Politics and Governance

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.”

“Half of the world is women. In some places more than half. ... And half the world is under 25 years of age,” Bachelet said.

The afternoon also included powerful remarks by Sylvia Earle, former chief scientist of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, who underlined the importance of the world’s ecosystems.

Assistant Secretary of State José Fernandez argued for continued support for important international development initiatives.

Earlier, the day began with an exchange of views about future security priorities and the best use of economic and other resources in the 21st century.

Hosted by the W. P. Carey Foundation and the EastWest Institute (EWI), the conference runs Tuesday and Wednesday at the Newseum in Washington and by livestream on the Internet. It confronts the stark choices before U.S. and international policymakers as they seek security with limited resources.

Smart choices about security expenditures are necessary to ensure economic prosperity, according to Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel laureate in economics.

"The wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq have shown how expensive little wars can be," Stiglitz said. Arguing that much of the U.S. defense spending has been “counterproductive,” he added, “we have to be focused on maintaining economic strength.”

Former Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff argued that a broad range of new threats including cybersecurity mean the cost of one action versus another is hard to determine. “It’s easy to understand what you’re spending,” he said. “It’s not easy to understand the cost if you don’t spend.”

Rajendra K. Pachauri, chairman of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), emphasized the vulnerability of populations in developing countries to the effects of climate change. In response to a questioner who noted challenges to the accuracy of climate science, Pachauri said the IPCC reviews all criticisms. “We do realize that this has major implications,” he added.

Ambassador Paula Dobriansky also noted the importance of energy in international security. “We are not looking for a silver bullet but for greater diversification,” she said, emphasizing the need for increased international cooperation.

Conference Chairman William R. Polk, speaking by video, set the stage for the gathering. “There are no quick fixes, no simple answers, and the traditional ways that we've organized ourselves to meet dangers are insufficient,” Polk said. “We are trying to solve 21st century problems with 20th century means.”

New strategies and security measures are necessary, said EWI Board Co-Chairman Francis Finlay. “Current policies and organizational frameworks are not only failing to achieve security and peace, but actually run the risk of aggravating confrontation and conflict,” Finlay said.

The conference continues Wednesday with discussions on the U.S. defense budget, the pivotal relationship between the United States and China, and other key issues.

Speakers Wednesday include Nobel Peace Laureate and former President of Costa Rica Óscar Arias Sánchez, General Michael Hayden, former leader of both the National Security Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency, and Khalid Malik, director of the U.N. Development Programme’s Human Development Report Office.

Follow along live at the livestream.

Click here to read coverage of the second and final day of the Affordable World Security Conference.

How to adapt the U.S. military to a technology-driven future will be an important question for any U.S. president. Below, a look at what the leading candidates in the 2012 election—President Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and Newt Gingrich—are saying about cybersecurity and how they are planning to address what they see as growing cyber threats.

BARACK OBAMA

Obama has identified cybersecurity as one of the most serious economic and national security challenges facing the United States. Shortly after taking office, he directed a 60-day “clean-slate” review to assess U.S. policies and structures for cybersecurity, resulting in a 2009 report titled Cyberspace Policy Review. To implement the recommendations in this report, Obama appointed Howard A. Schmidt to serve as White House Cybersecurity Coordinator. The strategy is twofold: first, it aims to improve the country’s resilience when confronted with cyber incidents; second, it seeks to reduce the cyber threat.

In the last year, the administration issued two strategies that address major items on the action plan: the National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace and the first comprehensive International Strategy for Cyberspace, which provides a unified foundation for U.S. international engagement on cyberspace issues.

Last May, Obama declared in his State of the Union address: “To stay one step ahead of our adversaries, I’ve already sent this Congress legislation that will secure our country from the growing dangers of cyber threats.”

The legislative proposal would give the government new authority to ensure that corporations with assets critical to national security and economic prosperity are adequately prepared to defend them. Moreover, the proposals would give the government new authority to share information about cyber threats with businesses, and, when asked, provide them with federal assistance to prevent attacks and defend against intellectual property theft. According to Howard Schmidt, the “proposals would provide new tools to help our citizens and law enforcement professionals defend against cyber crime and identity theft, while, at the same time, safeguarding individuals’ privacy and civil liberties.”

In the face of defense cuts as part of the administration’s efforts to reduce deficits, the strategy calls for increased investment in cyber capabilities. “Operate effectively in cyberspace and space” is cited as one of the primary missions of the U.S. armed forces.

The Defense Department and the State Department have also been more active on cyberspace issues during the Obama administration. In 2010, the Pentagon established a cyber command to fight in cyberspace and defend the country’s computer systems. In February 2011, Hillary Clinton appointed Christopher Painter to serve as the State Department's first coordinator for cyber issues. Painter is leading the new Office for Cyber Issues and is tasked with bringing together the many parts of the State Department working on cyber issues to advance U.S. cyber interests more effectively.

The administration has framed intellectual property protection and cybersecurity initiatives as complementary. With regard to the controversial Stop Online Piracy Act and Protect IP Act, the White House issued a statement in January saying it “will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet.”

Mitt Romney

On the Republican side, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is considered the front-runner for the nomination. His stated security strategies also prioritize cybersecurity.

In October 2011, Romney released a white paper on foreign policy “An American Century - A Strategy to Secure America’s Enduring Interests and Ideals,” outlining his view on some of the most significant foreign policy and national security challenges. He calls for a “strong America” and “will strive to ensure that the 21st century is an American Century.”

In his white paper, Romney underlines the importance of cybersecurity and marks it as one of eight actions for the first 100 days. According to the paper, he would “order a full interagency initiative to formulate a unified national strategy to deter and defend against the growing threats of militarized cyber-attacks, cyber-terrorism, cyber-espionage, and private-sector intellectual property theft.”

While recognizing that Obama has made some progress in this area, Romney argues that the administration has not yet updated the national cybersecurity strategy of 2003. Romney maintains that a much more coordinated interagency effort is necessary, involving the Department of Defense, the intelligence agencies, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Departments of Commerce and the Treasury.

Back in October, Romney introduced his Foreign Policy and National Security Advisory Team. Among more than 20 advisers are Michael Chertoff, currently chairman of the Chertoff Group and former U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security (and an EWI board member); and Michael Hayden, former director of the CIA and NSA. In an interview with National Journal, Hayden indicated that cybersecurity is one of the issues he discussed with the Romney camp and that his future advice would mirror his public statements on the issue. Hayden is in favor of a stronger, more centralized federal office to oversee cybersecurity and would like to see the NSA taking a more active role in protecting U.S. networks.

Rick Santorum

Like Obama and Romney, Santorum has a list of initiatives on national security. On his campaign website, Santorum announces a ten-point plan to “reestablish America’s standing in the world” and states it is time that “America stop leading from behind and stand for freedom once again.” Advocating increased military preparedness, he describes Obama's defense cuts as "wrong signal, wrong effort and wrong time.” He has staked out some hawkish positions, notably on Iran and China, and states that the United States is “facing a global alliance that includes Russia, North Korea, China, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Ecuador and of course Cuba.”

The former senator from Pennsylvania has not expressed a clear position on cybersecurity and how he thinks cybersecurity threats should be addressed. On the Stop Online Piracy Act, Santorum agrees with the other Republican candidates that the law goes too far. During the South Carolina debate in January, he added that he “will not agree with everybody up there that there isn’t something that can and should be done to protect the intellectual property rights of people. … The Internet is not a free zone where anybody can do anything they want to do and trample the rights of other people.”

Newt Gingrich

On his campaign website, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich put forward a plan to tackle the job crisis and meet the challenges of the 21^st century. He calls it the 21st Century Contract with America.” The contract consists of four parts including a set of legislative proposals and a so-called “Day One Plan” of executive orders.

One of Gingrich’s legislative proposals is to “revitalize our national security system to meet 21st century threats by restructuring and adequately funding our security agencies to function within a grand strategy for victory over those who seek to kill us or limit American freedom.” He has called for a new strategy, pointing to cybersecurity-related threats: “There are new emerging technologies endangering us – for example electromagnetic pulse weapons, cyberwar and lawfare, which we are not prepared to deal with.”

Gingrich ranks cyber warfare as a threat on a par with an electromagnetic pulse and a nuclear weapon in an American city and argues those threats require greater attention. During the Republican national security debate in Washington, D.C., in November 2011, candidates were asked what national security issue they worry about that nobody is asking about. Gingrich said a cyber attack is a primary concern, reiterating that the current system does not have the capacity to deal with this threat. The issue of cybersecurity was only addressed in the debate closing. Paul, Romney and Santorum did not mention cybersecurity in that debate.

Gingrich would abolish the position he calls a Cybersecurity Czar (White House Cybersecurity Coordinator). He claims the president does not have the authority to appoint bureaucrats to power who are not accountable to Congress. If those positions were still needed, he argues they should be installed with the advice and consent of the Senate.

Regarding cybersecurity threats originating from China and Russia, Gingrich has said he would seek to engage both countries in a high-level conversation and present them with an ultimatum saying “there are games we’re not going to tolerate being played; we either need an armed truce or we’re going to engage as aggressively as you are.” Talks should be “top secret” and include people from the defense sector, Gingrich continues. He says cyber espionage should be considered an act of war.

During the Michigan debate last November, Gingrich said that the U.S. should “find ways to dramatically raise the pain level for the Chinese cheating, both in the hacking side, but also on the stealing and intellectual property side. I don’t think anybody today has a particularly good strategy for doing that.”

Gingrich calls for disrupting Iran’s nuclear program through covert action, including “taking out their scientists” and cyber warfare. He would “wage real cyber warfare” to bring about regime change in Iran, and would be “prepared to use military force” as a last resort to keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. He continues “we could wage real cyber warfare against Iran and probably be remarkably effective at closing it down.”

Conclusion

Both Romney and Gingrich are critical of Obama’s foreign policy approach. They call for a strong America and “peace through strength” policy. They understand the importance of cybersecurity and the related threats. Romney claims Obama has not done enough in this area (i.e. interagency coordination) and makes cybersecurity one of his priorities during the first 100 days. He has also surrounded himself with experienced advisors in the cybersecurity arena.

Gingrich proposes some concrete actions including revitalizing the national security system, abolishing the “cybersecurity czar” position, and engaging China and Russia in conversations on sensitive issues. Both Romney and Gingrich say the U.S. needs to become tougher when it comes to China and intellectual property protection in particular. It is not entirely clear how Santorum feels about cybersecurity, but his current rhetoric lets us believe that he might be tougher on China in certain areas (i.e. trade) than Romney and Gingrich.

No matter what happens in the 2012 election, there’s no doubt that cybersecurity will continue to rise higher on the Washington policy agenda. It’s an issue that any president will have to keep addressing.

Anneleen Roggeman is Program Coordinator for the EastWest Institute’s Worldwide Cybersecurity Initiative. 

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. 

Those reluctant to graduate Russia have valid concerns—after all, the Russian government’s human rights record is under constant attack. But maintaining Jackson-Vanik restrictions on Russia is simply the wrong response to these concerns.  At best, Jackson-Vanik is completely ineffectual in promoting human rights and rule of law in Russia. At worst, it is counter-productive.

The Obama administration’s top trade priority this year is getting Russia graduated from Jackson-Vanik, and timing is crucial. When Russia formally joins the World Trade Organization (WTO) later this year, the United States will be in violation of WTO rules because Jackson-Vanik attaches conditions to the U.S.-Russia trade relationship. This means that American businesses will be at a disadvantage in Russia because the carefully negotiated reduced tariffs will not be extended to U.S. goods and services.

The administration faces an uphill battle in Congress—both Democrats and Republicans have objections to granting Russia permanent normal trade relations (PNTR). Those objections are both economic (intellectual property concerns, market access) and political (commitment to rule of law, respect for human rights). Human rights proponents fear that graduating Russia from Jackson-Vanik would deprive the U.S. of leverage over the Russian government. But Russia has been determined to be in full compliance with Jackson-Vanik every year since 1994, so it currently provides no sanctions on Russia. It could only do so should the Russian government abandon the free-market and start restricting emigration.

Practical considerations aside, the Jackson-Vanik amendment has been mythologized as a piece of legislation that has advanced the cause of human rights and allowed hundreds of thousands of Soviet citizens to leave. But its record is decidedly mixed. Rather than being responsible for freeing countless Jewish and other emigrants from the Soviet Union, the amendment may actually have resulted in thousands of would-be emigrants being denied exit visas.

Emigration numbers varied considerably during the Cold War as Soviet citizens wishing to emigrate became pawns to the U.S.-U.S.S.R. relationship. Immediately after the amendment came into force, emigration from the Soviet Union dropped by 35 percent. Numbers slowly climbed, reaching a pre-collapse peak in 1979 of 51,320. But the next year, emigration declined by 58 percent as the Soviet government sharply decreased the number of exit visas issued.  At the very least, this is a decidedly mixed record.

The expectation that Jackson-Vanik would provide some leverage on Soviet human rights practices was not unreasonable. The Soviet Union was eager to build a stronger trade relationship with the United States and mounted a lobbying effort to try to ensure that the amendment was not passed by Congress.  General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev met with several Senators in the Kremlin and with more Senators in the Blair House on a June 1973 trip to Washington.  The expectation was that the Soviet Union’s economic needs would outweigh its desire to keep dissidents from emigrating. This expectation, however, was not borne out.

Despite Jackson-Vanik’s questionable achievements, it is currently all that the U. S. has in terms of legislation to try to pressure the Russian government to improve its record. But rather than rely on an outdated and ineffective tool, human rights advocates, including those in Congress, should work with the administration to expand the arsenal of effective policy options to address Russia’s backsliding on democratization and human rights. The U.S. government, no matter which party is in control, is going to be concerned about human rights. The Russian government does not like this, but it is clearly an important dimension of U.S. foreign policy.

Both the House and Senate have introduced “replacement” human rights legislation to address ongoing concerns in Russia. The proposed legislation is a response to the death of 37-year-old Russian lawyer Sergei Magnitsky, who was killed in pretrial detention in 2009. A surprising coalition of Republicans and Democrats would like to link Russia’s graduation from Jackson-Vanik to passage of a Magnitsky bill, which would impose a visa ban on 60 Russian officials linked to Magnitsky’s death.

But the Obama administration has declined to support a Jackson-Vanik for Magnitsky quid pro quo. U.S. Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul recently branded this a “weird linkage” and dismissed the notion that “somehow holding Jackson-Vanik is going to make Russia more democratic or help us with Syria."

Some of the most prominent members of the Russian opposition movement have taken a clear stand on Jackson-Vanik, strongly questioning its linkage with current human rights concerns. “At the end of the day, those who defend the argument that Jackson-Vanik’s provisions should still apply to Russia in order to punish Putin’s anti-democratic regime only darken Russia’s political future, hamper its economic development, and frustrate its democratic aspirations,” their recent joint statement declared. “We, leading figures of the Russian political opposition, strongly stand behind efforts to remove Russian from the provisions of the Jackson-Vanik Amendment. Jackson-Vanik is not helpful in any way -- neither for promotion of human rights and democracy in Russia, nor for the economic interests of its people.”

Nonetheless, the opposition leaders advocate selective sanctioning of Russian officials complicit in human rights abuses and mention the Magnitsky legislation by name. The State Department, however, has already instituted a visa ban on some officials believed to be linked to Magnitsky’s death, and it argues that the new legislation would mandate investigations of assets of Russian officials that would be difficult to carry out. There are also concerns that provisions of the Magnitsky bills are illegal (such as not providing an appeal mechanism for those sanctioned) or of dubious precedent (punishing people who have not been found guilty of a crime). The administration is also concerned that the Russian government would retaliate against the Magnitsky legislation by withholding cooperation on Iran, the Northern Distribution Network to Afghanistan and other strategically important areas.

A Jackson-Vanik for Magnitsky quid pro quo could end up trading one piece of ineffective legislation for another. Still, the administration is going to have to give something to get Congress to agree to graduate Russia from Jackson-Vanik—it is, after all, an election year and Russia is a popular target, especially after its recent actions vis-à-vis Syria. In anticipation of having to put more substance to its human rights efforts,  in October the administration submitted a congressional notification for the creation of a civil society fund to provide long-term support for Russian NGOs—but no further action has been taken.

Critics of Russia view Russia’s unconditional graduation from Jackson-Vanik as a sign of weakness on the part of the United States and a victory for Russia. But even most major U.S. Jewish groups, who strongly supported the amendment’s creation, have also come out in favor of repealing Jackson-Vanik. And now it is the United States, not Russia, who will bear the cost of keeping Jackson-Vanik on the books—to the tune of some $9 to $10 billion annually in unrealized benefits from Russia’s WTO accession. Rather than linking human rights to trade, human rights should be promoted as important in its own right, and the U.S. should develop a whole arsenal of tools that are more substantive than symbolic.

Jacqueline McLaren Miller is a Senior Associate in EWI's Strategic Trust-Building Initiative, where she runs the U.S. and WMD programs.

Veteran diplomat Zhou Wenzhong has taken center stage at the Boao Forum for Asia (BFA), following in the footsteps of his influential predecessor Long Yongtu, known for his success in negotiating China's accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001.

A Jiangsu native, born in Chongqing in 1945, Zhou was the former ambassador to the United States, and counts fluent English among his many skills.

As the General Secretary of the BFA, Zhou hopes that the upcoming annual Asian forum, which will kick off next month, can go beyond the region and attract as many emerging economies as possible.

Click here to read the rest of this article at China.org.cn.

When the street rose against the entrenched regimes of Tunisia and Egypt and toppled them there was enthusiastic references to an 'Arab Spring'.

The nature of the political upsurge in these two countries was defined by western observers from their perspective as a movement in favour of democratic change by the urban middle class youth mobilised through the social media, and this description was accepted by the rest of the world without making an independent judgment.

If it was the West that had long backed the old regimes, it was they again that interpreted for the rest the character of the popular revolt against them.

Click here to read the rest of Kanwal Sibal's column at MailOnline India.