I just made it through Hitch 22, Christopher Hitchen’s memoir.  For those of you unacquainted with Mr. Hitchens, he – and please, never call him “Chris” – is a journalist and political dissident of the first rank who deploys with unequalled deft the English language to challenge tyranny in all its varied guises and disguises.  Mr. Hitchens has engaged in spirited struggle against a wide array of ghouls and scoundrels, from Saddam Hussein (for inflicting terror on his own people) to the Ayatollah Khomeini (for issuing a fatwa on Salman Rushdie’s head) to our own Henry Kissinger (for a range of offenses too long to list).

While reading this brilliant memoir, a thought kept haunting me about the way we think about achieving foreign policy goals with military means and methods.  We tend to think of these goals as ones that can be achieved scientifically.  For example, if you want to dethrone an insipid dictator, you must simply determine what is necessary to remove him.  Regime change, then, is a scientific problem that can be addressed with the tools of an amateur’s logic:  identify the problem, formulate a strategy, and then execute that strategy carefully.  A reasonably clever schoolboy could work it out, we seem to believe.

The problem with this little tradition of ours is not just that the military is not an institution structured to win over the hearts and minds of those who live in a life world far from our own – though this is certainly true.  The real bugbear is that many foreign policy objectives are not well suited to being achieved through bloody military campaigns.  And it’s not that the military needs to change, far from it; we must stop expecting our soldiers to handle problems best addressed through other means. (more…)

One of the most striking statistics from the U.S. war in Vietnam doesn’t concern Vietnam at all, but its neighbor, Laos.  Between 1964 and 1973, the U.S. dropped over 2.5 million tons of ordnance on Laos.  This works out to the equivalent of one B-52 load of bombs every 8 minutes, 24 hours a day, for nine years. The sheer tonnage of explosives dropped on Laos makes the tiny, land-locked nation the most heavily-bombed country in history, with half a ton of bombs dropped for every inhabitant.

This dubious distinction carries a terrible legacy. According to U.S. estimates, approximately 30% of ordnance dropped over Laos failed to detonate upon impact. This unexploded ordnance, or UXO, remains scattered and buried throughout an area that covers one third of the country. In the past five decades over 50,000 Laotians – a fifth of them children – have been killed or maimed by American UXO. Currently, around 300 Laotians needlessly die every year from accidents involving UXO. Particularly deadly have been cluster bombs, which consist of sub-munitions that scatter over a wide area and are notorious for causing indiscriminate civilian casualties. Experts estimate that of the 260 million cluster bombs, or “bomblets” American forces dropped on Laos, 80 million remain unexploded. (more…)

Kenya captured headlines in December 2007 when the former beacon of stability and growth in East Africa descended into political and social chaos after elections heightened ethnic and tribal divisions. Yet despite over 1,300 deaths, 300,000 displaced, and fears of a second Rwanda, Kenya has pulled back from the brink with the creation of a fragile power-sharing government between the two major rival parties, facilitated by the collaborative efforts of multiple stakeholders locally, nationally, and internationally.

Today, Kenyans return to the polls for the first time since the post-election violence to usher in a new constitution and drastic political and judicial reforms. As Kenya takes a step in a positive direction, its trajectory from violence and complete institutional breakdown to slow but constructive change should be an opportunity for the international community and United States to evaluate the potential and limitations of preventive diplomacy as a concrete foreign policy tool.

International involvement in Kenya did not involve boots on the ground, but focused on rigorous negotiations and external economic and political pressure from international institutions and countries. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, former Secretary-General Kofi Annan, President Jakaya Kikwete of Tanzania, the African Union, and others were all key in the process, threatening punitive measures and pushing both sides towards compromise. (more…)

Imagine you have just acquired a new car – a flashy red Corvette.  Hopefully you would change the oil regularly and do preventive maintenance that doesn’t cost that much.  Or if you were shortsighted and had money to burn you could just skip that upkeep and several years down the road be faced with a huge bill for an engine overhaul.  The United States’ relationship with the rest of the world is a bit like that Corvette.  We can spend a relatively small amount of money on preventive maintenance and upkeep now or we can pay much more later when disaster strikes.  The preventive maintenance I’m referring to is the civilian side of our international engagement.

Today the United States is engaged in two wars and faces tremendous challenges around the world.  Polls have indicated that the US reputation in the world has improved since the election of Barack Obama.  However, the leadership of a popular and charismatic President is not sufficient to rebuild the bridges of trust and support that are critical in addressing terrorism, climate change, nuclear proliferation, and global poverty.  The United States must match its rhetoric with concrete actions.  Unfortunately, the President’s recent request to Congress to devote adequate resources to non-military international engagement has met with resistance in the Senate budget committee.

In his 2011 budget, the President requested $573.8 billion for military expenditures (excluding war funding).  For non-military expenditures which include all diplomatic activities and international aid, the President has requested $58.8 billion.  The Senate budget committee approved the full military request yet decreased the non-military expenditures by $4 billion.  The decision to underfund the international affairs budget is short sighted and should be reconsidered.

For years diplomatic and international aid activities have been targets for cuts.  Citizens question why we should be spending money overseas when we have such critical issues here at home – unemployment, health care, education, a crumbling infrastructure, and poverty.  Yet, when examined as a component of the overall federal budget, this request comprises a mere 1.4 percent.  There has been growing bipartisan consensus that for too long we have relied too much on military power in lieu of other smart power tools.  Without a doubt, we must maintain a strong and effective military force.  Yet, even Secretary of Defense Gates has suggested that our country would be well-served by placing more emphasis on non-military engagement around the world.  He said,

“As I have said for the last two years, I believe that the challenges confronting our nation cannot be dealt with by military means alone. They require instead whole-of-government approaches – but that can only be done if the State Department is given resources befitting the scope of its mission across the globe.”

(more…)

Last Friday, Reps. Howard Berman (D- CA) and Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE) introduced the Global Science Program for Security, Competitiveness, and Diplomacy Act, which proposes an increase in the application of science and scientific engagement in America’s foreign policy.  This follows the recent appointment of U.S. Science Envoys by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, and according to its authors, “formalizes the Obama Administration’s intention to enhance international science cooperation.”

Science and technology (S&T) remain among the most admired aspects of American society, even among nations without a wholly favorable opinion of the U.S.  Science has the power to inform decisions and serve as a core instrument of diplomacy.  Science cooperation is critical to America’s ability to win worldwide respect and support and can help build bridges for peace and prosperity worldwide. (more…)

On Wednesday, Barbara Boxer and John Kerry introduced the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, the long-awaited Senate version of the climate change bill that squeaked through the House in June. With the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen just nine weeks away, U.S. legislative action will be a key to successful global negotiations. Particularly, investment in international adaptation – the multilateral assistance to developing countries in order to withstand the impacts of climate change – is widely expected to be one of the central elements of the looming debate in Copenhagen. Whereas climate change mitigation policies aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, adaptation seeks to lessen the vulnerability and enhance the resilience of the most at-risk countries through disaster management and infrastructure capacity-building. Kerry has called international adaptation “part of the glue” holding together hopes of reaching a new global treaty to succeed the Kyoto Protocol. Still, investment in adaptation – at both the domestic and international levels – has been continuously overlooked.

The international security crises associated with climate change are dramatic and self-perpetuating. Drought, rising sea levels, and resource scarcity will lead to disease, mass migration, and political instability, ultimately causing fragile states to collapse into failed states. These cascading effects are intensified with the Earth’s population projected to reach nine billion by 2050. And in a cruel twist of irony, the most devastating effects will be felt in parts of the world that are least responsible for global climate change, specifically Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia.

In North Africa, subsistence farming will suffer a 20-40% reduction in crop yield due to prolonged drought and desertification. Drought will hit the Middle East hard as well, a region that is already home to 6% of the world’s population but just 2% of the Earth’s water supply. And with 60% of the Middle East’s bodies of water lying trans-boundary, the stage is set for conflict. As John Kerry said, “a demographic boom and a shrinking water supply will only tighten the squeeze on a region that doesn’t need another reason to disagree violently.” (more…)

I am fortunate to have had the opportunity to participate in the SENSE simulation (Strategic Economic Needs and Security Exercise) at the U.S. Institute of Peace over the last three days. SENSE is a simulation exercise meant to train leaders in reconstruction in a post-conflict country, in this case the made-up country of Akrona. Originally created to help implement the Dayton Peace Accords, it has been updated since then and used to train Iraqi leaders, among other places. The values of experiential learning are immeasurable, and in the Congressional Fellowship Program here at PSA, we have the Fellows participate in a two-hour NSC Deputies Committee simulation exercise.

The SENSE simulation is unique in the breadth of stakeholders included in the scenario. I played a parliamentarian (one of six), but there was also a president with a cabinet of ministers covering all the major governance areas, a central bank, international donors, international and local NGO’s, private domestic firms and a multi-national corporation.

SENSE is also unique in that it uses computers to process the decisions of these many actors to constantly update the status of Akrona. Depending on your role, you are able to update certain elements of the simulation based on the decisions you make, and you can track the decisions made by other players. For instance, while I was sitting at a parliament computer yesterday, I was quite pleased to see the Minister of Finance cut spending in the civil budget and start paying down the national debt. (more…)

In the immediate aftermath of the terror attacks in Mumbai, India, there is little doubt that there will be pressure on the incoming Obama Administration to move quickly in response to the Pakistan-India (and Afghanistan) security crisis. Early reports suggest that Pakistani based militants are behind the Mumbai violence and that American leadership will be necessary in order to secure regional stability.

While a focus on the region in general and Pakistan in particular is welcome, it is critically important that the new Administration develops a nuanced, long term approach to the very real challenges that exist. Crucially, the Administration must sequence its response and remember that despite the violence in Mumbai, and the link to Kashmir, it is stability in Pakistan that is a crucial first step to bringing peace to South Asia. This will take time and a clear understanding of how militancy has grown in Pakistan over recent years.

Most analysts believe that the Bush Administration’s support for the government of Gen. Musharraf contributed to a systematic rise in militancy over the last few years. Musharraf sought to marginalize and ban popular liberal opposition parties while allowing fringe religious parties to fill the vacuum; he assumed that he could control these parties and their figures. In reality, the religious parties became the primary outlet for anti-Musharraf sentiment and some of them fueled a rise in militancy. Policy analysts who recognized that Pakistani spikes in militancy occurred when the country was ruled by the military accurately predicted that history would repeat itself under Musharraf. The situation is most grave in the hard-to-govern tribal areas that border Afghanistan where a historic mistrust of central government, a rise in militancy and the relocated Taliban and Al Qaeda have created a security crisis.

(more…)

One might think that the current crisis roiling the American economy might be an opportunity for Senators Obama and McCain to spell out their differences on one important issue; U.S. military spending.

Consider the fact that on September 24th, during the fight over the Wall Street bail out, the House of Representatives passed, bill passed by a vote of 392-39, a $612 billion defense authorization bill for 2009 without any public protest or meaningful press comment. This show there is unlikely to be any significant pressure to cut military or related national security spending.

Instead, Senators Obama and McCain seem to be reading off the same page. That is the kind of bipartisanship we do no need. The time is long past for someone to stand up and say the obvious; that both military and associated “national security” spending is out of control and continually getting more outrageous.

The latter category includes nuclear weapons spending at the Energy department, plus the State department, as well as Veterans Affairs, and the intelligence agencies. All together that totals exceeds a trillion dollars annually.

Let’s stipulate that there are multiple factors which impact U.S. military spending. And yes, while the financial crisis will increase pressure to reduce military spending, other countervailing political factors will ensure that there likely will be no significant reduction.

Why is this? The primary reason is that the United States is at war, even if is an undeclared one and one which the country is largely disengaged and removed from. And no politician dares cutting military spending for fear of being accused being ‘soft on defense” or not “supporting the troops.”

Unlike the situation at the end of the 1980s and early 19980s there is nothing comparable to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, which drove significant reduction in U.S. military spending.

Today the situation is reversed. The United States is fighting the “long war” (formerly known at the global war on terror) and politically both the incumbent administration and the opposition party are reluctant to cut military spending at such a time.

Sadly, there is nothing in the campaign platforms of either Sen. John McCain or Barrack Obama to suggest that they would significantly reduce military spending.

In fact McCain says the United States must enlarge the size of its armed forces. That alone will guarantee that operation and support costs, traditionally one of the highest categories of U.S. military spending will stay high.

Likewise Sen. Obama supports plans to increase the size of the Army by 65,000 soldiers and the Marines by 27,000 troops.

(more…)

When Heads of State gathered for the opening of the General Assembly at the United Nations in New York last month, they were welcomed to a headquarters with a leaky roof. Plastic sheeting was installed previously to protect desks and computers in the library from dripping water, where a marble wall has threatened to collapse. Asbestos insulation has yet to be replaced, and some components of the core infrastructure are so antiquated that spare parts are no longer made.

In many ways, the decay of the UN headquarters is an apt metaphor for the world organization’s increasingly antiquated capacity to meet what is unquestionably the most important—and some might say “transcendent”—issue we face as a global community of nations: the growing likelihood of the spread and perhaps inevitable use of a nuclear weapon.

Preventing that catastrophe should be of critical importance to the UN and all Member States. To wit, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon recently called nuclear terrorism, “one of the most serious threats of our time,” noting that, “even one such attack could inflict mass casualties and create immense suffering and unwanted change in the world forever.”

But working from their 1950s edifice, the UN works to prevent this evolving 21st century threat with a decidedly 20th Century toolkit.

(more…)