|
On June 12, 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.
For more information, including videos, slideshows, and speech transcripts, please visit the America in the World Conference Roundup website.
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”
 Former National Security
Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski observed that the three states that public
surveys identify as the greatest threat—Israel, Iran, and the
United States—share a common trait: “their definition of
national security was indifferent to the security of the countries they
affected.” A wiser policy recognizes “the interdependence
of insecurity” and proceeds on the premise that “national
security is not an absolute but a relative condition.”
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.”
 Spencer P. Boyer, Director of International Law and Diplomacy at the Center for American Progress, played an instrumental role in bringing these speakers to Washington for a day of debate and shared ideas. Boyer is the Director of International Law and Diplomacy in
the National Security and International Policy Department of the Center
for American Progress. Previously at the Center, he was a Fellow to the
Security and Peace Initiative – a joint initiative of CAP and The Century Foundation. Prior to joining the Center, Boyer was the Executive Director and War Powers Initiative Director at the Constitution Project, based at Georgetown University's Public Policy Institute.
For more information, including videos, slideshows, and speech transcripts, please visit the America in the World Conference Roundup website.
|
