New Directions in U.S. Foreign Policy

By Charles Kindleberger, PEP Board Member

This article was originally published in the 2013 edition of the Peace Economy News. To receive the upcoming 2016 edition when it’s released later this year, please sign up here.

It has been eight months since President Obama’s re-election, followed by the beginning of his second term. Here is a quick review of many events and decisions have transpired.

• Pivot to the Pacific
• The March 2013 beginning of the Sequester
• Selection of the President’s foreign policy team
• The President’s May 24 speech on terrorism
• American deaths in Benghazi
• Efforts to investigate reporters in order to stem leaks
• Edward Snowden’s unveiling of the NSA’s monitoring of phone calls and e-mails

The Pivot

A year ago, the government started talking about spending less time worrying about the Middle East and more on Asia, presumably China. How much of this had to do with the presidential campaign and Mitt Romney’s advocacy for spending $2 trillion more for arms, we can’t know.  There are plenty of reasons for wondering about the wisdom of this switch.  First, there is not much evidence that it has happened – a few more ships in Singapore, talk of 2500 Marines in Australia. Second, the US can’t afford any kind of a major build-up.  Third, we don’t want to get in a shoving match with what will soon be the strongest country in the world, and a country we need when it comes to North Korea.  Fourth, as a blogger put it pretty directly:  “We would surely bridle were China to interfere in our Caribbean Sea. What business does the US have in the South China Sea? None! Only the business of a meddling, imperial power, seeking domination all over the globe at the expense not only of powers in other regions but of the people of the US whose domestic well-being is undermined by the costs of our empire, our militarism.” That last statement may be too strong, but certainly this nation needs to emphasize diplomacy not sabre rattling when it comes to China.

The Sequester

At the beginning of March, the Sequester went into effect – a cut of $42.5 billion each from defense expenditures and “discretionary” domestic expenditures. For the Pentagon this was on top of significant caps called for in the Budget Control Act of 2011. In early June there was still confusion as to how the additional savings would be achieved. Approximately 700,000 DOD civilian employees were anticipated to be furloughed for 11 days starting in July (exceptions include civilian workers in Naval Shipyards and civilians in War Zone). There is reduced money for training, maintenance, weapons acquisition and talk of a new BRAC round in 2015.

The future is more confusing than ever. The Obama proposed budget for 2014 was submitted some $52 billion above spending caps. The House and Senate budgets are very far apart with little evidence of an effort to reach a consensus budget. As called for by Secretary Hagel back in March, a “Strategic Choices and Management Review” (SCMR) has been conducted. It reportedly examines how cuts might be made over the next decade at three alternative levels – $100, $300, and $500 billion. This examination of 38 different categories of defense spending is expected to influence the 2015 budget and the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review. Needless to say, these issues will get worked out within the context of the Debt Ceiling debate that will confront the nation this fall.

President’s Foreign Policy Team

In recent weeks most of the final appointments have been made. Here are the big names in the President’s second term.

• John Kerry, Secretary of State. Thought to be the President’s second choice after debate surrounding Susan Rice and Benghazi (see below), Kerry has moved quickly to initiate an international conference with Russia on Syria; to re-energize the Israeli – Palestinian peace talks; to defuse tensions in North Korea and other parts of Asia, and more.

• Chuck Hagel, Secretary of Defense. Hagel was a controversial choice given his Republican background, charges that he had turned his back on the Republican Party and suggestions that he might be soft on Iran. His challenge of reshaping the military to fit within a smaller budget is huge. His experience as an enlisted man in Vietnam should provide some empathy for the military as it goes through painful adjustments.

• John Brennan, Director of the CIA. This former Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism had a long career at the CIA. Controversy has followed him because of statements supporting torture and extraordinary rendition, though in 2009 he spoke out against waterboarding.

• Susan Rice, National Security Advisor. She replaces Tom Donilon who had the job for the past three years. She has years of experience in the Clinton Administration, the Brookings Institution and as Ambassador to the United Nations (2008 – 2012).

• Samantha Powers, US Ambassador to the United Nations. She has served in the National Security Council as head of the Office of Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights, focusing on topics like women’s rights, LGBT rights and religious freedom. Powers is an Irish American, a Harvard Law School graduate and a former journalist who won a Pulitzer Prize for her 2002 book, A Problem from Hell: American and the Age of Genocide.

Terrorism Speech

In a much hyped speech at the National Defense University, President Obama declared that it was time for the United States to give up its obsession with the “Global War on Terrorism.”  He argued that, with Al Qaida largely defeated, the nation needed to shift to “targeted efforts to dismantle specific networks of violent extremism that threaten America.” The suggestion was that the USA no longer needed a full court press against all extremists, as stressed by his predecessor. Specific recommendations included:

• Tougher standards on the use of drones so that they are used only on targets posing a “continuing, imminent threat to America.”
• Establishment by Congress of a secret court that would oversee drone strikes.
• Transfer of responsibility for drone attacks from the CIA to the Military, with the exception of Pakistan, a situation to be reviewed every six months.
• Encouraging Congress to “refine and ultimately repeal” authorization of force as passed shortly after September 11, 2001 attack.
• Recommitting again to closing the Guantanamo Prison and repatriating the 166 detainees that have been cleared for return home.

Was this an important declaration, or meaningless rhetoric? The answer will be evident in the months ahead as the President demonstrates, or fails to demonstrate, his leadership on these recommendations.  Predictably, some on the right suggested that the speech amounted to unilateral surrender to radical Islamists. And the House of Representatives recently followed that logic, by prohibiting the closing of Guantanamo. For those who believe in a Peace Economy perspective, we say congratulations Mr. President; now show us that you mean it.

Benghazi

Last fall, Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others were killed in an attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. This tragedy obviously represented a serious security lapse, especially given that there were some 40 plus CIA agents relatively nearby. But it turned into a scandal, when Ambassador Susan Rice went on the Sunday TV talk shows to declare with some certainty that the killings resulted from a mob action and could not have been foreseen.

Investigations were launched primarily under the auspices of Darrel Isaa, Chair of the House Oversight Committee.  He declared that this was the worst scandal in American history, worse than Watergate. He suggested it obvious that American forces could have come to the rescue, but chose not to. Neither he, nor any other republican members of the committee chose to discuss that the House of Representatives had voted to reduce almost $500 million in security support for overseas State Department facilities the year before.

A review of the back and forth suggestions for “talking points” for Susan Rice revealed a certain amount of inter-agency rivalry as to the role of the CIA versus the State Department.  The incident resulted in a lot of sound and fury, a change in Susan Rice’s future plans, and perhaps increased cynicism on the part right wing believers.  But unless there is a lot more to come, this is hardly a scandal even remotely like Watergate.

Leaks

In general we don’t like leaks. However, worse than the leaks is the behavior that some in power use to go after those that they don’t like. The behavior of Vice President Cheney, his chief of staff Scooter Libby and others in the Bush Administration who damaged Valerie Plame and husband Joseph Wilson (who had challenged intelligence used to justify the Iraq invasion) is too fresh in our minds.

There is also the aggressive search of AP reporter’s phone calls, because one of them might have received information from a leaker appears to cross the line, as does the recent subpoena of reporter James Rosen. In the first case, the Justice Department got permission to obtain telephone records for 20 separate telephone lines – office and personal – relating to Associated Press reporters.

The government’s concern was who leaked information about a CIA operation in Yemen last year that allegedly stopped a bomb from being placed on a plane bound for the US. The Justice Department apparently convinced a secrete judge that “all other reasonable attempts to obtain the information” had been made. The CEO of AP protested that the search was far too sweeping and that its impact was to create a “chilling effect” on the press.

The James Rosen case involves a Fox News reporter who learned from a State Department contract employee that the CIA had a source in North Korea with insight into their nuclear testing. On the surface it would seem that the reporter was doing what reporters are supposed to do – investigate and put together a story. However, upset by the unveiling of the North Korean source, the Justice Department got a search warrant to seize and view Rosen’s e-mails. That is going too far. One can make the case that by tradition Fox should have appraised the Administration that it was going to run the story. It is not clear if they did or not.

Edward Snowden

Most recently, a Booz Allen Hamilton contract employee working with the National Security Agency (NSA) released information about long time efforts by the NSA to collect telephone “mega-data” on millions of American’s calls – the numbers called, dates, lengths of time, etc. Similar NSA and English initiatives were revealed that involve monitoring e-mail and other internet messages. The government has charged Snowden with theft of information and espionage. As of early July 2013, Snowden was reported to be at a Moscow airport, attempting to seek refuge in a country like Venezuela, Nicaragua or Bolivia.

There is widespread disagreement as to whether Snowden is a hero for exposing the massive surveillance conducted by this country, or a traitor for releasing national secrets. This spying has apparently included countries like China (which makes it harder for us to be upset with their spying behavior). More troubling is the spying, supposedly in concert with the British and perhaps our NATO allies.

On balance, we believe Snowden has done a good thing. Years ago Congress demanded that similar systems be discontinued. Apparently they simply went underground. Who decides the kinds of surveillance required to limit terrorism should be the province of more than the Director of National Intelligence or the National Security Agency. A viable democracy demands an embrace of individual privacy and freedom of speech. We need to be convinced that the national security apparatus recognizes these fundamental principals.