Proposals for the 2017 National Security Strategy

(This paper was written in August 2016, under the guidance of Professor Joan Johnson-Freese, for the class "Globalization and US National Security," through the Harvard Summer School)

In 2017, the new administration faces a complex security environment with global   challenges and a greater diffusion of power internationally. In drafting the 2017 National Security Strategy, it is imperative that President Clinton and her advisors consider the following themes as critical elements of America’s international leadership: effective use of “smart power,” rebalancing of US priorities and engagements, and firm protection of American values.

Smart Power

            Over the next four years, the US must implement a “clear-eyed” national strategy that shrewdly assesses the unique factors in each international conflict and “integrates all of our foreign policy tools"--diplomatic, information, economic, and military power--with the goal of advancing American values and the rule of law. ¹ Primary reliance on military power “further[s] dark warnings about the potentially harmful effects of… rebalanc[ing] US national security spending or trim[ming] the massive military budget” instead of providing an objective view of US capabilities within the international environment; thus, a balanced smart power approach is necessary to deploy tools that can fulfill American goals on a case-by-case basis.²

Effective implementation of a smart power approach requires investing in and reinforcing domestic sources of power. The US should dedicate increased funding to the education of regional American experts, allowing for more informed and impactful intervention in regional crises. It is also recommended that the administration allocate more funds to conflict assessment efforts, in partnership with the efforts of think tanks, in order to assess the consequences of possible US actions and select the course with the least amount of conflict. Recognizing the increasing importance of the information domain, the administration should invest in advanced cyber capabilities so as to prevent non-state or state actors from developing unchecked influence in the digital sphere.

Smart power, based on the above national capabilities, must guide the Clinton administration’s strategy for engagement in different regional crises. In South Asia, region-specific experts should guide India and Pakistan to expand bilateral cooperation based on shared historical experiences and cultural traditions, with the end goal of a regional security framework. ³ In Europe, the administration must guide the UK’s process of exiting the EU, developing the economic structures necessary to mitigate the regional and global effects of short-term economic instability. By ensuring a smooth and “amicable split” and reassuring allies of the US’s commitment to NATO, America can continue to cooperate with member states in deterring Russian aggression. ⁴ Regarding the JCPOA, the US should continue Obama’s policy of lifting nuclear-related economic sanctions on Iran while strengthening cooperation between intelligence agencies and nuclear inspectors to ensure treaty compliance.⁵ American officials must analyze the future economic effects of lifting sanctions and restrict Iran’s future nuclear ambitions without constraining its ability to bring about regional peace. The Clinton administration should also continue the policy of addressing radical terrorism by curtailing its extensive online influence and empowering local troops.⁶

Rebalancing

            As Secretary of State, Clinton led the “pivot” to Asia, or realist shift in foreign policy towards regions that are increasingly important to American security and economic interests.⁷ This entailed “innovative, low-cost, and small-footprint approaches” to general regional crises in order to fulfill security objectives in a sustainable manner, while avoiding endless commitments to regions with little strategic importance to the US.⁸ The principle of rebalancing American regional commitments should continue to guide international engagement under President Clinton. The US should engage in the Middle East in a smarter and more effective manner, while deepening trade and defense cooperation with emerging regions such as East Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Latin America. “Surging economic growth” and “aggressive military modernization” in East Asia have made the region an important and capable partner for the US in addressing international crises.⁹ China’s growing sphere of influence makes necessary American regional intervention as a counterbalance. Sub-Saharan Africa is developing into a strong potential market for American investors due to its high population growth, rapid urbanization, and expanding middle class. As a result of normalization of relations with Cuba, the US can stimulate its economic ties with Latin America and support the expansion of commodity production, labor, and services in the region.¹⁰

Implementation of an “undisciplined… strategy of liberal hegemony” encourages allies to free-ride on US defense capabilities and provides opposing states with a rationale to acquire greater military power.¹¹ While some argue that American deep engagement helps to “maintain an open world economy,” general exercise of American leadership prevents the government from dedicating adequate resources to resolve the most pressing international threats.¹² In the globalized world, international threats come from both regional conflicts and international challenges. Strategic rebalancing should therefore apply not only to engagement within regions, but also to engagement among different international issues, to ensure effective allocation of resources and power in all of the US’s foreign commitments, according to national interests.

Implementation of this policy requires balancing of domestic processes and international actions. Despite the US’s leadership in the effort to combat climate change, popular domestic opposition to energy and emission regulations obstructs quick ratification and implementation of international climate agreements by Congress. The US must therefore invest in rebalancing the public-government relationship and expanding public awareness of the benefits of climate change-related regulations—such as job growth in clean energy markets. Free trade deals such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership cause similar public concerns regarding job loss. In order to move workers from negatively-affected, low-wage fields to areas where they can productively contribute to the national economy, the US government must provide greater technical education opportunities for unskilled laborers displaced by foreign competition.

Firm protection of American values

As elaborated in founding documents, America is built on the values of democracy and universal human rights, a foundation that should be clearly represented in US foreign engagements. However, the US can only extend its values abroad when it implements them fully at home, a stance that the new NSS should clearly uphold.¹³ To this end, the US government must remain diligent in its prohibition of inhumane practices such as torture and racial discrimination. The executive should also restore the “constitutional dynamic between the executive and legislative branches of government” in order to strengthen democratic participation in major national decisions.¹⁴

            Acting in accordance with these values, the US must acknowledge its responsibility to alleviate human suffering and respect human dignity by accepting up to 65,000 Syrian refugees into the country over four years, prioritizing human capital and those who can contribute productively to the national economy. Internationally, the administration should help local governments in Syria build the infrastructure necessary to provide civilians with basic services. This region wide effort should be carried out multilaterally, through international organizations such as the UN and regional partners such as the European Union. This approach embodies the US’s liberal internationalist responsibilities, but realist assessment and implementation of these responsibilities.¹⁵

            The Hillary Doctrine states that women’s political and economic empowerment is an underestimated force for domestic and international peace, and should therefore be an essential national security priority for the US.¹⁶ Accordingly, the administration should devote more of the security budget to the Office of Global Women’s Issues, which ensures that consideration of women’s rights is fully integrated in foreign policy formulation and implementation.¹⁷ Through the Office of Global Women’s Issues, the US government should reach out to countries in which women are denied the most fundamental rights and offer economic assistance such as microfinance loans to encourage economic independence and stability. The Office should also convene forums for women leaders throughout the world to raise awareness of the need for women’s active participation in civil society.

            Finally, commitment to American values implies that the US must urge other states to protect human rights and adopt democratic processes, strategically and in the most impactful manner. While the US seeks diplomacy and cooperation on shared concerns with authoritarian powers, it should promote these values, leading to the preservation of the universal rights of their citizens and a more stable political structure. In negotiations with China over mutual concerns such as climate change or robust and sustainable economic growth, the US should quietly pressure China to respect the freedom of speech and avoid imprisoning dissidents. This method is to be preferred over publicly confronting China, which has historically been ineffective in expanding American values and strengthening bilateral cooperation. The US faces a similar situation with Russia, whose frequent military expansionism in neighboring countries has violated the international rule of law. To restore democratic processes in regional matters, the administration should stand with powerful allies and pressure Russia to resume peace talks.

            Over the past eight years, President Obama’s national security strategy successfully restored American leadership. By applying a smart power approach, rebalancing foreign commitments and domestic processes, and promoting national values, the Clinton administration must maintain the US’s influence as a firm, clear-eyed, and collaborative power in the international sphere.

Notes

¹ “Clinton’s Speech on the ‘Smart Power Approach to Counterterrorism,’ September 2011,” Council on Foreign Relations, 9 Sept. 2011.

² Zenko, M.A, “Clear and Present Safety,” Foreign Affairs 91.2 (2012): 81.

³ National Intelligence Council, Global Trends 2030: Alternative Worlds (Washington DC: National Intelligence Council, 2012) 75.

⁴ Oliver, Tim and Michael John Williams, “Special Relationship in flux: Brexit and the future of the US-EU and US-UK relationships,” International Affairs 92.3 (2016): 559.

⁵ Sanger, David, and Michael Gordon, “Future Risks of an Iran Nuclear Deal,” New York Times 23 Aug. 2015.

⁶ LA Times staff, “Transcript: Hillary Clinton’s Democratic National Convention speech, annotated,” Los Angeles Times 28 July 2016.

⁷ Kay, Sean, America’s Search for Security: The Triumph of Idealism and the Return of Realism (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield) 183.

⁸ Kay 187.

⁹ National Intelligence Council 74.

¹⁰ National Intelligence Council 74.

¹¹ Posen, Barry, “Pull Back: The Case for a Less Activist Foreign Policy,” Foreign Affairs 92.1 (2013): 116-117.

¹² Brooks, Stephen, et al. “Lean Forward: In Defense of American Engagement,” Foreign Affairs 92.1 (2013): 3.

¹³ Obama, Barack, National Security Strategy (Washington DC: The White House, 2015): 19.

¹⁴ Kay 275.

¹⁵ Zenko 83.

¹⁶ Traub, James, “The Hillary Clinton Doctrine,” Foreign Policy 6 Nov. 2015.

¹⁷ Kerry, John” “Why Women are Central to US Foreign Policy,” op-ed. US Dept. of State 8 March 2013.

UN Sustainable Development Goals Challenge (Essay contest- 3.2016)

USYNC: The Path to Sustainable Development in the US

“I have news!” The classroom falls silent as twenty eager student writers turn to the instructor. With determination glinting in their eyes, these youth look to newspaper writing as a means of consolidating their writing skills and applying universal concepts such as global citizenship and peace to their neighborhood. This is the environment that will be established by the US Youth Newspaper Camp, a community-based education initiative targeting low-income youth in the US. With guidance from a national oversight committee, the USYNC program will partner local high school (11th-12th grades) and college students with students from 6th – 10th grade in neighboring low-income areas to help disadvantaged youth simulate the investigation, writing, and publication aspects of journalism. Participating youth will investigate community and international events, gaining a sense of their place in the local and global community. Students will strengthen their writing skills by synthesizing their findings and opinions in 6-8 newspaper publications annually. As these newspapers are spread, digitally and by paper, USYNC youth will be able to influence local opinion, bringing global awareness and a mentality of sustainable development to their community.

This project most clearly addresses Sustainable Development Goal #4—quality education. USYNC allows its youth journalists to apply their reading, writing, and critical thinking skills outside the classroom, basic abilities that are critical for success in any career. The program offers equal educational opportunities to empower the most vulnerable members of society and motivates them toward higher education. As students report on local affairs, they will be more involved in the community, gaining a desire to make a change in their neighborhoods. By writing about international occurrences, low-income youth will become aware of the “knowledge and skills necessary to promote sustainable development,” especially human rights, peace, global citizenship, and appreciation of cultural diversity. Students will be able to apply this knowledge to develop local and national solutions to pressing social issues at USYNC conferences for local chapters. Supported by local mentors and a national community of like-minded peers, USYNC youth reporters will be empowered to actively pursue higher education and spread their change-making mentality throughout their communities, meeting the targets of Sustainable Development Goal #4 in an effective and sustainable manner.

As it grows into an academic and stimulating community of socially-conscious youth, USYNC will be able to offer students not only educational opportunities, but also exposure to various career paths. Through interviews with various members of the community and special guest speaker presentations at USYNC conferences, youth journalists will be encouraged to pursue careers that they might not have considered in the past. By taking the first step to diversifying the labor pool of the next generation, USYNC can also make progress in achieving Sustainable Development Goal #8—decent work and economic growth.

In accord with the spirit of the Secretary-General’s 5-Year Action Agenda, emphasizing cooperation with youth worldwide, USYNC strives to change low-income youth throughout the US into community leaders, youth activists, and valuable change-makers in the campaign for sustainable development in the modern world.

American thread in the Latin American Patchwork

A man, a plan, a canal, Panama. In addition to being the title of a historical documentary on the construction of the Panama canal and one of the coolest character palindromes* discovered by man, this short phrase encapsulates an odd moment in history, in which the determination of a single enthusiastic man fueled a mighty revolution that led to the founding of an entire nation. Although this series of unfortunate events was one of a kind, the domineering attitude that lies at its core has characterized much of American foreign policy toward Latin America for the past hundred years.

Until the 1900s, the United States essentially followed a policy of isolationism under the Monroe Doctrine—foreign engagements were few and spread apart, as the nation followed in the footsteps of its non-interventionist founding father. In 1902, charismatic President Theodore Roosevelt put an end to this era when he boldly announced his vision for the United States as a military power exercising imperialistic control over the western hemisphere in the Roosevelt Corollary. This policy bluntly justified the U.S.’s military intervention in any Latin American state in order to prevent any other imperial power from gaining a foothold in America’s backyard.

This new and aggressive foreign policy quickly caused uneasy rumblings among the Latin American states when President Roosevelt demonstrated his willingness to prioritize American security interests over all else, even if it meant inciting a revolution and establishing an entirely new country. Following the Spanish-American war, many Americans perceived it to be in their nation’s best interest to construct an interoceanic canal through Latin America, thus establishing profitable trade routes that connected the Pacific and Atlantic and allowing the U.S. to more easily defend its Pacific holdings (i.e. Hawaii and the Philippines). When the Colombian government steadfastly refused to sell the rights to the requisite strip of land in present-day Panama, the administration, waving its metaphorical “big stick,” fomented political unrest within the state, and expediently appointed French canal investor (Bunau-Varilla) as American ambassador to the young nation. The need to fulfill U.S. security interests easily triumphed over the established regional order, as the young imperial state rampaged through its Latin American neighbors.

In the 1940s, the immense security threat posed by the rise of Hitler and other European dictators encouraged a temporary shift away from US dominance to collective security and reciprocal trade agreements. Yet this transition towards being a “good neighbor” gave away with the growing tension of the Cold War and global front against Communism. Under President Reagan, the U.S. became notorious for sending military support to revolutionary groups that sought to overthrow leftist governments. In El Salvador, America backed the military government, which became notorious for cases of human rights abuse against its citizens, in order to resist the build-up of guerrilla groups, backed by Cuba. Similar ideology-based foreign policy decisions thus perpetuated the political chaos that shook Central American states for the final decades of the 20th century.

Through the late 19th and 20th centuries, the U.S. left a mixed legacy in Latin America, one that remains in the consciousness of Latinos even in the modern era. As we observe furious calls for the construction of a “Mexican border wall” and similarly polarizing rhetoric arising from the presidential candidates, we must be wary of the painful history of aggression that such claims call to mind.

Why the US should contribute more troops to UN Peacekeeping

“More than ever before in human history, we share a common destiny. We can master it only if we face it together.”

From its inception following the devastation of the two world wars, the United Nations became the primary organization responsible for preserving international peace and security while encouraging constructive dialogue to avoid war. One of the principal tools through which the UN has sought to “keep the peace” is the international peacekeeping operation. Currently, the UN leads 16 peacekeeping missions with over 116,000 uniformed and civilian personnel on four different continents. However, the efforts of this international body continue to be hindered by the lack of military support from western developed nations, including the US.

In order to ensure that the United Nations possesses the capabilities necessary to respond to current and future crises, it is critical that the US deploy its high value military assets to provide support for international peacekeeping. For the world community, conflict-torn regions, and the United States, the potential benefits are vast. The increased military contributions of a world power such as the United States would immediately boost the legitimacy of the UN’s peacekeeping missions. Many of the current national troops originate from developing countries, and it is likely that provision of the US’s specialized military capacities and technology would allow for more effective operations tailored to the conditions in a particular conflict region. With such improved technological access and increasing peacekeeper efficiency, scholars have predicted that more developed nations are likely to increase their military support for the UN, liberating the organization from its current challenge of encouraging richer nations to contribute what is desperately needed in peacekeeping missions, instead of what countries “feel” is necessary. Finally, by expanding the number of highly-trained military personnel in the UN Peacekeeping Forces, the US can bolster the accountability of peacekeepers around the world. For several decades, the reputation of peacekeeping forces has been marred by frequent reports of sexual and behavioral misconduct among UN troops, many of whom remain in the UN Command, unpunished, due to the desperate need for troops in peace operations. Greater US involvement in peacekeeping will therefore place more pressure on troop contributing countries to recall any of their own offending soldiers, and institute stricter criteria for potential peacekeepers.

Yet the major question remains as to how the US and other developed nations might be encouraged to expand their military contributions to the UN Peacekeeping Forces. The stunning tragedy at Mogadishu, Somalia, in which the corpses of 18 American peacekeepers were dragged through the streets, (an incident forever captured by the movie Black Hawk Down) remains fresh in the consciousness of American leaders. If the UN truly desires increased support from the US, it will have to establish more efficient exit strategies and communication channels with peacekeeping missions. It will also have to limit its involvement to regions in which a peace accord has been reached, providing an added level of security for troops and ensuring that the UN peacekeepers will be able to serve as a non-aggressive peacekeeping force.

Until these steps have been fulfilled, it will be our role, as students in the US, to remain conscious of the issue and remind national leaders that the US must continue to strive to build peace, defend peace, and keep the peace that exists around the world.