| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Postcards From the Pledge | ||||
| ||||
The National Security Strategy as mandated by the Nichols-Goldwater Act of 1986 is primarily a means of the legislative branch ensuring the executive branch displays the nation’s strategic goals. It came about as a process to present how the executive branch was spending federal funding. In order to ensure that the executive branch was not spending recklessly the NSS defined what the national strategic objectives were and how they would achieve them within the realms of diplomatic, economic and military means. The NSS can be purposefully broad and undefined or make specific aims.
As a matter of stating the strategic goals of the country the NSS also lays out the coordination between national resources and agencies and departments. A clear strategy will assign what agency and the resource needed to the specific goal in the plan. Although not necessary it can produce debate and consensus, which is another specific aim of the NSS. Many politicians, military specialists and everyday citizens treat the NSS with soft hands or utter disregard. It was not created to be either, and should produce contention and discussion about what our goals are and should be, as well as how we should or should not obtain them.
Another use of the NSS is an overt promise of support to allies or threat to our enemies. The NSS has named enemy nation-states and non-state actors and the means to which will target them. This may aid our enemies in identifying their strategic goals, but with a bureaucracy as large as ours it is a necessary evil. The NSS can also be used to demonstrate which nations we see as important allies and to what degree we are willing to support them. In certain circumstances such as the Israel-Arab conundrum, the Korean Peninsula labyrinth and the Balkans nightmare laying these strategic roads create a doctrine to work around.
The National Security Strategy can define a presidency. It can also be a great source of historical importance, solidifying a president’s aims and means to those goals. The difference between the stated goal and the outcome can be telling of the competency or fallacies of the administration. Politically it is important to have goals that are obtainable and a good plan of action. Unobtainable targets or a poor strategy to obtain a goal can waste time, resources and lives.
The economic advocacy groups that lobby inside our government were some of the first to organize. The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) is the largest federation of labor unions. It has a political body not unlike a government of its own. It also has international ties to the European-based International Trade Union Confederation. In 2007 the AFL-CIO spent two million dollars on lobbying the U.S. government on various trade and labor issues.
The National Council of La Raza is the best example of an identity-based advocacy group in the media attention lately. With the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court earlier this year, the lobbyist organization received more notice than it ever had. The group, which was founded to support Hispanic advancement in society, has been attacked over allegations that it is exclusionary in its advancement of human rights. Although the topic is controversial and debatable the organization is quite extensive, based in Washington, D.C. and serving in eight other cities. It is non-profit, but receives philanthropy from major companies, such as Ford and Wal-Mart. As the fastest growing segment of our population no one can doubt the effect of this advocacy group in the future.
Political advocacy does not get any better than the late Charlton Heston and his NRA. The effect of the numerous celebrity presidents (Ulysses S. Grant being another) and the politically charged topic of gun rights and gun control make this lobby extremely important in American political life. The non-profit organization spent ten million dollars on the 2008 presidential campaign alone! Its lobbying efforts have been a continuous sway on second amendment rights and the successful bids by mostly Republican hopefuls in my generation. The endorsement of the NRA can be the difference between making or breaking a campaign. That is the power to shape policy and sway the legislative process.
No foreign government has the influence or power to push, prod and otherwise manipulate American policy like Israel. I’d rather mention the Georgian ability to affect our policy and shape future (or past) political positions with regard to Foreign Policy and specifically Russia. Randy Scheunemann, Senator McCain’s top foreign policy advisor in his run up to the 2008 election, was a lobbyist for Georgia prior to working for the Senator. In what was called a conflict of interest, Senator McCain was unequivocally involved in the Georgian Conflict. What some called smart foreign policy shaping others called overt outside influence on America’s decision-making process. Whether you take one view over the other, it is undeniable that Georgia’s investment paid out well, but not as well as they had hoped.
It is a natural product of democracy for groups of like-thinking individuals to band together in order to push their ideology further than one person could. Although it is an American reaction to be disgusted by the amount of lobbyist and politician bleed over, it is impossible to split the two. Politicians have platforms on which they stand (or risk being labeled a flip-flopper), and it is reasonable that the politician would look towards advocacy groups with similar platforms through rose-tinted glasses. The money involved in lobbying is what exacerbates the average Americans view towards the organization, sometimes with reason. No one likes to think that the American dream can be bought out, but we have yet to see the bottom to a politician’s greed.
Diplomacy, as put by Mark Twain is, “the principle of give and take… give one and take ten.” In Thomas Fedyszyn’s article on the use of diplomacy he identifies three forms of diplomacy: unilateral, bilateral and multilateral. He also relates that three types of formal diplomacy are normal, preventative and coercive. Power defined inside of the scope of diplomacy can be stated as the ability to influence the policies and actions of another country. Through this interpretation and my belief system (which is an essential to my opinion) I, like most of the international community, prefer normal bilateral diplomacy. All forms and types of diplomacy have a time and place to be used, well, except for unilateral diplomacy in my opinion, but I will address that shortly.
First I would like to address the shortcomings of multilateral and unilateral forms of diplomacy. Although multilateralism should be preferred to unilateralism, its nature, especially coupled with realpolitik can be deceiving. In the liberal or Wilsonian point of view multilateralism can be and should be the preferred diplomatic venture. More often I believe that the actions of one nation in the diplomatic effort can muddle the combined action of the sum. The six party talks or the Israeli-Arab relationship are good indications that when the failure of diplomacy favors one party of a multi-party organization it tends to occur. From what I’ve written you could say that I do not believe in multilateralism, which is not the case. I believe it is important and serves an essential role in the international community, but is not as effective in conveying power in diplomacy.
Unilateralism is effective in coercive means to portray power if as, Fedyszyn states, “conversation with oneself” is your goal. As the hegemony unilateralism is an option at our disposal. It’s fair to make the argument that the immediate value of unilateral diplomacy is unequal to any lasting damage that the action inflicts. This is shown most recently in our efforts in the War on Terror. Declaring war on a non-state actor’s method of inflicting damage and talking to oneself may not be the best diplomatic strategy.
The best conversation is one between two people. It provides the least amount of confusion, unless that is your goal, and then it can provide the most “controlled” confusion or manipulation. “Soft Power” is built along these precepts. Instead of coercing your opponent you influence him into wanting want you want. That is a power that not many nations have the ability to accomplish. It is also the polar opposite of coercive unilateralism in that what you accomplish does not create animosity between the nation-states.
Power is a relative term that can encompass many aspects of diplomacy. I believe that coercive or preventative types of diplomacy cannot be the norm in displaying power. It must be a power that reflects a sensibility in dealing with other nations. A short-term win is not necessarily a long-term win. America’s inattentive and impatient nature can be its weakness in diplomacy. As a nation we must fight this temperament.
