Getting the Questions Right

By Dr. Chris Seiple on 30 April 2008

A spate of articles about the future of American foreign policy has been published in recent weeks. From Foreign Affairs to the Economist, unfortunately, most of these articles are mired in the world’s immediate situation, or lost in the academic clouds about whether we should describe our era as uni-, multi-, or non-polar. Rather than making confident pronouncements about the categories and labels we should use, we are better served during this vital election year if we focus on getting the questions right. Here are some questions worth asking as we consider who we are as Americans, our resulting foreign policy, and how we are organized to implement it.

-- What is the root of American identity? If we truly believe that human dignity is universal and that we must protect and promote freedom of conscience as a result, then our engagement of the world must reflect a respect for those that do not believe or look like us. Tolerance is not enough. How do we revitalize these ideas in the American national conversation and consciousness?

-- What grand objectives do we truly seek in this century? What goals—as a reflection of our identity—should we develop in common with the peoples and governments of Asia, Africa, and Latin America?

-- How does a country exercise its soft power? Everyone today talks about promoting soft power in the wake of so much hard power these past few years, but very few offer practical mechanisms for doing so. How can the U.S. promote the best of its identity and values in a manner that honors the local culture and the rule of law in the places it is trying to influence? For example, an Asian friend said to me recently: “Even using the term ‘religious freedom’ is an attack on our sovereignty”…and this person believes passionately in the freedom of conscience. Do we realize that we’ve reached a point where even our soft power words reflect an invasive hard power? How does soft power inform our objectives as we engage the three great “’ism’s” of our time: Islamism, Communism, and Consumerism?

-- Why can’t we engage the Muslim world about a common problem? The first victim of terrorism is Islam itself. How is it that America, where close to 90% of its people believe in God, cannot communicate with, let alone engage, a Muslim world where at least 90% believe in God? Could it be that a sustained dialogue between God-fearing conservative Christians and God-fearing conservative Muslims is a critical and missing component of this “war of ideas”? Can the best of faith overcome the worst of religion?

-- How do we engage countries amidst transition to market economies that are Communist in name only? Can culture and religion play a role in developing sustainable solutions where their inherent morality ameliorates the corruption that often comes with capitalism?

-- How can we do more than just pay lip service to the need to curb our own consumerism? How do we grapple with the fact that our insatiable lust for instant gratification—beginning with our consuming need for oil and gas—turns off the world, violates our own sense of social justice, and feeds the very perceptions worldwide that we are trying to change about ourselves?

-- How do we ensure that our government is prepared to pursue objectives that are consistent with our identity?The only way you change behavior is to change culture. And the only way to change culture is through education. How will we create a common culture across the various agencies of the U.S. government rooted in a common educational scheme?

-- How do we understand the necessary future and function of “Track 1.5” Diplomacy, that is, of the public-private partnerships needed to address our global challenges? If “Track 1” diplomacy is government-to-government relations, and “Track 2” diplomacy is people-to-people, how do we fashion partnerships that operate between these parallel tracks as we tackle global challenges that no one government or non-governmental organization can handle alone? Can our government be a catalyst to “communities of the willing” that work across the public and private spheres?

To sum up with a question: Will the U.S. develop and implement a grand strategy based on a coherent application of our identity while organizing and educating a national security establishment capable of protecting and promoting the best of America?

If we cannot discuss these kinds of questions, then we will continue to stereotype the rest of the world, even as they return the favor. Americans must be defined by what they are for, and not just what they are against. While it is not our job to fix the world, that doesn’t mean we still can’t inspire it with an approach and resulting policy that is truly humble. Such a process begins with getting the questions right.

Last updated 29 November 1999