NYU Students: U.S. Should Support An Inclusive Global Community

Last week, I facilitated a class debate on U.S. policy toward East Asia for a class I teach at NYU called the "Rise of East Asia." (Click here to read the summary of the class from spring 2010 and here to read the summary from the class from summer 2009.) This semester's class was smaller than previous semesters but the debate was nonetheless fascinating. Perhaps one of the most striking elements of the debate was a widely shared view that the United States cannot lead the world alone. Rather the United States must lead in cooperation with other countries--a strategy of cooperative security if you will. In that light, the students stressed the need for relations between countries to be on equal footing and therefore they questioned the tradition of looking at U.S. foreign relations in hierarchical order.

Below are the impressions of Elizabeth Matsumoto, who participated in the debate:

"Rise of East Asia" Class Debate on March 30 2011

On March 30 2011, President Obama's 2010 National Security Strategy (NSS) provided the backdrop for a carefully worded but intense debate among six NYU SCPS students in Professor Devin Stewart's "Rise of East Asia" class. There were varied opinions but also overwhelming agreement on U.S. priorities in national security, a concern that preoccupied the better part of the debate, followed by recommendations for American policy in East Asia, a region defined as ASEAN, China, Japan, the Koreas, and Australia.

The goal of the debate was to prepare an in-class National Security Strategy by consolidating excerpts from the Obama document with newly derived conclusions. The class began by focusing on grand strategy, or the all-encompassing mission statement that could best be classified as a philosophical approach to national security. Obama's grand strategy focuses on "renewing American leadership," a reaction to the military emphasis of the Bush era. Evidence that this renewal involves the dual process of being strong at home, by rebuilding the economy, education system, while being influential abroad became readily apparent in a preliminary study of the document.

Class reaction was overwhelmingly positive to the Obama Administration's grand strategy, characterizing it as "a step in the right direction." The group also called for a policy of engagement that would "create more international organizations, and cooperation," that prioritized American leadership and "enlightened self-interest." The best means of pursuing leadership was also briefly debated, with an emphasis on collaboration, or co-leadership as the optimal means of engagement.

Class also argued that co-leadership on important global matters should be initiated while cautiously balancing security and openness, given that "safety and prosperity are bound by events beyond our borders." The Grand Strategy was subsequently revised to the following statement: "The United States should cooperate in redefining the international order, to support an inclusive community of nations with global responsibility." Class also stressed the grand strategy remain compatible with the general aim of engagement abroad: to give incentives to nations to act responsibly, while conveying they may face consequences if they do not.

With the grand strategy established, the class then began the task of defining the Interests of National Security. First came the security of the United States, its citizens and the "human rights of all people," an important clause directly correlated to the grand strategy’s notion of an "inclusive community." Next was international prosperity, an aim intertwined with rebuilding a strong economy, powered by "fiscal responsibility, education, and innovation" at home. Debate on whether to retain values, or ethical policy followed. Given the overarching ethical aim of the grand strategy, the class concluded this section redundant. An international order promoted by a participatory American leadership was also listed under the interests section of the document.

With a comprehensive security policy finalized, a discussion of U.S. allies in Asia followed. Talks began with a ranking. Japan's strategic importance placed it in the number one slot, followed by traditional allies South Korea, Australia, the Philippines and Thailand. In light of recent events, the class also noted the Great Tohoku Earthquake in Japan has strengthened the U.S.-Japan alliance, but emphasis on fostering more equal partnerships with not only America's allies but other willing nations was of growing importance.

This last policy suggestion tied well with subsequent discussions. Class recognized the significance of engagement with China, Asia's largest emerging power. Involvement in regional institutions ASEAN, APEC, the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership (TPP), and EAS (East Asia Summit) was also highlighted as a key step towards multilateralism. Furthermore, in alignment with Obama’s call for a more "positive, constructive, and comprehensive relationship with China," and to "encourage continued reduction in tension between the People's Republic of China and Taiwan" U.S. bilateral relations with Taipei was ranked below other policy priorities.

As discussion continued, the term "allies" also came under debate. If the chief aim of national security was to foster inclusiveness, some questioned the need to classify a few select nations as allies. The possibility the U.S. military presence in Japan and South Korea was polarizing, and could potentially undermine claims to inclusive cooperativeness was also briefly deliberated. As the debate drew to a close, emphasis was repeatedly placed on greater involvement in regional institutions, both existing ones such as the Six Party Talks, APEC, ASEAN, EAS, and TPP. There was also agreement a Northeast Asian Alliance analogous to ASEAN would be an impactful starting point.

- Elizabeth Matsumoto

Photo "Woolworth Building" by laverrue.

NYU Students: U.S. Should Nurture Mutual Responsibilities, Cooperation

Last week I facilitated a class debate on U.S. foreign policy toward East Asia for a class I teach at NYU called "Rise of East Asia." (Click here to read the summary of the class's debate last summer.) On April 9, 2010, 15 of my students hailing from ten different countries gathered in the Woolworth Building in New York City to hash out a new U.S. National Security Strategy just weeks before the Obama Administration was about to unveil its document. I hope our friends in Washington DC will note the tone of the students' recommendations. This time around, my students favored somewhat more feminine words such as "nurture," "embrace," and "cultivate." They placed emphasis on soft power, moral legitimacy, cultural exchange, and the link between domestic policy and foreign policy. I felt this direction was appropriate given the apparent direction of the Obama administration, which highlights mutual interests and mutual respect, and the high stature of First Lady Michelle Obama.

Below are the impressions of student Victoria Brewer, who participated in the debate.

"Rise of East Asia" Class Debate on April 9, 2010

There was hearty and at times, heartfelt debate throughout the "Rise of East Asia" class penultimate session. On April 9, 2010 approximately 15 NYU School of Continuing and Professional Studies students gathered in the Woolworth building to discuss and outline three central U.S. foreign documents toward East Asia as if we were members of the Obama administration. Considered the most engaging class of the semester, the students first tackled the National Security Strategy (NSS).

To give us a sense of direction and reference, Professor Devin Stewart distributed copies of the 2006 NSS (written by then President Bush's administration). Noted for its grand approach advancing the spread of "freedom," we felt the 2010 NSS should also be grand, yet practical, in light of current global social, political, economic events. The class quickly identified two important strategies: Security through cooperation and mutual responsibilities. When braided together and more finely parsed we arrived at: Nurture mutual responsibilities through cooperation. "Nurture" was initially thought to lend too feminine a tone, but deemed acceptable as it helped to reinforce the strategy's implied moral relationship and contract between countries.

With our prime directive settled, we moved onto clarifying the essential goals of the strategy. The class looked at those listed in Bush's NSS for reference. Immediately, the point of "strengthening alliances to defeat global terrorism and work to prevent attacks against us and our friends" jumped out as the top objective. Our version was as follows: Strengthen alliances to maintain peace and stability in the 21st century.

With thoughts of the recent financial meltdown on everyone's mind, global economic cultivation was identified as the second most important goal. Should we use "balance" or perhaps "strengthen?" (One student felt that given continued U.S. economic woes, we required a word that properly conveyed the notion of a return to strength.) With that noted, "restore" was an easy choice. Hence goal number two: Restore U.S. economic leadership in order to help drive global prosperity.

With security and economic objectives defined, an interesting, albeit less measurable point was advanced. America is often seen as pushing its experience, power, and objectives onto weaker countries. How about we soften our attitude and engage other countries to utilize their strengths? We all stopped for a moment at this thought. It's true that no one country can lead forever. Isn't it better to improve relationships by respectfully acknowledging ally differences and strengths so to work toward a common goal? Hence, goal number three: Cultivate multilateral dialogues and institutions toward fostering mutual understanding and cooperation.

The fourth goal is one that does not even appear among Bush's list of objectives, yet is a hugely important issue--the environment. We struggled to find the right phrasing, in part because the U.S. lags far behind other countries in cultivating green technology and talent. But with some tinkering a very nearly poetic, certainly moral, fourth goal emerged: Embrace a sustainable approach to environment and a responsible stewardship to the natural world.

As often happens in the world of politics, a good debate arose from this goal. One student questioned why would we make this a goal if the U.S. refused to sign the Kyoto treaty? Another student concurred, stating the NSS is worth very little if actual policy does not emerge from it. Others felt that goals require broad language so that later on one has room to cultivate specific policy for specific issues. Prof. Stewart made the case that the military distinction between strategy, operations, and tactics are somewhat analogous to strategy, policy, and political tactics in foreign policymaking. He reminded us that the NSS was a document that outlined strategy.

Were we finished with only four goals? When Prof. Stewart pointed out that the number four is thought to be unlucky in some Asian cultures we knew we needed a fifth. A student put forth a hope to see something about education. Another championed aspirations for human dignity. Both points were welcomed as it was pointed out that education is a key part of fostering human dignity. Thus, our fifth and final goal was simply: Advance education for all.

With the National Security Strategy settled in a mere hour, we moved onto building on the recently released 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), which is a review of Department of Defense strategy and priorities. For our purposes, we focused on ranking the East Asian countries (and ensuing issues) of greatest importance to the U.S. It was noted this list is "an expression of fealty" and interestingly, the top slot is always given to Japan, partly to quell their anxieties about stable U.S.-Japan relations.

Japan's strategic importance to the U.S. is indeed high and we expressed it with the following statement: It is an important time to reaffirm the mutual benefits in the U.S.-Japan relationship and our common perspectives and vision.

Spot number two went to South Korea: We continue to support peninsula security and the Republic of Korea and promote cultural exchange. The cultural exchange part was included as it was not clear if the next generation of South Koreans feel close to the U.S. With that uncertainty, it is imperative to reach out to that generation and foster better understanding.

Australia was ranked third. It was felt they deserved recognition for their self-sufficiency, continued shouldering of regional security (Indonesia) and provision of military support to U.S. operations. Thus: Acknowledgment of Australia's positive contribution to regional security.

The number four spot was given to ASEAN. This is a group with little commonality among its members and whose success depends on intra-regional cooperation and dialogue. Hence: Elevate the profile of the ASEAN institution and provide support to eliminate political oppression.

The fifth spot was (unsurprisingly) assigned to China – our most enigmatic relationship. With thoughts of its continued economic growth and murky military aspirations we put forth: Quietly leverage alliances (with India for example) to lessen and mitigate Chinese assertiveness.

Time was ticking and with only a few class minutes left, we tackled the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR). Would a simple "Nukes: We Hate 'Em!" suffice? No, we decided we needed something with more heft. We agreed that the goals stated in Obama's 2010 NPR were on point. (The top objective: preventing nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism.) In fact, the class felt that the document at large was strategically sound, particularly the objective to reduce the role of nuclear weapons and consider the use of nuclear weapons only in extreme circumstances.

In less than two hours, the class made fast work of three vitally important strategic documents. It is clear that, for now, the Obama administration must continue to lead in East Asia. The U.S. is eager to share responsibility for regional policing with allies and associations when they are prepared to do so. To achieve this goal, the U.S. must cultivate key relationships in East Asia and give thoughtful consideration to the many issues that crowd for attention.

- Victoria Brewer

Photo "Woolworth Building" by laverrue.

Kite Runner Approach to Understanding Corruption

I spoke at NYU's Center for Global Affairs last week in the Woolworth Building on an anti-corruption panel. One big problem conceptually is that everyone has a different definition.

For example, at our recent workshop at the Carnegie Council on innovations for fighting corruption, AccountAbility's Steve Rochlin highlighted one of the difficulties surrounding discussions about corruption—defining the terms. The watchdog group Transparency International views corruption as a question of improper payments or bribery. The World Bank, the leading development agency, defines corruption as the privatization of public policy. This is a definition that makes many in the United States uncomfortable, Rochlin said, because it touches near the system of institutional lobbying that operates in American democracy. Representatives from Lockheed Martin, General Electric, and the World Bank also were on the Carnegie Council panel. You can read and listen to their comments on Policy Innovations here.

Essentially, corruption is a tax on bad governance or weak demand for good governance. As development progresses, demand for better governance tends to go up. But from the World Bank’s perspective, there is debate on the priority of economic development and anti-corruption measures, as the Bank’s mission is to promote development.

I offered what I called Kite Runner approach: All sins are a variation of theft, said the father in Khaled Hosseini's the book the Kite Runner. This is useful for a philosophical analysis as it makes it easier to grasp.

Ethicist Thomas Donaldson’s chapter “Moral Minimums for Multinationals” in Joel Rosenthal's Ethics and International Affairs reader argues that the power and weight companies have give them a responsibility to protect human rights. “Rights are the rock bottom of moral deliberation,” he writes. And the flip side of a right is a duty.

He looks at negative and positive rights and shows that the two are really not separate. Negative rights are that someone not do something—like the right to liberty. Positive rights require someone do something—like a right to sufficient food. The negative right of physical security requires positive actions such as maintenance of a police force, blurring the two. Donaldson gives us a powerful statement here:

“One’s freedom to speak freely is meaningless if one is weakened by hunger to the point of silence.”

For a company, the duty is not just to avoid depriving but also to help protect from deprivation. In the factory, a company’s duty to provide goggles is the classic example.

Looking at the ethics of lies, deception, or theft, it is clearly a bad result if these behaviors were universalized in the Kantian sense: "Act only on that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should be a universal law." In the context of protecting rights, it is reasonable to say that theft and deception are also inconsistent with protecting human rights, well being, and security.

Most of all, I simply don’t buy the cultural argument that corruption is acceptable. I do not know of one moral or philosophical tradition that condones lying or stealing. Human rights and moral codes against this behavior is in the most ancient of texts, including the Vedas, the Koran, Persia’s Cyrus cylinder, the Magna Carta, and the Confucian Analects.

Bryane Michael of Oxford University wrote an excellent piece in Policy Innovations called Suing Against Corruption. This is one type of stakeholder engagement.

Instead of pushing for criminalization (which creates a nation of criminals and reduces the incentive to report abuse), donors should support civil law remedies against corruption. These remedies, namely the ability to sue corrupt officials (and the government departments they represent), provide a powerful weapon against corruption. These provisions are, in the language of economics, "incentive compatible." At present, businesses have no incentive to denounce corruption because they gain little by blowing the whistle—and they lose a lot from the loss of favorable relations with government officials. But when businesses can win money from suing for damages from the solicitation of bribery, these businesses have an incentive to denounce corruption.

Branko Milanovic, a lead economist in the World Bank's research department, has written a provocative article on fighting corruption in the era of globalization here. A couple of excerpts:

Intensified trade and travel have enabled the rise of corrupt states that thrive on illegal businesses. Only by changing the rules of the same global trade that has allowed corrupt states to grow can one hope to remove this blot on globalization.

A different approach is necessary: legalize the currently illegal activities like prostitution and drug use and modify the often draconian US and European immigration laws that stimulate human trafficking. If prostitution and drugs indeed became like haircuts and candies, their production would obey the same rules: Countries that export beauty services and confectionary products are not notably more corrupt than others.

Technology to boost transparency also helps. Firms mention tracking and accounting software to reduce the distance between headquarters and far-flung operations and suppliers. And finally, blogging – bloggers in China, for example, are using the Internet to expose corrupt real estate schemes, bringing these violations to the mainstream media around the world. Carnegie, Brown, Oxford, and Demos have started a project called the Ethical Blogger Project and an accompanying blog to advance the positive contributions blogs can make.

I summarized the Carnegie Council panel discussion like this. Five important elements are necessary for fighting corruption:

Cultural questions surrounding the definition of corruption—ethical behavior is not contextual but rather universal;

Multistakeholder engagement to build accountability inside and outside the organization;

Metrics designed to measure the success of anticorruption initiatives, adding a level of transparency;

Creating awareness in far-flung operations of what is considered ethical;

Serving as exemplars of good behavior when operating in ethically challenging environments.