Washington Diplomacy: Profiles of People of World Influence

Washington Diplomacy

Washington Diplomacy Profiles of People of World Influence

John Shaw

Algora New York

© 2002 by Algora Publishing. All Rights Reserved. www.algora.com No portion of this book (beyond what is permitted by Sections 107 or 108 of the United States Copyright Act of 1976) may be reproduced by any process, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form, or by any means, without the express written permission of the publisher. ISBN: 0-87586-160-1 (softcover) ISBN: 0-87586-161-X (hardcover) Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data: 2002015850 Shaw, John Washington diplomacy : profiles of people of world influence / by John Shaw. p. cm. ISBN 0-87586-161-X (alk. paper) — ISBN 0-87586-160-1 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. Statesmen — Biography. Biography — 20th century. I. Shaw, John. II. Title. D412 .S46 2002 327.73/0092/2 21 2002015850

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

In December of 1996, Victor Shiblie, the publisher of The Washington Diplomat, asked me if I would like to write a monthly column for his magazine about the people who shape diplomacy in Washington. I agreed and have been writing a column called “People of World Influence” since January of 1997. This book includes most of the profiles I’ve written for the Diplomat. My approach has been to find compelling people involved in international affairs, carefully study their writings and careers, interview them, and write profiles that seek to capture the essence of their work and thinking. I’ve viewed these columns as an opportunity to sit down with fascinating people, listen carefully, and challenge politely as they outline their views about global affairs and their specific areas of expertise. While I’ve used no precise formula to select the subjects of my profiles, I’ve tried to balance international affairs practitioners with thinkers, Old Bulls with Young Turks, rising stars with retired statesmen and Americans with individuals from other nations. As you read these profiles, it will be obvious there is no single overarching theory of international affairs that is advanced. Rather than imparting — or concocting — a coherent framework to describe all of their disparate opinions, I believe it is better to let these people speak in their own voices about issues that were on their minds when I wrote about them. One of the great joys of writing this column has been the opportunity to peer into the minds of some of the world’s most interesting people. Along the way, I’ve developed new interests, reconsidered old notions, and thought about the complicated challenges of the future. As an example of a new interest I’ve acquired, these profiles include several people who work on war crimes issues — sadly one of the growth areas of international affairs in the 1990s. I believe my profiles of Diane Orentlicher, David Scheffer, Richard Goldstone and Pierre Prosper give a sense of the vigorous debate about how to prevent war crimes and how to punish those who have committed them.

The terrorist attack of September 11 on the United States is generally believed to have ushered in a new era of international politics and that date does define the topics and tone of many of these profiles. However, I believe these essays show that a number of thoughtful observers of international affairs were very concerned throughout the late 1990s about the likelihood of devastating terrorist attacks against American interests, possibly on American soil. I vividly recall my interview with House International Affairs Committee Chairman Henry Hyde on September 10, as he warned that the world is far more dangerous than most Americans realize. These essays provide insights about the post-September 11th world, especially the considerable intelligence challenges that loom. My profiles of Brent Scowcroft and Jim Woolsey, and the chairmen of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, Bob Graham and Porter Goss, provide a glimpse of this task. I’ve relished the opportunity to interview leading historians as a way of seeing more clearly how individuals in the past made their way through uncertain times. My conversations with Michael Howard, Niall Ferguson and David Fromkin were memorable for me and place current challenges into a historic perspective. I also enjoyed interviews with leading American statesmen such as Henry Kissinger, George Mitchell, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Lee Hamilton, David Abshire and George McGovern and respected international leaders such as Richard Goldstone of South Africa, Gareth Evans and Richard Butler of Australia, Maurice Strong of Canada and Cesar Gaviria of Colombia. And I’ve relished the opportunity to weigh the views of Establishment leaders with fresh thinking offered by such people as Jean-Francois Rischard, Jonathan Clarke, Moises Naim, Tom Friedman and Jessica Mathews. Finally, these essays include a number of U.S. congressional leaders who have been active voices and forces in international affairs such as senators Joe Biden, Richard Lugar, Chuck Hagel and representatives Henry Hyde and Porter Goss. I’m very grateful to Sen. Hagel for writing the introduction to this book. I would like to thank Victor Shiblie and his colleagues at the Diplomat for all of their help, especially Anna Gawel and Ivan Schwabe. My thanks also to Denny Gulino, the Washington bureau chief of Market News International, who has been a wonderful and supportive boss for nearly a decade. Thanks also to Claudiu Secara and his fine team at Algora Publishing for their great work on Washington Diplomacy. Finally, many thanks are in order to my parents, brothers and sisters, and Katherine Tallmadge.

Table of Contents

Introduction by Sen. Chuck Hagel 1 Jean-Francois Rischard 2 Pierre Prosper 3 Rose Gottemoeller 4 David Abshire 5 Brent Scowcroft 6 Bob Graham 7 Porter Goss 8 R. James Woolsey 9 Maurice Strong 10 Henry Hyde 11 Michael Howard 12 Henry Kissinger 13 Cesar Gaviria 14 Gareth Evans 15 Richard Goldstone 16 Anthony Lake 17 George McGovern 18 Jonathan Schell 19 Shireen Hunter 20 Richard Butler 21 Joseph Biden 22 Charles W. Freeman, Jr.

1 3 7 11 15 19 23 27 31 35 39 43 47 53 57 61 67 71 75 79 83 87 91 IX

23 Charles Boyd 24 Moises Naim 25 Jonathan Clarke 26 John Wolf 27 Jacqueline Grapin 28 John Anderson 29 Thomas Pickering 30 Dava Sobel 31 Susan Rice 32 Niall Ferguson 33 L. Bruce Laingen 34 Sam Brownback 35 Lawrence Summers 36 David Fromkin 37 Nelson Mandela 38 Tony Blair 39 Walter Cutler 40 Benjamin Gilman 41 David Scheffer 42 Casimir Yost 43 The Dalai Lama 44 Chuck Hagel 45 Charles Maynes 46 Diane Orentlicher 47 George Mitchell 48 Richard Holbrooke 49 Abba Eban 50 Richard Solomon 51 Zbigniew Brzezinski 52 Jim Leach 53 Richard Haass 54 Fred Bergsten 55 Tom Friedman 56 Strobe Talbott 57 Peter Hopkirk 58 Lee Hamilton

97 103 107 111 115 121 125 129 133 137 141 145 149 153 157 163 167 171 175 179 183 187 191 195 201 205 209 213 217 221 225 229 233 237 241 245 X

59 Jessica Mathews 60 Samuel Huntington 61 Michel Camdessus 62 Bill Richardson 63 Robert Gallucci 64 Alan Greenspan 65 Kofi Annan 66 Richard Lugar

249 253 257 261 265 269 273 277

XI

People of World Influence

Introduction

he events of September 11th have forever ended the debate over whether or not America can T isolate itself from the rest of the world. We cannot. Our world is an interconnected one in which two giant oceans are no longer sufficient to give our country the luxury of choosing when

and under what circumstances we will engage beyond our borders. All six billion people living on the face of the earth are connected through and by telecommunications, world institutions, markets, energy, food, health, immigration, education and the environment. In the aftermath of September 11th, a new coalition of alliances is being formed to deal with the shared threat of terrorism. Stopping terrorism will not be the only purpose of this coalition of civilized nations. It will be the catalyst and an important initial challenge, but it will represent only the beginning purpose of a new world order. This will redefine the world and establish new relationships in world affairs for the next generation and beyond. Foreign policy is not an esoteric theory or a mathematical exercise with equations and formulas. It is the imperfect and imprecise relationship of nations interacting in their own interests. People and personalities shape policy. With this in mind, the thoughts and perspectives of those individuals who seek to influence foreign policy are an invaluable tool in understanding the course of international relations. This collection of profiles done by John Shaw for the Washington Diplomat is an important book for anyone who is serious about understanding foreign policy. From a Secretary of State to foreign diplomats to academics to members of Congress, John has profiled a wide range of influential and interesting people over the last five years (this Senator from Nebraska not withstanding). John has engaged his subjects and drawn out some of their most creative and original thinking. This book will be on the shelves of those sitting at the controls and levers of foreign policy. Today, perhaps more than ever, foreign policy matters. Like Truman, Marshall and Vandenberg after World War II, we are faced with the challenges of leading a redefinition of the world in which we live. These are important times and our increased awareness of them is critical. With this book, John Shaw has made a valuable contribution to our understanding of the people who shape the world around us. Sen. Chuck Hagel

·1

HIGHER EDUCATION: HANDBOOK OF THEORY AND RESEARCH, VOL. XVII

476

People of World Influence

World Bank Vice President

Jean-François Rischard

J

ean-François Rischard believes the global community can no longer respond to a growing list of pressing problems with partial solutions and tepid compromises. Clear choices, decisive action and new ways of confronting global challenges are urgently required by governments, businesses and civil society working together, he said. "I don't think that muddling through is an alternative scenario," Rischard said in an interview at the Westin Fairfax hotel on Embassy Row. "We need imaginative thinking, out-of-the box thinking. We also need really fast thinking because we face many urgent global issues that have to be dealt with soon, not in 30 years or 50 years. Each issue when you look at it has a timeclock ticking behind it," he said. Rischard has worked at the World Bank for nearly 25 years and is now vice president for Europe. He has doctoral degrees in law and economics from universities in Europe and an MBA from Harvard Business School. One of his classmates at Harvard was President George W. Bush. Soft-spoken and thoughtful, Rischard is a native of Luxembourg who now lives in Paris with his wife and three sons. Rischard was in Washington during a recent book tour for his provocative new book, High Noon. His views have attracted considerable attention partly because of the intriguing juxtaposition of his strong establishment credentials and the huge changes he advocates in how the world's toughest problems are addressed. “I'm trying to force people to think differently. I'm pushing in a direction that is unusual for ·3

John Shaw most people. Unless we start to think differently we face two very crucial decades that could be wasted," he said. "How to act on these problems without World War or a big catastrophe in front of you— that's challenge we face. And we need to act without completely reinventing the existing system which would take forever," he added. Rischard has been explaining and refining his vision of the future for years in debates with colleagues at the World Bank and at high level international meetings. He argues that two powerful forces are shaping the world of the 21st century: a demographic explosion and a new global economy that is propelled by technological and economic revolutions. On the demographic front, Rischard notes that the world's population grew from five billion in 1990 to six billion in 2002 and will reach eight billion by 2020. At that time, there will be 60 cities with more than 5 million people and about 25 cities with 10 million or more. Rischard says many of these people will reside in the developing world where three billion people now live on less than $2 a day. Rischard said this more crowded world will be molded by economic forces. The new global economy, he contends, is far more complex than the American dotcom boom of the 1990s. It consists of an economic revolution in which most people work in interconnected market economies and a technological revolution in which advances in communications, neuroscience, and renewable energy are creating astonishing possibilities. Rischard argues that while enormous opportunities loom in the future there are 20 global issues that must be addressed in the next two decades. Or else. These include global warming, ecosystem loss and fisheries depletion, deforestration, fresh water scarcity, maritime safety and pollution, global poverty, the proliferation of infectious diseases and illegal drugs, archaic tax systems, inadequate e-commerce rules and intellectual property rights laws, outdated trade, investment and competition regulations and labor and migration challenges. While many of the issues are linked, each requires specific, careful and focused attention, Rischard said. "We face huge challenges that are not one big thing but 20 specific issues that all say 'urgent, urgent, urgent.' None can be put off for 30 or 50 years," he said. "What is so gripping about all of these issues is that it's like turning a tanker to fix them. For a lot of these issues, like global warming, if you fix them the beneficiaries will be our children and grandchildren. Many involve local losses and global wins," he said. While quick to acknowledge that most of these global problems are growing more difficult, Rischard said there have been some successes that give him hope. He cited global efforts to phase-out substances that opened a hole in the ozone layer. He said there has been important progress since the Montreal Protocol of 1987, adding that some experts now believe the ozone hole will soon shrink and may close in 50 years. Rischard said the ozone problem has been solved because it was carefully defined, the science was compelling, alternative technologies developed quickly, and the commitments of only a few nations were essential. Other problems, such as global warming, will be far more difficult to resolve, he declared. 4·

People of World Influence "I think we should introduce new vehicles that would put pressure on the global system and put pressure on nation-states to behave more like global citizens than they would otherwise be," he said. Rischard said current governing structures aren't working well now and will be increasingly irrelevant in the future. Problems are so complex that traditional approaches such as laboriously negotiated treaties and carefully orchestrated intergovernmental conferences do little good. "We don't have time to experiment with global government," he said, adding that innovations such as the European Union have been important but will not be adequate to tackle the coming onslaught of problems. He said that while the EU has accomplished much it is comprised of 15 relatively similar nations, many which have been working together for half a century. "The world doesn't have five decades for this. We don't have the time to go through the motions the EU did," he said. Rischard argues that global issues networks are needed to address vexing problems. These networks would be comprised of representatives from governments, business and international civil society and would study problems, craft solutions and build global support for strong action. The networks, he argues, would provide the kind of speedy and creative problemsolving that is needed. "These issues are so complicated that if you don't break problem solving down, issue-by-issue, you can't get your arms around it," he said. Rischard said that for networks to work, India and China must participate since the two nations constitute about one-third of the world's population. "In the end it's not whether the U.S. assumes leadership, or Europe get its act together, or Japan emerges from its difficult situation. It's really whether India and China play ball on these issues. That's the $100,000 question. The global policies of these two nations over the next 20 years is very important," he said. Rischard has been outlining his ideas on networked governance in lectures and papers in recent years and was urged to present them in a comprehensive way. He wrote High Noon in less than a year during weekends, vacations and evenings while also maintaining a busy schedule as a World Bank executive. Rischard emphasizes that the views in the book are personal ones, but said his work at the Bank has helped him think through problems and develop plausible solutions. "The Bank is an institution that has been maligned as bureaucratic, but it's a place where you can think for yourself and talk about ideas," he said. He expects his book to be criticized by some who find it too simplistic while others will challenge his faith in networked governance. "It was a book I wrote on my own, outside the World Bank. It was a bold book to write. I wanted to see what happens to book like this where the author sticks his neck out. "Writing a book like this is a bit of risk. You run the risk of being called naive. But it is a choice of two naivetes my naivete or the naivete of believing the current system will be able to solve the world's big problems," he said. ·5

John Shaw Rischard very much wants his ideas to resonate with young people and he hopes they may inspire a new generation to create the kind of visionary solutions that are badly needed. "I hope young people pick up on these ideas. My book has been written in that spirit." (August, 2002)

6·

People of World Influence

Ambassador-at-Large

Pierre-Richard Prosper

W

hen he served as the lead prosecutor at the first trial before the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in the late 1990s, Pierre-Richard Prosper went through a grisly, gruelling and life transforming experience: he tried to determine what constitutes genocide in the modern world. Prosper, now the Bush administration's ambassador-at-large for war crimes issues, had gone to Rwanda to probe one of the most stunning killing rampages in history in which about 800,000 people, mostly Tutsis, were brutally murdered over a 100 days of communal barbarism. Reviewing the language of the 1948 Geneva Convention and fifty years of legal scholarship, Prosper and his colleagues tried to establish how the concept of genocide applies in the contemporary context. They spent long hours discussing the various meanings of the word "destroy." "My trial team and I had the job of bringing to life the Geneva Convention and give it meaning and application," he said in an interview at his office in the State Department. "We had a set of facts that were obviously horrific—the type of atrocities that I had never personally seen before or even, I think, the world. It was a situation that was completely different in the type of inhumanity," he said. Prosper and his team studied legal precedent, investigated the astonishing circumstances of the particular case, met with victims and survivors, stood before mass graves, and then put on a hard hitting and powerful prosecution that won a stunning conviction. "Obviously I'll never experience genocide in the way the Rwandans did but I've seen genocide in its aftermath, not only by seeing the physical evidence but spending over two and a half years with victims and survivors and hearing their stories and literally sharing their tears. These were ·7

John Shaw my witnesses and I lived with them and their suffering for a period," he added. That experience in Rwanda still weighs heavily on Prosper as he serves in the Bush administration as its war crimes expert. Working out of a 7th floor office in the State Department just down the hall from Secretary of State Colin Powell, Prosper heads up a team of about five professionals and a small support staff. The war crimes office, which was created by President Bill Clinton, advises the Secretary of State on American efforts to address violations of international humanitarian law, especially largescale atrocities including genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. Prosper's office also coordinates U.S. support for the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, the special courts in Sierra Leone and Cambodia, and other judicial mechanisms to bring violators of international humanitarian law to justice. Affable, aggressive and ambitious, Prosper brings to his work a passionate committment and a compelling life story. Prosper was born in Denver in 1963 and grew up in New York State. His parents are both physicians who left Haiti during the brutally oppressive rule of Baby Doc Duvalier. Pierre received a bachelor's degree from Boston College and then a law degree from Peperdine University. He briefly considered a career in corporate law, but decided to become a government prosecutor. Prosper served from 1989 to 1994 as a deputy district attorney for Los Angeles and was responsible for prosecuting gang related homicides. Then from 1994 to 1996 he was an assistant U.S. attorney for the Central District of California where, as part of the drug enforcement task force, he investigated and prosecuted major international drug cartels. His career took an unexpected turn when a colleague in the U.S. Attorney's office, Steve Mansfield, returned from a trip to Rwanda and briefed the staff about the 1994 horrors that occurred there and the shattered society that remained. "I felt I was being pulled in. I knew I had to participate, to find some way to work this issue, to make a difference," Prosper said. "But I wasn't sure I wanted to leave my comfortable life in LA. I was an assistant U.S. attorney which is a hard job to get and a great job. I was living a few minutes from the beach. It was a good life," he added. He first went to Rwanda in April, 1995 as part of a fact finding mission to examine the national justice system. He then was offered and accepted a position by the United Nations to be one of two American prosecutors for the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. It was searing experience in which he came to regard all the horrors in Rwanda as not just a crime against Rwandans but against all humanity. After 14 month trial, Prosper won a conviction against Jean-Paul Akayesu for genocide and crimes against humanity such as extermination, murder, rape, torture, and other inhumane acts. Diane Orentlicher, a war crimes expert at American University, praises Prosper as a legal pioneer. "As prosecutor in the first genocide trial before an international court, Pierre earned a place in legal history. The verdict affirmed, for the first time in legal history, that rape can be an act of genocide," she said. 8·

People of World Influence "Pierre never lost sight of the core values the Rwanda tribunal was meant to restore—above all, the dignity of those who endured genocidal violence. It speaks volumes about Pierre that, after securing a guilty verdict in the Akayesu case, he traveled to Taba commune, where Akayesu's crimes occurred, to explain the verdict to the survivors," she added. Reflecting on the Rwanda experience, Prosper said it altered his professional life and challenged his fundamental assumptions about human nature. "It changed my view on how evil people can be. And it changed my view on how important it is that we all make a contribution to making the world better," he said. Prosper returned to the U.S. at the end of 1998 and accepted a post at the Justice Department. Before long he was asked to work at the State Department's war crimes office under the direction of Ambassador David Scheffer. Prosper served from 1999 to early 2001 as a special counsel and policy adviser in the war crimes office. Then as President George Bush assumed office, Secretary of State Powell met with Prosper, decided to retain the war crimes office, and asked him to stay on as the ambassador. Working out of a modest-sized office, Prosper carefully monitors the progress of the Rwandan and Yugoslav tribunals and tries to help the nations in the Balkans and Great Lakes regions build strong domestic judicial systems. He also wants to help ensure that the special UN courts in Sierra Leone and Cambodia are functioning effectively. Since the September 11th terrorist attacks, Prosper has been deeply involved in explaining the legal justification for establishing military commissions that can be used to try Taliban and al Qaeda detainees. He has also traveled to the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay and inspected the prison facilities and observed the prisoners. He has been in contact with representatives of the three dozen or so nations that have prisoners at Guantanamo to answer questions and explain American policy. Perhaps most controversially, Prosper has defended the administration's decision to disassociate from the International Criminal Court. The treaty creating the global criminal court was ratified by the requisite 60 nations in April and will begin in July. The American decision not to become a party to the ICC was announced in early May. It won praise in the U.S. from a number of conservative groups but has been criticized by key Democratic members of Congress and various non-governmental organizations. Diplomats across the world have been sharply critical of the American decision. Prosper said the ICC is built on a flawed foundation that leaves it open for exploitation and politically motivated prosecutors, undermines the role of UN Security Council in maintaining peace and security, creates a prosecutorial system driven by an unchecked power, and binds states that aren't parties to the treaty. "It's an absolutely noble cause," Prosper said of the ICC. "We recognize we need to put our efforts together to combat war crimes and hold people accountable," he said. "The problems we have with the ICC get very philosophical. There are too many out there who want the ICC to be the be-all and end-all for accountability of war crimes. It's a disincentive for states to take the hard, difficult steps early on to prevent atrocities from happening or to build the ·9

John Shaw infrastructure and institutions that will act as a constraint to excesses or abuses," he said. "There are states that are more than willing to abdicate their responsibilities and let the international tribunal do the hard work. They are not willing to exercise their sovereign responsibility," he said. Prosper said the better approach is to focus tightly on preventing terrible crimes from occurring and if crimes do take place urge that they be prosecuted by credible domestic judicial systems. He added that in special cases the UN Security Council or ad hoc tribunals could play a role in ensuring justice is rendered. Prosper said the Bush administration decided it was important to make it objections to the criminal clear and not create any unwarranted expectations of American involvement in the Court. He said American actions are consistent with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. "The president decided we are not going to assault or wage all out war on the ICC, but there are steps we may need to take that protect our interests or pursue alternative mechanisms that may seen contrary to the ICC," he said. "We played a key role in the ICC's formation and we tried to make it as credible as possible. But we didn't get enough. We did our part, but now it is time for us to detach ourselves from the process. This puts the burden on the European states to show that this institution can work. It's not going to be an easy job. They are going to find it's more difficult than they imagine," he added. While thrust on the defensive by the administration's ICC decision, Prosper said he has a wide ranging and ambitious agenda for his tenure as chief of the war crimes office. Prosper keeps in his office a current list of those indicted and arrested by the two ad hoc war crimes tribunals. He is determined that the number of arrests will grow and the number of indictees that are at large will shrink. He is determined that two men believed responsible for a great deal of carnage in the Balkans, Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic, will soon go to the Hague. Prosper said he wants to help the two ad hoc tribunals complete their work and phase out of existence by 2008. He wants to help strong domestic judicial systems take root in the Balkans and Great Lakes regions and become the foundation for political and social stability. "We really want these countries to put the war crimes issues behind them. If we can get to the point that war crimes is not the first talking point for diplomats dealing with the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and Sierra Leone then I've done my job. This is my goal," he said. Prosper travels constantly, usually averaging two weeks on the road every a month. As Powell's personal representative, he frequently meets with heads of state, foreign ministers and senior diplomats. His overriding goal is to help nations devise ways to prevent violence from breaking out so that war crimes tribunals become a relic of the past. "It is my dream that one day my work will become obsolete." (July, 2002)

10 ·

People of World Influence

Nuclear Security Expert

Rose Gottemoeller

R

ose Gottemoeller’s involvement in nuclear issues has ranged from the lofty and theoretical to the mundane and grimly practical. As a former senior American government official and a leading expert on nuclear security and non-proliferation issues, she has participated in high-level negotiations and drafted scholarly articles about arms control challenges. And as a hands-on expert, she has inspected nuclear facilities in the former Soviet Union and gazed in disbelief at 70pound buckets of plutonium sitting in unprotected buildings. Technically sophisticated and practically inclined, Gottemoeller has close ties to both American and Russian nuclear experts and is willing to serve as an informal link between the two communities. In an interview in her office at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Gottemoeller said she’s trying to promote a “thoughtful debate” between the United States and Russia on nuclear weapons matters. “I’m not participating now in the policy process, but I’m willing to serve as an informal channel between the two parties,” she said. Soft-spoken, understated and articulate, Gottemoeller described herself as a member of the “Sputnik generation” that was encouraged to study Russian in high school in the 1960s and learn about the Soviet Union. “Interest in the Soviet Union and now Russia has been a persistent and consistent part of my career,” she said. Her expertise in nuclear technology developed after she entered a graduate program in science and technology at George Washington University and intensified while working at the Rand Corp. She became a senior defense analyst at Rand, a Council on Foreign Relations Fellow and an · 11

John Shaw adjunct professor of Soviet military policy at Georgetown University. Gottemoeller also worked at the State Department and was part of the START I negotiating team that reached an agreement in 1991 between the United States and the four successors to the Soviet Union—Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan. That accord limited each side to 6,000 nuclear warheads on 1,600 strategic offensive delivery vehicles. She served on President Bill Clinton’s National Security Council (NSC) as director for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasian affairs and later held several senior posts at the Energy Department related to nuclear non-proliferation issues. At the NSC, she was deeply involved in the administration’s efforts to remove nuclear weapons from Kazakhstan, Ukraine and Belarus and recalled it as an intense and deeply rewarding experience. “We had a massive diplomatic effort in the first two years of the Clinton administration,” she said of the work that culminated in agreements with the three nations to join the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty and remove nuclear weapons from their territories. “This was the highlight of my career in government,” she said. Gottemoeller left the Energy Department in October of 2000 and joined the Carnegie Endowment with a joint appointment in the Russian and Eurasian Program and the Global Policy Program. She’s a Democrat who seeks to be an honest broker, praising good ideas and constructively criticizing bad ones. “I believe in bipartisanship in foreign policy. I’m trying to be part of the loyal and helpful opposition. That means acknowledging good policies and pointing out errors and problems in policies when I think they are heading in the wrong direction,” she said. Gottemoeller commends President George W. Bush and his administration for ending the long impasse on nuclear weapons reductions with Russia. “I give President Bush and his team credit for getting things off the dime. During the 1990s, we were basically stalled on arms control. We were never able to get beyond the levels of START I. “Despite the best efforts of President Clinton and President Yeltsin, we never got Start II into force or START III negotiated. We were pretty much stalled and President Bush got things moving,” she said. She praised Bush for offering a new vision of the American-Russian relationship that goes beyond the Cold War rivalry and envisions cooperation in a host of technology and security areas. “The president has said he wants a new relationship with Russia. That’s a worthy strategic goal, but I don’t see the evidence that there is anyone in the administration willing and prepared to do the heavy lifting to make it happen,” she said. “I don’t think the political leadership of the administration below Bush has grabbed on this notion of a new relationship with Russia and run with it,” she added. Gottemoeller argues that Bush came to office embracing two ideas that represented a dramatic change in America’s approach to arms control: a clear willingness to act unilaterally and to discard arms control mechanisms that he considered outdated or harmful to American interests. Bush, she said, has been eager to overturn the basic structure of the American-Russian arms control relationship that has been in place since the first Strategic Arms Limitation Talks and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty that was signed in 1972. 12 ·

People of World Influence The premise of that accord was that as long as strategic defense systems were constrained, strategic offensive forces could be reduced without the threat that effective defenses would overwhelm the ability of the remaining forces to deter them. “The offensive-defensive arms control deal struck 30 years ago enabled sharp reductions in strategic offensive nuclear forces over time,” Gottemoeller said. But on Dec. 13, 2001, Bush announced that the United States would withdraw from the ABM treaty within six months, saying it was a relic of the Cold War that limited the United States’s ability to defend itself. Gottemoeller said that by the end of last year, the United States and Russia were left with no offensive-defensive deal, no ABM treaty, an emerging U.S. national missile defense system, and pledges by each side to reduce their strategic offensive weapons. These sweeping events took place in a policy arena that had remained fairly stable for the previous 30 years, Gottemoeller said. Looking ahead to Bush’s meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in late May, she expects several tangible accomplishments but believes the talks will be less ambitious than once contemplated. “I don’t think the summit between Bush and Putin will be anything more than an arms control summit. Now this is a huge accomplishment, but the administration had been scornful in the past of ‘just arms control summits.’ But that is what this is going to be,” Gottemoeller said. She noted that Bush has backed reductions in U.S. strategic offensive forces to between 1,700 and 2,200 deployed warheads while Putin has said Russia would cut its strategic offensive forces to between 1,500 and 2,200 warheads. Gottemoeller expects an agreement in which the United States and Russia pledge to reduce their arsenals to a range of 1,500 to 2,200 warheads. The accord, she predicted, will also embrace an arms control verification protocol based on START I and will be drafted in a legally binding document to ensure monitoring and verification of the reductions. Bush had said last year that a formal written agreement was not necessary. “President Putin really only asked for a single quid pro quo for acquiescing so quietly to the U.S. withdrawal from the ABM treaty. He wanted a legally binding strategic arms reduction treaty and he got it. So Putin will get what he asked for, but he didn’t ask for a lot,” she said. Gottemoeller is struck by the Bush administration’s determination to go forward with a national missile defense system. “They have not made any decisions about what will be the ideal system. But I do think they will try to get something deployed. I think it will be a basic hit-to-kill system. They clearly have a lot more testing to do, but they are very committed to a missile defense system,” she said. “They wanted a fact on the ground which is why they pushed so hard to get out of the ABM treaty. And I think they want another fact on the ground so they are pushing for a quick deployment of some kind of hit-to-kill capability,” Gottemoeller added. She said some aspects of the administration’s Nuclear Posture Review that was released in January trouble her. It supports research on small, earth-penetrating nuclear weapons and signals an openness to use these weapons during a war. “There is a lot of continuity in the Nuclear Posture Review from the Clinton administration. · 13

John Shaw What I do have trouble with is the emphasis on the utility of nuclear weapons,” Gottemoeller said. She said the key question is: Should the United States pursue a nuclear bomb as a weapon of early choice, or should such a weapon be viewed as a deterrent and a weapon of last resort? “They seem to be saying it should be viewed as a weapon of early choice. Maybe not first choice, but early choice.” She said as a practical matter the use of nuclear weapons would be slow and complicate military operations, not make them easier. Gottemoeller also said that she has been encouraged by some of the administration’s policies on the various threat-reduction programs that use American funds to help secure aging Russian nuclear facilities and destroy some weapons. “I’ve been very pleased by the way the administration has turned around on threat-reduction programs. They completely turned their views around on these programs, and I give them a lot of credit. But I still see some ambivalence about these programs. “I believe we are shooting ourselves in the foot if we pull out of these programs. The programs are in the U.S.’s national interest.” Gottemoeller said there is a clear need to build better fences around nuclear facilities and to train Russian workers to be reliable custodians of nuclear assets. “These programs are our first line of defense against a nuclear attack,” she said, adding that it is possible to make these facilities much more secure very quickly at a modest cost. Looking ahead, she said the United States should work hard to curb production of weaponsgrade plutonium in Russia, protect all nuclear facilities in the former Soviet Union, and improve security at nuclear reactors where lower-level nuclear materials are stored. She also said there is a new urgency to make sure that terrorist groups don’t get their hands on weapons of mass destruction. “We have to make every possible effort to destroy the weapons of mass destruction capability in terrorists,” Gottemoeller said, adding that the next terrorist attack on the United States or Russia could be nuclear. Gottemoeller has a full schedule at Carnegie, traveling frequently to Russia, writing articles, briefing the press, and moderating panel discussions on nuclear issues. She is hopeful that further progress can be made on nuclear weapons reductions but is also cautious. “The reality is we built up enormous nuclear weapons capability during the Cold War, and we’re not just going to get rid of nuclear weapons anytime soon.” (May, 2002)

14 ·

People of World Influence

Ambassador

David Abshire

I

t has been said that Washington is a city in which the urgent always wins out over the important. Put differently, the relentless, often frantic, rush of daily events tends to displace strategic thinking and longterm planning. David Abshire, a former American government official and diplomat, has been trying for nearly 40 years to get leaders from the United States government to examine the lessons of the past and chart a clear, well conceived course for the future. "Strategic thinking is now not the full-time job of anyone in government and it should be," Abshire said. “You have to have people and groups that are thinking strategically. You need smart people looking ahead. In government, the daily pressures tend to push

out long-range thinking.” The co-founder of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and the current president of the Center for the Study of the Presidency, Abshire believes the U.S. must adjust rapidly to the demands of the new international order. Tactical skill and strategic vision, he argues, are an imperative for national prosperity and even survival. In an interview in his office in downtown Washington, Abshire said the American foreign policy community must think boldly and act decisively. "We have undergone a profound strategic transformation, but we have not conducted a comprehensive reappraisal of our strengths and weaknesses in a careful way since after World War II." "It's very important for us to build agile minds in the military and diplomatic corps," he added. Friendly and avuncular, Abshire, 76, bears a striking resemblance to one of his heroes, · 15

John Shaw President Dwight Eisenhower. A native of Tennessee who grew up near the fabled Lookout Mountain, Abshire has loved history since he was a young boy. "I read dozens and dozens of books on history and strategy. I was born into a family that loved history," he said. He graduated from the United States Military Academy at West Point in 1951 and served in the Korean War as a platoon leader, company commander and division intelligence officer. Abshire received his doctorate in history from Georgetown University where he later taught as an adjunct professor at its School of Foreign Service. He entered government on the staff of the House Minority Leader (1959-60) and then served as the assistant secretary of state for congressional relations (1970-72), the first chairman of the board for International Broadcasting (1974-77), the U.S.'s ambassador to NATO (1983-87), and as a special counsellor to President Ronald Reagan. Abshire also served on the Murphy Commission to review how the U.S. government is organized for foreign policy. He was also a member of the prestigious President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. He played a central role in the creation of the CSIS, a prominent Washington think tank that has influenced policy debates in Washington since its creation in the 1960s. Abshire is still a vice chairman of CSIS, but spends most of his time at the Center for the Study of the Presidency which he has directed since 1999. The Center is a non-partisan, non-profit educational organization that was inspired by Eisenhower and serves as a key resource on issues affecting the modern presidency. Abshire's study of the American presidency provides him with an interesting perspective to assess President George W. Bush, especially since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks transformed his administration. "When you get into a war the component of leadership is so important. And as I look at war leadership I think one of the key elements is timing," he said. "President Bush is now a war president and his timing so far has been extraordinary. He was very slow to commit us to force. He was careful to put together all the various coalitions. He realized this is war is financial, it's political, it's psychological. He stacks up pretty well so far," he said. Abshire credits Bush for staying focused on defeating the al Qaeda terrorist network in Afghanistan before going after other groups in other countries. "President Lincoln said 'one war at a time' and he was right. You also have to be enormously agile to build coalitions at various levels. You've got to have the agility to look at every angle in the use of power. In this case, you've got to be very clear in saying you will defeat terrorism but how you do it requires enormous agility," he added. Abshire argues that for Bush to emerge as a great president he must do more than lead the war on terrorism. "Your great war presidents—Lincoln, Roosevelt—had post war aims. To be successful, Bush has to be bigger than this war. He has to be a leader of a larger vision than just this war," he added. Abshire has used the Center aggressively and creatively to shape the current public debate. The Center published a compelling study in the fall of 2000 called, "The Triumphs and Tragedies 16 ·

People of World Influence of the Modern Presidency: Seventy Six Case Studies in Presidential Leadership." Drafted as a report to the President-elect, it provides historical case studies on such topics as the first 100 days of a presidency, executive-legislative relations, domestic policy, fiscal policy and international economics, national security institutions, foreign interventions, managing the executive branch, and presidential crises. Under Abshire's leadership the Center also published a highly regarded study on the need for government investment in science and technology and it is currently working on a study on the importance of civility to a democracy. But perhaps the project that most clearly reflects Abshire's passions is a study he organized to review the nation's strategic doctrines and institutions and methods for articulating the U.S's goals to the world. Abshire's interest in strategic planning and his concern that the U.S. has not adjusted to post Cold War challenges prompted him to assemble a team of experts to consider a new strategy for the nation. The group drafted its report in early September of 2001 and one of its central themes is the U.S. is a vulnerable superpower that has not prepared itself adequately for the demands and dangers of the 21st century. "We are in a dramatically new threat environment—a strategic reversal from the Cold War— and we have not fully re-equipped and re-organized ourselves to develop critical anticipatory and agile capabilities." Abshire said the U.S. must shift its security posture from "the focused mind of the hedgehog toward the agile mind of the fox." "Today we need to become like the fox, grounded in the basic requirements of classical strategy which is based on agility, speed and coordinated power and guided by a better systemic anticipatory capability in everything we do," he added. Abshire argues the U.S. government has not engaged in a strategic reassessment since the years after World War II when President Harry Truman created a new security apparatus and Eisenhower forged a new global strategy. He cites Eisenhower's effort to craft this new strategy as an example of disciplined government planning. Eisenhower, Abshire said, convened one of the most significant strategic planning processes of modern times in which everything was on the table from the U.S.'s basic approach to the Soviet challenge to the proper American military force structure and economic policy. He said that Eisenhower charged three teams of strategists to fashion a different global strategy: defeat of communism, containment in Europe and containment across the world. Each team refined its approach and presented it to the President and his national security team during rigorous sessions in the White House solarium. "Our national security planning processes and structures have not adapted significantly since the end of the Cold War. A new solarium exercise for a new strategic framework is long overdue," he said. Abshire said the U.S. needs a new national security consensus and decision making structure. To project power, he said, the U.S. needs to link military strength, information dominance, creative diplomacy, economic vigor and strong intelligence capabilities. · 17

John Shaw Abshire believes that American strategic planning must be institutionalized rather than episodic. He said over-compartmentalization in both the executive and legislative branches is an impediment to innovative and comprehensive policies. He backs the creation of a Strategic Advisory Board chaired by the Vice President to solicit the best ideas of the private sector and independent experts. This group would study issues across the strategic spectrum, challenge assumptions and probe vulnerabilities. Abshire said the panel would identify new trends in finance, diplomacy, trade, and defense and give policy makers a second opinion on core assumptions and basic strategies. This new group should be complemented by a special planning unit within the National Security Council, he added. Abshire said that while some are skeptical of planning exercises, many top corporations do regular and exhaustive strategic planning because they recognize it as a crucial investment in their ultimate success. "The world's most powerful nations must do no less." Abshire hopes a new strategy is developed soon and that U.S. leaders explain and defend it to the American public and the global community. "We need a public document, a public grand strategy. It is needed for Congress, the public, and our allies and friends around the world," he said. Abshire said the U.S. must find new tools to tell its story to the world. "Public diplomacy was a great term in the 1970s, but now it's not. I call our challenge, 'Communicating America.' The demands of communication now are so much more varied," he said. "Bold leadership is required to communicate and persuade and win the battle of ideas." (April, 2002)

18 ·

People of World Influence

Former National Security Advisor

Brent Scowcroft

B

rent Scowcroft resides near the top of any list of Washington Wise Men. Scowcroft is a member of that small cadre of Washington insiders who have held senior government posts, participated in important blue-ribbon panels to review controversial topics, and are frequently called upon to give their views on the international issue of the moment. However, Scowcroft, unlike many of his establishment brethren, is still very much plugged into Washington’s power structure. A retired Air Force lieutenant general, Scowcroft is chairman of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB), a prestigious group of private citizens that gives advice to the executive branch on intelligence issues. Scowcroft also heads up a small task force created by President George H. W. Bush to review the American intelligence community and identify necessary reforms. Additionally, several of Scowcroft’s closest professional associates are senior members of the current administration, including Vice President Richard Cheney, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. Scowcroft is also a friend of, and former senior aide to, the first President Bush. He co-authored a book with Bush called A World Transformed that describes their experiences in the White House from 1989 to 1993. In an interview in his office near the White House, Scowcroft said he, like many others in Washington, is trying to make sense of the international scene in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. “The events of September 11th were such a horrendous shock. And it was more than just what happened. It was the reality of our vulnerability. We had always thought that war, large-scale •19

John Shaw violence, took place elsewhere. We had not had conflict inside the United States for a long, long time,” he said. “What happened on September 11th has the potential to change everything. The result of that event was the galvanizing of the country to a degree that is almost unprecedented. We see American flags everywhere and none are on fire. There has been a sea change in American life.” Scowcroft said previous American efforts to combat terrorism have lacked intensity and focus, but this time it is likely to be different. “My sense is the president has bet his presidency on the war on terrorism. He has the bully pulpit. If he continues to go all out, as I think he will, we may be able to sustain our energy and focus for some time. But already some are saying we are neglecting domestic considerations. It will be tough,” he added. Scowcroft is a persistent and passionate advocate of building a strong international coalition for the war on terrorism and other global challenges. This stance puts him at odds with some of his conservative friends who are openly skeptical about the value of international coalitions. “We can’t win this war on terrorism without a coalition. We just can’t do it by ourselves. This is not going to be a war of bombing and troops. It’s going to be largely an intelligence war in which we root out their networks,” he said. Scowcroft said that crafting an international coalition has benefits that go far beyond the immediate challenge of fighting terrorism. “We can develop habits of cooperation with other countries in ways that have nothing to do with terrorism. The best example is Russia. We have almost completely transformed our relationship with Russia. We are both concerned about terrorist threats, but our cooperation has extended to areas that have nothing to do with terrorism. “There is the potential to make this a world-transforming event both because of what it’s doing to Americans and because of the necessity to reach out and develop modes of cooperation that are useful in solving all kinds of problems,” he said. Scowcroft was born in Ogden, Utah, and received his undergraduate degree and commission into the Army Air Force from the United States Military Academy at West Point. He has a master’s degree and doctorate in international relations from Columbia University. During Scowcroft’s 29-year military career, he served in key posts in the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Air Force, the Defense Department and in the U.S. Embassy in Belgrade. He has held faculty positions at the Air Force Academy and West Point. Scowcroft served as a military assistant to President Richard Nixon and was the national security adviser to both President Gerald Ford and President George H. Bush. In addition to holding key government jobs, Scowcroft served on a number of prestigious panels including the President’s Advisory Committee on Arms Control, the Commission on Strategic Forces, and the President’s Special Review Board, known as the Tower Board. Scowcroft’s current chairmanship of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board provides him with fresh insights and new clout in Washington. The PFIAB’s 16 members are private citizens with extensive backgrounds in intelligence and national security. The panel was created in 1956 by President Dwight D. Eisenhower to be a nonpartisan body offering the president objective, expert advice on the conduct of American foreign intelligence. 20 •

People of World Influence The PFIAB provides advice to the president concerning the quality and adequacy of intelligence collection, of analysis and estimates, and of counterintelligence and other intelligence activities. The PFIAB, through its Intelligence Oversight Board, also advises the president on the legality of foreign intelligence activities. In a related assignment, Scowcroft is also heading up a special eight-member panel set up by Bush in summer of 2001 to review the nation’s intelligence operations. Specifically, Scowcroft’s group is assessing the international threats the United States must confront, the quality of American intelligence operations, the nation’s use of new intelligence technology, and the organization and structure of the American intelligence community. Although Scowcroft declined to specify what recommendations he will submit to the White House, he said the organization of the intelligence community is outdated and should be revamped. He is concerned that the intelligence community is spread out over a dozen agencies of the federal government and that the Central Intelligence Agency is not sufficiently powerful to coordinate the various activities and programs. “The director of the CIA is a director of intelligence in name only. He sets policy, but the budget for most of our intelligence activities comes out of the defense budget. The CIA is a collection of entities.” Scowcroft said he realizes there will be vigorous bureaucratic resistance to any sweeping overhaul of the intelligence community but added he is going to give the president his most candid opinion about what should be changed. “September 11th has given our work more urgency,” he said. Scowcroft is the president and founder of The Scowcroft Group, a consulting firm that provides clients with strategic advice and assistance for international business ventures. He also established The Forum for International Policy, which is a non-partisan foundation that considers policy options. The Forum is composed of foreign policy experts who discuss international issues in articles and informal meetings with policymakers. Scowcroft’s business and foundation provide him with a solid platform to comment on current events and future challenges. He has long advocated more active American engagement with China. The United States, he said, is still struggling to develop a clear strategy regarding China. “We haven’t made up our minds about China. There is an internal debate about whether that country is a growing power that has to be accommodated or a threat that is determined to be the hegemony of Asia. I don’t believe China is destined to be an enemy. We can make it any enemy if we treat it as such. But it’s not necessary,” he said. Scowcroft said the United States’s triangular relationship with China and Taiwan is enormously complex and fraught with difficulties. He believes the United States should tell Taiwan it will support it in the event of an unprovoked attack by China but urge Taiwan to renounce any intent to declare its independence. The United States, Scowcroft said, should also urge China to renounce the use of force as long as Taiwan doesn’t declare its independence and encourage both sides to endorse a one-China policy—and let them interpret it as they will. Scowcroft has also urged an American opening to Iran, noting that in recent elections, Iranians have voted in large numbers to support candidates favoring more liberal policies. •21

John Shaw Scowcroft believes the United States should step up efforts to find ways to dispose of and destroy deadly nuclear weapons fuel. He said we need a comprehensive approach that moves beyond locking up materials to the actual reduction of the vast stocks of plutonium and uranium that could be fashioned into weapons. “We need both safe storage and ultimate disposition,” he added. Taking a broader view of the events surrounding Sept. 11, Scowcroft said he hopes the attacks and the subsequent war on terrorism will prompt the United States to make a much-needed overhaul of national security policies and organizational structures. “It’s very hard when you are in government to make significant changes. Every issue has a constituency, and change usually occurs only at the margins. Proposals for dramatic change from outside expert groups often get watered down. Rarely are there dramatic changes that come deliberately absent a crisis,” he said. “Things get done most easily in a crisis environment when all the bureaucratic machinery gets bypassed, and the principals sit down and make decisions and implement them. But you can’t run a government like that day to day.” (March, 2002)

22 •

People of World Influence

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman

Bob Graham

B

ob Graham is a low-key, soft-spoken senator who is starting to show up everywhere. Graham, who chairs the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, has become a fixture on American television news shows explaining the United States’s war on terrorism. And he has traveled to Central Asia to visit the front lines of America’s battle with al Qaeda and assess the nation’s preparation for future battles with other terrorist groups. In an interview in his small, hideaway office at the U.S. Capitol, Graham rejected the assertion that last fall’s terrorists attacks are the exclusive fault of the American intelligence community. “I think September 11th was a gigantic failure of a number of institutions in our society of which intelligence was one,” he said. “But it would be unfair to put exclusive blame on the intelligence agencies.” Graham works closely with the leaders of the intelligence community, including George Tenet, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, but said he is not a cheerleader. “I’m not an advocate. I try to help explain developments and put events in context. The intelligence community can’t always explain itself in public. Obviously, director Tenet can’t hold press conferences every day and discuss these things,” he said. Graham, 65, is a veteran Democrat who is a dominant force in his home state of Florida and a respected leader in national politics. His father was a wealthy dairy farmer who was a Florida state senator in the 1930s and 1940s

•23

John Shaw and ran for governor in 1944. Graham’s half brother, Philip, was the publisher of The Washington Post before he committed suicide in the early 1960s. Philip’s widow, Katherine Graham, took control of the paper and ran it for many years. Sen. Graham has an undergraduate degree from the University of Florida and a law degree from Harvard. He served in Florida’s House of Representatives for two terms and the state Senate for two terms before winning election as governor. Graham was Florida’s governor from 1979 to 1987 and was elected to the Senate in 1986. Now in his third term, he has worked actively on issues of particular interest to Florida, such as securing federal funds to clean up the Everglades. Since 1974, he has made it a practice to work for a day at ordinary jobs with his constituents. He has spent more than 300 days working as a policeman, fisherman, factory laborer, busboy, garbage man, journalist and other professions. As a device to stay organized and disciplined, Graham carefully records his activities and observations about daily life. Over the last quarter century he has filled more than 4,000 notebooks that are color coded by season to describe his appointments, meals, activities and the people he encounters. A moderate senator with a penchant for calm, often wry, understatement, Graham was a serious candidate to be the Democratic nominee for vice president in 1992 and 2000. Graham has been a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence for nine years. He became its vice chairman in January 2001 and was elevated to the chairmanship last summer when Democrats regained control of the Senate. As chairman of the Senate panel, Graham’s words are parsed by journalists, politicians and diplomats as they try to determine which observations are based on personal opinion, which are based on meetings with top-level intelligence officials, and which may contain nuggets of intelligence information. “I try to be very careful about what I say. There are a lot of things I can’t talk about,” he said. Graham works closely with his fellow Floridian, Porter Goss, who is chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. They have been friends for several decades even though Graham is a Democrat and Goss is a Republican. The Senate and House Intelligence panels were created in the mid-1970s after Congress grew alarmed at a host of CIA-related scandals and decided that more oversight was needed. The two congressional Intelligence panels monitor the American intelligence community that comprises more than a dozen agencies with an annual budget of about $30 billion. Graham was a strong proponent of the Counterintelligence 21 initiative that President Bill Clinton signed in December 2000 and that President George W. Bush has pledged to continue. It calls for a methodical approach to identifying and safeguarding the most sensitive information of the U.S. government. He has also taken a lead in reforming America’s counter-terrorism efforts. He is an aggressive proponent of substantial intelligence reforms. He said there are clear and unsettling weaknesses in the U.S. intelligence system that must be fixed. “For 40 years, our intelligence agencies focused on one big target: the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact allies. The world today is much more complicated, and we have to adjust,” he said. Graham said American intelligence agencies have not adapted quickly enough to address new 24 •

People of World Influence threats and a changed strategic and technological environment. He said there are four areas that need to be overhauled, adding that legislation passed last year should begin the effort. First, more money is necessary to upgrade human intelligence, the National Security Agency, analytical capability, and research and development programs, he said. Second, he believes it is important to remove legal shackles on intelligence agencies that have prevented the effective flow of information. Graham said some laws limit the sharing of information between law enforcement and intelligence agencies, and this hampers the ability of intelligence agencies to perform surveillance. Third, there has been a failure to respond to diverse threats, the senator said. The intelligence community has become increasingly risk-averse, Graham said, adding that the United States must sometimes work with people from other nations who are “non-choirboys.” Fourth, the intelligence community has an outdated organizational structure that makes the CIA director “more of a supplicant than a commander of resources,” he noted. He said the CIA director has less power than many Americans realize, adding that the secretary of defense actually has considerable power over intelligence personnel and budgets. “I hope we give greater control over the intelligence community to the director of Central Intelligence. That might sound obvious, but it’s true and necessary,” he said. Graham said the two congressional Intelligence panels may hold joint hearings on the September 11th attacks, probably beginning this spring. The hearings, he said, must protect classified information while providing an explanation to the American people about what the government did or didn’t do to deter, detect and disrupt the al Qaeda network’s terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, D.C. Graham and Goss have resisted efforts to create an independent panel to investigate the terrorist attacks. Some lawmakers want an outside investigation, declaring the congressional Intelligence panels would be inclined to defend the intelligence community. Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman and Republican Sen. John McCain have proposed an independent panel of non-government officials to investigate the circumstances surrounding the terrorist attacks. Two other senators, Democrat Robert Torricelli and Republican Chuck Grassley, are pushing a different commission proposal that would include some members of Congress in the probe. “I think we [the Intelligence committees] can do a good and credible job. There are a lot of models we can and will draw on,” Graham said. Graham is a strong proponent of boosting protection of the U.S. homeland. The nation has many points of vulnerability that need to be better safeguarded, he noted. There are more than 40 federal agencies that have counter-terrorism as one of their missions, he added. Graham praised President Bush for creating an Office for Homeland Security but doubts the director, former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge, has sufficient authority and bureaucratic clout to effectively perform his job. To be successful, Ridge must be first in line for relevant information, have direct access to all senior government officials, be the gatekeeper in the budget and personnel process, have a permanent staff that is loyal to him, play a central role in the selection of appointees at the agencies, and be involved in management reviews of the homeland defense establishment, Graham •25

John Shaw said. Graham said the overall system needs to be better organized and strengthened. The senator has introduced legislation that would create a National Office for Combating Terrorism. The senator was a driving force behind a measure passed last year by the Senate to improve security at the United States’s various deepwater ports. “I have personally been long concerned about the security of our maritime borders, especially at our seaports,” he said. He noted that every year nearly 7 million passengers and 7.5 million cargo containers enter the United States through its seaports. He said estimates show that 95 percent of the cargo entering the United States from noncontiguous nations comes through seaports. The legislation would authorize an expanded Coast Guard security program, port vulnerability assessments, cargo identity and tracking measures, and more rigorous customs procedures. The initiative calls for spending more than $1.1 billion over six years, including grants to local port authorities and another $3.3 billion in loan guarantees for local port authorities to finance security improvements. But Graham argues that the United States must not just hunker down and hope the terrorist threat passes. “We cannot play defense with terrorists. The only way to win this war is at the source, and that is what we are doing in Afghanistan and will be doing on a global basis in the months ahead,” he said. “We need to destroy terrorist networks, not just build up our defenses. We cannot stay in the mode of attack and respond. We have to be proactive. The definition of victory is the elimination of the last of those global terrorist groups. Nothing short of that will meet the standard the president has set,” he added. Graham said the September 11th attacks were a historic watershed that must compel the United States to adjust its thinking and prepare for a long struggle. “Terrorism is not a crisis. It’s a cancerous condition. It’s a condition that all Americans must come to terms with as we try to return to our normal lives.” (February, 2002)

26 •

People of World Influence

House Intelligence Committee Chairman

Porter J. Goss

P

orter J. Goss, the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, is one of the most important members of Congress you’ve probably never heard of. Forceful, energetic and articulate, Goss has also kept a studiously low profile during the five years he has presided over the House intelligence panel. But the Florida congressman has begun to speak out more publicly since the terrorist attacks of September 11th. He has defended the intelligence community from what he views as unfair criticism for failing to predict the attacks on Washington and New York. And he has pressed for more money for intelligence programs and for sweeping changes in how the United States organizes its intelligence activities. “I think the events of September 11th are a real benchmark,” Goss said in an interview in his office at the Cannon Building. “They have created a realization that the drift that has been in place since the end of the Cold War is not going to work for civilized societies. We sort of had our head yanked by the hair on September 11th. But these events are part of a trend that we were studiously trying to avoid—which is a euphemism for calculated neglect—during a time of amazing prosperity during the last decade,” he said. “We can’t be perpetually on vacation. We need to pay attention on how we will accommodate our role in the world. September 11th galvanized us into making clear about how we are going to conduct ourselves around the world. This is a very tall order, and we’re obviously not ready,” he added. Goss bristles at the charges leveled by some foreign policy analysts and lawmakers that the September 11th attacks should be viewed primarily as an intelligence debacle. •27

John Shaw “This was not an intelligence failure. There were a lot of warnings from the intelligence community. There was not specificity in terms of times and dates. But there were plenty of warnings that a shoe was about to drop.” Goss said the attacks highlighted one glaring weakness in the American security apparatus: the disconnect between intelligence and law enforcement. “We need to identify why the mountains of information the intelligence community creates is not more effectively used by the law enforcement agencies, the management agencies, the regulatory agencies,” he said. “That hand-off between intelligence and law enforcement is where we have a long way to go. It’s partially a cultural thing. We don’t want Big Brother looking into our private lives. On the other hand we want to be safe. These appear to be in conflict but really aren’t if we organize our capabilities a little differently, understand the threats a little better, and are willing to be a little less absurd about the new rights we are creating about every 15 minutes in this city.” The United States spends about $30 billion a year on intelligence programs. The exact number is classified. American intelligence operations are spread among 13 departments and agencies. The director of Central Intelligence nominally oversees the entire intelligence community but has direct authority only over the Central Intelligence Agency. Goss is sharply critical of the Clinton administration for not pushing harder to upgrade and adequately fund American intelligence operations. “The last administration was not fully engaged with intelligence. That isn’t a partisan comment. That’s a fact. It was a calculation they made, and there were consequences. They simply didn’t pay enough attention to the threats out there. It wasn’t a big enough deal for them,” he said. “We were just very, very slow to understand these new threats as a nation. The professionals understood it, but they weren’t successful in getting the attention of the nation’s leaders in the 1990s.” As chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Goss has pressed to overhaul the American intelligence system. He said there are four specific areas that need careful attention. First, he said it is crucial to revitalize the National Security Agency so that it has the ability to collect and exploit electronic signals in a rapidly changing communications climate. The NSA is the sprawling eavesdropping agency within the Defense Department that is responsible for signals of intelligence. Second, Goss said it is necessary to improve the nation’s ability to understand and analyze the massive amount of information that is collected. He said the portion of the intelligence budget devoted to processing and analysis has been declining sharply since 1990. As a result, even though the intelligence collection systems are becoming more capable, the investment in analysis continues to decline. Third, he noted that a strong research and development program is essential to support other initiatives and ensure that the United States has “cutting edge” intelligence technologies. Finally, Goss said that a renewed effort must be made to recruit intelligence agents to gather crucial information on the ground. He said too little emphasis has been placed on human intelligence. “We need more spies,” he said bluntly. 28 •

People of World Influence Goss said he wants to use his panel to scrutinize American intelligence programs and make sure they are running smoothly, effectively and appropriately. “Our job is to make sure intelligence is behaving properly in our country.” Goss said he also wants to use his panel to press for more funds for American intelligence. “It is amazing how important intelligence is and how little it is valued in our reward system. It is by far our best investment in national security. Sweeping up after a disaster means you didn’t do it right,” he added. Goss, 63, brings a compelling life story to his work in Congress. The son of a wealthy Connecticut industrial family, Goss became interested in intelligence while studying at Yale University. After graduating from Yale, he spent two years in the Army and then became a CIA clandestine services agent. He served in the CIA for a decade and developed a passionate commitment to the agency and to the intelligence profession. He vividly described his entrance interview with thenCIA chief Alan Dulles in the early 1960s and recalled the spirit of that time. He left the CIA in 1971 after a serious illness, moved to Florida, and founded a weekly newspaper with two other former CIA agents. He amassed a fortune as a publisher and investor. Goss became involved in local politics and eventually ran for and won a House seat in 1988 in the Florida 14th congressional district, which includes Fort Myers and Naples. He is a conservative, independent Republican who is respected for his direct, no-nonsense demeanor. He has been a member of the House Intelligence Committee since 1995 and became its chairman in 1997. He was a member of the Commission on the Roles and Capabilities of the United States Intelligence Community, a temporary panel that issued a comprehensive report on the future of American intelligence. Goss also led efforts to study the CIA and 12 other departments and agencies that form the U.S. intelligence community. He oversaw a separate effort to improve the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, which handles dissemination of satellite and air reconnaissance imagery. He was also a member of a special House panel in 1998 that explored the sale of American technology to China. He speaks almost daily with CIA director George J. Tenet and meets regularly with President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. But Goss keeps a low public profile. “I can be much more helpful flying under the radar than by being at the head of the parade. I will speak when I think it helps the community’s mission to be understood as a critically vital part of our national security. I’m very proud of the intelligence community. It’s a wonderful resource that has protected our country,” he said. “My strategy is to build as big a constituency as we can to understand and support a strong intelligence capability for this country. I want the committee to reach out as much as we can and educate people. I’m out there trying to persuade people that intelligence is a wonderful investment of taxpayer’s dollars, and we can provide necessary watchdog services over it so this doesn’t get out of control,” he added. Some critics say Goss is too close to the intelligence community and is unable to objectively assess its weaknesses. Goss disputes this criticism. He said he is confident the intelligence community understands the world has changed and that a new breed of terrorist poses serious challenges. •29

John Shaw “They clearly understand the nature of the threat has changed. This is not the plains of Poland we are talking about or tactical skirmishing with the Warsaw Pact. We’re dealing with a global insidious bunch of mischief makers,” he said. Goss said intelligence will be crucial to defending American interests in the future. “The intelligence business is a dangerous business. It can be a very dirty business. It’s an amazingly tough business. It requires huge discipline and a great deal of common sense.” Goss, who is often mentioned as a future CIA director, said the current battle against al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations is hugely important and strong intelligence will be critical. “The war on terrorism will be won through the acquisition of specific, accurate and timely intelligence,” he said “Overall this will be a great test of us to see if we have the staying power, the patience to wage the kind of war that President Bush has authorized. It will be a long war and a lot of it you won’t see. It’s a dirty war. It will be in back alleys. It will require that all kinds of things happen differently.” (January, 2002)

30 •

People of World Influence

Former CIA Director

R. James Woolsey

R

. James Woolsey, the former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, has been ahead of the curve for much of his career. Speaking to the World Affairs Council in 1992, less than a year after the Soviet Union collapsed, Woolsey predicted that the post-Cold War world would prove to be more difficult for the United States to manage than had its long struggle against communism. Woolsey warned that the proliferation of ballistic missiles, chemical and bacteriological weapons, nuclear materials and the spread of virulent forms of nationalism would pose perplexing problems for policy makers. “The world, although less dangerous with respect to a single cataclysmic exchange between the United States and the Soviet Union, has traded that danger for a number of very, very difficult international problems,” he said. In 1997, Woolsey wrote a much-discussed essay with Harvard professor Joseph Nye that warned that a punishing terrorist attack against the United States was all but inevitable. “Given the current geopolitical state of the world, there is every indication that terrorism will be the most likely physical threat to the U.S. homeland for at least the next decade. Such terrorism could cause damage of unprecedented magnitude and severity,” they wrote. In an interview in a conference room at the Shea & Gardner law firm where he is a partner, Woolsey said the challenges the United States now confronts are going to require careful, disciplined and forceful action. “We left the fun and easy times of the 1990s the moment that second plane hit the World Trade Center on September 11th. That attack was the functional equivalent of Pearl Harbor and the Great Depression striking at once,” he said. •31

John Shaw “We’re at war, and we’ll be at war for years. We’re going to have to do things differently. Hopefully, we can continue to live pleasant lives, but they will be more guarded lives. And a lot of people will be called upon to be heroes again and again. I think we’re up to it. We won three world wars in the last century—two hot wars and a cold one. We have to win this war,” he added. Affable, intense and self-deprecating, Woolsey is a respected member of the American foreign policy establishment. Born in Tulsa, Okla., in 1941, Woolsey studied as an undergraduate at Stanford University, attended Oxford University as a Rhodes Scholar, and earned a law degree from Yale University. While serving in the army, he was selected to be an adviser to the U.S. delegation at the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (START) held in Helsinki and Vienna. He worked as general counsel to the Senate Committee on Armed Services in the early 1970s and later was appointed as undersecretary of the navy for President Jimmy Carter. Woolsey was a delegate-at-large to the START and Nuclear and Space Arms talks that were held in Geneva between 1983 and 1986. He also served as ambassador to the Negotiation on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe from 1989 to 1991. One of Woolsey’s key mentors was Paul Nitze, the legendary diplomat who served in senior national security posts for more than 50 years. Woolsey said he learned from Nitze the importance of careful preparation, rigorous analysis and clear long-term objectives. Moving in and out of government service, Woolsey has practiced law at Shea & Gardner for 21 years, on four occasions, since 1973. Woolsey has served on a number of key panels that have shaped American foreign policy including the Bremer Commission on terrorism in 1999-2000, the Rumsfeld Commission on ballistic missiles in 1998, the Packard Commission on defense management in 1985-86 and the Scowcroft Commission on strategic forces in 1983. He was the CIA director from 1993 to 1995 for President Bill Clinton. He said he enjoyed the challenge of leading the American intelligence community but was frustrated by Clinton’s limited interest at that time in intelligence. “I sort of wandered in and wandered out of the Clinton administration,” he said. He joked that many believed that he piloted the small plane that crashed into the White House in 1995 seeking a rare appointment with Clinton. “I wasn’t quite that desperate for a meeting,” he quipped. After leaving the CIA, Woolsey became a sharp critic of the Clinton administration, saying it focused too many of its energies on short-term public relations and too little on long-term strategic planning. As he discussed American society, Woolsey is fond of a metaphor used by President Dwight D. Eisenhower to describe the United States as a wagon train society. Woolsey said he shares Eisenhower’s view that America is a society that is able to summon its energy to do difficult tasks for a limited period of time—such as the 19th-century wagon train journeys across the country— and then relaxes its efforts and returns to less demanding pursuits. He said that once the United States has identified an enemy or has established an ambitious goal, it is relentlessly focused and remarkably successful. He cites as examples the American response to Pearl Harbor in 1941, the effort in the 1960s to send a man to the moon, and the U.S.led war to evict Iraq from Kuwait in 1991. 32 •

People of World Influence But he added that the United States often grows complacent between intense periods of national exertion. He said American behavior during the 1920s and 1990s serves as a clear warning about the dangers of self-absorption. “The 1990s, like the 1920s, were a good and easy time. It was like the whole country went to a beach party. But that’s now over,” he said. Woolsey has long argued the United States faces daunting international challenges that must be confronted. Last year, he was one of a group of experts asked by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to spell out the key challenges of the United States. He said that the nation’s top priorities should be homeland defense, clear and firm policies with Russia and China, confronting the threats of rogue states and terrorists, and working to free the United States from a heavy reliance on imported petroleum. Woolsey said all of these issues require special attention since the September 11th terrorist attacks. Regarding homeland defense, Woolsey said the United States must do far more to protect itself. “We will need to make changes in the way we live. We are going to have to do a lot of things differently—decentralize electric power production, make sure our oil and gas pipelines are more secure, protect computers and networks on the Internet from hackers and intentional interference.” Woolsey said an important step is to build a strong missile defense system, adding there is no strategic rationale for the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, which limits development of a missile defense system. He said the United States should get out of the restrictions imposed by the ABM treaty either by negotiating a new agreement with Russia, unilaterally withdrawing from the 1972 treaty, or simply declaring the pact void because the Soviet Union no longer exists. Woolsey added that the United States should even encourage Russia to build its own ballistic missile defense and early warning systems. The former CIA chief said Russian President Vladimir Putin has sent positive signals to the United States since the September 11th attacks. “If you look at everything on balance, Putin appears to be moving toward a closer association with the U.S. The events of Sept. 11 may make it possible, even necessary, for the U.S. and Russia to work more closely together in an attempt to take on a common enemy—international terrorism,” he said. Woolsey said he is uncertain how cooperative China will be in the war against terrorism. “For China, the jury is still out. China remains far more guarded, suspicious, and potentially hostile to the U.S. China is still a dictatorship, an interesting and complicated one, but a dictatorship nonetheless.” Woolsey said aggressive American policies are required to confront terrorists and rogue states, such as Iraq, Libya and North Korea. He said there are substantial and growing indications that a nation—perhaps Iraq—was involved in the September 11th attacks, adding it may have been a joint venture between rogue states and terrorist groups. He argued that the United States should lift restrictions on the CIA and the FBI in their efforts to confront terrorist threats. •33

John Shaw “I think that out in the country there is a huge reservoir of sadness and absolute fury. I think there is enthusiasm for utterly destroying the people and governments that have done this to us,” he said. Woolsey said that the United States has to get away from its reliance on imported petroleum, which places it at the mercy of “vulnerable autocrats and pathological predators.” Oil, he said, is a magnet for conflict because all nations require energy and the sources of the world’s transportation fuel are concentrated in relatively few countries. More than two-thirds of the world’s remaining oil reserves are in the Middle East including the Caspian basin. He believes that recent and prospective breakthroughs in genetic engineering and processing are radically changing the viability of ethanol as a transportation fuel. New biocatalysts— genetically engineered enzymes, yeasts, and bacteria—are making it possible to use virtually any plant or plant product to produce ethanol. Woolsey said that if genetically engineered biocatalysts and advanced processing technologies can make the transition from fossil fuels to biofuels affordable, the world’s security picture would be different in many ways. It would be impossible to form a cartel that would control the production, manufacturing and marketing of ethanol fuel. The federal government, he said, should boost investment in renewable energy research, and the tax code should be adjusted to encourage private investment in new energy technologies. Woolsey leads a busy life in Washington. His law practice focuses on civil litigation, alternative dispute resolution and corporate transactions with a growing international focus. He sits on seven corporate boards and writes and speaks frequently on foreign affairs, defense, energy and intelligence. He loves to sail and to read history. He recalled strolling through Civil War battlefields on family vacations when he was a young boy. “I’m a frustrated history professor,” he said. Woolsey believes the United States is entering a fundamentally new period in its history. “I think the war we’re in now will probably take longer than World War II did for us—three years and eight months—and hopefully not as long as the Cold War, which lasted over 40 years. It’s a war that will be measured in years and maybe even decades,” he said. But he remains confident in the outcome. “Three times in the 20th century we took on five powerful countries, several of them empires: imperial Germany, fascist Italy, the Third Reich, the Japanese empire and the Soviet Union. All of these regimes are gone and these nations have become democracies, although Russia is still a very imperfect one. Over the long run I would bet on us. But we are going to have to do some things with the degree of dedication and intensity we did in the Second World War.” (December, 2001)

34 •

People of World Influence

UN Advisor

Maurice Strong

M

aurice Strong, a Canadian businessman, environmental activist and special adviser to the United Nations secretary-general, acknowledges that he has sharply conflicting views about how the future will unfold. During pessimistic moments, Strong sees a world that is ravaged by hunger, overpopulation, ecological and environmental disasters, dramatic climate change, the re-emergence of horrible diseases and political turmoil. But during periods of optimism, Strong believes that man’s capacity to innovate, create and respond to major challenges will prevail and that essential changes in lifestyle and attitude will pave the way for a peaceful and secure future. In an interview, Strong said people across the world must strive to reconcile care for the environment with aspirations for development, ecological sensitivity with economic growth and the demands of the present with the needs of the future. “We need to shift the whole manner in which we are using the resources we have. Sustainable development will not be achieved by a few measures at the margins. It has to be integrated into our economic life,” he said. “We have obviously made progress. We now know more or less what the problems are. We have now developed a system of techniques and technologies to deal with the environment and even a good number of policies. But we haven’t yet begun to do the things we need to do. We have not made the transition to a sustainable future.” Buoyant, irrepressible and energetic, Strong, 72, speaks in enthusiastic bursts even when discussing the most alarming trends. His optimism is rooted in the success of his wide-ranging and diverse career. Born during the Depression in Manitoba, Canada, he taught himself the •35

John Shaw intricacies of the petroleum business while studying international politics and business. He developed a vast network of friends and associates who have supported his career and stimulated his thinking. Strong has served in an impressive array of business, government and non-governmental organizations and has ascended to the top of nearly every group he has been part of. Strong was appointed president of the Power Corp. at the age of 29, became an undersecretary-general of the United Nations at 40 and later served as chairman of Ontario Hydro, the world’s largest generator of nuclear energy. While moving from job to job, he has focused on a singular mission: to integrate environmental awareness and sound economic policies into sustainable development strategies. “You can’t deal with environmental issues on their own. They are part of a whole system of how we manage our affairs,” he said. “The environment is properly perceived as a systemic issue. We can’t have environmental security without the broader security of our civilization. Human security and environmental security are inextricably linked.” Strong, well known in Canadian business and political circles, became internationally prominent in 1969 when UN Secretary-General U Thant asked him to become secretary-general of the Stockholm Environmental Conference and undersecretary-general of the UN for environmental affairs. Strong said this assignment perfectly blended his interests in development, the environment and the United Nations. The Stockholm Conference in 1972 was the first major intergovernmental conference on environmental issues and is still viewed as a landmark event that launched a new era of global environmental diplomacy. Strong notes that of the 140 multilateral environmental treaties that have been signed since the 1920s, more than half have been concluded since the Stockholm meeting. After the Stockholm Conference, Strong remained active in UN programs and an assortment of business ventures. He was selected to organize and serve as secretary-general of the Earth Summit that was held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. That conference, which brought together the world’s top political and environmental leaders, agreed on a declaration of principles and a plan of action to confront environmental degradation and shift the world to a more sustainable future. Strong believes the Rio conference has led to some progress on the environment but cautions that the world community has not fundamentally confronted such issues as global warming and deforestation. Strong is looking forward to a key environmental meeting next year in Johannesburg, South Africa, that is being dubbed, “Rio+10/Stockholm+30.” It will celebrate the 10th anniversary of the Rio conference and the 30th anniversary of the Stockholm meeting. “The meeting in Johannesburg in September of next year will be a time to take stock, but the purpose of the meeting is not just to take stock. The real purpose is to get a second wind and look at what we’ve learned and what we’ve done and how to regain the momentum of Stockholm and Rio,” he said. “There’s been some real progress since Rio, but it doesn’t add up to the fundamental changes called for.” The UN has intrigued Strong since he was a young boy in rural Canada. His is a classic rags36 •

People of World Influence to-riches tale: His first job at the UN was as a junior officer in the Safety and Security Service while he was in his teens. Through hard work and good fortune, Strong has held senior positions at the UN during his career. He has held eight posts at the level of UN undersecretary-general. He is also a long-time friend of current Secretary-General Kofi Annan and has been special adviser to him since early 1997. He said Annan has pressed forward with many needed reforms. “Kofi Annan has gone as far as a secretary-general can go. But the more fundamental reforms— which he has endorsed but cannot implement—have not been tackled,” he said. Strong said structural reforms of the UN cannot be implemented administratively but require political agreements from the member nations that comprise the UN. He believes it is crucial to expand the Security Council from its current size of 15 nations so that it better reflects the world of the 21st century. “Unless the Security Council becomes more representative of the geopolitics of today rather than the geopolitics of 1945, it will be bypassed and become less effective and important,” he said. Strong also supports limiting the use of the veto by the so-called Permanent Five nations in the Security Council—the United States, France, the United Kingdom, China and Russia. He said that a strong UN is needed for more effective global governance and that as a first step, it should delegate to other organizations those tasks that are not central to its mission. “It’s almost impossible to get any issue off the UN agenda because some small groups of nations or bureaucrats will insist on keeping it on. The UN should be dealing with issues that require global-level cooperation or require a global framework or context,” he said. “The UN agenda should be pruned down to the point that it is dealing with those issues for which it is able to deal with. It should leave other issues to regional organizations or levels of government in which they can best be handled.” Strong added that while the UN should jettison less essential issues, it should be the lead actor in the most pressing issues that affect the safety and security of the world. For example, the UN should be charged with the codification, administration and enforcement of international law, he said. “The single greatest weakness of the existing international legal regime is the almost total lack of capacity for enforcement.” According to Strong, the UN should also take the lead in what he calls boundary issues. These include limiting the manufacture and use of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons; limiting greenhouse gases; preserving biological resources; limiting hazardous substances; ensuring the security of all nations; preserving human rights; and protecting what he calls the global commons—the oceans, atmosphere, space and Antarctica. He believes the UN’s Trusteeship Council should be upgraded to deal with this global commons, adding that two-thirds of the world’s surface is outside national jurisdictions and requires communal care and supervision. Strong also has a long friendship with World Bank President James Wolfensohn and said the World Bank has made important progress in shifting from a lender to a development leader that is aware of the social, ethical and human rights implications of its programs. He said the Bretton Woods institutions are important, but also badly in need of fine-tuning. “There is no question that the [International Monetary Fund] and the World Bank are important but they need very, very strong revamping and reorientation. These institutions have •37

John Shaw evolved, but they are in need of very serious reforms. But there is huge resistance to these reforms,” he said. Strong has a busy life, packed with international meetings and conferences. He continues to juggle more projects and ventures than seems possible. He has recently written a book, “Where on Earth are We Going?” that is both a memoir and a plea for global action to build a safer, cleaner and more prosperous world. He has developed a management style to handle his long list of involvements. When he takes on a new project he writes a memo for himself that describes the issues and the parameters of the problem he is tackling. While busy with many projects, he tries to focus on only one at a time and give it his undivided attention. And when dealing with people in international negotiations, he believes it is essential to be calm, non-confrontational, respectful, relentless and open to reasonable compromises. He is currently very active in two related ventures: He is president of the council for the United Nations University of Peace and is chairman of the Earth Council, both of which are based in Costa Rica. The Earth Council is an environmental non-governmental organization that was created after the Rio conference. The University of Peace is a UN institution that was set up in 1980 to promote cooperation and tolerance and train a new generation of leaders about the challenges of the future. “Peace is the prerequisite for the achievement of all the other goals that the human community aspires to in the 21st century. There is an inextricable link between peace, security and sustainable development,” he said. Strong believes the ethos of sustainable development must be adopted in the developing world that represents nearly three-quarters of the world’s population. “The battle to achieve a sustainable future for all of us will be won or lost in the developing world. But they will be influenced by us in the developed world, not by our rhetoric and our exhortations, but by what we actually do and what help we provide to them to make this transition. We can’t do it without them and they can’t do it without us,” he said. Strong is working with officials in China and is trying to impart his views on sustainable development. He emphasized that environmental protection and sustainability must be fully absorbed into the ethos of industrial civilization and every aspect of economic life. He sees a global agenda that is packed with daunting challenges and with a limited time to address these problems. Profound changes must be implemented in the next two decades, he said. “We can do it. But we’re not doing it yet. Hopefully we won’t need environmental destruction equivalent to the September 11th terrorist attack but we may get it. And it may be we won’t move until we get this kind of destruction,” he said. But Strong rarely stays pessimistic for very long. And he is determined to do everything he can to make the best-case future scenario prevail. “The theme of my life is unfinished business. There is so much that needs to be done. I’m going to keep working on these issues. I’m just a wee cog in a big wheel. I’m still not satisfied I’ve done everything I can do. So I’ll just keep working on it.” (November, 2001) 38 •

People of World Influence

House International Relations Committee Chairman

Henry Hyde

H

enry Hyde, the chairman of the House International Relations Committee, said the United States faces one of the most daunting challenges of its history in the aftermath of the September 11th terrorist attacks on Washington, D.C., and New York. In his cluttered office in the House Rayburn Office Building, Hyde discussed how the United States must gear up for a new and difficult era in international relations. “We are now in a war, a war that is directed at America and the civilized world. It’s that simple,” he said. “We have to lead the world to oppose terrorism as a weapon against civilization. So this is a war for civilization. No country should harbor terrorists and we have tolerated countries that have tolerated terrorists. This must change. The massive, obscene, destruction of human life we saw in New York and Washington should show us all that terrorism can’t be tolerated. It has to be wiped off the map.” Hyde said he is perplexed by the psychologies of those who were involved in the plane hijackings. “These people were driven by such total hatred, by a desire to destroy our way of life, by a willingness to destroy totally innocent people. These acts were demonic. They were driven by pure hatred,” he said. Hyde said the United States must build a broad international coalition to wage war against terrorism, adding that he has been encouraged by NATO’s decision to back America in this struggle. “This effort won’t be easy, but it must be successful. It is imperative that we understand that we are in a war. It is imperative we take the steps necessary, in both terms of policy and funding •39

John Shaw to make sure we win this war,” he said. Chairman of the House International Relations since January, Hyde has strong views and clear ideas on a wide range of subjects. A voracious reader with a love of history and politics and a selfdeprecating wit, Hyde is one of the most colorful and respected figures in Congress. He has long argued that Americans must recognize that the world is not as benign as they have long believed. “There has been a palpable feeling that the Cold War is over, and there are no serious threats with the Russian bear comatose. But as I like to say, the forest is full of dangerous snakes. There is a very important need for the United States to recognize that no one will rescue us given the exigent circumstances. We have to be self-sufficient to really survive,” he said. Hyde said that Americans have not followed the intricacies of international relations and have shown a disinterest in the outside world. “Most Americans, except those on both coasts, are not focused on foreign policy and international affairs. We are parochial, provincial, insular.” “One of the shortcomings of—I should not say our system but of our practices—is an acute sense of the immediate. Not much thought is given to the distant future or even the not-toodistant future,” he said, adding that the American government over recent decades has not done an adequate job in preparing for the future. “I think we would be frightened if we knew how ad hoc are most big decisions by government. You just keep your fingers crossed and live day to day. But that’s the problem of course. You should not just live day to day,” he said. Over the past several months, Hyde has given major speeches about Asia, Latin America and the HIV/AIDS crisis. He is particularly intrigued by the challenge that China’s growing strength poses to the United States. Hyde said the United States should be mindful that China was one of the world’s most powerful nations for several thousand years, and its relative weakness over the last two centuries is a historic anomaly that is coming to an end. China’s plunge into world affairs will inevitably jostle the international system that the United States helped construct after World War II, he said. According to Hyde, the United States cannot stop China’s emergence but might be able to shape its character. A powerful, authoritarian China would be a threat to the United States and to the international system, but a democratic China could be a far more cooperative actor. The United States should promote democratic change within China and use Taiwan as an example, he said. Taiwan’s 1996 presidential election was “a major event in human history” because it was the first time in three millennia that a democratic government came to power in China, he added. In Hyde’s view, American support of Taiwan should be clear and firm. “We should never threaten the [People’s Republic of China], never give it a basis for feeling threatened. We should stand firmly and unequivocally with Taiwan because it’s a working free market economy with a democracy that has proven itself. It’s a showcase for democracy. We ought to hold it up for the world to see,” he said. Like many others, Hyde is perplexed about Russia and is uncertain about what direction it is headed under the leadership of President Vladimir Putin. 40 •

People of World Influence “Russia is still a riddle wrapped up in an enigma. We don’t know which way it is going. I feel a little better with Putin in charge than Boris Yeltsin if only because of Yeltsin’s health problems. Putin is more predictable. But it’s difficult to develop a successful policy with a country that has been described as mafia-ridden. My feeling right now is only the biggest oil companies can stand up to the extortions,” he said. “Russia is a work in progress and is a very important part of the world community. We need to maintain—I want to say a close watch on Russia—but I should say close relations with Russia,” he said. Hyde said that Russia’s nationalistic impulses have been subdued recently but are always lurking just below the surface. “Russia wants to regain its stature as a world power but hasn’t quite figured out which way to go. They have fears about NATO, about the ABM Treaty,” he added. Hyde said he is still trying to assess Russia’s recent contacts with China. “Russia’s alliance with China is interesting and consequential. But experts don’t think that the Russia-Chinese relationship has a great future because of the natural contradictions between the two countries,” he said. Hyde fears there has been erosion in the United States’s relationship with Europe that, if not repaired, could result in the rupture of the trans-Atlantic bond. “The relationship is fraying. Slowly, quietly it is being hollowed out even as the responsible officials solemnly reaffirm their commitments,” he said. Hyde said his meetings with European leaders are usually positive, and they emphasize the importance of American engagement there. But rank-and-file Europeans appear to be far more critical of the United States. “There is just one critical blast after another.” Hyde backs a strong American initiative to extend free trade between the United States and Latin America as a way of generating economic growth and creating jobs. “A lot of the problems in our hemisphere could be addressed, if not solved, by free trade. There is so much we have in common. I think a commonwealth of the Americas would help everyone. But it will take real leadership and a bit of luck,” he said. A strong American partnership with Mexico must serve as the foundation of this larger hemisphere initiative, he added. Hyde is trying to gauge events in the Middle East but said recent events are deeply distressing and make it difficult to muster optimism. “The Middle East seems to have regressed rather than progressed. Each day brings a new terrorist attack and I don’t see an end in sight. The hostility is palpable, and it’s venomous. The killing is relentless. Nothing is hopeless, but it will take an enormous change in attitude, and I don’t see anything precipitating anything yet,” he said. “It’s very hard to compromise when the two contending forces believe what they are struggling over has been assigned to them by God,” he added. Hyde said America should lead a global effort to confront the HIV/AIDS crisis that is wreaking havoc across the world and could kill up to 80 million over the next decade. He likens it to the Black Death plague that ravaged Europe in the 14th century. •41

John Shaw “It’s not just deepest, darkest Africa we are dealing with. It’s Brazil. It’s the Caribbean. It’s Russia. It’s the United States. It’s everyone in the world. As this pandemic spreads, we must do what we can do,” he said. He pushed legislation in the House earlier this year that would authorize $1.3 billion for a global AIDS fund. This sum is larger than the White House has endorsed, but Hyde wants to secure the largest American commitment he can. Born in Chicago, Hyde, 77, studied at Georgetown University and earned a law degree from Loyola University. He served in the Navy during World War II and retired as a commander in the U.S. Naval Reserve. Hyde was first elected to the House of Representatives in 1974 and is serving his 14th term. He has been a member of the House International Relations Committee since 1982. During the 1980s, he was vocal on arms-control issues and the debate regarding American policy in Central America. He served on the Iran-Contra panel in 1987 and was the ranking Republican on the House Committee on Intelligence from 1985 to 1991. When Republicans won control of the House in 1995, Hyde assumed the chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee. Among other things, he played a central and controversial role in the House’s impeachment of former President Bill Clinton. Most Republicans say Hyde followed his constitutional responsibilities, but many Democrats believe he was a key leader in a partisan witch-hunt. Following House Republican rules that limit committee chairmen to a six-year tenure, Hyde relinquished his chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee last year. He assumed the chair of the International Relations Committee in January. Hyde said he wants his panel to educate and lead the American people but also to listen to them and take their views and concerns seriously. The chairmanship of the International Relations panel thrusts a new set of demands on him. “I wouldn’t say it’s fun. It’s challenging. It’s interesting. This is a big job. But foreign policy deals with big issues—war and peace and economic stability,” he said. Hyde reads widely on international affairs—he is currently reading Henry Kissinger’s new book on foreign policy—and consults with diplomats passing through Washington. “I’m waterlogged with tea and cookies,” he said. Hyde is trying to prod the United States to look ahead and prepare for the future. During a hearing his committee held this spring with Secretary of State Colin Powell, Hyde raised concerns that now seem prescient. “What concerns me most is that, in the crush of the present, there is little or no evidence of the development of a long-term strategy. We often seem to be at the mercy of events, carried downstream toward an uncertain destination instead of moving forward toward one of our own choosing,” he said to Powell. “The wealth of opportunities we currently possess are not permanent; the luxury of choice may be a passing one. To believe that we shall always be above the fray, untouched and untouchable by the forces of destruction still at work in this world is a dangerous illusion. Our current summer may yet prove fleeting.” (October, 2001) 42 •

People of World Influence

Historian

Michael Howard

L

ast year, British historian Sir Michael Howard was invited to give the keynote address to a conference of American and British historians in London on a formidable topic: war and peace. As Howard prepared his lecture, he reflected on what he calls the “self-evidentially desirable” view that man’s most natural state is peace and that war is a sharp departure from this norm. But this view, however compelling, does not square with Howard’s half-century of research on war, international affairs, and his consequent insight into human nature. “My work as a historian of war has led me to realize that until the 18th century in Europe, war was regarded as a perfectly natural, and for many, a highly desirable, state of mankind,” he said in an interview. Howard said that armed conflict between organized political groups has been the universal norm in human history. He added that the notion of an international order in which war plays no part has been a common aspiration for visionaries throughout history, but has been regarded by political leaders as a practical goal only during the past 200 years. He believes that only during the 18th-century Enlightenment did European leaders become convinced that reason could be employed to create a peaceful world order. Howard’s provocative ideas were presented first in the London lecture and then were expanded into a highly regarded book, Invention of Peace, which was published this year by Yale University Press. He has been pleased by the mostly positive response to the book but noted that many disapprove of his central thesis. “Those who have taken issue with my views are those who are in what you might call the •43

John Shaw professional peace community. Their reaction is more disappointment than anything else. They thought I was going to be on their side and are disappointed I wasn’t,” he said. Howard, now 79, is one of the world’s greatest living historians. He has written seminal books on the Franco-Prussian War, World War II, British military and intelligence strategy, Prussian military theorist Carl von Clausewitz, and the lessons of history. His penetrating assessments of the past and elegant writing style have made Howard one of the most widely respected historians of his generation. Gracious, erudite, and good humored, Howard works from his farm in West Berkshire, England. Taking stock of the new international order around him, he said he is fascinated by a world undergoing enormous change. Most significantly, he sees the current system of independent, sovereign nations that was inaugurated by the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 under siege from all directions. Howard said that supranational entities, such as the European Union, are increasingly encroaching on the authority of sovereign states. He said that nations also face other lateral pressures unleashed by globalization. Large multinational corporations and influential nongovernmental organizations are eroding the power of nation-states to conduct economic policy. For example, some private companies have annual revenues that exceed the budgets of small countries and the firms’ investment and production decision can topple or fortify governments. Finally, Howard adds that a number of countries face intense pressures from ethnic groups or regions that are seeking to splinter off and create smaller units. Howard said he expects the nation-state to survive these pressures, but added that the challenges to them are profound. “In Europe one sees the ebbing of the loyalty to the state on the part of its citizens and the disappearance of the visceral obedience and deference to the state that was so characteristic of the 19th and 20th centuries. In the United States, this has not reached the same intensity, if it ever does,” he said. Howard believes countries will prove resilient and remain the only entities that can preserve societal order and organize human activities. “It may be my cultural-bound failure of imagination, but it is hard for me to imagine a world organization in which the state is not the effective executing officer for getting people to do things,” he said. Howard is intrigued by the evolution of modern warfare, especially the powerful focus on advanced technology. “The trouble with much of the discussion of modern war is that it assumes that war is entirely decided by technology. In fact, technology is only one aspect of war and not necessarily the most important. Although technology is extremely important for very obvious reasons, to regard the effective conduct of war as simply a matter of developing the right kinds of weapons and using them effectively is a ludicrously inadequate way of analyzing the situation,” he said. Howard said the experience of the United States in Vietnam demonstrated that smaller, more cohesive, forces are able to withstand and overcome the high-tech pummeling by large powers. Howard is struck by the tight constraints placed on modern armies when they engage in the 44 •

People of World Influence sort of limited war that is now common. He said this was starkly evident during the recent battle in Kosovo in which NATO military commanders conferred with, and deferred to, teams of lawyers to make sure that proposed targets wouldn’t cause collateral damage and injure civilians. “This, of course, is in complete contradiction to all traditional military thinking in which you try to find the center of gravity, the real point of weakness of your adversary, and you go clobber it with all your resources, without regard to cost or restraint, as you try to bring down the whole of his edifice,” he said. Howard sees America as a military superpower that has become enamored with a new approach to war in which technology is venerated and casualties are avoided. The so-called revolution in military affairs seeks to use advances in technology to organize quick, lethal attacks with weapons such as long-range smart missiles, drone planes and computer viruses. “This is more important than a trendy idea. It’s been taken very seriously by the armed forces of the United States for a very long time. It’s not necessarily the dominant view and I know there is a major element of your armed forces that is profoundly suspicious of it. But it is a very important element of the debate about defense and strategy in the United States. I say the United States because elsewhere in the world we can’t begin to afford this kind of technology,” he said. “Its weakness is that it assumes a confrontation against a comparable, if not equal, power with the same kind of technology and weapons. But most of the conflicts now and in the foreseeable future will not be between, as it were, Goliath and Goliath but between Goliath and lots of little Davids whose little sharp stones from the brook may be more effective than the huge technological armor of great superpowers,” he added. Howard is skeptical of the Bush administration’s focus on creating a missile defense shield as a way to ward off threats from rogue nations and protect the nation from external danger. “This is a distinctly American preoccupation. The rest of us have gotten used to living under the shadow of a missile or bomb for a very long time. We have got used to it because we believe there is nothing we can do about it. But America is a ‘can-do’ society, and it seems determined to see if it can do something about this,” he said. But Howard warns that the United States should be very cautious about abandoning a deterrence strategy that has prevented a major war for half a century. “Surely the deterrence we have in place that has deterred the Russians and the Chinese for so long is going to deter much weaker so-called rogue states. The costs of abandoning this strategy in terms of relations with allies and the rest of the world are fairly considerable.” Howard is troubled that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is being redesigned in a way that sharply deviates from its historic structure and mission. “There is enormous pressure from the diplomats and the foreign offices to expand NATO into a club for all right-minded people at the expense of it being an effective military alliance that will be able to fight effectively. NATO is regarded, especially in aspiring states in Eastern Europe and elsewhere, as a kind of feel-good comfort blanket. But the more one expands NATO, the less militarily effective it becomes,” he said. Howard said NATO’s recent war in Kosovo has only intensified his concerns. “When you consider the huge difficulties NATO had to fight this minuscule campaign against an almost negligible enemy my imagination boggles about what it would do in fighting a serious •45

John Shaw war against an enemy who could do it serious damage,” he said. Howard served in the British army during World War II and is a veteran of the ferocious battles of the Italian campaign. After the war he went on to a distinguished academic career. He taught at King’s College at the University of London, All Soul’s College at Oxford University, and at Yale University. He was a founder and is life president of the Institute for International Security, a Londonbased research group that produces respected reports on international conflict and cooperation. Throughout his career, Howard has been regarded as a civilized and nuanced voice supporting a robust Western defense. While never seen as a hawkish cold warrior, he was a proponent of a strong NATO to contain the Warsaw Pact. He continues to write penetrating and provocative books and essays. He has just completed a short book about World War I that he hopes will be read by students who are interested in the war but don’t want to wade through lengthy volumes. Howard said his love of history began during his childhood and was encouraged by his parents and other family members who were academics. “I’ve been interested in history since I can remember, from the earliest time. It’s just been there. Once I stopped wanting to be an engine driver I wanted to be a historian,” he said. Howard believes historians should participate in public debates, but with modesty and full awareness of their limitations. Historians, he said, find it as difficult as others to distinguish between the significant and transitory in contemporary affairs and to determine whether an event is fortuitous or indicative of a long-range trend. As a historian specializing in military affairs, Howard is often asked to outline the lessons of history. He contends that history provides no concrete lessons because each event was the result of circumstances that could never be precisely replicated. And the past, he added, is full of events that can prove virtually any proposition. “What I feel historians can and must do is make sure people get it right. Inevitably there will be people who use historical analogies to bolster their arguments. As historians, we must scrutinize these arguments and see how valid there are. Our responsibility is like that of a lawyer or a doctor or anyone else: to establish what the facts are but not necessarily tell you what to do,” he said. “Knowledge may not necessarily be power, but it can stop you from behaving in a stupid fashion,” he added. Despite a lifetime spent studying war and his conviction about the relatively recent “invention of peace” in world affairs, Howard offers a mostly hopeful assessment about the future. “It does seem to me that the long-term trend we’re watching is the extension of Enlightenment values or what Marxists would call bourgeois society. That is to say, the extension of liberal capitalism, internationalism and the development of a real transnational elite of people that speak the same language, share the same interests and values and live within each country. There will be kickbacks and backlashes, but these people are gradually creating a more peaceful and manageable world.” (September, 2001) 46 •

People of World Influence

Former Secretary of State

Henry Kissinger

H

e has been lauded as a peacemaker and praised as a global statesman. He has also been castigated as a war criminal and derided as a cynical manipulator. But loved or hated, admired or scorned, Henry Kissinger has been a singular force in American diplomacy for the last half century. As both a thinker and a practitioner, Kissinger, 78, has been intimately involved in many of the crucial American foreign policy decisions of the post-World War II era. With a personal history in diplomacy that includes intimate contact with virtually all of the major world leaders of the last 50 years, Kissinger has insights on international affairs that were formulated in academia but refined by hard experiences in real-world politics. In an interview, Kissinger said that the United States needs to craft a new foreign policy that clearly distinguishes among what the country must do, what it would like to do, and what policies are beyond its capacity to advance. Kissinger said the United States must chart a “global strategy that stretches into the indefinite future” that is based on the complex realities of the current global scene. “A president or secretary of state can not apply a universal recipe. They have to deal with each region on its own and link these to a broader framework,” he said. Kissinger said one of America’s preeminent challenges is to understand the four international systems that now exist side-by-side: First, the United States, Western Europe and Latin America are in the vanguard of the 21st-century economic and political system. Then there is Asia, in which China, India, Japan, Russia, Korea and other nations are seeking influence in ways that are reminiscent of 19th-century balance of power struggles. Third, there is the Middle East, a region whose religious and ideological conflicts are analogous to the sectarian forces that ravaged 17th•47

John Shaw century Europe. Finally, there is Africa, whose staggering developmental challenges defy historical analogy and require an urgent and creative response by the international community. Kissinger said crafting a foreign policy that is both coherent and relevant to these different international systems will test the imagination and wisdom of American leaders. “We must understand what the goals we are trying to accomplish are and what our capacities are in realizing these objectives. What we must not do is run the domestic policies of other countries.” Kissinger said the foreign policy challenges the United States confronts will require far more nuance and subtlety than has traditionally been required or displayed by the nation. “Historically when we did engage in foreign policy it had a unipolar aspect both in the sense that we were so dominant, and unipolar in the sense that there was only one problem in our perception we had to deal with.” Kissinger said the world stage is now far more complex than it was during the Cold War. “We’re powerful and of course we are going to have our way more frequently than Austria or other small countries. But to the greatest extent possible, we should seek to transmit our preferences to consensus rather than present them on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. Otherwise we will spend all of our energies holding people down, which will drain us domestically,” he said. Kissinger said the U.S. foreign policy process is particularly complicated because three generations with very different views of the world are vying for influence. There is the Cold War generation that emphasizes the importance of power in international affairs and often views foreign policy as a zero-sum game in which the gain of one party is a loss for the other. Then there is the Vietnam-protest generation that saw the Cold War largely as a misunderstanding made worse by American intransigence. Finally, there is the post-Cold War generation that looks reverentially to Wall Street and Silicon Valley and believes globalization and economic selfinterest will produce political harmony and democracy. Reviewing the current world scene, Kissinger took stock of the nations and regions that most affect United States interests and offered his policy prescriptions. Beginning with Western Europe, he said, “we need to get to some conceptual understanding, some sense of direction of what our long-term objectives are in relationship to Europe and whether it is possible to maintain this cooperative relationship of the post-World War II era or whether we will slide into an increasingly competitive position.” Kissinger said a new generation of American and European leaders has come to power that has less in common and fewer meaningful contacts than did the previous generation of Americans and Europeans. “I believe that the generation of the ‘50s and ‘60s had a sense of a common enterprise. The disagreements were about how to achieve a common objective. Now we have these generations that are pursuing their own objectives. Sometimes they can resolve them in technical terms, but the overarching approach is gradually dissipating,” he said. Kissinger said another imperative of American foreign policy is to build a more stable relationship with Russia. “We need an understanding of our long-term relationship with Russia as it has evolved beyond the impact of the personalities of our leaders on each other. We need to ground it on something 48 •

People of World Influence more permanent than good personal relations with our leaders, which has been the temptation of our last three presidents,” he said. Kissinger said the United States also must develop a more “settled” view of its relationship with China. America, he said, must learn to distinguish between the challenge China is mounting today and those that might evolve in the future and think about how U.S. policy today can affect the longer-term relationship. He believes the United States should be more modest and realistic about its ability to influence China’s domestic policies. “The Chinese leaders think they’ve staggered through 4,000 years without advice from the U.S.” he said. Kissinger said he supports a more cooperative relationship with China and added he expects the Bush administration’s views regarding China to be clarified as President Bush prepares for his October trip to that country. The United States should stay engaged in the Middle East and play a role in crafting a “practical arrangement” between Israel and Palestinians rather than focus on a final peace accord, he said. Kissinger blames the Clinton administration for pushing for a comprehensive IsraeliPalestinian peace deal last year at Camp David when the parties were not ready and circumstances were not ripe for a broad agreement. American leaders should prepare for a different relationship with Japan in the coming years, he said. “We took for granted a Japan that was concentrating on economics and playing a secondary role politically for about 50 years after World War II. But that’s not historically the natural style of Japan. Japan is country with a strong sense of nationhood and its particular culture. So as the World War II generation disappears a more assertive political approach is likely to appear,” he said. “I think the next phase of Japan’s politics will be more national—not hostile to the U.S., but more national.” Kissinger said that the United States needs to think clearly and act with vision about its relationship with both Turkey and India. Neither nation is given the attention it deserves from American policymakers, he said. “Turkey is an absolutely key country. Turkey is essential for stability in the Gulf and to some extent in the Arab-Israeli dispute,” he said. The former secretary of state, who some accuse of indirectly supporting Turkey’s invasion and occupation of the island nation of Cyprus in 1974, did not give specific policy recommendations regarding Ankara but warned that U.S. support was necessary to bolster the government against the threat of Moslem fundamentalism. “If Turkey were to join the camp of Arab radicalism or confrontationists it would be very difficult for us,” he said. In Kissinger’s view, India will be a major Asian and global force in the coming decades. “India is a country with tremendous potential and can become one of the Great Powers, maybe even a superpower, by the end of the 21st century. It has not overcome the domestic obstacles that inhibit it. But it has the capacity to do it,” he said. •49

John Shaw “India being democratic is not the principal reason why we should cooperate with it. The principal reason is the geopolitical objectives of India, which they are pursuing in a very hardheaded way, which are quite parallel to ours. We both want stability and calm in the Indian Ocean and neither of us want Moslem fundamentalism to become a dominant force. On this basis, I think we can have a very cooperative relationship,” he said. Globalization, Kissinger declared, is a powerful force that is altering the international system and more creative efforts are needed to address the imbalance between political and economic structures. “We must provide the economic aspects of globalization with a political construction of comparable sweep and vision. But I’m not saying I know how to do it,” he said. “I don’t accept the globalizers’ theory that globalization is going to produce a calm foreign policy because globalization has a tendency to produce instability in its foreign policy. I’m not against globalization but is something we need to keep in mind.” He said the Group of Eight nations should place the political aspects of globalization on the agenda during their regular meetings. He also said the International Monetary Fund (IMF) must craft more realistic and balanced programs to aid economically struggling nations. “I think the approach of the IMF has been a disaster in many situations because they’re bringing about political revolutions by economic means without understanding the consequences. Indonesia is a prime example,” he said. Kissinger’s views of the world are spelled out in detail in a new book, Does America Need a Foreign Policy? The book, which is Kissinger’s 13th, has received positive reviews and is being studied carefully by members of the Bush administration. The focus of the book is what the United States should do to preserve its position of global leadership. “At the dawn of the new millenium, the United States is enjoying a preeminence unrivaled by even the greatest empires of the past,” he writes. “From weaponry to entrepreneurship, from science to technology, from higher education to popular culture, America exercises an unparalleled ascendancy around the globe. During the last decade of the 20th century, America’s preponderant position rendered it the indispensable component of international stability.” Kissinger says that American preeminence in the world is often treated with indifference by its own citizens and notes that in the past three presidential elections little attention was paid to foreign policy issues. Kissinger writes that in the last decade American dominance evolved less from a strategic design than a series of ad hoc decisions designed to satisfy domestic constituencies, while in the economic field, it was driven by technology and the resulting remarkable gains in American productivity. All of this has given rise to the temptation of acting as if the United States needed no long-range foreign policy at all and could confine itself to a case-by-case response to challenges as they arise. “At the apogee of its power, the United States finds itself in an ironic position. In the face of perhaps the most profound and widespread upheavals the world has ever seen, it has failed to develop concepts relevant to emerging realities,” he writes. 50 •

People of World Influence “Victory in the Cold War tempts smugness; satisfaction with the status quo causes policy to be viewed as a projection of the familiar into the future; astonishing economic performance lures policymakers to confuse strategy with economics and makes them less sensitive to the political, cultural and spiritual impact of the vast transformations brought about by American technology,” he writes. He notes that the international scene exhibits a curious mixture of respect for, and submission to, America’s power and exasperation with its prescriptions and confusion as to its long-term purposes. Kissinger’s views are still taken very seriously by the American foreign policy community because of their scope and clarity. Since the 1950s, Kissinger has helped shape the way Americans think about the world through his writings, speeches, interviews and government service. He was born in May 1923 to an Orthodox Jewish family in Furth, Germany, that fled the country in 1938 for the United States. He served in the U.S. Army during World War II and then enrolled at Harvard University in 1947. He completed his doctoral program at the department of government in 1954. He remained at Harvard for 15 years, teaching and writing about international affairs. Throughout the 1950s and ’60s, Kissinger emerged as a leading scholar of international affairs. His affiliation with the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Council on Foreign Relations exposed him to the corporate and political leadership of the United States. He was an aide to New York Gov. Nelson Rockefeller and then served as special adviser for national security during President Richard Nixon’s first term (1969-72) and as secretary of state in Nixon’s truncated second term and during the presidency of Gerald Ford. From his posts in the Nixon and Ford administrations, Kissinger argued that the starkly bipolar era of the early Cold War was ending and a more complex world was emerging with five major power centers—the United States, Western Europe, China, Japan, and the Soviet Union— contending for influence. Kissinger helped design the Nixon Doctrine, which sought to soften the hard edges of the containment strategy and encourage other nations and regional powers to take responsibility for their own security. He is probably most celebrated for his role in the 1971 U.S. opening to China that set the stage for closer American relations with Beijing and gave the United States leverage in its relationship with the Soviet Union. Kissinger played a key role in negotiating the end of the U.S. war in Vietnam. He won the Noble Peace Prize in 1973 for his efforts to craft the peace accord, but the policies he recommended in South East Asia remain deeply controversial. Despite his efforts, through various autobiographical accounts, to tell his version of events while in office, Kissinger’s critics have gained some momentum recently. Among them is British journalist Christopher Hitchens—no stranger to controversy himself—whose new book The Trial of Henry Kissinger, paints a picture of a starkly different man. Among his many accusations, Hitchens links Kissinger to assassination, murder and conspiracy in Chile, Bangladesh, Cyprus, Greece and Indochina, among others. The salty Englishman pulls no punches and states that rather than be hailed as statesman, Kissinger should •51

John Shaw be tried as a “war criminal.” But even as Hitchens and other journalists continue to debate the actions of Kissinger, the man whose name has become synonymous with “realpolitik” continues to remain active on foreign policy issues. He continues to write, lecture, travel extensively and meets frequently with international leaders. He is also the chairman of Kissinger Associates, a firm that provides strategic advice, foreign affairs insight, personal contacts, diplomatic door opening—and the cachet of having one of the world’s most marketable and prestigious names. (August, 2001)

52 •

People of World Influence

OAS Secretary General

César Gaviria

C

ésar Gaviria, the secretary general of the Organization of American States, is presiding over an ambitious effort to bring the people of the Americas closer together. In an interview in his elegant second floor office at the OAS’s majestic building near the White House, Gaviria said his organization is working with leaders in the region to advance an aggressive agenda of free trade and democratic consolidation throughout the Americas. He said that considerable progress has been made over the past decade, in part, because the Western hemisphere’s leaders now meet in regular regional summits to compare notes, solve common problems and plan for the future. “The summit process has been a success. The summits of Miami, Santiago and now Quebec have made enormous contributions to democracy and prosperity in the hemisphere,” he said. “The Quebec summit demonstrated that the countries of our region today hold a set of common values and ideals. These are based on promoting, strengthening and defending democracy, on respect for human rights and the need to increase economic growth,” he said. But Gaviria said the leaders of the Americas should not become complacent. “Democracy has been consolidated, but we have many challenges—economic problems, terrorism, corruption, narco-trafficking—all undermine democracy. There are many ways democracy can slowly break,” he said. A former president of Colombia, Gaviria was first elected as the OAS’s secretary general in 1994 and was re-elected in 1999. Analysts credit Gaviria for reviving a slumbering OAS and giving it fresh purpose and new vitality. He has pushed important institutional changes and has ensured the OAS’s position as a •53

John Shaw key player in bringing about hemispheric cooperation. A smooth and successful politician, Gaviria is also a man of substance and accomplishment. He has earned a reputation as a skillful conflict mediator, champion of democracy, and defender of human rights. Still in his 50s, Gaviria has had a long and impressive political career that began at the age of 23 when he was elected as a councilman in his hometown of Pereira. Four years later, he was elected mayor of the town. He was first elected to Colombia’s House of Representatives in 1974 as a member of the Colombian Liberal Party. Within a decade, he rose through the ranks to become co-chairman of his party and majority leader of the House of Representatives. In the late 1980s Gaviria served in the Barco government, first as minister of finance and then as the interior minister. He played a key role in peace talks with the guerrilla group M-19 in 1989 which brought a measure of peace and stability, albeit temporarily, to Colombia. In May 1990, Colombia elected Gaviria as president during a time of enormous turmoil. Gaviria was actually the campaign manager of Sen. Luis Carlos Galán, who was assassinated by drug traffickers. The Liberal Party then chose Gaviria as its candidate. During his four-year term, he pushed policies to strengthen democracy, promote peace and integrate armed rebels into civilian life. He backed constitutional and institutional reforms to bolster the judicial branch and defend human rights. He also advocated economic reforms and signed important trade agreements. Reflecting on his term as Colombia’s president, Gaviria said it was an enormously difficult challenge. “Nothing compares to being president of Colombia. Nothing. Not being secretary general of the OAS. Nothing. It’s so complex. There are so many threats. I will never have a job like that again,” he said. The same year he stepped down as Colombia’s president, Gaviria was elected to head the OAS. The OAS is the world’s oldest regional organization, dating back to the First International Conference of American States, held in Washington, D.C., from October 1889 to April 1890. The current charter of the OAS, however, did not enter into force until 1951. The OAS now has 35 member states and has granted permanent observer status to more than 44 states, as well as the European Union. According to its charter, the OAS seeks to strengthen peace and security in the hemisphere, promote democracy, prevent disputes between member states, take common action in response to aggression and promote economic, social and cultural development. Similar to other international bodies, such as the United Nations, it is organized into a General Assembly, Permanent Council, a General Secretariat and various other permanent committees and subsidiary organizations. Although given a sweeping mandate, the OAS had fallen on hard times by the time Gaviria took charge in 1994. The United States and Latin America did not always view world affairs in the same way during the Cold War, and this created tensions that limited the effectiveness of the OAS for several decades. During the Cold War years, many Latin American nations viewed U.S. policy toward the Americas as patently unilateralist. In Central America, for example, the United States pursued its 54 •

People of World Influence policies with only nominal reference to the OAS. The United States invaded Grenada in 1983 and Panama in 1989 without discussing the interventions with the OAS. As a result, Latin American nations went outside the OAS system to push multilateral peace proposals. When Gaviria assumed leadership of the OAS many had given up on it as a purposeful and effective institution. Member states, including the United States, became increasingly stingy about committing significant resources to key OAS programs. “When I arrived, the OAS was significantly diminished politically. Now after seven years, everyone is looking to the OAS. We have been involved in many areas. We have been able to deliver in many areas. Increasingly, all kinds of problems and challenges are given to the OAS to work on,” he said. The OAS has been intimately involved in the Summit of the Americas process that was launched in Miami in 1994, continued in Santiago in 1998 and most recently held in Quebec in April of this year. Gaviria said the Quebec meeting showed that the nations of the Americas firmly support democracy. “The member states declared that they would not tolerate any deviations from, or attacks against, democratic principles and institutions, perhaps the most serious threat against democracy. To back this up, they agreed that any non-democratic regime would be automatically excluded from the inter-American system,” he said. The central issue dominating the Quebec meeting was the sweeping plan to create a 34-nation Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). This initiative would forge a free trade zone extending from Canada to Chile. The FTAA would be the largest free trade area in the world with 800 million consumers producing more than $11 trillion in goods and services. Negotiations to create the FTAA began in 1994 and have made only modest progress so far. But the hemisphere’s leaders in Quebec reaffirmed their commitment to achieving this ambitious goal and declared that negotiations should be concluded by January 1, 2005. The negotiations are trying to slash import tariffs on trade between member countries and gradually dismantle non-tariff barriers, such as quotas. Trade in services would be liberalized and investment rules would be harmonized. As talks intensify, key issues must be resolved concerning cross-border pollution, worker safety and job flight. Gaviria praises the hemisphere’s leaders for their strong support of the FTAA. “Presidents and prime ministers are increasingly engaged. They are really engaged. I think what is most interesting and challenging is that this process after Quebec is not going to be only technical any more. After Quebec, after commitments from all governments, after the protests in the streets, the process has become political,” he said. Gaviria remarked that while he and other key officials at the talks noted the concerns of the anti-globalization protesters, he said their concerns did not persuade him or others that the FTAA initiative should be refocused. He said the United States is now taking this initiative seriously and praises President George W. Bush for his support of the FTAA. “Finally the media in this country is giving a lot of coverage to the Free Trade Area of the Americas initiative. I think it’s partly because President Bush has sent a lot of signals that he strongly supports this initiative. That’s very important to the process of the FTAA,” he said. •55

John Shaw Gaviria said the FTAA initiative is extremely important, but should be viewed in a broader context. “We will never have integration like Europe. We are not looking at that kind of integration. If we are going to have an ambitious integration process we need to look at how institutions can be strengthened,” he said. From his base in Washington, D.C, Gaviria travels to OAS activities across Latin America and underscores the region’s many accomplishments. But he is also blunt about regional failures and disappointments. In many of Latin America’s young democracies, political institutions are weak and millions of people are disenchanted and skeptical about the future, he said. “The biggest threats faced in the Americas are diminished support for democracy, capital volatility, drug trafficking, corruption, terrorism, the illegal trade in arms and violence,” he added. The OAS, under Gaviria’s leadership, is playing a larger role in resolving conflicts between some of the member states. The secretary general’s office has mediated disputes between Nicaragua and Honduras, Costa Rica and Nicaragua and Guatemala and Belize. Depending on the particular circumstances, Gaviria has served as a witness, facilitator, and engaged mediator. His office has provided administrative and logistical support for various negotiations. Gaviria said the OAS is now focused on implementing the goals established by the Quebec summit. These include drafting the first inter-American democratic charter to strengthen collective mechanisms to defend democracy, providing adequate support for human rights, modernizing electoral processes, promoting transparency and good governance, pushing anticorruption mechanisms, protecting minorities, promoting judicial reform, and creating a culture of tolerance and respect. Gaviria will leave the OAS in 2004 when his second term expires. He expects to work in both Colombia and the United States and stay active in regional affairs. He may write his memoirs on his experiences as a leader in Colombia and at the OAS. But he also wants to slow down the pace of his life and spend more time with his family and enjoy long neglected hobbies such as reading, playing tennis and studying contemporary art. “I have lots of plans,” he said. (July, 2001)

56 •

People of World Influence

International Crisis Group President

Gareth Evans

G

areth Evans, a former Australian foreign minister and now the president of the International Crisis Group, has spent much of his professional career trying to prevent armed conflicts from destroying the lives of innocent people. Conflict prevention is an important challenge even if it doesn’t garner many headlines, Evans said in an interview at the ICG’s Washington office. He believes that the political difficulty surrounding conflict prevention is based on a simple fact: Successful preventive efforts are rarely noticed and seldom appreciated. But he added that the ICG, his highly regarded non-governmental organization that is based in Brussels, Belgium, is determined to do all it can to prevent bloody conflicts from destroying nations and shattering lives. “We’re trying to bring conflict prevention and containment to center stage and to get people focused on doing it. We’re not doing the sexy stuff. We’re not doing conflict resolution. We’re trying to do things before the blood is running in the streets, before the amputated kids show up on CNN,” he said. A prolific writer, creative thinker and skillful political operator, Evans assumed the presidency of the ICG in January 2000 after a distinguished career in Australian politics and diplomacy. Informal, energetic and intense, Evans, 57, said his job at the ICG is a natural extension of his past work. “The challenge and fascination of this job is to give content and meaning to conflict prevention. What you save in terms of lives, what you save in terms of misery, what you save in terms of money, is truly remarkable,” he said. The ICG is a private, multinational organization committed to strengthening the capacity of •57

John Shaw the international community to anticipate, understand, and act to prevent and contain conflict. Established in 1995 by a group of international affairs experts, the ICG was conceived as a response to the disasters of the mid-1990s: Somalia, Bosnia, and Rwanda. It was designed to provide high quality advice and sophisticated advocacy to help governments and international organizations prevent deadly conflicts — or at least contain them as much as possible. The ICG’s approach is grounded in field research. It uses former diplomats, journalists, lawyers and others to gather information from a wide range of sources, assess crisis situations, and produce regular analytical reports with practical recommendations targeted at key international decision-makers. Headquartered in Brussels, the ICG has advocacy offices in Washington, New York, and Paris. It has staff working in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Albania, Macedonia, Yugoslavia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sierra Leone, Zimbabwe, the Ferghana Valley of Central Asia, Myanmar, Cambodia and Indonesia. The ICG’s budget doubled from $3 million to more than $6 million last year, and its full-time staff expanded from 25 to 55. It produced 49 reports and briefing papers on conflicts and crises in 18 nations. The European Union, charitable foundations, private companies, individual donors and more than a dozen governments fund the organization. Of ICG’s funds, 40 percent come from governments, 44 percent from foundations and 16 percent from individuals. As president and chief executive officer, Evans runs the ICG on a daily basis. He spends about half of his time on the road, traveling between the ICG’s Brussels headquarters and its other offices, meeting with donors, supervising projects, and making the case for prevention to key officials and influential groups around the world. “Our approach is to confront the hard issues, develop a serious, proactive, preventive agenda and hope that every now and again we actually succeed,” he said. “We are in a sense a private foreign office doing things that well-focused and well-resourced governments ought to be doing for themselves but don’t often do because immediate priorities are always driving out long-term ones.” Evans brings extensive experience in politics and diplomacy to his work at the ICG. He studied politics, economics and law at the University of Melbourne and Oxford University. He traveled widely as a young man and those experiences still shape his view of the world. Evans was an industrial and constitutional lawyer before entering the Australian Parliament in 1978. He served as a senator from the state of Victoria from 1978 to 1996 and in the House of Representatives from 1996 to 1999. He has written or edited eight books and published more than 70 journal articles. His 1993 book, Cooperating for Peace won wide praise and he earned a prestigious award for a 1994 article, “Cooperative Security and Intrastate Conflict,” that appeared in Foreign Policy magazine. Evans was a cabinet minister for 13 years, holding top positions in both the Hawke and Keating governments. He served as attorney general from 1983-84, minister for Energy and Resources from 1984-87, minister for Transport and Communications from 1987-88 and foreign minister from 1988-96. One of Australia’s longest-serving foreign ministers, he played key roles in developing a peace plan for Cambodia, securing an international agreement on the Chemical Weapons Convention, 58 •

People of World Influence setting up the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum and initiating the Canberra Commission on the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons. He won the prestigious ANZAC Peace Prize in 1994 for his diplomacy in Cambodia. “Becoming foreign minister was a job made in heaven, a dream job, especially during that time, 1988 to 1996. With the end of the Cold War it was a time of complete rethinking of relationships. It was a time of great opportunity — the art of the possible. It was an exciting time to be alive and a fascinating time professionally,” he said. Evans said he relished the opportunities available to midsize nations such as Australia that are actively engaged in global initiatives. Significant opportunities, he said, are open to those nations that are quick on their feet, creative, and able to build coalitions with other nations. Evans’s Labor Party was defeated in Australia’s 1996 parliamentary elections. He then served as the deputy leader of the opposition for several years before retiring from Australian politics in 1999. His bid to win the top job at UNESCO in 1999 became ensnared in international politicking and he eventually withdrew. Evans jumped at the chance to head up the ICG. “I knew about the ICG from its genesis. I was one of the founding godfathers. Wearing my hat as Australian foreign minister, I worked to give it some seed money from Australia,” he added. Evans has thought deeply about and written extensively on prevention. Successful prevention, he said, requires early warnings of looming crises, careful use of structural and direct prevention measures, and effective mobilization of political will. Creating the necessary political will, Evans said, requires fostering a culture of prevention and forcing decisions to the top of the in-box of policy makers. It also requires using the right arguments to key people at the appropriate time. Evans said the ICG is having a positive impact as it uses its “glittering list of former presidents and prime ministers” to get the attention of decision makers about potential crises and then offering clear assessments and specific policy advice. “We provide first-class analysis of what the currents are and what the needs are. Good policy flows out of that and is based on a hardheaded analysis of how the real world actually works. We go beyond the existing marketplace of ideas and push the envelope a bit. We use direct advocacy to get stuff out into the media. The objective is to move the decision-making process. What we care about is getting results,” he added. In addition to his work at the ICG, Evans is involved in other international projects. He sits on a number of boards and was a member of the Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict. Last year the Canadian government asked Evans and Mohamed Sahnoun of Algeria to co-chair the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. Evans said this commission is trying to build a broader understanding of the problem of reconciling respect for the sovereign rights of states with the need to act in the face of massive violations of human rights and humanitarian law. He said the panel is examining the legal, moral, operational and political issues surrounding intervention and is determined to go beyond the sterile debates of the past. Evans believes this panel will be successful because of its strong membership, sharp focus and political realism. The panel is holding meetings on all five continents and will issue its final report later this year to the UN General Assembly. Evans said its key contribution may be to re-examine •59

John Shaw the idea of “right to intervene” so it is viewed as the “responsibility to protect.” “We are trying to turn the debate upside down. What this is all about is not a right but a responsibility. And it’s not about intervention: It’s about prevention. So the right to intervene becomes the responsibility to protect,” he said. This formulation, Evans said, shifts international focus to helping the victims of conflict. He defines protection as a commitment to prevent suffering, to respond strongly when it occurs and to remain engaged in trouble spots until stability returns. Evans has a grueling schedule in which he spends much of his time traveling. His wife, Merran, is a professor at Monash University in Australia, and his two children are university students there. He misses his family, but he said that running a major non-governmental organization is a huge challenge and a valuable opportunity. “The best part of the job is the sense we’re gradually making headway, giving tooth and muscle to the concept of prevention. You can change mind-sets. You can create new ways of thinking. If you succeed, it can be very important,” he said. “Conflict prevention is a concept that has finally won general acceptance. But in many ways, we’re still as far away as ever from translating it into effective action. Our hope is never another Srebenica, never another Rwanda, never another Somalia. These three motifs of everything that can go wrong that we saw in the early ’90s stand as the awful warning. That’s what prevention is all about.” (June, 2001)

60 •

People of World Influence

South African Constitutional Court Justice

Richard Goldstone

R

ichard Goldstone is a quiet, understated man who has made a large contribution to the cause of healing and reconciliation in his native South Africa and across the world. A justice on South Africa’s Constitutional Court, Goldstone played a key role in ending apartheid in South Africa, shaping the war crimes tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, laying the foundation for an International Criminal Court and probing the causes and consequences of the war in Kosovo. One of the world’s most respected champions of international law and human rights, Goldstone is quick to say that he never planned to have such a wide ranging and varied career. “I was pretty certain that when I went on the bench in South Africa that this was the end of excitement in my life,” he said in an interview in the courtyard of the Monarch Hotel in Washington, D.C. Goldstone said he is deeply satisfied with the twists and turns of his career, which he outlines in a new book, For Humanity: Reflections of a War Crimes Investigator. Now 63, Goldstone said he grew up in a family that influenced his career in two profound respects: It encouraged his love of law and his opposition to racial discrimination. One of his grandfathers planned his legal career when he was still a small boy. “My grandfather decided when I was about 4, I was going to be a barrister, so I just always assumed I was. It turned out to be a wise decision,” Goldstone said. As a university student, Goldstone became active in student government and the international effort to end apartheid. “My parents were always against racial discrimination. I grew up in an anti-apartheid atmosphere. But they weren’t activists. I didn’t really get active until my university years,” he said. •61

John Shaw Goldstone graduated from the University of Witwatersrand in 1962 after completing a sixyear legal studies program. He began a successful career as a commercial lawyer in Johannesburg. He was appointed as senior counsel in 1976 and in 1980 was selected to be a judge on the Transvaal Supreme Court. The decision to accept a position on the court was difficult and pivotal for Goldstone. A strong critic of apartheid, the position required him to take an oath to faithfully apply the law of the land. Goldstone said the moral problem of joining the South African judiciary was obvious, but he felt he could soften the sharp edges of apartheid’s legal system as a judge rather than a critic on the outside. As a judge, Goldstone issued key rulings that undermined aspects of the apartheid system. And he used judicial prerogatives to visit thousands of people who were in jail without having had a trial. In recent years, Goldstone has met with a number of people he first encountered in prison. Many now hold senior government positions. In 1991, South African President Frederick de Klerk backed an effort to create the Standing Commission of Inquiry Regarding the Prevention of Public Violence and Intimidation. Goldstone was selected to head the panel. The so-called Goldstone Commission conducted more than 40 major investigations over its three-year life, focusing on the role of security forces and political parties in the commission of violence. As Goldstone’s probe gained momentum, he received numerous death threats. “That was a quite frightening time. That was the most dangerous period. I felt my life was under tremendous pressure. People are in danger before you go public. People want to stop you before you go public,” he said. “I couldn’t imagine what I was getting myself into. There were a lot of rumors about so-called ‘third forces.’ But everyone has their own threshold of doubt, like a threshold of pain. I just couldn’t believe senior police officers and ministers of cabinet were involved in murders and blowing up buildings. But they were,” he said. The Goldstone panel released its final report in 1994, and it was widely discussed in South Africa. The panel uncovered evidence of senior police and security force involvement in numerous human rights abuses. Goldstone said his panel’s work helped calm South Africa during a difficult phase in the effort to end apartheid and helped create the political climate that led to the decision to establish the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Reviewing the period from Nelson Mandela’s release from prison in February 1990 to his inauguration as South Africa’s president in May 1994, Goldstone noted that South Africa’s transition was neither easy nor inevitable. “It was a very rough period. Between 10,000 and 20,000 died in the last years of apartheid. It certainly wasn’t peaceful. It was comparatively peaceful, but it was difficult,” he said. Goldstone credits both de Klerk and Mandela for making the transition as smooth as possible. “I had the very unusual privilege of spending a lot of time with Mandela alone and with de Klerk alone and hearing them talk about the other. I think they had respect for each other even though they didn’t like each other,” he said. Goldstone said that de Klerk played an important role that is not always acknowledged. 62 •

People of World Influence “De Klerk decided to put an end to apartheid for pragmatic reasons, not moral reasons. That’s why I think de Klerk and Mandela were talking past each other. But it was probably easier for de Klerk to end apartheid for pragmatic reasons than to be suddenly reborn as an anti-apartheid activist,” he said. “I don’t think de Klerk expected apartheid to end as quickly as it did. But to his credit, when the pace accelerated, de Klerk went ahead and showed tremendous leadership to get his followers to go along with him. It was a policy which, to succeed, meant giving up power.” Goldstone speaks of Mandela in soaring terms. “He’s the most wonderful person I’ve met. His most outstanding quality is his dignity. He has tremendous natural dignity. When he talks to you, you get the feeling that you’re the only person in the world that he’s interested in at that moment. He’s got an amazing memory for names. And he’s got a wonderful sense of humor,” he said. Goldstone recalled Mandela’s inauguration as president in 1994 as a deeply satisfying, even exhilarating, experience. “It was like one huge gigantic party. It was a wonderful day,” he said, adding the reality of South Africa’s accomplishment struck him as he was traveling to the ceremony and saw black and white military officers standing side by side. “I remember thinking it’s a new world.” Yet Goldstone urges caution when applying South Africa’s example to other nations that are struggling with a legacy of division and violence. “Every trouble spot has its own anatomy and pathology,” he said. Goldstone said South Africa was fortunate because its problems were not exacerbated by religious differences and because black and white citizens enjoyed amicable personal relations even during the grimmest days of apartheid. He said South Africa faced three broad choices when it debated how to deal with its turbulent past: It could proceed with criminal prosecutions, create a truth commission, or embrace a policy of blanket amnesty. The African National Congress initially backed Nuremberg-style trials while de Klerk and his allies supported full amnesties. Goldstone said the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was a compromise that was based on the premise that amnesties should be offered to those who provided information about their participation in political crimes. He believes this search for truth prevented false denials, allowed victims to tell their stories, averted collective guilt and prepared the basis for reconciliation across South Africa. As South Africa was taking its first steps toward building a vibrant, multi-racial democracy, Goldstone moved to The Hague to serve as the first chief prosecutor of the United Nations International Criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Created by the UN Security Council in May of 1993, the Yugoslavia tribunal was stalled until Goldstone was appointed to serve as the prosecutor in July 1994. Goldstone said he was surprised the job was offered to him given his then limited experience in international law and Yugoslavian affairs and the simple fact that he had never been a prosecutor before. •63

John Shaw He had to deal with UN inertia and fierce international politics. Goldstone said he was disappointed that NATO was reluctant to arrest key people who were indicted by the tribunal, such as the Bosnian Serb leaders, Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic. “That was a shock. I took it for granted that when IFOR (the Implementation Force) came in they would go out and arrest those people. I was naive. There wasn’t the political will.” Goldstone said that the Yugoslav tribunal and a later one for Rwanda have been successful. They have demonstrated that an international court is able to dispense justice, have advanced international humanitarian and procedural law, and have led to the arrest or marginalization of indicted war criminals. “I’m most proud the tribunals were up and running when I left. A lot of important people had written it off. Without media support it wouldn’t have happened. The media, especially the U.S. media, wanted it to work,” he said. He added that the two tribunals paved the way for a conference in Rome in 1998 to create an International Criminal Court. “This is an historic development. It’s been so long in the making. They have been talking about an International Criminal Court since the Second World War, but there was never agreement,” he said. “Part of the reason was sovereignty. Nations don’t want to give up their sovereignty, least of all the United States. This is a huge problem, but we’re overcoming it. The only possible future is countries giving up their sovereignty at least to the extent of having some rule of law in the international community, at least dealing with war criminals.” Goldstone regrets the United States opposed the final Rome treaty to create the International Criminal Court. He said the U.S.’s fear that a renegade prosecutor would go after U.S. military leaders is unfounded. He noted that about 140 nations signed the Rome Treaty and about half of the necessary 60 ratifications have taken place. “I’m pretty confident they will get the 60 ratifications in the next 18 months. They are coming more quickly now. It should be up and running in The Hague in the next couple of years,” he said. “The great challenge is whether that sort of institution will be successful without the U.S. on board. I think it will. It won’t be as successful, because of the U.S.’s economic and political clout,” he said. Since stepping aside as the prosecutor of the Yugoslavian and Rwandan tribunals, Goldstone has returned to South Africa and taken his seat on the Constitutional Court, the appellate division of South Africa’s Supreme Court. He remains active in international affairs and law. Goldstone sits on the board of a number of international groups and teaches and lectures widely. He is a member of the international panel created in 1997 by the government of Argentina to monitor the inquiry to determine Nazi activities in the Argentine Republic. In 1998, Goldstone chaired a group of international experts charged with drafting a declaration of Human Duties and Responsibilities for the director general of UNESCO. In 1999, Goldstone was asked to co-chair the International Commission on Kosovo. The commission was the brainchild of Swedish Prime Minister Goran Persson, who felt an 64 •

People of World Influence independent examination of the tragedy in Kosovo was needed. The panel focused on the origins of the Kosovo crisis, the diplomatic efforts to end the conflict, the role of the UN and NATO’s decision to intervene. The panel also examined the refugee crisis, the role of humanitarian workers, non-governmental organizations and the media. It identified the norms of international law and diplomacy brought to the fore by the war and the adequacy of these norms to prevent comparable crises in the future. The panel issued a report last September that said the government of former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic government was the “fundamental cause” of violence in Kosovo during the 1990s but added that “decisive preventive action” should have been taken by the international community earlier. The report found that NATO’s armed intervention was “illegal but legitimate.” It said that NATO didn’t receive the approval of the UN but added that its intervention was legitimate because all diplomatic channels had been exhausted. The panel said that a new legal convention for military “humanitarian intervention” is needed which should impose more constraints on the use of force than are embodied in the current law of war. Goldstone said the Kosovo report has generated great interest, spawning more than a dozen seminars. The panel will issue a follow-up report in September in light of the fall of the Milosevic regime. “We want to revisit our recommendations in light of what is happening,” he said. Diane Orentlicher, an international law professor at American University, said Goldstone has been an important voice and force for justice. “Justice Goldstone played an inestimable part in establishing the credibility of the two international criminal tribunals created by the UN in the 1990s. At the time of his appointment as chief prosecutor, the Yugoslavia Tribunal was at serious risk of sinking into irrelevancy [the Rwanda Tribunal had not yet been created]. Goldstone’s very appointment brought crucial legitimacy to the tribunal,” she said. “More importantly, his leadership over the next two years endowed both tribunals with the crucial ingredients for their long-term success: moral authority and political clout. One of the keys to his effectiveness was Goldstone’s singular gift for conveying with eloquent power the profound human values at stake in the work of the tribunals—and for making a largely indifferent world care,” she added. (May, 2001)

•65

HIGHER EDUCATION: HANDBOOK OF THEORY AND RESEARCH, VOL. XVII

476

People of World Influence

Former National Security Advisor

Anthony Lake

W

hen Anthony Lake served as President Bill Clinton’s top foreign policy adviser, he spent most of his waking hours worrying about what could go wrong in the world. Now out of government service and working as a university professor and consultant, Lake still sees a planet packed with threats. He has identified a halfdozen nightmares that will keep President Bush’s foreign policy team awake for many nights during the next four years. In an interview at his tiny, cramped office at Georgetown University, Lake said the new administration must deal with a globalized world that offers enormous opportunities but also poses huge challenges. These threats include the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, cyberterrorism, ambiguous military conflicts, complex peacekeeping missions, the weakness of important countries and an increasingly acrimonious political climate in Washington, D.C. He has written a book, Six Nightmares to prompt American policymakers to prepare for these challenges. His hope, Lake said, is to “sound the alarm” and encourage American leaders to think about, and prepare for, the complex world of the 21st century. “Because the Cold War is over, and we don’t face a huge threat from abroad, and because the economy has been in good shape, we’re not concentrating on substance, and we’re wasting time that we may sometime wish we had spent addressing these threats,” he said. “I could easily imagine a terrorist attack not happening over the next decade. But I also could imagine it taking place. We can never be certain that no incident will occur, but we should try to do everything we can to make it less likely. We should be able to look back over this period and •67

John Shaw say we’ve done everything possible to prevent it. And I don’t think we are.” After he left the Clinton administration in 1997, Lake was approached by several publishers to write an account of his experiences and to respond to some of his critics. Lake wasn’t interested in that kind of book. “I don’t think anybody has written an objective memoir. I knew I couldn’t. And I just didn’t think it was right to report on conversations that were held when others didn’t expect you to write about them. Anyway, I’m more interested in the future than in the past,” he said. While shaving one morning he conceived of a book that outlined the potential perils of the new century. Most of Six Nightmares was written during more than a dozen trips to Africa to participate in peace talks to end the Ethiopian-Eritrean War. The first nightmare Lake describes is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, including chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Each category of weapon poses unique threats, but all are increasingly accessible to terrorists, he said. “Chemical weapons are certainly the easiest to use and the cheapest to develop. Nuclear weapons are the most dramatic, but they are expensive and difficult to acquire and deploy. Many experts lean toward biological weapons, which are easier to make than a nuclear device and far more lethal than their chemical cousins. This gruesome combination of availability and killing capacity could render bioweapons irresistible,” he said. Lake’s second nightmare concerns cyberterrorism. He said that while the Internet has changed the lives of ordinary people in positive ways, it has also given international terrorists a new tool to disrupt and destroy. The personal computer, he said, can be a powerful instrument to foil the operations of businesses and governments. He noted there were 250,000 attempted penetrations of the Department of Defense’s computer system in 1995 and this has now grown to more than 500,000 each year. The problem of hackers is even more serious for private companies because they lack the resources to protect themselves. The annual cost of cybercrime has been estimated at between $20 billion and $40 billion. Lake’s third nightmare pertains to the ambiguous nature of modern warfare. He said that while the United States is a powerful nation that is unlikely to be defeated in a conventional war, it is vulnerable to enemies that fight anonymously and use unconventional means. “Everybody has mentioned the David and Goliath problem. But our problem is actually much worse than that. We have an invisible David, that’s the problem.” The United States should consider using advanced technology to protect its computer and communications systems from intrusion, disruption and destruction and to strike out at adversaries, Lake said. For example, if the United States detects an impending terrorist attack it could preempt the threat by planting computer viruses, shutting off power and phone service, feeding false information about troop locations to an adversary’s computers and morphing video images onto foreign television stations. “Covert computer operations can be among our greatest weapons in the 21st century,” Lake said. 68 •

People of World Influence The fourth nightmare Lake identifies concerns peacekeeping operations. He said the American military does more than deter and fight wars. Increasingly it is being asked to make or keep peace in messy foreign domestic disputes. This creates new dangers and dilemmas, he said. There are about 25 armed conflicts each year around the world, which kill millions of people. Most of these wars are not between states but within them. The United States needs to act with greater efficiency in conducting peacekeeping operations and with greater clarity about the longterm purposes of such efforts, he argued. The current approach, in which a growing number of peacekeeping garrisons are scattered around the world with no end in sight, is not sustainable, he said. The United States needs a clear strategic goal that defines success before placing troops in difficult situations, he continued. “Quixotic, failed missions serve no one,” Lake said. Lake’s fifth nightmare pertains to the weakness of many key countries across the world. Although the United States spent nearly half a century during the Cold War fighting an adversary that was perceived as powerful, it now has to operate in a world in which key nations are weak, he said. Russia and China are going through painful economic and political adjustments. The Japanese economy remains in a decade-long slump. Colombia and Indonesia are struggling with daunting internal problems. Lake’s final nightmare concerns America’s political culture. He said the U.S.’s foreign policy strength has been eroded by the poisonous political environment in Washington, D.C. He cited the 1999 Senate debate on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty as a grim example of a political culture that has become nasty and dysfunctional. Clinton signed the CTBT in 1996 that banned nuclear tests and set up a sophisticated international monitoring system. For several years, Senate Democrats blasted the Republican majority for failing to bring the treaty to a vote. Then Republican leaders, certain they could kill the treaty, scheduled a quick vote. Democrats begged for a delay, but the GOP pushed forward, and the treaty was rejected in October 1999. It was the first time the Senate had rejected a major international treaty since the Treaty of Versailles after World War I. “It was so partisan on each side. It was a stunning illustration of a Washington in which politics has become an end in itself rather than a vehicle for deciding policy,” Lake said. He added that partisan viciousness infects many features of American political life, including Senate consideration of presidential appointments. “It has become a War of the Roses. Everyone remembers the last fight. This cycle has to stop,” he said. As he surveys the myriad of strategic challenges, Lake is convinced that the United States needs strong White House leadership to respond to immediate threats and plan for the future. “The issues cut across the fiefdoms in the government. We need to stop thinking in boxes, but we also have to be less organized in boxes,” he said. “The only place you can coordinate these issues is in the White House and through the National Security Council staff. The only place that can bring together classic diplomatic issues, economic issues and other issues is the White House.” Lake’s view of world affairs has been shaped by nearly 40 years of foreign policy experience. A •69

John Shaw graduate of Harvard University, Lake joined the U.S. Foreign Service in 1962. He was posted for Vietnam for several years and then worked at the National Security Council under Henry Kissinger. Strongly opposed to the American bombing of Cambodia in the early 1970s, Lake resigned from his NSC job. After teaching at the university level for several years, Lake headed up the State Department’s policy and planning unit during the Carter administration. After President Carter was defeated for reelection in 1980, Lake returned to college teaching. He was an adviser to Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign and served as National Security Advisor during Clinton’s first term. Lake was nominated to head up the Central Intelligence Agency in 1997, but withdrew his nomination when it was bottled up in the Senate. Lake said he is proud of his government service, especially his tenure as the NSC chief. “It was an incredible amount of work and the hours are brutal. But there are few ceremonial duties, and there’s a great opportunity to work on the substance of foreign policy and help the president make a difference. Every day you learn something. And as a place to make things happen there’s nothing like it,” he said. Lake accepted a teaching position at Georgetown University in 1997 where he is the distinguished professor in the practice of diplomacy. He sits on various boards such as at UNICEF and the Freedom House. Lake is also the co-chairman of Intellibridge Corp., an international consulting firm. Lake recently concluded a stint as one of Clinton’s special envoys to Africa. He was a key mediator in the successful effort to end the Ethiopia-Eritrea War. Having spent much of his career on big picture policy formulation, Lake said he relished the challenge to focus on one conflict and to try to bring it to an end. “We had formula after formula that made rational sense, but it was a war among human beings, not interest-calculating machines. Each side believed its honor had been impugned,” he said. “Americans tend to see diplomacy in very rational terms. We go in with treaties and legal notions. We’re especially rational about other people’s conflicts. It’s very important to understand what motivates people and to address these concerns. Our proposals should fit in with their interests and as well as their psychologies,” he said. Lake said he enjoyed working with top-level American diplomats, interlocutors from other nations and the Organization of African Unity to end the bloody war in Africa. He said the experience deepened his appreciation for skilled diplomacy. “I enjoy diplomacy. It’s like chess, only with cultural and psychological dimensions.” (April, 2001)

70 •

People of World Influence

Former Senator

George McGovern

G

eorge McGovern first reflected on the problem of global hunger more than 50 years ago when he was a young American soldier in Europe. Based in Italy during the last two years of World War II, McGovern saw a devastated nation with hungry people scrounging through garbage cans in search of food. The images of those people and the anguish of that time have never left him. This experience ignited a lifelong quest to use creative public policies to feed hungry people around the world. McGovern, a former U.S. senator and Democratic nominee for president, returned to Italy in 1998 to serve as the American ambassador to the United Nations Food and Agriculture agencies. From his post in Rome, McGovern is working hard on what is now the consuming passion of his professional life: to win support for a bold, idealistic strategy to end global hunger within three decades. “When I look at the world’s problems, so many of them seem intractable, almost insolvable. But not hunger. Hunger is a political condition. We can end hunger, not tomorrow, but we can do it by 2030,” he said in an interview at the Hay-Adams Hotel in Washington, D.C. “That gives us three decades to achieve what would surely be the greatest victory in world history. I can think of no investment that would profit the international community more than erasing hunger from the face of the earth,” he added. McGovern, now 78, is a kindly, courtly man with a modest manner, Back in Washington on a tour to promote his book, The Third Freedom: Ending Hunger in Our Time, he is determined to focus attention on widespread hunger and to build support for an effort to eliminate this scourge. •71

John Shaw A native of South Dakota who grew up during the drought and depression days of the 1930s, McGovern has an extensive background in agriculture, politics—and the politics of agriculture. McGovern studied history at Dakota Wesleyan University before leaving school to enlist as a pilot during World War II. McGovern flew 35 combat missions over Germany, Austria and other parts of Eastern Europe and was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross for his valor. After the war, McGovern completed his undergraduate degree, earned his doctorate in history at Northwestern University and then returned to South Dakota for a position as a college professor. In addition to teaching, McGovern helped build the Democratic Party in his state. He was elected to Congress in 1956 and served for two terms. President John F. Kennedy selected him to be the first director of the U.S.’s Food for Peace program. McGovern won rave reviews for his creative and energetic work in using American surplus crops to help hungry people in other nations. He vividly recalls a meeting with Pope John XXIII, who praised him for following the Biblical injunction to feed the hungry. McGovern was elected to the Senate in 1962 and served there for three terms. He was the Democratic Party’s candidate for president in 1972 but lost in a landslide to Richard Nixon. He said he still thinks about his defeat and replays decisions he made during the campaign. But McGovern is proud of his effort, especially his firm opposition to the war in Vietnam. He believes he has been vindicated by history. “I said what I believed and accept that the country was not ready to hear it. Of course, it hurt to lose, but every time I walk through an airport people come up to me and say they voted for me in 1972, and they’re still proud of that vote,” he said. “Of course, if all of these people had actually voted for me I would have won,” he added with a smile. After his defeat McGovern returned to the Senate and resumed his career as an active and respected lawmaker. For a decade, he chaired a special committee to examine nutrition issues and helped pass laws that transformed nutrition and food assistance in the United States. Collaborating with key senators such as Robert Dole and Edward Kennedy, McGovern wrote legislation to expand food stamps and school breakfast and lunch programs. He also helped create the highly regarded Women, Infants and Children (WIC) program that provides nutritious food and counseling to low-income pregnant and nursing mothers and their infants. “Next to my long fight in the Senate to end America’s involvement in the Vietnam War, the thing I’m most proud about is my work as chairman of the Select Committee on Nutrition. That was the committee that literally revolutionized food assistance in the United States in the 1970s. It laid the foundation for a scientifically and humanely sound nutrition policy for the American people,” he said. McGovern lost his Senate seat in 1980 and moved back into private life. He lectured on college campuses, wrote several books and served as the president of the Middle East Council. He and his wife, Eleanor, settled into a comfortable life in Washington. Then several top officials in the Clinton administration, led by his former speechwriter, Sandy Berger, asked him to represent the United States to the UN Food and Agricultural agencies in Rome. 72 •

People of World Influence “At first, I wasn’t sure I wanted to take the job. My wife and I discussed it for two or three months,” he said. “I thought it might be a dead-end job, the sort they give to defeated former presidential candidates to get them out of the country. But I finally decided to take it. And after I had been there for a year or so, I began to see the possibilities of the job. I got very excited about it,” he added. McGovern represents the United States to the World Food Program that runs a food assistance program, the Food and Agriculture Organization—which focuses on long-term assistance to farmers in the developing world—and the International Fund for Agriculture Development, which provides low interest loans for agriculture and rural development projects. He relishes his return to food and nutrition issues and says he wants to use his experience in the United States to craft international programs that help nations that are struggling with malnutrition. McGovern is a strong advocate of a universal school lunch program. He said there are 300 million hungry children across the world, and 130 million of them don’t attend school regularly. “The one thing we can do is to provide a universal school lunch. We’re going to get that done. I’m convinced it’s a doable, practical goal. It will feed these kids and serve as a magnet to get them to come to school,” he said. Contemplating a broader agenda, McGovern reviewed the deliberations of the 1996 World Food Summit in Rome and was intrigued by its call to reduce the number of chronically hungry in the world from the current level of about 800 million to 400 million by 2015. He then proposed the more ambitious goal of eliminating global hunger by 2030. McGovern said it is cheaper to end hunger than to allow it to continue. He cited a World Bank report that estimates malnutrition each year causes the loss of 46 million years of productive work at a cost of $16 billion. McGovern said the world community can end hunger by spending about $6 billion annually above current levels. The goal of ending hunger by 2030 should be endorsed by the White House, the U.S. Congress and the UN General Assembly, he said. McGovern said the effort should include a universal school lunch and a global WIC program. It should also set aside food reserves for emergencies, create an international Farmers Corps in which experienced farmers help the developing world improve farm production, food processing and food distribution. The program, he said, should take advantage of high-yield, scientific agriculture, including genetically modified crops, to increase production. McGovern describes the problem of hunger and offers his solutions in his new book, The Third Freedom. He said there was a need for a brief book to explain the issues associated with global hunger. It took him about a year to write the book—during evenings, on weekends and while traveling. He hopes it will serve as a vehicle to build the case for an aggressive attack on hunger—in the key UN agencies in Rome, in capitals around the world and in the United States. “We need to get other nations to join us. I see my job in Rome as to persuade my fellow ambassadors and delegates to the logic of this proposal. Then we’ve got to persuade the Congress and the Bush administration this is a good idea. I think we can sell the Congress and the administration on that,” he said. •73

John Shaw Secretary of State Colin Powell has asked McGovern to remain at his post in Rome and he has agreed to stay. McGovern wants to discuss his program to end global hunger later this year with Powell, Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill and Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman. “I’m not going to be satisfied until we have all three of them on board. And I want President Bush on board as well,” he said. McGovern said he views his current work as a high calling and the perfect conclusion to a career that began as a soldier in Europe. “I’m living the old Biblical injunction to beat swords into plowshares,” he said. McGovern said he will argue for his agenda on both humanitarian and practical grounds. “Hunger keeps a lot of potentially magnificent people from reaching their potential. There is such an enormous loss if we have 800 million people, nearly one-seventh of the people in the world, who are struggling with hunger.” “I doubt we can end war or stop bigotry or solve global warming or end the AIDS crisis. But I do know we can end hunger on this planet at a reasonable cost. So if we cannot solve all of humanity’s problems, let us resolve to solve at least one by the year 2030—human hunger.” (March, 2001)

74 •

People of World Influence

Journalist

Jonathan Schell

A

s a young reporter for the New Yorker magazine in the late 1970s, Jonathan Schell received an opportunity that many journalists can only dream about. Working under the legendary editor William Shawn, Schell was given as much time as he needed to write an article that could be as long as he wanted about a single topic: the threat of nuclear weapons. Schell plunged into the project, examining the scientific, moral and political aspects of the nuclear arms race. When he emerged from his research five years later, the New Yorker published his findings in a series of articles that rocked the American political world. The 90,000-word essay appeared in three installments in February of 1982 and was later assembled into a book called Fate of the Earth. In powerful, vivid language, Schell said that the nuclear arms race could lead to the extinction of the human species, that nuclear deterrence is a contradictory and unreliable doctrine to prevent war, and the global political system needed to be “reinvented” to confront this huge challenge. The essay became a political and cultural event. It was celebrated by Time magazine, entered into the U.S. congressional record by several lawmakers, cited on the CBS Evening News by Walter Cronkite and praised as “historic” by former Vice President Walter Mondale. It was called “the new Bible of our time, the White Paper of our age” by the president of Physicians for Social Responsibility. Sen. Alan Cranston of California traveled to New York to meet with Schell and asked him to summarize his work for members of Congress. A member of the Vatican’s scientific advisory committee gave a copy of the book to the pope. In an interview, Schell clearly recalls that remarkable time and still seems surprised by the uproar that was provoked by his essay. •75

John Shaw “I thought it would get some reaction, but I was wholly unprepared for the reaction it generated. Nothing could have prepared me for that,” he said. While Schell’s life eventually returned to normal, he has remained committed to exploring all aspects of the nuclear question. Now a writer for the Nation magazine and a part-time university professor, he is one of the country’s foremost experts on nuclear issues and is a passionate proponent of abolishing all nuclear weapons. Through his writing and political activism, Schell is determined to force people to look at the threat posed by the world’s 31,000 nuclear weapons in a fresh way. “People love not to think about the nuclear issue. It’s not a pleasant topic. In fact, it’s a disgusting subject. It’s always difficult to get people to think about this subject,” he said. “And it seems anachronistic. People think it’s a blast from the past. But the nuclear age is still with us. The Cold War may have ended but the nuclear age continues,” he added. Schell grew up in New York City in a family of talented children (his brother, Orville, is an expert on China) and activist parents. His mother protested against the war in Vietnam and the nuclear arms race while his father, a corporate lawyer, helped launch Helsinki Watch, a human rights group. After Schell graduated from Harvard University in 1965, he decided to spend a year of study and travel in Japan. On his way back to the United States, he stopped in Vietnam. Befriended by several journalists, he secured a press pass and traveled freely throughout the war zone. “A press pass at that time was a ticket to a ringside seat to the war,” he said. While in Vietnam, Schell wrote an essay, “The Village of Ben Suc,” that was published by the New Yorker and later became a book. This began a 20-year career as a staff writer for the New Yorker, then the most prestigious and influential magazine in the United States. “The New Yorker was a kind of paradise for writers at that time. It was a paradise for me. It allowed you to do your very best work, to really explore topics in depth. It permitted you to learn and write about important subjects. I was free to propose articles on virtually any subject,” he said. Schell wrote frequently about the Vietnam war and also had long, probing conversations with Shawn about the nuclear arms race. “There was no single moment when I became interested in the nuclear question. There was no blinding moment of truth and light. It was very gradual,” he said. “It’s a very difficult subject to write about. It’s both blindingly obvious and, at the same time, very mysterious and subtle,” he said. He began to think about America’s nuclear strategy in the context of the troubled experience of the United States in Vietnam. “The spectacle in Vietnam opened my mind to the notion that other vast enterprises could be equally self-defeating. What America did in Vietnam was self-defeating. It was not rational,” he said. Schell began to work on Fate of the Earth in 1978 and remained deeply immersed during his years of research. He knew that his article’s appearance in the New Yorker would ensure that it was read by a vast and influential audience. “The New Yorker had a fantastic capacity to put something across. It had iron-solid credibility. It had as its readership the best educated people in the United States. In had an unusual prestige,” he said. 76 •

People of World Influence Fate of the Earth was published as three articles. The first described in chilling detail the destructive effects of a nuclear exchange, arguing that even a limited nuclear war could lead to the extinction of mankind. The second installment analyzed in philosophical and ethical terms the implications of the extinction of the human race. The third article attacked the entire rationale of nuclear deterrence and suggested a new approach: a freeze on deploying nuclear weapons, a 50 percent reduction in nuclear arms, work toward conventional and nuclear disarmament, and an effort to overhaul a political system of warring states with a new arrangement that would be better able to resolve disputes. While some critics found Schell’s arguments hyperbolic and melodramatic, many were overwhelmed by the power and logic of his thinking. “This is a work of enormous force,” declared a review in The New York Times. “There are moments when it seems to hurtle, almost out of control, across an extraordinary range of fact and thought. But in the end, it accomplishes what no other work has managed to do in the 37 years of the nuclear age. It compels us—and compel is the right word—to confront head on the nuclear peril in which we all find ourselves.” The New York Times review called Schell’s work “not only a statement. It is a summons, an alarm, a commotion.” Schell said his initial foray into the nuclear question convinced him that these issues required careful study and the imagination to see how the world can escape from the nuclear trap. Several years later, Schell wrote an article for the New Yorker that was published as a book, The Abolition. In it he argued that the only solution to the world’s nuclear predicament is a deliberate policy in which the nuclear powers negotiate to abolish all nuclear weapons. Then in 1998, he wrote The Gift of Time, a meditation on how the end of the Cold War has given humanity a new opportunity to peacefully defuse the nuclear threat. While some commentators contend that Schell’s views are utopian and impractical, he is a respected expert on nuclear issues. He published major articles last year in both Harper’s and Foreign Affairs. “Jonathan Schell knows these issues very well. He has a very keen sense of the history, the evolution, of the nuclear age,” said Richard Butler, a former United Nations diplomat. Schell believes the United States and other nuclear powers are now at a point of historic decision in which compromise policies that defer fundamental choices are no longer acceptable. The real alternatives facing nuclear powers, he argues, are simple and stark: Either prepare for, and accept, the unrestricted proliferation of nuclear weapons across the world or launch a bold effort to abolish nuclear weapons by international agreement. “The current American policy is to try to stop proliferation while simultaneously continuing to hold on to its own nuclear arsenal indefinitely. But these objectives are contradictory. The current policy is a way of avoiding choice,” he said. Schell said that when the Cold War ended, the world’s nuclear arsenals were limited by a regime of treaties and agreements that, if they did not end nuclear peril, reduced it substantially. But he noted that the nuclear threat is growing again and that the restrictions spelled out in international law are eroding. A single missile test by a small nation could touch off a string of consequences that would place severe stress on almost every aspect of the global nuclear arms control regime, he said. •77

John Shaw “A decade after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the startling fact is that nuclear arms control is faring worse in the first days of the 21st century than it did in the last days of the Cold War,” he said. Schell laments that the nuclear powers, led by the United States, did not move aggressively to eliminate nuclear weapons when the Cold War ended. This decision to retain nuclear weapons quietly set a standard for the post-Cold War period. He said one of the key strategic changes has been that nuclear abolition is now seen as not only difficult to achieve, but even undesirable. A world free of nuclear weapons is perceived as intrinsically less secure than a world filled with nuclear weapons. In a strange twist, nuclear weapons are no longer seen as evil but as a positive benefit to the world, Schell said. But he believes nuclear powers now face a crucial decision between possession and nonproliferation. “A policy that seeks to marry possession with non-proliferation lacks coherence, morally, but also militarily, diplomatically and legally,” he said. “It is getting harder by the day to imagine, given the tight connections between possession and proliferation, that the deterioration and even collapse of the fabric of nuclear arms control can be stopped absent a commitment to abolition.” Schell sees both perils and possibilities with the new Bush administration regarding nuclear issues. President George W. Bush has expressed skepticism about expanding nuclear arsenals, but he is also committed to building an anti-missile defense system that could ignite a new arms race. “Missile defense is going to be the focus of a lot of attention during the Bush presidency. And this is a subject that can produce terrible mischief. It could be the ticket to many arms races. That’s a terrible threat,” he said. Schell is determined to keep writing about nuclear issues and working to eliminate nuclear weapons. He is a strong supporter of Project Abolition, an effort by more than 900 groups to build support in civil society for the elimination of nuclear weapons. Schell is encouraged by the support of prominent global figures for abolishing nuclear weapons, including Mikhail Gorbachev, Helmut Schmidt, Rolf Ekeus, Robert McNamara and Michel Rocard as well as a number of former generals. “I’m committed to writing on the nuclear issue for the duration because it is so important. But not to the exclusion of everything else. It’s important to have something fresh to say. I don’t want to keep repeating myself until I’m purple in the face.” (February, 2001)

78 •

People of World Influence

Islamic Analyst

Shireen Tahmasseb Hunter

F

rom her small, cluttered office in downtown Washington, D.C., Shireen Tahmasseb Hunter is trying to make the Islamic world more understandable to the people of the West. It is not an easy job, but Hunter does it with energy and conviction as the analyst who is director of the Islam program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Warm and engaging, Hunter is a former Iranian diplomat who has lived extensively in Europe and the United States and is now an American citizen. A Muslim who also attended Catholic schools taught by French and Italian nuns, she is determined to do what she can to bridge the cultural, political and psychological chasm that often divides Islam and the West. “Since I have some grounding in both worlds, I think I can make at least a small contribution in helping explain each world to the other,” she said in an interview. “I would like to demystify and desimplify the Islamic world for the West, and I also would like to explain the West to the Muslim world. In my small way I would like to improve the understanding between the two worlds. Because of my experiences and exposures, I see a lot more commonality than differences,” she added. Hunter grew up in a family with a strong interest in international affairs and travel, and a firm commitment to education. “I had the very good fortune to grow up in a very literate family and also one that was very tolerant and open,” she said. One of her great uncles was a senior diplomat who represented Iran at the United Nation’s founding meeting in San Francisco in 1945. Inspired by that experience and encouraged by her •79

John Shaw mother, Hunter studied political science and international law at the University of Tehran. She leaped at the opportunity to apply for a position in the Iranian foreign service and entered the diplomatic corps in late 1965 as a member of the first class of candidates that was open to women. Hunter served for more than a dozen years in the Iranian foreign service, working in Tehran as well as in London, New York and Geneva. While in London she earned a master’s degree from the London School of Economics, and during her stay in Geneva she earned a doctorate from the Institut Universitaire des Hautes Etudes Internationales. She won steady promotions in the Iranian diplomatic corps, eventually reaching the rank of counselor. She served as charge d’affaires of the Iranian Mission to the United Nations in Geneva. As a diplomat, Hunter focused on arms control, international economic, technology transfer, refugee and human rights issues. Fluent in English, French, Persian and Azeri Turkish, Hunter’s language skills boosted her career. She was assigned to travel with senior diplomats and took notes at key meetings, including a session between the Danish Prime Minister and the Shah. During a sabbatical in 1979, Hunter studied at Harvard University and watched from Boston as the Iranian revolution toppled the Shah and brought Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to power. “I had the realization that the train in Iran was moving in the wrong direction. Given my past work, I thought it might be perhaps hazardous to my health to try to return to the foreign service in Iran,” she said. Hunter decided to remain in the United States and continued her writing and research. While in the United States, she married Robert Hunter, an American who is a foreign policy analyst and had been one of her instructors in London. She accepted a position at CSIS’s Middle East program in 1983 and has been affiliated with the prestigious think tank ever since. Several years ago, Hunter was asked to create an Islam program at CSIS. Hunter has written extensively on the Middle East, especially the Gulf region, as well as the Mediterranean, Central Asia and the Transcaucasus. In addition to opinion articles and essays, she has written a half-dozen books on such topics as OPEC and the Third World, the politics of Islamic revivalism, Iran after Khomeini, the Transcaucasus in transition, Central Asia since the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the future of relations between Islam and the West. Hunter is intrigued by recent developments in Iran, as that nation’s growing population of young people (nearly 70 percent of the country’s 68 million citizens are under 30) press for more political and cultural openness and greater economic opportunities. She believes the 1997 election of Mohammad Khatami as president was a historically significant event. Khatami, she is convinced, is committed to taking Iran in a new, more positive direction. “Just as there are Christian Democrats, I think Khatami wants to be a Muslim Democrat. I’m convinced of his commitment to reform. He’s not just an operator. He has a coherent philosophical perspective,” she said. “The problem is that there are a lot of stumbling blocks in his way in Iran. And, frankly, he has 80 •

People of World Influence not been helped as much as he could have been by outsiders. Everybody has watched for Khatami to deliver everything they wanted. Given his domestic constraints, he has been put in a very difficult position,” she added. Khatami, who is the elected head of the executive branch, has clashed with Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme religious leader who is appointed for life by a board of clerics. Khatami faces a tough battle to implement his reform agenda, Hunter said, adding that “there is a constellation of forces that feel their interests would be damaged by real reforms. For these forces, it’s really about power and money.” But she sees positive trends in Iran despite recent setbacks. “On the surface, it may appear that the balance of power has shifted in favor of the hard-liners who have been able to frustrate President Khatami’s reform efforts and prevent some of his liberalized policies,” she said. “However, there have been fundamental changes in Iranian society that will force the regime to change. I’m absolutely convinced that if the regime does not reform itself, its contradictions will lead to a far more serious situation. I think in the long run, the forces that seek reform will triumph.” One of Hunter’s chief research interests is the complex relationship between the West and the Muslim world. She sharply disagrees with the “Clash of Civilizations” thesis that was famously promulgated by Samuel Huntington several years ago. Huntington argued that several of the world’s major civilizations are likely to clash in the future and that the West and Islam are fundamentally incompatible and thus on a collision course. In a book Hunter wrote in 1998, The Future of Islam and West: Clash of Civilizations or Peaceful Coexistence? she directly challenged Huntington’s thesis. And she remains convinced that it is simplistic and wrong. “The Clash of Civilizations thesis was very compelling because it was so simple and it appealed to such primordial fears,” she said. “But civilizations don’t either clash with one another or dialogue with one another. This is done through the intermediaries of nation states or groups of states in multilateral or other contexts or through civil societies.” Hunter said that a host of factors that include both lofty ideals and prosaic interests drive the behavior of nations. “When there is a sharp conflict between ideals and interests, interests inevitably prevail. Ideals are often used to dress up the results. But history shows that ultimately interests are much more influential than ideals,” she said. Hunter noted that many conflicts in today’s world are intracivilizational fights. “The clash of civilizations within Muslim nations and, to a lesser degree within the West, is more intense than it is between Islam and the West,” she said. Finally, Hunter disputes the view that the West and Islamic world are destined to clash. She pointed out that many Western nations, including the United States, enjoy positive relations with Islamic nations. And when tensions break out between Islam and West, the dispute is more often about power and influence than it is about ideology, she said. As Hunter surveyed the contemporary Islamic world, there are two trends that trouble her: the lack of democracy and the paucity of innovative, job-creating economies. •81

John Shaw “I’m very concerned about the increasing authoritarian tendencies or the persistence of authoritarian tendencies in the Islamic world. The growing gap between the people and the elites is troubling,” she said. “The most serious problem is the lack of democracy across the board in Islamic countries. Unless something is done to open up these political and social systems we might be heading for some real disruptions in the future. Democracy is something you have to learn. You have to build institutions. It’s a fragile plant that has to be constantly nurtured.” As director of the Islam program at CSIS, Hunter is searching for ways to deepen understanding between the Islamic world and the West. She will continue to lecture, participate in conferences and write about developments in Muslim nations. At CSIS, she publishes a briefing memo six times a year that describes developments in and among Muslim nations and seeks to promote intercivilizational dialogue and positive coexistence. Hunter is now editing a book on Islam in Europe and is also working on a project dealing with Islam in Russia, with a focus on Islam’s role on internal developments in Russia and on Russia’s foreign policy. She plans to continue discussing the challenges facing the West and the Muslim world, but also to emphasize the forces that unify the two communities. “There is enough room to find common ground. After all, those in the West and those in Islamic world both come from Abrahamic faiths. They both believe in the same God.” (January, 2001)

82 •

People of World Influence

Ambassador

Richard Butler

R

ichard Butler, the former executive director of the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM), is an imposing man with strong convictions about arms control that he articulates with the passion and controlled fury of an Old Testament prophet. Butler believes the United Nations must play a critical role in preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction and that it has failed badly in its mission to ensure that Iraq eliminated its arsenal of prohibited weapons following the Persian Gulf war of 1991. The veteran diplomat is also convinced that the United Nations must rectify its failures with respect to Iraq and be reformed to ensure that arms control treaties are strictly enforced in the future. In an interview at the Washington office of the Council on Foreign Relations where he is diplomat in residence, Butler said that UN’s failures in Iraq are of historic significance. “This is the most serious breakdown and crisis in the Security Council’s life since the end of the Cold War,” he said. “This is the most serious rupture within the Security Council in the postCold War period with permanent members in what can only be called wide disagreement with each other. The consequences of that breakdown in consensus within the Security Council on a major matter is very serious.” Butler criticized France, China and Russia for ignoring Iraq’s violations of UN resolutions that were approved after the Gulf war. He said the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and elsewhere is a profoundly critical issue. “The failure to address deep problems, to prefer instead immediate interests or short-term gratification, simply makes the problems more inevitable and more costly in their solution. Don’t •83

John Shaw people learn from history? Don’t they learn from past instances when palliatives were preferred to solutions, when immediate interests were preferred to longer-term and harder solutions?” A career Australian diplomat with a penchant for precise language and careful formulations, Butler said the UN’s failure to enforce its own resolutions with respect to Iraq have had farreaching consequences for the world body’s credibility. “The authority of Security Council has been deeply diminished. The writ, the authority, of the Security Council has been deeply harmed,” he said. “This mechanism we created at the end of the Second World War to collectively manage global security is simply broken. And the substance is nothing less than weapons of mass destruction and the tapestry of treaties we have created to control the spread of such weapons,” he said. Butler grew up in a working-class neighborhood in Sydney and developed a fascination for international affairs as a young man. He recalls sitting by the shores of Sydney’s Bondi Beach, watching planes beginning long flights over the Pacific Ocean. “I wanted to be on those planes, but I didn’t get interested in diplomacy as such. I got interested in international affairs. I chose to be a diplomat because I wanted to work in international relations not because I had been seduced by the glittering pretensions of diplomacy,” he said. After graduating from the University of Sydney in 1964, Butler joined the Australian Foreign Service. He first post was in Vienna where he was an Australian representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). It was in this assignment, Butler said, that he entered what he calls “the atomic circle,” referring to those working on nuclear disarmament issues. After a stint in Prague where he lived during the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968, Butler served in Australia’s mission to the UN in New York and then was assigned to Singapore where he was the deputy high commissioner. Butler accepted a high-ranking job with former Prime Minister Gough Whitlam in 1977, who was then the leader of the opposition Labor Party. After working for Whitlam for several years, Butler returned to diplomacy as the deputy chief of mission in Bonn and then was named to head up the Australian delegation to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Butler was selected as Australia’s first ambassador for disarmament in 1983 by the foreign minister. He led the Australian delegation to the Conference on Disarmament from 1983 to 1988, working on such efforts as the Seabed Treaty, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. He served as Australia’s ambassador to Thailand from 1989 to 1991 and then had a five-year stint as Australia’s ambassador to the United Nations. As a diplomat at the UN, Butler was elected president of the Economic and Social Commission and led a complex and delicate effort to draft the UN’s 50th-anniversary statement in 1995. That same year, Butler chaired the prestigious Canberra Commission on the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons. He was a key participant in a UN effort in 1996 to adopt a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan asked Butler in 1998 to direct UNSCOM to replace Swedish 84 •

People of World Influence diplomat Rolf Ekeus who had been asked by his government to represent it in Washington. Butler said he had devoted years to learning about weapons of mass destruction and crafting treaties and procedures for controlling them and was convinced it was important to try to make this process work in Iraq. The UN passed several resolutions after the 1991 Gulf war that required Iraq to divest of every element of its program for creating or maintaining weapons of mass destruction. The UN set up a four-step disarmament process in which Iraq would declare all of its illegal weapons of mass destruction, UNSCOM and IAEA would verify the accuracy of the declarations, prohibited weapons would be “destroyed, removed or rendered harmless,” and UNSCOM would monitor Iraqi facilities with dual purposes. A tough regime of sanctions was imposed on Iraq until the disarmament process was completed. Butler said Iraq refused to follow these rules on disarmament and that Annan and other UN officials became more intent on trying to find a political solution to the impasse than enforcing international law. He is sharply critical of key members of the Security Council for failing to implement the UN resolutions. The Australian diplomat dismisses the charge that his sometimes combative working style provoked the UN’s rupture with Iraq. “I reject the idea that my diplomatic style was an issue. My ‘diplomatic style’ didn’t make a difference. The notion that it did make a difference is foursquare nonsense. It was a propagandized issue. Iraq had absolutely made up its mind what it wanted to do,” he said. Looking to the future, Butler said the United States must take the lead in rebuilding the consensus in the UN Security Council to enforce the resolutions pertaining to Iraq. The primary U.S. focus, he said, must be repairing relations with Russia. “It’s not beyond the wit or skill of American policy and diplomacy to design a solution to the crisis in security management that might re-engage the cooperation of the Russians,” he said. Butler said the United States should be prepared to treat Russia as a co-equal on this matter and help find creative ways to ensure that Russia is repaid the $8 billion that Iraq owes it. But Butler said the United States should not bend over backwards to accommodate Russia’s desire for regional dominance. “That was yesterday. This is the nuclear age. This is the cyberspace age. It’s not an imperial time. That age is over. It’s a global time,” Butler said. Butler has written a wonderfully vivid book about his experiences at UNSCOM, called The Greatest Threat: Iraq, Weapons of Mass Destruction and the Crisis of Global Security. He is working on a new book on future arms control efforts. Butler credits Les Gelb, president of the council, for suggesting that he write a book that reassesses arms control and its relationship to security in this new world. Conventional thinking on this topic has been overtaken by technology and by the failure to enforce arms control treaties, Butler said. “A very realistic look has to be taken at why countries seek weapons of mass destruction. What drives them to this rather foolish and dangerous decision? What can we do to answer the problems that lead them to think the way they do? What arms control solutions can be designed? And finally, how can we increase the confidence of all in the arms control arrangements?” he said. Butler said that after completing this book he may write one on the profession of diplomacy, •85

John Shaw which he believes is undergoing enormous changes. “I have questioned the usefulness of the traditional craft and how it might be adjusted. Much more diplomacy in the future will be conducted in cyberspace than on the cocktail circuit or at these rather sad dinner tables,” he said. Butler notes that throughout history the focal points of national power have been in palaces, embassies and garrisons but that power now emanates from such entities as IBM, Microsoft and the International Monetary Fund. Diplomatic practices must change to reflect this new world, Butler said. Assessing his career, Butler said he feels fortunate to have been part of the community of arms control and nuclear weapons experts. “My deepest personal commitment has always been in the area of nuclear weapons and nuclear weapon control. I feel privileged to be one of the nuclear cognoscenti. There is something deep inside me that has been touched by the notion that mankind has produced a weapon, locked within which is the power of the sun. He has allowed this weapon to be put into play in ordinary politics so that dictators, genocidal maniacs and religious fundamentals of all faiths can conceivably decide to use that weapon and put everything at risk. Everything. This planet. The people on it. I don’t know of a bigger challenge. This is an extraordinary political and moral challenge,” he said. “It is one aspect of the brilliance of the human mind that it was able to conceive of and manufacture these weapons. But the politics of it are light years behind the intelligence that conceived it. That’s why we need arms control. It’s been a great privilege of my life to be involved in it.” (December, 2000)

86 •

People of World Influence

Senator

Joseph Biden

S

en. Joseph Biden, the senior Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, is not one of those members of the U.S. Congress who serves in quiet anonymity. Outspoken, colorful, and often combative, Biden is often seen—and usually heard—during the major debates on American foreign policy. Biden is described by his colleagues on Capitol Hill as possessing an unusual and effective blend of qualities. He is both a worldclass talker and a remarkably good listener. He is a committed and loyal Democrat who seeks bipartisan solutions to vexing problems. He has strong ideological views but also a keen desire for practical results. “In this business you can stay pure and get nothing done. That’s not why I’m here. I want to get things done,” he said in an interview in his spacious office at the Russell Building in Washington, D.C. Informal, friendly and expansive, Biden is one of the Congress’s most respected leaders on international affairs. He has strong views, vigorously expressed, on reforming the United Nations, slowing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, keeping America engaged in the Balkans and strengthening the fraying ties between the United States and Europe. He is also a practical deal-maker who has helped fashion American security policy and has brokered agreements that revived a stalled chemical weapons treaty and released some of the United States’s back dues to the United Nations. Biden, 58, will become chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee if the Democrats win control of the Senate this November. Even if Democrats remain in the minority, he will be one of the key players in American foreign policy over the next several years. •87

John Shaw Sen. Richard Lugar, a senior Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, said Biden is one of Capitol Hill’s heavyweights on international policy. “Sen. Biden has a very strong commitment to a bipartisan foreign policy and serves as a good example for everyone in Congress. He has a very broad, comprehensive view of the world. He’s a good listener, but he’s also a strong and effective advocate of his position,” he said. Sen. Chuck Hagel, another Republican member of the Foreign Relations panel, is also full of praise for the Democratic senator. “Joe Biden is one of the preeminent foreign policy thinkers in our country,” Hagel said. “You can deal with him. He’s always straight up. He knows what he is talking about. He’s fair, very experienced and a very good listener. He’s a formidable guy who’s also a pleasure to deal with.” Biden said his interest in foreign policy was a central reason that he decided to run for the Senate in 1972 as a 29-year-old attorney in Delaware, challenging a respected Republican incumbent. “I ran for the Senate because the two things I care about most are constitutional issues and foreign policy. The combination of civil rights and foreign policy are very important to me. My first love has always been foreign policy,” he said. Several years after entering the Senate, Biden joined the prestigious Foreign Relations Committee. He recalled his early years on the panel vividly, noting that the committee was packed with some of the most powerful and respected members of Congress: William Fulbright, Hugh Scott, Jacob Javits, Charles Percy, Mike Mansfield, Stuart Symington, George McGovern, Clifford Case and Hubert Humphrey. “It was an incredibly divisive time, but each of the members of the committee truly respected each other. They treated each one with dignity. There still was a continuing belief, even with Vietnam, that disagreements stopped at the water’s edge,” Biden said. Biden was a forceful member of the panel for many years while also serving as chairman of the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee from 1987 to 1995. When the Democrats lost control of the Senate in 1995 and Sen. Claiborne Pell retired in 1996, Biden decided to move into the post of ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee. “Foreign Relations is the only committee where you can be in the minority and still be extremely proactive. You can still push an agenda, especially when there is a president of the same party,” he said. Biden has worked closely with the chairman of the panel, Sen. Jesse Helms, on a host of issues. The two lawmakers negotiated an agreement to pay nearly $1 billion of back U.S. dues to the United Nations after certain reforms are adopted there. Biden believes the so-called Helms-Biden bill was an important step forward and hopes it serves as an impetus for management and organizational reforms at the United Nations. “Whether or not Helms-Biden came along, if it [the United Nations] wants to be relevant in the 21st century it has to do what every other major institution in the world has done: It has to streamline. It has to get its act together. It has to make major changes,” Biden said. He said he would have preferred that the U.S. funds be released without any restrictions, but the Republican majority in Congress was adamantly opposed to this approach. “The dilemma we faced was clear. We could be pure and lose our seat in the UN [General 88 •

People of World Influence Assembly] and have the UN in crisis, or we could accept these conditions which we shouldn’t have had to agree to. That was our real-world choice,” he said. Biden said he wants to revisit the UN funding and reform issue next year, especially if Democrats win control of the Senate and Al Gore wins the presidency. “I view this as a continuing and open question. I think we will be able to meet these goals, but we may have to tweak them legislatively down the road,” he said. Biden said he is encouraged by recent developments at the United Nations and believes the United States has improved its standing in the world body through the hard work of the Clinton administration, especially Ambassador Richard Holbrooke. And he wants the United States to stay engaged at the United Nations. “I don’t see the UN as some shining organization that runs completely smoothly and that is capable of maintaining peace in the world. I see it as something flawed but necessary. I see it as a very, very valuable adjunct to our efforts, with other nations participating, to maintain world peace. I think the UN is a vitally important tool for world peace,” he added. Biden argues that the United States should not be too eager to reduce its contributions to the United Nations or other international organizations. “It’s a simple fact of life. The guy who pays the biggest bill gets to pick the menu,” he said. Biden has been a passionate supporter of arms control and non-proliferation efforts and played an important role in pushing the chemical weapons ban treaty through the Senate in 1997. He is a strong supporter of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and was one of the Democratic senators last year who pleaded with Republican leaders to consider the treaty in the Senate. However, when they did so and it became clear that there weren’t sufficient votes in the Senate to pass the measure, Biden and other Democrats asked Republican leaders to set it aside. The GOP ignored this request, forced a vote, and the test ban treaty was soundly rejected in October 1999. Analysts faulted Democrats for pushing for a vote they couldn’t win and Republicans for seeming more intent on humiliating President Clinton than protecting that national interest. Biden acknowledges that Democrats failed to appreciate how partisan the Senate had become and how determined Republicans were to embarrass the president. The Senate defeat of the CTBT was a serious blow to American prestige, Biden said. “I think it diminished our clout in the world. It seriously put in question our leadership on non-proliferation issues, and it raised questions we are going to have to face when we meet again on non-proliferation,” he said. “It just added to the perception of our allies and enemies alike that there is a decided minority, and possibly a majority, in Congress that are isolationists or unilateralists.” Biden has been one of Capitol Hill’s most articulate and informed commentators on national missile defense proposals. He believes some lawmakers are rushing too quickly to embrace the idea of a national missile defense system without appreciating its potential consequences to the United States’s strategic relationship with Russia, China and other nations. "National missile defense has been resurrected for the same reason that Ronald Reagan initiated it: politics. There is a belief among Republicans and too many Democrats that you run a serious risk unless you support national missile defense,” he said. “I think it has been politically driven. It certainly hasn’t been driven by technology, by science or by practicality,” he added. •89

John Shaw Biden applauded Clinton’s decision not to deploy a system and noted that the fate of missile defense and arms control more generally will be decided by the coming U.S. presidential election. “There is a gigantic difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush. Whoever is elected president is going to make a judgment about whether to abandon 50 years of arms control and move into a new arms race or not,” he said. “I’m not willing to risk undoing 50 years of consensus, from Eisenhower to Clinton, including Reagan, on a strategic doctrine that is predicated on the existing ABM treaty and in which mutual assured destruction is part of the calculus,” he said. “Nothing is more important than national security and arms control. Nothing is more important than reclaiming the mantle of being the world’s leader on non-proliferation and nuclear arms reduction,” he added. Another area the senator is deeply concerned about is the growing political and economic tension between the United States and Europe. Biden is disturbed by what he calls an “unholy symbiosis” in which American isolationism and European anti-Americanism converge and threaten continued U.S. military engagement in Europe. “I believe the single most important strategic, tactical and political alliance we have is NATO. It is vitally important that the U.S. remain a European power for the sake of Europe and the United States,” he said. Biden said that isolationism in Congress as manifested by opposition to keeping U.S. forces in the Balkans and increasing European anti-Americanism, especially in France, must be confronted with frank dialogue. The senator said that America should view its preeminence in world affairs with greater modesty. “Right now we are the winners. But we should be gracious winners. We should take a dose of humility about where we are without apologizing for our system or hiding from our ideas,” he said. “I believe we have to be much more appreciative of our shortcomings. A dose of humility would be well placed and much welcomed. I think we have to be much more sensitive. We are the most powerful nation, in part by pure dumb luck, in part by geography and in large part by our system of government,” he said. Biden is the ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee’s European Affairs subcommittee and is co-chairman of the Senate NATO Observer Group, vice chairman of the Senate Delegation to the North Atlantic Assembly and co-chairman of the Senate National Security Working Group. A practitioner of foreign policy for nearly a quarter of a century, Biden said he has learned to appreciate the need for American leaders to speak clearly and carefully. “Foreign policy is the most uncertain of the sciences. That is why it is critically important that the world understand our global notions, our broad objectives, what we intend. It’s very important that we lay out what motivates us, what matters to us. The greater our power, the greater our dominance, the greater is our responsibility to consult with others,” he said. (November, 2000)

90 •

People of World Influence

Ambassador

Charles W. Freeman Jr.

C

has. W. Freeman Jr. likes to joke that his 30-year career as an American diplomat almost ended shortly after it began. Freeman was a junior diplomat in 1972 working as an interpreter for President Richard Nixon during his historic visit to China. The White House had excluded the State Department from the sensitive preparations for the China summit and department officials were kept in the dark throughout most of the trip. Of particular relevance to Freeman was the difficulty he had in securing an advance copy of Nixon’s toast to Chairman Mao Zedong that he was assigned to interpret. Aware of the importance of Nixon’s remarks and determined to faithfully convey the president’s comments, Freeman insisted that he review the text before the event. When a White House aide said this would not be possible, Freeman declared that he would then be unable to interpret that evening. After heated discussions among White House officials and Nixon’s direct intervention in the matter, a text of the president’s remarks was handed to Freeman, which he reviewed before the important toast. Freeman smiles as recalls the incident. “The China trip was memorable in many, many respects, most particularly because my first act as interpreter was to refuse to interpret,” he said. “Here I was 28, and my first act as an interpreter had been to refuse to carry out the orders of the president of the United States.” But the trip to China went well and Freeman’s career was marked by a succession of important and challenging assignments that placed him near the center of crucial events. These experiences in turn have prompted Freeman to think deeply and write extensively about diplomacy—a profession he calls a “subtle calling” and a “way of life.” •91

John Shaw Freeman grew up in the Bahamas in a family with a strong interest in languages and international affairs. “It was a very cosmopolitan environment. In a sense I had almost to choose to become an American. I made a very deliberate choice that I wanted to identify myself with the United States,” he said. Freeman studied at the Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico and then earned a bachelor’s degree from Yale University and a law degree from Harvard Law School. He entered the U.S. Foreign Service in 1965 and spent three years as a consular official in India. Then he began his long involvement with China, serving initially as a State Department commercial officer to China and the principal American interpreter during Nixon’s visit to that nation in 1972. He was director of Chinese affairs at the State Department from 1979 to 1981 and then worked for nearly four years as charge and deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Beijing. Freeman expanded his Asian experience with a stint as charge and deputy chief of mission in Bangkok from 1984 to 1986. He then returned to Washington as the principal deputy assistant secretary of state for African affairs. Freeman was appointed U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, serving there from 1989 to 1993. He worked as the assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs during the first two years of the Clinton administration and was responsible for managing defense relations with all regions of the world except the former Soviet Union. Looking back over his career, Freeman speaks most vividly about his experiences in China and Saudi Arabia and his foray into African diplomacy. Long fascinated with China, Freeman said he was certain three decades ago that it was going to be a crucial actor on the global stage and a nation the United States needed to better understand. “Early in my diplomatic career I thought there would be exciting developments in the U.S.China relationship,” he said, adding that America’s decades-long decision to effectively ignore China was untenable and unsustainable. His visits to China as a young diplomat were memorable in part because they included glimpses of such important historic figures as Mao Zedong and Zhou Enlai. Freeman recalled several conversations with Zhou about Chinese history and even mentioned to him his difficulty in finding a certain book on Chinese history. Zhou tracked down two original copies of the 18th-century book and donated them to the United States. On another occasion, Freeman was involved in a drinking session with several Chinese army officers who began to criticize Mao and declare their primary loyalty was to Zhou. Uncomfortable that these officers were confiding such controversial ideas to an American diplomat, Zhou quietly escorted Freeman away from the conversation and chatted with him about other topics as the military men were quieted by other officials. Freeman was deeply impressed with Zhou. “One of the measures of his greatness as a statesman was the attention he paid to junior people. A very modest investment of attention by a chief of state on a junior diplomat can pay long-term dividends for decades in terms of goodwill toward the country,” he said. 92 •

People of World Influence Freeman said he is proud of involvement in China, adding that he participated in drafting all three of the U.S.-China communiqués that are the foundation of the bilateral relationship. “I was a participant in every formative event in the relationship,” he said. He was also involved in the high-profile diplomacy in the mid-1980s regarding Africa. “It was a tumultuous period of U.S. policy toward Africa, and I was incredibly lucky. I effectively commuted between Pretoria and Havana helping [then-Assistant Secretary of State] Chet Crocker remove the Cuban presence from Angola and get South Africa out of Namibia, while also trying to catalyze change in South Africa,” he said. “And much to everyone’s astonishment and with no help from Congress, we actually succeeded. We managed to get the Cubans to withdraw from Africa, we managed to get South Africa out of Namibia and help effect Namibia’s independence under a UN resolution and we managed to catalyze change in South Africa,” he said. Freeman also vividly recalls his ambassadorship in Saudi Arabia. Less than a year after his arrival, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, triggering a dramatic buildup of American military forces in the region from August 1990 to January 1991, culminating in the Persian Gulf War. “It was amazingly stressful. It put me nominally in charge of the largest mission in history,” he said, noting that Saudi Arabia requested that all 550,000 American troops be considered part of the embassy staff. He worked closely with the American military leader, Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf. “We had a remarkably cooperative relationship with each other and with our Saudi hosts,” he said, adding that generals and diplomats don’t always view circumstances in the same way. Freeman also worked aggressively to shape how the press viewed the crisis in the region. He conducted hundreds of background briefings to explain the momentous developments in the Gulf. “I wanted to be completely anonymous because that allowed me to get things done at the Saudi end. And I didn’t want anyone in Washington to think I was trying to aggrandize myself. So I was pretty invisible and proud of it,” he said. Although the Gulf War was a military victory, it was far less successful as a political effort, Freeman pointed out. Saddam Hussein is still in power, U.S. troops remain in the region, and tensions over Iraqi sanctions continue to divide the UN Security Council. “I think it’s tragic we didn’t address the political problems of the war more closely, that we didn’t come up with a long-term political strategy,” he added. He said the failure to set clear political objectives was due in part to the unwieldy international coalition that President Bush tried to hold together. “The question of a war is always: Did it produce a better peace? In the case of the Gulf War it is demonstrably not the case that there is a better peace. The war did not produce a better peace. In fact, the war never ended. We did not obtain Saddam’s acquiescence that he had been defeated,” he added. Freeman said the lasting legacy of the war from a personal point of view was the close friendships he developed in Saudi Arabia and the more nuanced and favorable view of the Arab world he took from the experience. Since retiring from the Foreign Service in 1994, Freeman has shifted some of his energy into •93

John Shaw business. He is chairman of Projects International, an international consulting firm that helps clients design and implement business strategies so they can operate overseas. Freeman said that Projects International helps firms identify business partners and relationships and negotiates arrangements for equity investments, joint ventures, operating licenses, franchises, agencies and sales. It also secures necessary government approvals and longterm political support and finds capital in the form of debt or equity. Freeman also remains deeply involved in international affairs. He is the president of the Middle East Policy Council, co-chairman of the U.S.-China Policy Foundation and vice chairman of the Atlantic Council of the United States. He said the posts allow him to study developments in Asia, Europe and the Middle East. Since retiring from the Foreign Service, he has thought deeply about his former profession. He spent a year at the U.S. Institute of Peace as a research fellow and wrote two books on diplomacy. The Arts of Power began as a 1,500-page treatise but was edited down into a 140-page essay on diplomacy and statecraft. The book considers the role of intelligence, political affairs, cultural influences, economic power and military strategy. It also explores diplomatic strategy and tactics, negotiation, and the various tasks and skills necessary for successful diplomacy. If Arts of Power is a tightly argued mediation on diplomacy, Freeman’s second book, The Diplomat’s Dictionary is a fun, breezy compendium of diplomatic lore. Freeman said he had always been surprised that there wasn’t a modern book that compiled the lore of diplomacy and statecraft. The Diplomat’s Dictionary contains hundreds of observations about diplomacy, which are arranged alphabetically from A (abruptness) to Z (zeal). It is packed with ruminations on diplomacy from such notables as Abba Eban, Napoleon Bonaparte, Harold Nicholson, Sophocles, Tacitus, Lord Palmerston, Henry Kissinger, Prince Metternich, Charles De Gaulle, Will Rogers and George Kennan. The dictionary also includes a number of Freeman’s observations that he jotted down over the years. For example: • “Beware of men who can speak a dozen languages and are able to think in none.” • “Peace negotiations are the war after the war.” • “The usual response of international organizations to crises passes through predictable phases: they ignore the problem; they issue a statement of concern about it; they wring their hands while sitting on them; they declare that they remain seized of the matter; they adjourn.” • “If you want someone to deliver your mail to a foreign government get a postal clerk. If you want to communicate effectively, appoint an ambassador in whose professionalism and discretion you trust.” • “Like war, diplomacy is too important a subject to be left to blundering amateurism.... Diplomacy is too portentous to be entrusted to the politicians, but it is too political to be left to the generals. Those who may be fatally affected by diplomacy’s failures have every reason to demand that only its most skilled, professional practitioners represent their interests.” • “A diplomat is someone who never unintentionally insults another person... Enemies should be made on purpose and not by inadvertence.” 94 •

People of World Influence • “A camel is a horse designed by a committee. A platypus is a bird put together by bureaucrats. An elephant is a mouse built to military specifications. A shrimp is a fish conceived in the legislative process.” • “A diplomatic reception is like a mousetrap baited with big cheeses, cigars and canapés. When you are outside you want to get it, and when you are inside the mere sight of other mice makes you want to get out. Still the purpose is to trap mice, and it works.” • “Sanctions usually come too late to deter the misbehavior of the nations on which they are targeted but just in time to save the domestic reputations of the governments that impose them.” • “What is wrong with summits is insufficient preparation, lack of clear purpose, inflated expectations and too much ballyhoo. In short, summits are magnificent entertainment, but are they diplomacy?” Freeman said he is concerned that diplomacy is going through a difficult transition period especially in the United States where it is often devalued. “The American style is to inappropriately slight politics and diplomacy as a way of dealing with national security issues and to overemphasize military and coercive measures,” he said. Freeman noted that American diplomacy has changed because the United States is no longer in a Cold War struggle with the Soviet Union. “There is no clear set of principles that is at stake, no set of interests that are challenged. Things are less fun, and part of it is because what’s at stake is less great. And among the foreign service there has been a loss of a sense of believing it is an elite unit—a sense that only the Marine Corps possesses now,” he said. (October, 2000)

•95

HIGHER EDUCATION: HANDBOOK OF THEORY AND RESEARCH, VOL. XVII

476

People of World Influence

Retired U.S. Air Force General

Charles Boyd

W

orking out of a modest corner office in a nondescript glass and concrete building in Arlington, Va., Charles Boyd spends his days taking long, hard gazes into the future. Boyd is the executive director of the U.S. Commission on National Security for the 21st Century, a special panel that was created to conduct a sweeping review of the nation’s national security goals and structures for the next 25 years. The panel is chaired by two former U.S. senators, Gary Hart and Warren Rudman, and is composed of 14 commissioners from both political parties who have extensive experience in international affairs. Boyd, a retired four-star Air Force general, directs the commission’s staff, organizes the panel’s research, and frames the various policy options that are under consideration. In an interview, Boyd said the panel is doing the most consequential and comprehensive review of American security in 50 years. He is quick to acknowledge that the panel faces two almost equally daunting challenges: first to understand important security trends that are unfolding across the world and identify appropriate policies for the U.S. to implement; and second to publish a report that gains national attention, receives a careful review from the next Congress and president, and stimulates action. “Developing a visionary strategy that is implementable in the real world isn’t easy. In fact it’s really hard. But it can be done and has been done. I don’t see any reason why we can’t do it,” Boyd said. “We hope to set in motion some very significant changes in our security structure. And everywhere we go in our work there is a recognition of the need for this country to change. If we’ve •97

John Shaw heard it one time we’ve heard it a thousand times: ‘You are the last hope. You have to be successful,’” he added. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich came up with the idea of a panel to contemplate America’s security challenges several years ago. He convinced Congress in 1997 that a thorough review of national security processes and structures was needed. In mid-1998 that study was chartered by the secretary of defense and endorsed by the White House and Congress. Defense Secretary William Cohen has called the effort “the most comprehensive review of the national security environment, processes and organizations since the National Security Act of 1947.” “Secretary Cohen envisioned the commission as a gift from this administration to the next,” Boyd said. Boyd was selected to direct the effort and has sought to inject fresh thinking into a domain that tends to resist new ideas. He has organized more than 30 seminars and conferences for the commission so it could consider cultural, political, economic and security trends in the emerging world. Economists, diplomats, military strategists, demographers, historians, political scientists, cultural anthropologists and sociologists have briefed it. The panel has received technical assistance from the State, Defense, Justice, Treasury departments and has worked closely with scores of research groups and think tanks. Boyd also organized an extensive trip in which a number of commissioners visited Hong Kong, China, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, Great Britain, France, Switzerland, Italy, Germany, Belgium, Ukraine, Russia, Turkey, Israel, Egypt, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Pakistan, India, Singapore and Indonesia. The trip was packed with meetings with people from all walks of life and was very useful, Boyd said. “We got a look at where others think security trends are heading. We learned what people think about us, about America’s role in the world, about their perception of how America exercises power. It was fascinating to learn how the world sees us,” he said. Seeking to establish a clear direction for the panel’s deliberations, Boyd organized a debate between two members with very different ideological leanings—the conservative Gingrich and the liberal Les Gelb, president of the Council on Foreign Relations—on how engaged the United States should be with the rest of the world. “After that debate, there was a convergence behind the view that our commission would have as its center of gravity an opportunity-based strategy, as opposed to a reactive or threat-based strategy. This was something we never had during the Cold War,” Boyd said. “The heart of our strategy is that the way to further our own interests is by ensuring that an increasing fraction of the world’s population shares in the benefits of democratization and economic growth. It’s important to devise means to advance opportunities for all people,” he said. The Commission on National Security is issuing its findings in three reports. The first volume, which was released last September, describes the evolving global security climate. The second, which was published in April, lays out a security strategy for the nation. The final report, which will be released early next year, will describe how the institutions and processes of America’s security system should be overhauled to implement this new strategy. Regarding the evolving global security climate, the panel sees a world packed with 98 •

People of World Influence opportunities for the United States but also brimming with potential threats. For example, it says the nation will be increasingly vulnerable to attacks on its own territory and says that conventional military power won’t be able to fully protect the nation’s citizens from violence. “For many years to come Americans will become increasingly less secure and much less secure than they now believe themselves to be.... Americans will likely die on American soil, possibly in large numbers,” it says. It predicts the biggest threat may come from subnational terrorist groups using genetically engineered pathogens or from a cyber-attack on air traffic control systems. The report also argues that advances in information technology and biotechnology will create new vulnerabilities for the country; emerging technologies will divide the world as well as bring it together; the evolving global economic infrastructure will shape the security of all advanced nations; energy resources will continue to have a major strategic significance; all borders will become more porous; and sovereignty of states will come under increasing pressure but will endure. The panel also predicts that fragmentation and failure of states will occur and be destabilizing; future foreign crises will be replete with atrocities that will challenge national morale; space will be a key component of the military environment; the U.S. will be called upon frequently to intervene in crises; and the emerging security environment will require military and national capacities that emphasize stealth, speed, range, accuracy, mobility and lethality. In its second volume on a new national security strategy, the panel says a new strategy should focus on defending the United States and ensuring its safety. The strategy says the nation should maintain social cohesion, economic cohesiveness, technological ingenuity and military strength. It should help integrate China, Russia and India into the international system and promote the dynamism of the global economy and improve the effectiveness of international institutions and international law. Also, it should adapt alliances and other regional mechanisms to a new era in which America’s partners will seek greater autonomy and responsibility, and help the international community tame the disintegrative forces spawned by relentless change. Reviewing the detailed and highly nuanced findings, Boyd said the panel believes it is crucial for the United States to focus on key challenges and the big picture. “A lot of careful thought went into the prioritizing in this report. The commission believes we should do the heavy lifting first and make sure the causes of instability are being addressed,” he said. “Unless you integrate Russia, China and India into the world community, all bets are off. Those are big powerful countries that can cause instability over a very large fraction of the world’s surface.” In its final volume, the panel will consider how the nations’s national security apparatus should be overhauled. Boyd said the panel, which meets several times a month, is now examining how to reform America’s security institutions, ensure homeland safety and recruit and retain quality people to manage and implement security policy. He hopes the three reports will stimulate a wide national debate and get careful attention from Congress, the White House and the wider foreign policy •99

John Shaw community in 2001. “The timing of our final report is no accident. It is designed to make available a really thoughtful work based on great reflection for a new government that has no reason to protect that which is in place,” he said. Boyd hopes the report will challenge Americans to think more rigorously about the future. “The world is changing more rapidly than most Americans understand, and our ability to respond is not changing at the same rate. There are more diverse opportunities than we are accustomed to and that complexity is going to increase. It’s not going to be static, and it certainly won’t get simpler. So you need a strategy and structures and mechanisms that are far more effective, efficient and agile than any we have known before,” he said. Boyd brings to his current job a clear mind, gentle demeanor, vast experience and remarkable life story. A native of Rockwell City, Iowa, he joined the Air Force in 1959 as a young man with a passion for flying. “I was a young kid from Iowa who wanted to fly jet aircraft. And I had the opportunity to do it. What began there has led to a wide range of opportunities and interesting challenges. But it all started with a kid who wanted to be a jet fighter pilot,” he said. Commissioned as a second lieutenant through the aviation cadet program, he later served in a variety of assignments in Europe, the Pacific and the continental United States. He is a command pilot and flew F-105s in Southeast Asia during the Vietnam War. Boyd’s plane was shot down outside of Hanoi in 1966 and the North Vietnamese captured him. He spent seven years as a prisoner of war. “That experience helped make me a person who prioritizes things. It helped give me a sense of what is actually meaningful in life, an ability to concentrate on those things and ignore what isn’t important,” he said. “It also helped give me a sense of caution about what I’d be willing to send American boys and girls to do. It should be a pretty important job if Americans are going to risk their lives,” he said. Boyd’s valor in Vietnam earned him some of the American military’s most prestigious awards and decorations including the Air Force Cross, Distinguished Service Medal, Silver Star, Legion of Merit, Distinguished Flying Cross, Bronze Star and Purple Heart. After he was finally released from North Vietnam in 1973, Boyd continued his ascent through the ranks, becoming lieutenant colonel in 1975, colonel in 1979, brigadier general in 1985, major general in 1987, lieutenant general in 1990 and then general in 1992. In 1992, he was selected as deputy commander in chief of the U.S. European Command in Germany. There he supervised the daily activities of a unified command over an area encompassing 82 countries and more than 13 million square miles. After retiring from the military in 1995, Boyd headed up the 21st Century International Legislator’s Project, which was designed to link elected officials worldwide via the Internet. He also led several fact finding missions to the Balkans and has written extensively on the serious challenges the United States will face in that region. When Boyd completes his work with the commission early next year, he plans to take some time off, travel through Italy on an extensive bike trip and ponder his future. He is determined to stay active in the debate about American security. 100 •

People of World Influence “The things that truly interest me now are the big strategic questions,” he said. “How is the nation going to provide for its security in a world that is changing very rapidly and will continue to change very rapidly? That’s a big, important question, and I don’t expect this commission is going to have all the answers.” (September, 2000)

•101

HIGHER EDUCATION: HANDBOOK OF THEORY AND RESEARCH, VOL. XVII

476

People of World Influence

Foreign Policy Editor

Moises Naim

F

our years ago Moises Naim decided to make an aggressive effort to land his dream job: the editorship of Foreign Policy magazine. The long-time editor of Foreign Policy, Charles William Maynes, had decided to step down after 15 years at the helm of the journal and a search committee was looking for his successor. Foreign Policy, which is published by the Carnegie Endowment of International Peace, is one of the U.S.’s preeminent foreign policy magazines, and Maynes had used it as an important forum for debating American foreign policy. Naim acknowledges he was an unconventional candidate for the job but nonetheless submitted his resume and a memo explaining why he wanted the position and what he would do if he got it. A former business school professor and dean, cabinet minister in Venezuela, World Bank executive, and research fellow at the Carnegie Endowment, Naim’s background was primarily in international business and finance rather than international relations or journalism. In addition to an intriguing background, Naim offered a clear view of the world and a strong sense of the role he wanted Foreign Policy to play in explaining global developments. In his memo, Naim argued that the traditional definitions of international relations and diplomacy are no longer adequate to understand the world and that the relations between sovereign states, mediated by senior diplomats, are only a small part of what is important. He said that a powerful array of new forces and actors are participating in the debate on international affairs and are drastically altering the way the world organizes its functions. Naim predicted that international finance and economics would be increasingly important and the connections between global economics, politics and security need to be studied closely. •103

John Shaw He added that traditional notions of sovereignty are under siege and will be further challenged in the future. While the audience for a traditional foreign policy magazine is limited, there is a much broader potential audience of people who are deeply interested in international politics, business and culture, Naim said. “I argued that this new agenda needed a vehicle to disseminate the best available thinking in the world. And I said that Foreign Policy had a very powerful convening power to bring together the best thinkers and practitioners to explain what is going on in the world,” Naim said in an interview at his spacious office on Massachusetts Avenue. After a highly competitive, global search, Naim was selected as editor and publisher of Foreign Policy. Morton Abramowitz, then the president of the Carnegie Endowment, said the search committee was convinced that Naim was the best person to take the magazine into the next century. Abramowitz said that at a time when U.S. foreign policy is coming to terms with the forces of globalization and rapid change, Naim’s international reputation and understanding of global economic and political trends would be invaluable assets. “It was quite a surprise when the search committee recommended me,” Naim said. “I am the first non-American editor for a magazine that was founded to be a voice and vehicle for the debate of American foreign policy.” Naim said he is pleased by the changes that have been made to Foreign Policy since he took over in February of 1997. The improvements, he said, have given the journal more punch, heft and have positioned it to be an increasingly important voice in the global affairs debate. Under Naim’s leadership, Foreign Policy has introduced a half dozen new features. They include a Think Again section that challenges conventional wisdom on important issues, interviews with major international thinkers and practitioners, reviews of key foreign language books, a global newsstand that surveys overseas journals, a guide to significant international affairs Web sites, and a section at the end of each article that suggests additional reading. “We have broadened our intellectual scope and are exploring themes not usually covered by international affairs publications. Our approach has been inspired by the fundamental changes taking place in the world of international politics, economics and security,” he said. Foreign Policy has been doing well, with renewals, newsstand sales and revenues moving upward. The journal is available in 128 nations and can be read in more than a half dozen languages. And as Foreign Policy celebrates its 30th anniversary this year, it is being relaunched with a new format, additional features and a publication schedule that will be expanded from four to six times a year. The relaunched September/October edition will arrive at newsstands in late August. Rather than the current run of 44,000, there will be about 100,000 copies distributed. Naim said the new format will be even more reader friendly but the journal will stay focused on the desires of those interested in various aspects of international affairs. “Our main purpose is to surprise our readers with rigorous material that presents ideas that they have not thought about before. We’ve made a very big effort to have new voices, different voices. Our only rule is that we offer rigor, but not rigor mortis. We want strongly analytical pieces, but they should not be boring,” he said. 104 •

People of World Influence “You can’t justify writing in a way that is not accessible. It’s not true that to be profound and rigorous you have to be boring, inaccessible and impenetrable. You can be irreverent, interesting and accessible and not require your readers to have a Ph.D. to understand what you are writing,” he said. Friendly, courtly and intense, Naim has an extensive background in international affairs. A native of Venezuela, he has a masters of science and a doctorate from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He taught at the Instituto de Estudios Superiores de Administracion in Caracas and later served as a dean of the business school from 1980 to 1986. He was appointed as Venezuela’s Minister of Trade and Industry in 1989 and played a central role in launching major economic reforms in Venezuela. Naim served as an executive director of the World Bank from 1990 to 1992. He returned to the bank in 1996 as an adviser to the president and led a team charged with developing a new global strategy for the bank and its affiliates. He was a senior associate of the Carnegie Endowment from 1992 to 1996, working on projects on global economic reform, trade and investment challenges for developing nations and the impact of globalization on international financial markets. Naim said the overarching challenge of Foreign Policy is to chronicle—and hopefully anticipate—the sweeping changes that are being driven by globalization. Globalization, he noted, is altering forever the routines, habits, positions and privileges that people have maintained. “We think of ourselves as the premier source on globalization. But we’re very careful not to overuse the word. It’s very easy to move from globalization to globaloney. In each edition, we identify specific examples of globalization and dissect them,” he said. Naim said he is constantly looking around the world for the most important ideas and trends in international affairs and then finding the best people to write about them. Naim begins each work day by reading the Financial Times, Washington Post, and New York Times newspapers at home. When he gets to his office, he reads various European, Asian and Latin American papers on the Internet. He is usually reading two or three books about international affairs and reviews other foreign policy magazines to see what the competition is writing about. Naim spends about a third of his time on the road, speaking and hosting conferences. He manages a staff of about 20, reads manuscripts and searches for important ideas and developments that will shape the world. With more than 100 international journals now published in English, he is constantly looking for ways to make Foreign Policy stand out. Naim said he relishes his work at Foreign Policy and is determined to use the journal to frame the debate on international affairs. “Being a cabinet minister at a time of drastic change in my country was one of the most exciting things I’ve done. But this is the best job I’ve ever had. I’m an intellectual and academic at heart. My incursion into government was something accidental and a detour in a career that has concentrated on writing and reading,” he said. Naim finds time to work on his own projects. He is one of six members of Time magazine’s international board of economists and is the author or editor of eight books and numerous articles. His most recent book, Altered States: Globalization, Sovereignty and Governance, was co-authored by Gordon Smith, a Canadian diplomat and scholar. •105

John Shaw His writing focuses on the political economy of international trade and investment, multilateral organizations, economic reforms and globalization. He has written extensively on Latin America as that region has embraced democratic and market institutions with varying degrees of enthusiasm. “It’s very important for an editor to have his own research and writing or otherwise you dry up. You have to have a way of expressing your ideas,” he said. One of the issues that intrigues Naim is the apparent backlash against globalization. While he disagrees with many of the views of the opponents of globalization, he believes their views should be taken seriously and their arguments should be responded to. “The decade of the ’90s began in Berlin with the fall of the wall and ended in Seattle with the protest against many of the trends that were unleashed by the fall of the wall. The bricks that people collected as souvenirs from the Berlin Wall in 1989, they tossed through the windows of McDonald’s in 1999,” he said. Naim believes emphasis should now be placed on building workable governing institutions for the globalization era. As the world is being more tightly integrated, individual governments face problems they can’t handle alone such as narcotics trafficking, environmental degradation, terrorism, and epidemics, he said. “At the same time the demand for effective collective action of multiple governments is booming, the supply of this is either stagnant or declining. The world needs more governments working together and the world has less capacity for creating institutions that are effective. The number of problems that can’t be solved by any single government, regardless of its power or wealth, is soaring,” he added. Naim believes the United Nations should be at the center of improved global governance.He said that a stronger, more effective, United Nations is badly needed. He hopes the UN’s Millenium Assembly that will be held in New York this September will launch an important debate on globalization and governance. A productive meeting would consist of candid, direct discussions between world leaders in small groups rather than “another sterile episode of set speeches and empty promises,” he noted. Regardless of what is accomplished in New York this fall, Naim will keep pushing to ensure that Foreign Policy remains at the heart of the global discussion. And he wants the magazine’s readers to actually enjoy reading it. “We don’t want people to read us because it’s good for them,” he said. “We want people to read us because it’s enjoyable, and in the process they familiarize themselves with some of the most interesting ideas in the world by the leading practitioners, policy makers and intellectuals. We want to provide a very good summary of the major ideas they need to know about.” (August, 2000)

106 •

People of World Influence

Former British Diplomat

Jonathan Clarke

A

s a British diplomat, Jonathan Clarke was required to keep his personal views to himself and to quietly advance his nation’s foreign policies. He did this dutifully for two decades, but now that Clarke has retired from the British Foreign Service, he is taking full advantage of his new freedom as a writer and lecturer to say what he really thinks about international affairs. And his ideas have come fast and furious. In books, essays and speeches, Clarke has outlined interesting, often provocative, views on a wide range of subjects: NATO expansion, the struggles of the British Conservative and the American Republican parties, the wars in Bosnia and Kosovo, the future of the European Union, Austria’s controversial leader Joerg Haider, the United States’ policy toward Taiwan and an upgraded role for the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe. Affable and self-deprecating, Clarke speaks softly but writes with a penetrating, often sharp, pen. He has described Margaret Thatcher’s policy toward the European Union as “untenable, crassly inconsistent” and based on a “mixture of arrogance, ignorance, self-indulgence and self deception.” He has called Europe’s military performance “scandalous” and argued that American “improvisation and reactivity” often characterize its foreign policy. Clarke has blasted NATO as “an obsolescent institution that is addressing phantom problems” and ridiculed the recent debate over its expansion. “For reasons that no one can articulate clearly and at costs that no one can estimate, NATO is set to expand, almost by inertia. New guarantees are being extended about which no one is •107

John Shaw certain, which will not be supported by real resources and which the advocates of expansion expect will never be invoked,” he wrote. The son of a British civil servant, Clarke relishes the opportunity to be a global affairs gadfly. Now 51, he was born in Hong Kong and traveled extensively with his family during his youth. “I grew up traveling all over the world. I grew up with international affairs ingrained in my bones,” he said in an interview. He studied history and international affairs at Oxford as well as Greek, Latin and Chinese. After graduating from Oxford, he was awarded fellowships to study in Taiwan and then Germany. Clarke entered the British Foreign Service in 1973. After training in London, he worked in Germany for several years. Then Clarke returned to London to focus on African issues. It was during this time that the United Kingdom was helping orchestrate the transition from Rhodesia to Zimbabwe. Deeply immersed in the issue, Clarke was assigned to Zimbabwe in 1980. He recalled his four years there fondly. “It was an absolutely wonderful time. It was a time of exceptional professional interest, in part because the UK-Zimbabwe relationship was very intense. At that time, we thought there was everything to play for. I think everyone was very optimistic at that point. There was a very optimistic feeling that problems would be addressed,” he said. He said that Zimbabwe’s recent unrest has been a “terrible disappointment” for those British diplomats who lived in that nation during its early days of promise in the 1980s. When Clarke returned to London, he shifted into Central American issues. While the United Kingdom’s interests in Central America were modest, U.S. President Ronald Reagan was obsessed with developments in the region. Clarke was struck by the vastly different perspectives of the United States and United Kingdom about the region. Clarke was assigned to the U.K. Embassy in Washington between 1988 and 1992. This was a period of “really dramatic developments,” he said, referring to the fall of the Berlin Wall, Germany unification and the Persian Gulf War. While the United Kingdom and United States enjoyed cordial relations, Clarke said there were “some pretty difficult phases” between the two nations, including a sharp disagreement over German unification. “The Americans were totally clear about where they stood on German unification. They were for it,” he said. “Their handling of German unification was one of the unwritten triumphs of the post-Cold War world. The Americans handled it so skillfully, so professionally, so unobtrusively. It was a very good example of professional diplomacy. It was an extremely complicated affair that was handled with great finesse,” he said. Clarke said his time at the British Embassy in Washington was stimulating but also persuaded him that it was time to retire from the diplomatic corps. “It is somehow not as much fun to be a diplomat. Instead of having a great deal of independence and being able to give advice, you are less relevant. In Washington at the embassy, you sometimes get to feel as if you are some superior kind of travel agent,” he said. “Diplomacy has changed a tremendous amount to the detriment of the embassies. It’s not as much of a challenge for diplomats oversees. It’s still very challenging for diplomats in the capital cities,” he said. Clarke decided to launch a new career of writing, lecturing and consulting. He worked with 108 •

People of World Influence James Clod, a former New Zealand diplomat, on a book called After the Crusade,” which examined American foreign policy after the end of the Cold War. He has been a guest scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Center, is a fellow at the Cato Institute and has provided commentaries for the British Broadcasting Corp., National Public Radio and CNBC. He has written major articles for the Atlantic Monthly, Foreign Affairs, National Interest and the London Daily Telegraph. He writes a regular syndicated column for the Los Angeles Times. Clarke said his writing and thinking in Washington have focused on two themes: First, that average Americans should pay more attention to international affairs and ensure foreign policy is part of the national policy debate. And second, that American leaders should sort through the flood of issues and challenges, focus on a few crucial priorities and handle these issues competently. He sees a clear connection between the two themes, arguing that a more engaged American citizenry would demand a scaled-back, sharply focused and consistent U.S. foreign policy. “Americans aren’t isolationists. They just want to know that their foreign policy is worthwhile, is being done well and makes sense,” he said. U.S leaders continue to have a hyperactive, Cold War mentality, he said. The United States should view the Cold War era as a highly unusual period and recognize that America’s massive projection of power during the Cold War is not the nation’s historic norm, he argued. American policymakers are trying to do too much and as a result are frequently bogged down with peripheral issues and don’t pay adequate attention to the handful of major issues that really count, he said. “The role the U.S. can best play is that of balancer of last resort, the nation that makes sure things don’t get out of hand. It should use all of its ammunition on substantial issues,” he said. “The top leadership should concentrate on broad, strategic matters rather than getting caught up in every event in the world. You can get sucked into firefighting. You can just get blown around by events. The U.S.’s role in the world is to keep the big pieces in some order.” Clarke believes the vital interests of the United States are its relationships with the Europe Union, Russia, China, Japan, Canada and Mexico. He faults the Clinton administration for episodic interest in foreign policy and for spending an enormous amount of time on “substrategic issues,” such as Kosovo and Bosnia. Clarke said the problems in former Yugoslavia could have been handled with less anguish and bloodshed if the Europeans had been given more support in the early 1990s to advance their ideas. He said the problems in the Balkans are essentially a European responsibility and could have been handled adequately by Europe—if they had been allowed to do so. The United States should give Europeans more flexibility to manage events across Europe, Clarke said. “The Europeans believe the Americans will never stop backseat driving. This undermines the Europeans’ self-confidence. They’re afraid the big boy is going to come in and mess up their chess board,” he said. The United States should support the fledgling European security and defense initiative and make it clear that it expects the Europeans to boost defense spending significantly to show they are serious, he said. A revamped OSCE would be the best instrument to project European power because it •109

John Shaw includes all NATO and Warsaw Pact members as well as the new nations of the former Soviet Union, Clarke said. The former diplomat said that U.S. leaders talk too loosely—and often irresponsibly—about international affairs. Careful words that explain clear policies are essential, he said. “Rhetoric is often responsible for bad policy, especially when it transparently lacks credibility. Americans need to be inspired, fired up, engaged. But rhetoric needs to be based on what you actually expect to do,” he said. “This is important. People can be misled. America is such a powerful country you need to make sure it’s predictable. It’s incumbent on the U.S. to foreshadow what it will do. It’s OK if you’re a small power to keep people guessing, to be crafty, clever, to maneuver. But it’s not appropriate for the standard setting power—which is what the U.S. is,” he said. American leaders should frequently discuss international affairs and not only bring up these matters during times of crisis, he said. “Foreign policy shouldn’t be a ghetto or a freak. It should be part of the continuum of the public debate like health care, social security and the stock market. Everyone can talk about it. It’s not just for specialists.” Clarke has worked with his colleague Stefan Halper to create a small foundation that seeks to raise the quantity and quality of attention Americans pay to international affairs. The American Journalism Foundation sends small groups of American journalists overseas to learn and write about a specific country. In the course of a year, about 50 journalists will visit that nation, building a network of expertise around the United States on the country. The foundation has sent American journalists to Romania, Japan, Chile, and Greece. It is developing a program for Cuba and contemplating one for India and possibly a program that focuses on Islam. The foundation is funded by private sector donations. Clarke hopes this initiative can boost interest in international affairs and encourage American leaders to devote more attention to foreign policy. “It’s important that a lot of thinking and smart decision-making goes into foreign policy. These issues are complicated and not that easy to get right. It’s a highly challenging discipline.” (July, 2000)

110 •

People of World Influence

Ambassador

John Wolf

A

mbassador John Wolf, the U.S. special envoy for Caspian Basin energy policy, has a photograph in his office that most diplomats would die for. It shows Wolf briefing President Bill Clinton in Istanbul last November, just minutes before Clinton was to meet with the leaders from the Caspian region. The picture is not your typical, staged shot in which a smiling president throws his arms around a person he doesn’t know. Rather, it shows Clinton, with reading glasses on and looking very intense, holding a document and peering at Wolf as the ambassador reviews some of the issues that will be discussed at the coming event. In that meeting, the leaders of Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan and Turkey signed an agreement to support a pipeline that would carry Caspian oil to ports in the West through a route that passes from Baku in Azerbaijan through Tbilisi in Georgia to Ceyhan in Turkey. Clinton also observed the leaders sign a declaration of intent to build a second major pipeline that would carry the enormous gas resources of Turkmenistan through a pipeline under the Caspian Sea to Baku and then on to another Turkish port. “Today [these countries] have the freedom. They have the security. And today their leaders have shown the vision that will enable this ancient crossroads once again to light the world and brighten all our futures,” Clinton said, clearly exulting in the moment. “It doesn’t get much better than that,” Wolf said recalling his briefing with Clinton and the historic meeting that followed in Istanbul. “On this issue, he is very focused and very involved. This is a presidential initiative,” Wolf said in his seventh-floor office in the State Department. •111

John Shaw “It’s a thrill to be involved in a big issue. This is not an off-the-horizon thing. We’ve got the attention of the U.S. government and enormous attention from other participating governments. To see the leaders of these countries sit down in Istanbul last November, that was an important milestone for the development of the region,” he added. The U.S. president has backed the construction of several new pipelines as part of an aggressive strategy to ensure Western access to the vast energy resources of Central Asia and the Caucasus. Clinton has described his administration’s efforts to encourage the production and distribution of Caspian Sea energy reserves as one of the key initiatives of his presidency. Wolf has served as the special adviser to the president and secretary of state for Caspian Basin energy diplomacy since last July. He succeeded Richard Morningstar who held the Caspian post for about a year. Morningstar is now the U.S. ambassador to the European Union. A native of Philadelphia, Wolf is a graduate of Dartmouth College and a 30-year veteran of the U.S. Foreign Service. He is one of the stars of a new breed of American diplomats who specialize in economic and commercial issues. Wolf entered the foreign service in 1970 and has served in posts of steadily ascending responsibility in Australia, Vietnam, Greece, Pakistan and Washington. Wolf was principal deputy assistant secretary of state for international organization affairs from 1989 to 1992, a period in which multilateral diplomacy was prominent. He served as the U.S. ambassador to Malaysia from 1992 to 1995, winning wide praise and a prestigious State Department award for his aggressive promotion of the strategic and economic interests of the United States. “Malaysia was not a country at the center of U.S. foreign policy,” he said. “It was one of those ignored, important countries. It was a non-crisis country, and non-crisis countries tend to get relatively less attention. But non-crisis countries often offer very significant opportunities for U.S. national interests,” he said. While in Kuala Lumpur, Wolf implored his staff to find promising opportunities rather than just confront problems that piled up on their desks. During his tenure in Malaysia, that nation moved from the 19th to the 11th largest market for American exports. Among his initiatives, Wolf persuaded Malaysian leaders to consider purchasing American military aircraft. After an elaborate bid and negotiation process, Malaysia decided to buy eight F/A 18 Hornet aircraft from McDonnell Douglas based in St. Louis. The American firm earned $700 million from the sales, which generated thousands of jobs in the United States. Wolf said that he drew several lessons from that experience, including the importance of faceto-face contact, the fact that bids are won on the basis of price, quality and timeliness, the importance of linking commercial sales to a nation’s overall strategy, the strong desire of business leaders to negotiate with other chief executive officers, and the patience required to conduct business in Asia. Wolf was named U.S ambassador for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum in 1995. He was determined to use the post to do more than just talk about lofty issues such as free trade and open markets. He studied specific sectors and encouraged business and government partnerships to undertake important projects. “This was a true, ‘find an opportunity, come up with a strategy and see if it works’ initiative. We tried to create some practical results with real business impact,” he said. 112 •

People of World Influence “I looked at it at the transaction level,” he said, adding he worked on such projects as streamlining Shanghai’s port customs administration, liberalizing aviation in the region, and creating integrated gas infrastructure and distribution systems. “This was exciting,” he said. “It was not headline stuff. It was not even story stuff. But it could make a difference for business. The important thing is to build confidence and keep building and building and building. You don’t always know how far you can go. But you can go pretty far.” He said his work in Malaysia and APEC has convinced him that there are huge opportunities in relatively low-profile diplomatic assignments. “There are these jobs that operate outside the mainstream—almost out of sight. But they are great because you are able to use initiative, really be creative and work without the bureaucracy cramping down on you,” he said. Analysts believe the energy reserves of the Caspian region will exceed those of the North Sea and will be increasingly important in the 21st century. While some of the early reports of Caspian oil and gas reserves were probably too optimistic, Wolf said there are substantial resources in the region. A number of international oil companies have plunged into the Caspian energy scramble as have regional powers, such as Russia, China, Turkey and Iran. American and European governments have also demonstrated a great interest in the region following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Wolf noted that his mandate includes strengthening the independence and prosperity of new states of the Caspian region, bolstering U.S. energy security by ensuring the free flow of new sources of hydrocarbons to world markets, re-establishing economic links among the new states of the Caspian region to mitigate regional conflicts, and improving business opportunities for companies from the United States and other countries. “My job is not just to put through an energy corridor,” he said. “In fact, an energy corridor could exacerbate the problems if we don’t actively encourage the rule of law, credible social and political institutions, the elimination of corruption, and ensure that the benefits of this wealth are shared and not just siphoned off by a select few.” The United States is still searching for the best way to encourage the development of the region’s oil and gas reserves. One of the key issues the United States is grappling with is the optimum way to transport the Caspian’s oil and gas to Western markets. The United States has supported five specific regional pipelines: the Caspian Pipeline Consortium, which began construction last November; the Baku-Novorossisk oil pipeline, which began operating in November, 1997; the Baku-Supsa oil pipeline, which became operational last April; the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan main export pipeline, which is expected to be ready in 2004; and the Trans-Caspian Gas Pipeline, which is projected to be operational in 2002 to carry gas from Turkmenistan to Azerbaijan and then across Georgia to Turkey. In supporting these pipeline projects, Wolf travels frequently to the region. He has been in Turkey several dozen times and has held meetings in the other nations in region. Wolf relishes the intricate game of geopolitical chess he plays as he deals with international energy companies, regional governments and a host of American governmental agencies. One of Wolf’s daunting tasks has been to break through the bureaucratic infighting in Washington and to help fashion and explain a coherent U.S. policy for the region. He pointed out there has been enormous interest within the American government about the •113

John Shaw Caspian region given the issues at stake with Iran, Russia, and Turkey and vast sums of potential profits for private companies. The president, vice president, the secretaries of state, energy, commerce, transportation and others have carefully followed developments in the Caspian. “Because it is so interesting, there was a lot of bureaucratic confusion. Not everybody was saying quite the same thing in quite the same way. Not surprisingly, a lot of people in the region were confused and had unrealistic expectations about the degree to which we were able to make policy happen,” he said. With the clock running down on the Clinton administration, Wolf hopes to see tangible progress on two projects: the 1,250-mile natural gas pipeline from Turkmenistan to Erzurum in Turkey and the 1,080 oil pipeline from Baku to Ceyhan. Wolf believes the United States has played a constructive role in developing the region’s energy resources. “It’s not some Great Game we are involved in. We have no territorial interests, and our economic interests are not dominant. We share with Turkey a vision to see these countries as independent, politically self-confident, and economically capable. Getting energy to markets is not enough,” Wolf added. “This is a unique effort to get producer countries to cooperate for an interest that is larger than theirs alone. The objective is to promote regional cooperation, to move supplies of energy from the Caspian region to world markets,” he said. He said American actions have helped precipitate events in the region. Wolf said the United States has encouraged talks among the relevant nations, between private companies and the governments, and has pledged the resources of its various financing agencies to support the construction of the pipelines. He bristles at the criticism that America’s strong interest in the region is cynical or selfish. “Look, these are important countries,” he said. “Their location is strategic, and they have significant energy resources that will make a tangible contribution to world supplies if they can get these supplies to market,” he said. “These countries are where they are and have what they have. The U.S. can’t do everything, everywhere. We should do the things that we do well and remember we have global responsibilities,” he said. Wolf is also quick to respond to those who challenge the increased prominence of economic diplomacy. “Instantaneous communication and globalization have changed traditional diplomacy. Traditional diplomacy is impossible. Traditional diplomacy—with the envoy quilling a memorandum to the secretary of state and placing it in a sailing packet—is over,” he said. Wolf said he is delighted with the path his career has taken, adding that he relishes the opportunity to work on specific, concrete projects that lead to tangible accomplishments. “It’s been a super 30 years. I tell young foreign service officers to look for assignments that are fun, that engage your creativity, your energy. And then look for another. With hard work, good fortune and a little luck you will find your way forward.” (June, 2000)

114 •

People of World Influence

European Institute President

Jacqueline Grapin

J

acqueline Grapin, the president and co-founder of the European Institute, has developed a daily ritual to ensure that she fully understands the perspectives of both Europeans and Americans. She begins each morning by carefully going through leading American newspapers, magazines and foreign policy journals, then in the evening she sets aside time to carefully study the European press. “It’s very important for my work. It’s part of the balancing process,” she said. Warm and gracious, Grapin speaks proudly about the accomplishments of the European Institute, which celebrated its tenth anniversary last year, and is the leading research group in Washington focusing on the complex U.S.-European relationship. Grapin said the overriding goal of the institute is to facilitate a balanced, substantive dialogue between Americans and Europeans on important issues. “In everything we do at the European Institute—our funding, our programs, our staff—we try to be half European and half American. We are very balanced and I consider myself the guarantor of this neutrality,” she added. The institute seeks to bridge the differences between Americans and Europeans and to strengthen the US-European relationship. It tries to anticipate important issues that will arise between Europe and the United States and encourage quiet, informal discussions to resolve them before they erupt into a crisis. And if a trans-Atlantic crisis does break out, the institute is willing to serve as a neutral forum to discuss the dispute and settle the outstanding issues. •115

John Shaw “We serve as an early warning system and, when needed, as a conflict resolution center. We try to work informally and we’ve found that because of the freedom that people have in these meetings, their margin of maneuver is a little bit larger,” she said. “Often the most interesting moment during our meetings are the silences. This is a time when people are really considering their positions. This is a key moment when you can see that people are rethinking their positions, and something important is going on,” she added. In its regular work, the European Institute organizes briefings, working groups, seminars, roundtable discussions, and conferences and also conducts long-term policy projects. It’s an independent forum for business leaders, government officials, journalists, academics and policy experts to discuss pertinent policy matters. The institute sponsors programs that consider such topics as financial services and the implementation of the euro, trade and investment, competition and industry alliances, energy and the environment, multimedia and telecommunications, aeronautics and space, defense and procurement policies, trans-Atlantic regulatory convergence, integration of Central European nations into the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and trans-Atlantic relations with Asia and Latin America. The institute has become a venue for American and European leaders to make policy addresses. For example, the current president of the European Commission, Romano Prodi, sketched out his agenda during a policy speech at the institute during his first official visit to Washington, D.C. The institute has also begun publishing a quarterly journal, European Affairs, that serves as a forum for leading Americans and Europeans to discuss policies and to showcase the findings of recent institute meetings. Grapin says a big part of the institute’s work is helping Americans and Europeans better understand each other. She said the strong bonds that once joined the two are loosening as the World War II generation fades from the scene and a new generation comes to power with fewer feelings of trans-Atlantic kinship. “The new generation, which hasn’t gone through World War II, doesn’t have the same intuitive belief that we should stick together. For the new generation, what we need to do is to demonstrate rationally that it makes more sense for the United States and Europe to stick together,” she said. The institute also seeks to bridge cultural differences between Americans and Europeans. “We like each other. We’ve known each other for a long time. We look more or less alike. So we don’t realize the extent of our differences. But our differences are very deep in terms of our traditional behavior, our institutional histories, in certain of our reactions to things. Americans and Europeans tend to think the other is the same. But we are not the same. While having very common interests and fundamentally common values and common backgrounds, Americans and Europeans are very different,” she said. 116 •

People of World Influence “One of our main functions at the institute is to help people translate English into English. Everyone speaks English but they don’t always mean the same thing with the same words,” she added. The inspiration for creating the institute was sparked by a conversation Grapin had in 1988 with Jacques Delors, then the president of the European Commission and one of the leading architects of European integration. Grapin, then a Washington correspondent for Le Figaro, was in Paris for a short visit and spoke with Delors at a dinner party. Delors asked Grapin about the mood in Washington and the perception in the United States about developments in Europe. She told him that Americans tended to view European integration, when they thought about it at all, with suspicion, even alarm. She said Americans feared Europe was intent on erecting a fortress to keep out the rest of the world. Troubled by this perception, Delors and Grapin talked about creating an institution to provide accurate information about developments in both Europe and America and to serve as a forum to discuss issues. “We thought there was the need for an institution that would be independent, that would not be European or American, but would be half and half,” she said. “We thought it would help the two capital cities to discuss matters of mutual interest, mostly with regard to European integration and trans-Atlantic relations.” Grapin returned to Washington and fleshed out the idea of the institute and raised funds. The following year, Delors came to Washington to inaugurate the institute. It has been going strong ever since. Grapin now has a staff of about 15 and an annual budget of about $1.5 million. She noted that Americans tend to be wary of projects that are subsidized by government, while Europeans take more seriously organizations in which governments are involved. “So we needed to have governments, but not too much. And we needed to have the private sector participate in an important role,” she said. About half of its funds come from the private sector and of these, about half come from American firms and half from European firms. Twenty percent of the institute’s budget comes from 24 European governments and about 10 percent comes from the European Commission, which contributes on a program-by-program basis. Foundations and individual members also provide contributions. Several U.S. government agencies support specific initiatives. For example, the institute set up the Transatlantic Partnership Working Group in cooperation with State Department. This group meets before the annual summit between the United States and the European Union to review key issues. The institute organized about 50 meetings last year and is scheduled to hold about the same number in 2000. In 1999, the institute also sponsored a series of private dinners with ambassadors. The institute has developed a forum on Triangular Relations among the United States, Europe and Asia and a forum on the Inter-Regional Relationship involving the United States, Europe and Latin America. •117

John Shaw Determined to be on the cutting edge of commercial issues, the institute has a series of programs on what it calls Millennium Industries. These include aeronautics and space, multimedia and telecommunications, food and biotechnology, energy, environment and transportation. Grapin is especially proud of the institute’s role in introducing Americans to Europe’s efforts to create an economic and monetary union and to issue a single currency. She noted the institute first held a conference on this topic in the early 1990s when most Americans—and a lot of Europeans—dismissed EMU as an impossible dream. “At first everyone was very skeptical. They kept saying, why are you holding these meetings? Economic and monetary union is never going to happen,” she recalled. But to the surprise of many, the euro was launched in January 1999. “It was successfully done and this is remarkable given the complexity of an operation that involved 11 countries. It has credibility,” she said. She noted that at the end of 2001 all national currencies of the participating countries will be scrapped and the euro will become the currency of the continent. The Institute will continue to hold seminars twice a year on monetary and financial affairs. The institute has held its meetings on EMU in Washington and New York, but also in others cities. Last year, for example, events were also held in Atlanta, Boston, Dallas, Houston, New Orleans and Philadelphia. This year the institute will hold a special conference on the euro and the so-called New Economy. Grapin brings to the institute a strong background in economics and journalism and solid expertise in European integration and trans-Atlantic economic and strategic issues. A native of Paris, she holds degrees in political science from the Institut d’Etudes Politiques de Paris, in business management from HEC, Paris, in law from Paris I, and in strategic studies from the Institut des Hautes Etudes de Defense Nationale. She was an economic editor and staff writer for Le Monde (1967-81), director general of Interavia Publishing Group in Geneva (1981-85) and economic correspondent in the United States for Le Figaro (1987-94). She was also editor in chief of Europa, a joint publication of Le Monde, Times of London, Die Welt and La Stampa from 1977 through 1981. Grapin is the author of several books on political and economic issues: La Guerre Civile Mondiale (1977), Radioscopie des Etats Unis (1980), Forteresse America (1984) and Pacific America (1988). While determined to be a neutral arbiter, Grapin strongly supports the direction Europe is heading. She said the European Union’s progress, while halting at times, has been remarkable. “When you look retrospectively at what has been done in the last 10 years, the historical movement is just amazing,” she said, citing the creation of a single market, efforts to forge an economic and monetary union, and an ambitious plan to develop a common foreign and security policy. 118 •

People of World Influence She pointed out that the EU has managed to grow from six nation to the current 15 and believes it should expand to 25 or 28 nations to include the new democracies of Eastern and Central Europe. Grapin noted the EU is working simultaneously to expand and reform its governing institutions. “The two processes—deepening and enlarging—are parallel and complementary. But there is also a certain tension between the two. Even so, it’s very clear that it’s absolutely necessary to enlarge the European Community to the countries of Central Europe provided they meet the [admission] criteria,” she said. Grapin is convinced that European integration will continue. “I think this an irreversible process. We have to do both—deepening and enlarging—and will do both for one very good reason. We have absolutely no choice. It will happen. I think the integration of European institutions is irreversible and inevitable,” she said. And she believes that as this integration and expansion continues, the institute will play a crucial role in providing information to Washington. One of her central goals is to highlight the common goals of Europe and the United States. “The European integration process is not meant to take place against the United States. It is meant to take place with the United States. In many areas, when the U.S. and Europe stick together they get what they want. But when they don’t, they generally don’t achieve very much,” she said. Two-way trade between the United States and the European Union last year was about $350 billion and each has direct investment in the other of about $400 billion, she said. “The fundamental truth is that we are each other’s most important ally and best and most important trading partners. But because we are such important partners we have areas of disagreement,” she said. “Overall, this relationship is very balanced. It’s a good exchange for both sides,” she added. While Europeans can learn much from the economic vitality of the United States, she believes Americans can learn from the ability of European political leaders to work together. “For the last 50 years, Europe’s have been trained to negotiate together, to build this integration process. Now in the European Union, everything is based on compromise. Compromise is the way to solve problems.” (May, 2000)

•119

HIGHER EDUCATION: HANDBOOK OF THEORY AND RESEARCH, VOL. XVII

476

People of World Influence

World Federalist Association President

John Anderson

A

fter Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jesse Helms traveled to the United Nations in late January and delivered a sharp-edged address that assailed the goals and aspirations of the world body, the Clinton administration remained conspicuously silent for several days and then responded cautiously. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said the administration did not share the hard-line views of the senator. However, John Anderson, the president of the World Federalist Association, replied immediately, forcefully and with thunderous indignation. Anderson issued a stinging statement the next day in which he blasted Helms for his rebuke of the UN and challenged his assumptions about American “exceptionalism.” Then several weeks later, Anderson and the WFA took out a full-page ad in New York Times that bluntly confronted the senator. “Senator Helms does not speak for the American people on foreign affairs,” Anderson said in the ad. He argued that a stronger UN is needed to deal with such transnational problems as terrorism, genocide, environmental degradation and—ultimately—war itself. Anderson, a Republican member of Congress for 20 years and an independent candidate for president in 1980, had no qualms about taking on Helms. “He was manufacturing total nonsense,” Anderson said in an interview, insisting that Helms’s views don’t represent mainstream American thinking about the UN Anderson is also angry at the Clinton administration for failing to put up more of a fight with the senator. “Sen. Helms has held them literally in thralldom for several years. Whether it is fear that he will •121

John Shaw hold up confirmations of ambassadors or other executive appointments in the State Department, I don’t know,” he said. “But they seem literally to be in mortal dread of the damage he can do, instead of being willing to battle him and assert the clear right of any president to be the chief spokesperson of the American people in the field of foreign affairs,” Anderson said. “The primacy of presidential power in this area is being seriously eroded when a president makes the kind of tepid response, or non-response, to efforts of one individual chairperson of a Senate committee to arrogate to himself the power to be the chief voice in foreign policy,” he added. But Anderson has a much broader and aggressive agenda than merely responding to Senator Helms. He and the WFA are trying to change how Americans think about the world, arguing that the current array of transnational problems can only be confronted by stronger global governing institutions, beginning with a revamped UN. “We do not intend to lower the flag of the United States. We do intend to try to raise the banner of a truly United Nations that would, under good federalist principles, have some authority to act on problems that individual nations cannot deal with alone,” he said. “We have to have a stronger United Nations. But it needs to be more democratic. It needs to be reformed. We think we should have some kind of weighted voting system in the United Nations that would give the principle of law the solid basis and authority it needs to be accepted.” The WFA is a non-profit citizen’s organization promoting a universal and democratic world federation capable of, and limited to, achieving global goals that nations alone can’t achieve. These include assuring common security, building sustainable economies, protecting human rights and preserving the environment. To accomplish these goals, the WFA backs democratizing the UN and international agencies such as the World Trade Organization, creating a permanent UN peace force, securing adequate funds for the UN and helping win ratification of the International Criminal Court. Anderson, now 78, is a formidable leader of the small non-governmental organization that has a staff of 10 in its national headquarters in Washington, which is located in a townhouse near Eastern Market. Dressed in a dark blue business suit, Anderson brings an impressive resume to his work. He speaks in the soaring phrases and with the elaborate verbal flourishes of a 19th-century orator. But he is also quick to unpack his briefcase to show what he is been reading and cheerfully brandishes a photograph of one of his six grandchildren. The WFA has about 10,000 members in its 50 chapters across the United States. It is also affiliated with the World Federalist Movement, an international group headed up by British actor, Sir Peter Ustinov. The World Federalist movement was founded in 1947 and at its peak in the late 1940s had over 50,000 members. Notable world federalists at that time included such luminaries as Oscar Hammerstein, Mortimer Adler, Robert Maynard Hutchins, H.G. Wells, Justice William O. Douglas, Wendell Wilkie, E.B. White, Bertrand Russell and Albert Einstein. Anderson spends his time traveling, fundraising and speaking to WFA chapters as well as other NGOs and community groups. He has a clear message: Individual nations can’t solve the world’s problems acting in isolation. They must come together and create global institutions 122 •

People of World Influence based on federalist concepts. He likens the current world arrangement to that of the United States between 1781 to 1789 when the Articles of Confederation so dispersed power among the federal government and states that the states were in effect 13 separate and sovereign nations. “We want a democratic world federation to keep the peace, to fulfill the mandate of the United Nations charter, that we want to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war,” he said. “One of the chief aims of the World Federalist Association, in this very year in which we speak, is to give the United Nations some assets of its own in the form of a Readiness Response Force to deal with emergencies,” he said. The WFA has long been an advocate of a volunteer force for the UN that could be dispatched quickly to deal with crises rather than going through the UN’s current cumbersome procedures to deploy peacemakers. Anderson said, as an example, that such a volunteer UN force might have saved many of the 800,000 who died in Rwanda’s genocide in 1994. The WFA also backs efforts to win global ratification of the 1998 Treaty of Rome, which creates a permanent International Criminal Court. Anderson noted that the Clinton administration should support the ICC treaty and said that its concerns that Americans might be unfairly prosecuted are ill founded. Anderson said the global political environment is being shaped by new partnerships between national governments, international organizations and non-government organizations(NGOs). “I’m convinced that NGOs will play an increasingly important role in world affairs. Their role is to propose, to educate, to be advocates so we get our political leaders to understand that these important ideas are the will of the people,” he said. He predicted that the WFA will play a key role in the debate over global governance. “I think the World Federalist Association fills an important niche that might not otherwise be filled. We look at the United Nations and support it, but not simply as a cheerleader. We are programmatic and fairly specific in our agenda. We reform and we want change. We want to move it in the direction of the United Nations, being a more democratic and a more effective voice,” he said. “We support the reform of the United Nations, the strengthening and the empowerment of the United Nations, so that one day we have a democratic world federation in which the rule of law is the principal determinant of how decisions are made and how disputes will be adjudicated. That is the road to peace,” he added. While Anderson is an idealist with a vision many deem as impractical, he has an extensive background in real world politics that gives his agenda nuance and pragmatism. A native of Rockford, Ill., he served as a staff sergeant in World War II and earned a law degree from Harvard. He entered the American foreign service for several years after the Second World War and then jumped into politics. He served as a state’s attorney in Winnebago County and then was elected to the House of Representatives in 1960 from a district in Northern Illinois. He served for 20 years in the House. Anderson recalls his congressional years fondly, saying the 1960s and 1970s were “some of the most vivid years of the last century” in which Congress engaged in fierce debates over the Vietnam War and civil rights legislation. “You can’t spend 20 years in an institution, make a lot of friends, and be part and parcel of your •123

John Shaw time and not miss it. So yes, I miss it, but not in a totally wistful way. I think I’ve been able to fill the vacuum,” he said. Anderson ran in the Republican primaries for president in 1980 and finished a strong third behind Ronald Reagan and George Bush. Anderson left the Republican Party and ran as an independent candidate in the race that featured incumbent President Jimmy Carter and the Republican challenger, Ronald Reagan. Reagan triumphed in the election, but Anderson secured 6 million votes—about 7 percent of the total vote cast that year—and won wide praise for running a substantive, principled campaign. “I remember the high points, the low points, the frenetic activity, the exhaustion, the exhilaration,” he said. “It’s a continuum of events that lasts over many months. All in all, with the passage of time comes the solacing effect that dims the unpleasant memories and retains the memories of the campaign that were enjoyable and uplifting. I don’t know what lasting effect it had. I’ll leave that to the historians. It opened up the eyes of the people to the possibilities that did exist to our existing two-party system, namely an independent or third-party candidate,” he added. But Anderson does not spend a lot of time replaying the past. He is stimulated by his work at the WFA and the range of issues it deals with. A voracious reader, he relishes the challenge of studying the world’s most complex problems. His reading shelf is crammed with books on politics, security, the environment and human rights. “There is so much material that is pouring out about world problems and possible solutions. I try to stay up to speed,” he said, adding this work is a form of relaxation for him. “I’m not a card player,” he said. Anderson said he passionately supports the work of the WFA and believes it is helping to frame the global debate for the coming decades. “I think I see progress. But I’m under no illusions. I think there are many tough battles ahead,” he said. “There will be some detours, some setbacks, days of disappointment and even gloom. But I think our efforts are working. The pace of change is much more rapid than ever before. There is reason to feel we will not have to wait another 50 years. I think human attitudes are changing. I think we’re capable of changing people’s minds,” he said. Anderson is struck by the relatively broad acceptance of globalization and said that globalization of economics must be accompanied by a globalization of our structures of governance. “We have a new economy. Why not a new politics?” he asked. But he is gearing up for the long haul and said it will take time for people and governments to come around. “I have to be a little more spacious in my view of the future than to expect fundamental changes in a decade. It may take a little longer than that,” he said. “But it is not so far out there that my eyes are dim, and I can’t see the glow on the far horizon. My sense is that it’s out there. We are talking about attainable goals. It’s not some pie in the sky dream.” (April, 2000)

124 •

People of World Influence

Undersecretary of State

Thomas Pickering

T

homas Pickering, the undersecretary of state for political affairs, does not have the kind of job that allows him to sit back and engage in abstract geopolitical ruminations. Rather, the veteran diplomat faces a daily barrage of complicated issues that would overwhelm most people. While he is far too polite and discreet to say so, Pickering is usually given the hard, thankless jobs that others in the Clinton administration’s foreign policy team are not especially eager to tackle. But the tall, courtly, career diplomat appears undaunted by the rush of problems he confronts every day. In fact, he seems energized by the demands of modern diplomacy and steadfastly maintains a calm demeanor amid a frenzied schedule. In his elegant seventh-floor suite in the State Department, which is just down the hall from Secretary of State Madeleine Albright’s office, Pickering says that his days are driven by the current issues the department is confronting. “This job traditionally oversees the broad range of political issues for the State Department. It also has a traditional component of crisis manager in which you deal with everything from evacuations to spontaneous changes in governments,” he said. “It is a fascinating job in which I have a chance to work on a wide range of issues. But even more importantly, this office can make a difference in the quality of decisions the State Department makes. I enjoy trying to be a problem-solver not a problem-maker,” he added. Pickering is one of six undersecretaries of state. His political affairs portfolio thrusts him into the center of most critical foreign policy issues. He is the third-ranking official at State behind Albright and Deputy Secretary Strobe Talbott. •125

John Shaw As part of his responsibilities, Pickering meets with ambassadors and visiting diplomats, supervises the State Department’s various regional bureaus, represents the department in interagency meetings, helps manage the work of the Foreign Service, and crafts long-term strategy. “In this job, I have a tendency to be a minder of the store, an anchor at home. I don’t travel that much. When I do, I try to go to places where I can make a difference at a particular time. Places where issues may be close to reaching a decision,” he added. Pickering is deeply involved in the Department’s public diplomacy initiative. He participated in more than 70 public events last year, including everything from giving an emotional toast to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the Foreign Service to delivering a speech to Iraqi opposition groups, to providing a wide-ranging assessment on how diplomacy is changing to the United States Institute of Peace. While inclined to simple, declarative statements, Pickering can also speak with powerful eloquence. For example, during a trip through Africa late last year, he traveled to the Catholic University in Angola’s capital of Luanda and issued a stirring call for peace and reconciliation. “I join you in hoping that three decades of war are coming to a close,” he said. “But peace will not be achieved solely on the battlefield. Too much blood has been shed. Too many people have run, in fear and hunger, from both sides. “Triumph will not come at the end of an AK47, but through an enduring peace, constructed through the inclusion of all people in a process to rebuild the nation—one school, one clinic, one election, one newspaper at a time,” Pickering said. His main responsibility as undersecretary of state, Pickering said, is to “serve as an extension” of Albright and to deal with those issues she delegates to him. Albright and others in the administration’s foreign policy team are working hard on strategic issues including an effort to “shape in a constructive way our relationship with Russia and China,” Pickering said. He believes that democracy in Russia is slowly taking hold and noted there are already about 65,000 non-governmental organizations in that nation. This is evidence that democracy and a civil society are developing, he said. But he is the first to acknowledge that Russia faces daunting political, economic and diplomatic challenges. “Russia is not lost but is in a tight spot,” he said. The United States should encourage Russian political and economic reforms, provide targeted financial and technical assistance to the nation and help it find a responsible role in the world, he added. Some in the United States overstate China’s threat to American interests, Pickering said. China is not likely to achieve superpower status in the next decade because of its limited military capability and its host of domestic problems, he continued. While China is not likely to emerge as either the closest partner or the greatest security threat to the United States, Pickering said the United States should find ways to engage that nation. Pickering is now working with Albright and others in the State Department on the Clinton administration’s initiative to help four “democracies in transition”: Colombia, Ukraine, Nigeria and Indonesia. Pickering strongly backs this effort and is using his vast diplomatic experience to make it 126 •

People of World Influence effective, especially in Nigeria where he once served as ambassador and in Colombia, a country he is very familiar with. Looking ahead to the rest of the year, Pickering wants to help build support for a bipartisan consensus on American foreign policy. He said it is important to have public and congressional support for a robust American foreign policy. He is troubled by the isolationist sentiments expressed by some on Capitol Hill. “Many are espousing an anti-foreign policy view which is very different than asking hard questions about foreign policy,” he said. Pickering is deeply concerned with the nearly 40 percent reduction in funding for U.S. international programs since 1985 and has called it a “national shame.” “Where we currently fail to have significant consensus on foreign policy is as much on the resources for foreign policy than in the tenants of foreign policy,” he said. Pickering said there is a substantial degree of consensus on defense spending and national security policy, adding the administration must continue to describe international affairs programs as “part of the continuum of security.” He said he expects a vigorous foreign policy debate between the two parties during the 2000 presidential election but hopes the debate doesn’t become so rancorous that it gives the impression of American disarray to the rest of the world. “We ought to try, to the maximum extent possible, to keep our arguments at the water’s edge.” Pickering is intrigued by the sweeping changes in international affairs that are being driven by the revolution in communications technology and has thought a great deal about how this is changing diplomacy. “There is more international connectivity now than ever before. There is more news, moving more rapidly, in more minutes in the day than ever before,” he said. Pickering said the explosion of information increases the value of experts on the ground. “Things are moving much more rapidly now due to information that is increasingly geometrically. We need to have people on the ground who are capable of exercising what I call the wise judgements,” he said. All nations need envoys who are adept at analysis and interpretation, Pickering said. “It’s important that diplomats have a sense of a country’s history and its culture, as well as have a feel for the things that are happening on the ground,” he said. Born in Orange, New Jersey, on Nov. 5, 1931, Pickering received a bachelor’s degree from Bowdoin College in Brunswick, Maine, and has a master’s degree from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. He was awarded a Fulbright fellowship and received a second master’s degree from Melbourne University in 1956. Pickering served in the Navy from 1956-59 and then began his State Department career. He rose steadily up the ranks, traveled around the world, became fluent in French, Spanish, Swahili, Arabic and Hebrew, and held important jobs in Washington, D.C. He was an executive secretary in the State Department in 1973 and 1974, serving as a senior aide to Secretary William Rogers and Secretary Henry Kissinger. He also served as an assistant secretary of state for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs from 1978 to 1981. •127

John Shaw Pickering has been appointed to a remarkable number of important ambassadorships during his career: Jordan (1974-78), Nigeria (1981-83), El Salvador (1983-85), Israel (1985-88), United Nations (1989-92), India (1992-93) and Russia (1993-96). He won the Distinguished Presidential Award in 1983 and 1986 and in 1996 was awarded the State Department’s Distinguished Service Award. Pickering retired briefly from the Foreign Service in 1996 to accept a job as president of the Eurasia Foundation, a Washington-based organization that makes small grants and loans in the states of the former Soviet Union in support of democracy and economic reform. However, President Clinton and Secretary Albright urged him to take the post of undersecretary of state for political affairs. He agreed, was confirmed easily by the Senate, and was sworn in on May 27, 1997. The veteran diplomat has earned considerable respect on Capitol Hill and Embassy Row for his current work at Foggy Bottom and his many years of public service. Pickering is frequently described as one of the most accomplished and successful diplomats of his generation. He holds the personal rank of career ambassador, the highest in the U.S. Foreign Service. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott said he has worked with Pickering a great deal and has always been impressed with him. “I’ve worked with Ambassador Pickering for many years and have found him very easy to deal with,” Lott said. “He’s a real professional. He’s a very good, very capable man. I haven’t always agreed with the positions he’s brought to me, but he’s always conducted himself in a serious, professional way.” Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, is even more expansive in his praise of Pickering. “Tom Pickering is one of our best. He’s just a consummate public servant,” said Hagel. “He’s straightforward, direct, responsive, and he’s always on top of the issues. He’s a total pleasure to deal with, partly because he has such a vast base of information and experience. I rely on him a great deal.” Looking back over his storied career, Pickering said several postings stand out as especially memorable: his time at the United Nations during the Gulf War, his posting in Russia because it was undergoing historic transformations, his work in El Salvador during the wars of the 1980s, and his stint in Israel when a national unity government was in power and searching for new policies to advance the Middle East peace process. Pickering said he doesn’t have much leisure time, but when he has a chance he enjoys reading adventure books and studying archaeology and photography. He also enjoys doing woodwork, plumbing and carpentry around his house and tries to exercise every day. Pickering said he is so focused on his State Department life that he hasn’t begun to plan on what he will do when he leaves his post in 2001 and the next administration comes to power. But he wants to stay active in international affairs. “I can’t believe with the busy life I’ve led that I’d be comfortable sitting at home,” he said. (March, 2000) 128 •

People of World Influence

Author

Dava Sobel

W

hen Dava Sobel traveled to Florence five years ago to study a remarkable series of letters written to Galileo Galilei by one of his daughters, the author brought along a special pair of white cotton gloves to examine the nearly 400-year-old letters at the city’s National Central Library. Sobel also brought with her a full measure of curiosity, even wonder, about the letters because the insights they offered about the father of modern science and the father of three children, including his cherished oldest daughter, Virginia, who spent much of her life as a cloistered nun. “It was such a thrill to read these letters, to touch them, to examine them closely, to actually see tear stains on some of them,” she said. “I constantly kept in mind the advice of a friend who told me to remember who read these letters first.” The letters form the core of Sobel’s widely praised new book Galileo’s Daughter: A Historical Memoir of Science, Faith and Love, which focuses on the intriguing relationship between Galileo and his oldest daughter. Sobel’s book also provides fascinating insights into 17th-century Europe, the epochal achievements of Galileo, his complex personal life, the power of the Catholic Church, and the church’s attempts to squelch his pursuit of scientific truth. Galileo’s Daughter follows on the heels of Sobel’s 1995 surprising best-seller, Longitude: The True Story of a Lone Genius Who Solved the Greatest Scientific Problem of His Time. The two books have established Sobel as one of the most popular nonfiction writers in the United States, with a special skill at making history and science accessible to wide audiences. Engaging, friendly and self-deprecating, Sobel handles her new fame lightly. She speaks with passion and wit about her work. •129

John Shaw In an interview, Sobel said her four trips to Italy to research Galileo’s Daughter were richly memorable. She vividly recalled retracing Galileo’s steps in Florence, Padua, Pisa, Rome and Venice. Trying to understand his life and times, Sobel walked the same streets that Galileo did, examined buildings he lived and worked in, searched for the precise spot where he first gazed at the heavens through a telescope, visited his university classroom and marveled at the podium where Galileo lectured for almost two decades on astronomy. “I felt like I was in pursuit of the ghost of Galileo. It was a wonderful, exhilarating, fascinating experience, even haunting,” she said. “I felt like Elvis fans must feel when they go to Graceland.” She was deeply touched to visit his final home, a villa in the tiny town of Arcetri, which he chose because it was very close to the convent where his beloved daughter Maria Celeste lived. Sobel even sat by the window of his study and gazed at the convent, which could be seen beyond a grove of olive trees. “That was an unforgettable moment,” she said. “To think, to imagine, that Galileo had sat here.” Galileo (1564-1642) had three children with Marina Gamba of Venice, who was his mistress for a decade. Virginia, born in 1600, was placed in a convent at the age 13 and took the name Suor Maria Celeste. Another daughter, Livia, was also a cloistered nun at the same convent but had a far more distant relationship with her father as did Galileo’s only son, Vincenzio. In researching the book, Sobel studied Galileo’s vast writings but said the most intriguing perspectives came from the 124 letters he saved that were written to him by Maria Celeste. Unfortunately, his letters to her were apparently destroyed by the convent when the daughter died in 1634. But even the one-way correspondence provides fascinating clues about the personal life of Galileo and the intimate father-daughter relationship. Among other things, the letters show Maria Celeste to be remarkably articulate, witty and even playful. “Lord Father, I must inform you that I am a blockhead,” she said in one letter, describing a mistake she made. Her concern for her father is palpable throughout the correspondence. “How heavily your affairs weigh on my heart,” she writes on another occasion. And she reveals frustration at not being fully understood by her father. “If only you could fathom my soul and its longing the way you penetrate the heavens, Sire,” she declares. Sobel said she had been interested in Galileo for years, but assumed there wasn’t anything new to write about. “I thought Galileo had been done to death. But then I heard about these letters, and as I read them I realized there were aspects of Galileo that were deeply surprising and not widely known,” she said. The letters are captivating on many levels, Sobel said, adding that they reveal much about the struggles of day-to-day life in 17th-century Italy and illustrate the sway the Catholic Church held over the lives of millions. Most concretely, they reveal the human face of a towering historic figure; the letters of Maria Celeste to her father show Galileo to be a warm, tender person who was deeply devoted to his daughter. “No detectable strife ever disturbed the affectionate relationship between Galileo and his daughter,” Sobel writes. “Theirs is not a tale of abuse or rejection or intentional stifling of abilities. Rather it is a love story, a tragedy, and a mystery.” Sobel said she was determined to show how Galileo juggled his work as a world-famous scientist with his responsibilities as a father. 130 •

People of World Influence “Thus, all the while that Galileo was inventing modern physics, teaching mathematics to princes, discovering new phenomena among the planets, publishing science books for the general public, and defending his bold theories against establishment enemies, he was also buying thread for Suor Luisa, choosing organ music for Mother Achillea, shipping gifts of food, and supplying his homegrown citrus fruits, wine and rosemary leaves for the kitchen and apothecary at San Matteo,” she writes. Sobel said the letters and a careful study of Galileo’s writings make it clear he was not seeking to undermine the church or challenge the authenticity of the Bible with his work. Rather, he simply believed that man has been endowed with intelligence to unravel the secrets of the universe. Galileo was tried for heresy by the Holy Office of the Inquisition in 1633 for his book, the Dialogue on the Two Chief World Systems: Ptolemaic and Copernican. The Inquisition ruled that his book wasn’t sufficiently critical of Copernicus’s theory of a sun-centered universe. Galileo was convicted and placed under house arrest for the remainder of his life. Sobel believes the trial was one of the watershed moments in Western history. “There was,” she writes, “only one trial of Galileo, and yet it seems there were a thousand—the suppression of science by religion, the defense of individualism against authority, the clash between revolutionary and establishment, the challenge of radical new discoveries to ancient beliefs, the struggle against intolerance for freedom of thought and freedom of speech. No other process in the annals of cannon or common law has ricocheted through history with more meanings, more consequences, more conjecture, more regrets.” Sobel said his daughter’s support for him was crucial as Galileo struggled with poor health and the deep fear and depression caused by his trial and subsequent conviction by the Inquisition. She died in 1634, and Galileo lived until 1642, a sick and broken man. The two were interred in the same crypt in Florence’s Church of Santa Croce. Galileo’s Daughter has confirmed Sobel’s place as one of the nation’s most widely read and respected non-fiction writers. A native of the Bronx, she likens her career to the “wanderings of a gypsy.” Interested in science since she was a high school student, Sobel became especially inspired about the subject after attending a lecture by the astronomer Carl Sagan. For several decades, Sobel earned a modest living as a science writer, initially drafting manuals for field engineers at IBM. She later worked at a Maine television station as a host of a medical program and as a science writer at Cornell University. Sobel worked for two years for the New York Times’ science section, writing mostly about psychology and psychiatry. She has been a freelance writer since 1981 and has published articles in magazines such as Omni, Science Digest and Harvard. She co-authored books on backache relief and arthritis and a book that considered the possibility of life in the universe beyond earth. Her big break came in 1993 when she attended a conference at Harvard University on the topic of longitude and became intrigued by an obscure man, John Harrison, and his lifelong passion to find an instrument to measure it. Measuring longitude, Sobel said, was the greatest scientific problem of the 18th century and can be understood best by examining Harrison’s four-decade quest to solve the problem. Harrison’s story, she said, is one of “incredible perseverance” in which a self-educated man with no formal training as watchmaker or clockmaker succeeded in a challenge that confounded Europe’s most prominent scientists. •131

John Shaw “It’s a remarkable story of an underdog winning. It’s about someone who followed his dream against everything that was thrown his way, and he eventually succeeded and changed the world,” she said. Sobel’s article about Harrison was published in the Harvard alumni magazine. One of the readers of the magazine, George Gibson, was intrigued by the topic and offered Sobel a tiny advance to write a book for the Walker Publishing House. She spent several years writing the book and went into debt during the time. But the eventual book, Longitude became an international best seller that has sold more than half a million copies. The success of Longitude gave Sobel the financial security to spend five years researching and writing Galileo’s Daughter, which evolved from an almost exclusive focus on the 124 letters to a broader historical narrative. Sobel said the work was very intense as she delved into Galileo’s writings, hired a tutor to sharpen her Italian and traveled to Florence to read the letters and soak in the ambience. As the project unfolded, she stopped reading newspapers, watching television or listening to the radio. She recalled giving a lecture in Washington at this time on her earlier book and was approached by a member of Vice President Al Gore’s office to sign a copy of Longitude for him. She was so immersed in Galileo that she had forgotten who the current vice president was. “Needless to say, at that time it became clear that I had probably gotten a little too immersed in the 17th century,” she joked. Sobel believes historical narratives are an excellent way to introduce science to the general public. “I think the best way to learn about science is through good stories. Science is about good stories. I don’t want science to feel like medicine that’s good for you. A lot of science books are like that. No wonder they frighten people away,” she said. Sobel said the often uneasy relationship between science and religious faith continues to this day as evidenced by, among other things, the controversy in some American schools on teaching evolution. “We haven’t solved the tension between science and religion. In fact, it seems to grow more complex and unwieldy as time goes by.” (February, 2000)

132 •

People of World Influence

Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs

Susan Rice

A

ssistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Susan Rice believes the 48 nations of sub-Saharan Africa are in the midst of a renaissance that has been sparked by a new generation of leaders who are committed to self-reliance, poverty eradication through market reforms and private investment, good governance and democracy. In her State Department office, Rice said that the long-term trends in Africa are mostly encouraging and that the United States has played an important role in encouraging a “self-sufficient Africa that is able to take its rightful place on the global stage.” Democratic institutions—however imperfect— now form the basis for government in a majority of African nations, Rice noted. The United States should try to help integrate Africa into the global economy through private sector investment and enhanced trade, she added. Rice has been one of the chief advocates of the African Growth and Opportunity Act, a trade and investment bill that has strong support in the U.S. Congress and has been endorsed by the African diplomatic corps in Washington, D.C. Africa is a continent with 700 million people—half are under the age of 15—with vast, unmet needs, she said. As an example, she is fond of noting that there are more telephones in Manhattan than the entire continent of Africa. “Africa is, in many ways, the last frontier for U.S. exporters and investors,” she said. Major American firms are making sizable investments in Africa, she said, such as Enron’s $2.5 billion contract to build a steel plant in Mozambique, Southwestern Bell Corp.’s $700 million stake in South Africa-Telekom, Boeing’s construction of two-thirds of Africa’s airline fleet, and Caterpillar’s decision to create dealerships in 15 African nations. •133

John Shaw She pointed out that 100,000 U.S. jobs are tied to our exports to Africa. “Africa cannot be an afterthought,” she said. “We cannot afford to postpone our efforts to build a strong U.S.-Africa partnership. This partnership is crucial and must be a priority.” A small slender woman, Rice looks even younger than her age of 35. Rice is the secondyoungest person ever appointed to be an assistant secretary of state. When she was named to her current job in 1997 she was not quite 33. Rice manages a staff of about 100 at the Bureau of African Affairs, which is based in a nondescript suite of offices on the sixth floor of the State Department. The bureau was created in 1958 by President Dwight Eisenhower to focus greater American attention on Africa. Rice oversees the operations of 43 missions in Africa with a staff of 5,000. Sitting in the corner of her spacious office sprinkled with African artifacts and across from a huge map of the continent that leans against one wall, Rice sipped coffee and chatted easily. Smooth and polished, she is a natural diplomat. Her days are packed with interagency meetings, management tasks and sessions with African diplomats. She also works on what she calls the “public face of diplomacy” with appearances before congressional committees, speeches and interviews. She travels to Africa almost every month. Rice also tries to keep focused on long-term policy formulation, she noted. “I try to spend a fair amount of time on that piece. When all is said and done, when I walk out the door, it will be there I want to make a difference. But it’s hard when you face a crisis du jour,” she said. Rice is the lead architect of the administration’s African policy, but other senior officials are also deeply involved. Both President Clinton and Vice President Al Gore have traveled to Africa and almost every member of the Cabinet has visited the continent. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright has visited six times during her seven years in the Clinton administration. “We have established the fact inside the administration that African economic and security issues are important,” she said. “We don’t have to go around debating that. The challenge is keeping everyone pulling in the same direction.” The administration has substantially changed the way the U.S. government is organized to deal with Africa, she said, adding that there are now staff working on African issues in the ExportImport Bank, the U.S. Trade Representative’s office and in the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Energy and Transportation. The United States has significant economic and security interests in Africa, she said. The continent supplies more than 16 percent of the imported oil of the United States and within the next decade, 20 percent of all the imported oil of the United States could come from Africa, surpassing the Persian Gulf region. Rice was born in Washington, D.C., and has lived here for much of her life. Her father, Emmett Rice, is a former professor at Cornell University and was a senior official at the Federal Reserve Board and a consultant to the Treasury Department and World Bank. Her mother, Lois, a native of Jamaica, sits on a number of boards and is a guest scholar at the Brookings Institution. Susan attended Cathedral Academy and excelled at both athletics and academics. She was the valedictorian of her class and earned three varsity letters. Among other things—and not inconsequentially—during her high school years she became friends with two of Madeleine 134 •

People of World Influence Albright’s daughters. Rice said that even as a youngster she thought about politics and dreamed of becoming a U.S. senator—from the District of Columbia. “I was also a passionate advocate for voting rights for the District. Not entirely unrelated,” she joked. She attended Stanford where she graduated Phi Betta Kappa and then won a Rhodes Scholarship. She earned her doctorate from New College at Oxford and won an award for her doctoral dissertation on the transition from Rhodesia to Zimbabwe. Rice married her college boyfriend Ian Cameron and then took a job as a management consultant at McKinsey & Co. in Toronto, Canada, where she helped big companies refine their corporate strategies and organizational structures. In 1988, she volunteered for Michael Dukakis’s ill-fated presidential campaign and used the experience to develop strong contacts with the Democratic establishment. When Bill Clinton was elected president in 1992, Rice received offers to work both at the National Security Council and the newly formed National Economic Council under Robert Rubin. She sought the counsel of her mentor Albright who steered her toward the job at NSC. Rice served first as director of international organizations and peacekeeping at the NSC and worked closely with Albright who was then the ambassador to the United Nations. A few years later, Rice was named the NSC’s senior director for African affairs and was responsible for all aspects of U.S. policy for Africa. The job of assistant secretary of state for Africa opened up in 1997. A former congressman, Howard Wolpe, appeared to have a lock on the position, but Rice used her ties with Albright and NSC chief Sandy Berger to win the post. The Senate easily confirmed Rice on Oct. 9, 1997, while she was on maternity leave. Albright presided over Rice’s swearing-in ceremony at the State Department and spoke openly of her personal friendship with Rice. She also called her a policymaker of “great judgment and skill in one of Washington’s toughest testing grounds, the National Security Council.” Albright added that Rice had “vision and determination” and pledged her “strong support” in the coming years. Rice said that Albright has been a very positive force in her professional life and speaks of the secretary of state warmly and respectfully. “I’ve known and admired her for many years—going back to my childhood. She’s been helpful to me at several junctures,” she said. “Secretary Albright obviously played a very major role in where I am today,” Rice added, but then she tried to downplay the link, saying her relationship with Albright has been “overblown.” “When you get into one of these jobs you don’t have a lot of time to think about how you know this person. It really becomes irrelevant,” she said. Analysts agree that Rice has given African issues a higher profile in the Clinton administration than they have had in other administrations. “Usually, the assistant secretary of state for African affairs is a pretty obscure figure,” said Sen. Richard Lugar, a senior Republican member of the Foreign Relations Committee who has known Rice since he sat on a committee that awarded her a Rhodes Scholarship about 15 years ago. “But this isn’t the case with Susan. She has given the job a much higher profile. She brings a certain charm, energy and enthusiasm to the position. She has a strong and attractive personality and her •135

John Shaw enthusiasm is contagious. She has given Africa a much higher profile,” he added. “Susan is a star,” said Anthony Lake, who was once her boss at the NSC and now works under her as a special envoy on African issues. “She’s extraordinarily talented, with great drive and incredible intelligence. She is a rare talent.” Some critics say that Rice was placed in a job for which she wasn’t fully prepared and has made mistakes. “Susan is a very intelligent person and probably a very capable one,” said Marina Ottaway, a senior African expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “But she’s not an experienced policy analyst. She hasn’t had time to develop that experience. And experience counts for something in this business. Susan has made some mistakes—and not just small ones,” Ottaway said. As an example, she said that Rice’s efforts to broker a peace deal between Ethiopia and Eritrea failed badly and was not carefully considered. “Obviously, you can’t blame Susan for the war in Ethiopia and Eritrea. But the situation was mishandled. Susan mishandled it,” she added. Chester Crocker, who held the African job at the State Department during the Reagan presidency, said Rice and her team have focused on economic issues but have failed to get involved in many of the tough political and military struggles. “It’s a question of whether you want to do popular things or to lead,” he said. He also faulted Rice and her team for taking full credit for all that is good in Africa and blaming their predecessors—or others—for negative developments in the continent. Rice’s message of hope and opportunity in Africa is playing well on Capitol Hill. “Susan is very impressive and capable and seems relied on increasingly in the administration for advice on African policy,” said House International Affairs Committee Chairman Ben Gilman. Rice has a rare ability to make Africa and African issues understandable to ordinary people and the Congress, said Sen. Russ Feingold, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations panel’s African subcommittee. “I find her one of the easiest people in the State Department to talk to and work with. She’s very approachable and very open. She’ll always listen to what you have to say. This is not to say that I agree with everything this administration is doing on Africa,” he added. (January, 2000)

136 •

People of World Influence

Historian

Niall Ferguson

N

iall Ferguson is a young, provocative, prolific British historian who believes his profession should do more than just recount the past. Ferguson thinks historians should challenge conventional wisdom, examine timeworn issues from a fresh perspective and emphasize that nothing that happened in the past was inevitable and that different decisions by policymakers would have altered history and changed the world we now live in. “There is a strong tendency to assume that everything that has happened in the past was inevitable, that there were no alternative outcomes,” he said in an interview. “But I think this is wrong, and I think it’s important to show that there were forks in the road, points at which different outcomes were possible,” he added. Ferguson, 35, is one of the world’s most popular and controversial young historians. Scholarly but also accessible to wide audiences, he is able to write sweeping narratives, complex analytical essays and pithy opinion articles. He also appears frequently on radio and television programs to discuss current events and historical disputes. An economic historian by training, Ferguson is a formidable scholar who is able to delve into complex issues and explain them clearly. He has also become one of the leading practitioners of an increasingly popular branch of historical study that considers alternative outcomes to important events in the past. This combination of skills is apparent in Ferguson’s The Pity of War, one of the most controversial and stimulating history books in recent years. It is a starkly revisionist account of the events leading up to World War I and the war itself. The book has generated passionate debate across the world, especially in Europe and the United States. •137

John Shaw The Pity of War has been credited for sparking a fresh discussion on the Great War. “At one massive stroke,” said a glowing review in the Economist, “Niall Ferguson has transformed this dismal intellectual landscape, a kind of Flanders field of the mind. The Pity of War for the first time brings the carnage of 1914-18 into sharp, unmystified focus. This is analytical history at its mordant best.” Ferguson says his interest in the First World War was sparked by his grandfather’s experience in the conflict and the centrality of the war on British life and the nation’s mythology. “I’ve been interested in the First World War since I was a young boy. In many ways it was one of the reasons I got interested in history in the first place,” he said. He said he studied the war for “years and years and years” before he sat down and wrote the book in about five months. “It came together very quickly. I had thought about it so long that the book rather wrote itself. It was a kind of relief, or a release,” he said. Ferguson’s point of departure is the immense tragedy of World War I, and he questions if the deaths of more than 9 million people across the world and the expenditure of tens of billions of dollars can in any way be justified. Few nations were as devastated by the First World War as Britain, Ferguson said, adding that a generation of British men was either killed in the conflict or psychologically shattered by the ferocity of the war. And the British Empire suffered financial devastation from which it never recovered. “The First World War remains the worst thing the people of my country have ever had to endure,” he writes. The Pity of War is a series of linked, analytical essays that consider such fundamental questions as: Was the war inevitable in 1914? Why did German leaders gamble on war in 1914? Why did Great Britain intervene when the war broke out in 1914? Did propaganda keep the war going? Why did the economic superiority of the Allies not defeat the Central Powers more quickly? Why did the military superiority of Germany fail to win on the Western Front as it did in the East? Why did men keep fighting when the conditions were so bad? Why did men stop fighting in 1918? Who won the peace? And who ended up paying for the war? Ferguson challenges the conventional wisdom about the origins of the war, which holds that simmering nationalist rivalries were ignited by Germany’s reckless militarism. Instead, he contends that Britain’s confusing and shifting policy toward Europe encouraged German aggression and that Britain’s decision to intervene in 1914 turned a regional battle into a global bloodbath. Ferguson argues that Great Britain should have maintained its neutrality and allowed Germany to win a limited continental war. Had that occurred, he speculates, the century would have been spared the Bolshevik Revolution, the Second World War and the Holocaust. “Had Britain stood aside—even for a matter of weeks—continental Europe could therefore have transformed into something not wholly unlike the European Union we know today, but without the massive contraction in British overseas power entailed by the fighting of two world wars,” he writes. “With the Kaiser triumphant, Adolph Hitler could have eked out his life as a mediocre postcard painter and a fulfilled old soldier in a German-dominated Central Europe about which he 138 •

People of World Influence could have found little to complain. And Lenin could have carried on his splenetic scribbling in Zurich, forever waiting for capitalism to collapse—and forever disappointed,” he adds. Surveying the suffering that occurred between 1914 and 1918 and all the dislocation that followed, Ferguson says the war “was something worse than a tragedy, which is something we are taught by the theatre to regard as ultimately unavoidable. It was nothing less than the greatest error of modern history.” Ferguson’s book has won the admiration of many scholars for his original and creative interpretations about the cause of the battle, the economics of the conflict and the literature the war inspired. But some critics argue that in trying to overturn conventional wisdom he advances arguments that are not supported by the evidence. Paul Kennedy, one of the world’s top historians, says Ferguson tries too hard to assail conventional wisdom. “His suggestion that the Prussianized, anti-liberal, militarized Germany of pre-1914 was more or less the equivalent of Helmut Kohl’s polity in the 1990s defies belief and has understandably caused his critics to wonder if he is exaggerating simply for effect’s sake,” Kennedy writes. “It is far fetched—and surely unhistorical—to place the chief responsibility for the First World War upon the British Liberal Cabinet and to argue that had Britain stood aside that tortured continent would resemble something like the European Union today,” he adds. Ferguson is aware of these criticisms but stands by his work. “I knew that it would be very controversial to write a story that challenged a lot of the conventional thinking about World War I. But I felt there was a need for some fresh thinking, to reexamine established truths, to take a new look at issues that many contend have long been settled,” he said. “I wasn’t just looking to be contrarian. I wasn’t trying to just cause mischief. I believed that much of the received wisdom about the war was wrong, that it wasn’t supported by analysis and a careful look at the evidence,” he added. Ferguson is a native of Glasgow, Scotland, and acquired a love of history at a young age. As a youngster, he was captivated by A.J.P. Taylor’s television lectures on European history and began to read history seriously. The first book he studied as an adult was Taylor’s controversial work on the origins of World War I. He won a scholarship to study history at Magdalen College at Oxford. Ferguson became intrigued by medieval financial history and learned to appreciate the importance of careful economic and financial analysis in seeking to understand the past. He is known for his rigorous, heavily quantitative analysis. “I learned that for history to be good, it has to be hard,” he said. Ferguson has been a lecturer and tutor of modern history at Jesus College in Oxford since 1992. He says teaching has helped him become a better writer and historian. “There is nothing like an intelligent, thoughtful, 18-year-old to provoke your thinking. I’ve found that students bring fantastic freshness and a refreshing tendency to ask unorthodox questions. They keep me alert,” he said. In addition to The Pity of War Ferguson has written several highly regarded books in the last sev•139

John Shaw eral years including Paper and Iron: Hamburg Business and German Politics in the Era of Inflation, 1897-1927 and The World’s Banker: The History of Rothschild. All are serious, even dense, books that make frequent use of charts, graphs and economic indicators. He describes himself as a “train spotter” and says mundane economic indicators often tell a larger story. For example, he believes there is much to be gained by studying the movements of bond markets over time, adding that they serve as a daily barometer on the perceived effectiveness of a regime. His academic prowess and commercial success have made him a hot property. Last year he signed a lucrative contract to write three books. He is now working on a book titled the Twilight of the Crowns that analyzes the decline of the Saxe-Coburg dynasty as well as a study of the Bank of England and the international bond market. For all his solid economic grounding, Ferguson has achieved growing prominence for pioneering a provocative school of history that explores the “what ifs” of the past. He has edited a book called “Virtual History: Alternatives and Counterfactuals,” a series of essays that considers what would have happened if nine momentous events had turned out differently. Ferguson says the purpose of studying counterfactuals is to recapture the uncertainty that policymakers faced and to remind readers that for these leaders the future was just a set of possibilities. He also tries to use history to assess if optimal choices were made. “To understand how it actually was, we therefore need to understand how it actually wasn’t— but how, to contemporaries, it might have been,” Ferguson writes. Ferguson hopes that policymakers study history as they analyze current problems. But he added they should do so carefully and without drawing facile, imprecise analogies. “Historians should be in the public debate, placing events in their proper context, ensuring that government officials don’t make mistaken analogies,” he said. “Historians need to be there to show how situations are similar, but also, crucially, how they are different. We must try to prevent leaders from oversimplifying.” (December, 1999)

140 •

People of World Influence

American Academy of Diplomacy President

L. Bruce Laingen

W

orking out of a small, book-strewn office in downtown Washington, D.C., former U.S. Ambassador L. Bruce Laingen has a modest demeanor but an ambitious goal. Laingen, president of the American Academy of Diplomacy after nearly four decades in the U.S. Foreign Service, is an enthusiastic, unapologetic supporter of diplomacy and a determined advocate of the American Foreign Service. He wants to help ensure that adequate funds are allocated for American diplomacy and that the public’s respect and appreciation for his nation’s diplomatic corps is deepened. “I come from the old school,” he said in an interview. “I’ve spent almost 40 years in diplomacy and then almost 10 years in this job. So I have no doubt that diplomats are needed. Even in the age of super-technology and instant communications, you need a man or woman on the spot in another country to represent the United States and to report perceptively on events there. You still need a good person on the ground. The information revolution should enhance diplomacy. It doesn’t replace the need for diplomacy.” Laingen and the membership of the Academy strongly support boosting resources for U.S. international programs. American funding for these programs has been cut almost in half in real terms over the past 15 years, and many lawmakers delight in blasting so-called foreign aid. “We think American diplomacy is being shortchanged, not least of all in the United Nations,” Laingen said, lamenting the long overdue arrears of the United States to an organization it played a leading role in creating. “Increasingly, the United States is going to have to rely on coalition building. And the best place to build coalitions on the spot is the UN,” he said. •141

John Shaw The Academy issued a statement this year urging Congress and the White House to back greater resources for U.S. overseas programs and argued that some of these funds should be used to keep embassies and consulates open. “Leadership is exercised through diplomacy, and effective diplomacy requires adequate funding,” it said. “Our State Department and Foreign Service have greater burdens than ever before— more governments to deal with, more information to analyze, expanded telecommunications and public involvement. The international agenda for the 21st century is more complex than it was during the Cold War,” the statement added. Laingen said that the United States should provide for robust defense and international affairs programs. “Diplomacy and military force complement each other. To shortchange one or the other is counterproductive. They go together. They dovetail. They’re both essential,” he said. Laingen is from a small town in southern Minnesota and grew up on a farm. He studied at St. Olaf College and then served in the U.S. Navy during World War II. He became intrigued by what he calls “the world out there” and notes that before he went off to the war he had never been outside of his home state. After nearly three years in the service, Laingen returned to Minnesota, earned a master’s degree in international affairs and then participated in a study program in Sweden. While living there, he traveled to Helsinki to take the U.S. Foreign Service exam and eventually passed it. He began working for the State Department in 1949 and formally joined the Foreign Service the next year. “When I entered the Foreign Service I saw it as a career. It didn’t occur to us when we were sworn in as Foreign Service officers that we wouldn’t stay for our full career. That was a given back then. I have no regrets,” he said. His first posting was to Hamburg, Germany, where he spent most of his time processing visas. “I enjoyed the visa work,” he said. “You learn a lot about human nature and about the attraction our nation holds to many people. When I speak to young diplomats now, I tell them not to knock visa work. It’s what diplomacy is. Diplomacy is people-to-people stuff,” he said. Laingen was assigned to a post in Kobe, Japan, in 1953, but at the last minute was instructed to go to Iran. He calls it one of the big “what ifs” in his career. Rather than a tour that might have led him to become a specialist in Japan, he became an Iranian expert. He recalled his first exposure to this ancient and intriguing nation. Laingen arrived in Tehran shortly after the shah was returned to this throne after the collapse of the Mossadegh regime. “I was intrigued with Iran. I was young and mobile and traveled around the country. I enjoyed the adventure. I became fascinated with Iran at that point and it has never left me. Iran—Persia— is a very interesting country, a very rich country culturally and historically,” he said. After his first stint in Iran, Laingen had postings in Pakistan and Afghanistan. He then served as the U.S. ambassador to Malta from 1977 to 1979. In 1979, he returned to Iran for second tour, this time as charge d’affaires. He expected to serve only for about a month as the Carter administration settled on a permanent envoy there, but it didn’t quite work out that way. Laingen was the senior American diplomat in Iran when the American Embassy was captured by Iranian students who were aroused by the revolution of Ayatollah Khomeini. Fifty-three American diplomats were held hostage for 444 days—from November 4, 1979, to January 20, 1981. As the 20th anniversary of the embassy seizure approaches, Laingen continues to reflect on its importance to his life and especially the shattered relationship between Iran and the 142 •

People of World Influence United States. “I look back on it with a lot of mixed feelings,” he said. “It’s not an experience I’d like to do over. It’s not an experience I asked for. It’s not an experience I’d particularly recommend. But it was an experience from which I learned a great deal. I learned a lot about Iran, especially the political ferment that accompanied that revolution. “In human terms, I learned a great deal about myself,” he continued. “You do that as a hostage. You learn a lot more about who you are. I came back with more self-confidence and certainly a deeper religious faith.” He said during his long imprisonment he thought often about his wife and their three sons, the ideals of the United States, and the profound advantages of having a country with a clear separation between church and state. But Laingen said that he never lost his respect for Iran. “I did not lose my fascination with Iran and its people. I still have high respect for its culture and history and its strength in that region, its potential in that region,” he said. Laingen recalled that as he prepared to board the Algerian jet that would take him and the other hostages to safety after more than a year of captivity, he turned to one of his Iranian captors and told him that he looked forward to the day that Iran and the United States could have a cordial and constructive relationship again. “I meant it then, and I still do,” he said. “American interests are not served by the current state of affairs. That’s the bottom line for a diplomat: How do we further American national interests? We don’t serve them by having no dialogue for 20 long years. It’s almost inexplicable to me we have done this to ourselves and the Iranians have done this to themselves. It’s a mutual problem,” he said. Iran is about half the size of India and has a population of 64 million, which is twice as many as it had in 1979. About half of the people are of Persian descent and one-quarter are ethnic Azerbaijanis. Iran is home to almost 2 million refugees, more than any other nation. Most of the refugees are Afghans and Iraqi Kurds. “I’m among those who are strongly of the view that we have to find a way to resume a dialogue with that nation. I’ve been recommending that for years,” Laingen added. “Diplomats believe you have to talk. That’s my bias. I believe the only way to resolve a problem is to discuss it. I firmly believe we need to find a way to sit down and talk with Iran.” Laingen continues to watch events closely in Iran and outlines his views in speeches as well as testimony before Congress. He regrets the large role played by radical Islamic clericals who dominate the executive branch and drive the political system. This domination by clerical extremists, he said, is a “radical departure from the past” and is “out of sync with Iran’s own political traditions and its Islamic traditions.” Laingen is intrigued by the ongoing struggle between Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the conservative cleric who wields paramount religious and political power in Iran, and President Mohammad Khatami. Khatami, also a leading cleric, won a landslide victory in the presidential elections in 1997 on a promise to make Islamic rule more democratic. Khatami won more than 20 million of the 29 million votes cast for president. Iranian parliamentary elections will be held in February and Khatami hopes to secure a majority of lawmakers who favor reform and greater openness. “There is a confrontation in Iran, and everyone around the world is watching. It’s a confrontation between soft-liners and hard-liners, between liberals and conservatives. In other words, the revolution is not complete. They haven’t yet decided what the long-term direction •143

John Shaw will be,” he said. Laingen expects little progress to occur in U.S.-Iranian relations until after the February elections. “We shouldn’t hold our breath too long,” he said, but added that he continues to urge policymakers to enter a dialogue with Iran as soon as possible. After he was released from captivity in 1981, Laingen turned down several ambassadorships so he could be closer to his family. He accepted a position as vice president of the National Defense University and served there until he retired from the Foreign Service in 1987. He then worked as executive director of the National Commission on Public Service, a private, non-profit organization that over a three-year period developed recommendations to further the quality and attractiveness of public service, especially for young people. In 1991, Laingen was named president of the American Academy of Diplomacy, which is a nonprofit, limited membership society of 100 men and women who served as ambassadors at major embassies abroad and others who in their careers played important roles in formulating and implementing American foreign policy. The academy, which was created in 1983, is dedicated to fostering the highest standards in the conduct of American foreign policy, especially in the selection of ambassadors. In addition to former ambassadors, both career and political appointees, its members include all living former secretaries of state, several former secretaries of defense, directors of central intelligence, national security advisers and chairmen of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The academy hosts an annual meeting on Capitol Hill, holds monthly policy seminars, and issues occasional papers and statements on themes of particular concern, such as the importance of a professional foreign service and America’s crucial role in the world. It also gives an annual prize for a book of distinction on the practice of American diplomacy and honors a diplomat each year for excellence in public service. For example, last year the academy honored former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell for his peace efforts in Northern Ireland, and this year it will honor Deputy Treasury Secretary Stuart Eizenstat for his long career in public service. Earlier this year, the academy began a special project that will consider the role of the ambassador in the 21st century and will publish the study next year. The Academy is funded by grants from various foundations and by private donations. The academy is determined to enhance American diplomacy in whatever ways it can and build public appreciation for the critical role of diplomacy in advancing American interests abroad, Laingen said. “Our concern is quality,” he said. “That has to be the bottom line. The core of our diplomacy overseas is continuing to have a bonafide, quality driven Foreign Service. I think they’re very good. I think they’re pretty damn good.” (November, 1999)

144 •

People of World Influence

Senator

Sam Brownback

I

t’s at least somewhat surprising that a young Republican senator from Kansas is trying to revive the fabled Silk Road that once linked the ancient empires of Rome and China and served as a vibrant corridor of global commerce. Sen. Sam Brownback, the chairman of the Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is working to craft an overarching American strategy toward Central Asia and the South Caucasus and is seeking to use a revitalized Silk Road as the organizing principle. In his office in the Senate Hart Building, Brownback said his effort is driven by the conviction that the United States needs a broad-based and coherent strategy for the region that was once part of the Soviet Union. “We’re trying to create a region of democracy, an area of free enterprise, an area of independence that is not threatened by the domination of outside powers,” he said. Brownback’s legislation, which is moving through the U.S. Congress, seeks to promote democracy, free markets, infrastructure development, and human rights in the eight nations of the region: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. His initiative offers American investment, loan guarantees and technical assistance to help those nations integrate into the global economy, develop their economies and civil societies, and intensify links among them. The region’s 70 million people yearn to be free of the dominance of Russia, China and Iran and are sympathetic to the West, including the United States, Brownback said. “We want to encourage this region to remain open to the West and to prosper as a Eurasian corridor of commerce and freedom,” he added. •145

John Shaw During his first trip to the region in 1997 as chairman of the Senate subcommittee, Brownback conceived of linking his plan to the historic Silk Road. “Not many Americans know about, say Uzbekistan, but a lot of people have heard of the Silk Road. So describing this plan as a Silk Road strategy gave it a kind of magic, an overarching vision,” he said. The original Silk Road emerged almost two millennia ago as a 5,000-mile network of roads in which trading caravans transported fabrics, spices and other goods between China and the Mediterranean world. It was one of the key corridors of trade and served as the economic lifeline that connected communities in Central Asia and the South Caucasus. The senator said that after decades of fighting communism in this part of the world, the United States now has an opportunity to promote democratic institutions and market economies. But he argues that the window of opportunity for the United States to establish its influence in the region will “be open only for a short period of time.” A friendly, intense man, Brownback brings clear views, strong religious convictions and unabashed idealism to his work. A placard in his office proclaims: “Sam Brownback of Kansas. Not for sale. Not even for rent.” While many new members of Congress express little interest in international affairs, Brownback said these issues intrigue him and is convinced they are important to his constituents. “Growing up in a farm in Kansas, it seemed only too natural to wonder what was going on in the world out there,” he said. “And it is clear to the people of my state that events in the outside world are crucial to us. Trade is essential to our economy in Kansas. The people of Kansas understand and support my involvement in international affairs.” Brownback, 43, has had politics in his blood for many years. He grew up on a family farm near Parker, Kansas, and still owns property there. He studied agriculture economics at Kansas State University and then earned a law degree from Kansas University. He was president of the Future Farmers of America organization and was elected class president during his final year at Kansas State. Since completing his education, Brownback has worked as an administrator, broadcaster, attorney, teacher and author. He was selected as a White House fellow during the Bush administration and served for six years as Kansas’s secretary of agriculture. Married and the father of four children, Brownback won election to the House in 1994 as part of the so-called Republican revolution that sought to scale back the size and scope of the federal government. He was elected to the Senate in 1996 to fill the remainder of Robert Dole’s term when Dole resigned from the Senate to run for president. He was elected to a full six year Senate term in 1998. Brownback said he wants to use his membership on the Senate Foreign Relations panel to shape an effective American policy in Central Asia, the Middle East and the Indian subcontinent. He said that the United States has been too focused on preserving its relationship with Russia, too indifferent to the challenges and opportunities confronting the nations of Central Asia and the Caucasus and too complacent about the threat of Islamic fundamentalism that is being advanced by Iran and Afghanistan. The premise of the Silk Road Strategy Act is that the United States can promote prosperity 146 •

People of World Influence and boost democracy and civil society in the region, which includes the Caspian Sea. The legislation also seeks to lift U.S. sanctions that have been imposed on Azerbaijan. Congress approved the Freedom Support Act in 1992 to provide financial and technical assistance to the new nations of the former Soviet Union. Section 907 of that law prohibits most American aid to Azerbaijan because of its blockade of Armenia. The two nations continue to battle over control of the Nagorno-Karabakh enclave. Brownback said that the United States should not choose sides in this or other regional conflicts, but his efforts to end the sanctions on Azerbaijan have failed so far. “This has been very disappointing because it’s in many ways the crucial part of the bill. Azerbaijan is the gateway for the flow of democracy and freedom. This overall Silk Road effort depends crucially on lifting sanctions imposed on Azerbaijan. I’m going to keep trying,” he said. Brownback said his legislation has been boosted by the surge of interest in the Caspian Sea region, which has emerged as one of the key strategic and commercial playing fields of the 21st century. Nations from across the world are scrambling to influence developments there, and firms from the United States, Western Europe, Russia and China are all trying to secure access to the region’s massive oil and natural gas reserves, which have been valued at more than $4 trillion. “The commercial aspect of the Caspian region has become very important and has clearly increased interest in my legislation. It has moved it from being a strategic or moral issue to one that also has significant—and very lucrative—economic benefits,” he said. “The Silk Road will become a Silk Pipeline,” he noted. The Senate approved Brownback’s bill on June 30. The House approved a different version, and it is unclear what version—if any—will ultimately be approved by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton. Brownback has taken two trips to the region and continues to meet with leaders from the nations that would be affected by this legislation. “I am going to keep pushing the countries to develop a regional identity, to enhance regional cooperation and to encourage these nations to stay open to the United States. It’s very important,” he added. Analysts credit Brownback for crafting an important proposal. “This is an ingenious, timely and potentially an enormously beneficial project,” said Frederick Starr, director of the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute at the Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies. “The senator’s Silk Road plan offers a rationale, a positive framework for U.S. policy in the region. And it’s good for the countries of Central Asia and the Caucasus that have been isolated from the rest of the world since the collapse of the Soviet Union. This is a very important idea,” said Starr. In addition to his Silk Road initiative, Brownback has been active in other international issues. For example, after India and Pakistan tested nuclear weapons last year, Brownback traveled to the region to meet with leaders from both nations. He has had other meetings with Indian and Pakistani leaders to urge them to halt further testing of weapons, refrain from selling nuclear technology, control exports of technology that could be used to construct missiles or weapons and to peacefully solve the problem of Kashmir. •147

John Shaw He also helped lead the effort to lift sanctions that were imposed against India and Pakistan after the nuclear testing occurred, arguing they had no deterrent value and would only injure American farmers seeking to export grain to the countries. He said the United States should do far more to improve and deepen ties to India. “India is going to be the largest country in the world within a decade,” he said. “It sits strategically between China and Russia, at the edge of much of the Muslim world. This is a big country. We should be rapidly building our relationship with India. We need to work closely with them on a broad range of military, economic, trade and foreign policy issues. This should be one of our most important strategic relationships.” Brownback has also held hearings on the Middle East and is pleased with recent developments. “We might have a moment when the sun, moon and the stars line up,” he said, “It may be the time that something of a long-term nature can take place.” Brownback cautions many things can still go wrong in the Mideast. He has tried to focus on “narrow, specific points” where he believes he can have an influence, such as backing the move of the American Embassy to Jerusalem. He is one of the strongest supporters of Israel in Congress. Brownback has also argued forcefully that America should have tougher policies toward Iran and Iraq. He has sponsored a resolution urging the government of Iran to adhere to human rights laws and to allow for more freedom of expression. He backs support for Iraqi opposition groups and supports a renewed effort to oust Saddam Hussein. “As long as we leave Saddam in there we are going to have a problem,” he said. Brownback has been sharply critical of the Clinton administration’s overall foreign policy, arguing that great attention has been paid to peripheral issues and scant attention to big matters. “This administration has spent far too much time dealing with minnows and not enough time dealing with the large whales out there,” he said. He laments that American policymakers have shown only fleeting attention to international affairs in recent years but said this must change. “We had a chance this decade to shape the world for the next couple of decades in a way that would have been much healthier for our children. We have squandered this opportunity,” he noted. “This decade, we have turned inward to domestic issues. Over the coming decade, we’re going to have to deal with far more and bigger international issues,” he said. (October, 1999)

148 •

People of World Influence

Treasury Secretary

Lawrence Summers

O

n a sweltering Friday evening in late July, Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers entered the courtyard of Argentina’s embassy in Washington, D.C., dressed in a gray pinstriped business suit. Summers was attending a party hosted by Argentina’s ambassador to the United States, Diego Ramiro Guelar, to kick off his embassy’s sponsorship of a local tennis tournament. Summers was one of about 200 guests on hand to meet Argentina’s tennis star Gabriela Sabitini and to enjoy Argentine steak. As the new Treasury secretary moved through the crowd of journalists, political leaders and diplomats, Summers was teased by several acquaintances for wearing his work clothes to an outdoor barbecue. Summers jokingly said the formal dress was necessary

to “uphold the dignity” of his new office. However, within an hour, Summers had discarded his tie and suit jacket, rolled up his sleeves and was chatting easily with Sabitini. This quick transformation of Summers serves in some respects as a metaphor for the changes he has undergone since joining the Clinton administration in 1993. In his almost seven years with the administration, Summers has risen from a third-tier Treasury undersecretary to the head of one of the most important agencies in the federal government, which has significant international reach and power. And during this time, Summers has evolved from an abrupt, often abrasive, know it all, to a more polished Washington power broker. If he still is not always a smooth operator, Summers has become a significant force in national and international economic policy-making circles. Summers is the third Treasury secretary of the Clinton administration. The first, Lloyd •149

John Shaw Bentsen, a former senator and vice presidential candidate, is a smooth and courtly figure who was revered on Capitol Hill and respected by the financial markets. Robert Rubin, Summers’ immediate predecessor, is an urbane and witty Wall Street powerhouse who was revered by the financial markets and respected by Capitol Hill. Summers is a rumpled academic who is respected by both Congress and global financial leaders—but somewhat grudgingly and only after he served dutifully for several years under the careful tutoring of Rubin and Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan. When he named Summers to succeed Rubin, President Clinton declared that Summers is “more than ready to steer our nation through the strong and sometimes turbulent currents of the new economy.” Greenspan described him as a “person of extraordinary talent and judgment.” The Economist has been more critical of Summers, speculating about his “fundamental unsuitability” for the Treasury post. “Mr. Summers can be affable and funny, but (he) is also intellectually restless, easily moved to contempt, intimidating, impatient and scary,” the magazine said. But it also has compared Summers to Henry Kissinger, another Harvard professor who took Washington by storm. Other analysts have described him as a new breed of global leader: an economist-statesman rather than the solider-statesman of past generations. During the rest of the Clinton administration, Summers will face daunting international challenges, seek agreements with the U.S. Congress on budget and tax policy, try to keep the American economy growing, and work with global leaders to build a stronger financial system. Summers, 44, is a native of New Haven, Conn., and comes from a family of economists. Both of his parents taught economics at the university level. An uncle on his father’s side of the family, Paul Samuelson, is a Nobel Prize-winning economist and his mother’s brother, Kenneth Arrow, is also a Nobel laureate in economics. A math whiz with a love for economics, Summers studied at Harvard as an undergraduate and then entered Harvard’s doctorate program in economics and graduated with distinction. Summers taught economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology from 1979-82 and then had a stint at the Council of Economic Advisers. He was appointed an economics professor at Harvard in 1983 and at 28 became the youngest full professor ever appointed by the school’s economics faculty. He also became the youngest tenured professor in Harvard’s history and developed a reputation for publishing impressive studies that combined quantitative rigor with penetrating policy analysis. Summers accepted a post in 1991 as vice president and chief economist of the World Bank. During his academic years and then his two-year stint at the World Bank, Summers developed innovative ideas on key issues and demonstrated a willingness to consider new approaches. For example, he once backed a small tax on the purchase or sale of financial instruments to discourage short-term trading. Also he once said a U.S. inflation rate of between 2 percent and 3 percent might make more sense than a relentless drive to zero inflation. In 1993, he was awarded the John Bates Clark medal that is given every two years to the outstanding American economist under 40. That same year he began his work for the Clinton administration. Summers appeared poised to become chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers. However, a provocative memo surfaced 150 •

People of World Influence that Summers signed during his World Bank stint in which he casually argued the merits of dumping garbage in poor nations. The ideas angered Vice President Gore who blocked his selection as chair of the Council of Economic Advisers. Instead, Summers was appointed undersecretary of Treasury for International Affairs. From this post, he played a prominent role in formulating the U.S.’s international economic policy. Then in August of 1995, Summers was appointed to the number-two post at Treasury where he assumed an even more prominent role on international policy issues, domestic tax and budget policy, and financial system reform. It was during this time that he formed a close partnership with Robert Rubin. The two had met during the ill-fated presidential campaign of Michael Dukakis in 1988, and Rubin later hired Summers as a consultant at Goldman Sachs. During their partnership at Treasury, Rubin brought a deft, nuanced understanding of the workings of financial markets that had been honed during more than a quarter century as an investment banker. Summers contributed significant analytical skills and a creative approach to public policy. The two confronted a serious peso crisis in Mexico in 1994 and 1995, negotiated with Republican leaders in the U.S. Congress on budget and tax legislation, and worked closely with Greenspan and other global leaders to tackle the Asian financial crisis that exploded in 1997. Analysts of all ideological stripes praised Rubin and Summers for their skill and savvy. During this period, Summers spoke often of his faith in capitalism to improve living standards. But he also noted that free markets sometimes need government guidance and argued that only the United States has the power and inclination to lead global capitalism. He described himself as a “market-oriented progressive” who believes the government should assume only those responsibilities it can deal with effectively. Summers was appointed by Clinton as the nation’s 71st Treasury secretary on May 12 and was confirmed by the Senate on July 1 by a 97-2 vote. He was sworn in the next day. During his Senate confirmation hearing, Summers said he wants to focus on several objectives during his tenure: maintaining a strong American economic strategy premised on fiscal discipline; boosting living standards; helping foster a strong, stable, growing global economy; and ensuring the U.S. financial system is safe, efficient and competitive. One issue he may have to deal with during the next year and a half is the desire of some nations, especially several in Latin America, to adopt the dollar as their currency. He told a congressional panel this spring that there are some advantages for other nations if they choose to embrace the dollar. Dollarization, he pointed out, holds the promise of lower interest rates, greater stability, and deeper financial markets. But the price for these nations is that they must subordinate domestic monetary policy to that discipline. And he said the United States would be unwilling to extend the safety net of bank supervision, provide access to Federal Reserve’s discount window, adjust bank supervisory responsibilities, or alter the procedures or orientation of U.S. monetary policy. Summers is also prepared to continue his work to strengthen the global financial system. In a major speech this spring, Summers said one of the most pressing problems is to create a safe and •151

John Shaw sustainable system for the flow of capital from the developed world to the developing world. He said past financial crises were caused by the combination—and combustion—of two factors: weak underlying fundamental economic policies by certain nations and sharp, selffulfilling declines in market confidence in these nations. Summers said preventing such crises in the future requires strong policies in emerging market economies and improved international steps to prevent crises and resolve them when they occur. Summers noted that all nations must get their economic basics right: strong, mutually consistent monetary, fiscal and exchange rates and sound legal and regulatory policies. He also said that leading industrial nations should pursue policies to create strong, domestically generated growth and preserve open markets. There is also a need for stronger international regulatory cooperation, global incentives for prudent risk assessment and lending decisions, and improved public reporting and disclosure, he said. Summers is clearly intrigued by the explosive growth of global capital markets. He often likens these international capital markets to jet airplanes. “They are faster, more comfortable, and they get you where you are going better than other modes of travel. But the crashes are more spectacular,” he said. The new Treasury secretary will do all he can to prevent such crashes. “I think Secretary Summers is going to be very busy in the next year or so,” said Sen. Connie Mack, the chairman of the U.S. Congress’s Joint Economic Committee. “This job is too important to call any Treasury secretary a lame duck. He is going to have a lot of hard work to do,” added Mack. (September, 1999)

152 •

People of World Influence

Historian

David Fromkin

I

t is at least a small irony that David Fromkin’s intriguing new history of the world, The Way of the World, began as an essay about the future. Fromkin, one of the most popular and respected narrative historians in the United States, wrote an essay almost 20 years ago that speculated on the primary challenges of the 21st century. That essay, which postulated that one of the central themes of the international system in the next century will be fragmentation and disintegration, languished for more than a decade before it was published in a foreign policy journal in 1993. Pleased with the prescience of his arguments, Fromkin wanted to link his thoughts about the future to his vision of the past. “I felt my friends and students couldn’t really understand my ideas about the 21st century if they didn’t understand my conception of the past, my sense of where we came from,” he said in an interview. The specific inspiration to write The Way of the World came during a lunch in Manhattan with a Wall Street hedge fund manager. They met to discuss financial matters, but Fromkin spent most of the meal responding to his companion’s questions about history. Finally, Fromkin was asked a simple, challenging question: “Can you tell the story of humanity in the universe and tell it whole?” Fromkin said he could and, with an eye toward the tradition of the ancient shaman who passed on the lessons of the past around a campfire, decided to tell his story of humanity. “This is not research book. It was a work of organization and imagination,” he said. “It began as a book about the future, but there is really only so much you can say about the future. After all, no one really knows what is going to happen. So I built it on the foundation of my view of the past. •153

John Shaw But my focus is not on all the past, just the relevant past,” he added. Writing with clear prose, impressive sweep and remarkable brevity, Fromkin tells the story of man in 222 pages. The book comprises 12 chapters: four describe the past, four focus on the present and four are devoted to the future. He identifies a series of “radical turning points as having brought us from the African forests of millions years ago to the world of the 1990s and beyond.” Human history, in his view, has unfolded in eight phases: evolving into man, inventing civilization, developing a conscience, seeking a lasting peace, achieving rationality, uniting the planet, releasing nature’s energies, and ruling ourselves. Against this backdrop, Fromkin identifies two revolutions as decisive in world history: the agriculture-urban revolution in which man developed the tools to accumulate food and live in communities and the scientific-technological-industrial revolution in which humans used power and ingenuity to generate strong economic growth and astonishing advances in science. He argues this second revolution, which began in Great Britain, was “the most consequential initiative by humans since the peoples of the Fertile Crescent invented agriculture and Sumer invented civilization.” The scientific-technological-industrial revolution, Fromkin declares, “transformed human life and prospects more profoundly than had any achievement since apes engendered humans and humans invented agriculture and civilization.” While much of Fromkin’s discussion of the past deals with sweeping themes and big events, he is also interested in important people. For example he is intrigued by the life of Alexander the Great. Fromkin traces the conquests of Alexander from his initial thrust from Europe to Asia at the Dardanelles as a 20-year-old man to his death in 323 B.C., having conquered much of the world by the age of 32. “Alexander the leader is a major figure in the world’s political history, but he also deserves a place in history as an individual: as an extreme, a sort of parameter of human potential and experience, a kind of specific answer to the general question about human beings: how far can we go?” he writes. Fromkin acknowledged there are two competing schools of thought about Alexander: One sees him as the embodiment of the fearless individual who challenges all limits; the alternative view depicts him as a reckless over-reacher. “For me, Alexander embodies the ability of a person to push beyond all conceivable limits, to fully test himself,” he said. Fromkin also devotes attention in his book to the great British historian Edward Gibbon, whose Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire he ranks as one of the great histories in the English language. Gibbon has long intrigued Fromkin as the embodiment of 19th-century rationality. “I’ve always been taken by Gibbon’s style, his wit, his great writing and his wonderfully clear and consistent thought,” Fromkin said. Looking to the future, Fromkin sees two competing forces battling for ascendancy. “Two of the major trends in the modern world are the objective need for concentration of power to deal with the global economy and the global environment and the diffusion of power 154 •

People of World Influence that results when the glue holding societies together grows too thin,” he writes. “A central question in the politics of the 21st century throughout the world will be the tension between holding together and pulling apart; between the centripetal pull of a modern global economy that requires regional and planetary organization and the centrifugal push of atavistic tribalisms. It is conflict that pits rational interests against irrational emotions,” he argues. The clash of these two principles will dominate the next century, and perhaps the next millenium, he said, adding that the forces of disintegration may prevail. “One of the most striking and alarming tendencies in world politics as we head into the next century is an aspect of the trend toward diffusion of power. It is the widespread process of political fission, in which a country splits into two or more hostile groups who refuse to go on living together,” he writes. These internal struggles, rather than a conflict between great powers, are likely to be the overriding issue of the 21st century, he said, adding the coming century could become “the golden age of succession.” Fromkin noted that between 3,500 and 5,000 groups now claim nationhood and as their claims conflict the world could be ravaged by bitter feuds. And this disarray could, in turn, cause a huge backlash in which dictators are implored to take charge. “The world may welcome tyrants as saviors,” he writes. Fromkin says the coming century will begin with American preeminence. “American power continues to grow. American ideas continue to spread. For the first part of the century at least, and perhaps for all of it, it is a reasonably safe bet that we will have more of the same, that the 21st century will not be a Japanese or Chinese or European but another American century,” he writes. He said the United States dominated much of the 20th century in politics and economics, but American influence has now expanded to other realms. “The 21st century will show if America’s ideas work or not. In this sense, and perhaps only in this sense, the 21st century will be the American century,” he said. Fromkin grew up in Milwaukee and developed a love of history at an early age. “I’ve always had a passion for politics and for literature and history, of course, is where they come together,” he said. He attended the University of Chicago as both an undergraduate and law student and also studied at the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies of the University of London. After completing a three year stint as a U.S. Army lawyer, Fromkin joined the prestigious Wall Street law firm of Simpson, Thatcher and Bartlett. While working as a lawyer in private practice, Fromkin began to write history on the side. He spent a decade working evenings and weekends on a history of the Middle East that earned rave reviews. A Peace to End All Peace is a colorful, vivid account of the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the creation of the modern Middle East. It is packed with fascinating ideas as well as vivid character sketches and vignettes. The book examines the efforts of European and American leaders between 1914 and 1922 to redraw the map of the Middle East following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire after World War I. It began as book about how Europe changed the Middle East and ended up as a work on •155

John Shaw how Europe was changed as well by the process. Fromkin then turned his talents of narrative to a very different topic. In the Time of the Americans is a generational history about American leaders who were born in the 1880s or early 1890s and shaped America and the world until the early 1960s. Published in 1995, the book examines the lives and careers of such men as Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, George Marshall and Douglas MacArthur. In the Time of the Americans took four years to write, and Fromkin calls it a work of storytelling and interpretation that traces lives that began when America’s frontier was the West and ended with people traveling in outer space. Fromkin is currently the chairman of Boston’s University’s International Relations department where he teaches law, history and politics. He said he enjoys teaching and finds it an important stimulus to writing. “The teaching has definitely helped me write. When it doesn’t, I’ll stop teaching,” he said. Fromkin will publish a new book this month that deals with challenges for American foreign policy after the war in Kosovo. (August, 1999)

156 •

People of World Influence

Former President of South Africa

Nelson Mandela

W

hen Nelson Mandela stepped down from the presidency of South Africa and was succeeded by Thabo Mbeki on June 16, he left office amid a wave of affection and admiration that swept from Cape Town to Chicago, from Pretoria to Peoria. No recent figure on the world political stage has won such fulsome praise and commanded such enormous respect and affection as Mandela. Historians will soon begin to consider systematically the legacy of South Africa’s political prisoner turned global statesman. Clearly, it’s too soon to offer more than a preliminary assessment of Mandela’s accomplishments, for his legacy depends, in part, on what happens to South Africa in the coming years. If South Africa continues to advance as a vigorous democracy, Mandela’s stature will only grow. But if his nation falters or backtracks this could diminish his now soaring reputation. Still it is hard to dispute Mandela has lived one of the most interesting and consequential public lives of the 20th century. “We were very lucky to have Nelson Mandela,” said Sheila Sisulu, South Africa’s ambassador to the United States. “Not every country has a Mandela. But in a sense, Mandela really belongs to the world,” she added. Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela was born into the royal family of the Tembu at Qunu near Umtata on July 18, 1918. He studied at Fort Hare University College where, among other things, he met Oliver Tambo who later became president of the African National Congress. Mandela and Tambo were expelled in 1940 as a result of their participation in a student strike but developed a lifelong friendship. •157

John Shaw Mandela completed his bachelor’s degree in 1941 by correspondence through the University of South Africa and then studied at the University of Witwaterstand where he worked toward his law degree. Mandela joined in the founding of the ANC Youth League in 1944 and several years later became the ANC’s Youth League’s national secretary. Mandela and Tambo opened a legal practice in Johnannesburg in 1952 and had frequent scrapes with the government as they worked to end the apartheid system. For example in 1952, Mandela was arrested under the suppression of Communism Amendment Act and sentenced to nine months in jail. He was also among 156 activists arrested in 1956 for challenging the government, but was acquitted. In 1961, he was appointed the head of the ANC’s military wing and received training in Algeria. Mandela returned to South Africa in 1962 and was soon arrested for leaving the country without permission and sentenced to five years in prison. However, the ANC’s military high command was captured in 1963 and implicated Mandela in drafting a plan to topple the government. In June of 1964 he was sentenced to life imprisonment. This began Mandela’s now famous 27 years in prison. He spent 18 of those years in the maximum security prison on Robben Island, off South Africa’s coast. These years were remarkably harsh as he was confined to a small cell and was able to receive only one letter and one visitor every six months. Locked in captivity, he was unable to attend the funerals of family members and rarely saw his wife. In prison, Mandela became the symbol of resistance to apartheid and emerged as a global celebrity. The evil of apartheid was represented, for many, by his incarceration. Mandela was transferred to Pollsmoor maximum security prison in 1982. Later in the decade, he began secret talks with the white minority government. In 1985, President P.W. Botha offered to release Mandela if he would renounce violence. Mandela declined because the government was still employing violence to combat the ANC. Nonetheless, Mandela continued his talks with senior government officials and the negotiations grew more intense when new President F.W. de Klerk assumed office. Finally, on February 11, 1990, at 4:15 p.m., Mandela was freed 27 years, six months and five days after being arrested outside Durban. By all accounts, Mandela left prison in 1990 a far different man than the one who entered almost three decades earlier. Mandela was transformed from an impatient, impulsive, arrogant young man to a restrained, thoughtful, humble elder statesman. Reflecting later on his prison years, Mandela said he learned about “rationality, logic and compromise” and the need to set aside “sentiment.” “I came out mature,” he said. Now a free man, Mandela continued talks with de Klerk and they reached an agreement in September 1992 that stipulated that a single, freely elected assembly should serve as a transitional legislature and draft a new constitution. Later they decided that the first elections open to all South African citizens would be held in late April of 1994. For their work, Mandela and de Klerk shared 1993 Nobel Peace Prize. Mandela was elected president and entered office in May of 1994 after a ceremony of celebration that captured the imagination of the world. 158 •

People of World Influence “We have triumphed in the effort to implant hope in the breasts of millions of our people,” he said as he began his presidency. “We enter into a covenant that we shall build the society in which all South Africans, both black and white, will be able to walk tall, without any fear in their hearts, assured of their inalienable right to human dignity—a rainbow nation at peace with itself and the world,” he added. The central initiative of Mandela’s five year presidency was to embrace racial and societal reconciliation after more than four decades of apartheid. “From the moment the results were in and it was apparent that the ANC was to form the government, I saw my mission as one of preaching reconciliation, of binding wounds of the country, of engendering truth and confidence,” he said in 1994 after his election. The new South African president set up a Truth and Reconciliation Commission in June of 1994 to investigate all apartheid era crimes. Chaired by Archbishop Desmond Tutu, the panel’s fundamental premise was everyone should tell the truth about the past and those who admitted to committing crimes would be given amnesty. Mandela said the panel’s purpose was to “consolidate nation building and reconciliation.” After several years of wrenching testimony, emotional confessions, stern denials and almost daily drama, the panel issued a comprehensive report on the crimes of the apartheid era. In addition to backing this effort, Mandela and the ANC-dominated parliament also undertook a number of other initiatives to rebuild the nation’s political and economic systems. They backed a new, liberal constitution that gave South Africans sweeping protections from discrimination on the grounds of race, sex, sexual orientation or disability. It also prohibited the death penalty and legalized abortion. The Mandela government also attempted to improve the lives of ordinary people in tangible ways. Three million people have been given access to water, 2 million secured electricity in their homes, 500,000 new homes were built and free medical care has been extended to pregnant women and children. The government devised an austere economic plan that sought to reduce the budget deficit, cut bureaucracy and sell off state owned businesses. Mandela accomplished a great deal during his presidency but clearly did not solve all the problems of South Africa. The nation still suffers from massive unemployment of up to 40 percent of the workforce; unemployment among unskilled black women is about 70 percent. More than 500,000 jobs have been lost since 1994. Crime is rampant, frightening South Africa’s citizens and discouraging multinational firms from long term investments. And the nation’s educational system is in shambles. Only one half of high school students graduate and up to 90 percent of school days involve no teaching. Finally, the AIDS epidemic arrived late to South Africa but is poised to devastate the nation. According to government statistics about one-quarter of pregnant women in South Africa last year were infected with the HIV virus and some estimate that AIDS could kill up to one-third of the population. Analysts say the AIDS epidemic may be the most tragic thing to have happened to South Africa in recorded history, but the Mandela government was slow to confront it. So what then is the legacy of Mandela? Experts agree that his tenure has been consequential •159

John Shaw and largely positive—-for South Africa, the rest of Africa, and the watching world. Allister Sparks, a veteran South African journalist, said that Mandela had huge achievements, but some significant failings. “The one conspicuous failure during the Mandela years has been in bringing about economic revolution,” he said. “Fulfilling the government’s pledge to improve the quality of life for South Africa’s people—to create jobs for the unemployed, to build a million houses in five years for the 7 million homeless, to provide health care for all and education for every child, to bring clean water and electricity and telephones to the rural poor—requires one thing above all: growth,” he added. “To stop unemployment from becoming exponentially worse, simply to stay in place, the country needs an average growth rate of 5 percent a year for several years, a pace not seen for more than two decades,” Sparks said. New York Times columnist Anthony Lewis contends that Mandela altered the very structure of South African society. “He has taken a country utterly divided by race and made it one where people of different races actually share a vision.... He has transformed the political system without creating unrealistic expectations in the newly enfranchised. He has taken a country where fear was everywhere and made it free. He has given a society marked by official murder a culture of human rights,” he said. Sisulu, South Africa’s ambassador to the United States, said Mandela’s great accomplishment has been to promote democracy and impart values that will allow democracy to flourish. “Nelson Mandela has shown the importance and the greatness of humility. He came out of 27 years of incarceration and showed the greatness of humility. At every turn he has been humble,” she said. “By his example he has shown that justice doesn’t have to be vengeful, that justice with compassion based on truth can lead to reconciliation and lasting peace,” she added. She also cites Mandela’s willingness to step down after one term in office and his insistence that South Africa hold fair and credible elections as important for the health of the nation’s political system. “If you create democracy in the minds and hearts of people, the institutions can follow. And we now have the institutions,” she added. Marina Ottaway, an African expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said Mandela has been a powerful leader for all of Africa. “On a moral level his leadership has been tremendously significant. He has shown that it is possible to forgive, to suffer great wrongs and not seek revenge. That is a very important message to send,” she said. But she added that Mandela demonstrated such greatness that he has, in a curious way, discouraged emulation. “I think Mandela is widely perceived as being in a class of his own. For many, Mandela is such a great man, so much larger than life, that he isn’t even really seen as an example that can be imitated,” she said. “The fact that he left power after one term could be a very important legacy if it is followed by other African leaders who have a history of clinging to power. But so far there is no indication that others are ready to follow his example,” she said. 160 •

People of World Influence Ottaway said the weakest aspect of Mandela’s government was its foreign policy. “I’m not sure Mandela really understands Africa today. He’s very much a man of his own generation. He is locked in the past, still living in a different era,” she said. Ottaway said that Mandela, in the name of solidarity with victims of colonialism and out of loyalty to opponents of apartheid, met with and embraced such leaders as Col. Moammar Kadafi, Saddam Hussein and Fidel Castro. “What is most striking is that he never really understood what the flap was all about. He never really understood how controversial the meetings were. He only saw these people as symbols of liberation which they were several decades ago,” she said. For his part, Mandela, seems to believe that his legacy centers on his drive to promote reconciliation. “The experience of others has taught us that nations that do not deal with the past are haunted by it for generations. The quest for reconciliation was the fundamental objective of our struggle to set up a government based on the will of the people and to build a South Africa that indeed belongs to all,” he said recently. “Reconciliation is central to the vision that moved millions of men and women to risk all, including their lives, in the struggle against apartheid and white domination. It is inseparable from the achievement of a nonracial, democratic and united nation that affords common citizenship, rights and obligations to each and every person, while it respects the rich diversity of our people,” he added. (July, 1999)

•161

HIGHER EDUCATION: HANDBOOK OF THEORY AND RESEARCH, VOL. XVII

476

People of World Influence

British Prime Minister

Tony Blair

I

t’s fair to say that few leaders in the NATO alliance have distinguished themselves in the bloody, messy war that continues to ravage the Balkans. Careful, long-term planning and bold, decisive actions have not been the defining features of the West’s response to ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. Arguably, only British Prime Minister Tony Blair has emerged from the Balkan debacle as a strong, forceful leader. Blending red-hot passion with clear vision, Blair has spoken eloquently against the policy of ethnic cleansing that [Yugoslav] President Slobodan Milosevic is pushing in Kosovo. And he has also described NATO’s response as consistent with broader concepts of international responsibility. No one can dispute that the British leader is consumed by the bloodshed cascading over the Balkans. In speeches before the British Parliament, in Washington during NATO’s 50th anniversary celebration, and especially during a trip to the region in early May, Blair repeatedly frames the conflict in stark, moral terms. “This is not a battle for NATO. This is not a battle for territory. This is a battle for humanity,” Blair said at the Stenkovec refugee camp in Macedonia. He vowed that “all this suffering and all this misery and everything that has been created by the brutality of Milosevic shall not last but shall be reversed, shall be defeated so these people can once again become symbols of hope, humanity and peace.” A day later Blair addressed Romanian Parliament and recalled his feelings at the Stenkovec camp. “I felt an anger so strong, a loathing of what Milosevic’s policy stands for so powerful, that I pledged to them, as I pledge to you now, that Milosevic and hideous racial genocide will be defeated. NATO will prevail. And the refugees will be allowed to return to safety to their homes,” •163

John Shaw he said. Even as discussions about a negotiated settlement continue, the British prime minister emphasizes that his—and NATO’s—objectives for Kosovo remain unchanged: the cessation of all fighting and killing, the withdrawal of all Serb military police and paramilitary forces, the deployment of an international military force, the return of all refugees and unimpeded access for humanitarian aid, and a political framework for Kosovo that is brokered by NATO. “We will not negotiate on these aims. Milosevic must accept them,” he said, adding, “Success is the only exit strategy I am prepared to consider.” Blair has signaled an openness to introduce NATO ground troops into the region, although he defends NATO’s decision to begin with an air war against Belgrade. Only after the Serbian army has been degraded is the ground troop option viable, he said. Blair has gone beyond railing against Milosevic and defending NATO’s war against Yugoslavia—he is also trying to find ways to prevent these kind of brutalities from occurring in the future. The British prime minister has said one of the most difficult foreign policy problems an alliance faces is to identify the circumstances in which intervention in the affairs of a sovereign nation is warranted. In a major foreign policy address in Chicago in late April, Blair provided a rationale for NATO’s policies in the Balkans and suggested a new code of international conduct. “Non-interference has long been considered an important principle of international order,” he said. “And it is not one we would want to jettison too readily.… But the principle of noninterference must be qualified in important respects. Acts of genocide can never be a purely internal matter.” Blair identified certain factors that should be considered before an alliance intervenes in the affairs of a sovereign nation: The alliance should be sure of its case, have crucial interests at stake, exhaust all of diplomatic options, be prepared to take prudent military steps, and make a longterm commitment to the effort. In an era of globalization, nations need to embrace comprehensive policies that join economic, political and military initiatives into a coherent strategy, Blair said. “We are all internationalists now, whether we like it or not. We cannot refuse to participate in global markets if we want to prosper. We cannot ignore new political ideas in other countries if we want to innovate. We cannot turn our backs on conflicts and the violation of human rights within other countries if we want to be secure,” he told business leaders in Chicago. Blair also challenged world leaders to craft a “new doctrine of international community.” This new doctrine, he said, should be premised on revamped international financial institutions, a commitment to free trade, a reformed United Nations, a refocused NATO, renewed efforts to stop global warming and new steps to ease the debt burden of third-world nations. Blair’s stature on the international stage is clearly enhanced by his strong domestic base in the United Kingdom. He is frequently described as one of the most popular prime ministers of the century. Born in Scotland and educated at Oxford, Blair, now 46, served in Parliament for only 11 years before he won the leadership position in the Labor Party following the death of John Smith in 1994. Convinced that the Labor Party was burdened by a tired and politically unattractive ideology, Blair launched a crusade to rewrite Labor’s constitution. His goal was to have Labor embrace modern, progressive policies that would attract British voters and revive his nation. 164 •

People of World Influence “Power without principle is barren, but principle without power is futile. This is a party of government, and I will lead it as a party of government,” he said in explaining his commitment to overhaul the Labor Party. By mid-1995, Blair had achieved most of his restructuring goals. Labor’s platform was stripped of old planks on full employment, unilateral nuclear disarmament and the welfare state. The party now extolled free enterprise, promised fiscal discipline and extended clear, if cautious, support for European integration. On May 1, 1997, Blair was swept into office with a huge 179-seat majority in the House of Commons, becoming the first Labor prime minister since Jim Callaghan who served from 1976 to 1979. Moving confidently but carefully, Blair is the dominant force in British politics and speaks openly of advancing a decade-long project to remake the United Kingdom. He aspires to free the United Kingdom from the rigidity of its traditional class orientation, shift some power from the central government in London to the regions, liberate British businesses from unnecessary regulations, reduce the poor’s dependence on the state, and heal Britain’s estrangement from the European Union. By most accounts, his first two years in office have been impressive. He helped craft a peace accord in Northern Ireland; devolved power to legislatures in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast; reformed the House of Lords; created a minimum wage; granted independence to the Bank of England; established better ties with Europe; and maintained a close relationship with the United States. Looking ahead, Blair touts a political agenda that is based on what he calls the Third Waypolicies that marry economic dynamism with social justice. He backs fiscal prudence, welfare reform, tough anti-crime measures and a more limited role for the national government to promote education, skills, technology and small business. The British prime minister has kept the United Kingdom out of the European Union’s single currency arrangement but has begun to prepare his nation for such a move early in the next decade. He has pledged the issue of entering the single currency will be resolved by a national referendum. “There are genuine sound economic reasons for holding back now,” Blair said recently. “But our position is clear.… There is no constitutional barrier to Britain joining the single currency. If the euro works and the economic benefits are clear and unambiguous, we would recommend entry, with the British people having the final say in a referendum,” he added. Blair advocates a revitalized EU that speaks with a single voice on political and security issues as well as economic ones. He urges the EU to adopt “radical reforms” of its institutions so that a better governed Europe is prepared to meet the rigors of global competition. And he clearly wants his nation to be a full member of the European project. “For too long, Britain has seen Europe as a threat, not an opportunity. We have either resisted or regarded it as something that doesn’t involve us,” he said. “But if there is one thing Britain should learn from the last 50 years it is this: Europe can only get more important for us.” (June, 1999)

•165

HIGHER EDUCATION: HANDBOOK OF THEORY AND RESEARCH, VOL. XVII

476

People of World Influence

Meridian International Center President

Walter Cutler

A

bout a decade ago as Walter Cutler prepared to retire from a long and distinguished career as a U.S. Foreign Service officer, he began to think about a new professional challenge that would allow him to take full advantage of his varied experiences as a senior diplomat. At about the same time, the Meridian International Center was searching for a new president. This confluence of interests led to Cutler’s appointment as president of the Meridian Center in 1989 and the beginning of a partnership between Cutler and Meridian that continues to work very well. “The job seemed to be a very logical extension of what I had been doing for my entire career,” said Cutler from his spacious, elegant office at the Meridian House. “Everything we do here is international, and we relate very closely to the international affairs community.” The Meridian International Center is a Washington based non-profit educational and cultural institution dedicated to promoting global understanding through the exchange of peoples, ideas and the arts. Established in 1960, Meridian is located just off 16th Street on a three-acre site that includes the Meridian and White-Meyer houses, two historic mansions designed by the famed architect John Russell Pope. Every year, thousands of visitors and diplomats from around the world pass through Meridian’s doors to attend seminars, lectures and art exhibits. Over the last several decades, the Meridian Center has emerged as one of the focal points of Washington’s international affairs community. The Meridian International Center has an annual budget of about $13 million that comes from a variety of government grants and contracts, foundation grants and corporate and individual •167

John Shaw donations. Its work is supported by 100 full-time staff and 1,200 volunteers from across the country. Meridian’s wide-ranging programs can best be considered as falling within two main categories: Window on the World and the Doorway to the United States, said Cutler. The later refers to programs designed to make visitors feel more at home and comfortable in the United States, while the former refers to programs that give Americans glimpses of, and insights into, the rest of the world. Meridian’s world affairs section coordinates the Window on the World programs. The center hosts conferences on global and regional issues that bring together government officials, academics and private sector experts. Working in cooperation with the Smithsonian Institution, it also sponsors a series of seminars twice a year on international themes. Recent series have included Coping With Rogue States, New Diplomacy in a New World, the Middle East, and Africa. It also organizes a global issues series, an author’s lecture series, and a corporate training program, which provides cultural orientation for American business professionals about to travel abroad. Meridian also hosts international art exhibitions so that high-quality art from around the world can be seen and appreciated by American audiences. These international art exhibits are often developed in collaboration with foreign embassies. Exhibits typically begin in Washington and then travel to other communities in the United States. In recent years, Meridian has organized exhibitions featuring art from Latin America, Morocco, Russia, Singapore, South Africa and Vietnam. The center also sponsored a much-praised exhibit called “Building Bridges: Israeli and Palestinian Artists Speak.” Meridian has an international classroom program in which overseas students attending American universities visit public schools and discuss life in their home communities with American students. As a key part of its Doorway to the United States programs, Meridian helps manage a professional studies program. The center works with the United States Information Agency and other government and private institutions to host about 2,000 overseas visitors each year as they travel in the United States, seeking an up-close view of the nation. “The idea is to identify future leaders and expose them to life in the United States—and not just the big cities,” Cutler said. “They often experience small-town Americana as well. We also try to put them in touch with their counterparts in this country.” He added that an impressive roster of world leaders has passed through Meridian as part of this program, including Raul Alfonsin, Anwar Sadat, Tony Blair, Margaret Thatcher, F.W. de Klerk, Indira Gandhi, Gough Whitlam, Lionel Jospin and Valery Giscard D’Estaing. Meridian has an affiliate, The Hospitality and Information Services (THIS), that welcomes and assists diplomats and their families upon their arrival in Washington, D.C. The program was organized in 1961 at the suggestion of the chief of protocol to help new diplomats and their families adjust to life in Washington. It has grown over the years and now is able to assists about 3,000 diplomatic families. Cutler said the program has been so successful that several diplomats have told him that they plan to set up similar programs when they return home. “We work closely with the diplomatic community and have a number of programs to help 168 •

People of World Influence them not just settle in, but become more effective in their jobs,” Cutler said. Meridian hosts frequent briefings and lectures, which often feature ambassadors assigned to the United States. Cutler brings to his work at Meridian, wide and deep experience in international affairs. He said he has been interested in global politics and diplomacy since he was a young boy during World War II who followed key battles on a map in his bedroom. He studied political science at Wesleyan University and then earned a master’s degree from the Fletcher School of International Law and Diplomacy. After completing his academic studies, Cutler entered the foreign service and volunteered to open the first American consular post in Cameroon. “I wanted to be in the Foreign Service with a capital ‘F.’ I wanted to go far away and be challenged. So I went shopping for a job,” he said. After his stint in Cameroon, Cutler returned to the United States and was assigned to work as assistant to Secretary of State Dean Rusk. He vividly recalls working for Rusk during the early days of President Kennedy’s New Frontier. “I went from a very isolated environment in Cameroon to a bird’s eye view of the high policy debate. It gave me a wonderful balance and it was all very exciting. For a young foreign service officer it was fascinating. I decided to keep going,” he said. Cutler continued his Foreign Service career with postings to Algeria, South Korea and Vietnam. He accepted his first ambassadorship to Zaire (1975-79) and then served as ambassador to Tunisia (1982-84) and then twice to Saudi Arabia (1984-87 and 1988-89). He was the ambassador-designate to Khomeini’s Iran before diplomatic relations between the United States and Iran were broken. Cutler assembled part of the staff that was eventually held hostage for more than a year in Tehran. “I felt very personally involved with the hostages,” he said. From his current post at Meridian, Cutler remains active in international affairs. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, the Washington Institute of Foreign Affairs, the Middle East Institute and is a director of the American Academy of Diplomacy and the American Committee on Foreign Relations. The U.S. State Department awarded him the Director General’s Cup in 1993 for the “successful extension of a distinguished diplomatic career to significant contributions to American foreign policy on a broad public scale.” Cutler was chosen as a special emissary of the UN secretary general on peacekeeping issues in 1994. And several years later he was called upon to testify before a congressional panel that was investigating the terrorist bombings of American military bases in Saudi Arabia. Cutler is intrigued by the changes that have occurred in diplomacy during the span of his career and believes many have been driven by astonishing advances in communications. He said that during postings in the early part of his career he often had little awareness of developments beyond his immediate environment and eagerly listened to the Voice of America and the BBC’s World Service to learn what was happening in the outside world. Cutler pointed out that diplomacy has grown much more complex and is no longer exclusively managed by foreign ministries. “The idea of a diplomat going in to see the prime minister and foreign minister-and that’s all it •169

John Shaw takes-that idea is obsolete. There are so many actors now involved in the policy-making process,” he said. Cutler believes American diplomats are scrambling to adapt to a new global power configuration. “We had a strategic framework called the Cold War,” he added. “Behind almost everything we did was a clear reason: We were in a life and death struggle with a major nuclear power. In some ways it created a pretty clear definition of what your role was all about. That framework has broken down. There is now a fragmentation of the world. The end of the Cold War is a dream come true, but we’re also still finding our way in a much more confusing and complex world scene. It’s much harder to define what our vital national interests are. There is a whole gaggle of new issues-international crime, drugs, trade-that we need to deal with.” Cutler interacts frequently with diplomats working in Washington and understands the challenges and opportunities that confront envoys in the city. “First and foremost for an ambassador, you have to have access,” he said. “Unless you’re able to treat with the host government at the policy level, it’s very hard to do your job here. To be an effective diplomat here, you have to relate much more than just to the [executive branch] foreign affairs agencies. You have to make your points to Congress and not just key committee members but also the staff. You have to recognize that Congress is an important player in foreign policy, and you can achieve a lot of your foreign policy goals by working with Congress.” Representatives from nations that are close allies of the United States enjoy a special advantage in Washington, Cutler pointed out. But it is possible to be an effective diplomat here, even from a small nation outside America’s traditional orbit, he added.“Sometimes diplomats are confused by the multiplicity of players,” he said. “It takes a while to learn the ropes. You have to be creative. You have to work hard. You have to have stamina and show great initiative. You can’t get discouraged.” And he is determined to help diplomats do their work and to encourage the broader cause of international understanding, which is at the very heart of Meridian’s agenda. “Our message at Meridian is very simple,” he said. “We believe face-to-face, hands-on interaction still counts, even in a world of instant communication. Just because we can talk to someone doesn’t mean we understand them. And understanding is what we’re interested in at Meridian.” (May, 1999)

170 •

People of World Influence

House International Relations Committee Chairman

Benjamin Gilman

S

itting in his Capitol Hill office, House International Affairs Committee Chairman Benjamin Gilman acknowledges there is an almost endless procession of daunting foreign policy challenges that confront President Bill Clinton and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright every day. As chairman of the influential House committee, Gilman and his colleagues are confounded by many of the same hard issues: Kosovo, Iran, Iraq, weapons proliferation, international drug trafficking, human rights abuses, China, Middle East peace, NATO expansion and terrorism. Gilman is sharply critical of the Clinton administration for being overwhelmed by these daily problems and failing to address them within a strategic frame-

work. “Too often the administration is distracted and takes a Band Aid approach, forgetting there should be overall, long-range objectives,” he said in an interview. “Too often the White House gets so involved in the issue of the day that it neglects long-range goals. When that happens Congress tries to remind them to look at the bigger picture. Framing the debate is extremely important in foreign policy, and that is one of our important jobs in Congress,” he added. Gilman, 77, is a kindly, avuncular, unpretentious man. He prefers to work out of his personal office on the fourth floor of the House Rayburn building rather than the large suite of offices the International Affairs panel has been provided on the busier first floor of the building. Strolling around his office in a sweater and chatting easily with his staff, Gilman looks more like a goodnatured office volunteer than one of Capitol Hill’s most important voices on international affairs. But Gilman’s kind words are not often extended to the White House, and his easy demeanor •171

John Shaw sometimes obscures his determination to influence the direction of American foreign policy. Gilman said he is struck by both the volume and complexity of the issues the United States must deal with. “In many ways the Cold War was a lot easier,” he said. “You could easily define who the enemy was. We are in a different period now. We face enemies in a number of forms, and it’s not always clear how to act.” In recent weeks, his international affairs panel has held hearings on Kosovo, human rights abuses in China, and America’s foreign aid programs. He also led a congressional delegation to several European cities to meet with political and military leaders. Gilman also took a quick trip to Jordan in February to attend the funeral of King Hussein and had an informal meeting with Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The Middle East peace process is one Gilman’s major interests. He is one of Congress’s most passionate supporters of Israel and believes the U.S. government should provide unwavering support of that nation. During his visit to Amman, Netanyahu told Gilman that Israel will support an “even stronger peace process” if he is re-elected in the national elections in May. “Peace in the Middle East is very fragile. Israel is a small country surrounded by a number of hostile neighbors who are not very forward-looking about the peace process,” he noted, citing Syria as the “major holdout.” “We’ve made some progress, but we won’t have peace in the region until all the parties sit down and try to resolve the remaining issues. No third party can intervene and make peace for them. We in the United States Congress would like to help in any way we can,” he said. Gilman is very focused on addressing the problems of international drug trafficking and terrorism. Both are serious threats that the United States must work with other nations to control, he said. During his recent trip to Europe, Gilman chaired an informal seminar organized by United Nations Drug Control Program that was attended by several dozen American and European parliamentarians and international administrators. “Drugs are a critical problem that have interested me since I came to Congress,” he said. “In the United States, we need to reduce supply and demand and do it simultaneously. Both are very important. And we need international cooperation.” At the seminar, he urged American and European leaders to redouble their efforts and intensify their cooperation in fighting drug trafficking and narco-terrorism. Gilman has emerged as one of the sharpest critics of the Clinton administration’s China policy, saying it places too little emphasis on human rights and too much value on commerce. The Clinton administration, he said, is perceived in Asia as being willing to subordinate basic American values — such as support for democracy, human rights and even security — in the quest for markets. “The administration too often says the right thing about human rights. But there is a certain amount of reluctance to push this issue very hard. It is more concerned about maintaining good commercial relations with China,” Gilman said. China purchases only about 3 percent of American exports while China sends one-third of all of its exports to the United States, he pointed out. 172 •

People of World Influence “I just don’t understand why the United States is willing to give away its massive economic leverage,” he said. “Too often the administration has been exceptionally solicitous of China’s viewpoint. Too often it has drawn a line in the sand, only to step away from it.” Gilman said he is also “very troubled” about mounting allegations that China stole American nuclear technology from U.S. laboratories. In the last several years Gilman has advocated that the United States place much greater emphasis on the entire Asia-Pacific region. Americans have neglected the Pacific, he said, adding that if more attention had been focused on that region some of the financial and political problems that battered Asia in the last several years might have been mitigated. “The European Union is a major trading partner and ally, and we can’t neglect that part of the world. But we should have a similar arrangement in the Pacific that we have with our friends across the Atlantic,” he said. Gilman supports drafting a Pacific Charter that would spell out America’s long-term goals and objectives in the region and bolster them with an implementation plan. “It would demonstrate that the United States is placing its relations with Asia in the 21st century on a par comparable to that of our relations with Europe over the later half of the 20th century,” he said. In Gilman’s view, a Pacific Charter would be based on such, as principles as effective security, prevention of regional domination by one nation, promotion of democracy and rule of law, respect for human and religious rights, and expansion of trade on a reciprocal basis. “Trade alone does not bring democracy and rule of law; in fact, trade flourishes best under the umbrella of democracy’s rule of law,” he said. A Pacific Charter would serve as the foundation for a “coherent and comprehensive policy with regard to Asia and, in particular, the People’s Republic of China,” he said. Gilman’s focus on the Pacific is intriguing, given that he has spent most of his life on the East Coast and has been a strong champion of the U.S.’s Atlantic alliance. Born on December 6, 1922, in Poughkeepsie, N.Y., Gilman was educated in public schools in Middletown. He studied economics at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business and Finance and later earned a law degree from New York Law School in 1950. Gilman served in World War II as a staff sergeant in the 19th Bomb Group of the 20th Army Air Force. He flew 35 missions over Japan and earned a Distinguished Flying Cross and the Air Medal with Oak Leaf Clusters. He worked in New York’s state government during most of the 1960s and was first elected to Congress in 1972 from New York’s 20th district. He was re-elected to his 14th term in 1998 and offers no hint that he will retire soon. Gilman returns to his district nearly every weekend to meet with constituents and attend functions. Gilman assumed the chairmanship of the International Relations panel in 1995 when Republicans won control of the House. A firm internationalist, he is also a sharp critic of the administration on a host of issues, ranging from Haiti to Bosnia to North Korea. He faults the administration for lunging from crisis to crisis with no grand strategy in place. Gilman tries to coordinate the work of his House committee with the Senate Foreign •173

John Shaw Relations Committee that is chaired by Republican Sen. Jesse Helms [R-N.C.]. “I try to keep in close touch Sen. Helms so we’re moving in the right direction—and the same direction—on important legislation,” Gilman said. The two helped block efforts in 1998 to overhaul America’s economic sanctions policy. Many business groups argue that U.S. lawmakers are far too eager to impose unilateral sanctions on any nation that displeases them. The business community contends that the proliferation of sanctions damages American businesses far more than the targeted nations. Gilman disagrees. “I know commercial interests don’t like economic sanctions, but sanctions are an important weapon in our arsenal of weapons. Sanctions are very important and shouldn’t be thrown out the window,” he said. Gilman helped pass a bill in 1996 that penalizes foreign firms that aid the oil industries in Iran and Libya. It was designed to punish Iran and Libya for supporting international terrorism and seeking weapons of mass destruction—and to punish others that do business with them. Many of America’s allies view these and other sanctions as misguided and arrogant attempts to impose U.S. views on other countries. Despite his strong differences with the White House on issues, Gilman tries to cooperate with the Clinton administration as much as he can. He has a friendly, but not especially close, working relationship with Albright. “I always hear from Madeleine during a crisis, and we have consultations from time to time. But I wish she would spend a little more time with our committee. We don’t see very much of Madeleine. We would like to see her more often.” (April, 1999)

174 •

People of World Influence

Ambassador-at-Large

David Scheffer

D

avid Scheffer, the U.S.’s ambassador-at-large for war crimes issues, has both the challenge and the misfortune of working in a booming field. Scheffer hopes to help find ways to restrain the demand for his services and to diminish his caseload. “War crimes is a growth industry,” he said at his State Department office. “That’s unfortunate. But it’s also fortunate in some ways because we’re paying more attention to war crimes as a criminal issue, and we’re doing more to detect it in the early stages, prevent it, and seek accountability for it,” he said. “This was not a natural feature of the foreign policy of this country or any other country prior to 1993,” he added. Scheffer, 44, is a senior aide to U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and was the first person she hired after being appointed as America’s ambassador to the United Nations by newly elected President Bill Clinton. Scheffer helped Albright prepare for her Senate confirmation hearings in early 1993 for the UN post and has been with her ever since. Albright has charged Scheffer to work on an issue that is of great interest to her: international humanitarian law and the protection of human rights. In 1997, Clinton and Albright asked Scheffer to head up the State Department’s new War Crimes Office, and designated him as an ambassador. “The title of ambassador allows me to meet with senior officials from other countries and to directly present the views of our government,” he said. The diplomatic job was created because Albright “wanted to create a position that put a sharp focus on war crimes,” Scheffer said. As the chief of the State Department’s war crimes unit, he manages a staff of about a half dozen. Scheffer’s team addresses serious violations of international humanitarian law anywhere in the •175

John Shaw world. They also coordinate support for the Yugoslavia and Rwanda criminal tribunals and organize American efforts to establish international records and mechanisms of accountability for violations of human rights laws. “Every single day now there is an event somewhere in the world that triggers the issue of accountability,” he said. “And the international community’s response to atrocities has definitely changed over the last six years. So now, the moment there is a report of a massacre there is the question not only of how could it have happened, but how can we bring the perpetrators to justice. These were not natural knee-jerk reactions six years ago.” Scheffer brings to the war crimes portfolio a long history of interest in international affairs and law. A native of Oklahoma, Scheffer is graduate of Harvard College and Oxford University. He also has a degree in international law from Georgetown University Law Center. While at Harvard, he took a course with professor Michael Walzer, called Just and Unjust Wars, that provoked deep questions about, and sparked a passionate interest in, human rights and war crimes issues. “I just got hooked on the issue and I’ve maintained that interest over the years,” he said. Scheffer accepted a job in 1979 with the Coudert Brothers law firm, and spent much of the next four years based in Singapore, working throughout Asia on a wide range of legal projects. Then in what Scheffer calls a “critical career choice,” he left the law firm and decided to focus on international and national security law, with an emphasis on public policy. Scheffer worked at the Council on Foreign Relations (1986-87), the House Foreign Affairs Committee (1987-89), and the Carnegie Endowment of International Peace (1989-92). When Albright became the U.S.’s ambassador to the United Nations, she selected Scheffer to manage her Washington office. His chief responsibilities were war crimes and peacekeeping policy. As a senior Albright aide, he worked closely with the United Nations and other governments to create an international tribunal in 1993 to deal with the horrible crimes committed in the former Yugoslavia and then in 1994 to set up a tribunal to seek justice for the atrocities in Rwanda. “The work on the Yugoslavia tribunal was the beginning of a total immersion in the subject,” he said, adding that a subsequent effort to structure the Rwanda tribunal was “very time consuming and very intense.” Scheffer said these tribunals have brought a number of people to justice, demonstrated the international community’s outrage over war crimes, and brought a sharp focus on humanitarian law and war crimes. “These two tribunals triggered a lot of interest in war crimes. There’s been a total explosion of focus on, and implementation of, laws of war and international humanitarian law,” he said. Scheffer was the lead American official at the negotiations for the permanent international criminal court that was approved last summer at a diplomatic conference in Rome. The purpose of the court is to provide a permanent mechanism to punish war crimes, genocide, and other crimes against humanity. Unlike the Rwanda and Yugoslav tribunals, the permanent court’s authority would not be limited to a specific region and it would be an on-going institution. The U.S. was one of a small group of nations to oppose the treaty, which was eventually approved in a resounding 120 to 7 vote. In announcing American opposition to the treaty, Scheffer 176 •

People of World Influence said the court could be used so that American troops on peacekeeping missions might be prosecuted at the demand of another government. He also argued the proposed court’s jurisdiction was too broad, some nations could use an opt-out clause to escape its authority, and a new, undefined category of “crimes of aggression” was being created. The American delegation was criticized for seeking special protections for Americans, conjuring up unrealistic scenarios that U.S. military forces might be arrested, and failing to understand the strong sentiments of most of the other countries in the world on the court. Scheffer strongly defends the actions of the U.S. government in Rome. “It was with disappointment, but also with some pride, that on the final night of the Rome conference I stood for what our government must stand for—which is not only international justice but also international peace and security. We shoulder a major burden on both of those scores,” he said. “For years, the U.S. has supported the idea of a permanent criminal court and provided important leadership. The unfortunate impression that came out of Rome is that we are dead set against an international criminal court. That is simply not true,” he added. Scheffer argues the international court is so important that it must be structured carefully. “We’re making history here and we have got to get it right. We don’t believe that last minute deals that cut through a number of tough problems necessarily results in a court that addresses the problems in a reasonable, coherent way,” he added. Scheffer said he will continue to work with other nations to see if the international court can be fashioned in a way that is acceptable to the U.S. At a minimum, the ambassador argued, it must offer firm guarantees that American military forces would not be vulnerable to politically inspired prosecutions. “A large percentage of the Rome treaty is the treaty we wanted. Our hope is that through dialogue we can find some method that allows us to achieve satisfaction on our fundamental concerns about the treaty. Those fundamental concerns are quite limited, but they are deal breakers,” he added. In addition to work on the international criminal court, Scheffer expects to be busy this year supporting the Yugoslav and Rwanda tribunals. He pointed out that the United States provides large funds for these tribunals and provides considerable equipment and staff support. The U.S. government has also encouraged the tribunals to arrest those under indictment for war crimes, the ambassador said. He is also determined to play a constructive role in helping Cambodia leaders deal with the suffering of their recent past, especially the brutal crimes committed during the Khmer Rouge’s reign of terror. The United States will work with Cambodian officials to create a “credible judicial tribunal,” he said. “Such a tribunal could be an international one, established by the UN Security Council.” Scheffer is also gearing up for a major administration initiative: developing a genocide warning system. He said the project will focus on preventing war crimes and holding international criminals to account. The State Department has conducted a detailed study of past war crimes and has developed a model that will help it anticipate future threats. Scheffer heads up the administration’s atrocities prevention team and is determined to press •177

John Shaw forward with efforts to prevent war crimes. But he emphasized the limitations of what the United States can do. “The United State is not going to be able to respond to every problem out there, and it will not respond unilaterally to a large number of them. But it’s a start to sensitize other governments and ourselves to the importance of these crimes,” he said. And he bristles at many of the criticisms being launched at the United States. “This is a country that gets serious about international justice, and we do it every single day. There is no other government in the world that does it the way we do. We’re very proud of our engagement on many, many fronts on war crimes issues. President Clinton and Secretary Albright are determined that we stay engaged on these issues,” he said. Scheffer’s involvement in war crimes is driven both by a sense of justice and by personal experiences. “I’ve walked through a lot of killing fields,” he noted. “It’s such a horrible experience. It leaves you with a sense of outrage, a sense of anger. And a desire to find justice and make sure it never happens again.” (March, 1999)

178 •

People of World Influence

Institute for the Study of Diplomacy Director

Casimir Yost

C

asimir Yost, the director of Georgetown University’s Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, is helping prepare a new generation of diplomats to understand the fundamentals of an old craft and the new challenges posed by breathtaking changes in economics, technology and public attitudes toward diplomacy. Yost directs a program that seeks to instruct students on what diplomacy is really like and to prepare them for the challenges they will face on the frontlines of international affairs. “Everything about diplomacy has become more complex,” he said from his office on the eighth floor of Georgetown University’s Intercultural Center. “If you look at an American embassy today, the minority of the officials in that embassy are State Department officials. You’ll have representatives from many agencies of the U.S. government that reflect its broader mandate,” he said. “The ambassador or diplomat now presides over an embassy that is far more complex than their predecessors ever had to deal with. At the institute we try to capture the complexity and provide a better understanding of how the different actors are interacting to craft foreign policy,” he added. The institute was created in 1978 as part of Georgetown University’s Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service and is designed to be the school’s primary window on the world of the foreign affairs practitioner. The institute, Yost said, studies how diplomats and other foreign affairs professionals actually do their work and what lessons can be learned from their successes and failures. Its programs focus on the foreign policy process and examine how decisions are made and then implemented. “The founders of the institute were concerned that there was insufficient attention given to the •179

John Shaw implementation of foreign policy, to how you actually carry it out, with a particular focus on the role of the diplomat in implementing foreign policy,” Yost said. “At the institute we try to reflect the real experiences of diplomats abroad,” he said, adding that as the program has evolved it has broadened its inquiry to include all the factors that go into putting a foreign policy into place. Yost said one of the daunting challenges modern diplomats face is crafting a role that adapts to the changes driven by the information revolution in which television and computers provide instant communication. “There is no doubt that one of the results of the information revolution is that the ability of an ambassador to be the unique interlocutor in a given country has diminished,” he said. Another specific challenge that confronts American diplomats is how to engage a public that is not especially interested in international affairs. “We are at risk of losing a whole generation of Americans who don’t see the relevance of foreign policy in their lives,” Yost noted. “One of our concerns is to reduce the yawning gap between the body politic of the United States, which is not generally interested in foreign policy, and a very ambitious American foreign policy. We have a gap between a disinterested public and an ambitious American foreign policy elite. This gap is widening.” Yost heads up the staff at the institute, which teach courses at Georgetown University, organize lectures, work closely with students and participate on university committees. Students are steeped in such traditional readings as Harold Nicholson’s “Diplomacy” and are also given instruction in state-of-the art information technology. The institute, which is funded by Georgetown University and by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, has a wide range of programs. First, it brings to the Georgetown campus veteran foreign policy practitioners from the American government, the private sector and other governments to reflect on and discuss their diplomatic experiences. The institute takes full advantage of the number of international experts living in Washington and has also brought in diplomats from China, France, Germany, Italy, Singapore, Venezuela and other nations to reside on campus. These associates teach, write and work with students on special projects. For example, the institute has a junior fellows program in which a visiting associate is paired with a student on a project that focuses on some aspect of negotiating. The institute is also the major custodian of Pew Case Studies, distributing more than 30,000 case studies last year for 1,200 college courses. These case studies focus on a particular topic and are used in international affairs courses to help students delve into a specific issue and hone their analytical and communications skills. Another function of the institute is that it publishes comprehensive monographs on particular topics as well as short, issue-specific and policy relevant essays. It also gives several prestigious awards for international reporting and sponsors several annual lectures. This year, for example, retiring U.S. congressman Lee Hamilton gave a presentation on how foreign policy has changed during the course of his 34-year congressional career. Each year, the institute typically sponsors two or three major projects. In the current academic year it has projects under way on Congress and American foreign policy, public diplomacy and NATO expansion and is also developing an innovative briefing on the Persian Gulf region. 180 •

People of World Influence In recent years, it has conducted a major study on why embassies are still needed, which drew from the experiences of senior diplomats posted in five different nations. It also examined America’s dwindling expenditures on international affairs programs relative to domestic programs. Yost has headed up the Institute for the Study of Diplomacy since March 1994. He is the third director in the institute’s history. His two predecessors were David Newsom and Hans Binnendijk. Yost brings to the position a wide range of experiences in international affairs. A graduate of Hamilton College with a bachelor’s degree in history, Yost also has a master’s degree in foreign service from Georgetown University. After completing his academic studies, Yost worked for five years for Citibank of New York in Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Tunisia. He then moved to Washington where he was a foreign policy adviser to Sen. Charles “Mac”. Mathias and then worked on the staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Yost served as president of the World Affairs Council of Northern California from 1986 to 1990 and then worked for four years as the executive director of the Asia Foundation’s Center for Asian Pacific Affairs. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bretton-Woods Committee, the National Committee on U.S.-China relations, and the International Steering Committee of the Bilderberg Meetings. Yost is keenly interested in developments in Asia and especially China, noting that the U.S. must craft and sustain a strategic approach to its relationship with China that has strong national support. The United States, he said, should find a new approach to China that provides incentives for Chinese internal policy reform and disincentives for irresponsible Chinese external policies. Yost believes American objectives regarding China should be to ensure that China’s external behavior does not threaten U.S. interests or draw it into a regional conflict, to expand the U.S. economy through positive trade and financial interactions with China, and to encourage China to create a more open political system. “The Clinton administration needs to narrow its agenda with China, abandon a pattern of unilateral public criticism and concentrate on those issues of security and trade on which our interest are joined with those of China,” he said. Yost said it is still unclear if China can make the transition from the closed, isolated state of the pre-1979 period to a fully open, politically stable and broadly engaged country. “The logic of economic reform mandates political change,” Yost added. “China’s initial steps with legal reform, increased activity by the National People’s Congress and local village elections are important. But the pace of political change must quicken.” Yost has brought more than ten Chinese diplomats and military officers to the institute as resident associates and is determined to make this an area of future emphasis. “I think we have a successful pattern at the institute,” he added. “Each year we strive to strike the right balance between research and teaching. But the major components of our program are pretty well in place.” (January, 1999) •181

HIGHER EDUCATION: HANDBOOK OF THEORY AND RESEARCH, VOL. XVII

476

People of World Influence

The Dalai Lama

N

ear the end of a long day of grueling Washington diplomacy, the Dalai Lama demonstrated he can still light up a room, win over an audience and forcefully present his views on global politics and personal spirituality. Speaking at Lisner Auditorium at George Washington University on the evening of November 10, the Dalai Lama exuded warmth, poked fun at his shaky English, worked the rope line with world class skill and provided an intriguing reflection on the harmony between Asian values and democracy. Tibet’s spiritual leader began the day with intense diplomacy as he met in the White House Map Room with President and Mrs. Clinton and then held separate sessions with Vice President Al Gore and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright to review Tibet’s troubled relationship with China. The Dalai Lama later briefed reporters to say he was prepared to open a formal dialogue with China over the future of Tibet but noted that China had refused to work with him through informal channels to coordinate a mutually acceptable statement. Lamenting “an atmosphere of deep distrust” that now pervades the Sino-Tibetan relationship, the Dalai Lama said “this distrust will not disappear in a day. It will dissipate only through sincere dialogue.” But hours later during his speech to 1,400 university students and community leaders gathered in downtown Washington, the Dalai Lama did not seem burdened by the vagaries of power politics or his sharp differences with China. Instead, he focused on the similarities between democracy and Buddhism and implored those in attendance to assert their individual rights while accepting full responsibility for their behavior. “At the heart of Buddhism lies the idea that the potential for awakening and perfection is •183

John Shaw present in every human being, and it is a matter of personal effort to realize that potential. The Buddha proclaimed that each individual is the master of his or her own destiny,” he said. “Modern democracy is based on the idea that all human beings are essentially equal.... Not only are Buddhism and democracy compatible, they are rooted in the same understanding of equality and the potential of each individual,” he continued. During his talk, the Dalai Lama sharply disputed the view that basic differences separate the peoples of the East and West. “It is my fundamental belief that all human beings share the same basic aspirations: that we all want happiness and that we all share suffering,” he said. “Asians, just like Americans, Europeans and the rest of the world, share a desire to live life to its fullest, to better ourselves and the lives of our loved ones,” he added. And then before departing the auditorium for yet another meeting the Dalai Lama offered the students one of the central lessons he has learned in his remarkable life. “Without a smart brain, there can be no progress. Without a warm heart, you can’t be a happy person. So therefore a warm heart and good brain must go together.” Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama, is one of the world’s most respected and revered leaders. His towering presence in both the religious and political spheres is probably matched only by Pope John Paul II. Now 63, the Dalai Lama is a cheerful, ebullient man with a warm smile and infectious laugh. Wearing his crimson robe, brown leather shoes over dark socks, thick glasses and closely cropped hair that is graying at the temples, he looks like the “simple monk” he still professes to be. Born on July 5, 1935, in a small town in northeastern Tibet, he was recognized at the age of 2 by Tibetan leaders as the reincarnation of the 13th Dalai Lama who had died several years earlier. He was brought to Lhasa at the age of 4 for years of study and spiritual preparation. But his training was interrupted when China invaded Tibet, and he was given full authority to deal with the Chinese. Tibet, bordered by the Himalayas and often referred to as the Roof of the World, has a long and complicated history with China that extends back almost 15 centuries. In its modern context, China controlled Tibet in the late-17th and early-18th centuries, but its primacy weakened during the 19th century. When the Qing dynasty collapsed in 1912, Tibet expelled Chinese troops and officials and asserted its freedom. From 1912 until 1951, Tibet functioned as an independent nation, although its international status was unsettled. The founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949 signaled the impending demise of Tibet’s de facto independence; China invaded Tibet’s eastern province in October of 1950. The Dalai Lama reached a tentative accord with China in 1951 that recognized Chinese sovereignty over Tibet for the first time, but it also acknowledged the right of the Dalai Lama’s government to administer Tibet. The accord slowly unraveled. A Tibetan uprising in Lhasa in 1959 was put down by the Chinese and the Dalai Lama fled to India, followed by 80,000 Tibetan refugees. Establishing a government in exile in the northern Indian hill town of Dharamsala, the Dalai Lama has focused on taking care of Tibetan refugees and providing a base to regain political freedom for the 2.4 million Tibetans. 184 •

People of World Influence Committed to non-violence, the Dalai Lama has been deeply involved in both public and private diplomacy with the Chinese. He held private talks with Chinese leaders in 1982 and 1984, offering several comprehensive plans that would have given Tibet political autonomy but not full independence from China. Deng Xiaoping’s rise to power in China in 1978 led to strong efforts to resolve the Tibet issue, but no final accord was reached. Deng invited the Dalai Lama to visit Beijing in 1989, but he declined and after a series of riots broke out in Lhasa, China declared martial law and implemented hard-line policies. The Dalai Lama won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1989 for his efforts to secure Tibetan freedom without violence and also for his support of human rights and environmental causes. In awarding him the prestigious prize, the Nobel committee noted that “the Dalai Lama in his struggle for the liberation of Tibet consistently has opposed the use of violence. He has instead advocated peaceful solutions based upon tolerance and mutual respect in order to preserve the historical and cultural legacy of his people.” While his work in international affairs has intensified, the Dalai Lama has maintained rigorous spiritual practices. On most days, the Dalai Lama wakes up by 3:30 a.m. and spends four hours reciting scripture as he walks and rides an exercise bike. He notes that he always includes the Chinese people in his prayers. He faithfully listens to the British Broadcasting Corp.’s World Service radio program and jokingly calls that show one of his few “addictions.” After a day of prayers and meetings, the Dalai Lama relaxes by gardening, tinkering with watches, browsing through encyclopedias, and watching television. “On the surface, waves come and go, but underneath, I always remain calm,” the Dalai Lama has said of his state of mind. For all his undisputed charm and goodness, the Dalai Lama has been criticized for his diplomacy. Some analysts believe that while this high-profile advocacy for Tibet has earned him the praise of the world and secured him famous Hollywood friends, it has actually made China more intransigent. His critics argue he made a big tactical mistake by declining a private meeting in 1989 with Chinese officials that might have yielded progress. “The triumphs of the Dalai Lama’s international campaign look more and more like Pyrrhic victories,” said Melvyn Goldstein, a Tibetan expert at Case Western University. “The exiled Dalai Lama finds himself standing on the sidelines, unable to impede or reverse changes in his country that he deplores and the frustration engendered by this impotence has seriously heightened the danger of violence,” Goldstein added. Few dispute that China has tightened its grip on Tibet in the last decade, pouring in large sums of investment capital and sending in several hundred thousand non-Tibetans to live in the region. Many analysts say the Dalai Lama has lost control of the Tibetan freedom movement. There is vocal minority of Tibetans who are determined to fight to gain their independence from China, and they fear their leader may accept a deal that falls far short of outright independence. The focus of this discontent resides in a group called the Tibetan Youth Congress, which has more than 60 chapters and 13,000 members across the world. The group arose out of anger with the Dalai Lama’s 1988 decision to reverse his previous call for full independence. In a much noted speech in Strasbourg, he said he would accept autonomy for Tibet, with China still in control of defense and foreign affairs. •185

John Shaw Few Tibetans find the status quo acceptable, and as the Dalai Lama looks to the future he appears to have two broad options: to secure a compromise agreement with China or to intensify the struggle and perhaps turn his eye to any violence that might occur. Virtually no one expects him to encourage violence. In any compromise that China would accept, the Dalai Llama would have to end his international campaign against Beijing. He would also have to acknowledge China’s full sovereignty over Tibet and Taiwan, give up claims to speak for all Tibet, and acknowledge direct communist control of political Tibet. Such a compromise would allow the Dalai Lama to preserve a Tibetan homeland where ethnic Tibetans predominate and Tibetan language, culture and religion would flourish. The Dalai Lama has said he would like to resolve this matter as quickly as possible and head off a bruising battle over his successor. While facing daunting political problems, the Dalai Lama remains serene. “With goodwill on both sides, with a commitment to non-violence and reconciliation, we can together bring peace and stability in Tibet and lasting harmony between the Tibetan and Chinese peoples,” he said in a statement near the end of his Washington visit in November. “I am not seeking independence for Tibet, nor do my actions seek its separation from the People’s Republic of China. I am for genuine autonomy for the Tibetan people to preserve their distinct identity and way of life,” he added. (December, 1998)

186 •

People of World Influence

Senator

Chuck Hagel

R

epublican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska doesn’t apologize for being fascinated with international affairs nor is he embarrassed about spending much of his time helping to craft America’s foreign policy. U.S. engagement with the world is crucial for the safety and prosperity of the people he represents, said Hagel. “You don’t have to explain to a Nebraska farmer or rancher or small business person very much about the International Monetary Fund or foreign relations,” he said. “They know intuitively that if something bad happens in Asia they won’t be able to sell their wheat, corn, or beef. Expanding markets have been the key to our prosperity for a long time.” In his office at the Senate Russell Office Building, Hagel spoke easily on subjects ranging from the challenges in Central Asia to the leadership vacuum in the United States and his admiration for Winston Churchill and Theodore Roosevelt. Friendly and energetic, Hagel has emerged as one of Capitol Hill’s brightest stars on foreign policy. He has won strong praise from lawmakers from both parties, the diplomatic corps, and senior members of the Clinton administration. “Your work has been much noticed around the world,” Deputy Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers told Hagel this summer at a congressional hearing. “Sen. Hagel is one of the stars around here,” said Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, adding that Hagel has made a stronger impact on Congress than any new lawmaker he has ever seen. Hagel is a strong, interesting presence on Capitol Hill who has an impressive command of key international issues, according to Andrew Peacock, Australia’s ambassador to the United States. “Chuck Hagel is very well informed, very inquisitive, and also brings strong views to the table,” •187

John Shaw said Peacock. “He is a pleasure to deal with. You always learn something from him.” Hagel played a key role in securing $18 billion in American funds for the IMF and helped push the chemical weapons ban and North Atlantic Treaty Organization expansion treaties through the Senate this year. And he is helping shape the American debate on trade, defense and international economic policy. The senator approaches international affairs in a straightforward way, framing issues in the direct language of the American Midwest. “Foreign policy is not theory or abstraction,” he said. “It’s the heart of about all we do. Foreign policy connects all other polices. It connects trade, tax, and defense policy. It is the integrated policy that affects every dynamic of American life.” Hagel grew up in North Platte, Neb., and studied at the University of Nebraska. He has been interested in history, current affairs and geography since he was a high school student. A decorated veteran of the Vietnam War, Hagel won a number of military honors, including two purple hearts for his combat valor. “Vietnam helped me to better understand America’s role in the world,” he said. “It anchored me with some perspective. But I’m not going to pretend that I spent all of my time there thinking about geopolitics. I was mostly worried about my ass.” After starting out as a newscaster and talk show host in Nebraska, Hagel served as a congressional aide in the 1970s and was a senior official in the Veteran’s Administration in the early 1980s. He then launched a successful business career. He co-founded Vanguard, a cellular phone firm, then later served as the president of McCarthy & Co., an investment-banking firm based in Omaha, Nebraska. Elected to the Senate in 1996, Hagel decided to focus on international policy. “When you come to Congress you look for openings, and you try to match the openings with your base of expertise, knowledge and interests,” he said. “I saw very few people doing much in foreign relations. And I’ve been interested in this stuff for years, so I jumped in.” Hagel’s approach to foreign affairs was shaped by visits to more than 60 nations as a business executive. Hagel said his operating premise is that America must have a robust international presence. “When I was in private business I learned how fundamental American leadership is to the world,” he said. Hagel began his legislative career by seeking out the advice of Sen. Richard Lugar, a former chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and one of Congress’s most distinguished foreign policy experts. “I have been watching Dick Lugar for a long time,” Hagel said. “I’ve always had great respect for him.” As chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations’ International Economic Policy, Export and Trade Promotion subcommittee, Hagel has organized hearings on such topics as the IMF, Central Asia and the Caspian Sea region, global warming, the Kyoto Protocol, and NATO expansion. He carefully prepares for all committee meetings, devours background briefings and meets with overseas leaders passing through Washington. He also tries to meet with as many ambassadors as he can work into his schedule. “I reach out to these people to get their views, to learn more about the world and ask 188 •

People of World Influence questions,” Hagel said. The senator also travels frequently during congressional recesses. He visited Australia last year, Central Asia and Turkey in May, the Middle East in August and has trips scheduled for later this year to Latin America and Russia. “I use these trips to educate myself, to get myself centered and acclimated with what is happening on the ground,” he noted. “If you want to see what is happening in the world, it really helps to get on a plane and go out and take a look for yourself.” Hagel briefs his congressional colleagues after these trips. For example, after he returned from his Central Asian trip in early June, he gave a short but powerful speech on the Senate floor. “There are dangerous and serious events and conflicts occurring all over the globe today,” he pointed out, citing troubles in India, Pakistan, Southeast Asia, East Africa, Russia, Kosovo and the Middle East. “These situations are all connected. We must develop a foreign policy that captures the completeness of this [interconnectedness],” he said. “We must also tone down our rhetoric and speak and act responsibly. Actions have consequences. Words have consequences, especially overseas.... America will find itself isolated in the world if we continue to moralize to others and force every aspect of our lifestyle and our way of life on others as a blueprint for their lives and societies,” he added. At the core of his world view is a belief that “phenomenal almost incalculable” changes are now occurring across the globe and that huge advances in technology and communication are closely linking nations and peoples. “We are seeing a geopolitical, military and economic structure shift like the world has never seen,” he continued. “With diffusion of power across the globe, stability and security and peace and new alliances and new alignments become critical to our future. We have a world of great opportunities and unlimited potential but also unprecedented danger and uncertainty because of a number of new threats that do not come from a single enemy or state. These are borderless threats,” he noted, citing terrorism and drug trafficking. A coherent, far-sighted American foreign policy is imperative, he said, adding that he draws his inspiration from the World War II generation that created the Marshall Plan, the Truman Doctrine, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the United Nations. “Sure our system doesn’t tend to look ahead,” he said. “But we can create strong, effective policies. It takes leadership, vision and competence. Good, talented people can come up with policies that make sense.” Hagel criticized the Clinton administration for bouncing from crisis to crisis without a grand strategy. He is deeply concerned that America is going to be saddled with a weak president for the next two years as Clinton faces an impeachment inquiry. Congress must step forward and begin the debate on what new international structures should be created, he argued. “We can’t just park our country for two years and expect the world to wait for us and sort out what happens next to the president,” Hagel said. “The Congress will have to bolster the foreign policy process.” Hagel is concerned about the current economic crisis and has been one of the congressional leaders pushing for full American funding for the IMF. •189

John Shaw “We’ve got a hell of a global financial crisis on our hands that is affecting the United States right now. It’s going to get deeper and wider. The IMF can’t solve all the world’s problems but it’s certainly a major part of the solution. If we had got this done months ago, it would have had a positive effect” he said. “Markets respond to confidence and this is a confidence builder. This is more than just putting additional money in the till. This is about sending a signal the U.S. is engaged, the U.S. is going to provide leadership, the U.S. is going to be involved in helping these countries solve their problems. It’s in our interest. This is not some foreign aid bailout,” he added. The senator is determined to help craft a comprehensive American trade policy, beginning with the passage of fast-track trade authority in 1999. He also wants the United States to lift a host of “nutty” economic sanctions that hurt American firms more than the nations they are intended to punish. Linked to his vision of America’s long-term economic future, Hagel has become deeply interested in U.S. policy toward the Caspian Sea region. “This is a very vital part of the world. That region is going to play a vital role in the future because of all those resources that are captive near the Caspian Sea,” he said, referring to the area’s huge reserves of oil and natural gas. “I want America to have a presence there,” he continued. “If we can get there first it will hold us in good stead. We don’t want to be cut out of the area. We have got to think ahead. We have to reel ahead 20 years or so.” Hagel’s private sector accomplishments and solid legislative efforts have already begun to spark speculation that he might be a candidate for vice president or secretary of state in a future Republican administration. He said he doesn’t spend much time thinking about future career moves. “The only political job I’ve ever really thought about is senator,” he said. “This is a great job. It is a lot of fun. I don’t worry about what happens next. I just worry about what I’m doing now.” (November, 1998)

190 •

People of World Influence

Eurasia Foundation President

Charles William Maynes

C

harles William Maynes is searching for creative and practical ways to build democracy and free markets in the 12 nations that once comprised the Soviet Union. As president of the Eurasia Foundation, Maynes is trying to use the privately managed, grant-making organization to assist those people and institutions in the newly independent states (NIS) that are determined to build a prosperous future from the shambles of Soviet communism. “The goal we’re engaged in is to build stakeholders in these societies,” Maynes said from his spectacular 10th floor office overlooking Dupont Circle. “Our ideal is to be where others are not, at the grassroots, in the countryside, not exclusively in the capital cities. Our goal is to find people who want to make a difference in their communities and need some help in getting started.” The 12 independent states of the former Soviet Union are Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan. An engaging, avuncular man with a quick smile and a calm presence, Maynes said the foundation relishes the opportunity to help these new nations get a fresh start. Since assuming the presidency of the foundation in April of 1997, Maynes has taken more than a half-dozen trips to the region to see how its projects are working and to get a feel for developments on the ground. But he makes it clear the Eurasia Foundation’s headquarters in Washington does not issue policy initiatives to the NIS, but listens closely to the ideas emanating from people in the new nations and provides wide authority to local offices to approve projects. •191

John Shaw The foundation has regional offices in Kiev, Moscow, Saratov, Tashkent, Tbilisi, Vladivostok and Yerevan. It also has branch offices in Almaty, Ashgabat, Baku, Bishkek, Chisinau, Dushanbe and Gyumri. The Bush administration devised the Eurasia Foundation in the aftermath of the implosion of the Soviet Union, but the foundation did not begin operations until 1993 when the Clinton administration provided it with an initial grant of $75 million from the U.S. Agency for International Development (U.S.A.I.D.). The foundation’s budget this year is $36 million, with about $25 million provided by U.S.A.I.D. and $4 million from other the U.S. government agencies. The rest of the funds come from private individuals, other foundations, private corporations and contributions from the governments of Canada, Finland, the Netherlands, Norway, Japan and Sweden. The foundation has a staff of 40 Americans and 100 citizens from the NIS. It seeks to respond quickly and flexibly to the needs of people and institutions in the independent states with grants. During its five-year history, the foundation has offered about 3,000 grants, averaging $19,000. Most grants occur when individuals or groups come into a foundation office with a proposal. Regional and branch offices may extend a grant of up to $35,000 without the approval of Washington. The Washington office coordinates three key programs: small business lending, economics education, and media loans and technical assistance. It also has arranged more than 300 partnerships between institutions in the United States and the NIS to build democracy and free markets. For example, the foundation has given a grant to the University of California-Berkeley to create a business school in St. Petersburg and one to Georgia State University to develop a master’s of business administration program in Baku. Maynes said the brutal economic crisis in Russia has complicated the fund’s efforts in that nation as well as in the rest of the NIS. He added that he is not surprised by the crisis that is taking place in Russia, noting that nation’s punishing exposure to the vagaries and demands of the global financial markets have shaken many in Russia. In his view, Russia now faces “two grand options”: a continued effort to stay engaged in the global economy, probably with the help of additional Western loans and possibly a new currency regime or a withdrawal from the international economic system through the imposition of strict capital controls and protectionist trade laws. “Obviously we don’t know how the crisis in Russia will play out, but we’re continuing to operate there,” he said, adding that the foundation’s staff in Russia is carefully monitoring events and adjusting programs. “This crisis in Russia is greatly affecting all the countries of the NIS, and there is a very real concern that it could spill over in a very dramatic way,” he noted. The foundation will have to improvise as events unfold in the NIS, he said. “We have different missions in various countries,” he continued. “If the economic crisis becomes that bad, we’ll be involved in a lifeboat strategy. We’re trying to preserve institutions and people that can make it to the shore so that when the situation changes they can survive and they can struggle for change.” Maynes, 60, brings to his work at the Eurasia Foundation extensive experience in 192 •

People of World Influence international affairs. A native of South Dakota, he earned a degree in history from Harvard University and a graduate degree in politics, philosophy and economics from Oxford University, which he attended as a Rhodes Scholar. Maynes entered the U.S. Foreign Service in 1962, working initially on United Nations and arms controls issues. He then took posts in Laos and Moscow, where he became fluent in Russian. Maynes then worked for several lawmakers in the U.S Congress. After a stint at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Maynes was appointed assistant secretary of state for International Organization Affairs by President Carter in 1977. During his three years at the post, Maynes worked on peace efforts in Namibia, Lebanon and helped persuade the Congress to pay back dues to the United Nations. In 1980, Maynes was named editor of Foreign Policy, one of the U.S.’s preeminent foreign policy quarterly magazines. He edited the magazine until 1997 and used it as a forum for vigorous debates on the challenges facing American foreign policy. He also tried to use the prestigious magazine to “defend, preserve and articulate the liberal internationalist approach to foreign policy.” This tradition, he noted, supported the Marshall Plan, NATO, the United Nations, the Bretton Woods Institutions and arms control efforts between the United States and the Soviet Union and is committed to keeping the United States engaged in diplomatic initiatives across the world. During his tenure at Foreign Policy, Maynes emerged as one of America’s leading international affairs thinkers. While Maynes has a busy management job at the Eurasia Foundation, he remains active in the broader international policy debate. He continues to write major essays and opinion columns and appears frequently on television to discuss current issues. He believes the United States and the West missed a huge opportunity after the end of the Cold War to overhaul institutions and craft a new world order in which Russia was embraced as a full partner. “I think the end of the Cold War offered an absolutely unique opportunity, which we have almost never before seen in history,” he said, arguing that the world’s most powerful nations had no major ideological differences, few significant territorial disputes and were mostly focused on internal development rather than expansion. “This was a very unusual configuration of international pressures and developments,” he continued. “This could have been exploited to create a new structure of peace but we basically blew it. We did not have the imagination to exploit this unique configuration of the international system. And it will be seen as a historic failure of the statesmen of this time.” The United States should focus on leading global diplomatic endeavors and not overly rely on its massive military might, he said. “The issue is whether America should be the world’s leader or the world’s ruler,” he said. “If we take on the mission of global ruler, that means America is ‘in charge,’ telling people what to do. It implies a change in America’s post-war mission from wanting to help other nations to fighting to keep them down. It implies we shift from extending a helping hand to offering a clenched fist.” Maynes fears the window of opportunity that was open after 1989 has largely been closed and hopes that America will now at least honor its commitments to the International Monetary Fund •193

John Shaw and the United Nations and other international organizations. “We have to fight to prevent a return to the past, to the old pattern of balance of power politics. We have to hold on to what we have and see if another opportunity for major systemic change presents itself again,” he said. Central Asia and the Caucasus will be a crucial region in the coming decades, Maynes noted. “This is a fascinating place. It’s like the Wild West,” he said of the scramble for control of the region’s enormous resource wealth, especially the natural gas and oil from the Caspian Sea region. “Nobody has an ace in this geopolitical card game. Everybody has a relatively important hand, but nobody has the decisive cards to dominate,” he said. All parties have certain advantages: Western firms have investment capital, Russia has geographic proximity, Turkey has language affinity, Iran has strong cultural links and China has large government funds to secure stable energy supplies, he noted. “One way or another everybody has to cooperate,” Maynes said. “The approach has to be cooperative; it can’t be competitive. If it’s competitive, everybody is going to lose, and particularly the countries in the area are going to lose because the resources will not be developed.” (October, 1998)

194 •

People of World Influence

Professor

Diane Orentlicher

F

or Diane Orentlicher, the decision this summer by most nations of the world to support a permanent international criminal court was profoundly satisfying. A law professor, human rights activist and the director of American University’s War Crimes Research Office, Orentlicher is convinced that international tribunals are essential to bring to justice those who have committed atrocities and to help heal societies that have been shattered by violence. So the vote of more than 100 nations for a treaty creating the first global criminal court at a United Nations conference in Rome was a clear affirmation of one of her strongest beliefs. However, as an American who has briefed senior U.S. officials on human rights and war crimes issues, Orentlicher was deeply troubled by the opposition of the United States to the accord and America’s subsequent threat to work against its final ratification unless the agreement is rewritten. “What happened in Rome was quite impressive, and history will prove it to have been a watershed moment,” she said. “It’s very significant that more than 100 countries came together and concluded it was in their national interests to create an international court to prosecute people who have committed atrocious crimes and who would have otherwise escaped prosecution,” she said. “But it was sobering that our government, which played a lead role in creating the Yugoslavia and Rwanda tribunals, in some important respects, played the role of spoiler in Rome. Our government lost touch with the prevailing political climate. And by pressing policies that could only have made sense in the world of 1945, the U.S. delegation squandered its ability to secure •195

John Shaw even some of the more reasonable protections it sought,” Orentlicher added. The soft-spoken, modest law professor is one of the world’s leading authorities on human rights law and war crimes tribunals. A prolific and powerful writer and a committed teacher, she has the rare ability to speak with both burning passion and academic precision. Orentlicher outlines her views on international law and human rights with a refreshing and unusual blend of forceful conviction and gentle civility. At her office at American University’s Washington College of Law, she noted that nations that have been ravaged by horrible crimes can be partially healed by confronting the darkness of their past. And it is this possibility for healing and reconciliation that keeps her inspired and determined as she works on projects that uncover and punish acts of stunning violence and depravity. Orentlicher traveled to Rome in June to attend the opening meetings of the global negotiations on a war crimes tribunal and was encouraged by much of what she saw and heard. And she remains impressed with the accord that was approved by a 120-to-7 vote on July 17. “While far from perfect, the treaty is founded upon, above all, the ideals of humanity,” she said. The nations agreed to a statute that establishes the world’s first permanent international criminal court. When ratified by 60 nations, the court will be based in the Hague and empowered to try accused war criminals. Presided over by 18 judges and a full-time prosecutor with the authority to initiate cases, it will seek to punish those who have committed serious war crimes, genocide and other crimes against humanity. The idea of a permanent criminal court has been discussed since the Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals following World War II. Stymied in part because of the Cold War, the notion of a court picked up steam in 1992 when the UN’s General Assembly asked the UN’s International Law Commission to draft a statute creating such an institution. The commission submitted its ideas in 1994, and the following year the General Assembly asked a drafting committee to prepare a statute for an international criminal court that could be considered by a diplomatic conference. Meanwhile, the United Nations created an ad hoc tribunal in 1993 to investigate and punish war crimes committed in the former Yugoslavia and then organized a second tribunal in 1994 to deal with the brutal crimes committed in Rwanda. “The creation of a permanent international criminal court was an ideal for the Nuremberg generation, but their vision languished for half a century,” Orentlicher said. “States that supported the Rome treaty can justly take pride in their accomplishment. Still we should not lose sight of the fact that the outcome in Rome was rooted as much in stunning failures—above all our failure to prevent the carnage in Bosnia and Rwanda—as enlightened statecraft,” she said. Orentlicher was disappointed the United States failed to play a more constructive role during the Rome talks and in fact became the target of derision and anger. “There was a lot of hope until the end that the United States would come through and be part of the agreement. But the United States overreached so much that it eventually got written off. States initially disposed to meet American concerns eventually ruled them out as not merely extravagant but irrelevant,” she said. During the negotiations, American officials pressed to limit the powers of the prosecutor and 196 •

People of World Influence sought to require that only the UN Security Council or individual nations would be allowed to refer cases for prosecution. American officials also repeatedly said they feared that U.S. troops on peacekeeping missions would be the target of politically motivated prosecutions, a concern, Orentlicher said, that continued to drive the American negotiating position even after agreement was reached on a broad range of safeguards against such abuses. She said she hopes the United States will now try to make the treaty work and drop threats to prevent its ratification. “This court is going to come into existence once 60 states have ratified the Rome treaty. Given that reality, it’s in the interests of the United States to work with the court to ensure that it functions properly,” she added. “I’m troubled that in Washington there is a real effort to demonize an institution that doesn’t even exist yet. American interests would be far better served if, rather than fostering expectations of failure, the United States worked to ensure that the court becomes an effective and legitimate institution,” she said. “In my view, it’s unfortunate that the Clinton administration hasn’t done more to articulate to the American public the reason why the court will be established: not to persecute U.S. soldiers with politically motivated charges but to prosecute those responsible for atrocious crimes who would otherwise elude justice,” she said. Orentlicher’s views are based on almost 20 years of theoretical and practical involvement in international law and human rights issues. A native of Washington, D.C., she has an undergraduate degree in philosophy from Yale University and a law degree from Columbia University. After law school, she worked for several years as an international lawyer for Steptoe & Johnson in Washington, D.C. Then in 1983, she became deputy director of the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, a New York-based public interest law center that monitors and promotes nations’ compliance with internationally recognized human rights. While working for this group, she participated in fact-finding missions to the Philippines, the Thailand-Cambodia border, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras, Chile and other places where massive human rights abuses had occurred. During her travels, she was struck by how the pain of a nation’s past can hinder its ability to construct a more secure future and wondered often about how much of a country’s troubled past needs to be excavated. “I saw that as countries began to emerge from periods of unspeakable violence, often perpetrated by the state itself, they were faced with haunting and daunting dilemmas,” she said. “How do you come to terms with the past? How do you move forward and build a stable and secure future? And how do you heal the wounds that are festering among not just a few people but a whole society? “The trauma of the past does not vanish by being ignored. Its unrealistic to think you can create a strong edifice of democracy on the foundation of a broken people,” she said. Orentlicher accepted a teaching position at American University’s Washington College of Law in 1992 where she continues to teach courses in international law, international organizations, ethnic identity and international law, United Nations law, and human rights and •197

John Shaw international business. She has also taught similar classes at Harvard University and New College at Oxford. But she has avoided entrapment in the ivory tower and has conducted investigative missions for Human Rights Watch, Asia Watch, Helsinki Watch, the United Nations Human Rights Center and the International League for Human Rights. In 1993, Orentlicher was one of a group of experts that briefed then-U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Madeleine Albright on a draft statute for an international tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. She served as an investigator in the prosecutor’s office for the Yugoslavia tribunal in the summer of 1996. As she described her work on the tribunal to some of her students at American University they asked to help. “I deeply respected their commitment to respond. These are international crimes and this means they are crimes that one way or another engage all of us. My students instinctively understood that,” she said. This student concern provided the impetus for Orentlicher to create the War Crimes Research Office at American University. Each year about a dozen students and a small group of professors, research assistants and outside consultants provide legal research and analysis for the Yugoslavia and Rwanda tribunals as well as some other related UN projects. The War Crimes Research Office began in the fall of 1995 as a one-year project and is now a permanent program that has won sweeping praise for its international humanitarian and comparative criminal law projects. The Open Society Institute funds it. Richard Goldstone, the first chief prosecutor of the Yugoslavia tribunal, has said the legal work coming from the office is “of the highest quality” and has made contributions that are “simply invaluable.” The professor is convinced of the historic significance of the Yugoslavia and Rwanda tribunals, arguing they have become credible and effective institutions, in part because the United States has worked to make them so. “One of the lessons that has emerged from these tribunals is that they are only as good as we insist they be,” she added. “The tribunals that are now operating have benefited greatly from the commitment of the United States. They’ve emerged as credible institutions of justice, and it was not a foregone conclusion they would. Establishing the legitimacy of these tribunals has required an on-going commitment and American leadership has played a crucial role.” Orentlicher said these tribunals must play a role in punishing evil but are also essential for laying a foundation for a peaceful future for suffering individuals and torn nations. “They provide a forum in which the most profound interests of humanity can find a voice. These are places where deeply wounded people can come and begin, or continue, the process of healing because they have found a court of law that will give them their day. That in itself can be a restorative process.” “Those who have testified before these tribunals have found that their suffering has been honored. For some witnesses, this in itself can go some way toward restoring a moral universe that had been utterly shattered,” she added. Determined to continue her work on the tribunals and the permanent criminal court, she is 198 •

People of World Influence also looking for other ways to prevent atrocities. Orentlicher will spend part of her coming sabbatical year working in the office of the high commissioner for national minorities, which is part of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. This office seeks to prevent ethnic strife. “Criminal tribunals can play an important role in redressing past crimes and deterring future atrocities. Yet their very existence is, in some sense, a rebuke to our past failures. I don’t imagine the court contemplated the Rome treaty will languish for lack of business. But I’d like to at least work toward diminishing its caseload.” (September, 1998)

•199

HIGHER EDUCATION: HANDBOOK OF THEORY AND RESEARCH, VOL. XVII

476

People of World Influence

Former Senate Majority Leader

George Mitchell

G

eorge Mitchell doesn’t come across as a possible Nobel Peace Prize winner, the likely recipient of a British knighthood, or the inspiration for a folk song called “The Winds Are Singing Freedom” that celebrates the possibilities of a new era of peace in war-torn Northern Ireland. From the elegant conference room of his Washington law firm that overlooks McPherson Square, the formal, reserved Mitchell speaks with the caution of the federal judge and Senate majority leader he once was and the prominent private sector lawyer he now is. With almost every utterance, he turns understatement into a high-art form. But that doesn’t matter to the people of Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland where Mitchell, 64, has become a cult hero since brokering a historic peace agreement in April. That accord, which was laboriously negotiated over more than two years, seeks to end decades of sectarian violence in Northern Ireland, creates new links between the Irish Republic and its northern neighbor, and gives Northern Ireland new self-governing institutions. Mitchell’s role in crafting this important—but fragile—accord has earned him global accolades and prompted Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern to call him “a hero of modern-day Ireland whose place in Irish history is assured.” Irish writer Fintan O’Toole credits Mitchell for shaping “what may be one of the great achievements of modern Irish history.” During a visit to Dublin in May, Mitchell was treated like a rock star, with raucous crowds showering him with sweeping praise and thunderous applause. The provost of University College called him “a living exemplar of the ideal leader.” •201

John Shaw Mitchell plays down his recent celebrity, but clearly relishes his contribution to a nation he knew little about when he first visited Belfast in 1995. And while proud of what he helped accomplish, Mitchell is keenly aware that difficult problems remain. “The agreement that was reached is a fair and balanced one, but it does not by itself create peace,” noted Mitchell. “It only makes the achievement of peace possible.” Mitchell was heartened by the results of the May 22 referendum in which 71 percent of those voting in Northern Ireland and 94 percent in the Republic of Ireland approved the peace agreement, he said. “The overwhelming vote in favor of the agreement was a positive step,” he continued. “It creates a momentum that I hope is unstoppable. But many difficult issues remain. I hope there is such strong momentum that peace will take hold but we don’t know that yet.” Recent events clearly complicate Mitchell’s dream of an Irish peace. Elections held in late June for the new Northern Ireland assembly sharply divided the Protestant community, and the opponents of the peace accord won almost one-third of the seats. Sectarian violence has erupted this summer over the plans of Protestant groups to march through Catholic neighborhoods in Northern Ireland. “This is not going to be an easy process,” Mitchell said. While the future is uncertain, he is convinced that the vast majority of the people of Northern Ireland desperately want peace after 30 years of violence and more than 2,300 deaths. Mitchell said his involvement in Northern Ireland was largely accidental and began in 1995 after he retired from the U.S. Senate. Mitchell served as a Democratic senator from Maine for 15 years, including six years as the majority leader. After he left the Senate, President Clinton asked him to organize a trade and investment conference for Northern Ireland that was held in the spring of 1995. This project was extended for several months at the request of Clinton. Then Irish and British leaders asked Mitchell to head up a panel to recommend ways to disarm the various paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland. His group issued a report in January 1996, and Mitchell’s performance impressed then prime ministers John Major and John Bruton who asked him to preside over broader peace talks. Mitchell accepted the job, which began in June 1996, expecting it to last six months. The talks extended for nearly two years, culminating in the historic Good Friday agreement on April 10, 1998. The former senator, who had never been to Northern Ireland before February 1995, made more than 100 trans-Atlantic flights to chair the talks. During these long flights, Mitchell read more than 25 books on Irish and English history and studied hundreds of magazine and journal articles. He also reviewed the history of the unsuccessful Irish peace talks that occurred in 1991 and 1992. As the negotiations dragged on, Mitchell said he often wondered if he was wasting his time. Working with a small staff and accepting no pay, Mitchell often spent three days each week in Belfast, far away from his family and his legal work in the United States. “There were so many ups and downs,” he said, recalling the death of a brother and his wife’s miscarriage as especially traumatic events that occurred while he was in Belfast presiding over the talks. 202 •

People of World Influence “I often thought, ‘Can I truly satisfy all of my obligations so far from home? Should I stay? Should I leave?’ But it’s hard not to get emotionally involved with these people. They are good people, hard working and productive. I really grew to like them,” he said. Chairing complex negotiations that involved eight political parties from Northern Ireland and the governments of Great Britain and Ireland, Mitchell spent months crafting rules to govern the talks, a preliminary agenda and then a final agenda. “I always felt that an important part of my role was to keep the process going, to try to encourage the parties to keep talking,” he said. “And I wanted to establish the principle that everyone would be treated with respect and everyone would have a chance to establish his or her views. If you want to gain people’s confidence, you have to genuinely listen to what they have to say. “In a sense, the length of the negotiations benefited me,” he said. “It was frustrating at times. It was very disappointing to go almost two years with little progress. But in the process, I got to know these people well. I got to know the issues and the political context in which the parties operated. I also feel that they came to trust me and respect my judgment.” In early 1998, Mitchell decided that it was time to either secure an agreement or close down the talks. He felt the parties had made all their substantive arguments and feared a new spate of violence could erase the progress that had been achieved. Working closely with British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern, he set Good Friday as a deadline for a deal. Mitchell convened the parties at Stormont Castle in Belfast on April 9 and launched 32 hours of non-stop negotiations. An agreement was secured at 5 p.m. on April 10 and announced to the world less than an hour later. Under the agreement, Northern Ireland remains part of the United Kingdom unless majorities in the north and the Irish Republic choose to unite later. It creates a 108-member Northern Ireland assembly that is elected every five years by proportional representation and is responsible for agriculture, finance, health and economic development. The accord also calls for the creation of a 12-member Northern Ireland Cabinet. The result of the June elections is that David Trimble, the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, is the first minister of the Northern Ireland assembly and Seamus Mallon of the Social Democratic and Labor Party will serve as his deputy. The agreement also sets up a North-South Ministerial Council so Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic can work together on issues of mutual interest. The agreement also includes provisions on security, policing, the early release of some prisoners and the eventual disarmament of paramilitary organizations. Mitchell said reaching the agreement was the most satisfying moment of his 30-year political career because it gives new hope to the people of a war-ravaged land. Many world leaders and foreign affairs experts have stepped forward to applaud Mitchell for shrewd, tough and flexible leadership during the negotiations. Clinton, Blair and Ahern all described Mitchell’s work as inspired and dogged. “What George Mitchell did in Ireland was brilliant, truly masterful,” said Richard Holbrooke, Clinton’s nominee to be the American ambassador to the United Nations. Holbrooke praised Mitchell for letting the talks unfold slowly and then setting a final deadline to force the parties •203

John Shaw to compromise. Swamped with awards and speaking and interview requests, Mitchell is reorganizing his life. He is juggling the demands of a recent marriage, a new son, his work with law firms in Washington and Maine and his responsibilities as a director for the Walt Disney, Federal Express and Xerox companies. He also chairs the Ethics Committee of the U.S. Olympic Committee and the National Health Care Commission created by the Pew Foundation. And he wants to continue his work with the International Crisis Group, a private, multinational group that tries to anticipate and prevent man-made crises around the world. Mitchell is especially involved with the group’s projects in Bosnia and Central Africa. He is trying to squeeze in as much work as possible for the International Crisis Group, but the demands on his time are substantial and growing. “I’m just overwhelmed. I can’t possibly accept more than a tiny fraction of the invitations I’m getting,” he said. “Trying to decide what to do is very difficult. It’s a very real problem.” The author of books on the Iran-Contra affair, the threat of greenhouse gases, and the triumph of capitalism over communism, Mitchell may write a book about his Irish accomplishments. “I’ve had several offers I’m considering,” he added. “But writing a book is hard work, and it is a huge time commitment. I’m not sure I have time to do it.” Mitchell did take time on the Fourth of July to travel to Philadelphia to accept the prestigious Liberty Medal, an award that has gone in recent years to such leaders as Oscar Arias, Jimmy Carter, Vaclav Havel, King Hussein, Nelson Mandela, Shimon Peres and Lech Walesa. It is given each year to a champion of peace and freedom. Speaking at Independence Hall, Mitchell urged the people of Ireland to continue on the path of peace, even in the face of the recent violence that has occurred in Northern Ireland. “Seeking an end to conflict is not for the timid or the tentative. There must be a clear and determined policy not to yield to the men of violence,” he said. “There must be an endless supply of patience and perseverance. Sometimes the mountains seem so high and the rivers so wide that it’s hard to continue the journey. But no matter how bleak the outlook, the search for peace must go on.” (August, 1998)

204 •

People of World Influence

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations

Richard Holbrooke

F

or more than 30 years, Richard Holbrooke has been a practitioner of tough, creative and often confrontational diplomacy. A brash, burly, swashbuckling man, Holbrooke has a history of resisting bureaucratic constraints and scorning caution. Brimming with self-confidence and exuding certainty, he has participated in some notable, even historic achievements, and has also left behind a raft of colleagues and adversaries grumbling about his hyper-aggressive negotiating style and penchant for selfpromotion. Holbrooke, 57, has many supporters and plenty of detractors, but few dispute he is a forceful, significant presence on the international stage. As President Clinton’s new appointment as ambassador to the United Nations, Holbrooke plans to work closely with the American Congress, UN leaders in New York and especially the senior officials in Clinton’s foreign policy team to advance the national security interests of the United States and strengthen the United Nations. “I’m anxious to get back to work with my colleagues and friends in this administration,” he said in an interview at the Willard Hotel on June 18, the day he was named by Clinton as his envoy to the United Nations. “I will be part of a team,” he said “I’ve discussed this with the president and with Madeleine Albright and Sandy Berger. When you join a ship you have to be part of the crew.” Although the interview was scheduled to discuss his new book, To End a War, Holbrooke also spoke about what he hopes to achieve in his “wonderful new job.” He gave his views on diplomacy, negotiations and the Dayton peace accords, which ended the war in Bosnia and may •205

John Shaw lead to a durable peace. Holbrooke was clearly tired from a day that included an early morning meeting with Secretary of State Albright, a 7 a.m. flight from New York to Washington, an emotional White House ceremony, a speech at the National Press Club and a torrent of mostly unanswered phone calls, including one from UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. “Just another day at the office,” Holbrooke joked. “It’s great to have all this staff support,” he said, as he strolled alone through the hotel lobby. His three immediate predecessors at the UN—Thomas Pickering, Madeleine Albright and Bill Richardson—will serve as role models for him in his new post, he noted. “Pickering is the consummate, careful professional,” he said. “Madeleine is the articulate spokesperson for our national interests, and Bill has a tremendous political feel for situations and issues. I can learn from all three of them. And I will, since they’re still in the administration.” Holbrooke expects to mesh well with Clinton’s foreign policy team and discussed his role carefully with both the president and Albright before accepting the post. He declined to spell out his precise responsibilities or the issues he will be most involved with. He vows to work closely with Capitol Hill. “Congress has got to be on board when you’re conducting foreign policy. I’ve spent my whole career, an enormous amount of time, over 25 years, working with the Hill. It’s part of our system and I believe in it,” he said. “It’s inevitable we are going to disagree on things, and that transcends party affiliation. But we have to work together,” he added. After gaining Senate confirmation, first on his agenda will be to help secure passage of about $1 billion in American arrears to the UN “We have to pay our dues,” he noted. “We have to work with Congress to solve this issue.” He declined to speculate on how the arrears can be freed from a dispute with Congress on an abortion issue, which has blocked the funds. Holbrooke said he knows many lawmakers from his past experiences in government and is determined to forge a strong working relationship with Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jesse Helms. “I think Sen. Helms is key,” he said, hinting he will follow Albright’s lead and carefully cultivate the conservative Republican senator who heads up the important committee. Holbrooke is an unabashed supporter of the United Nations, a fact he made clear at the White House as he accepted the ambassadorial appointment from Clinton. Choking back tears, he recounted when as a young boy his father took him to the newly built UN complex in New York City and told him the buildings would become the most important in the world because they would prevent future wars. “My father did not live to see how his dream for the UN dissolved in the face of the harsh realities of the Cold War and the inadequacies of the UN system itself. But I never forgot the initial visit and my father’s noble, if overly idealistic, dream. Despite its many problems and failures I still believe in the importance and even necessity of the United Nations,” he said. Holbrooke expects to build on the close personal relationship he has with Annan whom he calls a “great international civil servant.” The American diplomat has known Annan for many years and worked with him closely when Annan was in charge of the UN’s peacekeeping efforts. Annan caught the eye of Holbrooke and other senior American officials when he aided the NATO bombing effort against the Bosnia Serbs after the 1995 massacre in Srebrenica and the subsequent 206 •

People of World Influence shelling of a marketplace in Sarajevo. The link between force and diplomacy undergirds Holbrooke’s view of international affairs. “There are times, not often but occasionally, when you have to use force or the credible threat of the use of force, in order to prevent a greater catastrophe. It’s very rare, but it happens, and when it happens, if you miss the window a war can start. It happened in the 1930s with Hitler. It happened in Yugoslavia in the early 1990s,” he said. Holbrooke is convinced that the NATO bombing of Bosnia Serbs created the conditions that made the Dayton peace talks and the subsequent agreement possible. While respecting the need for regular diplomacy, Holbrooke believes it is sometimes necessary to convene high-level, big-risk talks, such as those he organized at Dayton. He calls this “Big Bang diplomacy”—a method in which adversaries are put in a room and effectively locked up there until an agreement is reached or the talks collapse. “Look, this kind of arrangement isn’t always possible, and it’s always risky,” he said. “It’s a high-wire act without a safety net. Among other things, you have to have parties who are willing to be locked up in a room and basically forced to get an agreement. And you need to be prepared to walk away from the table if it doesn’t come together.” Holbrooke argues that clear goals and flexible tactics are imperative for successful diplomacy. “You’ve got to suit your methods to the moment,” he said. “Negotiating is a little like jazz: You improvise on a theme. You know where you want to go, but you’re not always sure how to get there,” he said. Few would dispute that Holbrooke did some impressive improvising at Dayton when he brought the leaders of Bosnia, Croatia and Serbia as well as representatives of the United States and the European Union to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base for 21 days of intense negotiations in November 1995. The negotiations teetered for weeks on the brink of collapse, and Holbrooke played a central role in keeping the talks going and then crafting a final accord that ended the war in Bosnia and preserved it as a single, multiethnic country. While proud of the deal, he speaks openly of its weaknesses, which include allowing two armies (the Serbian and Muslim-Croat Federation) to remain in Bosnia, a weak international police force, an insufficient mandate for the civilian reconstruction effort and an arbitrary deadline for the withdrawal of U.S. forces—which was later lifted. “My biggest regret about Dayton is that we didn’t go for more. That we didn’t reach high enough,” he said. After a slow, uncertain start, the agreement is now being implemented, and life in Bosnia is improving, he added. Most important, the bloodshed has stopped. “The war in Bosnia is over,” he said flatly. Holbrooke brings to the UN job more than three decades of foreign policy experience. The son of Jewish European immigrants who came to America to escape the Nazis, he entered the U.S. foreign service in 1962 after graduating from Brown University. His first assignment was in Vietnam, and this was followed by a stint on President Lyndon Johnson’s White House staff. He was a junior member of the American delegation to the Paris peace talks on Vietnam. That experience shaped his views on negotiating strategy and also convinced him that he •207

John Shaw would like to eventually write a book about high-level peace talks. “Everyone always comes up to you and says ‘What’s it really like? What really goes on?’ Now they can read my book and find out,” he said. Holbrooke was Peace Corps director in Morocco from 1970 to 1972 and then became the managing editor of Foreign Policy magazine for four years. He was assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs during the Carter administration and then worked from 1985 to 1993 as managing director of the New York investment bank Lehman Brothers. After the election of President Clinton, Holbrooke was appointed ambassador to Germany and then served as assistant secretary of state for European and Canadian affairs from 1994 to 1996. It was in this post that he became the architect of the Dayton peace accords. He left government in 1996 to become vice chairman of the Credit Suisse First Boston investment firm. While working in the private sector he also served as a special ambassador for Clinton on Kosovo and Cyprus. Holbrooke’s aggressive, results-oriented approach to diplomacy has impressed many and rankled some. He has been variously described as a raging bull, a bully, a bulldozer and much worse. In his book, Holbrooke quotes a French diplomat who likened him to Cardinal Jules Mazarin, the cunning aide to France’s Louis XIII. “He flatters, he lies, he humiliates: he is a sort of brutal and schizophrenic Mazarin,” the diplomat said of Holbrooke. A much kinder view of Holbrooke comes from Andrew Peacock, Australia’s ambassador to the United States. Peacock and Holbrooke have been friends for almost 25 years. They first met at a conference in Iran and have worked together on an assortment of projects. “Dick is very talented and is extraordinarily capable,” Peacock said. “He has the capacity to formulate very complex, nuanced foreign policy arguments in a readily understandable way. He has great talent, energy and experience. Dick is going to be a very good ambassador and an important presence in the United Nations.” (July, 1998)

208 •

People of World Influence

Ambassador

Abba Eban

A

bba Eban has seen a great deal since his days as a young aide to Israeli President Chaim Weizmann in the late 1940s and has much to say about how international politics and diplomacy have evolved over half a century. A prolific writer, popular lecturer and celebrated statesman, Eban is one of the leading advocates of balance-ofpower politics with a humane touch. He sees the world clearly, delights in its ironies, appreciates the importance of strength, yet aspires for just solutions to difficult problems. Diplomacy for the Next Century is Eban’s most recent book and it clearly articulates his views on global politics. It is based on a series of lectures he gave at Yale University and summarizes the lessons he has learned during five decades in diplomacy. Packed with anecdotes, historical musings and epigrams, the book begins with Eban’s own credentialing ceremony with Harry Truman in 1950 and extends to the Middle East peace process in the late 1990s. Eban has been a participant in many of the crucial events he describes. Born in Capetown, South Africa, in 1916, he grew up in Great Britain during the interwar years. He attended Queen’s College at Cambridge and went to Palestine with the British army in 1941. He joined the Jewish Agency in 1946, rose to prominence in 1948 when he became Israel’s first ambassador to the United Nations. He represented Israel at the UN for 11 years, and from 1950 to 1959 he was also ambassador to the United States. Eban returned to Israel in 1960 and held various Cabinet posts. He was foreign minister from 1966 to 1974. For many years he served as chairman of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee of the Knesset. In Diplomacy for the Next Century, Eban describes diplomacy as a high calling, but one which has •209

John Shaw been made more difficult in recent years by an intrusive press corps that demands to know everything (usually before it happens) and by political leaders who often bypass their envoys on the ground so they can preside over negotiations themselves. Eban argues that diplomats are by nature problem-solvers whose determination to find an honorable compromise is not always fully appreciated by their political masters. “A diplomatic solution is one in which neither side attains all its objectives while neither suffers the humiliations of total defeat. That is why diplomatic solutions rarely become clarion calls to audacity, sacrifice, martyrdom, and heroic suicide of the kind that makes an indelible mark on history,” he writes. “Professional diplomacy is often dominated by a sense of limitation, proceeding from a somber view of human nature. It pursues relatively modest goals, like prolonged stability, rather than a new era in the governance of mankind. It accepts the notion that conflict is endemic to human relations at all levels and that the most that can be done in the international field is to keep conflict within tolerable restraints,” he said. Eban said that diplomats approach issues cautiously and often are willing to defer hard decisions. “Diplomats touch nothing they do not adjourn,” he said with a touch of self-mockery Looking back over the 20th century, Eban noted the importance of Woodrow Wilson in pushing the seemingly laudable goal of open diplomacy during the Versailles peace conference following World War I. Wilson organized one of the most secret peace conferences in history, he said. While Wilson made an important contribution by underscoring the moral dimensions of diplomacy, he advanced the unrealistic notion that all negotiations should be done in the full view of the press and other interested parties, continued Eban. “The idea that open debate in large assemblies is more honorable and efficacious than secret diplomacy has never died,” he said, adding that a shrewder Wilson might have embraced the motto of “open convents secretly arrived at” rather than his celebrated phrase, “open covenants openly arrived at.” American diplomacy since Wilson has frequently emphasized moral arguments, but actual policy is based on balance-of-power considerations worthy of Bismarck or Metternich, said Eban. “All American and most other governments take their decisions in terms of national interests and explain their decisions in terms of self-sacrificial altruism,” Eban writes. “One of the embarrassing facts about American foreign policy has been its propensity for selfdisguise,” he added. “American statesmen and academics, under the Wilsonian spell, have constantly described their policies in terms opposed to their realities.” One of the changes to diplomacy that Eban laments is the emergence of an invasive media that believes it must be privy to everything that is going on, regardless of its sensitivity. “It is assumed that anything honorable should be capable of immediate exposure to the public view and that conversely that anything kept in even temporary discretion must be unscrupulous,” Eban writes. “The right to know is not always morally superior to the right to peace.... The bottom line is that peace with secrecy may sometimes be preferable to secrecy without peace,” he pointed out. 210 •

People of World Influence The relentless glare of the media spotlight affects negotiations in tangible and profound ways, noted Eban. With the TV cameras on, negotiators invariably tell their domestic audiences they are not giving away anything of importance while also assuring their adversaries they are in fact making painful concessions. “The trouble is that the wind carries your words in both directions,” he said. Another feature of modern life that has profoundly altered diplomacy is the penchant of national leaders to travel the world and negotiate with their counterparts—effectively serving as their own foreign ministers, according to Eban. Consequently important policies are negotiated by those who may not have the best technical understanding of the matter, he said. This omnipresent summitry was not always so, Eban said, pointing out that Franklin Roosevelt and Neville Chamberlain were close partners during a perilous time but never met. And Eban recalls that during his nine years as Israel’s ambassador to the United States, his prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, visited Washington only once. One of the most serious defects of summitry is its corrosive effect on the status and dignity of embassies, said Eban. Few ambassadors are filling as substantial a role as their predecessors did, he said. Summits often raise unrealistic expectations, he noted. “The idea that every difficulty can be improved by high-level dialogue is one of the most persistent diplomatic delusions,” he writes, adding “no situation is so bad that a badly conceived summit meeting cannot make it worse.” But while Eban does not expect this trend to be reversed, he urges diplomats not to despair. Rather they should bring skeptical rigor to policy matters and carefully study their host nations. “The kind of subterranean rumblings which often precede changes in power can only be discerned by those who have had prolonged contact with the countries of their accreditations,” he said. Eban writes passionately about the United Nations, tracing its soaring hopes after World War II to its flawed present. The notion of collective security that excited many of the creators of the UN has proved to be a deeply flawed principle for international affairs and that virtually every attempt to implement it has failed, he said. The United Nations lacks a clear focus, according to Eban, saying that the world body still has not decided what it wants to be—an instrument for solving conflicts or an arena for waging them. UN deliberations have been too often dominated by the parliamentary principle, which seeks to defeat an adversary, rather than the diplomatic principle, which searches for reasonable compromise, he said. UN leaders should focus on transnational problems that can not be solved by individual countries, such as overpopulation, malnutrition, illiteracy, rampant diseases and other humanitarian challenges, he said. Once a proponent of a world government, Eban now sees little prospect of that occurring. History clearly demonstrates that “the loyalties, passions, and allegiances which men devote to their nations are not transferable to any idea of world community,” he said. Not surprisingly, Eban has strong views on the Middle East peace process. He is convinced that “territories for peace” is the only basis by which an agreement can be forged between Israel and others in the region. He applauds the historic breakthrough made by the Oslo process, •211

John Shaw emphasizing the novel and creative approach launched by Norwegian officials that was endorsed by Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat. “The role of Norway has been unfairly overshadowed by a successful U.S. attempt to highlight American mediations as the decisive element in the Oslo accords,” he writes “The truth is that the Oslo process was utterly Scandinavian.” Oslo shattered two delusions that had lingered for decades—that Arabs could get land back without a peace accord with Israel and that Israel could achieve peace with its neighbors without a territorial settlement involving the land won in 1967, he said. The Middle East has been “irretrievably transformed” by the Oslo peace process and difficult problems can be resolved, he said. Eban blasts the government of Benjamin Netanyahu for not fully backing the Oslo process and overreacting to the 1996 bombing in Jerusalem by inflicting draconian punishments on the people of the West Bank and Gaza. Eban hopes future statesmen learn from his experiences but urges them to move cautiously and make careful judgments based on the facts of each specific case. A mistake leaders have made over time is to carelessly use history to provide a guide for the present, he said. “My most emphatic conclusion about diplomacy is that there are no general solutions for particular problems.” (June, 1998)

212 •

People of World Influence

United States Institute of Peace President

Richard Solomon

R

ichard Solomon, the president of the United States Institute of Peace, is a happy man. After a long and distinguished career in international affairs, he is now exactly where he wants to be, doing precisely what he wants to be doing. As president of the Institute of Peace, Solomon heads up a creative, respected organization that is mandated to find ways to avoid violence and create the conditions for peace. This job allows Solomon to draw on all of his wide professional experiences to envision the future and prepare strategies to resolve conflicts without violence. “We’re constantly trying to make a contribution, to be helpful in ways that larger, more bureaucratic organizations are unable to,” he said in his elegant office on M Street in Northwest Washington, D.C. “For a very small taxpayer investment we’re helping the United States respond to the changing demands of managing conflict in the post-Cold War world,” he added. A friendly man, Solomon speaks authoritatively of the institute’s history and passionately about its current programs and future challenges. “This is the perfect place for me to be. This is the perfect place to end my career,” he said. The United States Institute of Peace was created by Congress in 1984 to bolster the nation’s capacity to peacefully resolve international conflicts. The idea of a national peace institution had been debated in the United States for decades. Between 1935 and 1976, more than 140 bills were introduced in Congress to create peace-related departments or agencies. In the late 1970s, a strong push was made for an institution that would offer a four-year •213

John Shaw academic degree in peace studies and serve as a complement to America’s military academies, such as those at West Point and Annapolis. In 1981, a congressionally chartered commission recommended creating such an academy. However, the idea became ensnared in American Cold War domestic politics, as a Democraticcontrolled Congress and Republican President Ronald Reagan fought to win control of the peace issue. Congress and Reagan eventually agreed on a compromise—to create an Institute of Peace with an educational and research mission but not with a full four-year academic curriculum. “It was less than many supporters wanted but a lot more than what many thought possible,” Solomon said. The Institute of Peace is an independent, nonpartisan federal entity that is funded annually by Congress. It is governed by a 15-person bipartisan board of directors that is appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Eleven of the board members come from outside government; four federal officials serve as ex officio members. The Institute of Peace now has a budget of about $11.5 million and a full-time staff of about 55. “We’re small, considering the size of many other government agencies and programs,” said Solomon. “And stopping or preventing one war would be worth more than what we spend each year for our operations.” In 1993, Solomon succeeded Samuel Lewis, the former American ambassador to Israel, as the president of the institute. He came with an extensive background in international affairs and a strong commitment to the institute’s core mission. “I went to a Quaker high school, and while not a Quaker, I was sensitized to war and peace issues,” Solomon said. “The peace issue is in my background.” Solomon earned his doctorate in political science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology where he specialized in Chinese politics. After finishing his studies at MIT, he taught at the University of Michigan for five years and then in 1971 accepted a job at the National Security Council under Henry Kissinger. He worked at the NSC as an Asian specialist until 1976 when he joined the RAND Corp., eventually heading up the prestigious think tank’s international security program. Secretary of State George Shultz chose Solomon in 1986 to head up the State Department’s policy planning unit. Three years later, Solomon was appointed assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific Affairs and remained in the job until 1992 when he was named American ambassador to the Philippines. During his final years in government service, he helped negotiate an end to the war in Cambodia and closed down American military bases in the Philippines. Solomon has was written six books that deal with Asian security matters, including Chinese Political Negotiating Behavior, 1967-1985, A Revolution Is Not a Dinner Party, and Mao’s Revolution and the Chinese Political Culture. Since assuming the presidency of the institute, Solomon has worked to hone its policies, explain its mission to Congress, the White House and the broader international affairs community, and find new ways to advance the group’s mandate. The Institute of Peace’s programs fall into five broad categories: grants, research and studies, fellowships and scholarships, training, and education. Initiatives supported by the institute include advanced training in peace-making and 214 •

People of World Influence mediation skills for the United Nations secretariat staff; a joint study program with the U.S. Army’s Peacekeeping Institute; conflict-resolution training for young peace activists from Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia and Northern Ireland; a preventive diplomacy project with the State Department; a war crimes accountability project; and a national peace essay contest for American high school students. Solomon is pushing the institute to look for niches where its expertise and credibility can be helpful. “We hope to be a vehicle for bringing the government and private sector together and thinking through the leading-edge issues of the day,” he said. “But keep in mind that much of what is going on in the world of international affairs has less and less to do with governments and more and more to do with business, the private sector, and nongovernmental groups—entities that political scientists like to call civil society.” Solomon is excited the institute is playing a key role in several “track two” diplomatic efforts. These are quiet, unofficial talks that are set up to end hostilities and explore a durable solution to disputes outside of official negotiating channels. The Institute of Peace, Solomon said, has earned the reputation as an honest broker that is committed to resolving conflicts fairly. “To some extent, we have the capacity to play that role when someone wants us to,” he noted. “We look around for situations—wars and conflicts—where people are ripe for that kind of process. “We’ve played a constructive role in a number of instances—in the Sudan and other parts of Africa, in China and Taiwan, in Kashmir and with North and South Korea. Also in Cyprus and Afghanistan, we’re doing some things to encourage that kind of track two diplomacy,” he said. The Institute of Peace also has active programs in Bosnia that Solomon is proud of. For example, it’s working with leaders there on the creation of a joint Bosnian-Croatian-Serbian truth and reconciliation commission to establish consensus on abuses suffered by victims from all ethnic groups in the recent war. The institute is well positioned to anticipate future challenges, Solomon noted. “The nature of international conflict is changing. With the end of the Cold War, we no longer have a nuclear stand-off between two superpowers but have a more complex world with a lot of regional and ethnic conflicts. It’s important to help people think through the changing character of international conflicts and find ways to solve or prevent them” he said. On its 10th anniversary in 1994 the institute hosted a conference on the theme of “managing chaos,” which brought together 1,200 people from government, academic and nongovernmental organizations to assess the need for cooperative international programs. The deliberations resulted in the publication of a textbook that is becoming popular in college courses that study international conflict resolution. Last year the institute sponsored a two-day session on “virtual diplomacy,” which considered the impact of the global information revolution on the conduct of international affairs and the opportunities it provides for conflict management and resolution efforts. This is a topic that has long interested Solomon, and he gave one of the major talks on the issue at the conference, as did George Shultz. Breathtaking changes in information technology will fundamentally alter diplomacy in the •215

John Shaw 21st century, with senior officials able to directly manage government operations anywhere in the world, decision-making demands accelerating, and the “obsolescence of traditional diplomatic practices in an era of instantaneous and widely accessible electronic communications,” said Solomon. The information revolution can be used to prevent international conflicts, manage disputes, and promote reconciliation, Solomon said. While the institute’s programs are highly regarded, some argue that its functions could be performed by private groups. A report by the CATO Institute calls the institute a “relic of the Cold War,” adding “there is no need for the Institute of Peace to fill a void that does not exist.” Solomon brushes this criticism aside, arguing that the funding demands of most private groups give them “an agenda” that often complicates their role as an honest broker. The U.S. Congress continues to support the institute, has kept its funding stable at about $11 million over the last five years, and even passed legislation last year that allows the institute to move to a three-acre site on 23th Street and Constitution Avenue, within view of the most famous U.S. war memorials. The institute is preparing to build a state-of-the-art facility that will be used for education, training and policy development. Solomon expects the new center to cost about $50 million and be up and running within five years. He said the fundraising effort is new for him but plans to draw on the experiences of strong supporters of the institute such as Theodore Hesburgh, the former president of the University of Notre Dame. And Solomon expects it will be quite a day when the institute opens its new building. “I really look forward to the day when I can go down to the Mall when it is full of school kids and see them studying not just the monuments to Lincoln and the Civil War, and Franklin Roosevelt and World War II, and the Korean and Vietnam wars, but also the Institute for Peace,” he said. “That would be very, very rewarding.” (May, 1998)

216 •

People of World Influence

Former National Security Advisor

Zbigniew Brzezinski

T

hose involved in international affairs usually live in one of two very different worlds. First, there are the practitioners who are immersed in the daily grind of fashioning and then implementing policies under complicated and often messy circumstances. And then there are the theoreticians who deal with lofty concepts and proclaim how the global system should be configured and how nations should assert their interests. The two worlds usually seem to have little do to with each other. Practitioners accuse theoreticians of having no sense of the practical; theoreticians dismiss practitioners as unimaginative clerks devoid of vision. Unlike anyone in his generation except for Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski has inhabited and distinguished himself in both worlds. A former State Department official, director of President Carter’s National Security Council, and member of a host of high-level advisory panels, Brzezinski has worked in the trenches of American foreign policy. And as an author of a half-dozen highly regarded books, a professor at such distinguished universities as Harvard, Columbia and Johns Hopkins, and now a counselor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Brzezinski also clearly resides in the world of ideas. In his Washington office at CSIS, Brzezinski said that he has consciously blended academic and government careers, determined to use the best of what each has to offer. But he has always had a clear sense of what his top priority is. “Scholarship has always attracted me, but active involvement in policy making has attracted me even more,” he says. •217

John Shaw A formal, polite man, Brzezinski has packed his office with mementos from his years in government service, including a number of photographs of him advising American presidents. It is also crammed with books and maps, and a globe rests next to his sitting chair. “When I started out I wanted to participate in political life, but I also felt an academic base was useful if you wanted to influence not only day-to-day political activities, but also international politics in a strategic sense, to influence longer range trends,” he said. From the beginning of his career, Brzezinski set out to work in academic environments, but to enter government when interesting opportunities arose. “I thought the combination of the two would give me an advantage,” he pointed out. “Returning to academics after government work would provide me with an opportunity to reflect more systematically about what needs to be done and not just get submerged in day-to-day demands, which is the fate of someone whose total life is political involvement.” Brzezinski’s interest in international affairs began early. Born in Warsaw in 1928, he is the son of a Polish diplomat who brought his family to his postings in Germany, France and Canada. He recalls being interested in current affairs and history at a young age. The family was in Canada when World War II broke out and remained there after the war when a communist government assumed power in Poland. Brzezinski studied first at McGill University and then completed his studies at Harvard. Teaching posts at Harvard and Columbia followed, and then Brzezinski landed a job with the State Department’s policy-planning office in the late 1960s. Brzezinski helped found the Trilateral Commission in 1973 and advised several Democratic presidential campaigns, including the successful one of Jimmy Carter’s. Brzezinski served as President Carter’s National Security adviser from 1977 to 1981 and played a key role in such initiatives as normalization of U.S. relations with China, aiding the Afghanistan resistance after the Soviet invasion, and the Camp David peace accords between Israel and Egypt. Carter awarded him the Presidential Medal of Freedom for his foreign policy work in 1981. Looking back on this experience, Brzezinski says he gained a deeper appreciation for the difficulty of making a coherent international policy. “The one general thing I learned was how totally complex is the exercise of presidential power,” he noted. “It’s a continuous struggle, an endless struggle. I also came away impressed by how many very major decisions are made on the run. Any serious strategic thinking you need to do better have occurred before you enter the government because there simply isn’t time to do it then.” Since leaving the White House in 1981, Brzezinski has served on a number of government and private-sector advisory panels, started a small international consulting firm, taught courses on U.S. foreign policy, joined CSIS, and written several provocative books and numerous articles. It is especially through his writings that Brzezinski now tries to influence the debate on international affairs. “In America, it isn’t enough to send a memorandum to the president or convince the secretary of state of a course of action,” he said. “To fashion a strategy you must permeate the thinking of a large number of people with certain fundamental strategic ideas so that in the end what they do becomes the sum total of what you’ve been advocating.” 218 •

People of World Influence No one who has read Brzezinski’s work can fairly accuse him of failing to present sweeping views, drawing intriguing connections, and devising bold and intricate geopolitical strategies. All of these elements are present with a vengeance in his most recent book, Grand Chessboard, which was published in 1997 and is still being read and debated by America’s foreign policy community and in Europe and Asia. “The time has come for the United States to formulate and prosecute an integrated, comprehensive and long-term strategy for all of Eurasia,” he writes. “This need arises out of the interaction between two fundamental realities: America is now the only global superpower and Eurasia is the globe’s central arena.” Brzezinski implores American policy makers to focus on Eurasia, the massive land mass extending from Lisbon to Vladivostok that includes three-quarters of the world’s population and known energy reserves and almost two-thirds of the global economic activity. He notes that after the United States, the next six largest economies and the next six biggest spenders on military weapons are located there. “Eurasia is thus the chessboard on which the struggle for global primacy continues to be played,” he writes, adding “as in chess, America’s global planners must think several moves ahead, anticipating possible countermoves.” Throughout the book there are numerous examples of the intricate thinking for which Brzezinski is famous. Consider the following formulation: “China’s backing of Pakistan’s efforts in Afghanistan is also a positive factor, for closer Pakistani-Afghan relations would make international access to Turkmenistan more feasible, thereby helping to reinforce both that state and Uzbekistan (in the event that Kazakhstan would falter).” Brzezinski urges American leaders to support a larger, more tightly integrated Europe, accommodate China as the regional power in Asia, forge a global partnership with Japan, and “induce” Russia to focus its energies on becoming a constructive member of Europe. He argues that Russia must make a “historic choice” to end its deepening malaise. “Russia’s only real geostrategic option—the option that could give Russia a realistic international role and also maximize the opportunity of transforming and modernizing itself is Europe. And not just any Europe, but the transatlantic Europe of the enlarging European Union and NATO.” To nudge Russia in this direction, America should “close off the imperial option,” Brzezinski said, referring to any Russian temptation to reconstitute the former Soviet empire. Accomplishing this requires the United States to forge strong and close links with such pivotal nations as Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan, he noted. “How the U.S. both manipulates and accommodates the principal geostrategic players on the Eurasian chessboard and how it manages Eurasia’s key geopolitical pivots will be critical to the longevity and stability of America’s global primacy,” he argued. Grand Chessboard has made a strong impression in the United States and across the world. It is still a best-seller in Germany and Japan and is being read widely in Europe and Asia. Brzezinski said that the book has received some “violent attacks” in Russia, largely because of a misinterpretation of one of his maps that led some to conclude he favors the dismemberment of Russia, which he doesn’t. Brzezinski added that he has been told that Chinese President Jiang Zemin is now reading Grand Chessboard. “It’s created quite an international stir, so I’m pleased.” •219

John Shaw Brzezinski hopes his strategic views are embraced by the Clinton administration and results in more discipline and coherence in U.S. foreign policy. “The administration has handled some individual problems quite well,” he continued, citing NATO expansion, policies on Russia, Ukraine and China. “But I must say there is the absence of any sense of connection between these policies.” Brzezinski’s best opportunity to influence the administration rests in his close ties to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. She prepared her doctoral dissertation under Brzezinski’s supervision, worked for him in the Carter White House, and helped him write his memoirs in the early 1980s. The two still talk “from time to time” Brzezinski said, adding that his former student is one of the few in the administration who is able to make connections between policies and think in broad, conceptual terms. Now 70, Brzezinski maintains a busy schedule, shuttling between New York and Washington, D.C. He teaches a foreign policy class at the Johns Hopkins University, travels and lectures frequently, and chairs advisory panels that promote better American relations with Poland, China and Ukraine. As a counselor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Brzezinski has a halfdozen aides who provide him with regular briefings on developments in Europe, the Far East, the Middle East and the new nations of the former Soviet Union. He meets regularly with ambassadors and foreign ministers in Washington and during his travels. Brzezinski has developed a special interest in Central Asia and the Caucasus and may create a CSIS task force to flesh out American policy options for that crucial region. And he is determined to use his experiences in government and academia to shape the policy debate. “The key is to get certain fundamental ideas shared by enough people so that the sum total of what they advocate becomes the equivalent of a strategic design. You have to get enough people conditioned to think in strategic terms,” he noted. He acknowledges the American system is not known for the crafting of careful, long-range policies, but hopes this will improve. “Unless we play chess in a systematic fashion we may end up with a messy, chaotic global situation that we are unable to control,” he said. (April, 1998)

220 •

People of World Influence

House Banking Committee Chairman

Jim Leach

A

fter returning from an 11-day trip through Asia in late January, House Banking Committee Chairman Jim Leach did several things that nicely illustrate his approach to problem-solving: First, he sat down, collected his thoughts about his travels through Japan, South Korea, China and Hong Kong and drafted a long memo that set out his impressions of the financial crisis rocking Asia and the challenges it poses for the rest of the world. The memo placed recent events in a historical perspective and identified America’s main objective for the future. “The challenge,” he wrote, “is to develop an approach that prevents economic free-fall, competitive currency devaluations and retaliatory tariff increases in Asia, without providing a bailout to investors that would encourage these circumstances to reoccur.” With this premise in place, Leach then put the finishing touches on legislation he had been working on for months that would provide an $18 billion American contribution to the International Monetary Fund for its various programs. The bill would also require increased transparency in IMF programs, encourage recipient nations to institute market-based reforms, adopt sound banking policies, reduce corruption, support workers’ rights, reduce ethnic strife and expand environmental protection. While it is unclear if the Leach bill will be approved by Congress this year, it has won praise. In a recent editorial, the New York Times said Leach’s legislation “makes a novel contribution” to the debate on the Asian crisis and the IMF. The Times praised its provisions to ensure less IMF secrecy and press the fund to take account of workers’ rights and environmental conditions without imposing “rigid remedies.” •221

John Shaw Leach’s memo and legislation reveal the world view and operating style of the key Republican lawmaker from Iowa who is imploring the U.S. Congress to take a warm-hearted, but toughminded stance toward the problems of Asia. “This is an important time for both Asia and the United States,” Leach said. “In my judgment, for Asia these recent problems are more of a psychological crisis than an economic one. And many there are wondering if the United States will turn its back on the region. I think both a sense of long-term friendship and our economic and investment interests are at stake here. In Asia, they will long remember this episode. If we help out or if we don’t, they will remember how America acted,” he added. Speaking in his office, Leach, 55, more nearly resembles a college professor than a highpowered lawmaker who heads up one of Congress’s major committees—the House Banking panel—and is a senior member of the important House International Affairs Committee. Dressed in a blue sweater and sipping hot tea, he looks as if he might be preparing for a tutorial on international finance rather than gearing up for one of the biggest fights of the year in the U.S. Congress. Often described as one of the most thoughtful and reflective members of Congress, many analysts remain skeptical that Leach will be able to persuade his colleagues to support an open and confident American posture in global economic matters. “Jim Leach is one of the our last internationalists in Congress,” said Bill Frenzel, a former Republican congressman who is now an analyst at the Brookings Institution. “There just aren’t many internationalists left. We’re down to a handful, and Jim is one of the best and most important,” he added. Leach was the first American lawmaker to begin a formal study of the Asian economic crisis last fall and his banking panel has held several sessions this year to further examine the crisis and consider an appropriate response. He has summoned Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, Deputy Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers and a number of economists, labor, and business leaders to appear before his committee to trace the history of the Asian crisis and suggest policy options. Leach has been working closely with the White House on his legislation to fund the IMF but so far has received only tepid support from senior Republican leaders in Congress to pass the bill. “It’s unclear how Congress will ultimately respond. It’s going to be a very close issue,” he said. “This vote will cause angst for a lot of members of Congress.” Leach suggests the IMF issue should be debated in the context of the arrears the United States owes to the United Nations and the stalled fast-track trade bill that would allow the president to negotiate trade agreements and be assured of swift congressional consideration of them. “These issues are inextricably linked and perhaps should be presented as a coherent, internationalist package,” he said. But he cautioned that he’s not sure what would happen if these issues were linked. “At this time in our history, Congress has a tendency to transfer to the executive branch discretion on controversial foreign policy issues when Congress does not want to leave voter liability fingerprints,” he said. 222 •

People of World Influence Leach is one of the few American lawmakers with an unapologetic internationalist bent, which he says comes from his Midwestern roots, education and professional experiences. Born in Davenport, Iowa, Leach planned a career in the foreign service even before entering college. He studied international affairs at Princeton and Johns Hopkins universities and the London School of Economics. His specialty was the Soviet Union. After several years in the foreign service, including an assignment at the U.N. working for thenU.S. ambassador George Bush, Leach returned home to take over his family’s propane gas company. He ran unsuccessfully for Congress in 1974 and then won a seat in 1976 as the representative from Iowa’s first congressional district. He said his constituents have always supported his active role on foreign policy. “In the Midwestern heartland, the traditions are very internationalist. The region continues to be very much outward looking,” he said. “I often joke that it’s the two coasts that give the United States its parochialism.” Assigned to the Banking Committee when he first entered Congress, Leach was given a coveted spot on the Foreign Relations (later renamed International Relations) Committee several years later. Work on both the Banking and International Relations panels has shaped his view that economics is the crucial thread that weaves together domestic and international policy. Leach served on a key House subcommittee in the mid-1980s that conducted an extraordinary investigation of the financial corruption of the Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos. In the early 1990s, Leach co-chaired a panel that examined America’s role in the United Nations. Breaking with many on the commission, Leach said the United States should support a strong, assertive United Nations. When Republicans seized control of Congress in 1995, Leach assumed the chairmanship of the House Banking panel. Leach played a lead role in a frantic attempt to help Mexico cope with a serious financial crisis. Working closely with the Clinton administration, Leach drafted a comprehensive U.S. aid package that attracted little support in Congress. He then helped draft a more limited rescue plan that did not require congressional approval and was eventually implemented by Treasury. Leach is proud of his work on Mexico, which he calls the “first crisis of the new economic order.” A new era has arrived, he said, in which global financial markets react quickly and dramatically and with punishing ferocity when weaknesses appear in a domestic economy. The key lesson he learned from the Mexican crisis is the need to assemble economic aid packages that are larger than what is needed to win the confidence of global markets. “The effect of delivering an economic package larger than the contingency required is similar to the military strategy of overwhelming force—the doctrine that the greater the power committed the less the likelihood of significant casualties or policy failures,” he said. The senior lawmaker wants the Mexican model of loans—not aid—to shape the world community’s response to the Asian and other crises that will come. While preparing for the future, Leach is also delving into the past for meaning and insights. His panel held hearings last year on the issue of Swiss banks holding Nazi gold and sessions this •223

John Shaw year on the legal status of art objects seized by the Nazis and on insurance claims of certain Holocaust victims and their heirs. “These go to very fundamental historical issues and philosophical issues,” he noted. “What is the nature of evil? What is the nature of justice? What is the accountability that exists today in relation to the events of the past?” Leach’s quiet, introspective approach to public policy has not always earned him the praise of his colleagues. Some say he is a better professor than a committee chairman, and many argue he is not a forceful legislator. They note that after three years of effort, he has been unable to push a sweeping bank reform bill through the House and doesn’t have his initials on many major bills. He also earned the enmity of many GOP leaders in 1997 when he was one of nine House Republicans to oppose Newt Gingrich’s bid to win re-election as speaker. Leach was deeply troubled by the ethical scandal then enveloping Gingrich and agonized if he should support him or not. He retired to a cabin in West Virginia and wrote one brief supporting Gingrich and one opposing him. He said he found the later more compelling and decided to vote against him. “The speaker must be free from any shadow concerning allegiance to the law or to truth,” he said. “Accordingly, for the country’s sake, I have concluded that the most responsible course of action for the speaker is to step down and for the members to choose another leader for the House,” he added. Gingrich survived the ethical scandal and won re-election as speaker. He and Leach are said to have a cool, distant relationship. “Let’s just say Jim’s vote probably didn’t endear him to Newt,” said Frenzel. “Their personal relations may not be the best. But they’re both committed internationalists, which is a rare breed in Congress these days. In a lot of ways they need each other.” (March, 1998)

224 •

People of World Influence

Brookings Institution Foreign Policy Director

Richard Haass

P

resident Clinton has not done enough to educate the American public about the possibilities and perils of greater U.S. engagement in the world and has failed to build strong domestic support for a vigorous American international posture. This is the one overriding concern that Richard Haass—the director of foreign policy programs at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C.—has about Clinton’s foreign policy. From his modest, file-strewn office on the fifth floor of the Brookings Institution, Haass is trying to prod Clinton and the American Congress to get more energetic and thoughtful on international matters. And he’s committed to doing his part to educate policy makers and the U.S. public on the benefits of an assertive U.S. role in the world. With a steady stream of books, op-ed essays, articles in foreign policy journals and television appearances, Haass is loudly and clearly making his case. In addition to his work at Brookings, Haass is a consultant for NBC News and hosts the New York Times’s international affairs forum on the Internet. By all appearances, the amiable, goodhumored analyst enjoys both the public exposure and the public policy battles he is sparking. “Foreign policy still matters, and the United States can afford to have a strong foreign policy,” he said. “In fact, we must have a strong international policy. It’s eminently affordable and desirable. Inaction now only creates very costly challenges down the road. “The president needs to invest in foreign policy and public education,” he continued. “The lack of presidential attention to foreign policy is a serious problem for this country. We need a national dialogue about our role in the world.” Haass’s hunger for a robust national debate on foreign policy is understandable given his •225

John Shaw extensive government and research experience on international issues. A native of New York who won a Rhodes scholarship to study politics at Oxford University, Haass was initially intrigued by the Middle East but has expanded his interests to include a wide range of political, security and economic matters affecting America’s relationship with Asia, Europe and the Middle East. Haass worked as an aide on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and has held senior positions in the Defense and State Departments during the Carter and Reagan administrations. He served on President George Bush’s National Security Council and played a prominent role in developing American policy during the Persian Gulf War in 1991. After leaving the White House in 1993, Haass worked at the Council on Foreign Relations and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace before taking the post at Brookings. He has also taught at the John F. Kennedy school of government at Harvard University and at Hamilton College. Haass, 47, said that this mix of academic and practical experience has provided him with a healthy respect for the worlds of ideas and action—and the importance of blending insights from both. “I think it’s healthy to go back and forth (between government and think tanks), and the U.S. is probably unique in providing you that opportunity,” he said. “Working in government is very draining and incredibly demanding. When you leave government and go into a think tank it allows you to reflect and sort things out. It can be a source of new ideas and fresh energy.” When joining a research institution after government service, a person has a “much better feel for how policy is really made,” he pointed out. “And you have a much better sense of how to pitch your writing to be influential, to be relevant to policy makers.” Since leaving government at the end of the Bush administration, Haass has devoted much of his energy to drafting an American road map for the post-Cold War world. Several years ago, he wrote a book on the military challenges facing the United States and then offered a comprehensive foreign policy strategy in a 1997 book called The Reluctant Sheriff. That book, which has been well received by both academics and policy makers, argues that the United States should replace the obsolete doctrine of containment with a policy called regulation. According to Haass, America must assume the role of a global sheriff who is responsible for assembling coalitions of nations—he calls them “posses of the willing”— to deal with specific challenges that will arise in a messy, unruly world. “The United States should act, whenever possible with others but alone when necessary and feasible, to shape the behavior and, in some cases, the capabilities of governments and other actors so that they are less likely or able to act aggressively either beyond their borders or toward their own citizens and more likely to enter into trade and other mutually beneficial economic relations,” he writes. U.S. foreign policy should focus on preventing classic aggression, acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by rogue states, protectionism and state support of terrorism, Haass noted, adding that less emphasis should be placed on promoting human rights, democracy and economic issues. A vigorous American foreign policy must be undergirded by the basic tools of national 226 •

People of World Influence security: strong military, foreign aid, intelligence and diplomatic capabilities, Haass said. The United States can afford to continue to spend about $300 billion a year for national security, adding this is a large sum but still only one-fifth of the annual U.S. federal budget and less than 4 percent of the U.S.’s gross national product. Haass has chided Clinton for getting distracted by “peripheral issues,” such as NATO expansion, while paying insufficient attention to the three big issues of U.S. foreign policy: China, expanded trade and the Middle East. Haass said that he’s pleased the United States is developing a more balanced approach to Chinese policy as illustrated by the visit last year of Chinese President Jiang Zemin to America. But he’s still deeply disappointed with current White House stances on trade and the Middle East. “I’m very frustrated the administration has let the trade debate drift,” he said. “They’ve been unable to build on their own successes with NAFTA [the North American Free Trade Agreement] and the World Trade Organization. They’ve lost control of the trade argument. And in the current environment, it will be virtually impossible to pass fast-track this year,” he added, referring to the legislation that would allow the Clinton administration to negotiate trade pacts and quickly push them through Congress. Regarding the Middle East, Haass said that the United States has been far too timid and cautious. He sharply rejects the notion that the region is much less important now than it was during the Cold War. “When the peace process goes well it’s a lubricant for other issues, and when it goes badly it’s the equivalent of sand in the gears,” he noted. “A stalled Middle East peace process hurts other foreign policy goals.” Haass added that the White House should work firmly and creatively to resolve the IsraeliPalestinian dispute. “The United States needs to focus less on private diplomacy and more on public diplomacy,” he continued. “We need to go out and shape the context by which the negotiations take place. I don’t think any amount of private diplomacy will succeed now. The U.S. has to create a new context. We need to switch gears. The current approach isn’t working. “I’m afraid we’re going to miss an opportunity that won’t come again soon,” he said. “The administration has allowed the situation to drift. Things have deteriorated badly in the region.” Another issue that has captured Haass’s interest is the explosion of economic sanctions the United States has been imposing on other nations. A 1997 study by the U.S.’s National Association of Manufacturers shows this country imposed sanctions on 35 countries between 1993 and 1996. Another study by the Institute of International Economics estimates that sanctions cost American firms between $15 billion and $19 billion in lost business in 1995. Haass chaired a working group at the Council on Foreign Relations to examine the issue and has written a book on the topic that will be published this spring. He added that Congress and the White House are too inclined to slap sanctions on other nations whenever they’re frustrated with them but are unwilling to go to war. This is short-sighted and dangerous, he said. “Sanctions are serious business, fully as serious as most other forms of intervention,” he said. “And they’re now out of control in this country. They’re now abused as much as they’re used. This •227

John Shaw is deplorable.” Haass is working on an alternative to sanctions, an approach he calls “conditional engagement.” While the details still need to be worked out, he urges an approach that blends narrow sanctions with limited political and economic contacts that are conditioned on specific behavioral changes by other countries. Once his sanctions work is completed, Haass wants to write a comprehensive book on the Persian Gulf that traces the problems of the past quarter century, discusses the Gulf War of 1991, and considers future challenges in the region. Haass tries to set aside a few hours a week to write and hopes to do more in 1999. The bulk of his time is now spent managing the Brookings foreign policy programs. The programs have a staff of about 60, including about 15 long-term scholars and an assortment of research fellows. Haass is trying to make the programs more aggressive, focused on breaking issues and emerging debates, and adept at reaching influential audiences. “Our goal is to affect tomorrow’s policy, to shape the debate on issues that will be big say between six months and six years from now,” he said. Haass added that his days are packed with administrative tasks, including fund-raising, personnel matters and reviewing the manuscripts written by his Brookings colleagues. “The only time I was busier than I am now was when I was at the White House,” he said. “So this is the second busiest job I’ve ever had. There are a lot of dimensions to this job,” he said. And the phone rings and the line outside his door lengthens. (February, 1998)

228 •

People of World Influence

Institute of International Economics Director

C. Fred Bergsten

O

n November 13, C. Fred Bergsten, director of the Institute of International Economics, testified before the U.S. House Banking Committee on the economic crisis sweeping across Asia. Sitting on a panel of experts who followed the testimony of Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and Deputy Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, Bergsten gave a memorable performance. Speaking with complete self-assurance and sometimes addressing the lawmakers as though they were wellmeaning but academically challenged university students, Bergsten traced the origin of Asia’s economic woes to a decision by China in 1994 to devalue its currency and the depreciation of the Japanese yen by about 25 percent from early 1995 to late 1996. He noted that the sharp declines in the two currencies put tremendous competitive pressure on the rest of Asia, leading to the erosion of key nations’ trade positions and causing large balanceof-payments deficits. While the Banking Committee’s focus was then on Thailand and Indonesia, Bergsten warned South Korea could be the next nation to face serious problems. He said strong programs by the International Monetary Fund and the creation of a special Asian assistance fund were needed to stabilize the region. The United States should stay engaged in international economic issues, Bergsten pointed out. And he chided Congress for sending precisely the wrong signal when it failed to grant President Clinton fast-track trade authority earlier that month. Bergsten did not back down when challenged by several lawmakers on his assessment of the Asian crisis, and he had heated exchanges with members of the panel on the merits of free trade. “Notice that I was precisely right about South Korea,” he said several weeks later when •229

John Shaw reminded of his testimony, still exuding the supreme self-confidence for which he is justly famous. Bergsten, 56, is one of the world’s most influential international economists, in part because he’s committed to framing his ideas in terms that can be understood by policy makers and the interested public. An expert in both finance and trade, his comments on the global economy are studied closely by financial professionals, and his statements on the dollar, yen, and other currencies often move foreign exchange markets. Bergsten’s Institute for International Economics is one of the most-respected think tanks in the United States. It churns out a steady stream of books and policy studies that are readable, solidly researched, and relevant to current international debates. “I think it’s fair to say that we have become the premier research center on global economics and also a focal point where these issues are discussed,” he said from his large office in Dupont Circle. “We try to bridge the intellectual world and the policy world. Our goal is to simultaneously meet the requirements of academic rigor and policy relevance. We want to be a serious intellectual player but also one that is relevant to the policy debate,” he noted. The institute was launched by Bergsten in 1981 at the suggestion of the German Marshall Fund of the United States, which had been in touch with him for several years about creating a think tank to study global economics. The German Marshall Fund guaranteed three years of funding as Bergsten assembled a staff and developed other sources of support. The IIE now has a staff of about 50, including 35 professionals many of whom have been with the institute for most of its existence. With an annual budget of about $5 million, the institute has 25 projects in the works at any one time on important economic issues and holds a conference, seminar, or policy briefing almost every week. Funded largely by philanthropic foundations, it receives large grants from the German Marshall, Ford, Andrew Mellon and Starr foundations as well as other groups and private corporations. It doesn’t accept government funds. About 12 percent of the institute’s resources are provided by contributors outside the United States. The institute’s programs are shaped by a board of directors that reads like a Who’s Who list of modern economic and political leaders. Raymond Barre, Alan Greenspan, Carla Hills, Miguel de la Madrid, Nigel Lawson, Lee Kuan Yew, Donald McHenry, Karl Otto Pohl, George Shultz and Laura D’Andrea Tyson are some the leading members of the board. The institute also has an advisory panel that Bergsten said “includes almost every top international economist in the world.” Bergsten formally convenes the board and advisory panel once a year to refine its “rolling agenda” of future projects for the institute. “The key to our success is our ability to anticipate issues and to be there on a timely basis,” he said. “We’re always asking ourselves what issues are going to be on top of the policy agenda one or two years out, so we can be there ahead of time.” As an example, the institute published a 50-page primer on fast-track trade legislation last fall that was widely used by members of the U.S. Congress, their staffs, and reporters covering the debate. “That’s exactly what we’re trying to do,” he said of the study. “We want our work to shape the policy debate. We want it in the hands of the people who will decide the issues, the people 230 •

People of World Influence advising them, and the press which will help frame the issue.” The report, drafted by one of the institute’s top researchers, I.M. Destler, provides a succinct history of fast-track trade legislation and argues that the authority is necessary for U.S. presidents to pry open international markets. The institute will release a major study early in 1998 on forecasting future financial crises, a topic of obvious relevance, said Bergsten. Bergsten is an aggressive, visible head of the IIE who is well known around Washington and in the international economic community. A friendly, gregarious man, he has a quick laugh and a steady flow of ideas and opinions. Many have been proven right; some have been wrong. But he doesn’t mince his words or shade his views. He brings a wealth of government and academic experience to his current work. A graduate of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Bergsten worked for Henry Kissinger during the Nixon administration. Not yet 30, he coordinated foreign economic policy for the National Security Council then headed up by Kissinger. Bergsten is quick to say that he taught Kissinger all he knows about economics. He was assistant secretary of the Treasury for international affairs from 1977 to 1981 and also functioned as the undersecretary for monetary affairs from 1980 to 1981. He has had senior fellowships at the Brookings Institution, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and the Council on Foreign Relations. In addition to managing the institute, Bergsten also frequently testifies before Congress, debates policy issues on television, and serves on various advisory panels. For example, he chaired the Eminent Persons Group of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum from 1993 to 1997 and the Competitiveness Policy Council from 1991 to 1997. Bergsten is also a prolific writer on economic issues. He has authored or co-authored 26 books and tries to write a book each year as well as several major articles on key economic issues. Several of Bergsten’s recent works highlight his current interests. In 1996, he wrote a muchdebated book on the problems of the Group of Seven nations in coordinating economic policies. The book argues the United States, Germany and Japan have serious policy differences and that a new “consensus for inaction” has developed in the G7 based on fears of trying to counter the massive flows of international private capital, persistent budget deficits among the countries, and the reluctance of central banks to coordinate policies. Last year, he edited a book on the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum that includes a host of recommendations to bring down trade barriers in the region and create a new approach to help prevent and respond to future monetary crises in the Asia Pacific region. And in a much-discussed essay in the journal Foreign Affairs in the summer of 1997, called “The Dollar and the Euro,” Bergsten said the creation of a single European currency will be the most important development in the international monetary system since the adoption of flexible exchange rates in the early 1970s. “The dollar will have its first real competitor since it surpassed the pound sterling as the world’s dominant currency during the interwar period,” he wrote. “As much as $1 trillion of international investment may shift from dollars to euros. Volatility between the world’s key currencies will increase substantially, requiring new forms of international cooperation if severe •231

John Shaw costs for the global economy are to be avoided.” Looking ahead, Bergsten says the institute will focus on two major issues in the next several years. First, it’s working on a major study on globalization that will detail both the benefits and costs of a more tightly integrating world economy. “This is at the top of our agenda” he said. “There has been a huge backlash against globalization, not just in the U.S. but across the world.” “I think this debate needs to be put into a more thoughtful, informed framework,” he noted, making it very clear what group is best equipped to do this. The second big project the institute will undertake is a study on how to reform the world monetary system. “We still have a long way to go to build an effective international monetary system,” he said. “How do you anticipate and prevent crises? How do you respond in an orderly and organized way as opposed to all these ad hoc rescue packages?” Bergsten said that he expects to be at the institute to see these and other projects completed. He declined an offer to head up the Brookings Institution in 1996. “I expect to be here for the duration,” he noted. “I enjoy it thoroughly. I’ve got a wonderful staff and a great board. For me, its a wonderful blend of intellectual pursuits and activist engagement in the public policy process. The institute is a base from which I can contribute to public policy and hopefully the public good.” (January, 1998)

232 •

People of World Influence

New York Times Columnist

Tom Friedman

O

n September 11, 1997, New York Times columnist Tom Friedman wrote an essay that caused quite a stir in the U.S. foreign policy community. On the eve of Secretary of State Madeleine Albright’s first trip to the Middle East, Friedman took sharp exception to conventional American thinking on that region. He said the U.S. effort to resolve the dispute between the Arab world and Israel was now largely an act of kindness rather than a geopolitical imperative as many still contended. The new secretary of state should not get bogged down in endless shuttle diplomacy if the nations of the Middle East weren’t determined to resolve their differences, Friedman said. More important items should top Albright’s regional agenda, he argued, citing the need to prevent Iran and Iraq from getting nuclear or biological weapons and threatening the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf. “She needs to make it clear that she doesn’t do doors, she doesn’t do windows, she doesn’t do cease-fires and she doesn’t do small concessions,” Friedman wrote. “She should insist that they propose realistic solutions to the core problems,” he noted. “If not, she’ll walk, and they can have their little war in peace.” Several days later, Albright, in her first extended comments after several days of immersion in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, said she wasn’t coming back to the region until the parties were prepared to negotiate seriously. Using an argument similar to the one Friedman advanced, the secretary of state said she wouldn’t return until the parties were really ready to do business. •233

John Shaw Friedman declined to speculate if his column influenced Albright, but many are convinced that it did, at least reinforcing her instincts about how to approach the Middle East. While not all of Tom Friedman’s articles grab the attention of key policy makers in Washington, many do. He is probably the most widely read and closely studied foreign policy pundit in the United States. Friedman’s Foreign Affairs column, which runs on Monday and Thursday each week in the New York Times, is noticed and debated in the White House, Congress and think tanks across Washington. And his ideas are often studied by overseas diplomats trying to gauge what is on the mind of America’s foreign policy community. In his office at the New York Times, Friedman spoke expansively about his passion for international affairs. A friendly, engaging man, Friedman said he’s in his dream job and can’t believe his good fortune. “I have the best job in the world. It’s an amazing job, a terrific job. And if I can help it, no one is going to take it from me,” he said with a smile. “I’m a tourist with an attitude. I can travel around the world. I can go anywhere I want, anytime I want, and write whatever I want within the boundaries of taste and reason as long as it’s serious and credible.” Friedman, 44, began his career as a reporter for United Press International, working first in London and then in Beirut as a specialist in oil-related news. He was hired by the New York Times in 1981 and quickly became one of the paper’s brightest stars. He has won two Pulitzer Prizes, one for his reporting from Lebanon in 1983 and a second for his coverage of Israel in 1988. Friedman has also written a book on the Middle East, From Beirut to Jerusalem, which won the National Book Award for non-fiction and the 1989 Overseas Press Club Award for the best book on foreign policy. After his Middle East stint, Friedman moved to Washington in 1989 and worked as the Times’ chief diplomatic correspondent. In four years he traveled about 500,000 miles covering Secretary of State James Baker and the end of the Cold War. In 1992, Friedman became the chief White House correspondent, and in 1994 he was named the paper’s senior international economics reporter. Friedman became the New York Times’ Foreign Affairs columnist in January 1995, making him only the fifth person in the paper’s history to write the prestigious column. Bubbling with enthusiasm, ideas and theories, Friedman saidthat he often has a half dozen articles percolating in his mind. The articles are shaped by travel, discussions with international affairs experts, and breaking events. As part of his routine, Friedman reads the news wires, scours papers and magazines, and often just sits back and peers at a map of the world that covers a wall of his office and decides where to go next. Since beginning his column three years ago, he has traveled to more than 30 countries and is usually on the road at least one week a month. “My job is to cover the world, the whole world. My job is to follow the news. My job is to go out and see, touch, feel and tell you what I think.” In the past year, Friedman has written about such topics as the emerging nations in Southeast Asia, China’s economic and political challenges, the future of Hong Kong, turmoil in the Middle 234 •

People of World Influence East, the workings of global oil markets, the failed fast-track trade bill in the United States, and the drive to expand NATO. Friedman says he attempts to discuss each topic thoroughly, so an individual essay stands alone. But he has an overarching thesis that pervades most of his essays: the age of globalization is upon us. In his mind, globalization is “the integration of technologies, markets and information in a way that is knitting the world together into a single global market, village and, in some ways, community.” He argues that global power is still determined by the complex interaction of market, security and political factors but that economics is now the driving force in the same way that security issues were during the Cold War. “We’ve moved from a world dominated by superpower competition to a world dominated by supermarket competition. The two remaining world powers today are the U.S. and Moody’s,” he says, referring to the credit rating agency. Global capital markets reward nations with disciplined budget and monetary policies and punish those with weak economic policies, Friedman said. He speaks of the “brutal and anonymous disciplinary force of the global market.” In an essay earlier this year, Friedman said nations need to decide if they will put on what he calls the “golden straitjacket,” a metaphor for the embrace of disciplined economic policies that, when accompanied by a stable business and regulatory climate, fuel sustained growth. “What happens when your country puts on the golden straitjacket is that its economy expands and its politics shrink,” he wrote. “That is, growth rises, unemployment falls and political choices on all big issues—welfare, interest rates, government spending—contract to the narrow limits set by the markets.” Friedman is clearly intrigued by the concept of globalization and the power of financial markets and is working on a book that will fully outline his views. The book will be called The Lexus and the Olive Tree, a title that comes from an essay he wrote in 1992. In it, he argues that some nations are plunging ahead in the global economy by producing state-of-the-art services and goods such as the Lexus while others are languishing in the past, consumed by tribal hatreds, fears, and ancient battles over turf. “If I’m wrong on this I won’t be 5 per cent wrong,” he said. “I will be 100 percent wrong. But I may be proven right. I think I will be proven right.” Looking ahead, Friedman said that he will continue to write about globalization, the Middle East, and the emerging markets of Asia. He also intends to fill “huge holes” in his reporting with more essays about India, Pakistan, Latin America, Africa, Europe and Central Asia. Friedman’s writing style is informal, direct and personal. His articles are laced with references to his own experiences, conversations and travels. Closely read and widely respected, he is also controversial. Friedman’s columns generate both sweeping praise and passionate rebuttals. For example, while very critical of both Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Chairman Yasir Arafat, his withering assessments of Netanyahu have rankled some in the American Jewish community. And Friedman’s deep and often stated skepticism about the wisdom of NATO expansion is •235

John Shaw said to have angered many in the White House. On this he is unrepentant. “On NATO expansion, I’m going down with the Titanic,” he noted. “People tell me it’s a done deal, and I should now write about how it can implemented. I won’t. I don’t think it’s a done deal, and I won’t stop writing that it’s a bad idea until the final vote is cast. And then I still won’t be convinced.” Friedman’s writings about Saddam Hussein have raised some eyebrows. In a much-discussed November essay, Friedman said the United States “has to try to destroy him” because the worst of all worlds would be if the Iraqi leader’s weapons were destroyed but he survives and throws out the UN inspectors. “Given the nature of world politics today, and given America’s feckless allies, the U.S. will get only one good shot at Saddam before everyone at the UN starts tut-tutting and rushing to his defense. So if and when Saddam pushes beyond the brink, and we get that one good shot, let’s make sure it’s a head shot,” he wrote. The most persistent criticism of Friedman has come from the New Republic, a prominent weekly magazine, that especially dislikes his views on the Middle East and globalization. In a July 1995 essay in the magazine, Nader Mousavizadeh blasted Friedman’s writings saying they are characterized by “rampant economicism, an elitism disguised as man-in-the-street populism and a knowingness presented as folksiness.” He asserted that Friedman’s view of the Middle East has been distorted by his years in Beirut. Lebanon has “become his metaphor for all wars and all truces” Mousavizadeh wrote, adding “the role of foreign correspondent is to distinguish between the wars of the world rather than conflate them all in a single image of war and peace.” Equally blistering was his attack on Friedman’s economic focus. “Reading Friedman’s columns, one could easily believe that all the world’s a bazaar and that unfettered trade will alone ensure an idyllic future,” Mousavizadeh wrote. “These columns reveal a pattern of thought almost irretrievably mired in what might be called the geo-economic illusion, the idea that in the wake of the Cold War political and military power have yielded to economic power.” Friedman brushes aside the criticism, saying it comes with the job. He challenges those who disagree with him to offer an alternative to explain the world. Friedman vows he isn’t going to soften his arguments or avoid controversy. “You have to take chances,” he pointed out. “You can’t be afraid to be wrong. If I can’t take intellectual chances, what good am I? What good is it to tell people what they already know or have already read? How does that help them? “As a columnist, the only thing worse than being attacked is being ignored. I want to be in the debate. I want to be driving the debate. That’s the fun of it.” (December, 1997)

236 •

People of World Influence

Deputy Secretary of State

Strobe Talbott

I

t’s been said that U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright is as comfortable working a crowd at a town hall meeting in Des Moines or munching on a hot dog at a Baltimore Oriole’s baseball game as she is negotiating an arms control treaty in Moscow or meeting with NATO foreign ministers in Brussels. The same, however, has not been said of Strobe Talbott, her top deputy at the State Department. Talbott is the person who runs the day-to-day activities of the State Department and is the resident blue blood at Foggy Bottom. The son of an investment banker and from a prominent Cleveland family, Talbott has broad and deep roots in the American foreign policy establishment and a demeanor that is, to put it mildly, serious and somber. “There hangs about Talbott an air of premature fogginess as if he were meant from a very early age to inherit the gloom of an elder statesman,” said an observer several years ago. However, the formal, ramrod-straight Talbott makes up in insights on international affairs and access to the U.S. commander in chief what he may lack in the common touch. Talbott speaks authoritatively on matters ranging from the recent Iranian elections to Russian economic reform, the history of imperial rivalry in Central Asia, democracy in Haiti, NATO expansion, nuclear proliferation, and the changing nature of global diplomacy. And Talbott’s quarter-century friendship with Bill Clinton, which began when they were both Rhodes Scholars at Oxford University, makes him keenly aware of the thinking and instincts of the president on foreign policy matters. Talbott, 51, has been part of the Clinton administration since the early months of 1993. He left a long and distinguished journalism career to become the ambassador-at-large to the new states •237

John Shaw of the former Soviet Union. Talbott remains the de facto administration point man on the region, even since taking the number-two job at the State Department. Fascinated with Russia since a boy, Talbott wrote his senior thesis at Yale University on Fyodor Tyutchev, a 19th-century Russian poet. And while still in his 20s, he translated and edited two volumes of Nikita Khrushchev’s memoirs. Talbott jumped at the chance to help shape American policy to Russia and the other nations of the former Soviet Union when Clinton and former Secretary of State Warren Christopher called with the job offer. He has been active in crafting aid programs to the region and is often described as the person who convinced President Clinton to back the mercurial Boris Yeltsin and support his halting approach to reform. This has provoked praise from some quarters that the United States has been a steadfast ally to Russia and jabs from others who argue this country has been too wedded to Yeltsin and not sufficiently open to other democrats in Russia. From his jobs at Foggy Bottom, Talbott has encouraged and prodded Russia to stay on the reform track, arguing that international and American assistance programs should continue as long as Russia is building democratic institutions and a market economy. Despite ambiguous evidence, Talbott continues to believe that Russia is on the path to becoming a “normal modern state—democratic in its governance, abiding by its own constitution and own laws, market oriented and prosperous in its economic development, at peace with itself and the rest of the world.” In a recent essay, Talbott cites several reasons for “strategic optimism” about Russia. These include Yeltsin’s victory over his Communist rival Gennady Zyuganov in the 1996 presidential race, a stabilizing economy with declining inflation and prospects for a “real upturn” in growth, a more conciliatory posture by Moscow toward the other nations of the former Soviet Union, and a willingness to work with NATO as evidenced by the NATO-Russia Founding Act signed in May 1997. Talbott argues that the United States must give Russia time to consolidate its reforms and integrate into the world economy and political system. “Russian citizens today can be more confident than a year ago that their country will make it—not just as a safe, secure unitary state, but as a law-based, democratic society, increasingly integrated with the growing community of states that are similarly constituted and similarly oriented,” he wrote recently. Talbott has also spoken in detail and with historical sweep about the Caucasus and Central Asia, which is home to eight of the 12 nations of the former Soviet Union. In a speech this summer at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, Talbott said developments in this region will be crucial to the world in the coming years given its massive oil and gas reserves and strategic location. “The consolidation of free societies at peace with themselves and with each other, stretching from the Black Sea to the Pamir Mountains, will open up a valuable trade and transport corridor along the old Silk Road, between Europe and Asia,” he said. He noted that the United States and Russia as well as Afghanistan, China, Iran and Turkey that border the eight nations of the Caucasus and Central Asia have much to gain from regional 238 •

People of World Influence peace and much to lose from conflict. “Some would say that is self-evident, but others would say it is ahistorical in that it disregards the inevitable and irresistible temptation of the Great Powers to replay the Great Game for the prize of oil and gas from the Caspian region,” Talbott said. “If economic and political reform in the countries of the Caucasus and Central Asia does not succeed—if internal and cross border conflicts simmer and flare—the region could have become a breeding ground of terrorism, a hotbed of religious and political extremism and a battleground of outright war,” he added. Talbott said American policy in the region has four basic goals: to promote democracy, to create free markets, to push regional peace efforts, and to bring the region into the international community. Beyond just speaking about the region, Talbott has traveled there to encourage political pluralism, economic reform and defuse conflicts in Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Tajikistan. He has been quite active, for example, in trying to forge a peace agreement between Azerbaijan and Armenia. The United States, Russia, and France, operating under the auspices of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, are trying to end the almost decade-long dispute between the two nations over the disputed enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh. Talbott has been involved in the effort for four years and is cautiously optimistic about it. But he adds it will require “difficult compromises” from both Azerbaijan and Armenia. In broader terms, Talbott has thought long and hard about the new era of diplomacy that has been created by advances in communications and transportation. In a major essay in the journal Foreign Policy on the challenges of globalization, Talbott argues that “the powerful technological forces of the Information Age have helped to stitch together the economic, political, and cultural lives of nations, making borders more permeable to the movement of people, products and ideas.” Talbott contends that global interdependence is shaping the way all governments think about diplomacy and international affairs. The United States must “channel the forces of interdependence, bending them to the advantage of our own citizens and of other nations that share our interest and values,” he said. Talbott said that the era in which foreign ministries negotiated most issues on a bilateral basis is long gone. He said that the State Department works closely with U.S. agencies such as Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Justice, Transportation and the Trade Office in its conduct of diplomacy. Putting this phenomenon into a specific context, he noted that nine agencies and departments of the U.S. government are working with 13 other governments, seven international agencies, and 13 major non-governmental organizations to implement the Dayton Peace accords in Bosnia. And Talbott said that in the Middle East, the United States chairs the Multilateral Working Group on Water Resources and is working with 47 other nations and international organizations to make sure that efforts to secure water in the region don’t lead to conflict. Talbott said that there is much for America to do in the world and that it is essential for the American public to support an energetic and engaged foreign policy that deals with the issues in non-traditional ways. •239

John Shaw “Well crafted international commitments and a comprehensive strategy of international engagement enhance rather than dilute our mastery of our own fate as a nation which is the most pertinent definition of sovereignty,” he writes. Talbott came to his job at the State Department after a career at Time magazine where he covered Eastern Europe, the State Department and the White House. He was also diplomatic correspondent for seven years and the Washington bureau chief for five years. Talbott has written five books on U.S.-Soviet relations and arms control, most recently a book in 1993 with historian Michael Beschloss called “At the Highest Levels: The Inside Story of the End of the Cold War.” When he was selected in 1993 by Clinton to be ambassador-at-large for the new nations of the former Soviet Union, Talbott was confirmed easily by the Senate. Talbott’s writings about the Middle East and specifically some critical comments about Israel were cited as evidence of an unfair tilt toward the Arab view. Two Republican senators, Connie Mack of Florida and Alfonse D’Amato of New York called on Clinton to pull Talbott’s nomination. They said his writings constituted a “systematic attack upon the foundation” of U.S.-Israeli relations. Talbott retreated from some of his past views, saying they were published “in the heat of forensic and journalist battle.” This caused some derisive grumbling from one Cabinet official who said, “In a way, he’s a classic Clintonite. Push them a little, and they give in.” The Senate confirmed Talbott as deputy secretary of state on Feb. 22, 1994, by a 66 to 31 vote. “A strong message needs to be sent. Enough promotions for Strobe Talbott,” Sen. Robert Dole, R-Kansas, then the Senate Minority Leader, said after the vote. But few believe Talbott’s career has peaked. Most analysts say he has performed well in his current job and a promotion may be coming. Talbott is considered the most serious candidate to head up the National Security Council if its current chief Sandy Berger leaves or is promoted to White House Chief of Staff. (November, 1997)

240 •

People of World Influence

Historian

Peter Hopkirk

T

here are at least two very good reasons to read Peter Hopkirk’s riveting account of the 19th-century struggle between Russia and Great Britain for control of the Caucasus and Central Asia. First, the British historian’s descriptions of this battle in his fascinating book, The Great Game, provide valuable insights into a region that has once again been thrust to the front of the world stage. Since the fall of the Soviet Union at the end of 1991, leading powers have engaged in quiet but determined positioning for supremacy in the strategic swath of land that extends from the Black Sea to China. Hopkirk’s account of the Great Game of the 19th century puts today’s developments in historical perspective and provides an important context to understand current events. Second, Hopkirk’s narrative provides as much fun and enjoyment as the written word allows, particularly for those who relish a good cloak-and-dagger tale with sweeping geopolitical consequences. His book is packed with intrepid, resourceful people, many of whom endured unspeakable privations as they explored, mapped and fought over some of the harshest terrain in the world. Hopkirk provides a front-row seat as soldiers, explorers, and spies skirmish and intrigue for control of great caravan cities, crucial roads and later railroad centers, and key mountain passes in Central Asia. His story takes the reader from the snow-capped Caucasus in the West, across the great deserts and mountain ranges of Central Asia, to Chinese Turkestan and Tibet in the East. With the collapse of the Soviet Union six years ago, the Caucasus and Central Asia have returned to the pages of the world’s newspapers and the watchful gaze of many countries. Of the 12 new nations to emerge from the former Soviet Union, eight are in Central Asia and •241

John Shaw the Caucasus. Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan are struggling to build regimes out of the ruins of the former Soviet empire. Many of these nations sit atop astonishing mineral wealth, and all are located in one of the most strategically important regions of the world. The Caspian Sea basin, which is believed to have the largest reserves of petroleum outside the Persian Gulf, is a particularly crucial area. Energy analysts say there are up to 200 billion barrels of oil in the Caspian basin, worth about $4 trillion at current prices. There are also comparable reserves of natural gas. With all this wealth and strategic advantage in play, China, Iran, Japan, South Korea, Turkey, Russia, the United States and several Western European nations are closely watching the region, looking for commercial opportunities and fearing the advances of other powers. In a recent speech, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott said that contemporary developments in this region should be considered against the backdrop of the past, and he specifically cited the Great Game era. Talbott said many are predicting a return to the dynamics of the 19th-century’s Great Game, in which Russia and Great Britain battled for control of the region and often confronted the Chinese, Persian, and Ottoman empires in the process. “For the last several years, it has been fashionable to proclaim, or at least to predict, a replay of the Great Game in the Caucasus and Central Asia,” Talbott said. “The implication, of course, is that the driving dynamic of the region, fueled and lubricated by oil, will be the competition of the Great Powers to the disadvantage of the people who live there,” he added. “In pondering and practicing the geopolitics of oil, let’s make sure that we are thinking in terms appropriate to the 21st century and not the 19th,” the U.S. official cautioned. Talbott did not mention Hopkirk in his speech, but if he hopes to help chart a future that avoids the mistakes of the past, he should read The Great Game during his next flight to Baku or Tbilisi. In his book, Hopkirk vividly describes the Great Game rivalry between Victorian Britain and Czarist Russia. Ranging from the Mongol conquests of the 13th century to the implosion of the Soviet Union in the late 20th century, Hopkirk focuses primarily on the events from 1810 to 1907 in which the two powers fought for ascendancy in Central Asia. At the beginning of the 19th century, the Russian and British empires were separated by about 2,000 miles, but by century’s end the gap had narrowed to about 20 miles because of relentless Russian advances south and east. Hopkirk says several generations of British leaders argued about the best way to respond to Russian expansion and debated if Russia’s ultimate goal was to capture Britain’s crown jewel, India. In fact, much of the Russian advance was pure improvisation, and Hopkirk describes how military leaders on the ground seized such fabled cities as Tashkent, Samarkand, Bokhara and Khiva, often without getting clearance from home. He argues that Russia’s expansion was motivated more by a longing for commercial opportunities than by a grand strategic design. This century of struggle left lessons large and small, some of which have been ignored in recent years. For example, Hopkirk says that if Russian 242 •

People of World Influence leaders had studied Britain’s failed attempt to conquer Afghanistan in 1842, they might have thought twice about launching their own doomed invasion in 1979. “The Afghans, Moscow found too late, were an unbeatable foe,” he writes. More broadly, Hopkirk shows this region is so important that outside powers have sought to control it with scant regard for the wishes of the peoples who live there. Hopkirk argues a new struggle is under way as rival outside powers jostle to fill the political and economic void left by the fall of the Soviet Union. “It is impossible to guess how things will work out in the Muslim republics and which of the rival players in today’s Great Game will triumph. For the collapse of the Soviet Union has tossed Central Asia back into the melting pot of history. Almost anything could happen there,” Hopkirk writes. The new Great Game struggle for mineral riches and strategic control of Central Asia and the Caucasus could get messy as both outsiders and the new nations sort things out. “It’s the old story of the break-up of an empire. It leaves smoking ruins and volcanic eruptions, which go on for a long time,” he says. “The Iranians are interested because of political and religious motivations. They want to get a toe-hold there. The Turks don’t want any troublesome neighbors. And the Russians don’t want trouble on their southern soft flank. Naturally, the U.S. is interested because it sees the inhabitants as potentially, extremely dangerous people with nukes in their hands and mullahs at the helm. It could be very frightening for the rest of the world,” Hopkirk says. If Hopkirk’s Great Game is instructive and cautionary, it’s also great fun to read, demonstrating once again that fact is indeed stranger and often more interesting than fiction. He profiles more than 100 soldiers, explorers, and statesmen over three generations who struggled and schemed to advance their nations’ interests and attain personal glory. Many of the characters are tough, stoical men in their 20s, living out their dreams of adventure. Some emerged from their Great Game experiences as national heroes and even legends. More than a few ended up in lonely, unmarked graves thousands of miles from home. There is the story of Lt. Henry Pottinger who at the age of 20 traveled almost 2,500 miles over some of the most dangerous terrain in the world as he explored Baluchistan and Persia. With only local guides to help him avoid bands of brigands and to find water, Pottinger crossed two brutal deserts as he took careful notes on wells, rivers, crops, forts, defensive positions, and the alliances between local khans. He also drafted the first military map of the approaches to India from the West. When not conducting world-class explorations, he was dodging danger. At one point, posing as a Muslim holy man during his travels, Pottinger was questioned on the subtleties of Islam by a local mullah. Hopkirk says he gave a performance worthy of an Academy award. “Not only did he avoid making elementary mistakes,” Hopkirk writes of Pottinger, “but he also settled a number of points at issue. One of these was over the nature of the sun and moon.” There is also the story of Col. Charles Stoddardt and Cpt. Arthur Conolly, two bold British practitioners of the Great Game whose heroics ended with their grisly executions in the square of Bokhara, 4,000 miles from their homes. Stoddardt was sent to Bokhara by the East India Co. to forge an alliance with the emir of that city. Inadvertently violating protocol by not showing the emir suitable deference, Stoddardt was •243

John Shaw arrested and thrown into a 20-foot deep pit, which he shared with three thieves and assorted vermin. As Stoddardt languished for months, Conolly volunteered to rescue his friend. But then he too was arrested and tossed into the dungeon. The emir decided to execute the men, after first forcing them to dig their own graves. The two were killed at a spot “where today foreign tourists step down from their Russian buses, unaware of what happened there” in 1842, Hopkirk writes. There is also the story of Count Nikolai Ignatiev. While still in his late 20s, Ignatiev was selected by Czar Alexander to travel from St. Petersburg to Peking to negotiate a secret treaty that would secure for Russia about 400,000 square miles in the Far East, which was then nominally under the control of China. Conducting shrewd negotiations with the Chinese emperor behind the bewildered backs of British and French diplomats, Ignatiev concluded a sweeping treaty that gave the czar all he was seeking and more. A triumphant Ignatiev then returned to St. Petersburg in a grueling six-week trip across Asia by sleigh and horseback in the dead of winter. His homecoming was memorable: “After his filthy clothes, crawling with lice and fleas, had been removed and burned, he was summoned to report to the tsar at the Winter Palace,” Hopkirk writes. “There, in recognition of his remarkable services to his country, he was awarded the coveted Order of St. Vladimir by the delighted Alexander.” There is also the story of Maj. Gen. Mikhail Cherniaev, who on the verge of capturing the key city of Tashkent, decided not to open orders from Russia that he knew implored him not to attack. Sensing an opening that could quickly pass, he put aside the unread telegram and ordered the assault on the city. It was captured with only a few Russian casualties, thus earning Cherniaev the moniker “Lion of Tashkent” and more importantly the praises of the czar, who now called his attack a “glorious affair.” “Disobedience, it appeared, was acceptable, provided it was successful,” Hopkirk writes. And there is also the story of the so-called pundits, Hindu and Muslim natives who roamed the formidable Pamir Mountains in exploring and mapping missions for the British. Disguised as Buddhist holy men, they used prayer beads to keep track of their distances (100 paces equaled one bead; 10,000 paces equaled 100 beads which was a completed a rosary), kept a log book and compass hidden in their prayer wheels, and stored thermometers needed to calculate altitudes in their staves. It was with these makeshift implements that much of the Pamirs were measured and mapped. While the Great Game is Hopkirk’s signature book, he has also written five other books on more specific aspects of the topic. His books have been translated into 13 languages. Hopkirk worked as a journalist for several decades, including a 20-year stint for the Times of London, before deciding to devote all of his time to writing history. (October, 1997)

244 •

People of World Influence

Congressman

Lee Hamilton

C

ongressman Lee Hamilton of Indiana is not one of the glamourous people of the U.S. foreign policy establishment. He doesn’t wear elegant pinstriped suits, travel the Georgetown party circuit, or pose before television cameras to utter sonorous sound bites about new eras in world affairs. Instead, Hamilton, the senior Democrat on the House International Affairs Committee, tackles problems—day by day, issue by issue, crisis by crisis. “I look at foreign policy as a continuum, as ongoing,” said Hamilton. “You don’t solve all the problems in foreign policy. You just keep working on them all the time. And hopefully things get a little better.” Often described as one of the two or three most respected lawmakers in the U.S. Congress on foreign policy, Hamilton plays a critical role in formulating U.S. policy on Bosnia, China, the European Union, Haiti, Japan, the Middle East, NATO expansion, Russia, United Nations reform, and the overhaul of America’s international programs. A former chairman of the House International Affairs and Intelligence Committees, Hamilton is respected on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue and by Democrats and Republicans in Congress. “Lee Hamilton is one of the class acts in Congress. He’s a real statesman,” said Bill Frenzel, a former Republican congressman and now an analyst at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C. “He’s one of those guys who toils in the trenches, does really good, responsible work and doesn’t particularly care if he gets the credit. Lee is one of a handful of people who everyone in •245

John Shaw Congress pays attention to when he speaks on international affairs. He’s smart, experienced, seasoned and very decent,” Frenzel added. Hamilton is one of President Clinton’s strongest and most steadfast supporters on Capitol Hill, but he also displays an independent streak. He has criticized various administration policies as impractical and poorly thought out and has gently chided the president for failing to state more forcefully his vision of global affairs and the case for American engagement in the world. Now 67 and in the last term of an almost four-decade career in Congress, Hamilton is part of a vanishing breed: American lawmakers who are deeply interested in international affairs and committed to building a bipartisan American foreign policy. A serious man, Hamilton speaks carefully and with unmistakable Midwestern reserve but also with flashes of self-deprecating humor. In his office just before Congress’s August recess, Hamilton is having what could euphemistically be called a busy day. It includes a phone conversation with UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, votes on budget and tax legislation, a meeting with Azerbaijani President Heydar Aliyev, negotiations with congressional Republicans on reorganizing the State Department and paying American arrears to the United Nations, policy briefings from aides, and interviews with reporters. Visibly tired from fights on many fronts, Hamilton said it’s important to step back from the fray and consider the larger picture. “When you look at American foreign policy you should always look at the big relationships first,” he said. “I don’t think we always do it in Congress because we get caught up in the headlines of the day, the crisis of the day. Problems just keep rushing at you and you try to tackle them.” “The really key American foreign policy relationships are the U.S.-China relationship, the U.S.European relationship, the U.S.-Japan relationship, and the U.S.-Russian relationship. If you go down and look at all of these, the situation is quite good,” he noted. This year Hamilton has spoken out frequently on China, arguing that while China is not developing exactly as the West would prefer, many trends are favorable and should be encouraged, such as its increasing embrace of free market economics. “The U.S. relationship with China is our most difficult and complex bilateral relationship,” he noted. “It’s always going to have some rough patches, but it’s better now than it has been.” “We have to stay engaged with China,” he said. “Engagement is not appeasement. It does not mean ignoring our differences. It means working with China to resolve them. It means hard negotiating on a range of political, economic and trade issues. It means treating China with firmness and respect. If we treat China as an enemy it will become our enemy. That’s not in either country’s best interest.” Hamilton was active in the fight this spring in Congress to extend most-favored-nation trading status to China and vows to continue efforts to improve American trade relations with the Asian power. He wants to pry open China’s vast markets for American exports and pull down the $38 billion annual U.S. trade deficit with China. He has been a strong supporter of U.S. and international assistance to the nations of the former Soviet Union, including Russia. As a senior lawmaker, he has championed American aid efforts since the final days of the Soviet Union and throughout the 1990s, as its successor states have struggled to consolidate their governments. 246 •

People of World Influence American efforts should take into account a crucial development in Russia: the growing shift of power and reform initiatives from Moscow to the regions, he said. Moscow and various regions have agreed to about 30 power-sharing treaties that give the regions more authority to govern and more control over natural resources, he noted. “The Russian federation is still evolving, but the constituent parts of Russia matter,” he said. “Increasingly, crucial decisions on reform and even foreign policy are made at the regional level. We need to be aware of this, encourage it and target our assistance with this in mind.” The senior Democratic lawmaker is also working to shore up U.S. relations with the United Nations. He regrets that ties to the world body have suffered in recent years as unpaid U.S. bills pile up and shrill rebukes of the UN cascade across Capitol Hill. The United States should pay about $1 billion in past dues to the UN and is resisting a plan to pay only $819 million, a sum that is also conditioned on the UN meeting certain benchmarks set by America, Hamilton said. “The U.S. can’t dictate the UN’s reform agenda, but we should play an active role in the debate,” he noted. “We should make it clear what agencies and missions we will and will not fund. But we must pay past bills and current bills on time. Without this, the UN can’t function effectively, and we’re taken less seriously as an advocate for reform.” Since the beginning of the year, Hamilton has pushed a reform agenda for the UN that is less sweeping than some would like but reflects many of the ideas Secretary General Annan has put forward. Hamilton calls for freezing and then gradually reducing the UN budget and staff and scaling back American contributions for the body’s core budget; reducing the scope of specialized UN agencies such as the World Health Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization, and the International Labor Organization; placing a moratorium on UN global conferences outside of New York and Geneva; and making its budget and management practices more open and accessible to the press and public. Hamilton is also pushing further trade liberalization efforts and specifically backs the Clinton administration’s efforts to secure fast-track trading authority from Congress this fall. This authority would allow the White House to negotiate trade agreements and then push them quickly through Congress with no amendments permitted. Fast-track and the agreements that flow through it will be defining issues for President Clinton’s second term and beyond,” he added. Hamilton has been a leader on U.S. foreign policy issues for more than a decade. He rose to prominence in 1987 during the Iran-Contra hearings which he co-chaired. During these he was one of the few lawmakers able and willing to challenge Lt. Col. Oliver North’s blustery and emotional testimony. “I don’t have any doubt at all, Col. North, that you are a patriot,” Hamilton said in a sharp response to North’s defense of his role in the arms-for-hostages deal. “But there is another form of patriotism that is unique to democracy. It resides in those who have a deep respect for the rule of law and faith in America’s democratic traditions,” he said. Hamilton’s stock in the Democratic Party soared after his strong performance in the hearings. In 1988, he was said to be Democratic presidential nominee Michael Dukakis’s top choice for •247

John Shaw secretary of state had he won the election. Four years later, Hamilton advised then-Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton during his 1992 presidential bid and was seriously considered as a candidate for vice president and secretary of state. Neither job came through, and while disappointed, Hamilton plunged into his work as chairman of the Foreign Affairs panel. Having served for years as the number-two Democrat on the committee, he chaired the panel from 1993 to 1995 and has been its ranking Democrat since Republicans won control of the House in 1995. When he retires from Congress in 1999, Hamilton expects to work for a law firm and possibly a think tank and teach international affairs at a university. He said he will probably divide his time between Washington and Indiana. But Hamilton’s not ready to pack his bags yet. Among other things, he wants to help restructure U.S. foreign policy for the next century. Late last year, he and Republican Sen. Richard Lugar, also of Indiana, headed up a study for the Center for Strategic and International Studies on U.S. global interests at the start of the 21st century. “We still don’t have a successor to containment as an overarching foreign policy,” he said. “It was the rationale for American foreign policy for more than 40 years. It had a simplicity and morality to it, and it was successful. We don’t now have a clear rationale for foreign policy or a world vision comparable to it. We can’t summarize our foreign policy in one word as we could before. But we do have a basic strategy but need to refine it and articulate it better.” (September, 1997)

248 •

People of World Influence

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace President

Jessica Mathews

J

essica Mathews, the new president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, has a bold idea. She wants to transform her think tank, which is one of the oldest and most venerable in the United States, into a “creative, risk-taking and nimble” institution that produces ground-breaking research for both academics and policy makers. And while determined to retain the endowment’s traditional research and publishing programs, Mathews also wants it be on the cutting edge of global governance issues. This area has been sorely neglected by traditional foreign policy experts and is inadequately understood just as it is about to become crucial to resolving global problems, she said. Mathews is determined that Carnegie help frame key policy debates and guide decision makers as they try to make sense of the complex, evolving international system, she said from her sprawling office in downtown Washington, D.C. “The weakness of most think tanks is they view the published product as 95 percent of the way through a project,” she said. “Then they save 5 per cent for a press conference and promotional brochures.” But Mathews envisions the Carnegie Endowment as an activist think tank that is fair, balanced and focused on getting practical, timely research into the “hands and heads of people that can use it. We want to be policy entrepreneurs,” she added. Mathews succeeded Morton Abramowitz as president of the Carnegie Endowment in midMay after a distinguished career as an environmental analyst, congressional staffer, foreign policy aide in the Carter and Clinton administrations, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and columnist for the Washington Post. Widely seen as one of the most creative thinkers in international affairs, Mathews is a gracious, •249

John Shaw friendly, unpretentious woman. She blends establishment credentials with some non-traditional views on public policy. A Carnegie search committee identified her as the person who could take the endowment in “bold new directions.” She has plenty of ideas and one central goal. “Our intention is to build the premier group on global governance in the country, and I think we have the comparative advantage to do it,” she said. Global governance refers to collective efforts by nations and non-state groups to solve transnational problems such as environmental degradation, global warming, population growth, ethnic conflict, nuclear proliferation, terrorism, migration, and drug trafficking. Mathews calls global governance an “almost completely unplowed area of serious research” and said Carnegie will address the substance of these issues and also sort through the appropriate roles for nations, private companies, international organizations and non-governmental groups in tackling these problems. She has thought hard and written creatively in this area. In a provocative essay earlier this year in the journal, Foreign Affairs, she argues that seismic changes are occurring in the international system that require new ways of thinking and acting. “The end of the Cold War has brought no mere adjustment among states but a novel redistribution of power among states, markets, and civil society,” she writes. “National governments are not simply losing autonomy in a globalizing economy. They are sharing powers—including political, social and security roles at the core of sovereignty—with businesses, with international organizations, and with a multitude of citizens groups, known as nongovernmental organizations (NGOs).” Mathews said that the decline of the nation-state is of huge, historic importance, reversing the concentration of power in states that began with the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. And she traces this in large part to a much observed but little understood development. “The most powerful engine in the relative decline of states and rise of non-state actors is the computer and telecommunications revolution whose deep political and social consequences have been almost completely ignored,” she noted. The information revolution has spread power among groups and peoples and has “broken governments’ monopoly on the collection and management of large amounts of information and deprived governments of the deference they enjoyed because of it,” she said. The decline of the state and the rise of non-state actors is an area she wants to explore more fully once she has built a management team at Carnegie and has tended to a blizzard of administrative issues, including moving the endowment to its new eight-story, 80,000 square-foot home on Massachusetts Avenue, she said. The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace was established in 1910 with a $10 million gift from philanthropist Andrew Carnegie who was convinced that the world was on the brink of ending war and wanted to help build an enduring framework for peace. To Carnegie’s surprise and deep regret, World War I ensued, and the endowment’s first major project was a 152-volume economic and social history of the war. A tax-exempt foundation, Carnegie draws on a $100 million endowment and outside funds to support research and education programs that include a Moscow center, several dozen research fellows, and projects on Africa, the Balkans, democracy building, migration, nuclear proliferation, 250 •

People of World Influence and peacekeeping. The Carnegie Endowment also publishes a number of books, studies and a quarterly journal, Foreign Policy. Recently revamped, Foreign Policy provides a glimpse of Carnegie’s new face to the world and reflects its more expansive approach to global politics. “We want this to become the first journal of international affairs, not just American foreign policy,” Mathews said. “We want it to be a journal that has a global audience, a global bent, a global focus.” She added that it now includes an international newspaper summary section, reviews of books not published in English, and an essay that places a current news story in a broader historical context. Mathews, 51, has a doctorate in molecular biology from the California Institute of Technology and for several decades has combined her love of science with a passion for public policy. She was vice president of the World Resources Institute from 1982 to 1993, and served also as director of research from 1982 to 1988. Mathews helped build WRI into a strong, aggressive research center on environmental matters and said she will use her experiences there in marketing quality research as a model for her work at Carnegie. Mathews first gained national prominence in 1988 when she was interviewed for a public television series by journalist Bill Moyers. In one of the most widely watched episodes of the “World of Ideas” series, Mathews outlined in clear, forceful terms the mounting problems of environmental degradation, especially the pernicious effects of greenhouse gases that cause global warming. She said the evidence was clear the world was getting warmer and declared the consequences of this and other environmental problems would be “an unlivable planet” in less than a century unless decisive steps are taken. About a year later, Mathews wrote a much discussed essay in Foreign Affairs in which she said that countries in the 1990s must expand their notions of national security. Just as the concept of security was broadened in the 1970s to encompass economics, so it must be further expanded in the 1990s to include environmental, resource management and demographic issues, she said. Citing ominous trends in global warming, deforestation and population growth, Mathews issued a stirring call to arms. “Absent profound changes in man’s relationship to his environment, the future does not look bright,” she said but added that wise action could still prevent disaster. “The planet is not destined to a slow and painful decline into environmental chaos,” she wrote. “There are technical, scientific and economical solutions that are feasible... and enough is known about promising new approaches to be confident that the right kinds of research will produce huge payoffs.” Mathews then laid out a series of solutions including fundamental changes in agriculture and industrial production systems, altering national income measures to account for resource depletion, developing concrete measures of the world’s environmental health and using NGOs to implement local environmental projects. She said the 1990s have not been as productive as she had hoped in creating institutions to confront environmental and demographic problems. “This hasn’t been a time of conscious innovation, certainly not comparable to the period of 1945 to 1955,” Mathews said, referring to the era that created the North Atlantic Treaty •251

John Shaw Organization, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the United Nations, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. In the coming years Mathews wants to explore how the enhanced roles of NGOs and the private sector, coupled with new concepts of international law and developments in technology can better address the world’s problems. “There is an enormous research agenda that I want this institution to address,” she said. “Thanks to Andrew Carnegie’s generosity, we have a large sum of what is, in effect, public money. I feel obliged to make a difference with it.” (August, 1997)

252 •

People of World Influence

Professor

Samuel Huntington

S

amuel Huntington is not the sort of person you would expect to ignite a stormy, multicontinent debate about the world in the 21st century. A slender, balding, bookish man, he more nearly resembles a midlevel accountant or an insurance adjuster than a revolutionary. A distinguished professor at Harvard University for more than four decades, he has made a career of advancing carefully nuanced arguments about international politics, not propounding provocative theories that cause bloodpressure levels to rise and sharp words to fly in capitals around the world. But in a much-discussed essay in the Foreign Affairs journal in 1993 and in a subsequent book published last year, Huntington predicted the future will be dominated by contentious, often bloody, confrontations between civilizations. International affairs experts agree that Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations essay and book of the same title has ignited one of the fiercest debates in half a century about the nature of world politics. Published in 17 languages, the book has been a best-seller in several nations. Interestingly, sales of the book have been greater overseas than in the United States. Much of the American debate has taken place in the pages of Foreign Affairs, the nation’s most prestigious foreign policy journal. Editors at that publication say no single article has attracted as much notice and discussion since George Kennan’s fabled “X” article in 1947 that sketched out the strategy of containment of communism that shaped international relations for more than 40 years. The furor over the “Clash of Civilizations” has been so extensive and memorable that Foreign Affairs published a book that includes the original essay and many of the responses to it. •253

John Shaw In an interview, Huntington said his “Clash of Civilizations” thesis evolved over several years as he pondered the links between political and economic development and culture. Huntington, 70, has been a government professor at Harvard since 1950. He now also serves as the director of the Olin Institute for strategic studies and is chairman of the Harvard Academy for International and Area Studies. He was director of security planning for the National Security Council in the Carter Administration. He first presented his ideas in a lecture in the fall of 1992 at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington. Huntington then presented a paper on the topic for the John M. Olin Institute’s project on the “Changing Security Climate and American National Interests.” His views were further refined and became the lead article in Foreign Affairs’s 1993 summer edition. The core of Huntington’s thesis is that the end of the Cold War has ushered in a new era of world politics in which conflicts will occur not on the basis of ideology or economics, but culture and civilizations. “The principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations. The clash of civilizations will dominate global politics. The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future,” he wrote in the essay. Huntington sees the future dominated by seven or eight competing civilizations: Western, Confucian, Japanese, Islamic, Hindu, Slavic-Orthodox, Latin American and “possibly” African. “The most important conflicts of the future will occur along the cultural fault lines separating these civilizations from one another.... The next world war, if there is one, will be a war between civilizations,” he noted. Additionally, he posits that the West’s political power and cultural vitality are fading and the future is likely to be shaped by battles between a declining West and the rest of the world, especially an alliance of Islamic and Confucian nations. The article created an immediate sensation, so much so that Foreign Affairs devoted the first 26 pages of its fall edition to essays and comments on Huntington’s article. Fouad Ajami, a professor at the Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies, gave a scathing critique that challenged Huntington’s chief premise that nations will band together along civilizational lines and confront those from different traditions. This view “misses the slyness of states, the unsentimental and cold-blooded nature of so much that they do as they pick their way through chaos,” Ajami wrote. Instead, Ajami argued, history demonstrates that nations “will consort with any civilization, however alien, as long as the price is right and the goods are ready. Civilizations do not control states, states control civilizations. States avert their gaze from blood ties when they need to; they see brotherhood and faith and kin when it is in their interest to do so.” Kishore Mahbubani, a diplomat from Singapore, disputed Huntington’s claim that the West is scorned, and its decline is celebrated by the rest of the world. He accused Huntington of being “blind” to the “self-inflicted wounds” of the West, adding “the West is bringing about its relative decline by its own hand” not because of any external pressures. Mahbubani disagreed with Huntington’s view that an Islamic-Confucian alliance against the West is forming and cited the “fundamentally different nature of the challenges” posed by Islamic and Confucian nations. The truth is, he said, the nations in East and Southeast Asia are more 254 •

People of World Influence comfortable with the West than with Islam. Robert Bartley, editor of the Wall Street Journal, scolded Huntington for his “crabbed pessimism” and inability to see the West’s powers of self-correction and dynamism. And Jeane Kirkpatrick, a former American ambassador to the United Nations, called his central arguments “interesting but dubious,” described his categories of civilizations as “a strange list” and “questionable,” and disputed his assertion that battles are more likely between civilizations than within them. Some of the academic critiques of Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations” have been bruising. Stephen Walt, a University of Chicago professor, said his thesis is “an unreliable guide to the emerging world order and a potentially dangerous blueprint for policy.” Walt warned that if policy-makers adopt Huntington’s focus on civilizational tensions this could become a “dangerous self-fulfilling prophecy” with grim consequences for the world. Huntington said that this stormy reception initially took him off guard, but he has not backed down. And he has defied critics to come up with an alternative paradigm that better describes the evolution of the international system. The goal, he said, is to “present the best simple map of the post-Cold War world.” After the article was published in Foreign Affairs, Huntington worked to refine and expand his ideas. He debated his thesis at seminars and in lectures across the United States and in trips to Argentina, Belgium, China, France, Germany, Great Britain, Korea, Japan, Luxembourg, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Taiwan. In 1996, Huntington published the book in which he broadened his analysis, softened some of its sharper edges and defended his search for the best explanation of the emerging global system. Apparently determined to offer more hope and less gloom, he said the West could regenerate itself and noted the division of the world along civilizational lines does not necessarily mean future wars are inevitable. “Clashes of civilizations are the greatest threat to world peace, and an international order based on civilizations is the surest safeguard against world war,” he wrote in the introduction to his book. The Harvard professor hasn’t been completely alone in his defense. Several foreign policy heavyweights have stepped forward with lavish praise. Former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger called his work “one of the most important to have emerged since the end of the Cold War” and said it presents a “challenging framework for understanding the realities of the global politics in the next century.” Zbigniew Brzezenski, former head of the National Security Council under President Carter, called the book “an intellectual tour de force: bold, imaginative and provocative, a seminal work that will revolutionize our understanding of international affairs.” “The overwhelming reaction to ‘Clash of Civilizations’ surprised me, I confess, but as I think back it makes more sense,” Huntington noted. “The article came out just as the euphoria about the end of the Cold War was passing. There was a strong desire to understand what was now going to happen, to see events in a larger perspective,” he said. “A lot of the reaction was of apprehension. I didn’t paint a particularly happy picture of the •255

John Shaw world and global politics, and I think that troubled some people,” he said. “I think people across the world are searching for a framework to think about and help explain the post-Cold War world, to make sense of what is going on.” (July, 1997)

256 •

People of World Influence

International Monetary Fund Managing Director

Michel Camdessus

I

n the early months of 1995, as the Mexican economy was careening toward chaos, and the peso was in free fall, Michel Camdessus convened an emergency meeting at the International Monetary Fund’s headquarters in downtown Washington. Camdessus, who has served as managing director of the IMF since 1987, had received a grim phone call earlier that day from U.S. Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin informing him the Clinton administration’s ambitious rescue package to Mexico was effectively dead in Congress. Rubin urged the IMF now to take the lead, adding that the United States could only help the effort with some special currency stabilization funds. The IMF chief was convinced that an immediate loan package for Mexico was essential and did not think there was enough time to go through the IMF’s normal loan approval process. So Camdessus gathered the IMF’s executive board in his office and sketched out a proposed $18 billion loan package for the beleaguered nation. “I told my executive board, ‘Gentlemen, I don’t ask your permission because you would have to speak with your ministers and governors, and you have not time for that,” Camdessus later said of the meeting. “The only question I ask you is the following: ‘Is that my job or not?’” All agreed it was, IMF staff completed the final details, and Camdessus summoned reporters to the organization’s 12th-floor conference room and announced the loan. While some later rebuked Camdessus for unilaterally making a major IMF policy decision, the prevailing view was he had acted wisely. The Mexican government accepted the loan with gratitude and used it to stanch its economic bleeding and put in place policies that helped it rebound, although only after a difficult recession. Not all of Camdessus’s work at the IMF has been as decisive or as successful as the Mexican •257

John Shaw loan program, but he has had enough victories and has acquired sufficient stature to stand as one of the undisputed leaders of the world’s financial system. While hardly a household name in any country, Camdessus is treated with deference and respect in finance ministries and central banks across the world. A courtly, polite man, he is also tough and driven. Fluent in three languages, Camdessus is well versed in economic developments in an impressive array of countries. At a recent briefing before the spring meetings of the IMF and World Bank, he coolly responded to questions in several languages and spoke in impressive detail about economic conditions in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Haiti, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Korea, Thailand, Uganda, the United States and Venezuela. He also clearly described the benefits and hazards of a tightly integrating world economy. Camdessus’s tenure at the IMF has sometimes been controversial, with critics on the right blasting him for being too keen on austerity and too skeptical that deep tax cuts can generate growth and solve most economic problems. Critics on the left accuse him of being overly sympathetic to major banks and the large industrial nations and not sufficiently focused on reducing income disparities between rich and poor nations. And at various times, frustrated world leaders have lashed out at Camdessus and IMFdesigned adjustment programs for their own economic woes. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak once dubbed the IMF the “International Misery Fund.” But most financial experts agree Camdessus’s stewardship of the IMF has been shrewd, purposeful and successful. They say it’s no accident that the first international phone call many new leaders make upon entering office is to the IMF’s leader, inviting him for an early visit to their nations. The IMF and its sister organization, the World Bank, were created in the aftermath of World War II. The two bodies were conceived during the historic conference held in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, to build a post-war economic order. The IMF was designed to oversee the world’s monetary system while the World Bank was charged to promote economic development in poorer nations. The World Bank now has a staff of about 7,000 that includes economists, engineers, portfolio managers, urban planners, lawyers, agronomists, and statisticians. The IMF has 2,300 employees, most of whom are economists and financial experts. Based in Washington only three blocks from the White House and across the street from the World Bank, the IMF is primarily responsible for promoting stable exchange rates and for giving short-term loans to nations with temporary balance-of-payments problems. There are 181 nations that are now members of the IMF. In 1996, the IMF had $55 billion in outstanding loans to about 90 nations. It typically extends loans on the condition that the recipient nation revamp its economic policies. IMF stresses policies that reduce budget deficits by using spending reductions and tax increases. It also encourages nations to keep inflation in check with tight monetary policies. Finally, the IMF urges countries to reduce trade deficits by exporting more and importing less. Some critics say the IMF’s focus on fiscal and monetary austerity kills growth and makes economically sick countries even sicker. Camdessus dismisses this criticism. “There are two kinds 258 •

People of World Influence of economic policies. Those that work and those that don’t work,” he said, making it clear in which category IMF programs fit. Camdessus came to the IMF with impressive credentials. A graduate of France’s prestigious Ecole Nationale d’Administration and the University of Paris, he entered the French Finance Ministry in 1960 and steadily rose through the ranks to become director in 1982. He was appointed governor of the Bank of France in 1984, where he served until he was selected to head up the IMF in 1987. He is the organization’s seventh managing director and the only one to be appointed for a third term. In his decade-long tenure at the IMF, Camdessus has helped the world financial system weather currency crises, regional economic meltdowns, trade wars, and the never-ending cycles of boom and bust. In recent years, Camdessus has become best known for his efforts to encourage and assist the nations of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union develop free market systems. In 1992, he spearheaded an aggressive effort in the West to extend loans, credits, and technical aid to these nations to help them make the transition from command to market economies. Even as reform efforts have waxed and waned in these countries, Camdessus has kept the faith. In the spring of 1996, Camdessus traveled to Moscow several months before Russia’s presidential election and went on national television to praise the economic reforms pushed by Boris Yeltsin and to extend a $10 billion loan to Russia. “It can be seen or will be seen by many as betting on Yeltsin—or a waste of money,” Camdessus told reporters. “But nothing more important could be done today for the prosperity of the entire world. So we must do it.” But Camdessus has also been stern with Russia. This January he went back to Moscow and told leaders that while he’s still confident Russian reforms can work, he believes the nation is in a “state of crisis” with anarchy a continuing and serious threat. He openly discussed problems such as rampant corruption and crime and blasted the nation’s Byzantine and confiscatory tax and regulatory systems. He said he was troubled by the “striking contrast” between Russia’s recent achievements and the “acute problems that still stand in the way of Russia’s achieving its enormous economic potential.” Camdessus is also passionate about Europe’s move toward an economic and monetary union and a single currency by 1999. He calls this a “momentous and indeed, historic enterprise” and praises European leaders for putting in policies that will accomplish this goal. “This enterprise is too long in the making, its foundation too solidly laid, and its achievement too important to European integration” to back off now, he said recently. “It’s time to put to rest, once and for all, any lingering doubts about the future of monetary union and to finish the job that is, in any case, so close to completion,” he said. Camdessus speaks often about the sweeping challenges that are changing the face of the world economy, citing the rapid movement of capital, closely integrating financial markets, and expanding international trade. These developments are mostly positive, Camdessus insists, but financial leaders must be vigilant to ensure that regional problems don’t become global crises. And individual nations must manage their economies well, educate their citizens, protect the vulnerable, and preserve their •259

John Shaw cultural identities, he added. Reappointed in January 1997 for a third five-year term at the IMF, Camdessus is certain to remain a force on the international scene for the foreseeable future. While comfortable with his job at the IMF and its $190,000 tax-free salary and $95,000 annual allowance for expenses, Camdessus may be moving on before his term ends in 2002. There is growing discussion that he will be named the first president of the European Central Bank in 1999. (June, 1997)

260 •

People of World Influence

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations

Bill Richardson

B

ill Richardson, the new U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, caused quite a stir on February 18, his first full day on the job. Fresh from an overwhelming 100-0 confirmation vote from the U.S. Senate, a second nomination for a Nobel Peace Prize, and formal entrance into what he calls the “rarefied atmosphere” of the UN, Richardson showed he still has a shrewd political touch. With cameras flashing and a large crowd assembled, he strolled to the cafeteria of the U.S. mission, a place few of his predecessors visited. Richardson shook hands with the kitchen staff, chatted with reporters, and proclaimed that a new era had begun in America’s sometimes turbulent relationship with the UN. Richardson, a former congressman from New Mexico, described himself as a “cowboy diplomat,” promised to explain and defend the UN to the American people, and made it clear he doesn’t intend to be a wallflower during his tenure as America’s 21st ambassador to the world body. “If I err, it will be on the side of action, not inaction,” he said. Richardson, who replaced Madeleine Albright as the UN ambassador after she was promoted to secretary of state, has plunged head first into his new job. A top member of President Clinton’s foreign policy team, he travels to Washington several times a week to attend Cabinet meetings and policy discussions. Once part of the House Democratic leadership team, he is often seen racing through the U.S. Capitol to attend meetings with his former colleagues on international issues, many of which focus on UN reform and American debts to that body. Stu Nagurka, an aide to Richardson since his days in Congress, said the new ambassador •261

John Shaw “basically lives on the New York-Washington shuttle,” adding he has already had several days in which he has flown from New York to Washington to New York and back to Washington to attend meetings in both cities. “He’s determined to get up to speed on the issues and the process,” said Nagurka. “He’s a legislator who wants to get things done here, not just talk.” The ambassador has also traveled across the United States to build support for the United Nations, going places diplomats don’t always place high on their itineraries. He has held “town hall meetings” in Pittsburgh and Minneapolis as well as San Francisco, San Diego, Los Angeles and New York. Richardson has also jumped energetically into life in his new city. He escorted the Russian ambassador to the United Nations to a Brooklyn high school to meet with 700 students, many of whom are of Russian ancestry, to discuss the world of the 21st century. And he even helped mediate the diplomatic “dispute of the year” between New York City and the United Nations over unpaid parking tickets. But Richardson left his secure job in Congress to focus on world diplomacy not parking tickets, and he is determined to become a player on the international stage. Eager to learn the politics and substance of the United Nations, he attends virtually all Security Council meetings and briefings. He traveled to Geneva in April to outline America’s views on human rights to the UN’s special commission on that subject. Richardson, who turns 50 in November, brings to his new job a firm belief the status quo must change—for both the United States and the United Nations. “I believe the UN is at a crossroads and so is America’s leadership in the institution,” Richardson told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee during his confirmation hearing on January 29. “Both the U.N and the U.S. face fundamental choices: for the United Nations, to adapt fully to new demands and changing times or to suffer the erosion of support from nations and peoples. For the United States, the choice is to sustain our leadership in a reformed, effective UN or lose our voice in an institution that has helped us advance American interests for half a century,” he said. Richardson said he hopes that when he completes his tenure in 2001, the United Nations will be a smaller, leaner, more effective body with a streamlined secretariat and more tightly organized affiliated agencies. The United Nations must be placed on a secure financial base and this requires the United States to pay its bills, he noted. However, the precise size of the American debt is still under dispute. The U.S. Congress estimates it at $840 million, the White House $1 billion, and the United Nations $1.3 billion. Once the United States pays its dues, Richardson wants American assessments for operations and peacekeeping reduced as part of a larger shift in the funding and structure of the United Nations. Speaking for the Clinton administration, the ambassador said the Security Council should be expanded to include Japan and Germany as permanent members with several others allowed to rotate onto the panel. The Security Council now consists of 10 rotating and five permanent members—the United States, China, France, the United Kingdom, and Russia. Each of the permanent members holds a veto over major proposals. In March, a UN working group proposed to expand the Security Council to 24 seats: five new 262 •

People of World Influence permanent members and four that would rotate on for two-year terms. Richardson said the Security Council should be no larger than 20 or 21. The American diplomat is now in the midst of what he calls “three simultaneous negotiations” with the U.S. Congress to get it to pay American debts, UN leaders to fashion a sweeping reform package by July, and the 46 affiliated agencies that are part of the UN system to pare back expenses and consolidate programs. “Richardson’s primary challenge is to persuade Congress to give up some money to pay our bills, arguing this is the way for him to get some leverage to whip the UN into shape,” said Stan Meisler, a journalist and author of a history of the United Nations. “He and others in the administration realize their call on the UN to reform is untenable as long as we have all of these debts. I expect Richardson to try to work with Congress and see if this issue can finally get resolved. I don’t know how he’s going to be able to do it, but clearly he’s going to try,” Meisler added. The ambassador was born in California and lived for part of his childhood in Mexico City. His father was a Citibank executive and his mother came from a prominent Mexican family. He studied at Tufts University’s Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and worked for several years on the staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In 1978, he moved to New Mexico to take a post with the state Democratic party and was first elected to Congress in 1982. The northern New Mexico district he represented for 14 years is one of the largest and most ethnically diverse in the United States. It has been called a “mini-United Nations” with a population that is more than one-third Hispanic and one-quarter Native American, including 28 different tribes. An affable, engaging, often rumpled man, Richardson rose through the ranks of Congress and won a coveted slot on the House Democratic leadership team in 1993. While in Congress, he used a seat on the House Intelligence Committee to undertake daring troubleshooting missions. Operating as an unofficial envoy of the White House, Richardson traveled to Bangladesh, Burma, Cuba, Haiti, Iraq, Nigeria, North Korea, Serbia, and Sudan to secure the release of hostages or diffuse tense situations. He held face-to-face talks with Saddam Hussein in 1995 and Fidel Castro in 1996, always wearing his signature blue sports jacket without a tie. “I love the drama and intrigue,” he said of the special missions that were coordinated with the White House. During this time, he forged a close relationship with President Clinton and attracted his attention as a possible full-time diplomat. “He obviously has the trust of the president, and you can’t overstate the importance of this,” said Sen. Richard Lugar, a Republican from Indiana who is a senior member of the Foreign Relations panel. “He’s a visible and energetic part their foreign policy team and will do the president’s bidding at the UN and with Congress,” Lugar noted. “He’s not going to be running solo. When he speaks it’s clear he’s speaking for the president. And he’s been the practitioner of some pretty creative diplomacy.” Analysts say it is unclear what Richardson’s style will be but predict he will fashion an intriguing, untraditional approach to diplomacy. “From the American perspective, there isn’t really that much going on in the UN right now, •263

John Shaw apart from all this talk of reform,” Meisler added. “The fact is the U.S. just wants things to stay pretty quiet. They want to clear up the arrears issue, but beyond that they don’t have a big agenda.” But Richardson seems determined to fashion a broad agenda. He says that, among other things, he wants to become a “bridge” from America to the developing world of Africa, Latin America and Asia. “When I leave the UN in four years, I want third-world countries to say, ‘There goes our champion, our advocate,’” he said. “I also want to be remembered as someone who stood for human rights and ensured that human rights is a powerful instrument of U.S. foreign policy,” he added. (May, 1997)

264 •

People of World Influence

Georgetown University Dean

Robert Gallucci

I

t’s a late Friday afternoon at Georgetown University and all is not quiet in the office of Robert Gallucci, dean of the School of Foreign Service. At that time of the week in which academics are supposed to be sipping sherry and pondering life in the next century, Gallucci’s office is up for grabs. Phones are ringing. Meetings are convening, ending and then reconvening. An expanding line of people is forming outside his door to slip in notes, pass on files, and talk with the dean for a few minutes. Gallucci, who spent 21 years as an American diplomat defusing difficult situations in Bosnia, Iraq, North Korea, Pakistan, the Sinai and Somalia, may have thought his crisis management days were over when he left government for academic life about a year ago. He is now free of that notion. “Just another quiet Friday afternoon,” he said. He patiently describes the logistical complications of arranging a conference the following week, canceling another event and nailing down a campus speech by a former Georgetown professor who has a busy schedule of her own these days—Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. Gallucci, former ambassador-at-large for President Clinton, became dean of Georgetown’s School of Foreign Service last May. The job offer came just as he was assuming the high-profile post of coordinating U.S. efforts to rebuild Bosnia, this following his much-lauded effort to persuade North Korea to halt its nuclear weapons program. “To be honest, this job came at not exactly the right time,” Gallucci said. “I left what I thought was a very rewarding career in government, and I was just getting going on Bosnia. But this is an opportunity to do something broader, to have a very durable impact on international affairs. Government work can be rewarding, but it’s different than coming across an 18-year-old kid •265

John Shaw who’s smart as hell, doesn’t know much about the world except that he or she is very curious about it, and wants to work in international affairs. And this kid is ours for four years,” he said. Dressed in khakis and a flannel shirt, Gallucci looked fully acclimated to the academic life. He admitted his gray pinstripes are still in the closet and can be taken out when necessary, such as a ceremony the previous day to give an honorary degree to President Eduardo Frei of Chile. But he prefers casual dress and informality. Gallucci, 51, is a warm, engaging person with an easy smile and calm manner. He has a diplomat’s ability to focus on whom he is dealing with at the moment, seemingly oblivious to turmoil around him. He clearly relishes the opportunity to influence how a new generation of leaders will view the world and approach global problems. He speaks enthusiastically of his hopes for Georgetown’s School of Foreign Service. “Here we have a chance to help shape way the very best students of international affairs— future leaders in this and other governments, industry, international organizations, and nongovernmental agencies—think about the world as they begin their professional lives,” he said. “We have the opportunity to design models of international affairs that are sophisticated, subtle, accurate, and relevant to the world they will live in.” As dean, Gallucci presides over a school with about 1,500 undergraduate and 500 graduate students. It was founded in 1919 and is the oldest and largest school of international affairs in the United States. It has programs in regional studies, international politics, security issues and diplomacy. About one-third of the students are from outside the United States. It is widely regarded as one of the top institutions of its kind in the world. Gallucci has specific goals he wants to meet: raising funds for academic programs, faculty development and student scholarships; integrating the university’s regional research centers into its undergraduate education; using conferences to frame policy debates on crucial issues; and getting to know as many of the students as he can. “There are some wonderful students here, and I’m not going to miss the chance to meet as many of them as possible. That’s one of the reasons I’m here,” he noted. Gallucci describes himself as a “fallen-way academic” who took a “slight diversion for what I thought would be a year or two in government that turned into 21 years.” He earned his doctorate at Brandeis University and taught at several universities, including Swarthmore, Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, Georgetown and the U.S. War College. He took a job at the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency in 1974, beginning a host of steadily more difficult and prestigious diplomatic assignments, most involving security issues. Gallucci was a top official in the United Nations Special Commission overseeing the disarmament of Iraq in 1991, and he was the senior U.S. coordinator for nuclear safety initiatives within the former Soviet Union. Gallucci served as assistant secretary of state for political-military affairs from 1992 to 1994 and was the ambassador-at- large in the State Department from 1994 to 1996. As a senior American diplomat, he has been thrust into some of the most contentious issues of recent decades: peacekeeping in the Sinai, the civil war in Somalia, implementing UN resolutions on Iraqi weapons, preventing the spread of nuclear weapons in Korea and Pakistan, nationbuilding in Bosnia and helping the former Soviet Union secure its nuclear arsenal. “A lot of what I did was crisis management. I moved from one bad situation to another with 266 •

People of World Influence great enthusiasm. I don’t remember being bored in my 21 years in government,” he said. The pinnacle of his troubleshooting career came in 1994 when he helped negotiate the agreed framework with North Korea. With the world watching and tensions mounting, Gallucci helped persuade North Korea to dismantle an old reactor that could produce material for nuclear weapons in exchange for aid in building two nuclear reactors for domestic energy needs. From that experience, Gallucci takes a view that the United States must continue to stay closely linked with South Korea but also work to bring North Korea into projects of mutual interest. “It may be that we will see the unification of North and South Korea in the not-too- distant future,” he continued. “That would be great, but until then we must work to keep tensions down and prevent the worst outcome—another Korean War.” In addition to Korea, Gallucci maintains “special interests” in Bosnia, Iraq and proliferation issues. He believes the United States must work creatively to help prevent the spread of nuclear materials from the former Soviet Union to rogue nations or terrorist groups. He calls this “the greatest threat to the security of the U.S. over the next 10 to 15 years,” adding “it would be foolhardy to assume that eight kilograms [of plutonium] won’t find their way to another nation or group that means us harm. This is the sort of problem that could instantly put hundreds of thousands of people at immediate risk, a couple hundred thousand ‘prompt deaths’ as they say in the trade,” he said. This issue is deeply frustrating, he noted, in large measure because he worked on it as a senior government official and knows there are no easy answers. “Like many others, I would like to capture the international climate in such a way that crisply defines America’s national interests,” Gallucci said. A comprehensive strategy, he argued, must describe how America works with NATO to ensure security in Europe, maintain a strong alliance with Japan, contain China and prevent a hegemonic power from emerging in the Middle East. Aware of the need to solve many problems on a transnational basis, Gallucci said he still sees the world from the view of the individual nation. “I tend to be a traditionalist about international affairs, and I want to change very slowly,” he said. “I’m not yet ready to mourn the passing of the nation-state as many are. I’m not yet ready to throw off interstate relations as the centerpiece of international affairs.” Gallucci and his wife Jennifer live in Arlington, Va., with their 14-year-old son and 16-year-old daughter. Jennifer is a high-level State Department official, “so when the phone rings in the middle of the night we know who it’s for—it’s for her,” Gallucci said. His first year at Georgetown has been busy, he said. “The posture this year hasn’t been sitting back and thinking. It’s been leaning forward. I wish there were more time for contemplative activity, but I knew what this job would be about, and I like it. Even a certain part of me likes the frenetic pace.” While not ruling out a future government post, his exclusive focus now is the School of Foreign Service, he noted. “For the foreseeable future, I want to succeed at this job. This is not an impersonal undertaking. This is a pretty intimate place, and I’ve made an investment here.” (April, 1997)

•267

HIGHER EDUCATION: HANDBOOK OF THEORY AND RESEARCH, VOL. XVII

476

People of World Influence

Federal Reserve Board Chairman

Alan Greenspan

O

n December 5, Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan did something no one else in the world could have done: He sent thunderbolts crashing through the global financial system by asking a rhetorical question. In an otherwise esoteric speech to the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C., on the history of central banking, Greenspan mused for about 10 sentences on the connection between financial markets and the overall economy. In the middle of this digression came Greenspan’s now famous question: “How do we know when irrational exuberance has unduly escalated asset values, which then become subject to unexpected and prolonged contractions as they have in Japan over the last decade?” Even though it was phrased in the turgid language of a central banker, the comment was immediately flashed around the world by wire services. It was interpreted by many stock and bond traders as a signal the Fed chairman was inclined to boost interest rates to slow down the U.S. stock market boom. A few hours after Greenspan’s speech, financial markets opened, and the reaction was clear. Stock prices began to plunge across the planet—first in Australia, then in Asia, then in Europe, and finally in North America. In Tokyo, the Nikkei 225 Index fell more than 3 percent in one session and in Frankfurt the DAX Index lost more than 4 percent of its value. Key stock indexes in Australia, Hong Kong and the United Kingdom all dropped between 2 percent and 3 percent in reaction to Greenspan’s speech. And in New York, about 14 hours after Greenspan uttered the infamous “irrational exuberance” remark, the New York Stock Exchange opened with the Dow Jones Industrial •269

John Shaw Average plunging 144 points and the yield on the 30-year Treasury bond jumped up sharply. Later in the day, other economic news calmed the U.S. financial markets, which then paved the way for subsequent recoveries in the other countries jolted by Greenspan’s comments. Such is the market-shaking power of Alan Greenspan, a power he uses sparingly but with global effect. Virtually every phrase the Fed chairman utters is instantly transmitted around the world, often sending scores of traders and economists into frantic brainstorming sessions to divine their meaning. The world financial markets listen to Greenspan for good reasons. The head of the United States’ central bank for almost a decade, Greenspan is widely viewed as the most successful central banker in American history, the single person most responsible for the strength of the U.S. economy and the world’s most important financial leader. Reappointed to another term in 1996, Greenspan will lead the Fed until at least 2000. “He will be remembered not only as the best Fed chairman ever, but perhaps as the preeminent central banker of the age,” concluded Fortune magazine last year in a laudatory profile of Greenspan. Greenspan will be viewed as “the most accomplished central banker in history,” predicted Steven Beckner, a journalist and author of a recent book on Greenspan’s tenure as Fed chairman. “He has compiled a remarkable record, considering the obstacle course he had to run,” Beckner said, citing a long list of domestic and overseas accomplishments that include squeezing inflation out of the American economy. Hans Tietmeyer, head of the Bundesbank, the German central bank, described Greenspan’s record only slightly more modestly. “Alan, to pay tribute to you as the central banker of the year would seem to be an understatement,” Tietmeyer said in 1996 at a ceremony in which Greenspan was named policy maker of the year by International Economy magazine. “Central banker of the decade would be more appropriate,” Tietmeyer noted. Greenspan brings a unique background to his position at the Federal Reserve. He has a detailed, first-hand knowledge of how American fiscal policy is made, a subtle and probably unequaled understanding of the intricacies of the U.S. economy and broad experience with, and wide contacts in, the international financial community. Plenty of ironies surround the man who is often referred to as the second most powerful person in America. Viewed as the paragon of steadiness in the world of finance, he has had a lifelong problem with fainting spells and once collapsed in front of the White House and had to be carried to his office by another senior official. He is an intellectual who loves to pore over economic data and devour arcane reports on such things as business inventories and shipment delivery lead times. He is also a fixture in Washington’s power party scene, often escorting his fiancee to glittering black-tie events and receptions. A master of verbal discretion, Greenspan sometimes speaks with such opaque complexity that his comments are indecipherable. When asked earlier this year at a U.S. congressional hearing about his views on a balanced budget constitutional amendment, he gave such a convoluted, highly nuanced answer that some newspapers reported he was for the amendment while others said he was against it. In a 1995 speech to the Economic Club of New York, Greenspan’s complex, ambiguous formulations about the U.S. economy left reporters scratching their heads in confusion. “Greenspan Hints Fed May Cut Interest Rates,” said a Washington Post headline the next day. A New York Times headline after the same speech saw it differently: “Doubts Voiced by Greenspan on a 270 •

People of World Influence Rate Cut.” The editors at the Manchester Union-Leader in New Hampshire just threw up their hands and wrote “Greenspan: Uncertainty Abounds” on the lead story. Usually determined not to arouse markets, Greenspan takes pride in his ability to sidestep tough questions and avoid provocative comments—when he wants to. “Since I became a central banker I’ve learned to mumble with great incoherence,” he said shortly after taking his job at the Fed. “If I seem unduly clear to you, you must have misunderstood what I said,” he added. Greenspan, 71, grew up in New York City and his first love was music. He studied at the Julliard School for two years, learned to play the saxophone and clarinet, and toured for a time with the Henry Jerome swing band. In the early 1950s, Greenspan became friends with Ayn Rand, the libertarian novelist, and he developed a theory of capitalism premised on the notion that it’s both the most efficient and moral system of economic organization. He studied economics at New York University and Columbia University and co-founded a consulting firm in New York in 1954 that provided analytical advice to banks and manufacturing companies. Greenspan entered Republican Party circles when he advised Richard Nixon during his 1968 presidential campaign. He became the chief economist for President Ford and an informal advisor to President Reagan. In 1987, Reagan chose him to succeed Paul Volcker as head of the central bank. At the helm of the Fed since August 11, 1987, Greenspan helped America weather the terrifying October stock market crash of that year, one of the most serious banking crises in decades, numerous foreign exchange adjustments, large consumer and corporate debt burdens, and the pernicious effects of massive budget and trade deficits. Presiding over the seven-member Fed Board of Governors, he has guided the United States to a smooth path of solid economic growth and low inflation. For the last six years under his watch, the U.S. inflation rate has been about 3 percent or less and unemployment has fallen to under 5.5 percent. Greenspan has also been deeply involved in international matters, keeping a careful eye on the strength of the dollar, America’s balance of trade with the rest of the world, and the strengths and weaknesses of economies ranging from Albania to Zaire. He helped craft and defend a package of loans to help Mexico during its peso crisis in 1995. During his tenure Greenspan has come to know the financial and governmental leaders of dozens of countries. Each month, either he or one of this top advisors travels to Basle, Switzerland, to meet with the world’s top central bankers under the auspices of the Bank for International Settlements. At these meetings, central bankers huddle to discuss events and coordinate policies. Greenspan also attends Group of Seven meetings three times a year with finance ministers and central bankers from the largest industrial nations. He goes to conferences sponsored by the World Bank and International Monetary Fund and holds scores of other meetings with world leaders. He wins plaudits from his international financial brethren. Bank of England governor Eddie George calls him an “extremely thoughtful, subtle kind of chap” and argues Greenspan is expert at developing effective monetary policies and explaining them to Congress, the White House, and the international financial community. Tietmeyer, the head of the Bundesbank, said that Greenspan blends a theoretical •271

John Shaw understanding of financial issues with practical insights about what is happening in the global economy and a keen understanding of political realities. “He is a man who is not simplistic or crude in his conclusions,” said Tietmeyer of Greenspan. “He balances the argument, and he is never willing to propose a too simple solution. But you should not underestimate his sentences. It’s sophisticated. You have to follow him very closely to understand precisely when he is sending a message. He has this very subtle language,” he added. Jean Claude Trichet, head of the Bank of France, noted Greenspan’s “special gift to profoundly analyze the situation, to remain calm in all circumstances. And always he has an elegant way of assessing the situation, even the most acute and the most difficult situations, and then he has a special gift to produce consensus.” Particularly in the United States, Greenspan is not without his critics, who contend he’s too focused on keeping inflation in check and is unwilling to let the U.S. economy expand. “I have no personal animus to Chairman Greenspan, but I think he’s kept interest rates way too high and has put a brake on the economy,” said Tom Harkin, a Democratic senator from Iowa. “This economy should be growing much faster than it is, but every time growth picks up Greenspan gets worried and jacks up interest rates. He’s obsessed with inflation, and he’s obsessed with the bond market,” Harkin continued. While most American business leaders praise Greenspan, some agree with Sen. Harkin that he’s too fearful of robust growth. The National Association of Manufacturers, a powerful lobbying group in Washington, D.C., regularly blasts Greenspan and the Federal Reserve for maintaining an overly restrictive monetary policy. Edward Luttwak, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C., argues that Greenspan is part of a fraternity of inflation-obsessed central bankers who are insufficiently sensitive to the workings of democracy and the punishing effects of high unemployment. “Central bankers claim the right to ignore the public will by invoking their duty to a higher authority: the sublime sanctity of money uncorrupted by inflation,” Luttwak said. “It’s hard to avoid the suspicion that Alan Greenspan and his far more extreme colleagues at the central banks of Europe reject moderation on the inflation question chiefly because it would undermine the immoderate power they now hold in the world’s democracies,” said Luttwak. (March, 1997)

272 •

People of World Influence

United Nations Secretary General

Kofi Annan

W

hen the countries of the United Nations ended a weeks-long impasse December 17 and selected Kofi Annan of Ghana as the new secretary general, they were betting that a silky smooth insider can revamp and redirect a beleaguered organization he’s been a part of for more than 30 years. Only time will tell if Annan is up to the job, but the elegant 58-year-old diplomat brings to the task a deep understanding of the United Nations, a reputation for warm affability coupled with shrewd management skills, and a conviction that the world body’s mission must be fundamentally re-examined. “What I would hope to do during the period that I am in office is to work with the member states and redefine the role of the organization and perhaps help prepare it for the 21st century,” Annan said at his first press conference after being selected as the eighth secretary general of the United Nations. He’s the first secretary general to come from sub-Saharan Africa and also the first to have risen through the ranks of the United Nations. At the briefing, Annan said during the first six months of his tenure he will put his management team in place and launch a wide-ranging debate among the 185 nations of the United Nations about its future role. “We, the member states of this organization, should begin to discuss what the UN should be doing,” he said. “What should our business be? What should be our objectives? How do we reposition the United Nations as we move into the 21st century?” Annan took over as secretary general January 1, succeeding Boutros Boutros-Ghali. BoutrosGhali’s five-year tenure was marked by considerable reform, much controversy, and frequent struggles with U.S. officials who claimed publicly that he was not sufficiently committed to •273

John Shaw overhauling the organization and privately that he was too imperious, independent, and unpredictable. Diplomats from other nations disputed the U.S. view and countered that the United States used Boutros-Ghali as a scapegoat when difficult UN ventures failed. After standing alone in the Security Council and vetoing a second term for Boutros-Ghali, the United States quietly brokered the selection of Annan. Following several weeks of private discussions and public recriminations after the U.S. veto, the UN Security Council agreed on Annan on December 13. Their choice was ratified by the General Assembly on December 17. Annan has said he will make a vigorous effort to mend the United Nation’s frayed relationship with the United States and help rebuild support for the world. Annan met with Congressional leaders January 23 and 24 to smooth relations between the United States and the United Nations. One of the key points of discussion is the back dues that the United States owes the United Nations for peacekeeping missions. The United States has not paid the dues because of domestic budget problem and differences with the United Nations on policy matters. “It’s not really in the interest of the United States not to pay its contribution to the UN,” Annan said. “It offends friends and foes alike. The U.S. needs the UN, and the UN needs the U.S.” The new secretary general has pledged to continue the reforms begun under Boutros-Ghali, but he added that he won’t slash budgets or staff just for appearance’s sake. “Sometimes it must seem that the United Nations does nothing but reform,” said Annan. “What we have to do now is not to undertake more half measures or rush to make new changes. We must take stock,” he said to a meeting of UN staff in early January. “It is not reform when for lack of funds we have to turn our backs on massacres and suffering and the collapse of civil society.... I have never believed that disjointed downsizing, with arbitrary staff cuts that weaken essential capabilities, can bring real improvement,” he said. In a session to boost morale, Annan told UN staff he will include department heads in meetings with world leaders, share more information throughout the Secretariat and stay in close contact with officials working on key projects. While UN analysts agree Annan is approaching his new job with openness, candor and zest, they differ on how he will fare. Skeptics argue he lacks the requisite ministerial experience and international reputation to move bold plans through the United Nations. They wonder if, as a long-term official of the organization, he can look at the United Nations with detachment and make the hard choices needed to overhaul it. The new secretary general comes from a prominent family in Ghana. Annan’s father was the elected governor of Ashanti Province and a hereditary paramount chief of the Fante people. Kofi Annan earned an undergraduate degree in economics at Macalaster College in St. Paul, Minn. He did graduate work at the Institut Universitaire de Hautes Etudes Internationales in Geneva. He has a master’s degree in management from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Annan entered the United Nations more than 30 years ago and has served ever since, except for a brief stint as head of Ghana’s tourist council. Annan served as undersecretary general for peacekeeping operations from 1993 to 1996 when he was selected for the top job. While he has spent years immersed in budgets and organizational charts, he has also done some tough, hands-on diplomacy. He headed up a UN team in 1990 that negotiated the release of 274 •

People of World Influence 900 international workers and more than half a million Asian laborers who were stranded in Iraq and Kuwait after the Iraqi invasion in 1990. In 1995, he went to Bosnia to hand over the UN’s peacekeeping mission to NATO and earned plaudits for handling a tough job and framing the Balkan tragedy in stark moral terms. “The world cannot claim ignorance of what those who lived here endured,” Annan said in much-noted public remarks. “In looking back, we should all recall how we responded to the escalating horrors of the last four years. And as we do, there are questions which each of us must ask. What did I do? Could I have done more? Did I let my prejudice or my fear overwhelm my reasoning? And above all, how would I react next time?” Stanley Meisler, a journalist and author of a history of the United Nations, says reform will be near the top of Annan’s agenda, but progress will be hard. “I expect Kofi to talk a lot about reform, he has to,” said Meisler. “But the problem is that everything a secretary general can do has pretty much been done already. Despite all the criticism, Boutros-Ghali reduced staff, cut spending, did all the things that many have wanted done. Beyond that there isn’t that much a secretary general can do on his own.” While everyone talks about reform, there is far less agreement on what it means, continued Meisler. “I expect Annan to spend a lot of time trying to forge a consensus within the UN on what its future should be and how it should move forward. And I expect him to work very hard to repair the U.S.’s relationship with the UN,” he added. Diane Kunz, a history professor at Yale University and author of a book on the linkage of international economic and security issues, said that she expects Annan to work hard to rebuild the UN’s credibility and explain its successes to the world and the American public. “Mr. Annan clearly has to get the U.S. back on board,” she said. “I expect him to reach out and try to help dispel the bipartisan bitterness that has emerged in America to the UN He needs to explain the good the UN has done and to make clear that he intends to build on the reforms Boutros-Ghali put in place.” Annan brings a solid record of accomplishment to his leadership job but now faces challenges far more sweeping than any he has dealt with before, according to Tad Daley, president of the Campaign for a New United Nations Charter, an advocacy group devoted to sweeping changes in the United Nations. The new secretary general will be part of a historic debate on the future of the United Nations on the eve of a new century, said Daley. “The UN policy debate today needs less prediction of what Kofi Annan will do and more prescription regarding what the international community should do to ensure the UN meets the challenges of the 21st century,” Daley said. “We have an institution that’s still based on a Cold War world that no longer exists.” Supporters contend Annan will use his wide and deep knowledge of the United Nations to advance careful reforms that work. Prudent change, they argue, doesn’t necessarily result from managerial bloodletting. Observers from both camps agree Annan’s tenure will be an intriguing test of whether the United Nations can be overhauled by an affable insider or whether a brash outsider will eventually be required to make sweeping changes. (February, 1997) •275

HIGHER EDUCATION: HANDBOOK OF THEORY AND RESEARCH, VOL. XVII

476

People of World Influence

Senator

Richard Lugar

W

hile most members of the U.S. Congress remain tightly focused on domestic policy, Republican Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana is deeply involved in a host of contentious international issues ranging from nuclear weapons in Russia, Bosnian peacekeeping forces, NATO expansion, the future of the United Nations, U.S.-China relations, Middle East peace efforts, the stalled chemical weapons treaty and funding for America’s cash-starved international programs. Employing a blend of experience, understatement, tenacity and civility that has won him respect from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue and the foreign policy community, Lugar is stepping forward in 1997 to shape American foreign policy. Lugar no longer chairs the prestigious Senate Foreign Relations Committee, nor is he a member of the GOP leadership team, but he’s poised to have a stronger impact on America’s international policy over the next several years than virtually anyone else on Capitol Hill. In an interview, Lugar says his main goal over the next several years is to spur President Clinton to shift from a “minimalist, reactive, ad hoc foreign policy to one that is more active, assertive and coherent.” One issue Lugar vows to push hard in 1997 is to get more money for the U.S. international budget that funds operations for embassies, development banks, the United Nations and bilateral aid. He contends that spending for international programs is set to shrink while new challenges are arising in countering terrorism, drug trafficking, weapons proliferation and regional disputes. “At the very time we should be preparing to initiate a vigorous foreign policy, an energetic •277

John Shaw diplomacy, we’re closing consulates, shutting down services in embassies, scaling back our operations,” Lugar says. “We can’t have effective diplomacy when we’re retrenching, saving a few dollars in our foreign policy budget. It’s not cost-effective.” Lugar wrote President Clinton in last December urging him to back a $2 billion increase in international spending to $21 billion for the coming fiscal year. He pledged to press hard in Congress to get more funds for these programs, but implored Clinton to explain to the American public why this spending is in the national interest. “The U.S. is uniquely situated to take a strong leadership role—in Europe, Asia, Latin America, and Africa—and on a whole range of issues like restraining the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the expansion of NATO, the fate of Bosnia, the role of the UN and rules governing world trade,” Lugar says. The senator argues the United States must take a more forceful and consistent posture in international affairs. “Our foreign policy has to be much more focused and forward-looking and President Clinton has to become more interested and engaged. His interest can’t continue to be episodic. We need a different order of presidential leadership,” he adds. Lugar has been sharply critical of the Clinton administration’s approach to foreign policy, blasting it as passive and reactive. He says that as a senior member of Congress he will challenge the White House to think more strategically and act more decisively. Lugar’s overall foreign policy views and activism have attracted mostly admiring comments from foreign policy experts and even a phone call from President Clinton when he was assembling his new foreign policy team. “Dick Lugar is a widely respected leader in foreign policy who has been willing to speak out on topics that aren’t all that popular and don’t have much of a domestic constituency,” says Thomas Mann, a congressional expert at the Brookings Institution. “I expect him to be outspoken and aggressive in the next several years in staking out positions and trying to nudge the administration toward his views,” says Mann. “He’s going to be a voice of reason and moderation in Congress. Whether he finds a receptive audience or not is uncertain at this point. But he will be listened to by a lot of people.” Fred Holborn, professor of American foreign policy at the Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies, agrees that Lugar will be active on international matters. “There’s no question Sen. Lugar is a serious person who takes foreign policy very seriously. In the past he has shown he can be very effective, especially in working with members of the other party,” Holborn says. “He seemed to fade a little in the last couple of years, but there’s no question Lugar’s about to raise his profile,” adds Holborn. “It will be interesting to see if he acts as a free agent, as a gadfly, or if tries to build coalitions in committee and on the Senate floor. The foreign aid issue might be a good test. Let’s see if he just talks or actually helps get funding increased by offering his own proposals and really pushing,” he adds. Some analysts assert that Lugar is better at raising questions and framing policy debates than providing original or comprehensive solutions. Lugar, 64, has been in the Senate since 1977 and chaired the Foreign Relations panel from 1985 to 1987. As chairman, Lugar was widely praised for his work with Democrats and the sometimes wary Reagan White House.

278 •

People of World Influence Lugar’s most notable accomplishment came in 1986 when he led a U.S. delegation to monitor the Philippine elections and urged the White House to reject the claims of Ferdinand Marcos that he was re-elected and instead support Corazon Aquino as the rightful president. Using a shrewd mix of private cajoling and strong public statements acknowledging Aquino’s victory, Lugar was able to persuade President Reagan to drop his support of Marcos. When the Democrats won back control of the Senate in 1987, Lugar lost his chairmanship but has stayed involved in foreign policy. In 1988, he helped push the Intermediate Nuclear Forces agreement with Russia through the Senate that reduced the number of nuclear weapons for the first time in history. Four years later he was the floor manager of the START I treaty and played a pivotal role in getting it ratified by the Senate. The Indiana senator was a prominent proponent of American military action during the Persian Gulf crisis of 1990-91 and a vocal advocate of a more forceful U.S. response to the crises in former Yugoslavia and Africa in 1992 to 1993. When Republicans recaptured control of the Senate in 1995, Sen. Jesse Helms of North Carolina used seniority rules to claim the chairmanship of the Foreign Relations Committee. Lugar shifted to head up the Agriculture panel but retained his seat on the Foreign Relations Committee. He is now the second-ranking Republican on the panel and chairs the European Affairs subcommittee. Lugar is also a senior member of the Intelligence Committee and cochairman of the Senate Arms Control Observer Group. Lugar spent much of 1995 drafting legislation to overhaul U.S. agricultural programs and the early months of 1996 trying to win the Republican nomination for president. His candidacy never took off, and he dropped out of the race in March. In the final months of 1996, Lugar jumped back into the foreign policy debate. He co-chaired a broad policy review for the Center of Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank, that released a report in September outlining a sweeping strategy for defining and then advancing U.S. global interests at the start of the 21st century. In October, Lugar visited Russia and Ukraine as part of a high-level American delegation and met with senior leaders with President Yeltsin’s government and the Russian Duma. After the trip he proposed a joint U.S-Russian arms reduction and security program that he intends to push in 1997. Then in late November, Lugar gave a wide-ranging foreign policy address at the School of Advanced International Studies, in which he reviewed issues where the U.S. must lead the West and emphasized the need to boost funding for America’s international programs. Looking ahead, Lugar pledges to do all he can to bring international affairs back to the top of the American policy agenda. “I’m going to do my part to explain to the American people why foreign policy is crucial to the country’s security and should be seen as important to them, their lives. It’s a harder, more complicated argument to make in the post-Cold War era than in the past, but more of us need to be making it,” he says. (January, 1997)

•279

HIGHER EDUCATION: HANDBOOK OF THEORY AND RESEARCH, VOL. XVII

476