The Next Generation - Facing Up to the Global Challenges of the 21st Century
Keynote Address, International Consular Ball – March 24th, 2007
Thank you for that kind introduction
It is a great honor to speak to you tonight, before such a distinguished gathering of business leaders, academics, and policymakers. But I am especially pleased to be talking to the consuls who we are here to honor this evening. As we all know, the consular system has a long and important history in forging closer ties between governments, both local and national, and citizens. They play a very special role in diplomacy, foreign relations, and increasingly, in helping along a rapidly globalizing economy. I would argue that this system is even more important in this day and age, and particularly important in this large and diverse country.
Why? I don’t think it is any secret that U.S. global policy is at, at best, loose ends these days. Nor do I think that it is controversial to say that the rest of the world is looking at U.S. policy, and increasingly U.S. society, with emotions ranging from puzzlement to disappointment and even anger.
The United States is clearly at a crossroads on these important questions, and with an important presidential election less than two years away, I think it is fair to say that the rest of the world is quite anxious about where we, as a country, are going. How should the U.S. face up to the global challenges in the years and decades ahead? Who will come up with the answers we urgently need? For the consuls, as for everyone, these are some of the most pressing questions of the day.
With these important issues in mind, I would like to tell you about a fascinating project you may be interested in. When I am not teaching or helping rev up our new Robert S. Strauss Center for International Security and Law at the University of Texas, I direct a national, multiyear initiative called The Next Generation Project. Sponsored by The American Assembly in New York, the goal of the project is, in short, to go around the country and identify the best rising talent to serve as Next Generation Fellows and generate thoughtful discussion and better solutions to the global challenges and opportunities the United States and world will face in the years to come.
New ideas must come from new people, and it is my belief that this new talent must reflect the amazing diversity of this country, not just in the traditional use of the term – i.e. gender, ethnicity – but vocational and regional diversity as well. The project is traveling around the nation, partnering with local think tanks and policy schools, hosting three day, intense, highly interactive Assemblies, to hear what young, rising leaders from diverse backgrounds think about what the role of the United States in the world should be.
There is a deep Texas connection behind this project. It was created by Richard Fisher, the head of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas and a personal mentor. And our distinguished Senior Advisory Council, which includes such notables as Brent Scowcroft, Lee Hamilton, and Paul Volcker, is chaired by esteemed Austin native and my good friend, Admiral Bobby Inman. If you wouldn’t mind, I would like to tell you what we are up to. I hope you will find it interesting.
The Next Generation Project is animated by three core assumptions:
Assumption one is simple, uncontested, but bears constant repeating – We live in a global environment that has changed dramatically in the past ten or fifteen years. There are disagreements over the cause of these changes, their impact, and whether they are negative or positive. All agree, however, that almost every aspect of our lives, and the future of our security and prosperity, are effected by this world historical phenomena, this great change in world affairs.
For some, globalization, if managed correctly, has and will continue to bring new wealth and opportunity throughout the world, particularly in places that have only known abject poverty and suffering in the recent past. For them, the vast increase in trade and global finance, the tremendous influence of profound technological change, and the increasing harmonization of much of the developed world’s macro-economy, promises a new era of peace and prosperity.
To others, these same changes, which hold such promise, are also the cause of potential threats and dangers. Even beyond the well noted asymmetric threat that non-state actors pose, think about the dangers that resource scarcity, environmental degradation, pandemics and the effects of increased economic inequality could pose to the world in the decades to come. Or reflect upon a backlash against globalization, something similar to but far more powerful than what we see in Latin America, with a possible return to the rhetoric, if not the policies, of the nationalism and autarkic economic polices of the 1930s. And then there is the old but time tested game of great power politics, war and peace, and the challenges that new, rising powers may present.
Elias Zerhouni, Director of the National Institute of Health, recently observed that there were two divergent globalizations. The first was the globalization of increased wealth and interconnectivity. But the second globalization was that of an increasingly disconnected world where, as he put it, “knowledge may actually be decreasing and where poverty and disease are on a steady climb.” Both visions of the future must be debated, discussed, and understood.
The second assumption behind the project is also simple but important – that is the idea that the national and international institutional architecture that was created largely during the early days of the Cold War does not appear to be up to the task – at least in their current form - of providing global security and prosperity in the decades to come.
These organizations – the Bretton Woods institutions, the United Nations, the 1947 National Security Act agencies in the United States – all were designed to deal with a much different world than we live in today. They don’t appear particularly useful or relevant to the newly emerging threats and opportunities that are highlighted under our first assumption. Can they be reformed? Are new institutions needed? Are they even relevant to the question of our future global policy? Can some of the new innovations we see in the business and non-profit world be applied to global policy and international institutions? Or is global governmental policy simply too different, too important, to take the kind of risks acceptable at Microsoft or the X-prize community?
The third assumption is that despite the obvious importance of these issues, the level of discussion and debate about the shape of U.S. global policy and the future of international institutions is simply inadequate right now. Can anyone say they are happy with the level of discourse on these crucial subjects? Why is the debate so lacking?
Part of this sad fact emerges from the intensely partisan nature of the times we live in. I also believe, however, that the poor state of debate goes beyond simple political disagreement. We simply do not have very many vehicles for civil, reasoned, respectful discussion about the most important issues we face. Nor are we good at bringing together people of different backgrounds, outlooks, and experiences to generate new ideas. We could go through each of the institutions responsible for this state of affairs – government, the media, think tanks, universities – and highlight why they have for the most part failed on this front.
One of the things we are trying to do at the University of Texas, by the way, is to change this situation, to create a better environment for debate and dialogue. The mandate of the new Strauss Center is to bring together people of different views and perspectives to have lively but respectful discussions about these important subjects. But short of franchising the Strauss Center and putting two or three of them in every state in the country, the Next Generation Project is the next best thing. The Next Generation Project is an effective way to have these kinds of discussions in areas of the country that are increasing in political and economic importance but are often underrepresented in discussions of U.S. foreign policy.
We have had two assemblies thus far – one in Dallas, and another in San Diego. Assemblies are on tap for Denver and Chicago, and are being planned for the Southwest and Northwest, with a final, national assembly to be held in Washington with Lee Hamilton and the Wilson Center as a co-host. We have had business men and women from every sector, including some of the most cutting edge biotech and information technology firms in the world. We have had leaders from non-governmental organizations (NGOs), the media, religious organizations, and the military. Rising stars from all the major national and international governmental institutions have been represented, as well as leaders from the state and local level. In Dallas, we even had two rising stars from the Statehouse, the Democrat Rafael Anchia and the Republican Dan Branch. We even had an independent soybean farmer, which sounds unusual until you realize that he knows far more about global markets than just about any international relations professor you will meet.
While it is still early in the process, the project has already been a remarkable success. People with wildly different perspectives have engaged in thoughtful, respectful dialogue. Things can get heated when you spend three straight days locked in a room with seventy smart people talking about U.S. foreign policy and global governance, but you can also create the kind of spark that brings real change. These people are very busy, with very successful careers and pressing time commitments. But these Assemblies have proven to me that there is an almost insatiable hunger for real dialogue about these important questions, a passionate desire to get beyond the partisanship and rancor and to begin to craft solutions.
Obviously, with a group of this sort, you do not get consensus. But I have tried to push them to grapple with their differences, and in the process, I have identified five core themes that are worth talking about. Each of these themes, which emerged from intense discussions, is somewhat at odds with the conventional wisdom about U.S. global policy in Washington. Since they are the views of our emerging young leaders from throughout the country, I thought you would enjoy hearing about them.
The best way to describe this overall sentiment was that people felt it was time to emerge from the long shadow of 9/11. This is not a recommendation to be naive and assume there are no dangers, but by preparing for the worst, we are losing lots of opportunities for cooperation and mutual gain. And as I am sure the consuls could convey far better than me, the world is going through exiting and exhilarating changes right now, changes which demand innovation.
Looking at the world largely through an old-fashioned national security lens, where the military and force are seen as your most effective tools, will no longer cut it in this new environment. Few of our global challenges and almost none of our opportunities are relevant to the 20th century definitions of power. U.S. global policy, according to the Next Generation, must change to recognize this fact.
Theme number two
DOMESTIC POLICY AS FOREIGN POLICY
Many fellows felt that some of the issues that would most influence the future success of U.S. global policy were, in fact, traditionally considered domestic issues. There were three that were of particularly importance
1. Immigration – many of our fellows are quite concerned by the growing anti-immigration feeling in the U.S. Most felt that a rational, effective system of immigration was one of the things that propelled the U.S. to its status as an economic and cultural power, and worried that the popularity of a “close the borders” mentality would push the United States backwards.
2. Education – Most fellows felt that the those nations with the best educated workforces would be the most successful, and were dismayed at how far the United States has fallen behind its competitors in certain fields. They also thought that our citizens had to have a globally oriented education, in order to better understand the rest of the world
3. Health Care – The health and well being of our citizens, and protecting against the future rise of global pandemics, demands attention
to health care and the public health infrastructure
All of these issues, which are at first blush, domestic, were cast in terms of global competitiveness. In many ways, the division between these two realms – domestic and global – no longer makes sense, as issues we once considered purely local have global implications, and global issues profoundly affect our local lives. I do not like the term “intermestic” – but the Next Generation Fellows did capture this notion that we need to re-think the boxes we put different issues in.
Theme number three
THE DE-CENTERING OF POWER
The United States is an enormous and complex society, facing an extraordinary number of challenges. Especially in California there is a growing sense that Washington DC and the federal government are not always the most relevant or effective stewards for every problem. When it comes to trade or immigration, state officials in Texas may have a different attitude than the national government, and at the very least, will be more focused on quick, effective results. The recent signing of an environmental pact between California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and British Prime Minister Tony Blair reveals that policy answers that were once the domain of Washington may be taken over by more local actors.
In a global world, local knowledge, expertise and decision-making may become critical. Key state and regional capitals may become as important as national capitals in certain crucial areas. This is important because while most elite policymakers and analysts are focusing on how to reform big institutions like the IMF or UN, the real action may be elsewhere – at the state and local level. It may very well be that the model of large, centralized, national state centered organizations driving global policy, with help from similarly big, centralized international organizations, is becoming a thing of the past.
Theme number four
THE ECLIPSE OF THE PUBLIC SPHERE
Not only are national governments no longer the only driver of U.S. global policy – the Next Generation Fellows felt that governments in general were ceding ground to businesses and NGOs in the policy arena. And this was a seen as a very positive development.
Global companies, though headquartered in the UnitedStates, are spearheading change around the world. I had a fascinating conversation with Neville Isdell, the Chair and CEO of The Coca-Cola Company. Isdell is an Irishman raised in Africa who made his name working for Coke in Southeast Asia and Russia. He runs a corporation headquartered in Atlanta whose brand is the most recognized name in the world and whose company’s future growth is almost entirely abroad. You don’t think he sees the world through a different lens than policymakers? And corporations are not solely driven by profit. These business leaders understand that they have a larger responsibility to the communities they operate in, and are actively pursuing innovative strategies to improve lives.
There are scores of other business leaders like Neville Isdell who operate internationally. They are not waiting for the U.S. government or international organizations to drive things – they are acting themselves. This is even truer of NGOs. While the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation gets a lot of the attention, there are literally hundreds of NGOs, operating on the ground throughout the world, trying to solve global problems. These are not traditional actors using old-fashioned tools.
Under this emerging view, reforming institutions such as the World Bank or UN or the National Security Council is less important that coordinating and empowering the growing networks of private organizations in their efforts to improve the world. Look, for example, at the proliferation of scores of micro-financing initiatives. Public-private partnerships and networks of interested groups will, according to this model, be far more effective and responsive to emerging policy problems.
Theme number five
COMPETITION, NOT CONFRONTATION
In Washington today, debate often focuses on possible future confrontation rather than opportunities. Scare energy resources, it is argued, will lead to greater geopolitical rivalries. Or rising powers, such as India and particularly China, will offer a challenge to U.S. primacy that must be met head on. Or a renascent Russia or even the European Union, may be future foes.
The emerging young leaders that I have meet through the Next Generation Project do not view the world this way. The do not see the future of international politics as a zero-sum confrontation; rather, they see a healthy competition, one based not on land and resources but ideas and innovations. When they look at China, they see a booming economy, a rising middle class, and a great spirit. There will be competition, but the type you see in a science lab, not a boxing ring. If anything, they worry about the ability of China’s old, antiquated institutions, and regulatory and governance practices to handle such rapid change, and what we must do to help them. Even on energy and the environment, which is widely seen as a great global challenge, these young leaders believe that there are opportunities to use knowledge and technology to move forward.
To these leaders, it will not be the states with the largest navies or most advanced weapons systems, but the nations with the most educated and mobile work force, with the best universities, laboratories and public health systems, that will prevail. In their view, openness, transparency and accountability will replace military effectiveness as the metrics of great power status.
This is not to say these young leaders want to promote American style democratization – quite the contrary. To them, the values that will produce success should not even be seen as American values, but as global values. Norms such as respect for human dignity, education for all, especially women and girls, openness and accountability are not just the right things to do – doing them goes hand in hand with success. The key is for U.S. global policy to provide the groundwork for this growth and innovation, and not do things that potentially imperil what are largely seen as positive, transformational changes throughout the world.
Conclusion
These are just some of the ideas emerging from the brightest young minds throughout this country. As the Next Generation Project continues, we hope to identify new talent, new ideas, and try to bring them into the policy world. For the most part, they are not the usual suspects. They see the world and America’s role in it much differently than previous generations, or even those who are making decisions in Washington DC right now.
This is a rather depressing time for U.S. global policy – a fact made clear in the news almost every day. But there are lots of people – from diverse backgrounds and vocations, who see things differently, whose ideas are those of hope and innovation, not fear and animosity. I appreciate the opportunity, while honoring the noble work of our consuls, to share some of this good news with you, and to let you know that the Next Generation is hard at work, thinking about the best ways to meet our shared global challenges of the 21st century.
Thank you.
Thank you for that kind introductionIt is a great honor to speak to you tonight, before such a distinguished gathering of business leaders, academics, and policymakers. But I am especially pleased to be talking to the consuls who we are here to honor this evening. As we all know, the consular system has a long and important history in forging closer ties between governments, both local and national, and citizens. They play a very special role in diplomacy, foreign relations, and increasingly, in helping along a rapidly globalizing economy. I would argue that this system is even more important in this day and age, and particularly important in this large and diverse country.
Why? I don’t think it is any secret that U.S. global policy is at, at best, loose ends these days. Nor do I think that it is controversial to say that the rest of the world is looking at U.S. policy, and increasingly U.S. society, with emotions ranging from puzzlement to disappointment and even anger.
The United States is clearly at a crossroads on these important questions, and with an important presidential election less than two years away, I think it is fair to say that the rest of the world is quite anxious about where we, as a country, are going. How should the U.S. face up to the global challenges in the years and decades ahead? Who will come up with the answers we urgently need? For the consuls, as for everyone, these are some of the most pressing questions of the day.
With these important issues in mind, I would like to tell you about a fascinating project you may be interested in. When I am not teaching or helping rev up our new Robert S. Strauss Center for International Security and Law at the University of Texas, I direct a national, multiyear initiative called The Next Generation Project. Sponsored by The American Assembly in New York, the goal of the project is, in short, to go around the country and identify the best rising talent to serve as Next Generation Fellows and generate thoughtful discussion and better solutions to the global challenges and opportunities the United States and world will face in the years to come.
New ideas must come from new people, and it is my belief that this new talent must reflect the amazing diversity of this country, not just in the traditional use of the term – i.e. gender, ethnicity – but vocational and regional diversity as well. The project is traveling around the nation, partnering with local think tanks and policy schools, hosting three day, intense, highly interactive Assemblies, to hear what young, rising leaders from diverse backgrounds think about what the role of the United States in the world should be.
There is a deep Texas connection behind this project. It was created by Richard Fisher, the head of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas and a personal mentor. And our distinguished Senior Advisory Council, which includes such notables as Brent Scowcroft, Lee Hamilton, and Paul Volcker, is chaired by esteemed Austin native and my good friend, Admiral Bobby Inman. If you wouldn’t mind, I would like to tell you what we are up to. I hope you will find it interesting.
The Next Generation Project is animated by three core assumptions:
Assumption one is simple, uncontested, but bears constant repeating – We live in a global environment that has changed dramatically in the past ten or fifteen years. There are disagreements over the cause of these changes, their impact, and whether they are negative or positive. All agree, however, that almost every aspect of our lives, and the future of our security and prosperity, are effected by this world historical phenomena, this great change in world affairs.
For some, globalization, if managed correctly, has and will continue to bring new wealth and opportunity throughout the world, particularly in places that have only known abject poverty and suffering in the recent past. For them, the vast increase in trade and global finance, the tremendous influence of profound technological change, and the increasing harmonization of much of the developed world’s macro-economy, promises a new era of peace and prosperity.
To others, these same changes, which hold such promise, are also the cause of potential threats and dangers. Even beyond the well noted asymmetric threat that non-state actors pose, think about the dangers that resource scarcity, environmental degradation, pandemics and the effects of increased economic inequality could pose to the world in the decades to come. Or reflect upon a backlash against globalization, something similar to but far more powerful than what we see in Latin America, with a possible return to the rhetoric, if not the policies, of the nationalism and autarkic economic polices of the 1930s. And then there is the old but time tested game of great power politics, war and peace, and the challenges that new, rising powers may present.
Elias Zerhouni, Director of the National Institute of Health, recently observed that there were two divergent globalizations. The first was the globalization of increased wealth and interconnectivity. But the second globalization was that of an increasingly disconnected world where, as he put it, “knowledge may actually be decreasing and where poverty and disease are on a steady climb.” Both visions of the future must be debated, discussed, and understood.
The second assumption behind the project is also simple but important – that is the idea that the national and international institutional architecture that was created largely during the early days of the Cold War does not appear to be up to the task – at least in their current form - of providing global security and prosperity in the decades to come.
These organizations – the Bretton Woods institutions, the United Nations, the 1947 National Security Act agencies in the United States – all were designed to deal with a much different world than we live in today. They don’t appear particularly useful or relevant to the newly emerging threats and opportunities that are highlighted under our first assumption. Can they be reformed? Are new institutions needed? Are they even relevant to the question of our future global policy? Can some of the new innovations we see in the business and non-profit world be applied to global policy and international institutions? Or is global governmental policy simply too different, too important, to take the kind of risks acceptable at Microsoft or the X-prize community?
The third assumption is that despite the obvious importance of these issues, the level of discussion and debate about the shape of U.S. global policy and the future of international institutions is simply inadequate right now. Can anyone say they are happy with the level of discourse on these crucial subjects? Why is the debate so lacking?
Part of this sad fact emerges from the intensely partisan nature of the times we live in. I also believe, however, that the poor state of debate goes beyond simple political disagreement. We simply do not have very many vehicles for civil, reasoned, respectful discussion about the most important issues we face. Nor are we good at bringing together people of different backgrounds, outlooks, and experiences to generate new ideas. We could go through each of the institutions responsible for this state of affairs – government, the media, think tanks, universities – and highlight why they have for the most part failed on this front.
One of the things we are trying to do at the University of Texas, by the way, is to change this situation, to create a better environment for debate and dialogue. The mandate of the new Strauss Center is to bring together people of different views and perspectives to have lively but respectful discussions about these important subjects. But short of franchising the Strauss Center and putting two or three of them in every state in the country, the Next Generation Project is the next best thing. The Next Generation Project is an effective way to have these kinds of discussions in areas of the country that are increasing in political and economic importance but are often underrepresented in discussions of U.S. foreign policy.
We have had two assemblies thus far – one in Dallas, and another in San Diego. Assemblies are on tap for Denver and Chicago, and are being planned for the Southwest and Northwest, with a final, national assembly to be held in Washington with Lee Hamilton and the Wilson Center as a co-host. We have had business men and women from every sector, including some of the most cutting edge biotech and information technology firms in the world. We have had leaders from non-governmental organizations (NGOs), the media, religious organizations, and the military. Rising stars from all the major national and international governmental institutions have been represented, as well as leaders from the state and local level. In Dallas, we even had two rising stars from the Statehouse, the Democrat Rafael Anchia and the Republican Dan Branch. We even had an independent soybean farmer, which sounds unusual until you realize that he knows far more about global markets than just about any international relations professor you will meet.
While it is still early in the process, the project has already been a remarkable success. People with wildly different perspectives have engaged in thoughtful, respectful dialogue. Things can get heated when you spend three straight days locked in a room with seventy smart people talking about U.S. foreign policy and global governance, but you can also create the kind of spark that brings real change. These people are very busy, with very successful careers and pressing time commitments. But these Assemblies have proven to me that there is an almost insatiable hunger for real dialogue about these important questions, a passionate desire to get beyond the partisanship and rancor and to begin to craft solutions.
Obviously, with a group of this sort, you do not get consensus. But I have tried to push them to grapple with their differences, and in the process, I have identified five core themes that are worth talking about. Each of these themes, which emerged from intense discussions, is somewhat at odds with the conventional wisdom about U.S. global policy in Washington. Since they are the views of our emerging young leaders from throughout the country, I thought you would enjoy hearing about them.
Theme number one
MOVING BEYOND NATIONAL SECURITY
What do I mean here? Every one of the fellows recognized that there are still many dangers facing the United States. The Next Generation Fellows were particularly concerned about terrorism and nuclear proliferation. But there was also a sense that Washington in particular has focused too much on the dangers and not enough on the opportunities. Furthermore, there was a concern that preparing for the worst could act as a self-fulfilling prophecy. For example, it you make policies that assume China will be a threat, you may help guarantee that China actually does become an enemy.MOVING BEYOND NATIONAL SECURITY
The best way to describe this overall sentiment was that people felt it was time to emerge from the long shadow of 9/11. This is not a recommendation to be naive and assume there are no dangers, but by preparing for the worst, we are losing lots of opportunities for cooperation and mutual gain. And as I am sure the consuls could convey far better than me, the world is going through exiting and exhilarating changes right now, changes which demand innovation.
Looking at the world largely through an old-fashioned national security lens, where the military and force are seen as your most effective tools, will no longer cut it in this new environment. Few of our global challenges and almost none of our opportunities are relevant to the 20th century definitions of power. U.S. global policy, according to the Next Generation, must change to recognize this fact.
Theme number two
DOMESTIC POLICY AS FOREIGN POLICY
Many fellows felt that some of the issues that would most influence the future success of U.S. global policy were, in fact, traditionally considered domestic issues. There were three that were of particularly importance
1. Immigration – many of our fellows are quite concerned by the growing anti-immigration feeling in the U.S. Most felt that a rational, effective system of immigration was one of the things that propelled the U.S. to its status as an economic and cultural power, and worried that the popularity of a “close the borders” mentality would push the United States backwards.
2. Education – Most fellows felt that the those nations with the best educated workforces would be the most successful, and were dismayed at how far the United States has fallen behind its competitors in certain fields. They also thought that our citizens had to have a globally oriented education, in order to better understand the rest of the world
3. Health Care – The health and well being of our citizens, and protecting against the future rise of global pandemics, demands attention
to health care and the public health infrastructure
All of these issues, which are at first blush, domestic, were cast in terms of global competitiveness. In many ways, the division between these two realms – domestic and global – no longer makes sense, as issues we once considered purely local have global implications, and global issues profoundly affect our local lives. I do not like the term “intermestic” – but the Next Generation Fellows did capture this notion that we need to re-think the boxes we put different issues in.
Theme number three
THE DE-CENTERING OF POWER
The United States is an enormous and complex society, facing an extraordinary number of challenges. Especially in California there is a growing sense that Washington DC and the federal government are not always the most relevant or effective stewards for every problem. When it comes to trade or immigration, state officials in Texas may have a different attitude than the national government, and at the very least, will be more focused on quick, effective results. The recent signing of an environmental pact between California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and British Prime Minister Tony Blair reveals that policy answers that were once the domain of Washington may be taken over by more local actors.
In a global world, local knowledge, expertise and decision-making may become critical. Key state and regional capitals may become as important as national capitals in certain crucial areas. This is important because while most elite policymakers and analysts are focusing on how to reform big institutions like the IMF or UN, the real action may be elsewhere – at the state and local level. It may very well be that the model of large, centralized, national state centered organizations driving global policy, with help from similarly big, centralized international organizations, is becoming a thing of the past.
Theme number four
THE ECLIPSE OF THE PUBLIC SPHERE
Not only are national governments no longer the only driver of U.S. global policy – the Next Generation Fellows felt that governments in general were ceding ground to businesses and NGOs in the policy arena. And this was a seen as a very positive development.
Global companies, though headquartered in the UnitedStates, are spearheading change around the world. I had a fascinating conversation with Neville Isdell, the Chair and CEO of The Coca-Cola Company. Isdell is an Irishman raised in Africa who made his name working for Coke in Southeast Asia and Russia. He runs a corporation headquartered in Atlanta whose brand is the most recognized name in the world and whose company’s future growth is almost entirely abroad. You don’t think he sees the world through a different lens than policymakers? And corporations are not solely driven by profit. These business leaders understand that they have a larger responsibility to the communities they operate in, and are actively pursuing innovative strategies to improve lives.
There are scores of other business leaders like Neville Isdell who operate internationally. They are not waiting for the U.S. government or international organizations to drive things – they are acting themselves. This is even truer of NGOs. While the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation gets a lot of the attention, there are literally hundreds of NGOs, operating on the ground throughout the world, trying to solve global problems. These are not traditional actors using old-fashioned tools.
Under this emerging view, reforming institutions such as the World Bank or UN or the National Security Council is less important that coordinating and empowering the growing networks of private organizations in their efforts to improve the world. Look, for example, at the proliferation of scores of micro-financing initiatives. Public-private partnerships and networks of interested groups will, according to this model, be far more effective and responsive to emerging policy problems.
Theme number five
COMPETITION, NOT CONFRONTATION
In Washington today, debate often focuses on possible future confrontation rather than opportunities. Scare energy resources, it is argued, will lead to greater geopolitical rivalries. Or rising powers, such as India and particularly China, will offer a challenge to U.S. primacy that must be met head on. Or a renascent Russia or even the European Union, may be future foes.
The emerging young leaders that I have meet through the Next Generation Project do not view the world this way. The do not see the future of international politics as a zero-sum confrontation; rather, they see a healthy competition, one based not on land and resources but ideas and innovations. When they look at China, they see a booming economy, a rising middle class, and a great spirit. There will be competition, but the type you see in a science lab, not a boxing ring. If anything, they worry about the ability of China’s old, antiquated institutions, and regulatory and governance practices to handle such rapid change, and what we must do to help them. Even on energy and the environment, which is widely seen as a great global challenge, these young leaders believe that there are opportunities to use knowledge and technology to move forward.
To these leaders, it will not be the states with the largest navies or most advanced weapons systems, but the nations with the most educated and mobile work force, with the best universities, laboratories and public health systems, that will prevail. In their view, openness, transparency and accountability will replace military effectiveness as the metrics of great power status.
This is not to say these young leaders want to promote American style democratization – quite the contrary. To them, the values that will produce success should not even be seen as American values, but as global values. Norms such as respect for human dignity, education for all, especially women and girls, openness and accountability are not just the right things to do – doing them goes hand in hand with success. The key is for U.S. global policy to provide the groundwork for this growth and innovation, and not do things that potentially imperil what are largely seen as positive, transformational changes throughout the world.
Conclusion
These are just some of the ideas emerging from the brightest young minds throughout this country. As the Next Generation Project continues, we hope to identify new talent, new ideas, and try to bring them into the policy world. For the most part, they are not the usual suspects. They see the world and America’s role in it much differently than previous generations, or even those who are making decisions in Washington DC right now.
This is a rather depressing time for U.S. global policy – a fact made clear in the news almost every day. But there are lots of people – from diverse backgrounds and vocations, who see things differently, whose ideas are those of hope and innovation, not fear and animosity. I appreciate the opportunity, while honoring the noble work of our consuls, to share some of this good news with you, and to let you know that the Next Generation is hard at work, thinking about the best ways to meet our shared global challenges of the 21st century.
Thank you.
| Comments |
Only registered users can write comments.
Please login or register.
Powered by AkoComment 2.0!