Strategic Trust-Building

The meeting could not have been more timely, following on the heels of the recently concluded NATO summit in Chicago, which took place without a meeting of the NATO-Russia Council. At the heart of the issue is a deep divide between the United States and Russia over what a cooperative BMD program should look like. The Russian government has concerns that the European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA) could eventually be directed against Russian ballistic missiles and is insisting on a legal guarantee that NATO's BMD system will not be used against Russia. The United States has repeatedly stated that it understands Russian concerns but that the EPAA will not be directed against Russia .The United States is willing to offer political guarantees matched by cooperative confidence-building actions but that it is unable to provide Russia with legally binding statements. Signaling its frustration with the United States over BMD, Russia did not participate at a high level in the NATO summit. And, as expected, NATO announced at the summit that the EPAA had reached interim operational capacity.

Rose focused his comments on the details and goals of NATO's EPAA plan and the future of U.S.-Russian cooperation on BMD. After his presentation, participants inquired about the divergence between Russian and U.S. assessments of the threat emanating from Iran. Another attendee asked about the political environments in both countries and whether political factors are driving their respective positions. Others focused their questions on the future of the EPAA considering the ever-changing international security concerns.

Separately, Rose offered these on-the-record responses to questions posed by EWI’s Thomas Lynch: 

To what extent does the notion of mutually assured destruction factor into current tensions on ballistic missile defense? Additionally, how can NATO and Russia overcome their differences vis-a-vis addressing today's nuclear challenges (e.g. Iran, North Korea, Pakistan)?

Cooperation on missile defense would be a game changer and the next step in expanding U.S.-Russia cooperation.  It would give us the chance to build a true strategic partnership and help us move away from Mutually Assured Destruction toward Mutually Assured Stability.

President Obama has said on many occasions that the United States is committed to finding a mutually acceptable approach to missile defense cooperation with Russia.   Such cooperation can enhance the security of the United States, our allies in Europe, and Russia.

The best assurances for Russia that the U.S. and NATO missile defenses in Europe do not undermine its strategic deterrent would be achieved through close cooperation with the United States and NATO. 

Through this cooperation Russia would see firsthand that this system is designed and capable of defending against missiles originating from the Middle East and is not designed for or capable of undermining the Russian strategic deterrent.  Cooperation can be difficult, but it will bring benefits to both sides.  We know because cooperation in other areas is producing positive results.  We are successfully implementing the New START Treaty, moving materials to and from Afghanistan and stopping drug traffickers and terrorists.  Our track record with the Russian Government on New START and other issues demonstrates that we can come to agreement on complex issues. We look forward to continuing our dialogue with the Russian government on this issue.

What are the best means of addressing the trust deficit between Russia and NATO on BMD issues?

Let me start on the progress we have made with Russia under this Administration.  I'd point to Russian support of U.N. Security Council resolutions that included the toughest sanctions ever on North Korea and Iran, our work together on the New START Treaty, and our work to open up the Northern Distribution Network to get critical supplies to troops in Afghanistan, to name a few.

We are working together to implement a landmark agreement that calls for each side to dispose of 34 metric tons of excess weapon-grade plutonium, in total enough material for about 17,000 nuclear weapons.  The United States and Russia have also partnered successfully to remove unneeded highly enriched uranium from several central and eastern European countries, former Soviet republics, Vietnam and Libya, reducing the risk that terrorists could get their hands on dangerous nuclear materials.

There are obviously areas where we've disagreed, but Russia is a committed member of the international nonproliferation community and we will continue to work with Russia and other partners on nonproliferation challenges.

Writing for Pakistan's The News International, EWI board member Ikram Sehgal, a security analyst, examines the implications of the French election on prospects for economic recovery and stability in Southwest Asia.

Click here to read this column in Pakistan's The News International.

Writing for India Today, EWI board member Kanwal Sibal, former foreign secretary of India, assesses the likely impact of Hollande's administration on the Franco-Indian relationship.

Click here to read this column in India Today.

If enacted, the bill would impose financial and visa restrictions on Russian officials who have been linked to the criminal prosecution of hermitage capital lawyer Sergey Magnitsky.

Miller held that, "much as the Jackson-Vanik amendment did in 1975, I think this would be yet another source of tension in the bilateral relationship."

Click here to listen to the full interview at Voice of Russia.

The EWI visit, led by General (ret.) Eugene Habiger, former commander in chief of the U.S. Strategic Command, took place the week before U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner visit Beijing for the annual Strategic and Economic Dialogue between the two countries.

"This sixth dialogue took place at a critical time for U.S.–China relations," said EWI Vice President David Firestein. "China's leadership transition later this year, the U.S. election, and increased attention to the bilateral relationship in both countries underline the need for increased strategic understanding at high levels."

Held under the Chatham House Rule, the meetings allowed frank discussion on a wide range of military and geopolitical issues, including the U.S. "pivot" or "rebalancing" to Asia, bilateral cybersecurity issues, and the lack of strategic trust between the two countries.

For the first time, the EWI delegation visited the Central Party School, a center for the training of Communist Party cadres headed by China's presumptive next leader, Xi Jinping. The group also visited the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations, the National Defense University, and the China Foundation for International Strategic Studies.

Participants also exchanged views with: Vice Foreign Minister Cui Tiankai and Vice Minister Liu Jieyi of the International Department of the Communist Party of China, senior officials with responsibilities for China's relationship with the United States; Ambassadors Zhou Wenzhong and Ma Zhengang, both EWI board members; and experts gathered by the China Institute for International Studies, EWI's partner for the High-Level Security Dialogue.

The ten-person U.S. delegation included: General Eugene E. Habiger (Head of Delegation); Major General A. Bowen Ballard, former mobilization assistant to the director of the National Security Agency; EWI Board Member Angela Chen; Patrick Chovanec, associate professor at Tsinghua University; EWI Vice President David J. Firestein; EWI Senior Associate Piin-Fen Kok; Kenneth G. Lieberthal, director of the John L. Thornton China Center at the Brookings Institution; Timothy P. Stratford, Beijing-based attorney and former assistant U.S. trade representative; EWI Program Coordinator Euhwa Tran; and EWI Public Policy & Communications Officer Graham Webster.

The dialogue addressed important issues that may come before the U.S. and Chinese leaders in their meetings  in May, including U.S. and Chinese intentions in military development in East Asia and the Pacific, tensions over the South China Sea, and U.S. arms sales to Taiwan.

Participants also discussed prospects for longer-term thinking in U.S.–China relations. While the countries have numerous lively exchanges on current issues, the potential for dialogue on intentions for five to 10 years into the future was a major point of discussion.

EWI's visit ended April 27 with a meeting at the U.S. embassy with Deputy Chief of Mission Robert S. Wang, where the delegation discussed its thoughts after a week of meetings.

Instead of focusing on human rights, he added, Americans are preoccupied with China’s growing economic clout and what this means for the U.S. economy.

Firestein, EWI’s vice president for strategic trust-building and Track 2 diplomacy, noted that 2012 represents a rare convergence of leadership transitions (or potential transitions) in the United States and China, as well as Russia and other key countries. “This makes it a very unique and significant year in the politics of U.S.-China relations,” he said.

Firestein highlighted the shifts in the perception of China in U.S. political discourse over the past two decades. China is no longer seen through a human rights prism, he explained, as was the case in the early 1990s. Instead, it is viewed through a prism of economics, trade and national competition.

In the foreign policy parts of the Republican presidential debates, he pointed out, China wasn’t even mentioned. And in his 2011 State of the Union address, President Barack Obama referred to China “not in the foreign policy section … but rather in the domestic policy section.”

Lastly, Firestein said that the issue of China is a mirror “not for a candidate’s toughness, but rather for our nation’s adequacy or inadequacy.” In one example, Firestein noted presidential candidate and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney’s recent comment that his funding priorities would be determined by asking what is “so critical that it's worth borrowing money from China to pay for.”

U.S. perceptions of China have “moved from ‘they’re different from us’ to ‘they’re beating us,’” Firestein said, adding that the coming leadership transition and election would challenge the establishment of a stable relationship between the two powers.

Click here to watch the Affordable World Security Panel “China and America: The Pivotal Relationship for Cooperative Security” in its entirety.

On March 20, Firestein was a featured speaker at the monthly meeting of the Colorado Foothills World Affairs Council, a non-profit organization focused on promoting education and an understanding of international affairs. There, he discussed Chinese foreign policy and U.S. interests in China.

Click here to watch Firestein's remarks at the Colorado Foothills World Affairs Council.

Speaking at EWI’s New York Center on April 4, Firestein, EWI’s Vice President of Strategic Trust-Building and Track 2 Diplomacy, laid out a case for government in the 21st century.

Firestein maintained that the U. S. government is now being framed as separate from and often in conflict with citizens, rather than as a manifestation of the people’s will.

The simplicity of the idea that, as President Ronald Reagan put it, “the government is the problem” may help explain its longevity, Firestein said.  “Simpler arguments work far better than more complex ones … and the three-word idea that ‘government is bad’ is about as simple as you can get.”

Firestein made clear that he felt fault lay on both sides of the ideological aisle, and emphasized that he would “offer my thoughts today very much in a non-partisan spirit, because I think that the issues at issue in this discussion are more fundamental than merely partisan politics.”

Firestein pointed to a general narrative in the U.S. claiming that “there is an antithesis between the notion of government on one hand and ‘my rights’ on the other. … [that] the more the government is involved the less room there is to exercise my rights as an American citizen.” On the contrary, he argued: “It is the government that has to be empowered to defend and enforce those rights.”

Quoting Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Homes, Firestein emphasized that “taxes are the price we pay for civilization.”

Firestein maintained that the function of government extends beyond a quantifiable transfer of goods and services, also offering “justice, equality, fairness, security” that generally cannot be provided at a universal level by private enterprise.

Challenging the notion that the government must be assessed in terms of size, Firestein claimed that there is no “correct” size of government. Rather, the government is appropriately sized when citizens are satisfied by the services offered for the amount paid. “My view is that taxes are not inherently bad,” said Firestein. “Rather, their value can only be defined by what we’re getting for those taxes.”

In an effort to frame taxes and government spending as a value proposition, Firestein cited an estimate by Professor Douglas Amy of Mount Holyoke University, calculating that, in total, government provides each citizen with $27,000 in services per year. The purpose of government, he maintained, is “to find the equilibrium between the American people’s desire for a certain level of government services and their willingness, on the other hand, to pay for those services.”

Firestein concluded by arguing altering the narrative in which government is a problem rather than a solution “is what is required if we are to restore the health of our national treasury, and I would argue the health of our democracy.”

The nuclear disarmament consultation, convened by EWI, The Global Security Institute and the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies marked the third anniversary of Ban's speech at a similar meeting in 2008, in which he unveiled a plan for nuclear arms reduction worldwide.

The report includes a summary of the topics discussed and transcripts of remarks by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, among others.

Quoting from the synopsis:

Three years after launching his Five Point Proposal for the elimination of nuclear weapons, which included support for a nuclear weapons convention, the United Nations Secretary-General, Ban Ki-Moon, returned to the same forum on UN Day 2011 in UN headquarters in New York to observe that states have failed in their commitments. He observed: “Here we are. Tens of thousands of nuclear weapons remain. New ones are being designed and built every day. And to what purpose?” He went on to say, “As Secretary-General, I want to bring disarmament down to earth. Instead of hearing the word ‘disarmament’ floating in the air, I want to see disarmament facts on the ground. This is what inspired my five point plan for action.” 

The Jackson-Vanick amendment, which restricts trade with Russia as a response to immigration policy, was enacted by the United States in 1974. In light of Russia's impending admission to the World Trade Organization, many consider Jackson-Vanick to be an outdated impediment to U.S. economic growth. Others claim that its trade restrictions are necessary as a means of punishing Russia for human rights violations.

Miller holds that, while the effectiveness of Jackson-Vanick has long been disputed, "the administration is going to have to give something to the human rights folks." 

Click here to read the article in CQ Weekly.

What is the proper role of government in citizens’ daily lives?

It’s a question debated frequently these days in the run up to the 2012 Presidential Election. The various answers getting the most media attention, however, rarely include responses emphasizing practicality.

“We are listening to and hearing what is, essentially, a rhetorical war on government and it is the cause of some concern,” said public diplomacy expert David J. Firestein at a Feb. 24 luncheon hosted by the Master of Public Administration program. “What has sunk into the American psyche is that government is bad.”

As the keynote speaker, Firestein said his remarks were intended as non-partisan, but that “the most vociferous criticism of government is coming from Republicans” and “the use of incendiary language about the role of government is mostly one-directional.”

“What we’re seeing is a kind of scapegoating of our government and that’s not good for our country,” said Firestein, a vice president at the EastWest Institute, a global think tank with offices in New York, Brussels and Moscow.

Click here to read the rest of this piece at The University of Houston.