Stanford University

Foreign Policy

King David

Paragraphs

In this blog post for Foreign Policy, Zegart discusses how the military's organizational and operational culture clashes with that of intelligence agencies. When military leaders are tasked with running an intelligence agency, three distinct concerns arise. The first is that a military leader will focus on short-term tactical operations over long-term strategic assessments. Military leaders are also accustomed to a hierarchical structure where orders from leaders are rarely questioned-- this clashes directly with the CIA's analytical culture. The final concern is that intelligence agencies are primarily concerned with guarding information and preventing security breaches, which is not part of military culture.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Commentary
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
Foreign Policy
Authors
Amy Zegart
External URL

War and Democratic Constraint: Parties, the Press, and Public Influence on Decisions of War and Peace

-

About the Topic: Media outlets in multi-party electoral systems tend to report on a wider range of policy issues and present more competing policy frames than media in two-party systems. This suggests we should observe more challenges to governments’ preferred framing of foreign policy in multi-party democracies. Citizens in multi-party democracies are better equipped to hold their leaders accountable, relative to their counterparts in two-party democracies. This, in turn, ought to result in greater caution when leaders consider the prospect of employing military force abroad. By analyzing the news coverage of interventions in Iraq and Libya, as well as public support for war and joining multinational coalitions that fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, Baum proposes a mechanism through which leaders can be constrained in decisions concerning war and peace. 

 

About the Speaker: Matthew Baum is the Marvin Kalb Professor of Global Communication and professor of public policy at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. His research focuses on delineating the effects of mass media and public opinion on international conflict and cooperation and on American foreign policy, as well as on the role of the mass media and public opinion in contemporary American politics. He has published in over a dozen leading scholarly journals, including American Political Science Review, American Journal of Political Science, Journal of Politics, and International Organization. He is also author of Soft News Goes to War: Public Opinion and American Foreign Policy in the New Media Age and co-authored, War Stories: The Causes and Consequences of Public Views of War. Baum received his PhD in political science at the University of California, San Diego in 2000.

CISAC Conference Room

Matthew Baum Marvin Kalb Professor of Global Communication; Professor of Public Policy, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard Speaker
Seminars

Reaction Time

Paragraphs

In this post for Foreign Policy, Martha Crenshaw outlines the difficulties that U.S. presidents have had in forming and maintaining a counterterrorism strategy. From Jimmy Carter to Ronald Reagan to Barack Obama, all have had their foreign policy reputations tarnished by terrorism. The challenge is in forming a consistent, logical counterterrorism policy.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Commentary
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
Foreign Policy
Authors
Martha Crenshaw
External URL

Co-director Cuéllar named to endowed professorship at Stanford Law

News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

CISAC Co-director Siegfried Hecker has called on colleagues and friends to congratulate his co-director, Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar on being named to an endowed professorship at Stanford Law School. Cuéllar is now the Stanley Morrison Professor of Law, named for the late Stanford constitutional law professor. Hecker issued the following statement:

"A member of the Stanford faculty since 2001, Tino became my co-director at CISAC in September 2011. He is also a faculty affiliate of CDDRL and a senior fellow at FSI. The endowed professorship is a tribute to his extensive work in both the law and international security and cooperation. Tino has done much to take CISAC forward as a center that focuses not only on nuclear nonproliferation, arms control and counterterrorism, but one that also tackles cyber and biosecurity, as well as migration and transnational flows.

"His teaching and research focus on administrative law, executive power and how organizations implement critical regulatory, public safety, migration and international security responsibilities in a changing world.

"Tino has a new book coming out next month: “Governing Security: The Hidden Origins of American Security Agencies” (Stanford University Press). The book explores the history and impact of the Roosevelt-era Federal Security Agency (today the Department of Health and Human Services) and the Department of Homeland Security established after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

"Tino has served in the Obama and Clinton administrations, most recently as Special Assistant to the President for Justice and Regulatory Policy in 2009-2010. In July 2010, President Obama appointed Tino to the Council of the Administrative Conference of the United States, an independent agency charged with recommending improvements to federal regulatory programs.

"The Stanley Morrison professorship was established in 1996 by Joan and Henry Wheeler to honor Morrison, who was a beloved professor at Stanford Law School for three decades, specializing in criminal, constitutional, tax and international law."

All News button
1

Ballots and Beijing: November 6 from China's perspective

Authors
News Type
Q&As
Date
Paragraphs

As the U.S. presidential election swiftly approaches, many wonder what policy approach the next president - be it Barack Obama or Mitt Romney - will take with regard to China. Thomas Fingar, FSI’s Oksenberg-Rohlen Distinguished Fellow, considers how the outcome of the election could impact U.S.-China relations, and how the United States could focus its priorities in Asia.

Q. How does China see a Mitt Romney presidency?

Fingar: Conventional wisdom about China has long held that Beijing prefers Republicans to Democrats, primarily because Republicans are thought to be more interested in trade and less concerned about human rights. I'm not sure that particular characterization of Beijing's views was ever correct, but to the extent that it was, it is of decreasing importance and almost entirely absent now. The Chinese have been anxious about Governor Romney’s positions on China during the campaign, seeing his statements as excessive or unjustifiably critical and indicative of a determination to contain or constrain China's economic rise.

Beijing has expressed concern that Romney intends to act in ways that threaten China's continued rapid economic growth and undermine the communist-led regime. Such concerns were likely alleviated during the final debate when Romney said he views China as a potential partner, not an adversary. However, the Chinese will likely assume that Romney's call for more defense spending is aimed at containing China, since the United States’ only other declared security threat is Iran.

 

Q. Romney says he would label China a currency manipulator on “day one” of his presidency. Do presidents have the power to do such a thing? Could this trigger a trade war?

Fingar: Presidents can certainly announce rhetorical positions, but it is highly unlikely that such a declaration would lead to actions that could trigger a trade war. It could launch a political and bureaucratic process in which advocates with competing objectives and strategies would seek to fashion policy adjustments in order to achieve them. It would not, however, lead automatically to actions that would damage a relationship in which Americans, as well as the Chinese, have an enormously important stake.

 

Q. What positive or problematic developments could impact U.S.-China relations if Obama wins a second term?

Fingar: I anticipate many issues and problems, but no crises. The foundation for the relationship – interdependence and mutual benefit – is strong and growing stronger. That said, what happens in China will be important to the United States and command presidential attention. If China's economy continues to slow, it will slow recovery of the U.S. economy, both directly and by reducing Chinese purchases and sales to and from third countries that use earnings from sales to China to purchase goods and services from the United States. Continued deferral of resolving territorial disputes in the Sea of Japan and South China Sea will exacerbate perceptions that the United States should serve as a counterbalance to China, complicating U.S.-China relations. Another issue sure to be on the table is Chinese failure to honor World Trade Organization and intellectual property rights commitments.

 

Q. Obama’s rhetoric on China has become increasingly aggressive. Do you anticipate a tougher stand toward China if he is re-elected?

Fingar: Nothing that President Obama has said during the campaign suggests to me that he would make significant changes to U.S. policy toward China if he were re-elected. It would be a mistake to read too much into the number of times China is mentioned relative to other countries, as “China” is often used as a proxy for all foreign economic competition and the effects of globalization. Beijing should not take this personally; this is part of the price of becoming the world’s second-largest economy and having the biggest trade deficit with the United States. Far more important than such rhetoric are Obama’s and Romney’s references to seeking a partnership with China and the need for China to “play by the rules” with respect to WTO commitments, intellectual property rights and the treatment of foreign firms operating in China. I am confident Obama has no desire to make China into an enemy and no intention to contain or constrain China’s “rise.”

 

Q. Some doubt the Pentagon has the resources to deter Iran while pivoting to Asia. Which is more urgent for the new administration?

Fingar: The United States continues to have enormous military capabilities. Moreover, it counts as allies and partners most other major nations and military powers. Iran knows that, but threats to use military force are not likely to persuade Tehran to abandon the potential to acquire nuclear weapons. Indeed, such threats would likely bolster the arguments of people who claim Iran needs nuclear weapons to deter stronger and hostile adversaries.  Diplomacy, backed by international sanctions, and enlightened Iranian self-interest offer a far better path to deterring Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

 

Q. Do you expect the so-called Asia pivot to continue under the foreign policy team of the incoming president?

Fingar: East Asia is the most dynamic region in the world and the United States has many important interests and ties there. We are a Pacific power and a Pacific player and must remain heavily engaged in the region. The “pivot” toward Asia is a misnomer because it implies that we left and are now returning. We never left and never will. The “rebalancing” toward Asia is intended to reduce uncertainty about American intentions and to help prolong the period of peace and stability that has been critical to the achievement of prosperity and interdependence in the region. I hope the new administration, whoever wins, will redouble efforts to build a new, inclusive security arrangement for the region.

Hero Image
Obama Romney debate2012 logo
U.S. President Obama and Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney take the stage prior to the first presidential debate in Denver, October 2012.
Reuters
All News button
1

Reception and Dinner: 2012 Presidential Debate on Foreign Policy

-

 

Please note: at 4:00 p.m. on October 22, the speakers will deliver CISAC's Annual Drell Lecture, entitled
"Thirteen Days -- and Fifty Years Later: What Have We Learned from the Cuban Missile Crisis?"

You are welcome to attend this public lecture in the Oak Lounge
on the second floor of Tresidder Memorial Union.
No RSVP is required for the public lecture.

 

 

Download pdf
Download pdf

Paul Brest Hall
Munger Graduate Residences
555 Salvatierra Walk
Stanford, CA 94305

Conferences

Five foreign policy questions for Obama and Romney

News Type
Q&As
Date
Paragraphs

President Obama and Mitt Romney meet for their third debate to discuss foreign policy on Monday, when moderator Bob Schieffer is sure to ask them about last month's terrorist attack in Libya and the nuclear capabilities of Iran.

In anticipation of the final match between the presidential candidates, researchers from five centers at Stanford’s Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies ask the additional questions they want answered and explain what voters should keep in mind.

What can we learn from the Arab Spring about how to balance our values and our interests when people in authoritarian regimes rise up to demand freedom?  

What to listen for: First, the candidates should address whether they believe the U.S. has a moral obligation to support other peoples’ aspirations for freedom and democracy. Second, they need to say how we should respond when longtime allies like Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak confront movements for democratic change.

And that leads to more specific questions pertaining to Arab states that the candidates need to answer: What price have we paid in terms of our moral standing in the region by tacitly accepting the savage repression by the monarchy in Bahrain of that country's movement for democracy and human rights?  How much would they risk in terms of our strategic relationship with Bahrain and Saudi Arabia by denouncing and seeking to restrain this repression? What human rights and humanitarian obligations do we have in the Syrian crisis?  And do we have a national interest in taking more concrete steps to assist the Syrian resistance?  On the other hand, how can we assist the resistance in a way that does not empower Islamist extremists or draw us into another regional war?  

Look for how the candidates will wrestle with difficult trade-offs, and whether either will rise above the partisan debate to recognize the enduring bipartisan commitment in the Congress to supporting democratic development abroad.  And watch for some sign of where they stand on the spectrum between “idealism” and “realism” in American foreign policy.  Will they see that pressing Arab states to move in the direction of democracy, and supporting other efforts around the world to build and sustain democracy, is positioning the United States on “the right side of history”?

~Larry Diamond, director of the Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law

What do you consider to be the greatest threats our country faces, and how would you address them in an environment of profound partisan divisions and tightly constrained budgets? 

What to listen for: History teaches that some of the most effective presidential administrations understand America's external challenges but also recognize the interdependence between America's place in the world and its domestic situation.

Accordingly, Americans should expect their president to be deeply knowledgeable about the United States and its larger global context, but also possessed of the vision and determination to build the country's domestic strength.

The president should understand the threats posed by nuclear proliferation and terrorist organizations. The president should be ready to lead in managing the complex risks Americans face from potential pandemics, global warming, possible cyber attacks on a vulnerable infrastructure, and failing states.

Just as important, the president needs to be capable of leading an often-polarized legislative process and effectively addressing fiscal challenges such as the looming sequestration of budgets for the Department of Defense and other key agencies. The president needs to recognize that America's place in the world is at risk when the vast bulk of middle class students are performing at levels comparable to students in Estonia, Latvia and Bulgaria, and needs to be capable of engaging American citizens fully in addressing these shared domestic and international challenges.

~Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar, co-director of the Center for International Security and Cooperation

Should our government help American farmers cope with climate impacts on food production, and should this assistance be extended to other countries – particularly poor countries – whose food production is also threatened by climate variability and climate change?

What to listen for: Most representatives in Congress would like to eliminate government handouts, and many would also like to turn away from any discussion of climate change. Yet this year, U.S. taxpayers are set to pay up to $20 billion to farmers for crop insurance after extreme drought and heat conditions damaged yields in the Midwest.

With the 2012 farm bill stalled in Congress, the candidates need to be clear about whether they support government subsidized crop insurance for American farmers. They should also articulate their views on climate threats to food production in the U.S. and abroad.

Without a substantial crop insurance program, American farmers will face serious risks of income losses and loan defaults. And without foreign assistance for climate adaptation, the number of people going hungry could well exceed 15 percent of the world's population. 

~Rosamond L. Naylor, director of the Center on Food Security and the Environment

What is your vision for the United States’ future relationship with Europe? 

What to listen for: Between the end of World War II and the end of the Cold War, it was the United States and Europe that ensured world peace. But in recent years, it seems that “Europe” and “European” have become pejoratives in American political discourse. There’s been an uneasiness over whether we’re still friends and whether we still need each other. But of course we do.

Europe and the European Union share with the United States of America the most fundamental values, such as individual freedom, freedom of speech, freedom to live and work where you choose. There’s a shared respect of basic human rights. There are big differences with the Chinese, and big differences with the Russians. When you look around, it’s really the U.S. and Europe together with robust democracies such as Canada and Australia that have the strongest sense of shared values.

So the candidates should talk about what they would do as president to make sure those values are preserved and protected and how they would make the cooperation between the U.S. and Europe more effective and substantive as the world is confronting so many challenges like international terrorism, cyber security threats, human rights abuses, underdevelopment and bad governance.

~Amir Eshel, director of The Europe Center

Historical and territorial issues are bedeviling relations in East Asia, particularly among Japan, China, South Korea, and Southeast Asian countries. What should the United States do to try to reduce tensions and resolve these issues?

What to listen for: Far from easing as time passes, unresolved historical, territorial, and maritime issues in East Asia have worsened over the past few years. There have been naval clashes, major demonstrations, assaults on individuals, economic boycotts, and harsh diplomatic exchanges. If the present trend continues, military clashes – possibly involving American allies – are possible.

All of the issues are rooted in history. Many stem from Imperial Japan’s aggression a century ago, and some derive from China’s more assertive behavior toward its neighbors as it continues its dramatic economic and military growth. But almost all of problems are related in some way or another to decisions that the United States took—or did not take—in its leadership of the postwar settlement with Japan.

The United States’ response to the worsening situation so far has been to declare a strategic “rebalancing” toward East Asia, aimed largely at maintaining its military presence in the region during a time of increasing fiscal constraint at home. Meanwhile, the historic roots of the controversies go unaddressed.

The United States should no longer assume that the regional tensions will ease by themselves and rely on its military presence to manage the situation. It should conduct a major policy review, aimed at using its influence creatively and to the maximum to resolve the historical issues that threaten peace in the present day.

~David Straub, associate director of the Korea Studies Program at the Walter H. Shorentein Asia-Pacific Research Center

 

Compiled by Adam Gorlick.

Hero Image
debatepic
President Obama and Mitt Romney speak during the second presidential debate on Oct. 16, 2012. Their third and final debate will focus on foreign policy.
Reuters
All News button
1

Failing History

Paragraphs

CISAC Faculty Member Amy Zegart outlines how the CIA's mindset has not changed since the Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962. Fifty years since the crisis, the CIA and other intelligence agencies still operate in an organizational and psychological mindset that favors consensus and consistency. Zegart argues that these "invisible pressures" led to intelligence failures in Cuba in 1962 and Iraq in 2002, where dissenting opinions or internal disagreements were downplayed. The CIA and other intelligence agencies will continue making these mistakes until they recognize their flawed organizational mindset. 

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Commentary
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
Foreign Policy
Authors
Amy Zegart
External URL

Illicit Transnational Actors and Security: Myths, Misconceptions, and Historical Lessons

-
About the Topic: Conventional accounts of the proliferation of illicit transnational actors--ranging from migrant smugglers to drug traffickers to black market arms dealers--describe them as increasingly agile, sophisticated, and technologically savvy. Governments, in sharp contrast, are often depicted as increasingly besieged, outsmarted, poorly equipped, and clumsy in dealing with them. While there is much truth in these common claims, Andreas argues that they are overly alarmist and misleading and suffer from historical amnesia. Drawing especially from the U.S. historical and contemporary experience, he offers a corrective that challenges common myths and misconceptions about the illicit side of globalization. 
 
About the Speaker: Peter Andreas is a professor of political science and international studies in the Department of Political Science and the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University. Andreas has published nine books, including Blue Helmets and Black Markets: The Business of Survival in the Siege of Sarajevo (Cornell University Press, 2008) and Border Games: Policing the U.S.-Mexico Divide (Cornell University Press, 2nd edition 2009). Other writings include articles for publications such as International Security, International Studies Quarterly, Political Science Quarterly, Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, The New Republic, and The Nation. His latest book is on the politics of smuggling in American history, titled, Smuggler Nation: How Illicit Trade Made America (Oxford University Press, 2013).
 

CISAC Conference Room

Peter Andreas Professor of Political Science and International Studies, Brown University Speaker
Seminars

Escalatory Models, Norms, Assurance, and Deterrence

-

The advent of ubiquitous networking and computation and deepening globalization since the 1990s has eroded traditional international security architectures by multiplying conflict surfaces and empowering new actors. This talk describes research in the context of track 1.5 dialogues with Russia and China that aims to develop shared frameworks for understanding escalatory models of cyber conflict, sources of instability, and feasible approaches for risk mitigation. It will argue that cyber has made deterrence much more complex, and now, increased information assurance and new legal or normative constraints on state behavior are likely necessary for effective cross-sectoral deterrence. Finally, it suggests three tasks for cyber norms or confidence and security building measures to attenuate instability.

John Mallery is a research scientist at the Computer Science & Artificial Intelligence Laboratory at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). He is concerned with cyber policy and has been developing advanced architectural concepts for cyber security and transformational computing for the past decade. Since 2006, he organized a series of national workshops on technical and policy aspects of cyber.

CISAC Conference Room

John C. Mallery Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory Speaker Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Seminars
Subscribe to Foreign Policy