America in the World Conference Roundup
PRINT
EMAIL
TEXT:
SHARERoll over the icons on the right to access full event footage from each panel and speaker.
Click here to listen to each event in our podcast (launches iTunes).
The Center for American Progress and The Century Foundation hosted the “America in the World” conference to explore how the United States can restore its leadership for a more peaceful, prosperous, and secure world.
The conference brought together leading thinkers from government, academia, the military, and the non-governmental sector to discuss the peace and security issues that will shape the public agenda over the coming years. Keynote speakers included former Secretary of State Madeline Albright, Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR), and former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski. Panel discussions focused on four topics: energy and the environment, the Middle East, America’s defense posture, and the global economy.
Keynote Speaker Madeleine Albright
Albright opened the day with a call for a foreign policy that embraces America’s greatest strength—its values—to preserve its security and interests. America’s “brand has been tarnished,” she said, and it would take real leadership to earn back the world’s trust.
Iraq, she observed, was a disastrous “demonstration of American power that exhibited its weakness.” While we seek to extract ourselves, China is consolidating its influence in Africa and East and Central Asia.
The average teenager today is more aware of Guantanamo than Tiananmen Square, she observed. Meanwhile, a new Berlin wall has emerged behind which nations such as China, Russia, Syria, Iran, Venezuela, Egypt, and Zimbabwe have formed an informal alliance against the spread of democracy and human rights. Against this coalition, the administration has acted counterproductively by “seeing norms as constraints,” she argued.
“We need to see the world as it is, not as it might be,” and embrace a realistic foreign policy. America must reposition itself against challenges to come: the growth of China and India, the erosion of our international alliances, and the spread of nuclear arms.
Panel Discussion: Energy, the Environment, and National Security
Former Senator Tom Daschle (D-SD) led a spirited exchange over the effect of the growing energy crisis and climate change on national security. Retired General Charles Wald, who recently advised a study on the security threat of climate change, observed that the threats to order from global warming are clear and present. Moreover, our military entanglements in the Middle East are in large part due to our reliance on oil; when you factor in all the costs, we are paying $7-8 per gallon of gasoline. He warned, however, against seeking the chimera of energy independence, which would be “the worst thing for America.”
CIA Director John Deutch followed by identifying four challenges presented by our energy use: our dependence on foreign oil, the fragility of our energy infrastructure, the risks posed by the spread of nuclear power, and the effects of global warming. Congress can work around the margins, but the key is the executive; the next president must be urged to put together a comprehensive plan to reduce our vulnerability to these risks.
Catherine Zoi, president of the Alliance for Climate Protection, noted that California is already showing that smart regulation, such as policies that reward utilities for selling fewer kWH, can stimulate major efficiency gains. Already California has decoupled economic growth from energy growth, and residents use half as much energy as the national average. Zoi argued that a carbon tax of $30 for every ton of carbon emitted would make a big difference. Daschle observed that such a policy now faces an unprecedented positive political climate.
Panelists agreed that an equitable international solution to the energy crisis requires America to lead by example in the world, pioneering practical policies and pulling other countries—particularly China and India—on board.
Keynote Address by Sen. Gordon Smith
Smith began his remarks with the observation that it is “better to be trusted than to be loved,” and that American must re-establish “values the world trusts.”
Vis a vis Iraq, he called for a redeployment, arguing that “they will not stand up until we begin standing down.”
Smith’s comments focused on America’s relationship with Iran. Iran’s policies could further “radicalize” the Middle East, and its nuclear program could start a Sunni-Shi’a arms race with destabilizing consequences. Iranian weapons had found their way to militants in Iraq and Afghanistan, and there was “no defense” against Iranian bombs.
Smith, who sponsored the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act, argued for serious economic sanctions. The act restricts financing for Iran, seizes assets, singles out Russia as the primary supporter of Iran’s program, and requires reporting of all investment within Iran.
The administration’s continued refusal to negotiate with Iran is correct, he argued, since a favorable outcome is unlikely unless Iran’s enrichment is suspended during negotiations. He made clear that he is currently against any military option, but asserted, “We must use all the tools in the tool box.”
Panel Discussion: America and the Middle East
The Middle East panel agreed on one central principle: when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian crisis, the solutions are known and generally accepted, but the problem comes with implementation. Daniel Levy, a Senior Fellow for the Century Foundation, noted that the parameters of a settlement—1967 borders with a land swap to account for subsequent population growth and settlements along with a return of refugees to a Palestinian state, accompanied by a compensation and rehabilitation package, including significant Israeli contribution and Jerusalem divided along demographic lines—enjoyed majority support among both Israelis and Palestinians.
Ellen Laipson, president of the Henry L. Stimson Center, warned that despite the existence of a potential solution that enjoys the support of the population and elites, there remain powerful spoilers that can continue to undermine progress. Laipson argued that “American power has changed.” Our influence has diminished and our power contracted because of overreach in Iraq. We must acknowledge this new reality and change our tack, including building contingency plans against a nuclear Iran.
Responding to moderator Helene Cooper of The New York Times’ question regarding what the U.S. can do, former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Daniel Kurtzer replied that the hard work of diplomacy is essential, but that we are undermined by a perceived lack of competence in this arena. Kurtzer identified two policy shifts that could help: first, to acknowledge that Iran, with 150,000 U.S. soldiers on its borders, has legitimate security concerns that we must address; and second, to stop letting other states off the hook—the Gulf States, India, and China should all be involved in providing integrated Middle East security.
Levy added that solving the Israeli-Palestinian issue may help the United States build credibility and regional confidence—important tools for improving international perceptions of the United States.
Keynote Speaker Zbigniew Brzezinski – “National Insecurity and Global Security”
In Iraq, the United States must signal that it will not be there for 50 years (or for 50 months) and must talk with all leaders in the region about how and when we are leaving. Iraq is in a sectarian divide, and the United States must not be a protagonist in this struggle.
Vis a vis Iran, Brzezinski urged mutual concessions to kick-start nuclear talks: the United States would lift some economic sanctions in return for Iran agreeing to freeze its uranium enrichment program. He reminded the audience that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is only one of the poles of power in Iran, and we would be wise not to treat him as the country’s only leader; “he may be a pain in the neck, and elsewhere” but “we’ve elevated him” to a standing he otherwise would not have.
Panel Discussion: Configuring America’s Defenses to 21st Century Realities
For the third panel, Michele Flournoy, Senior Fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, moderated a discussion between Lawrence Korb, Center for American Progress Senior Fellow, Gordon Adams, former Associate Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and General Wesley Clark, former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO. The four identified several vulnerabilities to American’s national defense: instability in the Middle East, weakening international alliances, strained military capacity, and the long-term challenge of economic globalization. Iraq was cited as the main culprit, having sapped both national attention and the military’s resources, particularly with respect to readiness and number of available troops.
Clark argued that against this array of challenges, America is no longer as powerful as it once was because it has lost much of its legitimacy by violating “virtually every standard of just war theory.” He also called for a larger army to relieve the stress on the current force, and suggested a draft for the National Guard and reserves was one way to fill this gap. We must also develop a cadre of civilian experts who can be deployed to provide “nation assistance,” since these capacities are invaluable in post-conflict scenarios.
Korb counseled restraint, noting that the world is not a more dangerous place compared to the Cold War, and that we should not overreact. The priority should be “resetting” the ground forces (including the National Guard) to their pre-Iraq levels of readiness without lowering standards—which would require growing the army. We can afford a stronger and smarter military if we stop buying obsolete and expensive Cold War weapons that no longer serve our needs.
Adams criticized what he referred to as “political hysteria to grow the army.” The key questions we must ask are: what are the missions that we need to fulfill, and what kinds of forces will we need to do so. The notion that we would ever occupy and stabilize a collapsed Pakistan, for example, is not realistic and should not be used as a force-sizing scenario.
The panelists agreed that the United States must push for a smarter approach to internationalism and burden-sharing. “We can’t solve international problems on our own,” remarked Clark.
Panel Discussion: America and the Global Economy
The final panel, moderated by Melody Barnes, featured Center for American Progress President and CEO John Podesta, Director of the Princeton Center for Economic Policy Studies Alan Blinder, and former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin. Their focus was on the falling wages and failing policies that increasingly squeeze America’s middle class.
Blinder identified two pressures that are culminating in serious problems for lower- and middle-wage earners: wages are increasingly dispersed and, for the first time, have lagged behind productivity growth. With India, Russia, and China joining the global economy, the world supply of labor has doubled but the supply of capital has not. This, along with skill-biased technological growth, has led to a “job market that has turned ferociously against the unskilled.” America cannot remain rooted in past technologies, but it must do a better job to “help the victims of the liberal trading system” and to reform its education system, parts of which are “still in the 19th century.”
Rubin noted that current deficits of 7 percent of GDP are unsustainable and emphasized the need to re-establish strong fiscal conditions. Lowering capital gains taxes has contributed to these deficits and has not resulted in greater savings and investment.
Podesta noted that we’ve “advantaged investment over work through the tax code,” and agreed with the others that we need a better social security net to help those workers hurt by globalization. There was also consensus on the need to restore fiscal accountability in the federal government, improve education, and make greater public investments in research and development, especially around climate change mitigation technologies.
Closing Remarks by Sandy Berger
Former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger closed the conference with a five-point agenda for the next president. He outlined the great challenges facing America and provided some insights on how our next leader may tackle them:
- Restore respect and support for U.S. global leadership.
- Combat the threat of jihadist extremism.
- Halt the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
- Manage the rise of China on the global stage.
- Deal with the challenge of energy and climate change.
Berger argued that each of these issues demands unique and specific attention, but that the keystone upon which each rested was to “restore American moral authority” in the world. It is possible, he noted, that our “insights, passions, and efforts” are not enough, but “we can at least get caught trying.”
To speak with our experts on this topic, please contact:
For print and radio, John Neurohr, Deputy Press Secretary
202.481.8182 or jneurohr@americanprogress.org
For TV, Sean Gibbons, Director of Media Strategy
202.682.1611 or sgibbons@americanprogress.org
For web, Erin Lindsay, Online Marketing Manager
202.741.6397 or elindsay@americanprogress.org
Site-Wide and Issue-Specific RSS Feeds