Humility's Hope

By Dr. Chris Seiple on 13 January 2009

"Stand at the crossroads, and look, and ask for the ancient paths, where the good way lies." — Jeremiah 6:16

Crossroads don't come that often. They are singular opportunities to recover the best of the past in order to make the most of our future. The inauguration of Barack Obama is such a crossroads. In particular, it is the opportunity to re-boot America's image, influence, and impact worldwide.

Prelude

The last such crossroads came in the aftermath of September 11, 2001. I was in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, that day. I had just returned from a meeting with the Minister of Defense—where we had discussed the relationship between religion and security—when I turned on the TV to see the second plane hit the World Trade towers. Later that week, the Deputy Foreign Minister asked me to present my ideas about what U.S. national security and foreign policy objectives should be in a post-9/11 world. I gave that presentation on September 19, 2001, at the president of Uzbekistan's think tank (A summary of those recommendations and objectives is below).

Unfortunately, I could give the same speech today and it would still be relevant. While some progress has been made on a few of these recommendations, most remain far from fulfilled—especially those regarding the defeat of al Qaeda and the Taliban, and the development of Afghanistan. The failure to meaningfully address these objectives should give us all pause, and even more humility.

Foundational to those 2001 recommendations was the idea that America needed a holistic approach to, and respect for the interrelated nature of geographic regions and their issues; especially the people with whom the U.S. would need to work in developing and implementing comprehensive policies.¹ In general, America has been unable and/or unwilling to take, let alone implement, this approach. This de facto unilateralism with concentrated focus on single issues has significantly damaged our image, influence, and impact worldwide. People do not respect our policies, nor do they feel respect from us. Again, more reason for pause, and humility.²

And thus the hope of the crossroads. From our humility comes the high hope that this moment in time—symbolized by the inauguration, and hopefully leadership, of Barack Obama—might provide another chance to re-engage the world with clear-eyed respect for its various regions, the issues therein, and, above all, the people who live there.

Respect is the key. It is the "ancient path" that will guide us forward. Respect means that we will listen to the opinions and perspectives of those who live in a given region, fully aware that any chance for sustainable impact literally resides with them. Respect also means expecting those in the region to listen to the U.S. about its concerns, values, and interests. Clearly we will not agree on everything but what matters most is the manner in which we agree or disagree—always with respect.

Yet there is a significant difference between the last crossroads and this one. Six paradoxes characterize our times and our ability to respond to them. Each paradox has the potential to humble us as well as provide new hope. In trying to name theses paradoxes appropriately, I seek to understand them accordingly. If we can begin to understand them, then we can begin to lessen the fear they bring. If less fear, then we can begin to see the hope they also present. This too will help us walk the "ancient path" before us.

Paradox

First, less money means more accountability. This financial crisis has revealed that the allegedly most accountable institutions in our country were the least so. We have also discovered that these unaccountable financial institutions mirrored our own individual behavior. We too have been completely irresponsible, running up credit card debt and buying homes we couldn't afford.³ With a whole lot less money to go around, we are a whole lot more accountable. We are more humble. This is a good thing.

Second, scarcity brings abundance. As the value of our individual retirement accounts and investments has plummeted, our mindset shifts from independence to dependence. We don't feel self-reliant because we don't "control" our financial future. Vulnerable and afraid for our future, we look to something other than ourselves, usually God, for meaning. We begin to have some understanding of how the rest of the world lives.⁴ We think about what really counts in this world, and how we spend our time, talent, and treasure as a result. Once these feelings settle, I believe that we will give more of ourselves and grow richly as our financial identity fades in significance and our responsibility to others comes to the fore.

Third, uniformity increases diversity. The "anglo-sphere" continues to grow, providing a common language (English) and code of conduct (the rule of law) that is increasingly accepted by those who act globally.⁵ Simultaneously—and as a result, I believe—we live in an age of multi-nodality, where complex and constantly shifting arrays of state and non-state actors have significant influence on events and policies. In other words, both government and non-government organizations (profit and non-profit) wield influence in a global grid where anyone can play. Common expectations and rules about interaction and good governance enable the increasing influence of diverse non-state actors who previously had no voice (from bloggers to small non-profits and businesses with good ideas).⁶

Fourth, and related, it's not either/or but both/more. Our global challenges are so great that no single state, or non-state, actor can solve them. Each must engage the other. It is not a question of if but when the public sphere of government and the private sphere of non-government collaborate for common purpose. Those who can operate at the nexus of these spheres—between the top-down "Track 1" of governments and the bottom-up "Track 2" of non-governmental organizations (both businesses and non-profits)—will be the most relevant to today's challenges. "Track 1.5" is where the respectful art of relational diplomacy between and among institutions and individuals will be practiced.

Fifth, only the best of faith will defeat the worst of religion. Throughout history there have been those who are equally convinced of an absolute truth and their absolute ability to interpret that truth. Every religion has witnessed its followers kill those who do not believe as they do. As secular policy-makers and academics wrestle to include religion in their analytical worldview—if only to respond to religious-based terrorism—they generally leave out devout people of faith who understand that they cannot know the Absolute absolutely. This humility—rooted in an orthodox faith—works to understand and combat the worst of religion, often in partnership with other faiths that it has learned to respect (even if it fundamentally disagrees with its theological conclusions).⁷ The most devout are still missing and/or not included in our discussions of global security.

Sixth, soft is hard. All of the above paradoxes, in some fashion, relate to the essence of "soft" power. Accountability, adaptability, faith, and respect for the other—especially as reflected in our businesses and non-profits—are at the core of American identity and culture. Yet we have not learned how to exercise this power in conjunction with the "hard" power of our military. We need "smart" power—the balanced application of hard and soft power suffused with an awareness for the ethical/spiritual component.⁸ And we need leaders in our government and in our non-government organizations capable of integrated thinking and therefore "Track 1.5" application. For example, the National Security Council (NSC)—where all the elements of national power are traditionally integrated—should be organized and staffed to reflect a multi-nodal world. The NSC should have a de-centralized presence and include theologians, anthropologists, business leaders, and bloggers.⁹ Similarly, the private sector needs improved professional development for the boards and presidents of our profit and non-profit entities. They need education and training programs that help them better understand the geo-political dimensions of the places they work worldwide.

Potential

America is at a serious crossroads. We have every reason to be humble. Pessimism is the easy response to our times and our individual and institutional ability to influence the difficult issues we face at home and abroad.

The "ancient path" ahead, however, can be hopeful as it points us toward a humble discernment of today's paradoxes, and thus, the respect-based engagement they require.  

---

19 September 2001

Chris Seiple was in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, on September 11, 2001. Shortly afterward, he was asked to provide his thoughts on American national security and foreign policy objectives at home and abroad in a post 9/11 world. On September 19, 2001, Seiple presented his views at the President of Uzbekistan's think tank—the Institute for Strategic and Regional Studies—in Tashkent.

Domestic Recommendations

• Revisit the entire national security framework and organization. It is time for a new national security act (similar to what Uzbekistan has done with the October 2000 decree reorganizing the Ministry of Defense and the 11 May 2001 Defense Law reorganizing the national security structure).
  
  • Critical to this process will be a restructuring of how the U.S. gathers, analyzes, and distributes information and analysis.
  • Equally critical is the process of developing interagency experts who see the whole picture all the time, not just a specialized field of view.
• We must include a comprehensive framework for Homeland Defense; this civilian command framework should address, for example, cyber-attacks, weapons of mass destruction (WMD), critical infrastructure, and ballistic missiles.
• The link between law enforcement and the military needs to be carefully examined.

Foreign Policy Recommendations

• We must have very clear regional policy goals for not just the military fight, but the humanitarian-civic-economic aftermath as well.
• In order to do that, the U.S. must re-conceive of this region geographically; all U.S. agencies should group these countries as the Department of Defense's Central Command does. CENTCOM is the only U.S. agency to group Central and Southern Asia together in its regional approach.

What Should U.S. Policy Be?

• Policy: "Create the opportunity for the peoples of the Central and Southern Asia region to build a stable security complex for themselves that denies terrorism."
• Why "regional"? A significant humanitarian relief and economic development package must be made ready for the region because we cannot afford to make the "BKM Mistake" of the Balkans. There we initially did not display the political will to address the situation in its totality and a regional policy emerged only in piecemeal fashion after the predicable, and perhaps preventable, dominoes of Bosnia, Kosovo, and Macedonia fell.
• Why "security complex"? Security is a mosaic of many things, political-military-economic-civil-humanitarian that takes place between and among many state and non-state actors. We must allow for all of these dimensions, all of these players.

What Should U.S. Objectives Be?

• The capture of Usama bin Laden.
• The destruction of the Al-Qaeda network.
• The removal of the Taliban from power.
• The facilitation of an immediate and comprehensive humanitarian effort that lays the foundation for economic growth (Prior to Sept. 11th, Afghanistan was already home to the worst humanitarian emergency in the world).
• The delivery of a comprehensive economic package, led by the World Bank and IMF, to the entire region that is tied to basic economic and civil society principles (e.g., in Uzbekistan, the full convertibility of the som and the guarantee of basic freedoms).
• The creation of sustainable trade routes from Central Asia through South Asia to the sea.
• The provision of a comprehensive law enforcement training package to all countries of the region.
• The sustainment of a viable regional mechanism for collaboration and coordination that includes all of the region's actors—plus China, Russia, and the U.S.
• The use of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization's proposed coordination center in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, as a major node in the "Counterterrorism Coalition" of intelligence sharing and mutual action.
• Explore the real possibility of a new era of relations with Iran while being a real peacebroker in Kashmir and the Middle East.

Concluding Comments

This policy should be announced before any military action—covert or overt—is taken. Let the world know that we will do exactly that which we say we will do. We will keep our promises to destroy the heartland of terrorism and we will build that heartland up, not in an American way, but in an economic way that is congruent with the region's traditions and cultures.

There is an old joke from the Soviet days. In order to have a prosperous economy, you must first lose a war to the U.S. In 1948, we provided the Marshall Plan to Europe. Why? Because we loved the Europeans so much? Yes, but also because Western Europe was becoming a breeding ground for communists.

Today, terrorists are being bred throughout Central and South Asia because they have no economic wherewithal and they possess no voice to express their grievances. We cannot destroy one network or one terrorist when there are so many other networks and terrorists ready to replace them. It will be a never-ending battle if we just focus on stopping terrorist organizations or killing terrorists. In fact, we will only create more of them. We must strike at the roots, not the leaves. We must create economic opportunity. In Uzbekistan, for example, the full convertibility of the som is Uzbekistan's #1 national security objective.

Finally, let me conclude with this: No matter the issue, what counts most is the means by which we cooperate to face-down, and eventually defeat, these global issues. As President Bush has recently suggested, it will take an "adjustment in our thinking" to do this. We will need new experts—like my institute—that examine the interrelationship between issues we have previously kept separate. It will not be easy, but it is necessary.

Last updated 02 April 2009