Washington, D.C. Global Security and Development Program – Fall, 2015

Syllabus: IRP 715/M007

Statecraft and Soft Power in the Digital Era

Dr. Michael Schneider

(202) 413-4032;

This is a course about the response of the U.S. and other actors to major contemporary challenges, and the role of soft power, especially the public dimension. The course will focus on how the digital revolution is changing the “rules of the game” for governments, leaders, non-state actors and publics.

Introduction: Since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and especially since 9/11 dramatic changes have occurred in world affairs and the conduct of statecraft. The attack on the twin towers in New York and U.S. responses reflected a reaction against globalization, as well as rising political, socio-cultural and ideological tensions. Digital communication has brought larger numbers of people into the policy arena, albeit sporadically. The changing “rules” of statecraft have affected decision making by officials, bureaucracies and Non-state actors alike.

More than a decade later, we are still searching for a fuller understanding of the cross-pressures of globalization, the contradictions between tradition and modernity, ways to cope with threats and chart a sustainable path to a more stable, prosperous and just world.

Contemporary crises around the globe sharpen our awareness of counter pressures within and among nation-states and trans-nationally. Digital communications at the speed of light flood publics with information. Conflicting images, stereotypes, and hardening allegiances have tended to over-simplify and polarize positions and peoples.

WTO Director-General Pascal Lamy in a June 4, 2011 speech to the Council for the United States and Italy argued that globalization is forcing greater integration of nation-state policies, and also poses new challenges. ”Nations and societies seem increasingly uneasy with a world on steroids that seems out of their control, where powerlessness slowly poisons democracy. …. Global policymaking has become more complex as it has become more important.”

Lamy observed, “Many countries still view human rights as an internal concern. But this distinction is becoming harder to maintain in a world where new media, the Internet and Facebook are creating a global audience, global public opinion and, increasingly, a global sense of right and wrong.”

He asked, “How to resolve the tension between the globalization of issues and our narrow national interest? How to avoid a "democratic deficit" — a gap between the international system and the people whose interests it is meant to serve? ….”

The World arena is changing at even a faster pace than that seer of future change in power, Joseph Nye, has predicted. “Contextual intelligence, the ability to understand an evolving environment and capitalize on trends, will become a crucial skill in enabling leaders to convert power resources into successful strategies,” (p. xvii, The Future of Power.) He is describing the complex task confronting statecraft: only through understanding the many elements of this changing world – particularly the public dimension -- can leaders, stakeholders, and publics make choices that will sustain peace and promote prosperity.

Three principles (described in a brief paper on statecraft to be distributed to the class) of legitimacy, sustainability and well-being will frame our discussion of 21st century statecraft. The challenge for students and practitioners of statecraft will be to devise strategies that will be broadly legitimate, sustainable and contribute to global well-being.

Goals:

Participants should be better able to:

  • Strengthen your understanding of contemporary national security/foreign policy decision making and nation-state behavior.
  • Improve your understanding of major global communications trends and their implications for international and transnational affairs and decision-making
  • Deepen your understanding of the public dimension of world affairs.
  • Broaden your awareness and knowledge of the evolving role and influence of non-state actors, including major NGOs in national and international affairs.
  • Gain skills in national security/foreign policy strategic planning; including knowledge of procedures, institutional roles, and government-NGO relations.

Format, Approach:

The course will mix brief introductory lectures with discussion, breakout groups and class exercises. Officials and non-governmental experts with special expertise will participate from time to time. We will make a special effort to explore your career opportunities.

Readings:

We follow a two-tiered approach: a few key readings or information sources will be assigned in advance for each class session, accompanied by a longer list of optional recommended readings. Most assignments will be from easily retrieved online sources.

Class Exercises:

We will choose a few significant international issues, and from time to time work on some of the practical skills that one can use in any federal agency, advocacy NGO, or think tank with regard to the soft power/public dimension of the issues, e.g.:

  • The Watchlist: every organization tracks key concerns. At the outset of each class we will simulate a 24-hour/day Operations Center and briefly contribute updates on new developments on key issues we will chart.
  • Policy Prioritization: we will conduct a brief inter-agency policy prioritization exercise for the National Security Strategy.
  • Public Opinion Watch: Careful analysis of domestic and international public opinion is key to effective long-term policy and decision making. We’ll discuss the key elements of public opinion analysis and audience identification.
  • Crisis decision making and communication: We’ll conduct “Pandemic Fury,” a simulation of governmental/NGO/business response to an outbreak of H5N1, and discuss the response to the Ebola outbreak.

Assignments:

The course assignments are intended to help participants strengthen their mastery of issues involved in the study of statecraft and soft power and gain practical professional skills. These include:

  • A brief analysis of domestic US and international opinion on a major global issue.
  • A brief action memo proposing the outline of a Presidential speech on a major international issue, including major themes, intended domestic and international audiences, ideas for the rollout and immediate support for implementation.
  • A brief case study of a governmental or NGO use of soft power, in PowerPoint, Prezi or memo format.

Instructions and a template will be provided for each assignment.

Grading:

Submissions or presentations should be:

Current –your submissions are up to date, accurate, and as far as possible clearly related to the current state of play of an issue..

Clearly sourced – where needed, you draw on and cite sources of fact and views.

Concise -- you state the issue briefly yet thoroughly within the context of a short memo. Busy leaders need the memo to get to the point quickly, yet reflect awareness of the nuance and the bureaucratic or political curveballs coming their way.

Creative -- to encourage you to go beyond conventional wisdom if you believe your view or suggestions lead to a different approach from the usual, or even merit greater experimentation.

Cogent -- at the same time, your comments and recommendations should make sense, even if you offer novel solutions beyond the usual DC “conventional wisdom”.

Public Opinion Analysis 25%due October 1

Presidential Speech Proposal25%due November 1

Soft Power Case Study25%due December 3

Class Participation25%

Attendance

Participation in seminar discussions is important; we rely on everyone’s involvement. If you need to miss a class, please let me know as soon as you can. All submissions are due on the dates indicated; please let me know if you cannot meet the deadline.

Evaluation

At the end of the semester we will re-consider the semester and seek suggestions for future refinements of the seminar and the program. Your feedback and recommendations are welcomed throughout the semester.

Academic Integrity Policy

Please quote or attribute any writings or ideas of other sources not your own.

The Syracuse University Academic Integrity Policy, “ holds students accountable for the integrity of the work they submit. Students should be familiar with the Policy and know that it is their responsibility to learn about instructor and general academic expectations with regard to proper citation of sources in written work. The policy also governs the integrity of work submitted in exams and assignments as well as the veracity of signatures on attendance sheets and other verifications of participation in class activities. Serious sanctions can result from academic dishonesty of any sort. For more information and the complete policy, see

Disability Related Accommodations

We will try to help all students who wish to participate in the seminar to do so. If you have any special needs or concerns please let me know in advance so that I can talk with CSIS staff and university officials.

According to Syracuse University: “Students who are in need of disability-related accommodations must register with the Office of Disability Services (ODS), 304 University Avenue, Room 309, 315-443-4498. Students with authorized disability-related accommodations should provide a current Accommodation Authorization Letter from ODS to the instructor and review those accommodations with the instructor. Accommodations, such as exam administration, are not provided retroactively; therefore, planning for accommodations as early as possible is necessary. The Office of Disability Services facilitates disability related support services and accommodations for students studying abroad. While support services and accommodations are intended to provide equal access, the accessibility of facilities in other countries [and in Washington, D .C.] may be limited and support services may be provided in a manner that differs from the delivery of services on the Syracuse University campus. Students are advised to discuss the availability of accommodations at various international study abroad sites [and in Washington,D.C.] withSU Abroad and ODS staff.”

Statecraft and Soft Power in the Digital Era – Schedule

[N.B.: some adjustments in the topics might be made after initial consultation with the class, in view of class interests and career aspirations.]

(1) Sept. 3: Defining Statecraft and Soft Power in the Digital Era; The Public Dimension of World Affairs;

Topics: intros, the course, definitions of soft power, statecraft; differences between Cold War and digital era statecraft; the public dimension of statecraft.

Major long-term challenges for U.S. statecraft in the digital era, going forward – basis for class selection of topics for reports?

Key Questions:

  • What have been the “classic” and 20th century definitions and views of statecraft?
  • How is “soft power” defined, and what is its relation to “hard power”?
  • What is the “public dimension” of statecraft? What kind of world and global challenges do the U.S. and other nations face today, in contrast with a decade ago, or two?

Class Exercise - Breakout Groups will develop a priority list of major global issues, for class consideration.

Readings:

Please read Joseph Nye, The Future of Soft Power Chapter 4, “Soft Power” pp 81-109, or Soft Power – the Means to Success in World Politics, Chapter 1, “the Changing Nature of Power,” pp 1-31.

Additional Readings

U.S. Amb (ret) Chas. W. Freeman, Jr., Arts of Power – Statecraft and Diplomacy. (Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press, 2007) offers succinct definitions and discussion of the elements of statecraft, based on a wealth of experience and analysis by one of the leading U.S. diplomats.

Dennis Ross, preface, pp ix – xx, and “The Bush Foreign Policy and the Need for Statecraft,” pp 21 -28, Statecraft and How to Restore America’s Standing in the World. New York: Farrar, Strauss & Giroux, 2007

Leslie H. Gelb, Power Rules. (New York: HarperCollins, 2009) This is a wise, often witty and breezy, sometimes acerbic screed against what the author contends are extreme and ill-advised views of both left and right. He goes on to offer common-sense explanations of different elements of national power, advantages and disadvantages. See in particular comments on domestic politics and power (chapter 7.)

Henry Kissinger, Diplomacy (New York: Simon & Schuster Touchstone, 1994.) A comprehensive treatment of world affairs, U.S. engagement and statecraft in the past century. Especially relevant are the two final chapters on Reagan and Gorbachev and the end of the Cold War and the New World Order.

Hans J. Morganthau, Politics Among Nations (New York: McGraw Hill, 7th ed., 2006) remains one of the classic texts on international politics and statecraft from the realist standpoint, with additional essays by leading experts to update the concepts for the 21st century. Morganthau provides an unparalleled taxonomy of power - well worth exploring if you want greater depth, an overview of world affairs, and can slog through the depth. Two chapters, on the struggle for power for prestige, and on the ideological element in international affairs, are especially apt for our exploration. Quality of diplomacy and the nature of public support are also highlighted among determinants of national power.

Kenneth Waltz, Man, State and War, (New York: Columbia University Press, Rev. Ed. 2001)One of the most readable treatments of war and peace, as seen on three broad levels of analysis, individual leadership, the role of bureaucracies in the state, and systemic factors.

(2) Sept. 10: Strategic Planning and the Policy Context – What are Current Global Challenges?

Topics: The 2015 National Security Strategy Review, compared to the past NSSRs; The NSC and InterAgency policy process.

Speaker: Alex Pascal, National Security Council

Key Questions:

  • How does the world look from the vantage of the White House/NSC? How do domestic political concerns as well as national security challenges influence the perceptions of officials?
  • How does the InterAgency consider domestic and foreign public opinion and other elements of the public dimension of issues in policy formulation and in policy support?
  • How does the 2014 NSSR compare and contrast with Bush Administration 2006 and 2002 versions? Where are there continuities and significant differences?
  • How well do the NSSRs fulfill the function of organizing government energies, gaining “buy-in” from the bureaucracies, and clarifying U.S. goals for Congress and the informed public?

Readings:

Please look over the NSSR for 2015. Focus especially on one major issue or section relevant to your interests and be prepared to discuss how the section relates to a broader vision of world affairs and U.S. responsibilities.

Time allowing, compare this with the Obama Administration 2010 version,

and take a look at the Bush Admin 2006 and 2002 NSSRs: ;

Additional Readings:

Melvyn P. Leffler and Jeffrey W. Legro, ed., In Uncertain Times – American Foreign Policy after the Berlin Wall and 9/11, especially the Introduction (pp.1-12) and Conclusion (pp. 179-197)

Ibid., To Lead the World, American Strategy After the Bush Doctrine,

Fareed Zakaria, The Post-American World (New York: WW Norton, 2008.) Essays on the emerging global superpower/many superpower concept, with useful chapters on China and India, Britain’s power and “decline” as global balancer. The chapters on American Power and American Purpose were especially illuminating.

U.S. State Department Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review,

U.S. Department of Defense, Quadrennial Defense Review and ; also, the 2008 National Defense Strategy

Karen de Young, “How the White House Runs Foreign Policy,” Washington Post, August 4, 2015

William Burns, “What Should be the Purpose of American Power,” The National Interest, Op-Ed, August 24, 2015

(3) Sept. 17 -The Evolving International Milieu: Toward the World of 2030

Topics: Long-term Global change – demographic, economic, institutional and cultural; changes in the nation-state system; the rise of non-state actors; current and likely future implications of a “youth bulge” in certain areas and aging in others.

Speaker: National Intelligence Council (NIC) representative

Key Questions

  • How do decision makers identify who are the important non-governmental players? Which NGOs, MNCs, other NSAs are important to factor into the policy equation and deal with? Are there any constants, or is this process situation and issue specific?
  • Having expanded significantly in the past half century, are NGOs in active pursuit of policy goals, likely to continue growing or reach a plateau or lose their independence?
  • How are governments and political parties adjusting to the increased involvement of NGOs?
  • What do demographic changes portend for the conduct of statecraft? Are there contradictory trends that have different implications for the near- and longer-term?

Readings:

Please read: the NIC Report: Global Trends: 2030, available at

Additional Readings:

Foreign Affairs Special Issue November/December 2010 Volume 89, “The World Ahead,” features essays on wide-ranging elements of change in the 21st century.

Richard Jackson, Global Aging Preparedness: Balancing Adequacy and Sustainability, October 11, 2013

World Movement for Democracy, “Defending Civil Society - A Report of the World Movement for Democracy, February 2008

Shamina Ahmed and David M. Potter, NGOs in International Politics, (Bloomfield Conn.:Kumarian Press, 2006.)

(4) Sept.24 – Statecraft, Soft Power and The Evolving Roles of the Department of State

Topics: The QDDR and State’s search for primacy in national security policy and greater budgetary support; the balance and interaction of traditional diplomacy with operational responsibilities in development and public diplomacy; relations with domestic constituencies.

Key Questions:

  • With longstanding budgetary and staff shortfalls, how can State play a leading role in the conduct of U.S. foreign policy? Are there cultural as well as institutional shortcomings? How can State balance its reporting and policy making with its operational responsibilities.
  • How well has State integrated development and public diplomacy functions? How closely should these functions relate and respond to day-to-day State needs? Are development assistance and elements of PD inherently long-term functions that require greater independence from current policy requirements?
  • What are the hallmarks of ‘21st century’ diplomacy? To what extent are State and USAID using new digital communication tools?
  • How should decision makers – whether in governments or non-state actors – consider public opinion and the evolving role of publics, and how can “public dimension analysis” inform and advise decision makers on policy choices?

Panel: TBA