Strategic Trust-Building

Policymakers, journalists, and community leaders have reached an impasse in crafting a common understanding of how to describe the link between religion and violent extremism, both from a factual point of view and in terms of what might be effective in undermining the appeal of extremist movements.

Media Coverage:

• 07-Jul-2008 - Logos Institute Blog: Communication Isn’t About Pushing Messages at Audiences
• 07-Jul-2008 - About.com: Towards Greater Understanding

Executive Summary

The last seven years have seen leading Americans falter in their communications about violent extremists and the communities believed to be fostering them. Policymakers, journalists, and community leaders have reached an impasse in crafting a common understanding of how to describe the link between religion and violent extremism, both from a factual point of view and in terms of what might be effective in undermining the appeal of extremist movements. This paper begins at this impasse. It reviews the choices to be made about language and rhetoric in U.S. public discourse as elements of a necessarily broader communications strategy to counter violent extremism. It takes account of how these choices flow through the global media, especially Arabic outlets. It concludes with a call to go beyond debates about the words themselves and to implement a holistic approach to communication that comprehends both the contemporary media environment and the cultural and political landscape of conflict. Communication cannot be composed merely of canny use of media, nor only of a well-crafted message. In the 21^st century media environment, words shape actions, actions beget words, and both are in perpetual, dynamic relationship.

Executive Summary

The United States and Russia are still the giants of nuclear power, accounting for more than half the world’s enriched uranium production. Twenty-five percent of the world’s nuclear power plants are found in the United States and half of those power plants use Russian uranium. Russian nuclear fuel now constitutes 10 percent of the U.S. power generation mix. The interdependence arising from existing trade in nuclear fuel points toward a natural partnership.

The two countries, however, have been unable to capitalize as well as they might on this potential at the bilateral level or in important multilateral forums. Both the United States and Russia would benefit from demonstrating stronger joint leadership to promote civil nuclear energy frameworks on two levels: domestically, to satisfy rising power demand and to align foreign investment regimes; and internationally, to restrain nuclear proliferators and/or contain rising insecurity about proliferation threats. Aside from the benefits for energy security, bilateral cooperation in this field could also rejuvenate stalled United States-Russia dialogue on other matters of global strategic importance.

This potential for an effective political framework for cooperation will remain unrealized until and unless both governments step up and make concrete commitments to move this promising agenda forward beyond current plans.

The civil nuclear dossier has often been held hostage to serious divergences between Moscow and Washington over larger global strategic issues, including Iran. There are profound differences in opinion between Russian and U.S. (and Western) security experts and elites as to the range of cooperative possibilities in the nuclear energy relationship. The delay in ratifying the United States-Russia Civil Nuclear Cooperation Agreement by the Senate has been one of the most recent policy developments that reinforce this perception of almost insurmountable differences. The delay overshadows the points on which the two countries have a commonality of interest and see eye to eye. On the U.S. side, one of the major concerns is the lack of openness of Russian nuclear industry to foreign investment and competition.

But there is reason for optimism as the stage is already set for closer cooperation between the United States and Russia. A proliferation-resistant, closed fuel-cycle solution for civil nuclear energy is a point on which both countries can agree. Add in complementary expertise in nuclear power generation and you have an ideal match. The United States and Russia should build on these foundations by promoting technical cooperation between their respective civil nuclear industries that would significantly advance national energy security and bring tangible commercial benefits.

The United States and Russia share a vision of a sustainable energy future less reliant on dwindling and environmentally damaging fossil fuels. A joint U.S.-Russian initiative on civil nuclear energy would be a step closer to this goal. Such a partnership could also help to close the door on past rivalry between these two major powers while simultaneously promoting global security. Given the likely benefits of cooperation that would accrue to both states, it would be careless to let past suspicions overcome prudence.

Key recommendations to the Governments of Russia and the United States

• Commit to a firm date such as 31 June 2009 for making a joint proposal on an international fuel bank that effectively merges the separate proposals of each (U.S. Global Nuclear Energy Partnership and Russian Fuel Bank Initiative), while incorporating the most promising elements of other related proposals from countries like
  Germany and Japan.
• Create a bilateral inter-governmental commission to map concrete technical parameters for civil nuclear cooperation and to smooth over potential non-nuclear obstacles.
• Put in place a firm framework for transfer to developing countries of affordable and proliferation-resistant technology through a multilateral nuclear technology knowledge bank based on public-private cooperation under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
• Use the knowledge bank to develop a set of political and business incentives that promote a clear and rapid move to new power generation solutions, such as thermo-nuclear fusion.
• De-couple bilateral civil nuclear cooperation from U.S.-Russian negotiations on Iran and third party non-proliferation issues.

The stakes are high, the authors argue, because the United States cannot move forward on its most pressing economic and foreign policy concerns unless it builds more intense engagement with China. In releasing the paper, EWI's Deputy Director of Policy Innovation Jacqueline McLaren Miller cautioned that the authors are asking for a change of mind-set from many on both sides of the Pacific. "Oxnam and Liu recognize that important differences still divide the two countries," Miller said. "But they are hoping that the United States and China will approach each other with a focus on overarching strategic concerns, such as the global economic crisis.”

Oxnam urges the United States and China to develop what he calls the “world’s first green relationship” to lead global efforts on climate change issues, which would dovetail with the Obama administration’s stated goal to make this one of its top domestic and international policy priorities. Liu warns that “Obama’s position on Taiwan and Tibet could cast an unpleasant shadow” over bilateral ties. But he too singles out energy and climate change as an important new area of collaboration.

EWI regularly convenes private meetings involving leading figures and officials from the United States and China, including a U.S.-China High Level Security Dialogue. In-house specialists on China include Dr Greg Austin, Dr Stephen Noerper, and Ms Piin-Fen Kok. EWI’s Board of Directors includes Ambassador Ma Zhenggang, President of the China Institute for International Studies, and Ambassador Zhang Deguang, President of the China Foundation for International Studies.

It also recommends adopting a common policy on reduction of nuclear forces and combating nuclear proliferation. At their recent summit meeting, Presidents Bush and Putin agreed to cooperate on civil nuclear issues and the disposition of strategic nuclear forces. President Putin also noted that the two countries "...are now discussing a possibility of raising our relations to an entirely new level that would involve a very private and very...sensitive dialogue on all issues related to international security."

At their recent summit meeting, Presidents Bush and Putin worked to reverse the deterioration in bilateral relations by moving forward on civil nuclear cooperation and reviving a dialogue on the disposition of strategic nuclear forces. President Putin also noted that the two countries "...are now discussing a possibility of raising our relations to an entirely new level that would involve a very private and very...sensitive dialogue on all issues related to international security."

The approach is consistent with EWI's US-Russia Constructive Agenda Initiative and reflects the recommendations in our new policy paper, "New Russia, New Ally: A Bilateral Security Agenda Beyond 2008."  

Click here for the Russian version of the report.