of the Presidential election and beyond. You can watch the entire event by clicking here.

His remarks touched on a variety of issues related to US foreign policy. In regards to the US role in international affairs, Powell said “The only three nations capable of confronting the US militarily are Russia, India and China, and all three want to have good relations with the US.”

The ongoing theme of his talk was wealth creation, and how it is going to be the driving force of the world for better or worse. He emphasized that it needs to be is used wisely in order to make the world a peaceful place.

In a lighter moment, in an attempt to reach out to his youthful audience, Powell admitted to “Google”-ing himself, to demonstrate that he too is part of the “digital” area.

Note to General Powell: since you will probably come across this post at some point in your searching, I apologize for calling out your self-Googling habit. Not to worry, we all have Googled ourselves at one time or another. The fact that you do too gives the rest of us a way to identify with you on a broader level. And it illustrated the point in your talk about the digital revolution well.

Former Ambassador Chas Freeman addressed the World Affairs Council in Washington, DC last week. The title of his talk: “America In the World: Magoo at the Helm.” His remarks provide a sobering, yet extremely important account of the changes afloat in the international realm.

I’ll let the Ambassador speak for himself.

“A great many governments abroad now fear that Washington will behave like the ever-self-congratulatory Mr. Magoo – wandering destructively through a reality he misperceives and wreaking havoc he determinedly misinterprets as success. Few believe that our country can still combine realism with statesmanship. More tellingly, a lot have concluded that, far from involving the United States, dispensing with a role for Washington is the only way to solve problems.”

The Ambassador related US foreign policy to the Middle East, his region of expertise, as an example of this recent phenomenon. He goes on to say:

“This is not just because Mr. Magoo has seemingly succeeded Uncle Sam at the helm. In some measure, it’s because the United States has taken sides in disputes with respect to which we had traditionally maintained at least a pretense of evenhandedness. We are therefore seen as part of the problem rather than part of the solution. It is because promiscuous efforts by the United States to impose military solutions on problems that force cannot resolve have left no room for American diplomacy.

The resulting default on reality-based problem-solving by the US has created a diplomatic void that others are now filling. This trend toward working around the United States has been aggravated by widespread distaste for the arrogant and insulting phrasing of some US policy pronouncements. The undisguised disdain of some American envoys for the United Nations, the World Court, and regional organizations, and their open contempt for the views of the international communities these represent has also disinclined others to work with us if they can avoid it. Washington’s political marginalization in the Middle East is a predictable result of such “diplomacy-free foreign policies…”

…Scofflaw US behavior, the ill-considered uses of military power in wars of unilateral choice, and the contraction of freedom in the American homeland have indeed transformed our relationship with the world – but to our grave disadvantage. Abu Ghraib, Bagram, and Guantánamo and the practice of “extraordinary rendition” have dishonored our traditions and defiled our international reputation. Militarism has debilitated our alliances, friendships, and partnerships and corroded our ability to lead. The belligerently surly, unwelcoming face we present to would-be visitors in our embassies and at our borders puts off even the most determined admirers of our society. The elements of a garrison state we have put in place at home have enfeebled our ability to inspire others with our ideas while depriving us of theirs. Much of the world is now seriously disenchanted with the United States. Most (though not all) of these self-inflicted wounds derive from our response to the atrocities of 9/11 and our policies toward the Middle East. We have shown not only that we can shoot ourselves in the foot, but that we can reload with exceptional speed and do it again and again.”

I strongly reccomend reading the rest of the speech.

Last week–as the Bush administration sees it– diplomacy came out victorious in the standoff between North Korea (aka the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) and the five other ”parties” attempting to halt its nuclear weapons program. Pyongyang submitted an accounting of its nuclear arsenals to the Chinese government–a first step in reigning in the nuclear weapons program North Korea declared to be persuing back in 2003. To further demonstrate its intentions, on Friday the DPRK exploded the cooling tower of one of its main nuclear reactors.

In turn, the US removed North Korea from the “Axis of Evil,” more specifically, from its list of state-sponsors of terrorism, as well as the lifting of some economic sanctions. As President Bush remarked in the rose garden after the DPRK’s declaration:

“The six-party talks are based on a principle of “action for action.” So in keeping with the existing six-party agreements, the United States is responding to North Korea’s actions with two actions of our own: First, I’m issuing a proclamation that lifts the provisions of the Trading with the Enemy Act with respect to North Korea. And secondly, I am notifying Congress of my intent to rescind North Korea’s designation as a state sponsor of terror in 45 days.”

Condoleezza Rice sounded triumphant in a Wall Street Journal column published the day of the declaration titled ”Diplomacy is Working on North Korea:”

“If North Korea chooses cooperation – by fulfilling its pledge from the September 2005 Joint Statement to “abandon all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs” – a path is open for it to achieve the better and more secure relationship it says it wants with the international community. That includes the U.S. We have no permanent enemies.”

The declration could be considered a victory for diplomacy not only because diplomacy was the method employed to reach the deal, but also because the US’ diplomatic agency (the State Department) beat out the White House to change to course of US policy toward North Korea after much wrangling on this issue. According to the New York Times:

“In the internal Bush administration war between the State Department and Mr. Cheney’s office over North Korea, Secretary of State Condoleezza Riceand her top North Korea envoy, Christopher R. Hill, won a major battle against the Cheney camp when President Bush announced Thursday that he was taking the country he once described as part of the “axis of evil” off the State Department’s list of state sponsors of terrorism.

The administration sought to portray the move as a largely symbolic, reciprocal move, made in return for North Korea’s long-delayed declaration of its nuclear program to the outside world. It is the first step in what will be a long, drawn-out diplomatic process that is meant to lead eventually to establishing a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula…

…Thursday’s announcement intensified a pitched battle in Washington, where Democrats and many foreign policy experts said the administration had dithered too long before reaching this deal, allowing North Korea to acquire enough plutonium to make several nuclear weapons. From the other side of the fence, conservative hard-liners complained that the United States gave away too much for too little, and should have adopted a more absolutist approach with the secretive North Korean government.”

But for many critics, diplomacy won too little too late. Again the New York Times’ Helene Cooper explains:

“Accusing the North Koreans of violating a previous diplomatic accord on ending its nuclear program, called the Agreed Framework, which was negotiated during the Clinton administration, Mr. Bush pulled out of talks with North Korea in 2002 and pressed to isolate the North Korean government. The abandonment of talks gave North Korea greater leeway to produce plutonium and become a nuclear power, critics say.

Had Mr. Bush instead stuck with a diplomatic course, the critics say, North Korea might not have acquired enough plutonium to make a nuclear weapon.

“What is absolutely clear is the decision they took in 2002 to terminate the Agreed Framework gave North Korea the opening” to kick international inspectors out of its Yongbyon nuclear plant and press ahead with its work on the bomb, said Carlos Pascual, director of foreign policy at the Brookings Institution. “That was the tragedy of the Bush administration’s policy,” Mr. Pascual said. “That by opting for terminating our engagement, we opened the door to North Korea’s becoming a nuclear power.”

On the other hand, John Bolton, a former Ambassador to the UN and old Bush administration hand, said of the declaration ““This is a sad, sad day… I think Bush believes what Condi is telling him, that they’re going to persuade the North to give up nuclear weapons, and I don’t think that’s going to happen. I think we’ve been taken to the cleaners.”

Steve Clemmons, foreign policy expert at the New America Foundation, captures the contradictions in this victory” for diplomacy, and gives credit where credit is due:

“This is huge news– and is a giant step in putting US-North Korea relations on a new and more constructive track. This is a success for the Bush administration– and more importantly for Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian & Pacfic Affairs Christopher Hill who has been a punching bag for former US Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton who has been spitting on Hill’s deal-making for the last year.

There are still a lot of questions ranging from the interesting issue of North Korea cooperation with Syria’s alleged nuclear facility that was destroyed by Israel and other issues — but when President Bush gave Colin Powell the positive nod in the first week of April 2003 to proceed with the Six Party Talks, Bush and Cheney ignored Iran’s offer of a structure for normalized US-Iran relations the very same week in 2003.

The contrast in circumstances between where America is today with North Korea and where we are with Iran is vital to note. We ‘engaged’ North Korea and blew it with Iran.

Congrats to Christopher Hill, John Negroponte, Condoleezza Rice, the former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs R. Nicholas Burns and his successor William Burns. And for those who want to knock China around, they should know that this entire process was impossible without China’s impressive, collaborative diplomacy.”

Clemmons talks more about the implications of this move in this video:

If you are a member of Senator McCain or Senator Obama’s cadre of campaign advisers, a former US Ambassador, or even a mere foreign policy expert, you are one busy guy/gal right now. Washington is brimming with events with titles like “US Foreign Policy in the Next Presidential Administration: What Will Go Down?” or “President McCain/Obama: What’s the Foreign Policy Plan, Stan?”

Here’s a list of a few examples:

Last week the Partnership for a Secure America, a Washington-based campaign dedicated to “recreating the bipartisan center in American national security and foreign policy” brought together some distinguished foreign policy practitioners/campaign adviser for an event titled “A Bipartisan Foreign Policy for January 2009.”

Former Ambassador Tom Pickering, for Regan adviser Bud Mcfarlane, and CSIS fellow Rick Barton came together to opine about the kinds of foreign policies the next president could enact with support from both sides of the aisle.

To watch all of the sections of the event, click here. Ambassador Pickering’s remarks, in which he enumerated the many foreign policy problems the next President will have to face, can be viewed below.

The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a center/left-leaning think tank in Washington, has launched an initiative dedicated to this issue, titled “Foreign Policy for the Next President.” The initiative includes a series of policy briefs and events that bringing out the usual suspects—presidential campaign advisers, former Ambassadors and the like.

To view an excellent event Carnegie hosted debating Senator MacCain’s dream of establishing a “League of Democracies” under his presidential watch, click here.

The Cato Institute, a libertarian think thank based in Washington, hosted a discussion of a new book on America can exercise its “Smart Power” in the next administration. One of the discussions I enjoyed attending was hosted by American University, WAMU (NPR’s Washington affiliate) and American Public Media back in April. It gathered a Clinton, Omaba and McCain adviser to speak about how the next President can improve the US’ image abroad.

Coming up on Monday, the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank in Washington, will be hosting “McCain University.” This event discusses all aspects of the Senator’s campaign platform, with an afternoon session investigating his foreign policy ideas.

The US Global Leadership Campaign, a “broad based, nationwide coalition of businesses, NGOs, and community leaders that advocates for a strong U.S. International Affairs Budget,” will host an event focusing on foreign policy and the next Presidential administration in Washington in July. These are just a sampling of events I have come across. No doubt this issue is being discussed outside the beltway by a variety of different stakeholders. If you come across any events that you think we would be interested in learning about, please post them in the comments section.

Lastly, I thought I would point out a great online resource aimed at generating a global discussion about the foreign policies that can be implemented “On Day One” of the next presidential administration. The the On Day One campaign was launched by the Better World Fund, a campaign to strengthen US-UN relations.

(Secretary Rice at a press conference in June in Lebanon, courtesy of the State Department)

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice spoke at the Council on Foreign Relations’ International Affairs Fellows Conference last week. An edited video of her remarks can be viewed here.

The thrust of Rice’s speech centered on the “elements of continuity” thatthe Bush administration’s foreign policy has with that of past administrations. Her first example is maintenance of the US alliance with “big powers” Russia and China:

“For instance, coming in, I think everybody understood that it would be important to have workable relationships with the great powers, the big powers in international politics — China, Russia, the newly emerging powers like India and South Africa and Brazil. Important not just because one wants to have fruitful and constructive relations with important powers, but fruitful and constructive relations that can be put to use in carrying out the work of diplomacy and, therefore, solving international problems.

It goes without saying that it is not really feasible to solve many of the problems of international politics through diplomacy if you cannot find at least common interest and common cause with countries like China and Russia, even if you are not doing so from the basis of common values. And having constructive relations with those two giant powers, both members of the Security Council, has been an important part of what we’ve tried to do.

They are, of course, somewhat different. I think that in many ways managing the relationship with Russia has been one of finding common cause on many, many issues while recognizing that in a complex relationship there are going to be many differences and doing so, frankly, in an atmosphere in which perhaps there has been some disappointment that we have not been able to move closer to the common values with Russia that one would have thought possible in 2000.

In fact, it is the internal development of Russia away from a more democratic course that has been, in some ways, the hardest part of managing the relationship. Nonetheless, we have been able to do important things together in nuclear nonproliferation, in working together on Iran and working together on North Korea, in working together on the Middle East in ways that, I think, would have been unthinkable at the time of the Soviet Union.

And so one of the most important things to remind ourselves of almost every day is that however complex the relationship may be with Russia, however difficult sometimes, however difficult Moscow can make it with rhetoric that is, shall I say, outside, it is nonetheless a relationship that is quite unalike our relationship with the Soviet Union. Russia is not the Soviet Union. And reminding ourselves that the scope for cooperation with Russia is far wider and far greater than anything that we ever experienced with the Soviet Union is important to having a solid relationship with Russia going forward. This is embodied in a strategic framework agreement that Presidents Bush and Putin signed at Sochi, which I think shows the breadth of our relationship with Russia…”

The second element of foreign policy continuity Rice mentions is the strengthening of US  alliances. She names the US’ alliances with Japan, South Korea and Australia before focusing on NATO, an alliance that she says has been “truly transformed.”

Noting that most Cold War scholars wondered whether NATO would find a purpose for itself after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Rice says that now:

“The remarkable thing is not only is NATO alive, but it is a fundamentally transformed organization for a couple of reasons. First and foremost, because now 12 of the 26+2, the 28 — soon-to-be 28 members of NATO, 12 of them are former captive nations. And they come to the Alliance with a zeal and a love for democracy that can only be the case if you are still very close to your experience with tyranny. And they have changed the nature of the Alliance. And they’ve changed its agenda. And they’ve kept at the forefront the values of the Alliance.

The Alliance is also different because it is taking on new challenges, most extraordinarily well out of area, as we used to talk about, as it takes on the efforts in Afghanistan, as it helps with planning in Darfur, as it helps with training of Iraqi officers and as it builds global relationships with countries like Australia, Japan, South Korea. NATO is a very-much-changed organization.

It’s had its ups and downs. I know that there’s been a lot of discussion about how it’s doing in Afghanistan. I think it’s remarkable that it’s in Afghanistan. And of course, as it has been developing its capabilities, it is getting better at fighting the tough counterinsurgency fights that we see in these parts of the world, fights that blur the lines between war and peace where very often you’re clearing an area and bringing in economic reconstruction at the same time. This is hard work. It’s different than what we’ve done before. And so perhaps it’s not surprising that NATO has had to adjust to this.

It is also an alliance that has suffered from the fact that many European armies, European militaries took the peace dividend very deeply and, as a result, cut their defense budgets, cut their capability. And NATO is now trying to rebuild some of that capability….”

What came as a surprise to Rice as she tried to maintain the foreign policy status quo? “I never thought that I would spend as much time as I do thinking about the fate of failed states and trying to resurrect failed states, trying to resurrect states that were coming out of sustained conflict and trying to use all of the tools of the nation, whether it is foreign assistance or military training or public diplomacy, whatever the elements, to use those elements to try and help build well-governed, democratic states where states were failing.”

I remember hearing an interview with one of NPR’s diplomatic correspondents that it has become a strategy of the Bush administration to speak of its legacy as one of policy continuity, rather than rupture from the norm. It appears that they anticipate the past eight years will come to be remembered as a radical departure from the past. Some examples of these ruptures do spring to mind: introducing the doctrine of preemption, eschewing the UN to invade Iraq, breeching international and American law in order to pursue terrorists and the intelligence they hold, wide expansion of the Defense budget and mandate, etc.

Even so, if I were a communications consultant for the Bush administration I would advocate the same spin strategy for the sake Bush’s foreign policy legacy: accentuate the positive (continuity), and bury the negative (change). For the Bush administration it’s the change that has brought on most of America’s foreign policy woes–with the glaring exception being  the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, whose continuity without resolution causes a great deal of woes to all involved.

Indeed continuity was also the theme of an essay Rice wrote for CFR’s academic journal Foreign Affairs titled, “Rethinking The National Interest.”

“…As with previous strategic shocks, one can cite elements of both continuity and change in our foreign policy since the attacks of September 11.

What has not changed is that our relations with traditional and emerging great powers still matter to the successful conduct of policy. Thus, my admonition in 2000 that we should seek to get right the “relationships with the big powers” — Russia, China, and emerging powers such as India and Brazil — has consistently guided us. As before, our alliances in the Americas, Europe, and Asia remain the pillars of the international order, and we are now transforming them to meet the challenges of a new era.

What has changed is, most broadly, how we view the relationship between the dynamics within states and the distribution of power among them. As globalization strengthens some states, it exposes and exacerbates the failings of many others — those too weak or poorly governed to address challenges within their borders and prevent them from spilling out and destabilizing the international order. In this strategic environment, it is vital to our national security that states be willing and able to meet the full range of their sovereign responsibilities, both beyond their borders and within them. This new reality has led us to some significant changes in our policy. We recognize that democratic state building is now an urgent component of our national interest. And in the broader Middle East, we recognize that freedom and democracy are the only ideas that can, over time, lead to just and lasting stability, especially in Afghanistan and Iraq…”

But it’s important to look past the spin and try to learn from Secretary Rice’s experiences as Secretary of State. If we don’t, covering up failed foreign policies with spin could become the new ”element of continuity” that carries on from this  administration into the next.

On Thursday night the House of Representatives passed a vast supplemental spending bill (HR 2642), which would provide $161.8 billion in war funding, an expanded veterans’ education benefit, an extension of unemployment insurance and money to deal with flooding in the Midwest. The bill now goes to the Senate for approval, where Democratic leaders have already endorsed it.

This piece of appropriations legislation also provides $1.864 billion for international food and disaster assistance, $696 million for refugee assistance, and $465 million to fund the first year of the “Merida Initiative,” a US-Latin American security partnership aimed at combating drug trafficking.

Upon passage of the bill the House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman said: ““The legislation also includes life-saving aid to refugees and internally displaced persons who have fled the conflicts in Iraq and Darfur.  By granting $475 million more than the Administration asked of us, Congress has done much to respond to the dire needs of people caught up in these crises — and we must continue to do so.”

While this sounds like a big chunk of change, this is merely the tip of the iceberg in terms of foreign assistance modernization. Those concerned about global poverty can thank a new initiative called the Modernizing Foreign Assistance Network for bringing Congress’ attention to this issue. 

The network, comprised of development experts from a variety of institutions–think-tanks, universities, etc,–aims to “shape a consensus among a group of leading global development experts on how best to improve America’s weak aid infrastructure,” and then urge Congress to heed their advice.

Earlier this month Lael Brainard of the Brookings Institution did just that when she released the Network’s culminating report at a June 10^th Congressional hearing.  

Titled “New Day New Way: U.S. Foreign Assistance for the 21st Century,” the report underscores the need for international development concerns to be on par with those of national security:

“Since September 11, 2001, U.S. foreign assistance has been dominated by national security interests, with a particular focus on fighting terrorism. Security is clearly important, but it should not obscure the equally important imperative of fighting global poverty—which is itself a means to address the causes of terrorism and conflict, as well as a host of other urgent challenges. This link between development and sustainable national—and, indeed, global—security is increasingly recognized by foreign policy, development, and defense experts, and it must be acted upon. But the link is best understood not only as a rationale for providing foreign assistance to strengthen allies in the “war on terror,” but as a rationale for supporting development because it leads to a world where capable, open, and economically viable states can act in concert to build a better, safer world.”

In a press release, the Network’s co-chair Gayle Smith of the Center for American Progress, said: “By giving development a seat at the foreign policy table we can narrow the gap between the world’s haves and have nots, tackle the challenges posed by climate change, the global food crisis, and the world’s weak and failing states and, most importantly, strengthen the moral foundation from which we lead.”

Next week the House will hold a hearing titled “Foreign Assistance Reform: Rebuilding U.S. Civilian Development and Diplomatic Capacity in the 21st Century,” which will include testimony from two Former Administrator of U.S. Agency for International Development: J. Brian Atwood and M. Peter McPherson. Atwood is also a member of the Network.

 (US Embassy photo)

The US Center for Global Engagement reports that Congress has been making headway in a discussion about how improving how to improve the process by which the US doles out aid money to foreign countries. The Center recently published this review noting Congress’s recent action. The review states:

“A wide range of national security and foreign policy experts, academics, think tanks and now Members of Congress are looking at ways to elevate development and modernize America’s foreign assistance. After the release of several reports concluding that U.S. foreign assistance needs to be more robust and better coordinated, Members of Congress are beginning to add their voice to the debate.

Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA), Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, has indicated that next year the committee will take up reauthorization of the 1961 Foreign Assistance Act.  His counterpart, Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Joseph Biden (D-DE), is also interested in pursuing this matter.

Reps. Betty McCollum (D-MN) and Christopher Shays (R-CT) are planning to introduce a resolution in Congress recognizing the importance of modernizing the U.S. Government’s foreign assistance capability and calling for a concerted effort by Congress to address this issue.  Together, all agree on the need for greater investments in foreign assistance and a modernized aid structure to more effectively address the complex global challenges of the 21st century.

Over the last six months, three significant reports on modernizing U.S. foreign assistance have been released. More than 55 foreign policy experts from a broad range of backgrounds contributed to the Lugar Report, Smart Power Committee Report and the HELP Commission Report, and reflect a growing, bipartisan consensus among policy makers, echoed recently by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, that global development and diplomacy must play an integral role in our nation’s foreign policy and national security strategy.

All three reports come to one important conclusion – the need to elevate U.S. foreign assistance as a strategic tool for the United States.  Additionally, all three reports:

• Recommend increased funding for the International Affairs Budget;
• Propose new structures for administering and delivering foreign aid;
• Identify the need to increase the civilian capacity the agencies involved in U.S. foreign assistance; and
• Recognize the need for more strategic coordination and a better balance between civilian and military engagement overseas.”

This article published on OneWorld also reviews recent action by Congress to revamp US assistance efforts.

Indeed attention on this issue continues. Yesterday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s Subcommittee on International Development and Foreign Assistance, Economic Affairs, and International Environmental Protection held a two-panel hearing on policy options for US Disaster Assistance . It included testimony from USAIS’s Deputy Acting Administrator,  Principal Deputy Assistant Secretaryof the State Department’s Bureau of International Organization Affairs. The second panel included testimony by representatives from the UN, International Crisis Group, and Council on Foreign Relations.

The Los Angeles Times has begun publishing a series of opinion pieces from US aid experts on how the US can use food aid as a tool for diplomacy. The first installment “Feed to Lead,” authored by the Bookings Institution’s Lael Brainard and Noam Unger, argues:

“As favorable opinions of the U.S. have suffered in recent years — an issue reflected in commentary on these pages — we must refashion the image we present to the world by retooling the way we seek to influence it. Our consciences, our hearts, and our faith demand that we tackle deprivation because it is the right thing to do. But our assistance does more than help the poor gain access to shelter, medicine, sustenance, education, and opportunity, and it certainly does more than make Americans feel good: it also makes the world feel good about America. When the United States leads in helping lift the lives of the poor, we enhance our own influence and authority in the world community — building support for U.S. interests in other areas. ”