Is not doubling down on its great-power past, but in response to the "rise of the rest" is something more inclusive. Globalization has been changing U.S. foreign policy since
the beginning of the American Republic. From our first diplomatic post
in Tangier, Morocco founded in 1777, to the more than 285 diplomatic
facilities around the world today operated by the U.S. Department of
State, the business of diplomacy has evolved over time.
While it is obvious that thriving markets and global security go hand
in hand, along with America’s central role in both arenas, often our
diplomacy and institutions do not reflect this reality. In other words,
the channels of influence that America could once rely on—large,
multinational consortia of first-world powers—are waning in power. If
one thing is clear to ambassadors around the world, it’s that U.S.
diplomacy needs a jumpstart into the 21st century.
The key for American diplomacy is not doubling down on its
great-power past, but harnessing the future on the ground. The
enthusiasm and entrepreneurial spirit that became infectious in the
“Arab Spring” countries will remain the norm. Young people are tapping
into the culture of innovation, even amidst the political difficulties
and a lack of access to money and resources. In turn, effective,
pragmatic partnerships based on shared objectives—economic growth,
stability and more—will be the engine for increased security and
prosperity. This is the future of diplomacy, not just at the U.S. State
Department—but worldwide.
On The Ground
While terms such as “Economic Statecraft,” “Global Engagement,” and
“Strategic Partnerships” have come into fashion in Washington, the
tangible impact of these buzzwords is difficult to measure. Ironically,
some of the most challenging places for U.S. foreign policy represent
some of the greatest opportunities for these new approaches in
21-century statecraft.
The key is to create and empower stable business conditions in unstable places through private-sector leadership. The intersection of public and private sectors has now blurred the
lines in diplomacy. Today, our diplomats are beginning to understand
that public-private partnerships can get the most out of available
resources, technology, knowledge, and networks. In fact, these
partnerships might be the most effective foreign policy tool America has
at its disposal today.
Take Israel and Palestine, where U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry
is pushing towards a final diplomatic peace between the Israelis and
Palestinians. Last year, I visited the Palestinian Territories to
support an event called “Celebration of Innovation,” a locally
organized business development and investor pitch competition.
Essentially the State Department’s own prototype of Shark Tank,
fifteen young Palestinian entrepreneurs were selected from hundreds of
applicants to compete for the chance to present their ideas to an
international audience. The two winners, Alaa—a twenty-four year old
from the Gaza Strip who had never left his home before winning the
chance to pitch his business—and Aya, the first Palestinian woman to own and raise sheep from
Nabulus, are representative of a global change. If one thing became
clear, it was that the next generation doesn’t want charity; they want a
chance.
Working with the best and brightest that this troubled region had to
offer, their ingenuity—especially limited money and shaky security—is
impressive. While observing the number of Palestinian businessmen and
entrepreneurs that had succeeded throughout the Arab world, despite the
odds, a Palestinian professor commented to me that, “Diamonds are
created under pressure, therefore it is only natural that Palestinians
entrepreneurs are like diamonds within this region.”
Alaa beamed with pride as he presented his business idea of creating
miniature furniture for densely packed living conditions, like those in
cramped New York studios, that he invented to deal with the overcrowded
apartment in Gaza that his family lived in. Aya, short and covered in a
traditional head-scarf, electrified the crowd with her energy as she
pitched her idea of raising organic sheep to be locally sourced, given
restrictions faced in the West Bank of imports from neighboring
countries. In a packed room that was being broadcast live on television,
both of these young entrepreneurs won grants to
further develop their businesses.The amount of these micro-investments
were negligible when balanced against the international aid and
development budgets that the U.S. lends to their homeland. But the
impact of empowering these young leaders—and the jobs they create—will
be felt long beyond the legacy of the political leaders that today
dictate the terms of the ongoing peace process. Cities like Richmond and
Chicago have seen a link between creating jobs and lowering crime; Gaza
and Nabulus are no different.
Changing Global Dynamics
The international system, which until the 1990s saw power
disproportionally concentrated in North America and Europe, has since
witnessed a dramatic change in distribution to other players—mostly in
Asia and South America. To understand why 20th-century diplomacy needs
an upgrade, it’s worth a look at the recent changes on the global stage.
Brazil, once a poster-child for income inequality, has enjoyed its
economic renaissance following a prolonged lull. Indonesia, although
still manacled by corruption, has evolved from an insular military
dictatorship into a politically stable democracy with a promising
economy. India has gone from an aid-dependent regional power to a hotbed
of entrepreneurship, with its economy more than doubling in size
between 2002 and 2008.
In that same period, Turkey’s economy has more than tripled,
accompanied by a strong sense of identity and a brash self-confidence.
Last, but certainly not least, is the dramatic rise of China, which in
1990 had a gross domestic product per capita less than India’s, but is
today almost four times as wealthy. Yet with each of these economic
successes comes development challenges, as played out recently in the
streets of Brazil and Turkey through protest movements, not to mention
the ongoing tumult playing out throughout the Arab world.
This so-called “rise of the rest” presents the United States with a
decision. On the one hand, it could incorporate these new players into
established systems of global governance, more accurately reflecting the
distribution of international power and strengthen international
cooperative mechanisms. On the other hand, if the West were to continue
to resist or deny these new global players a place at the high table,
there is a strong likelihood that the entire global system – which the
West created and carefully nurtured over the past half century for its
benefit, and that of others – may be jeopardized.
Interestingly, some of the most innovative work in this field is
happening where you may least expect it: the U.S. government. To do
more with less, the Obama Administration has pursued creative ideas
like challenge prizes and multi-sector partnerships, developing new funding models including pay-for-success and social impact bonds, and using the bully pulpit to spotlight far-sighted investors focused on sustainability and social impact.
Faced with constricting budgets, government executives have found
smarter ways to make government capital more catalytic. By taking on a
mentality that everyone stands to gain by collaborating, they leveraged
resources by blending public grants and guarantees with private
investments, effectively making the sum greater than the individual
parts.
But diplomacy can no longer be done by government leaders alone.
Private-sector leaders must be an integral part of foreign policy.
Creating spaces for public- and private-sector leaders to collaborate at
international summits like those for the G-20 and UN General Assembly
is a first step. This would help orchestrate partnership opportunities
for businesses and governments, and in turn stimulate long-term economic
growth—just like we saw in Europe following the Marshall Plan.
Expanding this model, with the help of America’s multinational
companies, includes seeking advice and collaboration, rather than trying
to simply direct the private sector from Washington. The best way to
capitalize on the overlapping interests between various sectors is to
designate senior-level responsibility for that task, completely tied to
core business and intently focused on unlocking new markets in
partnership with governments. Efforts such as the UN’s Global Education First Initiatives or the State Department’s Global Partnership Initiative that coordinates with some of the largest private sector companies are the way of the future.
For the private sector, investing in diplomacy isn’t just charity—it’s
an opportunity. Take tech giant Hewlett-Packard, which has provided
business skills training to young entrepreneurs in 49 countries through
its HP LIFE program. And throughout the Middle East and North Africa,
Cisco, Google, Intel, and Microsoft—to name just a few American
companies—are investing in similar ways using a combination of low-tech
(like face-to-face training from local experts) and high-tech (like
web-based learning) solutions. These are models of public-private
training programs that will give our next generation of engineers,
designers and business professionals a lift. What’s more, these programs
aren’t only philanthropic—you can bet that these companies are also
looking for talented future employees.
As the young Palestinian entrepreneurs taught me, and as former
Secretary of State Hilary Clinton often remarked, talent is
universal—but opportunity is not. The more opportunity we can provide
for the private sector globally and for a very talented next generation,
the more successful U.S. foreign policy will be. Rather than bemoaning
the effects of sequestration and the rise of non-state actors on U.S.
foreign policymaking, proactively adjusting U.S. diplomacy to include
the private sector in these new realities is our best bet moving
forward.
Dr. Joshua W. Walker is a Fellow at the Truman National Security Project and previously served as a Senior Adviser to the U.S. Department of State.
No comments:
Post a Comment