ResearchThe New Era Foreign Policy Project is concurrently conducting research in four core thematic areas: the global competition of ideas, the international dynamics of emerging powers, the international political consequences of the rise of life sciences and biotechnology, and the strategic implications of international law. In addition, the New Era Global Scenario Project was conducted in January 2007. The Global Competition of IdeasPolicymakers speak about a "war of ideas" with the Islamic world. Academics use the phrase "soft power." We believe both of these phrases lack serious theoretical underpinnings, and that policy suffers as a direct result. The question is clear: How can the United States counter ideological support for terrorism, address rising levels of anti-American sentiment, or win "hearts and minds" in a counterinsurgency campaign? But the notion of a "war of ideas" is simply wrong -- ideas don't fight wars, although they do compete in various ways. And there is no shared understanding of "soft power" -- what capabilities are relevant to that competition, what outcomes we should expect from using soft power, and what mechanisms connect capabilities to outcomes. As a direct result, U.S. policy in this area is confused, ineffectual, often self-contradictory -- and undermines American goals. The global competition of ideas project conducts systematic research on the theory and practice of soft power, and links these directly together. The soft power research program seeks to better understand how states can and do compete in a global marketplace of ideas in order to advance their own strategic interests. To achieve this goal, the project supports research that will help to: develop internally consistent theories of soft power; construct a body of rigorous empirical analysis in the exercise of soft power; and recommend practical policy options based upon the results of the research. The International Dynamics of Emerging PowersInternational politics in the next decade will be shaped significantly by the rise of large, populous, and increasingly powerful states in global political and economic systems. How can the US mold the international environment to increase the likelihood that the BRICs -- Brazil, Russia, India, and China -- will emerge as liberal capitalist states with functioning democracies? Consider the obvious (and worrisome) historical analogy: At the end of the 19th century, four emerging powers in international politics (U.S., Japan, Germany, and Russia) confronted an existing political and economic order dominated by Great Britain. Only one of the emerging powers remained on a liberal path, and it took half a century and two world wars to deal with the consequences of that fact. Along with the specific sets of issues embedded in the bilateral relationships with each of the BRICs, the broad strategic challenge for the United States is how to ensure a geopolitical transition that is stable, peaceful, and consistent with our own national interest in a strong leadership position. We ask, what should the U.S. do now and what strategies should it map out for the coming decade to facilitate the peaceful and constructive integration of the next generation of emerging powers into a broader world order that benefits U.S. interests? With that goal still in mind, we are examining the degree to which non-Western powers are reshaping the norms and institutions that regulate international politics, and/or creating a parallel order of their own that could profoundly challenge the "integration" paradigm and set up a new bipolar-like global competition. International Political Consequences of the Rise of Life Sciences and BiotechnologyTechnological progress in the life sciences is set to become a major driver in the next phase of globalization, just as information technologies were a driving force behind globalization in the final decade of the twentieth century. How these technologies affect international politics will depend in part on how policy debates are resolved or at least managed at the intersection of international and non-governmental organizations, firms, national governments, universities, and other stakeholders. Discussions about biotechnology have, with some notable exceptions, avoided addressing the difficult decisions that must be made when policy goals conflict. Some see biotechnology as a purely scientific enterprise. Others view it as a global public good, emphasizing its potential contributions to public health and to international development. For many, the most important dimensions of biotechnology are ethical. Others are concerned about how the spread of biotechnology, and with it the potential proliferation of biological weapons, could affect international security. Business leaders, meanwhile, see enormous commercial opportunities, and government leaders seek ways to make their nations' firms as competitive as possible. The core proposition behind our life sciences project is that these perspectives will come into much closer contact with each other over the next few years. And they are likely to do so within a global environment where life sciences are increasingly thought of and seen as central components of national power. In that context, the life sciences and biotechnology project asks, what should the U.S. do now to leverage its leadership in the life sciences so that these technologies enter world politics in ways that support long-term U.S. and global interests? Thinking Strategically about International LawThere are over 50,000 treaties in force around the world today, covering almost every facet of international relations. In addition, the number of customary legal norms—that is, rules of law that derive from the consistent conduct of States acting out of a sense of legal obligation—has grown substantially. As a consequence, most national foreign policy objectives intersect with one or more international legal obligations. Over the past several decades, an interdisciplinary body of scholarship that recognizes this relationship has emerged. It attempts to answer questions of state compliance by integrating international relations theory with the study of international law. Thinking Strategically about International Law seeks to advance this interdisciplinary project by reorienting the study of international law around the assumption that international legal obligations create incentives and costs for both States and nonstate actors engaged in strategic interaction. The project seeks to answer questions such as: How do some States use restrictive immunity to "fake" liberalization in order to take advantage of commercial transactions with nonstate actors while retaining absolute sovereignty? How might an international organization's legal obligations amidst post-conflict reconstruction create incentives for nonstate actors to foment violence in weak and failing states? How do leaders in States undergoing political transitions or regime change attempt to recast the legal obligations of those States? Reorienting the study of international law in this way will help policymakers assess how international legal obligations alter the strategic risks and benefits of implementing foreign policies in today's international environment. The New Era Global Scenario ProjectIn order to extricate foreign policy debates from reactive and constraining mindsets, the New Era Foreign Policy Center has developed a process to illuminate both the core medium-term strategic challenges for the international community and the policies that might be used to achieve those objectives in a changing global environment. The technique centers around the use of a set of scenarios designed to stretch our mental maps around foreign policy. Our view is that the principal challenge of strategy is not to manage what you know and what you control, but to adapt more effectively to what you don't know and what you don't control. The forward-looking question for foreign policy is thus: How do leaders develop adaptive strategies to cope with complex combinations of uncertainty, at least some of which are not in their control? Strategic thinking therefore requires a careful analysis of the tradeoffs embedded in any foreign policy decision. But equally important is the ability of the US government to anticipate the priorities and expected responses of its allies and adversaries. All too often (in the cases of both Iraq and North Korea for instance) US foreign policy objectives have remained elusive precisely because policymakers in Washington have failed to understand how differently other regional and major powers viewed the relevant threats and opportunities. American foreign policy should not be premised on the assumption that other nations will or should harbor a similar set of priorities in global politics (e.g. ousting Saddam Hussein or disarming North Korea), but rather upon strategic thinking about how to work with and around those who have divergent perceptions about the tradeoffs and consequences of action or inaction in the international system. To this end, in January 2007, a team of New Era research fellows conducted a series of parallel scenario workshops at partner institutions in four countries around the world: Hong Kong, Israel, Switzerland, and Singapore. The purpose of the global scenario project was to gain a greater understanding of the manner in which foreign academics, elites, and government officials perceive the gut-wrenching decisions American foreign policymakers will face in the coming years. The project has helped generate additional research questions for New Era scholars, and its findings are being synthesized into a briefing that will be delivered to key groups within the American foreign policy community.
|
