Rewriting US National Security Strategy Posted by Suzanne Nossel

I spent Wednesday and Thursday in DC for the launch of the Princeton Project on National Security's Final Report, entitled Forging a World of Liberty Under Law.  I've reported some before on the Princeton Project.  Over the last two years I co-chaired a working group on Anti-Americanism whose findings can be found here.  The project is led by Anne-Marie Slaughter, Dean of the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton and Professor John Ikenberry.  They've done a masterful job in compiling a Report that's generating considerable press and attention on the Hill, in capitals around the world and - once a national tour begins - in America outside the Beltway.

On Wednesday I took on State Department Legal Adviser John Bellinger during a panel discussion on capital hill and this exchange was excerpted on the next day's All Things Considered

John Bellinger, the State Department’s legal advisor, just returned from Europe, where he says he explained and emphasized that the administration is trying very hard to, quote, “turn a new page.”

Mr. JOHN BELLINGER (U.S. State Department): I don’t think everything’s resolved, but what we’re trying to do to say to our allies is look at this as essentially as a glass that’s half full. That there’s an opportunity here for us to move forward and try to resolve some of these things, not that there has not been forward movement.

NORTHAM: Suzanne Nossel, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, says the administration’s policies, such as the new detainee bill, will further erode U.S. legitimacy among its allies.

Ms. SUZANNE NOSSEL (Center for American Progress): I frankly don’t think it’s going to be good enough to go to our allies and say that the positions we have, the policies we implement with respect to detainees and in other areas are not clearly wrong. That’s I think too low of a standard for us to use as our foundation to have the kind of influence that we want to around the world.

Bellinger had said that in talking to allies around the world, he defended US policies on detention as "not clearly wrong."  My how far we have fallen.

But let's focus some on what's significant about the Princeton Report.  In my view this:

It's not one threat - The Report insists that terrorism and instability in the Middle East notwithstanding, we live in a world of multiple threats - potential pandemics, possible crises on the Taiwan peninsula, proliferation, to name a few - and put ourselves at risk if we consider one above all others.  I agree with this, and would add to the list of top priorities certain developments that are not threats in the traditional sense - such as America's waning diplomatic influence and loss of legitimacy - and argue that these merit much more attention than they get. 

The Report contains some suggestions about how our national security apparatus can get better at multitasking, though more work needs to be done to figure that out.  The Report puts heavy emphasis on communication and coordination among government arms.  While this is part of the solution, in my experience the problem of inadequate focus - whether in government or the corporate world - only gets solved by making capable, ambitious and empowered people fully dedicated to a problem.  As it is, we have just a handful of national security officials visible to the public, and at this point they are all likely to be judged on Iraq and little more.  Maybe we need more Cabinet-level positions with authority over national security - of 15 current cabinet slots, just 2 deal primarily with external affairs.  If we had secretaries focused on nuclear non-proliferation or international development, maybe we could have more to show in these areas even during a period where most of our energies were sucked into Iraq.

Reforming the UN Security Council - The Report urges that the US make the push for UNSC reform a foreign policy centerpiece, trading agreement on an enlarged Council with partial curtailment of the veto with some form of super-majority requirement in cases of direct action in response to a crisis like Darfur.   The impulse to try to break through the UN's paralysis is absolutely right.  Thus far, the effort to do so by defining new rules, such as the responsibility to protect, hasn't yet paid off.  Whether the proposal will overcome the fundamental problem that bedevils the UNSC - the refusal of key powers to acquiesce in a Darfur-style intervention - is far from clear.  But the Report's authors believe it would at least shake things up enough to potentially generate some progress, and that's hard to disagree with. 

Concert of Democracies - A key element of the Princeton Report's proposal on UNSC reform is that it would be backed up with the prospect of a key group of countries forming a Concert of Democracies that would stand as a potential alternative to the UN in the event that the world body does not reform.  I like this proposal, though there a number of attendant complications that won't get any easier to solve.  At one point the Princeton authors were, I believe, considering whether to emphasis a globalized NATO rather than a newly-established Concert of Democracies as a possible successor to an ossified UN. 

Both the reform of the UN and the Concert of Democracies would depend on the US having unshakable bonds with the key, large developing countries - Brazil, Chile, India, South Africa, Nigeria, Kenya, etc. - whose support would be key to either brand of institutional innovation.  Our myopic focus on terrorism to the exclusion of trade and development issues has cost us in this regard, and that will need to be remedied before we can take the lead in pushing to strengthen the multilateral system.  A strategy oriented toward a multiplicity of threats and dependent upon a diversity of alliances will demand that we focus on the priorities of others, at least insofar as necessary to mobilize them in support of our own.

PS - I am writing today and won't be posting tomorrow night due to the Yom Kippur holiday.  But keep an eye out for some exciting changes at Democracy Arsenal next week!  Best, Suzanne

PPS - I've been meaning to post that, rather randomly, I am quoted in Noam Chomsky's Hegemony and Survival, made infamous by Hugo Chavez.  The reference is remarkable only for its banality, but check google booksearch if you are interested.

Comments

[Don Bacon]

I'm not necessarily negative; I think I like the Princeton Project. They seem to take a very intelligent view of things, with Ms. Nossel contributing. I'd know for sure if I could abide .pdf documents. But this business of multiple threats against the United States--hogwash. We're more at threat on the freeway than anywhere. External affairs are over-hyped, to take the minds of the prols off their own misery. Talk about being negative; no country threatens the U.S. I had a boss once who wouldn't let me mention the word "problem"--he insisted that I call problems "challenges." Very instructive.

"Liberty under law"--brings me back to freshman English class, UMass. The professor asked if anyone knew what was inscribed in granite over the door of the Worcester County Courthouse. I did. "Obedience to Law is Liberty" I proudly answered. Do you believe it? he asked. Hell, I'd never even thought about it. So NOW I knew why I was in school. Supposed to think. What do you think?

[J.S.]

Don- while I do believe that are legitimate threats, I like your angle- the fear-mongering and overhyping of threats is what's driving our insane policies.

J.S.

[Roger C. S. Lin]

"Liberty under Law" is a good motto. Unfortunately, the US administration's policies on Taiwan do not live up this this motto. The truth of the matter is something that even the members of the US Congress are not willing to admit .... namely there are no international legal documents to prove that the REPUBLIC OF CHINA is the legal government of Taiwan.
Contrastingly, there is a little-known argument under international law and US Constitutional law to say that "Taiwan is an overseas territory of the United States of America."
Based on this formulation, a group of Taiwanese people have filed suit in a Court in Washington D.C. to have their fundamental rights under US laws, and the US Constitution, fully recognized. A summary of the case is here -- http://www.taiwankey.net/dc/suitsuen3.htm Hopefully this lawsuit will enable the Taiwanese people to rid themselves of the "Republic of China" monkier once and for all, and to be able to truly achieve "Liberty under Law" ......