Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
55031760
label
Foreign Affairs - Global Leadership: [Foreign Assistance and Engagement]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
55031760
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Foreign Affairs - Global Leadership: [Foreign Assistance and Engagement]
citationUrl
collections
Records of the First Lady's Office (Clinton Administration)
Melanne Verveer's Subject Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
55031760
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
2068127-20130534S-095-010-2022
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
4d995652571837c9
ocrText
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
Clinton Library
DOCUMENT NO.
SUBJECT/TITLE
DATE
RESTRICTION
AND TYPE
001. list
re: US Engagement in World Affairs possible meeting [partial] (1
n.d.
b(6)
page)
002. paper
Prospectus re: Starting a Policial Committee (6 pages)
01/1997
Personal Misfile
003. list
re: potential candidates for the Presidential Medal of Freedom (3
ca. 1998
b(6)
pages)
COLLECTION:
Clinton Presidential Records
First Lady's Office
Melanne Verveer
OA/Box Number: 20032
FOLDER TITLE:
Foreign Affairs - Global Leadership: [Foreign Assistance and Engagement]
2013-0534-S
rc1532
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
b(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
b(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of
P3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
b(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
b(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
b(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed
b(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
of gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
PRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
b(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
2201(3).
concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA]
RR. Document will be reviewed upon request.
Construction
Livin 361 :
FRESS VATION
BRACY WILLIAMS & CO
Fax 202-783-5595
Mar 31 '98 10:53
P. .02
Bracy Williams & Company
March 30, 1998
DRAFT
TO: Jill Buckley
SENT VIA FAX: 216-3237
Alicia Bambara
FR:
Terrence Bracy TCB
Barry Blechman
RE:
Building domestic support for foreign assistance
In the post-Cold War political environment, the public at large is severely disconnected
from both the facts about and rationale behind foreign assistance. This fundamental lack
of comprehension and ownership has led to repercussions up and down the political
decision-making chain, endangering the level of federal support of foreign assistance.
The Business Alliance for International Economic Development believes that a
coordinated information campaign focusing on the aid/trade dynamic is critical to the
long-term future of USAID.
To address this disconnect, we believe two key constituencies should be targeted on a
grass-roots basis:
The business community through an education campaign focusing on the aid/trade
connection.
The youth of America through development and distribution of curricula and related
materials to inspire a new generation of outward-thinking entrepreneurial leaders.
A three part strategy will have a lasting effect on the future of the foreign assistance
debate in the United States - without extensive use of staff resources or tax dollars:
1. Identify appropriate domestic organizations impacted by foreign assistance, and
utilize their membership rolls and communications infrastructures as vehicles for
information about foreign assistance.
2. Reshape existing content about foreign assistance into formats that are relevant, easily
accessible to the target audiences, and effective uses of new communications
technology.
3. Utilize public figures, like the First Lady, to promote these partnerships through
creative use of various media outlets.
Business Community:
The Business Alliance believes continued dissemination of the core aid/trade message is
critical to engaging the business community. The question is how to augment the
be
Government and Public Affairs Consultants
601 Thirteenth Street, N.W. Suite 900 South Washington, DC 20005 (202) 783-5588 FAX (202) 783-5595
BRACY WILLIAMS & CO
Fax 202-783-5595
Mar
31
'98
10:53
P.03
tremendous financial and staff commitment USAID and other organizations already make
to further get the message out. Four action items are needed to engage the business
community:
1. Further understand the public's misconceptions about foreign assistance through
polling analysis and focus groups.
2. Package existing USAID information and materials in formats that the business
community and industry trades will respond to, including white papers, web content
and videotapes.
3. Identify appropriate partner organizations that will serve as conduits for information
and facilitate the aid/trade discussion through existing organizational structures,
including the US Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers and
the Jaycees.
4. Creatively utilize the First Lady and other political leaders to draw attention and
media coverage to the discussions taking place within these organizations.
How would this play out in reality? Research shows many in the business community are
uninformed about the aid/trade relationship. Working with international organizations
like the Chamber of Commerce and the Jaycees, the Business Alliance could foster a
pilot project featuring ten local Chambers matched with ten USAID programs. The
Chambers could study "their" program, begin email correspondence with USAID
officials on-site, research the local impact of the project, then participate in a special
panel during the Chambers' national conference exploring the findings of the pilot sites.
With added participation of political leaders like Brian Atwood, a program like this
would gain limited mainstream media coverage but significant internal coverage through
the Chambers' internal communications vehicles. After a successful pilot, a second
round of partnerships could begin in year two.
Other leaders, like the First Lady, can raise these partnerships' profiles through speeches
to organizations like the Business Roundtable or visits to local branches involved in
exchange programs.
Reaching Out to Youth
The future of foreign assistance will be decided by the youth of America. It is critical
that students have access to relevant information about the importance of these programs.
To reach students, and the adults they come in daily contact with, it is important to
identify effective distribution paths. As with the business community, partner student
organizations will be the most effective way to connect with these students.
Engaging students is by nature different than engaging the business community. Rather
than focusing purely on dollar and cents issues, fostering several different partnership
tracks can ensure that a wide range of students can become energized by the concept and
goals of foreign assistance. At the same time, it is difficult to navigate educational
other Biz ideas
State Biz offices
Chambers of Commerce
kiwan's >already
Rotary
have Int'l.
Membership orgs
progs.
BRACY WILLIAMS & CO
Fax 202-783-5595
Mar
31
'98
10:54
P.04
bureaucracies to reach these students - particularly when high-profile political leaders are
involved.
The solution is targeting two key constituencies:
1. National organizations that tend to attract motivated student-leaders.
2. Media outlets with national educational reach.
AFS.
USAID should target both what can be considered foreign assistance's natural
constituency - the "Peace Corps" demographic - through organizations like Model
United Nations Clubs. Equally important, however, is to reach the new generations of
young entrepreneurs through organizations like Junior Achievement, Future Business
Leaders of America, 4H Clubs, Future Farmers of America, and many, many others.
These organizations can help motivated, entrepreneurial students understand the foreign
assistance argument.
Existing material from USAID programs can be re-shaped into on-line curricula, and the
Internet can be used for communication between communities. For example, a Junior
Achievement club in Iowa could market products manufactured by student-colleagues in
Africa, creating a tangible, valuable education on the free market system and cultural
exchange.
Getting the message out to students is both the greatest challenge of this program and our
greatest opportunity. Beyond relying on the communications and membership structure
of national organizations, USAID should target partnerships with Channel One or Cable
in the Classroom to promote and facilitate this debate. Channel One, for example,
reaches over 40% of the nation's high school students and would be thrilled to feature a
major administration initiative - especially if that meant access to on-camera interview
with the First Lady. We have a good relationship with Channel One, and could open a
dialogue when it is appropriate. Other student-centered media outlets, including
magazines and television programs, would be appropriate targets for an information
campaign driven by political leaders.
We look forward to discussing these ideas with you further. Please contact us if you have
any questions or would like to further these concepts. In addition, we asked Michael
Bracy to contact Alicia Bambara to follow up. Michael joined Bracy Williams &
Company this February after six and a half years with RXL Pulitzer, an educational
communications firm in Seattle, and is an expert in creative use of the Internet, video,
television and other communications technologies.
3
08/11/98 TUE 10:48 FAX 202 456 6244
OFC OF THE FIRST LADY
₫003
08/10/98 14:26 CARNEGIE CORPORATION -: 202 456 6244
NO.782 P002/006
Carnegie Corporation of New York
437 Madison Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10022 . (212) 371-3200 Fax: (212) 207-6342
David A. Hamburg, M.D.
President Emeritus
August 10, 1998
Melanne Verveer
Chief of Staff to the First Lady
Office of the First Lady
The White House
Washington, DC 20500
Fax: 202-456-6244
Dear Melanne:
It was a wonderful visit on Friday! I always find these discussions so stimulating
and encouraging - addressing great themes of our public life and the future of our
democracy.
With this note, I am sending a draft letter of invitation to the international affairs
meeting and also an updated invitation list in light of our discussion.
I will shortly send some substantive ramarks that might contribute to the speech
at the Foreign Policy Association and/or Hillary's opening remarks at our meeting on U.S
engagement.
In any event, all of this is clearly tentative. She will of course make good final
decisions. My aim is warm up her circuits and to ease her tasks.
Once again, my deep appreciation for all the vital work you are doing.
With every good wish,
As always
Iant
P.S. What do you think about the Harvard human rights event?
COPY
INSURATION
Withdrawal/Redaction Marker
Clinton Library
DOCUMENT NO.
SUBJECT/TITLE
DATE
RESTRICTION
AND TYPE
001. list
re: US Engagement in World Affairs possible meeting [partial] (1
n.d.
b(6)
page)
COLLECTION:
Clinton Presidential Records
First Lady's Office
Melanne Verveer
OA/Box Number: 20032
FOLDER TITLE:
Foreign Affairs - Global Leadership: [Foreign Assistance and Engagement]
2013-0534-S
rc1532
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
b(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
b(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of
P3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
b(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
b(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
b(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed
b(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
of gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
PRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
b(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
2201(3).
concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA]
RR. Document will be reviewed upon request.
Done Humburg
B. Business
(b)(6)
COOT]
1Pm
(b)(6)
US ENGAGEMENT IN WORLD AFFAIRS
Possibilities for an Exploratory Meeting
Graham Allison - Harnord, Kennedy oseds Democ Dear duct in Receive
Carol Bellamy
main Ranian reformers
taken Bryant
Warren Christopher
waver
John Gardner
Jane Father Holl Hesburgh - exce dis Carnegue Caron NSC
Communi- cations
B
James Johnson
B
Helene Kaplan - Schultz S. ap comm. - NYC carryer
Nancy Kassebaum
Steven Kull - umd survey researcher
Palling Expect
Joshua Lederberg - Rochepolle u.
B
Sol Linowitz
B
Vincent Mai AE A investore his si one , grew few up white in So minds af 3
ANC.
Joseph Nye
B
CEO- Proctor + Goudde - sensitive to
John Pepper
in day. people
William Perry
David Humburg
Rubin ?
Condi Rice
Sandy B.
Strobe or Pickering
Eliot Richardson
Attwood.
B
Carol Bellamy
David Rockefeller
Colin Campbell
Pat Schroeder
Joan Spero - Dons Duhe Frund's
m.c.
Gus Speth <UNDP> ???
Lee 1 termilton
Bryon Heber
Marta Tienda
Cyrus Vance
Elie Wiesel
B
John Whitehead
James Wolfensohn
B
John Young
Hiti - Tech - - bio tech
B
Alex Zaffaroni
princer researcher
women
Joan Spero
communications
Ellen levine
m Kalb?
Heleve Kaptn - coup. bonds
Crmbite?
Business
- Felix?
Byran Hehir
- Pepper- Procter Gamble
Peter Hat
- John Brynt - Seralee
- Jun Johnson - Fami mae
- John whitehead
- John young- former CEO
Hen litt- -
Pochard
Carnegie Corporation of New York
437 Madison Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10022 (212) 371-3200 . Fax: (212) 207-6342
David A. Hamburg, M.D.
President Emeritus
July 28, 1998
Melanne Verveer
Chief of Staff to the First Lady
Office of the First Lady
The White House
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Melanne:
You have been very kind and considerate lately. So what else is new? In any
event, I am very grateful.
I was delighted to get word that we will have a session on US foreign policy
engagement and the public sometime in September. I stand ready for that session --
and earlier if you want my help in planning it.
Thanks so much for sending the First Lady's speech in Shanghai. It is excellent.
Indeed, I thought the whole trip went exceedingly well. Altogether, it changed the odds
in favor of a mainly constructive, cooperative, progressive relationship between our
country and China. I certainly hope so.
The President and First Lady held up their end of the bargain superbly well. The
response in China and at home reinforces the inclination I expressed to you last month
that it would be beneficial to make a similar visit to India and Pakistan toward the end of
this year. It would be possible both to deepen our understanding of their predicament
and to open their minds to our views about paths to a better future. I believe, the crucial
nuclear problem should be put in the larger context of the socioeconomic development
of the two countries and their integration into emerging international systems.
Congratulations on your role in the China trip. What a fascinating experience!
I look forward with pleasure to seeing you soon.
With very best regards,
As always,
Iani
State- who
Strinberg
Recommended Participants List
Blenken
Graham T. Allison
Douglas Dillon Professor of Government
Center for Science and International Affairs
Harvard University
yes
John F. Kennedy School of Government
79 John F. Kennedy Street
Attwood? ?
Cambridge, MA 02138
Terry Bracey
Bellamy yes
601 13th Street, NW
Suite 900 South
Washington, D.C. 20005
yes
Buckley no
John Bryant
Chairman & CEO
Sara Lee Corporation
No
Three First National Plaza
Chicago, IL 60602
Colin Cambell
President
Susa section
Rockefeller Brothers Fund
\
437 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10022
David Hamburg
437 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10022
yes
Congressman Lee Hamilton
Rayburn Office Building
Room 2314
yes
Washington, D.C. 20515-1409
Peter Hart
Peter Hart and Associates
1724 Connecticut Avenue, NW
?
Washington, D.C. 20009
Reverend Brian Hehir
Harvard University Divinity School
no
45 Francis Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02138
James Johnson
?
3900 Wisconsin Avenue, NW
liarg Kennedy?
Washington, D.C. 20016
Henry Keneiger yes
Professor Steven Kull
7409 Fairfax Road
yes
Bethesda, MD 20814
Ellen Levine
Editor-in-Chief
Good Housekeeping
224 West 57th Street
New York, NY 10019
yer -(Ime Lochard, mcCanny]
Newton Minnow
Counsel
no
Sidley & Austin
One First National Plaza
Suite 4800 Chicago, IL 60603
Karen Mulhauser
Mulhauser and Associates
1730 Rhode Island Avenue, NW yes
Suite 712
Washington, D.C. 20036
John Pepper
Proctor and Gamble
3
7
1 Proctor and Gamble Plaza
"I
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Joan Spero
President
Doris Duke Charitable Foundation
no
650 Fifth Avenue, 19th Floor
Apen yes?
New York, NY 10019
John Whitehead
16 Sutton Square
New York, NY 10022
yes
John Young
Former President & CEO
Hewlett-Packard Company
no
1501 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94305
Possible Administration Appointments
Brian Atwood, USAID
Jill Buckley, USAID (has been developing a coherent response on this issue)
Sandy Berger
Thomas Pickering or Strobe Talbott
Carol Bellamy
UNICEF
3 United Nations Plaza
13th Floor
yes
New York, NY 10017
James Gustave Speth
Administrator
United Nations Development Program
yes
One United Nations Plaza
New York, NY 10017
Antony J. Blinken
09/10/98 06:45:34 PM
Record Type:
Record
To:
Katharine Button/WHO/EOP, Laura E. Schiller/WHO/EOP
CC:
Subject: First Lady's Speeches on International Engagement
FYI, in a meeting we held yesterday with NGOs to discuss how to secure public and congressional
support for our international affairs budget, a few points came up that may be relevant to your
upcoming speeches:
1. As a selling point, concrete success stories that show how our $/assistance/advice/engagement
are making a difference have real traction. Since the first Lady has probably seen more of these
than any American in the course of her travels, she's in a good position to describe the real word
effect of US engagement.
2. always worth reminding people that international affairs spending represents just 1% of our
budget and that it has declined 50% in real terms over past decade. (Most people think its
15-20% of budget).
3. Also worth reminding people that, among major industrialized nations, US ranks dead last as
provider of foreign assistance (as a percentage of GNP).
FEB-26-98 11:37 FROM: IDC & SID & WFPG
ID 202 884 8499
PAGE
2/2
ST. PAUL PIONEER PRESS
OPINION
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Fax TO: LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
345 Codar St.
Fax Number: 612-228-5564
St. Paul. Minn. 55101
Internet: [email protected]
We welcome your letters, Make them exclusive to us. Please provide a full signature. city of
residence and (for verification) your address and daytime phone. Preference goes to
letters under 225 words. All letters are subject to editing. No more than one letter per
witter every 60 days. Direct questions to 228-5545.
Looking the Other Way
The attitude that the rest of the world is irrelevant to U.S. concerns
imperils democracy: Ignorance makes participation impossible.
POLICY
FORUM
espite increasing glob-
reflect the belief that most
to university, labor,
"Estrangement
D
alization,
many
Americans lack interest and under-
business, civic groups
or Engagement:
Americans apparently
standing of world affairs, The excep-
and the media.
Local Responses
do not see the impor-
tion to this is in times of impending
Town meetings
to Global Challen-
tance and connection
U.S. involvement or crisis, as in the
should be held on
ges," at the Univer-
that international
case of Iraq, when there is extensive
topics which get
sity of Minnesota
PATRICIA
events have for their
press coverage in preparation for
at the nexus of
Humphrey Institute,
ELLIS
daily lives.
possible military action
domestic and in-
runs from 7:30 a.m.
A case in point: In
News executives should show
ternational con-
to 3:30 p.m. today.
GUEST
1997, the Pew Re-
leadership and be willing to give
cerns, such as
General admission is
COLUMNIST
search Center for the
their audiences not only what they
drugs, global crime,
$80; call 625-8330
People and the Press
think they want, but also informa-
immigration, the
for more Information.
reported that most Americans
tion they need to participate in our
involvement of
On the agenda;
believe that events in Asia, Mexico,
democracy. International news cov-
U.S. troops abroad
7:30 a.m., BILL RICH-
Western Europe and Canada have
erage should not be relegated to
and the im-
ARDSON, U.S. ambas-
limited impact on them.
crisis coverage, but should be
sador to the U.N., speaks.
Ironically, there are more links
included on a regular basis with
today between domestic and inter-
follow-ups to stories that are no
9:30 a.m., panel on global-
Ization's Impact.
national issues than ever before.
longer major issues of the day.
12:30 p.m., ex-secretary of
They include trade and jobs,
Local news. organizations,
defense and energy JAMES
refugees, immigration, drugs, ter-
especially television, where
SCHLESINGER speaks.
rorism, U.S. troops overseas,
must people get their news,
have a special responsibility.
1:30 p.m., panel on engaging
American students abroad, global
warming, the Asian financial crisis
The news media can make
the public; Ploneer Press guest
writer PATRICIA ELLIS will
and U.S. policy toward Cuba
special efforts to connect
international stories with
participate,
Despite the long list of local and
national connections on internation-
local concerns and interests.
al issues, the public is not seeing
The issues and stories will
these links. Educators and the
vary from city to city or
region to region depending
ILLUSTRATION BY TIM BRINTON
media, the government, concerned
citizens and organizations commit-
on industries, ethnic make-
ted to global engagement share
up of the population, section
pact of the
tacts with reporters and editors, and
responsibility for making the
of the country and proximity
Asian financial cri-
writing articles and opinion columns.
American public recognize the
to U.S. borders.
sis Such meetings can attract
A concerted effort is needed to
extent and importance of global
The government needs to expand
different, diverse audiences with
prove to Americans how great an
interconnectedness.
its efforts to engage the public.
voices from domestic groups whose
effect foreign policy matters and
How can the situation be changed
Secretary of State Madeleine
work has an international dimension
international events have on their
and who can make a difference?
Albright has set an excellent exam-
and are not the usual participants
daily lives We live in an increasing-
The American educational system
ple. Her foreign policy speeches
in foreign policy meetings.
ly interdependent world. On the eve
is a place to begin. Increased
around the country, which explain
The concerned public - which
of the 21st century we cannot retreat
emphasis on history, diplomatic
the importance and relevance of for-
includes foreign affairs professionals,
from our commitment to global
relations, language studies and
eign policy issues to Americans, have
world affairs council members, and
engagement. We must make global
especially geography provide a
attracted public attention and media
representatives from universities,
engagement a concept Americans
foundation for global awareness and
coverage More senior officials from
nonprofits, business, labor and poli-
can relate to and support.
should begin at an early age.
different government agencies work-
tics - can play a key role by
The media have a major role to
ing on international issues should be
mounting pressure on the media to
Etis is executive director of the Women's
play. News organizations, fiercely
sent all over the country. The speak-
provide more and better internation-
Foreign Policy Group. She covered foreign
competing for viewers and readers
ers should meet with as broad a
al news coverage The process begins
affairs for "MacNoilLehrer Newshour and
for ratings and advertising, have cut
cross-section of local communities as
by taking concrete steps to identify
was a fellow at Harrard University's Center
back on foreign news coverage to
possible, from world affairs councils.
articulate spokespeople. making con-
no the Press. Politics and Public Policy.
WFPG,
884-8597
August 25, 1998
Mr. John M. Doe
Address Line 1
Address Line 2
City, State 20001-Zip
Dear John:
I would like to invite you to join me and a small group of national
leaders to explore ways in which we can strengthen public support for the
United States' engagement in international affairs in the post-Cold War
political environment. In my travels abroad, I have been deeply impressed by
the significance of our great nation throughout the world. Yet, I am
concerned by the apparent gap between the importance of our nation's work
abroad and public support for that work at home.
Around the globe, I have met many extraordinary Americans working
creatively on behalf of our government, and with other countries on issues of
development, security, education, science, humanitarian efforts and business.
In addition, great numbers of Americans visit and study in faraway places.
We cannot afford to be indifferent in an era of unprecedented economic
globalization and international cooperation. The dramatic technological
advances in communication and transportation are drawing us together more than
ever before.
I believe it is critical that we Americans exert effective leadership and
function as productive partners in enterprises throughout the world. That
means, among other things, that we must do our fair share in supporting
foreign assistance programs and international organizations. As citizens, we
must become better informed about the people and cultures of other countries.
We must mobilize our intellectual, technical, and moral resources to earn
respect, engage in commerce, and provide constructive leadership in a
transforming world.
Please join me at the White House on September 16th at 2:00pm to consider
how our nation can further engage the public on international issues in
thoughtful, far-sighted and constructive ways, and how we might better take
advantage of the opportunities now before us. I look forward to your
participation in this meeting. Please call Katy Button in my office at
202/456-6266 to respond.
Sincerely yours,
To date, we have spoken by phone or met with the following:
Bill White
President, CS Mott Foundation
Maureen Smith
VP Programs, CS Mott Foundation
Judy Samelson
VP Communications, CS Mott Foundation
Talked mostly about message, saliency and the importance of long-
term, strategic communications. Thought a paid ad campaign
would be the biggest (and most important) component.
Mark Gearan
Director, Peace Corps
Thought that the Peace Corps could be a great asset in this
initiative and that we could/should capitalize on its popularity.
Peter Fenn
Fenn & King
Media producer with international experience. Tie to the President
of the National Cable Television Association.
Jerry Klepner
Black, Kelly, Scruggs & Healy
Ties to Young & Rubicam and Burson Marsteller.
Jim Margolis
Greer, Margolis
Worked with State and White House on Africa pre- and post-trip
outreach ideas. Stressed need for long-term commitment.
Steven Kull
Director, Program on International Policy Attitudes, Center for
International Security Studies, University of Maryland
Author of The Foreign Policy Gap--How Policy Makers Misread
the Public and Americans and Foreign Aid--A Study of Public
Attitudes.
Susan Sechler
Aspen Institute
Author of Global Interdependence and the Need for Social
Stewardship report for the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.
Priscilla Lewis
Rockefeller Brothers Fund
Atten#
Special Assistant to the President
Director of Communications
Currently working on a second collaboration with Susan Sechler.
Terry Bracey
Bracey & Williams
Barry Blechman
Stinson Foundation
Terry and Barry followed up our meeting with a plan outlining how
they believe US business could be involved in this initiative.
Pat McGuinnes
President, Council on Excellence in Government
Suggested The Partnership for a Drug Free America as a good case
study and possible model. Also suggested the possibility of
partnering with the current Peace Corps ad campaign.
Bunny Lester
Children's Television Workshop
Assistant VP, Development, Marketing & Communications
Offered suggestions about creative fundraising and volunteered to
help lead a fundraising campaign.
Sally Patterson
Winner, Wagner, Frances
Thought thematic outreach to small target audiences would be the
best way to link our issues to the general public.
Joanne Eide
NEA International Affairs
Jill Christiansen
NEA International Affairs
Stressed that the link to education is essential. Thought that certain
messages could (and would) be well received and understood by
children as young as elementary school age.
Karen Mulhauser
Mulhauser Public Affairs
Suggested expanding the base of the Lessons Without Borders
program as the umbrella organization to run this initiative.
Marlene Johnson
CEO, NAFSA: Association of International Educators
Thought an education component should continue through college.
Polly Donaldson
Director of Public Outreach, Partners of the Americas
Discussed the pros and cons of reaching out to the general public
VS. the "elites."
Liz Schrayer
President, Schrayer & Associates
Campaign Coordinator, Campaign to Preserve U.S. Global Leadership
Represents a coalition of over 300 businesses, including many
Fortune 500 companies.
Theresa Loar
State/ President's Interagency Council on Women
As we expected, she had good ideas and contacts for us to follow
up in the future.
Peter Hart
Peter Hart Research Associates
Jim Moody
President, Interaction
Julia
Gus
Lee
Henry
John
Ellen
Jamie
Taft
Speth
Hamilton
Kissinger
Whitehead
Levine
Rubin
Marsha
Berry
Steven
Kull
Susan
Sechler
Prof.
Graham
Terry
Allison
Bracey
Tony
Jill
Blinken
Buckley
Melanne
Karen
Verveer
Mulhauser
Mike
David
Brian
HRC
Thomas
Carol
Joe
McCurry
Hamburg
Atwood
Pickering
Bellamy
Lockhart
MEETING ON ENGAGEMENT IN INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
The Diplomatic Reception Room
Wednesday, September 16, 1998
2:00 p.m.
TALKING POINTS
Thank you for coming -- I'm very grateful to each and every one of you for making time
on your busy schedules to be here today. We have among us in this room leaders who
truly understand the importance of America's world leadership, and the need to
strengthen public support for our continuing engagement in the post-Cold War world.
[Might mention your travels, how you have seen first-hand the payoffs of our
engagement, etc.]
At this time, there are so many critical issues before Congress - funding for the IMF, UN,
international family planning, the State Department and USAID, the terrorism
supplemental bill and adequate funding for development assistance. Africa economic
proposal??
It is a singularly important time to address this topic: the dramatic end of the Cold War
has brought with it drastic changes involving people in every country around the world,
especially relating to global commerce; the world has been further transformed by rapid
and extensive innovations in science and technology, especially telecommunications;
serious threats are posed every day by growing terrorism, civil wars of great devastation,
diseases without borders and environmental hazards.
Unfortunately, in the face of all these challenges, the U.S. is retreating in its support for
international engagement. Yet, the data I am familiar with shows a large majority of
Americans support U.S. involvement in international affairs. There is a misconception
among many policy makers that Americans do not see the connection between
international and their daily lives. [Steven Kull from the University of Maryland will
make a brief presentation later in the meeting on survey data he has gathered on public
opinion on a range of issues, from the UN to development assistance.]
We will need to develop creative approaches to educate the public, mobilize key
constituencies and persuade reluctant partners. This strategy will necessarily involve the
government, the media and the public, as well as business, education and community
groups active in civil society. We need to energize the silent majority in our country that
is too often shouted down by a highly-active and vocal minority.
[You might repeat here the remarks you made at Davos about the disengaged business
community:
"
It is imperative that those of you that understand the global economy, who visit and do
business in many countries, share your knowledge of what you of what you see occurring
around the world -- with members of Congress, with leaders of your community, with
anyone you can reach -- because we cannot build a consensus for American engagement
of the American business community is not a strong supporter of that engagement
(American businesses should be) saying, 'we know what faces the United States around
the world and we understand how important it is for America to lead and be engaged, and
we therefore raise our voices on behalf of American support for the United Nations, IMF
and other multilateral institutions."
AMERICAN OPINIONS
Wha Americans think GLOBA
Why we should care,
What vou can do.
Do Americans care about the
DEVELOPING WORLD?
Most politicians and news
Throughout this piece, we have
executives don't think so.
also included the views of
In recent years, Congress has
influential Americans - some
slashed development aid to
well-known, others less so - on
record lows. Many media outlets
why we should care about the
have dramatically reduced their
developing world. At the end,
ability to cover important world
you'll find ideas for how you can
news. They cite the conventional
(continue the conversation in your
wisdom: Americans are isolation-
own community.
ists whose compassion and inter-
I hope that you find it all as inter-
est stops at the border.
esting as I do, and that it sheds
new light on your own opinions.
Are they right? Or are we more
interested in the rest of the world
than they think? There are no
simple answers. Americans' views
are as varied and complex as the
world itself: they reflect our experi-
ences and values, get distorted by
Marvin T. Jones
Dr. Cherri D. Waters
Vice President,
misinformation and change focus
InterAction
with events and time.
To help us sort it all out, we asked
four pollsters known for their
"It takes all of us. We have to W
work on global issues to review
of the world's people to win this
recent survey data and exchange
humanity. That's why I support t
views on what the numbers
are trying to deal holistically W
mean. As you'll see, they don't
lems. We cannot save the Unite
always agree, but the discussion
without saving the whole world
itself is a model for the kind of
open and searching dialogue
these issues so urgently require.
This publication was produced by InterAction - an association of more than 150
US-based nonprofits involved in relief, development and refugee work in 160
countries - with support from The Pew Charitable Trusts and The Tides Center.
OUR PANEL OF POLLSTERS:
MODERATOR:
Nancy Belden
"At the turn of the century, we went
Partner,
Belden & Russonello
greed and God. During the Cold Wa
Research and
foreign policy. Today, a new "g-w
Communications
forces us to rethink our interests via
tries. It's not just trade and finance th
crime, environmental problems an
Kathy Frankovic
own interest to help the developing
Director,
The CBS News Poll
stable, healthy and prosperous hom
- Dr. Jessica Mathews, President
Ron Hinckley
Nancy: Much public opinion research
President,
has shown that Americans are pretty
Research/Strategy/
evenly divided on the question of for-
Management
eign assistance. They are concerned
about keeping adequate resources in
the US to deal with domestic prob-
lems, and yet they want to help peo-
Steven Kull
ple everywhere who are in need.
Director,
Faced with what seem like contradic-
Program on International
tory findings, many pollsters strug-
Policy Attitudes
gle with the question of how much
University of Maryland
Americans care about the develop-
ing world. What light can you shed
on this?
Steven: There really is no question
that the majority of Americans do
feel some concern about what hap-
over the vast majority
pens in developing countries, and
ght for the survival of
think that the US has a role to play in
United Nations. They
addressing the problem of poverty.
all the world's prob-
Surveys show that 80% or more
states in the long haul
think the US should give some aid to
countries in great need, and I have
found that only 8% want to eliminate
foreign aid. At the same time, it's true
Ted Turner, Vice Chairman, Time Warner Inc.
that Americans do not pay a great
deal of attention to what happens in
other countries, and that support for
Ron: The US has a long history of
overseas to serve glory,
geostrategy ruled our
Chad Evans Wyatt
avoiding international involvement.
The Constitution's emphasis on
d" - globalization
defense and George Washington's
à-vis developing coun-
admonishment to "avoid entan-
t are globalizing: so are
gling alliances" established an
other risks. It's in our
essentially threat-oriented, defen-
sive view of the rest of the world.
world become a more
This still holds true today. A recent
to 78% of humanity."
study by the Pew Research Center1
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
found that only one in four people
gives top priority to positive foreign
policy goals like promoting democ-
racy (22%), improving living stan-
needy countries is more a latent
dards (23%) and promoting human
value than an urgent concern. Also,
rights (27%). Defensive goals were
Americans greatly overestimate how
ranked much higher: protecting
much the US spends on foreign aid,
American jobs (77%), preventing
which might contribute to a feeling
nuclear proliferation (70%) and
that we should do less.
stopping drug traffic (67%). (See
"What the Public Thinks" at right.)
Kathy: In our news polling, we have
We're most likely to support aid that
consistently reported the American
we see as countering a threat.
public's lack of interest in foreign
affairs. After the Gulf War, many in
Steven: Ron and Kathy are right -
the media believed that the
American interest in foreign affairs
"Vietnam syndrome" had ended,
has always been low, and there are
and that Americans would begin a
some signs that it has gotten even
wave of international involvement.
But later that year, a CBS poll
showed that half the public rejected
the role of peacekeeper, and 40%
"If the developing world does wel
denied that the US had a responsi-
only if we care about social and eco
bility to provide economic assis-
are treated justly — paid adequa
tance to countries that need aid.
working and housing conditions -
But keep in mind that I'm guided by
environment is treated well, ours
the needs of the news media,
breathe the same air, our oceans in
and that foreign affairs were
circulates around the globe. I hop
deemed more important to ask
where we respect and learn from ea
about in the 1980s than they are
today. We've asked relatively
forward together."
- SI
few questions about international
issues in recent years.
WHAT THE PUBLIC
"American businesses have a tremend
thinks
world. This is obvious at Starbucks —
globe and a sampler that supports CARE
Percentage saying that a "top priority"
in nearly every business I can think de
of US foreign policy should be:
clothes, the food in your supermarket,
computer. What we sometimes dismiss
Protecting American Jobs
77%
fact an integral part of our economy
Preventing Spread of Nuclear Weapons 70%
markets for millions of products. Supply
is not charity - - it's an investment. And
Combating Drugs
67%
- Howard Schultz, OF
Insuring Energy Supply
58%
Improving Global Environment
50%
Reducing Trade Deficit
42%
lower since the end of the Cold
Reducing Illegal Immigration
42%
War. But this does not necessarily
Strengthening the United Nations
30%
indicate what kind of foreign policy
we want. Studies show that atten-
Defending Human Rights
27%
tiveness and support are not the
Helping improve living
same thing.
standards in developing nations
23%
Ron: The key is not interest, but the
Promoting Democracy
22%
perception of threat. This point is
Aiding US Business Interests
16%
dramatically underscored by opinion
leader surveys. As fear of the Soviet
Protecting Weaker Nations
16%
Union dissipated from the 1970s to
the 1990s, the number of elites say-
Source: America's Place in the World II, Pew Research
Center For The People & The Press, October 1997.
ing that helping improve the stan-
dard of living in developing nations
is "very important" dropped signifi-
we all do well - but
cantly - from 68% in 1978, to 46% in
1986, to 28% in 1994.²
omic justice. If people
ely, given acceptable
Nancy: You seem to agree that the
ve all benefit. If their
level of interest in foreign affairs
0 will thrive. We all
and assistance is mild. Do
mingle, our weather
Americans find that the developing
for a unified world
world has any impact on their lives?
other and can move
Sayles Belton, Mayor, Minneapolis MN
A small percentage see a great deal
IS stake in the developing
of impact. But with the exception of
th coffee from around the
Mexico, almost three times as
E - but it's also the case
many people don't perceive any
Check the labels in your
impact at all. It's hard to imagine
the components in your
that people would attach a greater
as the 'Third World' is in
importance to developing nations
supplying materials and
than they do to these regions.
rting global development
it's the right thing to do."
Kathy: It seems that Americans look
at foreign assistance as a zero-sum
irman and CEO, Starbucks Coffee Company
project - they think that what goes
on elsewhere detracts from the US.
Americans who reject international
assistance often do so by saying
Steven: In general economic terms,
that the needs of people in the US
definitely. A 1993 study³ found that
should be dealt with first.
four out of five Americans thought
Third World economies have at
Steven: True, Americans often
least some effect on the US econo-
argue that the US should place à
my; a 1996 poll I conducted found
higher priority on its own problems
that 68% agreed that "helping Third
than on giving foreign assistance.
World countries to develop is in the
But when asked to distribute a pool
economic interest of the US."
of resources, they overwhelmingly
propose giving resources to for-
Ron: The recent Pew study provides
eign aid - and usually more than
evidence that Americans do not
we are actually giving. When, in a
grasp the relevance of what hap-
recent poll4, I asked how anti-pover-
pens in other countries, not to men-
ty funds should be split between
tion developing countries. People
domestic and international pro-
were asked how much their lives
grams, the median response was
were affected by what happens in
80% in the US and 20% abroad. The
the following places:
actual ratio is 97% to 3%.
Great
Fair
Not Very
None
Deal
Amount
Much
At All
Western
Europe
8%
28%
36%
25%
Mexico
13%
29%
32%
23%
Asia
9%
26%
36%
25%
Canada
8%
23%
39%
27%
Nancy: Let's talk about differences
in the level of concern. My research
"The earth is a web of interconned
finds that higher-income people
tems: our atmosphere, oceans, river
tend to be considerably more
communities. What people in deve
inclined to support assistance to
how they feed and clothe themselve
other countries, but that variation
and participate in the global econo
by gender and political party is not
and vice versa. If we are to live in
great. Also, Hispanics seem to be
world, we all must work in partnersh
among the strongest supporters of
wisely, fairly and sustainably."
foreign aid. Do you agree?
Kathy: Our polls have shown that
- Deborah Moore, S
the most internationalist opinions
tend to be held by well-educated,
well-off, Republican men from the
Americans believed Haiti was very
western part of the country. The
important to US interests, com-
major exception is when people
pared with 42% of black Americans.
identify with the group in need -
African-Americans were more likely
Ron: In my data, African-Americans
to support food aid to Somalia and
tend to be isolationist, and oppose
US actions in Haiti. One striking dif-
foreign assistance generally on the
ference in 1994: only 17% of white
grounds that such aid could be put
WHAT OPINION LEADERS
think
Percentage of each group saying that
"helping improve living standards in
developing nations" should be a "top
Overall, the number of opinion
priority" foreign policy goal:
leaders who think helping develop-
1993
1997
ing nations is a top priority has
risen in the last four years. But
Religious Leaders
43%
72%
only religious leaders, academics
Union Leaders
I
46%
and scientists rank it among their
Academics/Think Tanks
24%
37%
top five priorities. Members of the
news media are most in tune with
Scientists/Engineers
26%
34%
the general public, 23% of which
Foreign Affairs Leaders
25%
31%
also rates this a top priority.
State/Local Govt. Officials
19%
27%
News Media
15%
23%
Business and Finance
9%
14%
Source: America's Place in the World II, Pew
Capitol Hill Policy Staff
-
13%
Research Center For The People & The Press,
October 1997.
Security
13%
12%
The actual amount is less than 1%.
ted and dynamic sys-
At the same time, we overestimate
S, forests, cultures and
how our aid budget compares to
oping countries do -
that of other countries.
S, use medicinal plants
my - affects us here
Nancy: How do the people who are
healthy and peaceful
most concerned about the world
p to use our resources
come to feel that way?
Steven: I think the primary influ-
ence is the value system that they
inior Scientist, Environmental Defense Fund
are bred into; religious training is
critical, it seems. The degree of
exposure to foreign countries
to better use among our own poor.
determines how much attention
Hispanics - many of whom have
one gives the issue, but not the
recently come from underdevel-
underlying values themselves.
oped countries and send some of
their earnings to relatives still there
Kathy: I was shocked to discover
- appear to be more supportive of
that the most knowledgeable and
US aid. As Nancy and Kathy note,
most attentive people when it came
elites tend to be more supportive of
to Japan were not college gradu-
foreign aid than the general public.
ates, as is usually the case with
(See "What Opinion Leaders Think"
international issues, but rather a
at left.)
group of elderly men, most of them
not college-educated, who had
Steven: I disagree that African-
been in the military during WWII.
Americans are isolationist. If any-
Not all of them served in the Pacific,
thing, recent research shows them
to be marginally more supportive of
foreign aid. But all of these differ-
ences between demographic groups
"We have seen and heard about t
is very marginal. Much more signif-
ing countries. Countless TV shot
icant is the factor of misperception.
children come to mind. But there
Three out of four Americans think
who can say 'Wait isn't that my
that the US spends too much on
street?' Look around and you'll S
foreign aid, but this is based on an
poverty are not just here, not just
extreme overestimation. Asked
Communities around the world
how much of the federal budget
same isolation and lack of power
goes to foreign aid, most people
from each other?"
say 15-20%. Asked what the
- Dileepan Si
amount should be, they say 5-10%.
but they had a reason to find out
something about Japan and to con-
"Not only is it in our strategic and
tinue to pay attention to it even
share our resources by investing in
after the war was over. I'm sure
stability across the globe - it is in
many of us have anecdotal infor-
est as well. Judaism, Christianity
mation about the long-term effects
share a common vision: that as mo
of some international experience or
we must share God's wealth with t
educational training.
less fortunate than we; that our role
Ron: I agree that a person's value
enjoins us to be a light to the nation
system is the key factor in deter-
mining his/her foreign policy atti-
- Rabbi David Saperstein, Director
tudes, and my own studies bear
this out. Contact with others is not a
telling factor. The Peace Corps, for
tance is currently framed as some-
instance, attracts people whose val-
thing that takes away from the US.
ues predispose them toward this
But it could conceivably get re-
sort of other-oriented program - it
framed as something that benefits
doesn't create those attitudes.
the US.
Nancy: Does support vary depend-
Ron: Even though Americans aren't
ing on what kind of assistance pro-
interested in foreign issues, this
grams we ask about?
doesn't mean that they're totally
opposed to foreign aid. When peo-
Kathy: Perception is of critical
ple are asked specifically about
importance. Opinions about this
types of foreign assistance, there is
topic depend largely on how the
large support for humanitarian aid:
question is framed. Foreign assis-
86% support giving food and
medicine to needy countries; 76%
want to help their economies;
68% support family planning.5 So
problems in develop-
Americans do support various
poor, malnourished
forms of humanitarian aid in the
too many Americans
abstract. But whether they are will-
Could that be my
ing to commit the resources to
that the problems of
address those concerns is some-
ere, but everywhere.
thing else altogether. In other
struggling with the
words, the zero-sum game men-
DW can we not learn
tioned by Kathy outweighs Steve's
findings that Americans care.
thasundaram, Student Leader, UC Berkeley
Nancy: What about Ron's point that
tl economic interest to
Americans don't always put their
peace, democracy and
money where their mouths are?
Cur highest moral inter-
Even if most people agree that we
and many other faiths
should be involved in the world and
support development assistance,
ral people and nations
do we have the political will to real-
nose of God's children
ly make it happen?
as prophetic witnesses
s."
Ron: Where awareness and salience
are low, there can be no political
Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism
will. If Americans aren't paying
attention to foreign issues and
don't rate them as very important,
Nancy: Taking off my moderator hat
they aren't going to do much about
for a minute Polls frequently
them. Focusing on particular issues
probe the types of foreign assis-
only tends to highlight ideological
tance Americans support, and a
differences and fracture whatever
pattern is usually repeated.
will does exist. Media coverage is
Humanitarian efforts top the list,
crucial: it builds support for global
followed by environmental and
engagement by boosting aware-
economic development aid, health
ness and salience. The timeframe
and welfare issues and then mili-
issue is very real chronic condi-
tary aid to our allies. Some of the
tions may attract public attention
figures might move around,
for a while, but not for long. Natural
depending on media coverage, but
disasters and other acute overseas
the general pattern stays in place.
crises attract interest and support
because the media and public can
Steven: I asked people in a 1995
survey whether they wanted to
increase, maintain or cut spending
for different types of global pro-
"The developing world isn't a remote
grams. Child survival programs
ders - not something I left behin
scored highest, followed by the
[Kyrgyzstan 95-97]. As a 9th grade ES
Peace Corps, humanitarian relief
City, I teach in a school population
and environmental aid. Support for
Dominican. Their problems and exp.)
maintaining or increasing spending
disrupted educations and violence hav
on these items was very strong
with. Their problems are very literall
even when respondents were told
are their strengths and contributions
how much goes to each, both in
terms of total dollars and dollars
- Linda Lesué Barth, Teacher
paid by the average taxpayer.
focus on concrete, measurable
media still report much more about
efforts to intervene and assist the
the US than about all other coun-
victims. People see results and feel
tries combined.
a sense of resolution when life gets
back to "normal." To build political
Steven: When you come right
will, one needs a galvanizing event.
down to it, the problem is not so
much that the public does not sup-
Kathy: Building political will is
port aid, but that the minority that
the key issue. There's not a well-
opposes it is so much more vocal.
organized minority that is against
When we asked policymakers
international involvement, so the
about public attitudes on global
question is how you translate pub-
issues, they told us that the most
lic concern and sympathy into
vocal constituents tend to oppose
action. You need at least four things
foreign aid. The support of the
to do this: majority support, belief
silent majority is not heard.
in the issue's importance, strong
national spokespeople and sup-
NOTES
1, 5: America's Place in the World 11, Pew Research Center
portive media coverage. Time is
For The People & The Press, Oct. 1997.
also a factor. Americans are very
2: American Public Opinion and US Foreign Policy 1995,
Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, 1995.
supportive of crisis assistance -
3: Evaluation of the Development Education Program,
it's long-term commitments that
Intercultural Communications, Inc. for USAID, Oct. 1993.
are a problem. Again, how you
4: An Emerging Consensus, Program on International
Policy Attitudes, University of Maryland, July 1996.
frame the issue matters greatly.
Politicians still talk about the "US
RESOURCES
economy," not the "global econo-
America's Place in the World II (1997). Available
gratis from The Pew Research Center For The
my." Opposition to immigration
People & The Press, 1875 I Street NW, Suite 1110,
here in California still emphasizes
Washington DC 20036. 202-293-3126 or
www.people-press.org.
us-versus-them thinking. The US
The Foreign Policy Gap (1997) by Steven Kull, IM
Destler and Clay Ramsay. Available for $12 from
the Program on International Policy Attitudes,
11 Dupont Circle, Suite 610, Washington DC
place beyond our bor-
20036. 202-232-7500.
d in the Peace Corps
Americans' Views on US Leadership and Foreign
Assistance: A Review of Existing Survey Data
SL teacher in New York
(1994). Available for $10 from Belden &
that is more than 90%
Russonello Research and Communications,
eriences with poverty,
1250 I Street NW, Suite 460, Washington DC
20005. 202-789-2400.
e become ours to cope
American Public Opinion and US Foreign Policy
y ours. Fortunately, so
1995, edited by John E. Reilly. Available for $5
0 our communities."
from the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations,
116 South Michigan Avenue, Chicago IL 60603.
312-726-3860.
and Columbia University Peace Corps Fellow
Beyond the Beltway: Engaging the Public in US
Foreign Policy (1994), by Daniel Yankelovich and IM
Destler. Published by WW Norton & Co. Available in
bookstores.
CONTINUING THE
ANATIONAL CONVERSATION
conversation
A FEW SUGGESTIONS TO HELP YOU EXPLORE THESE ISSUES
IN GREATER DEPTH:
Dig deeper. Be sure to visit the new Global Connections website
(www.interaction.org) for a more in-depth look at opinion polls about glob-
al issues. While you're there, go to the Global Connections Forum and
exchange views with other opinion leaders from across the nation.
Conduct a straw poll. Ask your family, friends and colleagues to share
their opinions: What should our top foreign policy goals be? Should
helping developing nations be one of our priorities? What percentage of
the federal budget is spent on foreign aid? What percentage should be?
Ask why. Explore how people came to hold their beliefs. Have these
evolved over time or changed in response to a particular event? What is
the foundation for your own beliefs? What information or experiences
cause people to change their minds?
Draw connections. The "What the Public Thinks" chart shows that
helping developing nations is a lower priority than fighting drug traffick-
ing, illegal immigration and environmental degradation. But might helping
poor nations be an effective way to address these other problems?
Americans often say that we should focus on our "own" problems before
we help other nations with "theirs." But in our global society, can we
really distinguish between the two?
Debate the issues. Roll up your sleeves and grapple with some of the
tough ones: Does the US have a moral responsibility to help people in
poor nations? Should we always help Americans first? Should we be
motivated more by humanitarian concern or national interest? Start a
discussion group. Talk about these issues with friends and colleagues, or
put them on the agenda for your next meeting.
Voice your opinion. Members of Congress say they hear only from critics
of foreign aid and global engagement. News executives cut international
coverage because they think no one cares about it. If you feel differently,
don't keep it to yourself. Write a letter to your elected officials or to the
editor of your local paper. Tell them you understand our future is a global
one, and that you support international involvement. Your voice matters.
InterAction
1717 Massachusetts Ave NW, Suite 801
Washington DC 20036
Phone: (202) 667-8227 x117 Fax: (202) 667-8236
E-mail: [email protected] Web: www.interaction.org
Printed on recycled paper with soy-based inks
Design: Hobbamock
POLLS AND PUBLIC OPINION
USAID
A Sampling of Excerpts from Opinion Surveys on Foreign
Assistance and International Engagement
From:
America's Place in the World
Pew Research Center
October 1997
(Pew conducted a four-year trend survey that compared the opinions of influential
Americans - journalists, foreign affairs experts, scholars, business leaders, etc. -- with
those of the general public. The poll included 600 influentials and 2,000 members of
the general public.)
Opinion Leaders
Influential Americans are much more
of Cold War years. Most of the Influentials
confident about this country's place in the
surveyed support the current level of
world now compared to four years ago
preparedness as consistent with U.S.
when they were anxious about the future in
strategy of being able to fight two wars, in
the wake of the collapse of the Soviet
Europe and in Asia, at the same time.
Union. They are also much more satisfied
with the way things are going both in the
The Public Differs
world and in the United States.
The public, in contrast, does not see a
Twice as many Americans in leadership
more rosy world. Whereas four years ago
positions believe the United States plays a
the public and the Influentials were
more important role in the world today than
essentially in lock-step in their sour
thought so in 1993 when the Center
evaluation of world conditions (only 28
conducted its first poll in this series. Four
percent and 25 percent satisfied,
out of five still prefer a shared leadership
respectively), the public today remains
role for the nation, but several influential
unchanged in its assessment (29 percent
groups are now more inclined to say the
satisfied) while the Opinion Leaders
United States should be the single world
register 58 percent satisfaction.
leader.
The American public does not think the
Far more are willing to keep defense
United States today plays a greater global
spending the same than four years ago, 50
role than it did a decade ago. It is no more
percent vs. 31 percent, with even some
inclined to have the United States act as
greater sentiment for actually increasing it,
single world leader than before, nor any
despite the lack of an enemy that
more generous with money for the military
structured the overarching national strategy
(although support for keeping spending at
of four Influentials are satisfied now,
current levels remains high at 57 percent).
whereas two out of three were dissatisfied
It is also no more willing to use U.S. forces
four years ago. Most satisfied are Capitol
abroad in potential trouble spots than it was
Hill staffers and Academicians; again,
four years ago.
Religious leaders express least
satisfaction, although even in this group, a
How Things Are Going
majority is satisfied.
The reversal of assessments by the
The public remains dissatisfied with the
Influentials compared to four years ago is
way things are going in the world -- 65
striking. Every group of Opinion Leaders
percent now, 66 percent in 1993 -- as well
has gone from overwhelming
as with things in the United States,
dissatisfaction with the way things were
although here it admits to considerable
going in the world and the nation to
improvement in the state of the country.
overwhelming satisfaction. The great
Four years ago, fully 75 percent of
anxieties of the post-Cold War world, led by
Americans said they were dissatisfied with
nuclear proliferation and anarchy in the
conditions in the country, down to 49
former Soviet bloc, have not materialized
percent now. Women are significantly more
so far. The conflicts in Bosnia, Somalia and
dissatisfied than men regarding conditions
Haiti have faded from the forefront of
both in the world and the nation. Politically,
concerns. And the American economy is
Republicans and Independents are more
experiencing unprecedented growth and
dissatisfied with conditions in the country,
stability. From the American perspective,
but no more or less dissatisfied with
"This terrible century has - or appears to
conditions in the world.
be having -- a happy ending," as Arthur
Schlesinger Jr. writes.
Satisfaction
On average, almost six out of ten
Influentials are satisfied with conditions in
the world today, whereas two out of three
were dissatisfied in 1993. Most satisfied
now are Capitol Hill staffers and Business
leaders; least are Religious leaders -- for
whom protecting human rights and
improving living standards in developing
nations continue to be matters of primary
concern -- and Governors and Mayors.
Even greater satisfaction exists with
conditions in the United States. Three out
2
From:
Public Opinion and the U.S. Retreat
from International Social Stewardship
Rockefeller Bros. Fund
Global Interdependence Initiative
November 1997
(In October 1996, at the Pocantico Conference Center of the Rockefeller Brothers
Fund, the Fund joined with the World Bank to host foundation executives, leaders of
major NGOs and officers of large multilateral institutions in an effort to "Build a
Constituency for Global Interdependence." The following are excerpts from the
recently released report that grew out of that meeting.)
If public support for cooperative
aid that very little actually reaches the
engagement was an artifact of the Cold
people who need it."
War, what has become of that support
since the fall of the Berlin Wall?
The perception of ineffectiveness
Conventional wisdom holds that Americans
substantially diminishes support for foreign
have little interest in international issues
assistance. In the classic ethical allegory,
and that the end of the Cold War has
one must always jump into the water to
eroded what little support existed for
save a drowning person -- unless one
cooperation with other nations. For
cannot swim. Americans may care about
example, a recent survey of policymakers,
the "drowning" people overseas, but they
journalists, and other opinion leaders found
doubt whether foreign aid programs can
that most thought the American public
swim.
prefers isolationism to international
engagement. But careful analysis reveals a
The news media contribute to the
great deal of latent support for engagement
perception of U.S. ineffectiveness abroad.
-- especially to promote social stewardship.
War, famine, and disaster dominate the
scant news coverage of less-developed
Americans have real doubts about the
countries, while success stories -- such as
motives and methods of current U.S.
dramatic improvements in infant and child
programs abroad. Most reject a hegemonic
health -- are rarely deemed newsworthy. By
role for the United States: "Who are we to
accentuating the negative, the news media
tell them what to do?" is a common refrain
foster an impression that poor countries are
in focus groups. A high percentage
unsalvageable. (Private charitable groups
believes that foreign assistance is wasted,
may unwittingly contribute to this state of
ineffective, and/or fails to reach its intended
affairs, with fund-raising appeals that
beneficiaries. In one poll, 83 percent
present the citizens of less-developed
agreed that "There is so much waste and
countries as helpless victims.) Moreover,
corruption in the process of giving foreign
as arbiters of salience (the degree of
3
importance given to issues and events) the
When concerns about unfaimess,
news media have helped diminish the
corruption, and inefficiency are addressed,
attention given to international issues.
support for cooperative engagement
International news coverage is declining, as
rebounds. Indeed, when told how much the
many news organizations are closing their
United States actually spends on foreign
foreign bureaus.
assistance, most favor sustaining or even
increasing that amount. Given assurances
Skepticism about U.S. programs abroad
that other nations are carrying their fair
also stems from diminished faith in the
share, Americans favor U.S. participation in
public sector generally. Indeed, confidence
multilateral efforts to keep the peace,
in government is at an all-time low. One
promote economic development, and
recent survey found that only 20 percent
provide humanitarian assistance. Most (58
believed that the federal government can
percent) say they would even pay more in
be trusted to do "what is right" most of the
taxes for foreign assistance if they could be
time -- down from 76 percent in 1964. It
follows that Americans would doubt that the
sure the aid really went to those in need.
U.S. government, which is widely perceived
as failing its own citizens, is capable of
Although the data are far from conclusive,
solving international or global problems.
there are indicators that Americans reject
the military-security dominated framework
of national interests in favor of a framework
However, opinion research shows that the
American public does support cooperative
that emphasizes social stewardship.
engagement if properly conceived and
executed. Polls consistently show that most
Americans want the United States to play
an active role in international affairs, both
for moral reasons and because they
believe engagement serves domestic
interests. A strong majority of 80 percent
believes the United States should give
some foreign aid, while just 8 percent want
aid programs eliminated. The United
Nations and other multilateral institutions
still enjoy broad support: a 1994 poll by the
Chicago Council on Foreign Relations
found that 84 percent of Americans
included "support for strengthening the
United Nations" as a "somewhat" or "very"
high foreign policy goal of the United
States- the highest level of support for that
goal in twenty years.
4
From:
How Policymakers Misread the Public
The Center for International and Security Studies at the
University of Maryland
October 1997
(This poll highlighted the difference between policymakers and the general public in
foreign affairs. The study was carried out in several stages. First, interviews were
conducted with 83 Members of Congress, staffers, Executive Branch officials and
journalists. Then a series of public focus groups were held and existing poll data was
reviewed. Lastly, 2,400 respondents were polled.)
The Foreign Policy Gap
there was some disbelief that the actual
amounts could be so low. Learning the
A significant gap exists between the U.S.
actual percentage prompted many to
foreign policy community's perceptions of
readjust their perspectives and view foreign
public attitudes and the results of polls that
aid more favorably, even among those who
ask Americans what role the U.S. should
had been initially vitriolic on the subject. As
play in the world. Members of the policy
a Baltimore man said, "Let's put this in
community -- especially in Congress and
perspective, okay? This is peanuts! It's
the media -- perceive the public as going
nothing. In relation to the whole pie, it's a
through a phase, in the wake of the Cold
small piece." A New Jersey woman who
War, of wanting to disengage from the
initially said that America needs to put itself
world. However, a comprehensive analysis
first more and cut back foreign aid reacted
of polls shows that the majority of
by saying, "One percent sounds pretty low.
Americans support a foreign policy of broad
Sounds like we need to get our act together
global engagement, provided that the U.S.
in America, start making money in America
is not playing the role of dominant world
or in other countries, so that we can
leader (or "world policeman") and is
support other countries better."
contributing its "fair share to multilateral
efforts to resolve international problems."
Public Attitudes
Contrary to policy practitioners' perception
Eighty percent of those polled for PIPA's
that most Americans dislike foreign aid
January 1995 study agreed that "the United
because they would prefer to spend those
States should be willing to share at least a
resources at home, an overwhelming
small portion of its wealth with those in the
majority supports aid in principle and only a
world who are in great need." (There was
small minority would eliminate it.
no significant difference between
Republicans and Democrats.)
Focus group participants reacted to real
foreign aid spending in much the same
manner as survey respondents. Overall,
5
Sources of Support -- Self-Interest
Overestimation
Most Americans see giving foreign aid as
A November 1995 Washington Post/Kaiser
serving American self-interest, or the
Foundation poll asked respondents to give
national interest, not merely as
their "best guess" about what percentage of
humanitarian. Majorities embrace the ideas
the federal budget was spent on foreign
that giving foreign aid helps the U.S. to
aid. The median estimate was 20 percent,
develop trade partners, preserve the
the mean 26 percent, and only 1 percent of
environment, limit population growth, and
the sample guessed the amount to be less
promote democracy.
than 1 percent. In an October 1993 Louis
Harris poll, the average estimate was 33
Developing Trading Partners
percent. In an April 1995 CBS/New York
Times poll, the median estimate was in the
Consistent with this perception of
10-20 percent range, with just 9 percent
interdependence, large majorities see
guessing an amount less than 5 percent.
efforts to help the Third World develop as
good for the global economy, including the
When Americans are asked to set an
American economy. In the 1993 ICI study,
appropriate level for U.S. foreign aid
77 percent agreed that "helping the Third
spending they set a level much higher than
World to develop will pay great and lasting
the actual level. This suggests that the
dividends to us all," while 84 percent
reservations that the Americans have about
thought that such help would have a great
foreign aid and the feeling that the U.S.
or some positive effect on "improving world
spends too much on it are largely a
prosperity."
reaction to the perceived amount of foreign
aid, not to foreign aid in principle. In the
Sources of Support -- Altruism
1995 PIPA poll, after making their estimate
of spending on foreign aid, respondents
When asked to consider possible reasons
were asked what they thought an
for giving foreign aid, most Americans
"appropriate" amount would be. The
embrace altruistic or moral ones in and of
median response was 5 percent of the
themselves. Sixty-seven percent agree
federal budget -- five times present
that: "As one of the world's rich nations, the
spending levels.
United States has a moral responsibility
toward poor nations to help them develop
Response to Correct Information
economically and improve their people's
lives" (PIPA, January 1995). A 1994 Belden
When respondents are asked to respond to
and Russonello poll found that 62 percent
correct information about the current level
of respondents agreed that: "Each of us
of foreign aid spending, an overwhelming
has a personal responsibility to help
majority find it unobjectionable. This further
improve the lives of those in developing
confirms that misperceptions play a critical
countries."
role in the reservations about the U.S.
foreign aid program and the feeling that the
6
U.S. spends too much on it.
Self-Reliance
In the PIPA poll, an overwhelming majority
saw promoting development as a way of
avoiding the need for humanitarian relief.
Eighty-six percent agreed that: "Americans
are a generous people, so it is natural for
them to provide relief when people are
suffering from a disaster such as a famine.
But the really intelligent thing to do is to
help poor countries develop so that their
economies are strong enough to cope with
adversities."
7
From:
Highlights from a Review of Existing Survey Data Regarding
American Views on U.S. Leadership and Foreign Assistance
Belden & Russonello
May 1994
(This report reviewed 28 polls on U.S. views toward U.S. leadership and foreign
assistance between 1988 and 1994 culled from public opinion data at the Roper Center
for Public Opinion Research.)
Summary Findings
concerns as the top reasons to provide
aid. In addition, Americans possess a
Americans see the interests of the regions
sense of responsibility to help developing
of the world as connected, particularly in
nations.
the areas of economics, population, and
environment For example Americans
Disaster relief and feeding the hungry and
believe that improving the economies of
poor are the most widely supported kinds of
other nations would have a positive effect
assistance Americans also support
on the U.S. economy. They also see a
assistance that: protects the environment;
growing world population as impacting the
helps prevent the spread of AIDS; deals
global environment and their own lives
with drug trafficking; and provides family
negatively.
planning and birth control.
However, moving from a recognition that
Detailed Findings
we are interdependent to a commitment to
working to improve conditions elsewhere is
Americans see the interests of the
another story... At present, there is no
countries of the world as connected,
clear mandate against foreign assistance
particularly in the areas of economics,
from the American public, with support
population, and environment. Americans
continuing to outweigh opposition since
feel the world is becoming increasingly
1986 when a majority (54 percent)
interdependent and that this will affect their
approved of our involvement in economic
lives in the future Americans' perception
assistance.
of Third World economies affecting the
U.S. has grown in recent years. In a 1986
Even though Americans are uncertain or
study, 74 percent of Americans said that
Third World economies affect the U.S.
divided on the question of foreign aid in
general, they do agree there are some
economy, while in 1993, 83 percent of
compelling needs and/or reasons that may
Americans said so... Regarding population
justify their support. The top reasons are
and environment issues, Americans do see
themselves connected to the world
humanitarian, and then environmental and
economic rationales. In recent years,
globally... 52 percent said the growth in
these have replaced Cold War security
population will worsen their quality of life,
8
and fully 73 percent said it will have a
since the mid-1980s.. In 1986, 54 percent
negative effect on the global environment.
of Americans said they favor economic
assistance, while in 1994, 47 percent
There has been a growth in the number of
supported aid with 44 percent opposing.
Americans who believe that the economies
General election voters are slightly more
of the Third World affect the U.S. economy
likely to favor economic assistance than
a great deal.. In 1986, 74 percent claimed
non-voters, as are well-educated
so, and in 1993, that number had grown to
Americans and those with upper incomes.
83 percent.
Public support over the years for U.S. aid
Americans also strongly believe that if Third
has been generally favorable. Beginning in
World countries become strong
1956 support peaked with some 71 percent
economically: U.S. business opportunities
supporting economic aid. Generally,
in the Third World will be impacted
support over the years has been between
positively (80 percent), U.S. sales and
50 percent to 58 percent on average with
exports will grow (73 percent), the U.S.
only a recent drop since 1992 to below 50
economy will benefit (72 percent), jobs in
percent. Still, more Americans favor U.S.
the U.S. will benefit (66 percent), national
economic assistance than oppose.
security will benefit (64 percent), you, your
family and your community will benefit (64
Why Should We Be Involved?
percent), and the environment in the U.S.
(54 percent).
Americans agree there are some
compelling needs and/or reasons that may
The American public also believes strongly
justify support. humanitarian tops the list,
that helping Third World countries to
followed by environmental and economic
develop will have an effect on: improving
rationales. In fact, in recent years these
world prosperity (84 percent), improving
concerns have replaced security concerns
world peace (80 percent), and improving
for reasons to provide aid. When
democracy in the world (76 percent).
Americans think about priorities for foreign
aid, humanitarian and economic concerns
The impact of world population growth is
overshadow past concerns about
also evident. A 1994 poll by Pew/GSI cited
international security. This has changed
73 percent of Americans having the opinion
dramatically since 1986 when security was
that an increase in world population is likely
the number one reason over humanitarian
to have a negative impact on the global
and economic for providing aid -- while in
environment and 52 percent cited it would
1992 security placed last among those
worsen the quality of life for them and their
three reasons. Americans overwhelmingly
families.
agree (89 percent) that "wherever people
are hungry or poor, we ought to do what we
Should We Provide Foreign Aid?
can to help them."
There has been a slight decline in support
9
Reasons for Supporting Aid
With the demise of the Soviet Union and
end of the Cold War the public still
Saving the global environment was the
perceives nuclear proliferation as the
strongest argument for foreign aid
greatest critical threat (63 percent) to our
programs "Helping other countries
security. However, the second and third
become economically stable means more
greatest threats are: The "loss of rain
trade and prosperity for the U.S." had
forests and their animal or plant species"
strong support. And, "aid to post-
(59 percent critical) and the "loss of ozone
communist countries to keep them peaceful
in the earth's atmosphere" (56 percent
and to help them become solid
critical) show international environmental
democracies" and, "creating new
concerns to be major concerns to
democracies and supporting shaky
Americans Economic factors, individually
democracies" also had more support than
and as a group, rank surprisingly low.
opposition.
In 1988, 88 percent of American voters
approved (59 percent strongly) that the
U.S. should send humanitarian aid such as
food, clothing and medical supplies as an
option for U.S. involvement in conflicts in
the Third World and in 1993, 72 percent
of Americans favored the U.S. giving
humanitarian aid to developing countries.
U.S. Leadership?
In both 1992 and 1986 a majority of
Americans polled believed that the U.S.
government is doing the right amount or
less than it should to fight poverty in other
parts of the world. In fact, only 35 percent
in 1986 and 46 percent in 1992 thought the
U.S. was doing too much. A 1993 ABC
news poll showed 70 percent of Americans
supporting the U.S. taking a leading role in
providing humanitarian aid to victims of
wars or natural disasters. And 56 percent
went so far as to support the use of U.S.
troops to prevent famine or mass
starvation.
Threats to U.S. National Security
10
From:
Mixed Messages: Public Opinion & Development Assistance
lan Smillie, Paper Delivered to Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD)
October 25, 1994
Despite a strong sense of 'compassion
fatigue' within the international
development community, the evidence from
dozens of recent and past opinion polls
shows that the public support for
international aid programs has remained
consistently and surprisingly high for three
decades downward trends (in aid
support) are debatable, transitory, or they
are simply false
It will require leadership that can inspire
ordinary people. that itself understands
and conveys the message that long-term
self-interest lies in long-term disaster
prevention rather than short-term crisis
management. It requires leadership that
has faith in what hundreds of opinion polls
and simple common sense tell
governments about people - -- that they do
care, that they want to help, and that they
will make sacrifices if they understand them
to be in the genuine interest of a better and
more secure life for their children.
11
From:
National Security, Volume 1, No. 1
The Gallup Public Opinion Monitor
July 1993
(Sample size - 1,002 adults)
Purpose of Foreign Policy: National
the interests of other nations (53 percent --
Interests or Human Values?
a multilateral or cooperative stance) or
"pursue its national security interests
A majority (54 percent) of the public said
regardless of the interests of other
the purpose of U.S. foreign policy is to
nations," (17 percent - a unilateral
realize human values. Furthermore, this
position).
opinion is held strongly by three in ten (31
percent) of Americans. Those with the
greatest tendency to support a human
values-oriented foreign policy are baby-
boomers (35-54 years old), the younger
generation (18-24 years old), those with
moderate education and income,
minorities, housewives, students, and
singles. Internationalists take this position
most often
Americans Favor International Involvement
over Isolation
Three main popular positions define public
attitudes on foreign affairs: isolation vs.
involvement; independent (unilateral)
involvement; and the use or non-use of
military force in pursuit of foreign policy
objectives. Only one in four Americans (27
percent) are isolationists and say the U.S.
should "avoid becoming involved with other
nations as much as possible." This
proportion is lower than in the mid-1980s
when three in 10 Americans consistently
took this position.
The remainder (70 percent) indicate that
the U.S. should either "modify its national
security interests to take into consideration
13
From:
The Harris Poll #55, Public Believes Government Spends as
Much on Foreign Aid as on Social Security and Health Care
November 1, 1993
(Sample size -- 1,254)
The public believes 20 percent of
government spending goes to foreign aid, a
figure 20 times higher than the actual
amount.
Most people believe there is lots of waste
and inefficiency in government that could be
slashed without cutting services. The great
majority believes more than 20 percent of
spending is waste that could be cut
painlessly it should be remembered that
what the public believes to be true is real in
its consequences -- in this case, fueling
public support for cutting foreign aid. It has
often been noted that foreign aid has no
political constituency. However, if the public
was better informed as to how little is spent
on foreign aid, hostility to such spending
would certainly diminish.
SEE ALSO:
U.S. Public Opinion About Foreign Aid 1980-1995
Doble Research Associates, March 1996
Foreign Assistance, Civil Society and America's Role in the World: What People Think Before
and After Learning More
Doble Research Associates, March 1996
Findings From a Research Project About Attitudes Toward Government
Hart Teeter, March 1997
Americans' Attitudes Toward Africa
Peter D. Hart Research, August 1997
14
Withdrawal/Redaction Marker
Clinton Library
DOCUMENT NO.
SUBJECT/TITLE
DATE
RESTRICTION
AND TYPE
002. paper
Prospectus re: Starting a Policial Committee (6 pages)
01/1997
Personal Misfile
COLLECTION:
Clinton Presidential Records
First Lady's Office
Melanne Verveer
OA/Box Number: 20032
FOLDER TITLE:
Foreign Affairs - Global Leadership: [Foreign Assistance and Engagement]
2013-0534-S
rc1532
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act- [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
b(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
b(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of
P3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
b(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
b(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
b(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed
b(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
of gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
PRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
b(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
2201(3).
concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA]
RR. Document will be reviewed upon request.
HINGTON POST
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 27, 1996 A23
Likewise, the fallout from political and SC
Howard L. Berman
United States to remain a world leader. They
cial unrest abroad ends up at our front door i
think we should be spending five times more
the form of refugees, an increased demand fc
on foreign aid than we are. But since the
military intervention and declining market
Trifling
1980s, international affairs spending has de-
for American goods. Eighty percent of ou
clined by nearly 50 percent in real terms.
"foreign" aid is eventually spent on goods an
Congress isn't listening to the public. The
services in the United States. This investmei
1996 congressional budget-balancing resolu-
translates into 200,000 jobs and helps export
With
tion cuts international spending by an addition-
of American goods.
al 30 percent over six years. By any measure,
International-affairs funding should be
this reduction would profoundly reduce Amer-
creased from $19 billion in 1997 to $21 billic
ica's stature as a world power. For example:
U.S. Security
in 1998-a net increase of about one-tenth
Either aid to the Middle East would be
one percent of the entire FY 1997 feder
greatly reduced, affecting Israel's military ca-
budget and about four-tenths of one perce
pability and the peace process, or foreign aid
for the total discretionary budget, accordi
Post-Cold War complacency has dangerous-
to almost every other country would have to
to a group of foreign-policy experts.
ly weakened one of America's premier defens-
be eliminated.
President Clinton must personally addre
es against foreign military and economic
Either 12 of our largest embassies or 100 of
this issue. He and the Republican-led Congre
threats. Morale in this government depart-
the smallest would have to be closed.
must bite the budget bullet and make the ca
ment has plummeted. Senior officers are retir-
Support for U.S. business overseas through
to the American public that too few funds tod
ing or being forced to retire in droves. Junior
the Export-Import Bank and other internation-
will mean we are too late to meet tomorrov
officers and support personnel also are quit-
al economic agencies would diminish.
threat around the globe. National security
ting. Dramatic budget cuts result in poorly
Funding for nonproliferation, counter-
pends upon adequate funding for the diploma
maintained and outdated equipment, prone to
narcotics and aid for the environment, de-
corps as well as the military corps.
failure in moments of extreme urgency. The
mocracy and population planning would be
heart is being hollowed out of our country's
decimated.
The writer, a Democratic representative
first line of defense.
And our information services such as Voice
from California, is a member of the House
If this were the Defense Department, one
of America and Radio Free Asia would have to
Committee on International Relations.
congressional committee after another would
cease operation or cut back broadcasting.
be vigorously investigating the question of
This downward trend must be reversed.
sold out America's security. Instead,
While the Defense Department has a "two
ommittees are joining in the attacks
conflict" budget, the international affairs pro-
ese attacks were against our military.
grams of State, AID, USIA and the Arms
officers, they would be condemned as unpa-
Control and Disarmament Agency are funded
triotic. But they are not denounced, nor are
for a "no crisis" world. Because of funding
there any investigations into who is responsible
constraints, the United States has been forced
for damaging our nation's security. Why? Be-
to rob Peter to pay Paul when a crisis erupts.
cause the agency involved is not the Depart-
For example:
ment of Defense but the Department of State,
To aid the West Bank and Gaza, funds for
Unfortunately, the activities of the State
the Central American peace agreement were:
Department and our other international agen-
diverted.
cies seldom are equated with national defense.
To fund Cambodian elections, funds for all
America's Foreign Service officers provide an
the rest of the world were reduced.
early warning system to prevent problems and
To fund the peacekeeping effort in Haiti, aid
resolve conflicts before military intervention
to Turkey was cut.
becomes necessary. Our diplomats abroad
To meet Rwanda refugee needs, funds for
now work closely with foreign police to keep
the rest of Africa were drained.
criminals, narcotic traffickers and terrorists
And when $2 million was needed to monitor]
from our shores. Despite these efforts, how
the now-failed cease-fire. between the Kurdish
ever, many political leaders refuse to support
factions in northern Iraq, there was no money
the State Department.
Funding problems also have an immediate
Politicians think the public does not want to
impact on any American citizen traveling or
spend money on foreign aid, yet polls show
living abroad. Worldwide, in the remotest
that public opposition is based on the misper
area, our embassy "duty officers" can be
ception that we are spending 20 percent of
contacted 24 hours a day. Most other em-
our budget on foreign affairs, rather than the
bassies have a recording. When someone dies
true level of one percent. According to a poll
or is injured, the U.S. Embassy is called first.
by the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations,
Often these are not easy deaths. A consular
two-thirds of the American public want the
officer had to travel to Mount Kenya> te
retrieve and identify the bodies of two young
Americans who fell while climbing. An officer
in Manila had to identify Americans in the
Claying home doesn't
morgue after a hotel fire.
In today's world, staying at home does not
event the world's
prevent the world's problems from knocking
at America's door. AIDS-along with other
problems from knocking
infectious diseases such as malaria-terror-
ism, narcotics trafficking and chemical weap.
on America's door.
ons all have found their way to America.
PAGE
2
1ST STORY of Level 1 printed in FULL format.
Copyright 1996 The Houston Chronicle Publishing Company
The Houston Chronicle
July 26, 1996, Friday, 3 STAR Edition
SECTION: a; Opinion; Pg. 30
LENGTH: 831 words
HEADLINE: Americans want a place in global village
BYLINE: STEPHEN S. ROSENFELD
BODY:
THE overlooked story of American foreign policy is that the
public may be out in front of the experts when it comes to
coping in a balanced internationalist way with the confusions
of the post-Cold War world.
For instance, a group of foreign-policy regulars setting up
shop as the ""Commission on America's National Interests''
checked in recently with a grave diagnosis of a ""troubling
public schizophrenia. " The leading symptom is a quest for
""withdrawal from the world even as communications, trade and
technology make America the capital of a global village.
The group's prescription: to make a hierarchical ranking of
national interests from ""vital" through ""extremely important''
and ""just important'' to ""less important, with policies to
h. match
Meanwhile, the University of Maryland's Center for
International and Security Studies is out with its latest
taking of the public pulse. The study is the stronger for
confirming others' studies. Its prime finding: ""Among the
American public there is an emerging consensus that rejects
both isolationism and the idea that the United States should
be the dominant world leader. Most Americans feel the United
States should stay engaged in international efforts to
maintain peace and promote human welfare, but that the U. S.
role should be limited to its 'fair share' and should
primarily be in cooperation with other countries, and where
possible, through the United Nations.
The difference between the dark premonitions of a ""troubling
schizophrenia'' and the cheerful prospects of an ""emerging
consensus'' (granted, one not yet ""fully crystalized'') may be
no greater than an analyst's hunch. What strikes me most,
however, is the subtlety and discrimination evident in the
Maryland study's poll and focus-group responses. They suggest
that more public space is available for a - careful and
considered - internationalist policy than many political
practitioners, Democrats as well as Republicans, have seemed
to believe.
PAGE
3
The Houston Chronicle, July 26, 1996
Take some of the Maryland specifics:
i you correct for the widespread misperception that the
United States is carrying a much-greater international burden
than it actually is, then Americans are ready to carry more of
a load (for foreign aid, the United Nations and the State
Department) than they do now.
Asked to write a federal budget, a majority maintains or
increases spending on all international programs except
defense, which is cut deeply. ""As Americans get more
information about the actual level of defense spending, the
majority shifts from wanting modest cuts to wanting deep cuts.
Philosophically, there is also majority support for shifting
some resources from military to diplomatic and other
non-military approaches to security.
A solid majority, though it feels the United States is
contributing more than a fair share in Bosnia, would support
American peacekeepers there now and after December, while an
overwhelming majority would arrest the defiant Bosnian Serb
leaders even if this puts American troops at risk. A solid
majority would contribute some troops to U.N. peacekeeping, if
it came, in Burundi.
A strong majority would let American soldiers choose whether
to join U.N. peacekeeping but still feels the Pentagon has a
to compel participation.
yright
Tugged to raise domestic aid, many Americans still would
give foreign aid - on the dual basis that self-interest must
be balanced by moral considerations and that it is in the
long-term American interest to treat global instability.
Democrats scarcely can hide their satisfaction to find the
public comfortable with both candidates on foreign policy. As
presidential aide Tony Lake told the National Journal: ""If
either of the two parties had fallen into the hands of the
isolationists, we might have had a historic debate on foreign
policy this year. I think the news of really historic
significance is that in both parties, the issue was resolved
in fayor of those who want to remain engaged in the world.
President Clinton has been wary of trying to fill up all the
internationalist space that these polls indicate may be out
there waiting for him - or for some president, anyway. But if
Clinton, currently leading in the race for president, has
reason to hang back, then former Sen. Bob Dole, trailing, may
have reason to move forward. Says Maryland's Steve Kull:
""Dole keeps trying to make headway on foreign policy by
emphasizing a more unilateralist posture, increased defense
spending and a rejection of multilateralism, but polling data
cate that on most of these issues Clinton is much closer
Foreign Policy Legislative Update
IMF funding -- It's in the Senate ForOps bill at full amount with livable conditions; it's no
where on the House side. Effort to add the $18B with authorizing language (from
House Banking Committee bill) failed in ForOps committee mark up vote. Still some
question about whether to offer as floor amendment should some version of ForOps
make it to floor at some point; might also be agreed to in conference, absent a House
floor vote. Strategy on what route is best/most likely to be successful unclear. (Being
worked by Treasury and WHLA.)
UN arrears and family planning issues -- family planning (i.e., Mexico City policy)
increasingly again appears to be tied to IMF as well as UN. Wicker amendment
accepted in ForOps Committee markup. Includes language which prohibits assistance
to organizations that either perform abortions or lobby to alter laws or policies related to
abortions in foreign countries. The language allows the President to waive the
prohibition on performing abortions but not the prohibition on lobbying. It further defines
lobbying quite broadly to include activities such as "sponsoring conferences and
workshops on the alleged defects in abortion laws, as well as the drafting and
distribution of materials or public statements calling attention to such alleged defects."
(Administration has a veto threat against this provision.)
CEDAW -- In the Senate, not moving anywhere before end of the session, no hope that
it will. Unlikely to move while Jesse Helms remains SFRC chair.
Foreign Ops Budget -- Overall, still short (by about a billion) of the Administration's
request in the Senate, and thus far in the House. In addition to trouble with IMF
funding, specific shortfalls include KEDO funding, which has been eliminated in the
Committee markup, and GEF funds have also eliminated.
Roger
Julia
Gus
Lee
Henry
John
Ellen
Jamie
Altman
Taft
Speth
Hamilton
Kissinger
Whitehead
Levine
Rubin
Steven
Marsha
Kull
Berry
Terry
Alan
?
Bracey
Blinder
Mike
Susan
Me Curry
Sechler
Jill
Prof.
Buckley
Graham
Allison
Melanne
Tony
Verveer
Blinken
Sandy
David
Brian
HRC
Thomas
Carol
Joe
Karen
Berger
Hamburg
Atwood
Pickering
Bellamy
Lockhart
Mulhauser
Table 1. External Financing of Five Asian Countries, 1994-98
Billions of dollars
Item
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
Current account balance
-24.6
-41.3
-54.9
-26.0
17.6
External financing (net)
47.4
80.9
92.8
15.2
15.2
Private inflows (net)
40.5
77.4
93.0
12.1
-9.4
Equity investment
12.2
15.5
19.1
-4.5
7.9
Direct
4.7
4.9
7.0
7.2
9.8
Portfolio
7.6
10.6
12.1
11.6
-1.9
Private creditors
28.2
61.8
74.0
-7.6
-17.3
Commercial banks
24.0
49.5
55.5
-21.3
- -14.1
Nonbank
4.2
12.4
18.4
13.7
-3.2
Official inflows (net)
7.0
3.6
-0.2
27.2
24.6
International institutions
-0.4
-0.6
-1.0
23.0
18.5
Bilateral creditors
7.4
4.2
0.7
4.3
6.1
Resident lending and other (net)"
- -17.5
-25.9
19.6
-11.9
-5.7
Reserves change, excluding gold
-5.4
13.7
- 18.3
22.7
-27.1
Source: Institute of International Finance, "Capital Flows to Emerging Market Economies," January 29. 1998
a. Table entries are sums over data for Korea, Indonesia. Malaysia. Thailand. and the Philippines
b. Estimate
C. Forecast.
d. Includes resident net lending. monetary gold. and errors and omissions.
e. A negative value indicates an increase
Table 16. IMF and Market GDP Growth Rate Forecasts for Indonesia, Korea,
and Thailand
Percent
Growth forecast
Country and forecast source
Date
1997
1998
Indonesia
IMF, first program
Oct. 31, 1997
5.0
3.0
IMF, second program
Jan. 15. 1998
0.0
IMF, third program
Apr. 10, 1998
-5.0
IMF. World Economic Outlook
Apr. 1998
-5.0
Market forecast
Feb. 1998
-8.8
Korea
IMF, first program
Dec. 4, 1997
6.0
2.5
IMF, third program
Feb. 7. 1998
1.0
IMF, World Economic Outlook
Apr. 1998
-0.8
Market forecast
Feb. 1998
2.5
Thailand
IMF, first program
Aug. 20. 1997
2.5
3.5
IMF, second program
Nov. 25. 1997
0.6
0.0 to 1.0
IMF, third program
Feb. 24. 1998
-3,0 to 3.5
IMF, World Economic Outlook
Apr. 1998
3.1
Market forecast
Feb. 1998
-6.0
Source: International Monetary Fund forecasts are from various IMF press releases and IMF (1998e) Market forecast "
a simple average of forecasts by Goldman Sachs and two other investment banks operating in the region
Attendees for Discussion on US Engagement
September 16, 1998
1) Professor Graham Allison
Douglas Sillon Professor of Government, Center for Science and International Affairs
JFK School of Government, Harvard University
- Former head of the Kennedy School, foreign policy expert
2) Mr. Brian Atwood
Administrator, Agency for International Development
3) Ms. Carol Bellamy
Executive Director, UNICEF
4) Mr. Tony Blinken
Special Assistant to the President for Strategic Planning, NSC
5) Mr. Terry Bracey
Bracey & Williams Law Firm
- the business alliance for international development
(A business coalition to support foreign assistance)
6) Ms. Jill Buckley
Assistant Administrator for Legislative and Public Affairs,
Agency for International Development
7) Mr. Steve Grand
Director of the Policy/Opinion Leaders Program, German Marshall Fund
8) Dr. David Hamburg,
Carnegie Corporation of New York
9) Rep. Lee Hamilton (tentative)
US House of Representatives
10) Mr. Henry Kissinger
12) Professor Steven Kull,
University of Maryland
- Survey expert of international policy attitudes, author of "The Foreign Policy
Gap: How Policy Makers Misread the Public, and Americans in Foreign Aid.'
13) Ms. Ellen Levine
Editor in Chief, Good Housekeeping
14) Mr. Joseph Lockhart,
Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy Press Secretary
15) Mr. Michael McCurry (tentative)
Assistant to the President and White House Press Secretary
16) Ms. Karen Mulhauser
Mulhauser & Associates
- Developed strategies for greater public support of foreign aid
17) Mr. Thomas Pickering
Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs
18) Jamie Rubin,
Assistant Secretary of Public Affairs, US Dept. of State
19) Ms. Susan Sechler
Vice President, Aspen Institute
20) Mr. James "Gus" Speth
Administrator, United Nations Development Program
21) Ms. Julia Taft
Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees & Migration, US Dept. of State
22) Mr. John Whitehead
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 18, 1998
Mr. John Whitehead
16 Sutton Square
New York, New York 10022
Dear Mr. Whitehead:
I would like to invite you to join me and a small group of national
leaders to explore ways in which we can strengthen public support for the
United States' engagement in international affairs in the post-Cold War
political environment. In my travels abroad, I have been deeply impressed by
the significance of our great nation throughout the world. Yet, I am
concerned by the apparent gap between the importance of our nation's work
abroad and public support for that work at home.
Around the globe, I have met many extraordinary Americans working
creatively on behalf of our government, and with other countries on issues of
development, security, education, science, humanitarian efforts and business.
In addition, great numbers of Americans visit and study in faraway places.
We cannot afford to be indifferent in an era of unprecedented economic
lobalization and international cooperation. The dramatic technological
advances in communication and transportation are drawing us together more than
ever before.
I believe it is critical that we Americans exert effective leadership and
function as productive partners in enterprises throughout the world. That
means, among other things, that we must do our fair share in supporting
foreign assistance programs and international organizations. As citizens, we
must become better informed about the people and cultures of other countries.
We must mobilize our intellectual, technical, and moral resources to earn
respect, engage in commerce, and provide constructive leadership in a
transforming world.
Please join me at the White House on September 16th at 2:00pm to consider
how our nation can further engage the public on international issues in
thoughtful, far-sighted and constructive ways, and how we might better take
advantage of the opportunities now before us. I look forward to your
participation in this meeting. Please call Katy Button in my office at
202/456-6266 to respond.
Sincerely yours,
Clinton
Withdrawal/Redaction Marker
Clinton Library
DOCUMENT NO.
SUBJECT/TITLE
DATE
RESTRICTION
AND TYPE
003. list
re: potential candidates for the Presidential Medal of Freedom (3
ca. 1998
b(6)
pages)
COLLECTION:
Clinton Presidential Records
First Lady's Office
Melanne Verveer
OA/Box Number: 20032
FOLDER TITLE:
Foreign Affairs - Global Leadership: [Foreign Assistance and Engagement]
2013-0534-S
rc1532
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
b(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
b(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of
P3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
b(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
b(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
b(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed
b(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
of gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
PRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
b(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
2201(3).
concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA]
RR. Document will be reviewed upon request.
THE WHITE HOUSE
food
October 28, 1998
Mr. John C. Whitehead
Chair
United Nations Association of the
United States of America
801 Second Avenue
New York, New York 10017-4706
Dear John:
Thank you for your suggestions for possible activities I
might participate in to support the work of the United Nations.
I appreciate your following-up on our discussion and will share
copies of your letter with appropriate staff for consideration. It
was good to hear from you again.
With warm regards, I remain
Sincerely yours,
Hillary Hillary Rodham Clinton
CC:
Melanne Verveer, Chief of Staff
Patti Solis Doyle, Director of Scheduling
New York
UNITED NATIONS ASSOCIATION
Cc Melanne
801 Second Avenue
of the United States of America
New York, NY 10017-4706
Tel.: 212 907-1300
UNA-USA
Fax: 212 682-9185
E-mail: [email protected]
Web: http://www.unausa.org
September 28, 1998
Washington, DC
1010 Vermont Avenue, NW
Suite 904
Washington, DC 20005
Tel.: 202 347-5004
Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton
Fax: 202 628-5945
The White House
E-mail: [email protected]
Washington, D.C. 20500
Chair of the Association
Dear Hillary:
John C. Whitehead
.
I hasten to take you up on your September 16 request to suggest some things that
Chair, Board of Governors
you might do to broaden the American public's interest in foreign affairs, especially the
William J. vanden Heuvel
multilateral dimensions on which cooperation with other countries on global problems
Chair, Executive Committee
depends. As you know, my particular interest, as Chairman of the United Nations
Michael W. Sonnenfeldt
Association, is in encouraging Americans to support the UN, certainly one of the key parts
of an effective foreign policy.
Co-Chairs, National Council
Elliot L. Richardson
I have the following ideas and would welcome further discussion with you about
Cyrus R. Vance
them:
President
Sponsor and organize a bipartisan White House conference of eminent
Alvin P. Adams, Jr.
diplomats, scholars, labor leaders, NGO representatives, businessmen and young
Americans on the importance of foreign policy and how a strong United Nations is
Vice Chairs
greatly in the interest of the United States. Perhaps this could be supplemented by
Ruth J. Hinerfeld
Estelle Linzer
a Model UN Program - simulated UN debates - by students at the White House. (I
Arthur Ross
understand that Chelsea participated in Model UN programs in high school.)
William J. Rouhana, Jr.
Agree to speak at the UNA-USA Annual dinner on October 27 in New York City
Treasurer
where Bob Rubin and Kofi Annan will be our honorees.
Christopher Brody
Agree to serve as national Chair for our Annual United Nations Day program,
Secretary
October 24, in the year 1999. Many states have their own state chairs; the duties
Shirley Quisenberry
of this office are limited and UNA staff would assist you fully.
Governors
Establish a First Lady's Advisory Committee with UNA on United Nations issues
Mia Adjali
and American policy, especially on how we should educate young Americans about
Tim Barner
the situation in the world around us, both as it is now as well as what it will be like in
Margaret Bruce
Edison W. Dick
the next millennium.
Maurice R. Greenberg
August Heckscher
These are just a few ideas which came readily to mind. Your interest represents a
John R. Kennedy
magnificent opportunity for all Americans who understand the importance of foreign affairs
Ramesh Krishnamurthy
and trade, especially to our young people whose jobs and welfare will depend increasingly
Donald F. McHenry
on what happens beyond our borders.
Ken Miller
William A. Miller
With kind regards,
James A. R. Nafziger
Ved Nanda
Leo Nevas
Sincerely,
Louis Perlmutter
Carroll Petrie
Betty Sandford
Jack Sheinkman
JCW:kr
John Jun C. Whitehead
Edwin J. Wesely
Richard S. Williamson
Milton A. Wolf
MAY-07-1998 17:00
P.02
USAID
U.S. AGENCY FOR
INTERNATIONAL
DEVELOPMENT
MAY 7 1998
TO:
Interagency Working Group
FROM:
Jill Buckley
Assistant Administrator
USAID Bureau for Legislative and Public Affairs
RE:
TV/Public Education and Outreach Initiative
We want to update you on the progress of our TV/Public Education and Outreach Initiative.
Following our first meeting, and subsequent conversations with the First Lady's Office, we
moved forward to meet with outside groups to gather ideas, gauge levels of interest in direct
participation, and measure support for this effort.
We plan to follow up in the next few weeks to give you a summary of our options and the goal,
action items and timeline for the initiative. We will welcome your comments and ideas.
The groups we have met with fall into three main categories: groups with similar goals (e.g.,
Mott Foundation, Rockefeller Brothers, etc.); people with skills and technical expertise dealing
with broadcast media; and groups that might be interested in funding this initiative.
From our two months of meetings, six main themes consistently emerged:
Television and paid advertising:
PSAs work well as part of very focused campaigns for a limited audience.
Effective television outreach to a broad-based audience, however, would need to
be based on a long-term, multiyear paid advertising strategy, not just PSAs. Most
people believe that a paid ad campaign would be the biggest (and arguably the
most important) component of any public education and outreach initiative.
The timing is good to investigate creative programming opportunities (and to take
advantage of new FCC children's programming regs) as well as stand-alone
spots. Reaching out to cable TV, network TV, the motion picture industry, and
experts in children's television would also broaden our technical base.
MAY-07-1998 17:00
P.03
Saliency, message & audience:
There seems to be a uniform long-term concern about saliency -- international
engagement is not seen by most people as relevant to their lives.
There is very good survey research available on this, as well as new compilations
of data. Most of the polling has been on attitude, not message, and, clearly,
follow-up focus groups to narrow down and test messages would be essential.
There has not been consensus on audience. Some believe the target should be a
broad, mass-market general audience. Others think a smaller target would show
more easily measurable results. There are audiences that may be good to begin
with -- people who are not part of our traditional constituency but have natural
international interests (e.g., ethnic groups with ties to a country, people who
travel, people in international clubs, foreign language press, international business
organizations, etc.).
Reaching youth:
The key to changing attitudes is reaching people when they are young. Youth,
generally, appears to be an untapped audience and international affairs a
somewhat neglected area in curricula. Reaching into schools has great potential
and could be achieved several ways through new, interactive school curriculum
development and school service clubs (e.g., Junior Achievement, 4-H, Future
Farmers, Key Club, American Field Service, Operation Day's Work - USA, etc.).
Reaching youth in school would also be a way to reach families and a good
foundation for extended community outreach. The link to education is essential,
not only youth in school, but higher education as well.
Internet:
The potential to "bring the world right into the classroom and home" is enormous,
and innovative use of the Internet could reach a very wide general audience. An
interactive Web site has the potential to be a "seamless" extension, from an in-
school curriculum component to the home, as well as part of ongoing community
outreach. Outside technical expertise would be essential in developing a cutting-
edge, interactive Web site.
MAY-07-1998 17:00
P.04
Organization:
Clearly, there needs to be a grassroots component to this initiative to ensure its
success and long-term sustainability. Most people do not believe there needs to
be a new organization, rather a way to tie the existing ones together.
There also is great interest on the part of the business community (Chambers of
Commerce, Business Alliance, Campaign to Preserve U.S. Global Leadership,
etc.), but the level of buy-in needs to be heightened and the saliency issue
addressed. There are competing interests, but most people believe the business
community could be brought together quickly in support of this initiative.
Funding:
This initiative would need to be a privately funded, multiyear, concerted effort to
ensure long-term sustainability and reach the broadest base audience with
repeated, consistent, relevant messages.
Throughout our meeting process, it also became clear that there are many people out there
thinking about the potential of organizing around this goal, and we found almost everyone
willing to be part of a core group to work with us on this initiative.
To date, we have spoken by phone or met with the following:
Bill White
President, CS Mott Foundation
Maureen Smith
VP Programs, CS Mott Foundation
Judy Samelson
VP Communications, CS Mott Foundation
Talked mostly about message, saliency and the importance of long-
term, strategic communications. Thought a paid ad campaign
would be the biggest (and most important) component.
Mark Gearan
Director, Peace Corps
Thought that the Peace Corps could be a great asset in this
initiative and that we could/should capitalize on its popularity.
Peter Fenn
Fenn & King
Media producer with international experience. Tie to the President
of the National Cable Television Association.
Jerry Klepner
Black, Kelly, Scruggs & Healy
Ties to Young & Rubicam and Burson Marsteller.
Jim Margolis
Greer, Margolis
Worked with State and White House on Africa pre- and post-trip
outreach ideas. Stressed need for long-term commitment.
MAY-07-1998 17:01
P.05
Steven Kull
Director, Program on International Policy Attitudes, Center for
International Security Studies, University of Maryland
Author of The Foreign Policy Gap--How Policy Makers Misread
the Public and Americans and Foreign Aid--A Study of Public
Attitudes.
Susan Sechler
Aspen Institute
Author of Global Interdependence and the Need for Social
Stewardship report for the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.
Priscilla Lewis
Rockefeller Brothers Fund
Special Assistant to the President
Director of Communications
Currently working on a second collaboration with Susan Sechler.
Terry Bracey
Bracey & Williams
Barry Blechman
Stinson Foundation
Terry and Barry followed up our meeting with a plan outlining
how they believe U.S. business could be involved in this initiative.
Pat McGuinnes
President, Council on Excellence in Government
Suggested the Partnership for a Drug-Free America as a good case
study and possible model. Also suggested the possibility of
partnering with the current Peace Corps ad campaign.
Bunny Lester
Children's Television Workshop
Assistant VP, Development, Marketing & Communications
Offered suggestions about creative fundraising and volunteered to
help lead a fundraising campaign.
Sally Patterson
Winner, Wagner, Frances
Thought thematic outreach to small target audiences would be the
best way to link our issues to the general public.
Joanne Eide
NEA International Affairs
Jill Christiansen
NEA International Affairs
Stressed that the link to education is essential. Thought that certain
messages could (and would) be well received and understood by
children as young as elementary school age.
Karen Mulhauser
Mulhauser Public Affairs
Suggested expanding the base of the Lessons Without Borders
program as the umbrella organization to run this initiative.
Marlene Johnson
CEO, NAFSA: Association of International Educators
Thought an education component should continue through college.
Polly Donaldson
Director of Public Outreach, Partners of the Americas
Discussed the pros and cons of reaching out to the general public
VS. the "elites."
Liz Schrayer
President, Schrayer & Associates
Campaign Coordinator, Campaign to Preserve U.S. Global Leadership
Represents a coalition of over 300 businesses, including many
Fortune 500 companies.
MAY-07-1998 17:01
P.06
Theresa Loar
State/President's Interagency Council on Women
As we expected, she had good ideas and contacts for us to follow
up in the future.
We have also scheduled meetings with:
Tony Blinken
NSC
Jeff Meer
United Nations Foundation
Peter Hart
Peter Hart Research Associates
Barbara Shaller
AFL-CIO, International Relations
Karen Nussbaum
AFL-CIO, Women's Issues
Jim Moody
President, Interaction
Gibby Waitzkin
Gibson Creative
Jeff DaPuzzo
American Express
Richard Bates
Buena Vista / Disney
Jack Valenti
President & CEO, Motion Picture Association of America
Rick Delano
Scholastic, Inc.
TOTAL P.06
Business Alliance for International Economic Development
601 13th Street, N.W., Suite 900-S, Washington, DC 20005
George C. Burrill,
Steering Committee Chair
October 2, 1998
Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton
Alliance to Save Energy
American Seed Trade Association
Office of the First Lady
Association for International
The White House
Agriculture & Rural Development
Citizens Network for
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Foreign Affairs
Washington, DC 20500
Coopers & Lybrand
International Executive
Services Corp
Dear Mrs. Clinton:
National Association of State
Universities and Land-Grant
Colleges
On behalf of the Business Alliance for International Economic Development, I
Pacific Basin Economic Council - US
Pioneer Hi-Bred International
am pleased to submit some ideas for how you could help re-establish the
Professional Services Council
domestic constituency for international economic development.
US - ASEAN Business Council
In the attached document we outline our belief that there are three critical
Terrence L. Bracy,
Executive Director
audiences which could be motivated and educated through your leadership.
James C. Benfield,
Associate Director
First, the stakeholders need to be refocused and re-energized. As the
(202) 783-5588 FAX 783-5595
pie of money continues to shrink, the very organizations that stand to
http://www.milcom.com/alliance/
benefit from development assistance -- not to mention the world's poor
-- fall into the trap of infighting and lack of coordination. You have the
ability to bring together representatives of these different sectors
(including education, agriculture, infrastructure, health, environmental
technology, tourism and institutional reform) and focus them on the fact
that the foreign assistance community will succeed or fail together.
Second, the American public needs to become more informed about
the necessity of international engagement. We recommend convening
four to six regional conferences, chaired by you, which would bring
together the stakeholders named above. The purpose of these
conferences is to shift attitudes by focusing on the benefits that foreign
assistance brings to the domestic economy.
Third, the long-term future of foreign assistance is in the hands of
America's youth. We recommend a coordinated effort targeting
student leadership organizations by using national communication
tools, like Channel One or Cable in the Classroom.
Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton
October 2, 1998
page 2
By nature, the attached memo focuses on top level concepts rather than specific
implementation. We do, however, have ideas for how these concepts could play out with your
leadership, and we would be happy to provide more detail if you are interested.
Sincerely,
Terry Bray
Terrence L. Bracy
enclosure
CC J. Brian Atwood
Samuel R. Berger
Thomas R. Pickering
Building Domestic Support for Foreign Assistance
In the post-Cold War political environment, the public at large is severely disconnected from
both the facts about and rationale behind foreign assistance. This fundamental lack of
comprehension and ownership endangers the future of federal support for foreign assistance.
The Business Alliance for International Economic Development believes that a coordinated
information campaign focusing on the aid/trade dynamic is critical to the long-term future of
USAID and foreign assistance in general. To that end, the Business Alliance has published two
reports: Foreign Assistance: What's In It For Americans? and Global Markets and Foreign
Assistance: Is the United States Losing Ground?
In the short term, the key stakeholders need to coordinate and articulate a clear rationale for
foreign assistance without resorting to parochial infighting. Too often, representatives from
different sectors (including education, agriculture, infrastructure, health, tourism and institutional
reform) attempt to elevate their priorities at the expense of others.
The NGOs and the private sector need to understand that the short term success of restoring
foreign assistance funding depends on their willingness to create a consensus for the common
goal. An example of where these interests converge is environmental technologies that serve
not only basic human needs and promote sustainability in developing countries, but also
provide export opportunities for U.S. companies.
To address the foreign assistance disconnect on a long-term basis, we believe two key
constituencies should be targeted with a grassroots education and involvement strategy:
The business community, through an education campaign focusing on the implications of
the aid/trade connection on basic bread and butter issues.
The youth of America, through development and distribution of curricula and related
materials to inspire a new generation of outward-thinking leaders.
A three part campaign will have a lasting effect on the future of the foreign assistance debate in
the United States - without extensive use of staff resources or tax dollars:
1. Leverage your leadership to promote foreign assistance through creative use of various
conferences and media outlets. Primarily, the key stakeholders of foreign assistance should
be encouraged to work together in articulating an overarching rationale for foreign
assistance. This could be kicked off by a small, focused White House meeting that would
bring key players to the table and then be reinforced through four to six regional
conferences that would bring the core message to the public at large.
2. Identify appropriate domestic organizations affected by foreign assistance and utilize their
membership rolls and communications infrastructures as vehicles for information about
foreign assistance.
3. Reshape existing content about foreign assistance into formats that are relevant, easily
accessible to the target audiences and make effective use of new communications
technology.
Targeting the Business Community:
The Business Alliance believes continued dissemination of the core aid/trade message is critical
to engaging the business community. The question is how to augment the tremendous
financial and staff commitment USAID and other organizations already make to further get the
message out. Four action items will lead to improved engagement from the business
community:
1. Further understand the public's misconceptions about foreign assistance through polling
analysis and focus groups.
2. Utilize political leadership creatively to re-energize the core constituencies - including
national security interests, business community, and humanitarians - and draw attention
and media coverage to the discussions taking place within these organizations.
3. Identify appropriate partner organizations that will serve as conduits for information and
facilitate the aid/trade discussion through existing organizational structures, including the
US Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers and the Jaycees.
4. Package existing USAID information and materials in formats to which the business
community and industry trade media will respond, including regional conferences, white
papers, web content and videotapes.
We believe a White House conference could be an effective jumping off point, especially if the
conference were small and focused, with an emphasis not on media coverage but rather a
personal enjoinder to find common ground in articulating the case for foreign assistance.
Reaching Out to Youth:
In our post-Cold War, post-Vietnam environment the future of foreign assistance will be decided
by the youth of America. Engaging students is, by nature, different than engaging the business
community. Rather than focusing purely on dollar and cents issues, fostering several different
partnership tracks can ensure that a wide range of students can become energized by the
concept and goals of foreign assistance. At the same time, it is difficult to navigate educational
bureaucracies to reach these students.
The solution is targeting two key constituencies:
1. National organizations that tend to attract motivated student-leaders.
2. Media outlets with national educational reach.
Advocates of foreign assistance should certainly target what can be considered a natural
constituency - the "Peace Corps" demographic - through organizations such as Model United
Nations Clubs. Equally important, however, is to reach the new generations of young
entrepreneurs through organizations like Junior Achievement, Future Business Leaders of
America, 4H Clubs, Future Farmers of America and many, many others. These organizations
can help motivated, entrepreneurial students understand the foreign assistance argument.
Existing material from USAID programs can be reshaped into on-line curricula, and the Internet
can be used for communication between communities. For example, a Junior Achievement
club in Iowa could market products manufactured by student-colleagues in Africa, creating a
tangible, valuable education on the free market system and cultural exchange.
Beyond relying on the communications and membership structure of national organizations,
advocates should target partnerships with Channel One or Cable in the Classroom to promote
and facilitate this debate. Channel One, for example, reaches over 40 percent of the nation's
high school students and would be thrilled to feature a major administration initiative -
especially if that meant an on-camera interview with the First Lady. This potentially could result
in a week's worth of stories focusing on different aspects of foreign assistance building up to an
interview or even a "national meeting" on the future of foreign assistance. Other student-
centered media outlets, including magazines and television programs, would be appropriate
targets.
PAGE
2
31ST STORY of Level 1 printed in FULL format.
Copyright 1998 The New York Times Company
The New York Times
freegn Support palicy
April 18, 1998, Saturday, Late Edition - Final
SECTION: Section A; Page 13; Column 5; Editorial Desk
LENGTH: 734 words
HEADLINE: Foreign Affairs;
Techno-Nothings
BYLINE: By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
DATELINE: PALO ALTO, Calif.
BODY:
I don't think I like Silicon Valley.
Here's why: I'm as impressed as anyone with the technologies that Silicon
Valley is producing and the way they are changing how we must think about
economic power and how nations interact. But what is so striking about Silicon
Valley is that it has become so enamored of its innovative and profit-making
prowess that it has completely lost sight of the overall context within which
this is taking place. There is a disturbing complacency here toward Washington,
government and even the nation. There is no geography in Silicon Valley, or
geopolitics. There are only stock options and electrons.
When I asked an all-too-typical tech-exec here when was the last time he
talked about Iraq or Russia or foreign wars, he answered: "Not more than once a
year. We don't even care about Washington. Money is extracted from Silicon
Valley and then wasted by Washington. I want to talk about people who create
wealth and jobs. I don't want to talk about unhealthy and unproductive people.
If I don't care enough about the wealth-destroyers in my own country, why would
I care about the wealth-destroyers in another country?"
What's wrong with this picture is that all the technologies Silicon Valley is
designing to carry digital voices, videos and data farther and faster around the
world, all the trade and financial integration it is promoting through its
innovations, and all the wealth it is generating, is happening in a world
stabilized by a benign superpower called the United States of America, with its
capital in Washington D.C.
The hidden hand of the global market would never work without the hidden
fist. And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley's
technologies to flourish is called the United States Army, Air Force, Navy and
Marine Corps (with the help, incidentally, of global institutions like the U.N.
and the International Monetary Fund). And those fighting forces and institutions
are paid for by all the tax dollars that Washington is "wasting" every year.
Because of the intense competition here among companies, and the continuous
flood of new products, there is a saying in Silicon Valley that "loyalty is just
one mouse-click away. But you can take that too far. Execs here say things
like: "We are not an American company. We are I.B.M. U.S., I.B.M. Canada, I.B.M.
Australia, I.B.M. China. II Oh yeah? Well, the next time you get in trouble in
PAGE
3
The New York Times, April 18, 1998
China, then call Li Peng for help. And the next time Congress closes another
military base in Asia -- and you don't care because you don't care about
Washington call Microsoft's navy to secure the sea lanes of Asia. And the
next time the freshmen Republicans want to close more U.S. embassies, call
America Online when you lose your passport.
Harry Saal, a successful Silicon Valley engineer, venture capitalist and
community activist -- an exception to the norm -- remarked to me: "If you ask
people here what their affiliation is, they will name their company. Many live
and work on a company campus. The leaders of these companies don't have any real
understanding of how a society operates and how education and social services
get provided for. People here are not involved in Washington policy because they
think the future will be set by technology and market forces alone and
eventually there will be a new world order based on electrons and information."
They're exactly half right. I've had a running debate with a neo-Reaganite
foreign-policy writer, Robert Kagan, from the Carnegie Endowment, about the
impact of economic integration and technology on geopolitics. He says I
overestimate its stabilizing effects; I say he underestimates it. We finally
agreed that unless you look at both geotechnology and geopolitics you can't
explain (or sustain) this relatively stable moment in world history. But
Silicon Valley's tech-heads have become so obsessed with bandwidth they've
forgotten balance of power. They've forgotten that without America on duty there
will be no America Online.
"The people in Silicon Valley think it's a virtue not to think about history
because everything for them is about the future," argued Mr. Kagan. "But their
ignorance of history leads them to ignore that this explosion of commerce and
trade rests on a secure international system, which rests on those who have the
power and the desire to see that system preserved."
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
LOAD-DATE: April 18, 1998
GLOBAL INTERDEPENDENCE
PAPER NO. 1
AND THE NEED FOR
SOCIAL STEWARDSHIP
GLOBAL INTERDEPENDENCE
PAPER NO. 1
AND THE NEED FOR
SOCIAL STEWARDSHIP
Laurie Ann Mazur & Susan E. Sechler
GLOBAL INTERDEPENDENCE INITIATIVE
RBF
ROCKEFELLER BROTHERS FUND
ROCKEFELLER BROTHERS FUND
1290 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10104-0233
212.373.4200
212.315.0996
E-mail: [email protected]
World Wide Web: www.rbf.org
Copyright © 1997, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Inc.
All rights reserved.
CONTENTS
5 PREFACE
9 INTRODUCTION
13
I: THE CHALLENGE OF GLOBAL INTERDEPENDENCE
19
II: THE RETREAT FROM SOCIAL STEWARDSHIP
25 III: BUILDING SUPPORT FOR SOCIAL STEWARDSHIP
33 CONCLUSION
34 NOTES
3
ROCKEFELLER BROTHERS FUND
PREFACE
On October 7-8, 1996, at the Pocantico Conference Center of the
Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Fund joined with the World Bank to
host an unusual gathering of foundation executives, leaders of major
humanitarian and environmental NGOs (nongovernmental organiza-
tions), and officers of large multilateral institutions. The meeting was
entitled "Building a Constituency for Global Interdependence," and its
agenda reflected a deep sense of shared concern about the apparent
waning of public and political support (in the United States but also in
other developed nations) for the policies, programs, and agencies of
cooperative international engagement. Despite considerable talk about
the globalization of the economy and the unifying effects of communi-
cations technology, there has been a growing and worrisome tendency
on the part of governments, the general public, and private funders to
withdraw or withhold their support from international development,
exchange, and capacity-building initiatives that reflect the reality and
implications of global interdependence. A serious lack of funding,
commitment, and vision-the resources on which effective cooperative
engagement depends-now threatens to undermine the capacity of
nations and peoples to collaborate in building a just and sustainable
global community.
The U.S. retreat from international cooperative engagement has been
widely reported. Once the world leader in aid to developing nations,
the United States now ranks at the bottom of the list of donor nations in
the percentage of gross national product devoted to foreign aid. In recent
years, the United States has also failed to honor its commitments to
such multilateral agencies as the United Nations and the International
Development Association (the branch of the World Bank that provides
low- and no-interest loans to the world's poorest countries) and has shifted
its aid priorities, to a large extent, from long-term development assistance
to short-term disaster relief. But the origins and extent of this retreat are
poorly understood. Why, and among whom, is commitment diminishing?
Has commitment waned for all forms of international engagement, or only
for some? What can be done to reverse this trend? These questions were at
the heart of the October 1996 Pocantico workshop.
In a lively and open discussion, participants reviewed what is known,
guessed, and still unknown about the nature and causes of reduced
5
ROCKEFELLER BROTHERS FUND
support for cooperative engagement. The public's lack of confidence in
public institutions, including governments and international agencies,
received extensive attention. NGO leaders then offered practical case
studies of constituency-building in their own areas of interest: health,
women's rights, environmental conservation, humanitarian aid, and
emergency relief. Participants explored the potential differences between
constituency-building on behalf of specific issues or causes and constitu-
ency-building on behalf of cooperative engagement more generally. A
variety of strategies to bolster public and policymaker support for
international cooperation was proposed and vigorously debated, with an
emphasis not only on increasing financial support but also, and primarily,
on changing the climate of opinion. Central to this discussion was a
consideration of the need for renewed political leadership if the climate of
opinion is to be altered in any meaningful fashion. Implicitly and
occasionally explicitly, the gathering posed the question of how a group of
foundations, NGOs, and multilateral institutions might work
collaboratively, drawing on their respective and complementary strengths,
to help build a broader understanding of global interdependence and a
stronger commitment to cooperative engagement.
This meeting cannot be said to have produced a consensus, either on how
to define the problem or on how to try to solve it. The discussions at
Pocantico did, however, illuminate the need for more nuanced informa-
tion about the beliefs and perceptions of Americans regarding their
country's role in an interdependent world, and about the efforts that are
already under way by NGOs and other organizations to educate various
audiences about the challenges and opportunities presented by global
interdependence. Above all, the meeting illuminated the need for a new
conceptual framework for cooperative engagement in the post-Cold Was
eΓa-a framework that would not only guide U.S. foreign policy and
galvanize political leadership on behalf of international engagement, but
also inform broad public education efforts on global issues and encourage
greater public involvement and trust in the cooperative engagement
process. These are needs that a collaboration of concerned foundations,
NGOs, and multilateral institutions might well seek to address by
engaging in some shared thinking and by developing some shared
resources. It is this possibility which is now being explored-through
informal conversations and meetings of a smaller working group-by the
participants in the October 1996 workshop.
The paper that follows draws in part on the rich array of ideas voiced at
Pocantico to describe one possible and persuasive new framework for
cooperative engagement. It begins by explaining the need for cooperation
if interdependent nations are to advance their common interests in three
areas: economic growth; military security; and what the authors call social
stewardship, which involves the promotion of health, social stability, and
human potential. The United States, the authors argue, has fallen far
6
GLOBAL INTERDEPENDENCE
behind in this last arena. The second section of the paper traces the
history of political and public support for social stewardship and discusses
its current falling-off. In so doing, the paper provides valuable new
information on American attitudes toward cooperative engagement
generally and social stewardship in particular, suggesting that the con-
stituency-building challenge is a complex one, involving not so much a
lack of awareness about global issues, but rather the low priority assigned
to those issues and the absence of a compelling policy context in which to
address them. The third section begins to lay out messages and methods
(including reform of the vehicles for cooperative engagement) that might
help generate a renewed commitment to social stewardship among
policymakers and opinion leaders, key constituencies, and the general
public. Finally, the authors argue for a model of cooperative engagement
in which social stewardship, economic growth, and military security are
seen as mutually reinforcing expressions of American interests and values.
In its effort to articulate the importance of social stewardship and locate
it in an overall framework for international involvement, and in its
emphasis on the need for leadership as well as constituency if support for
cooperative engagement is to be increased, this paper can certainly be
seen as an outgrowth of the October 1996 Pocantico meeting. Many of its
particulars, though, have been drawn or developed from other sources
and subsequent discussions. In presenting this essay to the public, then,
the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the World Bank are not reporting on a
particular workshop. Instead, we seek to convey something of the
underlying concern and conviction that brought a diverse and sometimes
divergent group of organizations together around a single issue; to offer a
first example of the kinds of information and resources such a group
might work together to provide; and to help spark a much larger conver-
sation about the purpose, principles, and agents of American engagement
overseas.
Colin G. Campbell
President
Rockefeller Brothers Fund
Mark Malloch Brown
Vice President, External Affairs
World Bank
7
ROCKEFELLER BROTHERS FUND
INTRODUCTION
In a world made smaller by global commerce and communication,
cooperative engagement among nations is more possible-and more
necessary- than ever before.
"Cooperative engagement," in this context, refers to the complex of
policies, programs, treaties, investments, and regimes by which nations
collaborate to advance common interests. Those interests fall into three
broad categories: military security, economic growth and trade, and what
might be called social stewardship-the promotion of health, social
stability, and human potential. The United States is the world leader in
efforts to ensure military security and has intensified efforts to open
international markets and foster economic growth. But, as this paper will
elaborate, the United States has fallen far behind in the realm of social
stewardship.'
The term "social stewardship" is, admittedly, an awkward one. In public
discourse, "stewardship" is most often used to describe the responsible
use of natural resources-resource use that meets the needs of current
generations without compromising the ability of future generations to
meet their needs. But intergenerational concern should extend to the
social realm as well. To meet the needs of current and future generations,
it is also necessary to act as good stewards of human resources. Accord-
ingly, social stewardship includes not only the careful use of natural
resources, but also long-range efforts to improve public health, such as
immunization and nutrition programs, basic sanitation, and reproductive
health care. It includes efforts to promote greater social stability by
fostering democracy, the rule of law, human rights, and more equitable
distribution of resources. And it includes investments in human poten-
tial, such as public education and micro-credit initiatives. The package of
objectives that we call "social stewardship" is closely related to the
objectives of "human development," "social development," and "human
security." In the international sphere, these objectives are now mostly
pursued through bilateral and multilateral aid agencies, although many
other private- and public-sector actors contribute to social stewardship.
Social stewardship is increasingly recognized as a component of na-
tional-and global-security. With the end of the Cold War, there is
a growing understanding of non-military threats to peace and social
stability. Intranational problems, such as resource scarcities and wide
9
ROCKEFELLER BROTHERS FUND
gaps between rich and poor, have the potential to destabilize nations
and even precipitate military aggression. Successful social stewardship
efforts can address intranational problems before they metastasize into
larger threats.
Social stewardship is also valued as a building block of economic growth.
Certainly, people who are healthy and educated are better prepared to
seize economic opportunity than those who are sick, malnourished, or
illiterate. A clear illustration of the economic benefits of social steward-
ship can be found in Costa Rica, where U.S. development assistance
helped the government to provide basic health care, safe drinking water,
and free primary and secondary education to all of its citizens.³ These
efforts reaped impressive gains: adult literacy rates in Costa Rica are now
at 94 percent, and infant mortality dropped from sixty-two deaths per
one thousand births in 1970 to thirteen in 1996, which is close to the level
in most industrialized countries.⁴ Investments in human well-being have
catalyzed strong economic growth-Costa Rica's per capita income is
now among the highest in Latin America-and reduced dependence on
foreign assistance. Indeed, in 1996 Costa Rica "graduated" from receiving
U.S. foreign aid.
And social stewardship has a moral value that cannot be quantified.
Our moral and religious traditions teach us to care for the poor, the
marginalized, the "least among us." Embedded in this teaching is a
recognition of the dignity and worth of each human being. Social
stewardship is an expression of our common humanity and of the value
we place on each human life.
Still, the strategic, economic, and moral importance of social stewardship
is not yet reflected in the U.S. budget (the most visible, but not the only
meaningful measure of commitment). In fact, social stewardship now
consumes a smaller share of international spending than at any time in
the last thirty years. Since 1962, U.S. defense spending has fallen by 15
percent in constant 1997 dollars, while non-military international
spending, including social stewardship, plummeted by 43 percent.⁵
Bilateral development assistance (more commonly known as "foreign
aid") has sustained the deepest cuts. The United States, for decades the
largest aid donor, is now in fourth place behind Japan, France, and
Germany.6 Real spending on development assistance peaked at $51 billion
(in 1997 dollars) in 1947, when the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe was
in full stride. Spending has fallen steadily since then, with steeper drops in
recent years, to $14 billion in 1997.7 The U.S. ratio of official development
assistance (ODA)8 to Gross National Product (GNP) is now at its lowest
level since 1950. Indeed, the United States devotes a smaller percentage of
national income to development assistance than nearly any other devel-
oped nation-less than one-tenth of one percent (.1 percent), compared
10
GLOBAL INTERDEPENDENCE
to .97 percent for the Danes, .89 percent for the Swedes, .55 percent for
the French, and .31 percent for the Germans.9 Even in absolute terms, if
we exclude U.S. aid to Israel and Egypt, the United States-with 265
million people-spends less on development assistance than Denmark, a
nation of five million.
The United States has also reduced its contributions to multilateral aid_
efforts. In recent years, the United States has not fully honored its
commitments to United Nations agencies and peacekeeping activities,
nor to the International Development Association (IDA), the branch of
the World Bank that provides low- or no-interest loans to the poorest of
the world's countries. Although there is a movement under way to pay
those accumulated debts, it is not clear what the outcome will be.¹⁰
Deeper cuts may be in store for U.S. funding of bilateral and multilateral
agencies. Until recently, defense spending and non-military international
spending were linked together as "privileged" accounts within the
discretionary budget, meaning that they both enjoyed some protection
from budget-cutting pressures. But in recent years, the linkage has been
broken. Non-military international spending is now part of a broad "non-
defense discretionary" category. This means that international spend-
ing-diplomacy, support for multilateral organizations, and bilateral
development assistance-must compete for funds with domestic pro-
grams such as education, health care, and prisons. Given the stronger
constituencies for domestic programs-and the lack of understanding
about the impact of international problems on domestic well-being-
policymakers often choose to cut international programs instead."
Political and budgetary constraints combine to limit U.S. support for
bilateral and multilateral aid efforts. But social stewardship requires
more than cash; it also requires a commitment to cooperative engage-
ment with other nations. In international fora the United States still
tends to assume a hegemonic role, which may undercut cooperative
partnerships. For example, the United States has unilaterally called for
changes in the United Nations system and threatened to withdraw
support if those conditions are not met. "The U.S. knows how to be
the team captain, and it knows how to sit on the bench," says Jessica
Mathews, president of the Carnegie Endowment, "but it's not very
good at being a team player."12
The United States has also shifted its aid priorities from long-term
development assistance to short-term disaster relief. The shift away
from social stewardship may be short-sighted; long-term aid can help
poor countries prevent crises by developing their economies and social
infrastructure, which can obviate the need for expensive disaster relief.
"American policy," according to a recent report by the Overseas Devel-
11
ROCKEFELLER BROTHERS FUND
opment Council, "is, in effect, borrowing peace from the future to deal
with crises in the present."¹³
On October 7-8, 1996, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the World
Bank co-hosted a meeting of foundation executives, leaders of major
humanitarian and environmental NGOs (nongovernmental organiza-
tions), and officers of large multilateral institutions, who gathered to
discuss the apparent waning of America's commitment to social steward-
ship and what might be done about it. This meeting, entitled "Building a
Constituency for Global Interdependence," took place at the Fund's
Pocantico Conference Center. The meeting was inspired, in part, by the
RBF's longstanding interest in the theme of global interdependence and
its recent grantmaking experience in a world where the rapid pace of
globalization is blurring the distinctions between domestic and interna-
tional concerns. For the World Bank, sponsorship of the meeting
reflected an institutional mandate to foster cooperative engagement, as
well as a renewed commitment to program reform and to collaboration
with foundations and nongovernmental organizations.
At the Pocantico meeting, participants agreed that the United States has
made a sharp retreat from some forms of social stewardship-notably
bilateral and multilateral development assistance efforts. But the Pocantico
participants raised several questions about which there was less certainty.
For example, does the retreat from development assistance signify a broader
retreat from social stewardship? Is it possible to achieve social stewardship
through other means, such as a greater reliance on market mechanisms?
What is driving the current retreat, and how might it be reversed?
In the pages that follow, these questions are explored and others are
raised. Section I, "The Challenge of Global Interdependence," explores
the need for cooperative engagement to solve the problems and seize the
opportunities presented by globalization. Section II, "The Retreat from
Social Stewardship," reviews the history of political support for interna-
tional social stewardship and the reasons for the current retreat. Section
III, "Building Support for Social Stewardship," puts forth a three-part
framework for approaching the challenge of rebuilding support.
The authors of this paper, in an attempt to reflect and expand upon the views
of the Pocantico participants, have drawn a few preliminary conclusions.
First, it is clear that bilateral and multilateral development assistance is a
necessary, but not sufficient, component of social stewardship. Second, while
it is important to rebuild support for these traditional mechanisms of
stewardship, it is also necessary to develop new ways to harness the transfor-
mative powers of globalization to improve human well-being. Third and most
important, it is essential to promote a renewed national dialogue about the
goals and methods of U.S. engagement with other nations.
12
GLOBAL INTERDEPENDENCE
THE CHALLENGE OF GLOBAL INTERDEPENDENCE
We live in an era of stark contrasts. The global economy produces wealth
on a previously unimaginable scale-gross world product has grown by
more than 40 percent since 1980'4-yet the absolute number of people in
poverty continues to rise, and the chasm between rich and poor is
widening in many countries." With the end of the Cold War, the threat
of nuclear annihilation has diminished, yet bloody civil conflicts erupt
with frightening frequency and intensity. Medical science has conquered
diseases that plagued humanity for millennia, yet millions die each year
because they lack basic sanitation, nutrition, and health care. Our
capacity to shape the environment to meet human needs has brought
comfort and convenience to many, as well as unforeseen side effects-
climate change, species loss, soil erosion, water shortages-that may
threaten the planet's ability to sustain life itself.
The world is both expanding and contracting: expanding with the rapid
growth of the human population and economy; contracting as the forces
of globalization draw more tightly the bonds that connect us. An increas-
ingly global marketplace is redrawing the map of alliances, forging new
ties of economic, political, and social interdependence among people and
nations.
Interdependence Calls for International Problem-Solving
Interdependence means that global trends have greater effects at the local
level. As more producers and consumers are linked to the worldwide
economic grid, more communities are affected by events beyond their
borders.16 For example, as farmers complete the transition from self-
provisioning to production for export, their markets (and profits) grow.
But so does their vulnerability to price shifts. At the same time, many
governments have abandoned costly price supports (which encourage
market inefficiency and poor land use practices), so farmers have less
protection from the vicissitudes of the market.
Interdependence also means that what appear to be local problems can
have international causes and effects. For example, the proximate causes
of Mexico's 1994 peso crisis were local: budget deficits, hidden inflation,
the destabilizing Chiapas rebellion, and the assassination of a prominent
politician. But its underlying causes were, in a sense, global: a result of
Mexico's foreign debt and disadvantaged position in the world economy.
13
ROCKEFELLER BROTHERS FUND
And repercussions of the crisis were felt far beyond the Mexican border:
the United States, Canada, and other nations risked billions to protect
their own economies from the peso's slide.
In an interdependent world, environmental degradation, disease, terror-
ism, and organized crime do not respect national borders. So, to solve
local problems, it is often necessary to think and act globally. To protect
their forests from acid rain, Canadians must work with the United States
to address industrial pollution in the American Midwest. To stop the
spread of AIDS and other diseases, health officials must grapple with
political and economic chaos in Africa, which provides a fertile breeding
ground for globe-trotting microbes.¹⁷ To prevent climate changes that
threaten agriculture and ecosystems worldwide, environmentalists must
influence patterns of energy use and transportation in the industrialized
world as well as in the developing countries, which will produce the lion's
share of carbon dioxide emissions in the next century.18
For Americans, prosperity and quality of life are increasingly entwined
with conditions in other countries. Exports account for an increasing
share of our nation's economic growth, and developing countries are
among the fastest-growing markets for U.S. products. This means that
more U.S. jobs depend on purchasing power and political stability
overseas. These are generally high-paying jobs: industries that produce
goods for export pay wages that are 13 percent above the national aver-
age.¹⁹ Imports benefit Americans, too, by stocking our stores with
inexpensive goods that keep the cost of living down.
But strengthened economic ties with developing nations impel us to
consider the moral and practical implications of our new trading relation-
ships. What does it mean to trade with nations that pay workers much
less than American workers receive, and that have lower standards for
worker protection and human rights? It means, for example, that Ameri-
can children play with inexpensive soccer balls stitched together by their
peers in Pakistani sweatshops. Recently, consumer revulsion has
prompted boycotts and other efforts to improve working conditions in
developing countries. But some charge that boycotts are misguided: by
purchasing products from developing countries, they say, it may be
possible to foster growth that will ultimately lead to better working
conditions.
And the practical implications of trade with developing countries may
include job insecurity and lower wages for young and less-skilled
American workers. The actual economic effects are relatively small, but
they are politically significant. Most economists agree that trade with
developing countries accounts for only about 20 percent of wage
declines among less-skilled workers; the remainder is due to a host of
factors, including technological changes and the dwindling strength of
14
GLOBAL INTERDEPENDENCE
unions.²⁰ Still, over the last two decades, about 6 percent of U.S.
manufacturing jobs have been lost as corporations moved operations
overseas to cut labor costs, and salaries of less-skilled workers have
declined steadily.21 As a result, many Americans remain wary of eco-
nomic ties with developing nations, and there is ample evidence that
protectionist impulses are gathering force.
Should we, then, decline to trade with nations whose labor standards are
lower than ours? Should we shield American workers from wage declines
through protectionist measures? The integration of developing-country
workers into the world economy may indeed depress wages for less-
skilled workers everywhere. However, the costs of not integrating those
workers could be even higher: a widening gap between the world's rich
and poor, political instability, and an incalculable waste of human
potential. The challenge is to find mechanisms that can raise global
standards for both wages and working conditions, while preserving and
creating as many jobs as possible. This is a formidable but important task.
Interdependence Presents Opportunities
to Raise Living Standards
Of course, opportunities as well as challenges now transcend national
boundaries. In a globalized economy, capital moves more freely among
nations. This quickening flow of resources offers an extraordinary
opportunity to improve human well-being, especially in the impoverished
countries of the developing world. Since private flows of capital now
dwarf the spending of bilateral aid agencies and multilateral organiza-
tions, many believe that markets, not governments, will hasten develop-
ment and raise the quality of life worldwide.
The shift from public to private investment has been dramatic. A decade
ago, most capital flows to developing countries were in the form of loans
or aid from official development institutions, supplemented by a trickle
of private investment. That trickle has become a flood: private capital
flows to developing countries rose from $5 billion in 1970 to $100 billion
in 1981. Then, after a steep drop-off in the 1980s (when Mexico defaulted
on its bank loans, and other debtor nations threatened to follow suit),
private investment in developing countries rebounded to an unprec-
edented $285 billion in 1996, and now accounts for four-fifths of total
capital flows to those countries."
Ideas also move more freely in an interdependent world. Global trade has
been accompanied by a parallel expansion of communications technolo-
gies. Today, people throughout the world are linked by a dense network
of fiber-optic cables and are bathed in the common glow of an increas-
ingly global popular culture. The worldwide commerce in ideas offers the
potential to improve the quality of political and economic life by univer-
15
ROCKEFELLER BROTHERS FUND
salizing higher standards for human rights, democracy, and environmental
protection. For example, communications technologies-notably the
electronic information systems that connect computer users across the
globe-can serve as powerful tools of democratic reform. They can be
used to spark dialogue among advocates, challenge the hierarchical
control of information, and expose oppression and corruption. These
technologies have helped nongovernmental organizations from the
industrialized and developing countries form partnerships to raise
international norms on a wide variety of issues, from environmental
protection to women's rights.
The cross-pollination of cultures can also bring an end to age-old
practices of oppression and discrimination. The censure of the global
community (together with a strong indigenous human rights movement)
helped bring down apartheid in South Africa. Other practices, such as
female genital mutilation in North Africa and dowry murders in India,
may ultimately wither in the glare of the international spotlight.
But the transformative process of globalization is still in its early stages.
While private investment has lifted many into the ranks of the middle class
and sparked a revolution of rising expectations, it has not produced
appreciable benefits for most of the world's poor. According to the World
Bank, three-quarters of developing-country investment goes to just a dozen
countries, while the poorest countries-which are home to 42 percent of
the developing world's population-received just 6 percent of all private
investment. In those countries, one billion people live on the knife edge of
survival, lacking basic nutrition, sanitation, and health care. Even within
countries experiencing rapid economic growth, gains are often distributed
so unevenly that they do not benefit the majority of people.
Why do the benefits of global trade "trickle down" in some cases, but not
in others? Government policy is key: where governments are committed
to equal opportunity-especially for women-and invest in domestic
social stewardship programs like education and public health, economic
gains are usually more widely distributed. Conversely, the poorest
countries are often saddled with governments that are corrupt and
unresponsive to the needs of their people.²⁴ This raises thorny questions
for U.S. trade policy and cooperative engagement more generally. Should
the United States attempt to use its economic leverage to promote good
government in the developing countries? If so, how can this be done
without challenging the sovereignty of other nations?
Currently, there is vigorous debate in foreign-policy circles about the
larger purposes of U.S. trade policy. During the Cold War, the U.S.
deployed trade sanctions and rewards in the effort to contain Soviet
Communism. This meant that the interests of individual businesses were
sometimes sacrificed to the larger national interest. For example, during
16
GLOBAL INTERDEPENDENCE
the grain embargo of the late 1970s, agribusiness sustained major losses,
albeit involuntarily, in order to punish the Soviets for the invasion of
Afghanistan. Today, in the absence of overarching strategic objectives, the
interests of U.S.-based companies are given greater priority. Indeed, U.S.
trade policy now seeks primarily to secure market access in foreign
countries, even those that engage in questionable conduct. Proponents of
this approach, termed "commercial diplomacy," believe that unfettered
trade alone will promote peace by fostering economic interdependence,
and that growth will help democratize authoritarian states through
improved living standards and contact with open societies.
Most analysts agree that robust trade and investment are essential to
global prosperity and stability. But critics from both sides of the political
spectrum charge that current U.S. trade policy places short-term business
advantage ahead of long-term strategic and moral interests. Others
question whether "commercial diplomacy" will bring about democratiza-
tion.²⁵ Current conditions in Singapore and China (and the recent
histories of South Korea and Chile) suggest that brisk economic growth
and authoritarianism can coexist. Indeed, Lee Kuan Yew, the former
prime minister of Singapore, has argued that authoritarianism is a
necessary precondition for economic growth. The relationship between
economic growth and the pursuit of broader social goals-such as
human rights and equity-is complex and has generated considerable
debate. The substance and outcome of this debate will have far-reaching
implications for the future of cooperative engagement.
Another debate is raging over the potential impact of standards for global
commerce. Multilateral trade organizations are now working to "level the
playing field" for commerce by articulating international standards for
consumer, labor, and environmental protection. But those standards are
typically less stringent than the laws of the United States and other G-7
countries. Furthermore, because trade standards are set by small groups of
officials who are effectively insulated from the democratic process, they
raise many troubling questions. Who sets the standards for global
commerce, and at what level? How can we ensure that those standards are
in accordance with public values as well as private-sector interests? How
can trade organizations become more transparent and accountable?
National interests are increasingly bound up with international concerns,
and cooperation among nations is necessary to advance human well-being
in an interdependent world. There is no turning back from international
engagement: our nation's vital interests overseas prohibit a retreat into
isolationism. As a recent report by the Overseas Development Council
concludes:
17
ROCKEFELLER BROTHERS FUND
In the end, the principal issue for U.S. foreign policy is not
whether the United States will be engaged in the world but
the terms of that engagement: whether it will exercise an
effective voice in crafting the rules, norms, and structures that
will govern the evolving system, and whether U.S. policy will
attend to more than the short-term bottom line.
The "terms of engagement" for international affairs will, to a large extent,
determine the prospects for peace, prosperity, and human well-being in
the next century. What might the terms be? What purposes and prin-
ciples should guide international relations? Which combination of
military security, economic growth, and social stewardship will best
advance human well-being in an era of global interdependence? And,
what is our nation's role in international cooperative engagement? Is it
enough to ensure military security and economic growth, or do our values
and interests compel us to act as social stewards as well?
These questions deserve wide and rigorous public debate, but that debate
is not taking place. Instead, without public input, the United States has
retreated from its long-standing commitment to many institutions of
social stewardship. If cooperative engagement is to serve the public
interest, then international policy choices must be made with meaningful
participation by the American people and with leadership that is in-
formed by an understanding of the practical realities of global interdepen-
dence. And those choices must be guided by moral principles that reflect
our nation's values as well as its interests.
18
GLOBAL INTERDEPENDENCE
II
THE RETREAT FROM SOCIAL STEWARDSHIP
Containment As a Rationale for Social Stewardship
To understand declining political support for bilateral and multilateral
development agencies, it is helpful to review the history of that support.
In the United States, support for those institutions is a product of the
Cold War years, when containment of Soviet Communism was the
overarching rationale for U.S. foreign policy. During that era, the United
States implemented the Marshall plan, helped create and fund the United
Nations and the Bretton Woods institutions (the World Bank and the
International Monetary Fund), and launched the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID).
Public support for these institutions did not materialize quickly or
spontaneously. In the early years of the Cold War, President Truman, in
concert with policymakers and other opinion leaders, persuaded Ameri-
cans that Soviet Communism posed a profound threat to national
interests and that social and economic investments overseas would help
contain that threat by diminishing the appeal of Communism in poor
and war-torn nations. Truman and his contemporaries did not shape
policy to match opinion polls. Instead, they crafted a rationale and a
strategy, then showed the public how the policy protected American
interests and values. The emphasis on values-especially democracy and
political freedom - was key. In the words of Columbia University
historian John Ruggie, they succeeded by linking "the pursuit of
American interests to a transformative vision of world order that
appealed to the American public.""
Truman and others saw containment as the central objective of U.S.
foreign policy. Accordingly, military security concerns dominated the
spending and priorities of cooperative engagement with other nations.
The other elements of engagement-economic growth and social
stewardship-were judged important largely because of their relationship
to containment. Humanitarian and economic aid programs were justified
as a means to promote both social stability and market economies in
developing countries.
Despite (or, some would argue, because of) this emphasis on military
security, the Cold War period saw dramatic gains in social stewardship.
Since the end of World War II, child mortality rates worldwide have
fallen by 50 percent, helping to raise life expectancy in the developing
19
ROCKEFELLER BROTHERS FUND
countries by 50 percent. These gains are due, in part, to the efforts of
bilateral and multilateral aid agencies in partnership with developing-
country governments and NGOs, and to strong economic growth.
Bilateral and multilateral aid agencies played an important role in
reducing child mortality rates, and their success illustrates the special
niche these agencies occupy. For example, the United Nations Children's
Fund (UNICEF) and USAID helped promote a potent method of saving
children's lives: oral rehydration salts (ORS). ORS, a simple mixture of
water, salt, and sugar, offers an extraordinarily effective means to combat
the dehydration caused by diarrhea. When cholera swept through refugee
camps during the 1971 Bangladesh war of independence, 96 percent of the
victims treated with ORS survived." But were it not for bilateral and
multilateral aid agencies, this medical advance might not have gained
wide usage. Market mechanisms probably would not have worked:
because its ingredients are inexpensive and widely available, pharmaceuti-
cal companies would have little incentive to market and distribute ORS.
Despite these and many other successes, critics have noted that the Cold
War imperatives of containment sometimes conflicted with social
stewardship objectives. For example, in the process of rewarding allies
with aid, bilateral agencies sometimes overlooked the needy and bolstered
oppressive and/or corrupt regimes. This tarnished their credibility in the
developing world, where many still view these institutions as agents of
foreign "imperialism." Moreover, these institutions often employed top-
down management methods that undermined local initiative. And,
because their usefulness was measured in strategic terms, these institu-
tions were not always judged by their success (or lack thereof) in fostering
social stewardship.
In the post-Cold War era, bilateral and multilateral aid agencies are at a
challenging impasse. Freed from the imperatives of containment, they
now have a greater opportunity to promote social stewardship. Accord-
ingly, these agencies have begun slowly to adapt their programs to the
new era by forging new partnerships with citizens' groups and by empha-
sizing market-based interventions and democratizing reforms.
However, now that they have lost their Cold War rationale, the institu-
tions of social stewardship are losing political support. Containment was
a flawed rationale for promoting stewardship, but it did at least offer a
coherent framework for understanding our interests in the developing
world: during the Cold War, every nation had strategic importance as a
potential ally or enemy. Today, it is more difficult to articulate U.S.
interest in countries such as Mali or Bangladesh. As a result, the institu-
tions of social stewardship have lost their strategic compass-and much
of their political base of support.
20
GLOBAL INTERDEPENDENCE
Public Opinion and the U.S. Retreat from
International Social Stewardship
If public support for cooperative engagement was an artifact of the Cold
War, what has become of that support since the fall of the Berlin Wall?
Conventional wisdom holds that Americans have little interest in interna-
tional issues and that the end of the Cold War has eroded what little
support existed for cooperation with other nations. For example, a recent
survey of policymakers, journalists, and other opinion leaders found that
most thought the American public prefers isolationism to international
engagement." But careful analysis reveals a great deal of latent support for
engagement-especially to promote social stewardship.
Although few researchers have probed Americans' understanding of
global interdependence, there are indicators of awareness among the
general public. In a 1995 poll conducted by the Program on International
Policy Attitudes (PIPA), for example, 63 percent agreed that "the world
economy is so interconnected today that, in the long run, helping Third
World countries to develop is in the economic interest of the U.S."3'
However, polls show that Americans have significant misunderstandings
about U.S. programs abroad, which erode support for development
assistance. For example, most think federal spending on international
programs, as a percentage of the federal budget, is many times greater
than it is in fact. Another poll found that 75 percent of Americans think
the United States spends "too much" on foreign assistance. However,
when asked to guess the amount now spent on aid, the average estimate
was about IS percent of the federal budget-although the actual number
is less than one percent. And Americans believe that, compared to other
developed countries, the United States carries a much larger share of the
burden of helping the world's poor than it actually does."
Americans have real doubts about the motives and methods of current
U.S. programs abroad. Most reject a hegemonic role for the United
States-"Who are we to tell them what to do?" is a common refrain in
focus groups. A high percentage believes that foreign assistance is wasted,
ineffective, and/or fails to reach its intended beneficiaries. In one poll, 83
percent agreed that "There is so much waste and corruption in the
process of giving foreign aid that very little actually reaches the people
who need it."³³
The perception of ineffectiveness substantially diminishes support for
foreign assistance. In the classic ethical allegory, one must always jump
into the water to save a drowning person - unless one cannot swim.
Americans may care about the "drowning" people overseas, but they
doubt whether foreign aid programs can "swim."
21
ROCKEFELLER BROTHERS FUND
The news media contribute to the perception of U.S. ineffectiveness
abroad. War, famine, and disaster dominate the scant news coverage of
less-developed countries, while success stories-such as dramatic
improvements in infant and child health-are rarely deemed newswor-
thy. By accentuating the negative, the news media foster an impression
that poor countries are unsalvageable. (Private charitable groups may
unwittingly contribute to this state of affairs, with fund-raising appeals
that present the citizens of less-developed countries as helpless victims.
Moreover, as arbiters of salience (the degree of importance given to issues
and events) the news media have helped diminish the attention given to
international issues. International news coverage is declining, as many
news organizations are closing their foreign bureaus."
Skepticism about U.S. programs abroad also stems from diminished faith
in the public sector generally. Indeed, confidence in government is at an
all-time low. One recent survey found that only 20 percent believed that
the federal government can be trusted to do "what is right" most of the
time-down from 76 percent in 1964.³⁶ It follows that Americans would
doubt that the U.S. government, which is widely perceived as failing its
own citizens, is capable of solving international or global problems.
However, opinion research shows that the American public does support
cooperative engagement if properly conceived and executed. Polls
consistently show that most Americans want the United States to play an
active role in international affairs, both for moral reasons and because
they believe engagement serves domestic interests. A strong majority of
80 percent believes the United States should give some foreign aid, while
just 8 percent want aid programs eliminated.' The United Nations and
other multilateral institutions still enjoy broad support: a 1994 poll by the
Chicago Council on Foreign Relations found that 84 percent of Ameri-
cans included "support for strengthening the United Nations" as a
"somewhat" or "very" high foreign policy goal of the United States—
the highest level of support for that goal in twenty years.38
When concerns about unfairness, corruption, and inefficiency are
addressed, support for cooperative engagement rebounds. Indeed, when
told how much the United States actually spends on foreign assistance,
most favor sustaining or even increasing that amount. Given assurances
that other nations are carrying their fair share, Americans favor U.S.
participation in multilateral efforts to keep the peace, promote economic
development, and provide humanitarian assistance. Most (58 percent) say
they would even pay more in taxes for foreign assistance if they could be
sure the aid really went to those in need.³⁹
Although the data are far from conclusive, there are indicators that
Americans reject the military-security dominated framework of national
interests in favor of a framework that emphasizes social stewardship. In a
22
GLOBAL INTERDEPENDENCE
recent poll conducted for the International Women's Health Coalition,
voters were asked whether they preferred a foreign policy that
"emphasize[s] the security of people around the world, by focusing on
poverty, the environment, health care, education and human rights," or
one that "emphasize[s] the security of nations around the world, by
focusing on trade, military defense, and nuclear arms control." Fifty-nine
percent chose the people-centered approach, while just 25 percent voted
for the nation-centered view.⁴⁰ While the distinction between "people"
and "nations" may seem artificial to some, the poll suggests an important
feature of public opinion about cooperative engagement.
Still, public opinion does not readily translate into policy, for a simple
reason: international issues still have low salience for most people.
Although Americans will state their support for social stewardship when
asked, few petition their members of Congress to protest cuts in develop-
ment assistance. Americans generally do not base their votes on interna-
tional concerns, and when asked to rate the nation's biggest problems,
international issues do not even make the top-ten list.⁴¹
Leadership: The Key to Raising Salience
As the Marshall Plan illustrates, political leadership is necessary to raise
the salience of international issues and to galvanize public support for
cooperative engagement. Why, then, have today's leaders failed to
articulate a new vision for U.S. engagement overseas? The most obvious
explanation is that they simply don't have a vision-perhaps because the
complexities of global interdependence confound attempts to craft a
single, comprehensive strategy. And today's policymakers are less con-
cerned (and perhaps less informed) about foreign policy issues than at any
time in the last twenty years.42
A second explanation is that leaders feel no political pressure to take
action. There is no organized constituency for social stewardship, so
policymakers derive no political benefit from championing it. In fact,
they may incur political costs. For example, legislators who support aid to
family-planning programs in developing countries are targeted for defeat
by anti-abortion groups. In recent years, there has been a marked prolif-
eration of vocal single-issue groups-made possible, in part, by new
technologies that facilitate organizing and communication. Although
many of those organizations (including the anti-abortion groups) do not
represent majority opinion, they are often able to magnify their political
impact through skillful organizing. Policymakers often choose to sidestep
political minefields by avoiding positions that might anger powerful
single-interest groups.
Leaders may also be reluctant to take action because they mistake their
constituents' frustration with current aid programs as a rejection of
23
ROCKEFELLER BROTHERS FUND
cooperative engagement more generally. Many policymakers are unaware
that their constituents do, in fact, support cooperative engagement. In
part, this is because opponents of engagement are far better organized
than supporters. For example, PIPA conducted a study of four Congres-
sional districts whose representatives had voted to withdraw from the
United Nations and opposed foreign assistance. The members' staffs
reported a steady stream of calls and letters from constituents who
opposed the United Nations and foreign assistance, which was inter-
preted as representing majority opinion. But a random telephone survey
of those districts found that constituents were broadly in favor of United
Nations support and foreign assistance: only 18-21 percent favored
withdrawing from the United Nations, and just 7-8 percent wanted to
eliminate foreign assistance. In politics, a vocal minority is often more
powerful than a silent majority.
Policymakers may misread their constituents because there is so little
public discourse on the relationship between national and global con-
cerns. Political campaigns rarely spotlight international issues or turn on
the candidates' foreign policy views. More importantly, there is no
structured consensus-building process on international engagement.
There are few fora (besides the voting booth) for the general public to
communicate priorities to policymakers; and, as noted above, most
Americans do not base their votes on international issues.
The Cold War framework for cooperative engagement evolved in a very
different epoch, and that framework has not yet been reconfigured for the
era of global interdependence. As a nation, we lack sufficient capacity-as
measured in leadership, constituency, and institutional effectiveness-to
solve problems and seize opportunities in an interdependent world.
Meanwhile, the challenges increase in magnitude, and faith in collective
problem-solving declines. That loss of faith diminishes political support
for existing institutions of social stewardship. But without political
support, those institutions cannot retool for the new eΓa. In this way,
falling support and limited capacity form a self-perpetuating cycle.
24
GLOBAL INTERDEPENDENCE
III
BUILDING SUPPORT FOR SOCIAL STEWARDSHIP
The cycle of reduced capacity for social stewardship can be broken if a
critical mass of Americans generates the political will to do so. Generat-
ing political will requires both leadership and constituency: leaders
must articulate a compelling vision of our nation's role in the world,
and an organized constituency representing many sectors of the public
must spur policymakers to action. Generating political will also
requires the institutions of cooperative engagement to retool their
premises, purposes, and methods in order to advance and promote
social stewardship in an eΓa of global interdependence.
Encourage the Leaders to Lead
During the Cold War, leaders persuaded a key segment of the Ameri-
can public that Soviet Communism posed a threat to their common
interests and that cooperative engagement would help keep that threat
at bay. Today's leaders must make the case for social stewardship in an
interdependent world. Their challenge is more daunting: instead of an
easily demonized "evil empire," there is a complex web of health,
environmental, and social problems. Instead of the unifying goal of
containment, there are dozens of interrelated objectives-including
expanded democracy, improved public health, environmental
sustainability, more equitable distribution of wealth, and universal
access to primary education. Instead of the challenge of dealing with a
constant threat, there is the very different task of managing rapid
change. And instead of an orderly system of client states, policymakers
confront a fragmented power structure of state and non-state actors.
To build support for social stewardship, leaders must appeal to Ameri-
cans' interests and values. First, they must demonstrate a compelling
reason to take action, by articulating a sophisticated new model of
national interests. The new model must acknowledge the threats and
opportunities that result from global interdependence, and clarify U.S.
strategic interests.
While it may be difficult to show the strategic importance of a single
developing country, it may be more productive to view those nations as
a bloc. What are the potential benefits of expanding markets through-
out the developing world? And what are the potential dangers if
developing nations remain on the margins of the world economy? "If
25
ROCKEFELLER BROTHERS FUND
we look at conventional strategic and economic interests, there are
probably no more than twenty-five nations that the U.S. should care
about," says the Reverend J. Bryan Hehir, professor of the practice of
religion in society at Harvard University and counselor to Catholic Relief
Services. "But what if one hundred countries were to remain outside the
global economy? When you consider the cumulative and synergistic
effects of underdevelopment in dozens of countries, it changes the
strategic calculus. And beyond purely strategic interests, there is an
abiding moral responsibility not to allow one hundred countries and their
people to remain marginal in the shaping of the next century."
The new framework should reflect the importance of social stewardship as
a crucial goal in its own right, not just as an instrument of military security.
At the same time, it might depict the three points of the cooperative
engagement "triangle"-military security, economic growth and trade,
and social stewardship-as interdependent and mutually reinforcing.
This model rests on a solid foundation of empirical evidence. History
shows that even a strong military cannot maintain peace in the absence of
broad-based economic growth and social stewardship.+ Similarly, human
well-being and prosperity are not secure without protection from military
attack. And economic growth, if unaccompanied by social stewardship
measures that promote equitable development, may exacerbate instability
by widening gaps between rich and poor.41 This new model of cooperative
engagement shows that social stewardship is integral to security and
prosperity, and therefore firmly establishes both its claim to resources and
its legitimacy as a rationale for economic and even military policy
decisions:
Social
Stewardship
Military
Economic
Security
Growth
A new framework for international cooperative engagement in which
social stewardship, economic growth, and military security are seen as
mutually reinforcing.
26
GLOBAL INTERDEPENDENCE
The appeal to Americans' interests must address means as well as ends.
Leaders must show the public that proposed remedies will work, by
publicizing success stories about effective social stewardship. And they
must provide reassurance that the means employed will be consistent with
mainstream beliefs. Opinion research suggests that Americans prefer
strategies that are non-hegemonic, that involve private as well as public
actors, and that provide demonstrable benefits to people at the grassroots
level.
Second, an effort to build support for social stewardship must speak to
Americans' "hearts" by crafting messages that resonate with core values.
Public opinion data suggest that support for cooperative engagement will
not emerge from military security concerns alone; Americans want a
foreign policy that represents their values as well as their interests.
Opinion research shows that there are broad areas of agreement about the
values that should guide cooperative engagement, including, for example:
environmental stewardship, democracy and political freedom, equal
opportunity, government accountability, international burden-sharing,
and protection of children.
Organize a Broad-based Constituency
for Social Stewardship
Leadership and constituency are the yin and yang of politics: the public
needs leadership to articulate goals and spearhead policy change; but
leadership cannot (or will not) take action without strong backing from
the public. While encouraging leaders to take action, it is also necessary
to consolidate a powerful constituency for social stewardship among the
American people.
Nongovernmental organizations would be central to any constituency-
building effort. A rapidly proliferating network of NGOs now mediates
the relationship between leaders and the public in many nations, and
affects policy on a wide range of international issues. Multilateral organi-
zations, which are forging international NGO networks, may serve as
vehicles to reach NGOs in the United States and overseas.
NGOs can identify areas of public consensus and spur policymakers to
action. For example, the International Women's Health Coalition
(IWHC) helped ensure that women's concerns were reflected at the 1994
United Nations International Conference on Population and Develop-
ment (ICPD). IWHC began by reaching out to women's NGOs around
the globe, identifying consensus positions and drafting a substantive
agenda to improve women's lives. Endorsed by the United States and
several European delegations, IWHC's message became a cornerstone of
the ICPD document.
27
ROCKEFELLER BROTHERS FUND
In many other cases, U.S. NGOs have helped steer foreign policy. For
example, InterAction's "Just 1%" campaign helped inform policymakers
about the true costs and benefits of development assistance, short-circuiting
attempts to use the budget deficit as a rationale to cut foreign aid. In a
related effort, CARE volunteers and staff met with Congressional leaders,
voicing their moral and practical support for foreign assistance.
Yet, while they are growing in number and influence, NGOs have
limited ability to build a broad-based constituency for social steward-
ship. Many lack the capacity to reach and mobilize the general public.
And most are special-interest groups with a mandate to advance a single
issue. It is unclear whether a series of targeted, single-issue campaigns
could add up to more than the sum of its parts: a real constituency for
social stewardship.
An effective constituency-building effort, therefore, must reach beyond
the "usual suspects" of NGO members with a known interest in some
aspect of social stewardship. It is important to enlist the support of those
who are in a position to advance-or obstruct-the social stewardship
agenda. This could be accomplished, for example, by involving commu-
nity opinion leaders in foreign policy debates to a far greater degree. The
effort could begin by encouraging leaders to reach out to pivotal seg-
ments of the general public. These segments might include:
of
Women: Polls show a "gender gap" on social stewardship; women are
generally more supportive than men.
People of faith: Religious Americans give generously to charities that
work overseas, yet represent a largely untapped source of support for U.S.
programs of social stewardship.
Youth: Young people are more idealistic and more likely to "think
globally" than their elders, but many are unsure whether the United
States can afford cooperative engagement.
Educators: Educators can bring credibility and legitimacy to a long-term
public education effort.
Business people: The business community has access to policymakers
and can help develop "rules of the road" that set normative values for the
globalization of economic life. Businesspeople are often concerned about
international issues and have a vested interest in establishing a stable
environment for trade.
Labor union leadership: Labor leaders have a clear interest in steward-
ship to improve conditions and wages for workers worldwide. And labor
leaders often have a better understanding of economic interdependence
than the general public.
Media owners and employees: The news media shape people's experi-
ence of the world. Yet, although they have unparalleled access to Ameri-
cans' hearts and minds, most reporters and editors have only a superficial
understanding of international issues and the need for social stewardship.
28
GLOBAL INTERDEPENDENCE
Foundation staff and trustees: Private foundations provide leadership,
priority-setting, and funding for NGO efforts. Because they often have
more flexibility than public donors, they may have greater capacity for
innovation in crafting approaches to social stewardship.
An effort to build constituency must also work to close the gap between
policymakers and the public. Perhaps as a legacy of the Cold War, foreign
policy decisionmaking is often shielded from the spotlight of public
scrutiny. As a result, U.S. policies of cooperative engagement are not in
tune with the public's instincts, and a wide gap exists between the
priorities of leaders and the public.
To close the gap, it is necessary to create mechanisms for ongoing
dialogue between policymakers and the public. The values and objectives
that guide cooperative engagement should be refined in a national process
of consensus building. But currently, there is no process under way to
build-or even reveal-that consensus.
It may be possible to jump-start that process by creating regular,
structured opportunities-such as Internet chat groups or town
meetings-for policymakers to listen to the public's concerns. Another
approach might seek to improve the circulation of information between
policymakers and the public by, for example, educating policymakers
about the nuances of public opinion on cooperative engagement. Yet
another might work to broaden and deepen mainstream media coverage
of international issues, with an emphasis on neglected success stories
about social stewardship efforts.
Retool Mechanisms of Cooperative Engagement
The existing mechanisms of cooperative engagement-multilateral
organizations and bilateral aid agencies-were originally geared to the
exigencies of a different era. These institutions must be retooled to meet
the challenges of global interdependence by assuming new responsibili-
ties, ensuring a greater degree of transparency and accountability, and
crafting new models of engagement.
The realities of global interdependence call for a robust multilateral
system. Some efforts have been made in this area: in recent years, multi-
lateral organizations have been assigned broad new responsibilities to
oversee international agreements on the environment, population growth,
and women's rights, to name just a few. But the growing power of
multilaterals is viewed with ambivalence by governments, which hand
multilaterals new responsibilities while reining them in with limited
funding and mandates.46 At the same time, multilaterals lack the author-
ity to enforce international standards of conduct and in some cases are
weakened by inefficient and unresponsive bureaucracies.
29
ROCKEFELLER BROTHERS FUND
Limiting the funding for multilateral organizations will not ensure that
they use their new authority in a responsible way. Instead, it is necessary
to ensure that multilateral organizations are transparent, which guarantees
that their processes and mechanisms can be fully monitored; and account-
able, which means that those institutions are responsive to the needs of
aid recipients and donors alike. It will be no small feat to ensure the
transparency and accountability of international organizations that
employ a diverse range of approaches. Indeed, this will be a central
challenge for cooperative engagement in the next century.
If multilateral institutions are strengthened, do bilateral aid agencies still
have a role to play? At Pocantico, the answer, at least for the United
States, was a qualified yes. It is clear that U.S. development assistance
programs have the accumulated expertise and program infrastructure
(especially in family planning, disease control, and agricultural research)
that would be difficult, if not impossible, to replace. And, for a nation
guided by values as well as interests, it is important to maintain an
independent capacity for social stewardship.
But in order to garner broad political support, bilateral development
assistance must also be retooled for the new era. In the absence of Cold
War imperatives, social stewardship should be the exclusive objective of
development assistance programs. To function effectively, development
assistance programs must have a clearer framework of goals and strate-
gies. That framework should fit into the larger design of U.S. foreign
policy and be consistent with the aims of the countries in which
bilateral programs work. By clarifying goals and strategies, these
programs will be able to act proactively, rather than merely respond to
disasters as they arise.
Bilateral development programs could also achieve greater impact by
specializing in social needs that market mechanisms do not address. For
example, while funding for infrastructure development is now more
widely available from private investors, public subsidies are still necessary
to broaden access to education and health care.
For both multilateral and bilateral institutions, new models of engage-
ment could greatly enhance effectiveness. Top-down, hegemonic models
of operation are not suited to the current challenges. Instead, these
institutions must learn to harness broader forces such as markets and
social trends-to advance social stewardship. And they must learn to
cultivate partnerships with a broad range of actors.
By working directly with NGOs, multilateral and bilateral institutions
can bypass corrupt governments and support locally-designed initiatives.
This model is gaining wide acceptance: NGOs now deliver more official
development assistance than the entire UN system (excluding the World
Bank and the International Monetary Fund).⁴⁷ However, like multilateral
30
GLOBAL INTERDEPENDENCE
organizations, NGOs have been given significant new responsibilities that
are not always matched by funding and other support. And NGOs have
limitations of their own. As noted above, many are special-interest groups
with little capacity for large-scale action, and they lack the accountability
of democratically elected governments.
Public-private partnerships are another promising alternative to tradi-
tional aid programs. Unlike government aid, the scope of which is limited
by the size of donor-country budgets, public-private partnerships gain
leverage by shaping the fundamental rules that govern economic life. For
example, an alliance of garment and athletic-shoe manufacturers is
working to develop codes of labor practices for their contractor firms
overseas, with the aim of eliminating sweatshop working conditions.*8
And a new effort launched by U.S. policymakers and corporations seeks
to prohibit bribery in international trade. But these approaches have
built-in limits as well. For example, it is often difficult to enlist the private
sector in meeting social needs that markets do not value.
To reorient the mechanisms of cooperative engagement, it is important to
recognize that there is no "magic bullet" that will solve the problems or
consolidate the gains of global interdependence. Mechanisms of coopera-
tive engagement-including bilateral and multilateral agencies-must be
nimble, flexible, and creative enough to harness the capacities of a broad
range of actors, including governments, NGOs, corporations, trade
associations, and educational institutions.
Again, leadership is key. Institutions cannot be expected to transform
themselves from within; policymakers and opinion leaders must first
shape a vision of cooperative engagement and devise an appropriate
reform agenda for bilateral and multilateral institutions.
31
ROCKEFELLER BROTHERS FUND
CONCLUSION
For decades, the containment of Soviet Communism served as the guiding
principle of U.S. foreign policy, and military security was the central task
of cooperative engagement. Today, cooperative engagement is increasingly
focused on promoting trade and investment. Both approaches are vitally
important, and their achievements-the end of the Cold War, a global
economy that produces unprecedented wealth-are impressive. But both
are incomplete: human well-being is not reliably produced as a byproduct
of military security or aggregate economic growth.
At the Pocantico meeting, participants agreed on the need for a renewed
emphasis on social stewardship to complement military security and
economic growth. In an interdependent world, they determined, social
stewardship is a crucial component of peace, prosperity, and human
well-being.
Yet today, the U.S. government is retreating from commitment to the
existing mechanisms of social stewardship-bilateral and multilateral
development agencies-and has yet to design new ones. The American
public is not leading the retreat: public support for social stewardship
exists, although in latent form. For that support to become manifest, it is
necessary to achieve a broad consensus about the meaning of national
interests and values in an era of global interdependence and to energize a
constituency for new models of social stewardship. That consensus will
not take shape without the vision and commitment of leadership.
As the twenty-first century nears, it is time to recognize that prosperity
and security are closely connected to human well-being. In a world
where boundaries are porous, where everything-people, ideas, capital,
weapons, and disease-moves easily across national borders, we cannot
afford to turn our backs on the world. Instead, we must strengthen our
ties with the people of other nations and work together to create a world
that invests in the potential of each of its citizens.
33
ROCKEFELLER BROTHERS FUND
NOTES
I Of course, there is considerable overlap among the three areas of cooperative
engagement, both in objectives and outcome. But for the purposes of this paper
"cooperative engagement to promote social stewardship" refers only to instru-
ments with an explicit mandate to promote health, equity, and human potential.
2
Thomas Homer-Dixon and Valerie Percival, Environmental Scarcity and Violent
Conflict: Briefing Book (Washington, D.C.: American Association for the
Advancement of Science, 1996).
3 Caroline Wheal, "Family Life and Health in Costa Rica," Calypso Log (August
1994).
4 1996 World Population Data Sheet (Washington, D.C.: Population Reference
Bureau, 1996); and Jon Mitchell, "Costa Rica Graduates from U.S. Foreign Aid,"
Christian Science Monitor (August 28, 1996).
5 National Defense Budget Estimates for FY97 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department
of Defense, 1997) Figures are given in constant 1997 dollars, using Department
of Defense "deflators."
6 But cuts are threatened in other nations as well. For example, the Japanese
government recently announced a plan to reduce contributions to international
organizations by 20 to 50 percent, in order to effect a IO percent reduction in
development assistance in fiscal 1998.
7 The Role of Foreign Aid in Development (Washington, D.C.: The Congress of
the United States, Congressional Budget Office, 1997).
8 The Development Assistance Committee of the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development defines "official development assistance" as grants
or loans that one government or multilateral organization gives to a developing
country to promote economic development and welfare. ODA also includes
technical cooperation assistance, for example, in agriculture and development.
9 "Financial Flows to Developing Countries in 1995: Sharp Decline in Official Aid;
Private Flows Rise," Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD) News Release (June II, 1996).
10 Lending Credibility: New Mandates and Partnerships for the World Bank
(Washington, D.C.: World Wildlife Fund, 1996).
II Letter from David F. Gordon, Director of U.S. Policy Programs, Overseas
Development Council, to Mark Malloch Brown, Vice-President, External Affairs,
The World Bank, September 9, 1996.
12 Comments made at Core Group/Experts Group Meeting sponsored by the
Rockefeller Brothers Fund "Project on World Security" and the Aspen Institute
"Global Stewardship Initiative," Aspen, Colorado, August 14-15, 1997.
34
GLOBAL INTERDEPENDENCE
13 Barry M. Blechman, William J. Durch, David F. Gordon, and Catherine Gwin,
The Partnership Imperative: Maintaining American Leadership in a New Era
(Washington, D.C.: Henry L. Stimson Center and Overseas Development
Council, 1997).
14 World Bank and International Monetary Fund data, cited in Lester Brown,
Christopher Flavin, and Hal Kane, Vital Signs 1996: The Trends That Are Shaping
Our Future (New York: W.W. Norton, 1996).
15 Human Development Report 1996 (New York: United Nations Development
Program, 1996).
16 Of course, globalization and interdependence are not new phenomena; interna-
tional markets have been a feature of economic life for centuries, if not millennia.
What is new is the extent, and sometimes instantaneous impact, of globalization.
Today, few communities remain fully outside the global web of commerce and
communication, and trends and impacts resonate rapidly throughout the world.
17 Jeffrey Goldberg, "Their Africa Problem-And Ours," The New York Times
Magazine (March 2, 1997).
18 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "The Greenhouse Effect," Slide presenta-
tion, Internet: http://www.epa.gov/global warming/sub1/gh_slide/o1.htm
19 U.S. Commerce Department, "Preliminary Data Release: U.S. Jobs Supported
by Exports of Goods and Services" (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Commerce
Department, 1996).
20 Dani Rodrik, "Sense and Nonsense in the Globalization Debate," Foreign Policy
(Summer 1997).
21 Dale Belman and Thea M. Lee, "International Trade and the Performance of U.S.
Labor Markets," in U.S. Trade Policy and Global Growth: New Directions in the
International Economy, ed. Robert A. Blecker (Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 1996).
22 Global Development Finance 1997 (Washington, D.C.: World Bank, 1997);
Human Development Report 1995 (New York: United Nations Development
Programme, 1995); Blechman, et al., The Partnership Imperative.
23 Global Development Finance 1997.
24 Human Development Report 1996 (New York: United Nations Development
Programme, 1996).
25 See, for example, Lawrence F. Kaplan, "The Selling of American Foreign Policy,"
The Weekly Standard (April 28, 1997); and Amartya Sen, "Human Rights and
Asian Values," The New Republic (July 14-21, 1997).
26 Blechman et al., The Partnership Imperative.
27 John Gerard Ruggie, "The Past as Prologue? Interests, Identity and American
Foreign Policy," International Security (Spring 1997).
28 The State of the World's Children 1996 (New York: UNICEF, 1996); and Carl Haub
and Martha Farnsworth Riche, "Population by the Numbers: Trends in Popula-
tion Growth and Structure," in Beyond the Numbers: A Reader on Population,
Consumption and the Environment, ed. Laurie Ann Mazur (Washington, D.C.:
Island Press, 1994).
29 The State of the World's Children.
35
ROCKEFELLER BROTHERS FUND
30 Steven Kull and I.M. Destler, The Foreign Policy Gap: How Policymakers Misread
the Public (College Park, Maryland: Center for International and Security Studies
of Maryland, 1997).
31 Steven Kull, "What the Public Knows that Washington Doesn't," Foreign Policy,
no. IOI (Winter 1995-96).
32 Steven Kull and I.M. Destler, An Emerging Consensus: A Study of American Public
Attitudes on America's Role in the World (Maryland: Center for International and
Security Studies at Maryland, Program on International Policy Attitudes, 1996).
33 Steven Kull, Americans and Foreign Aid: A Study of American Public Attitudes
(Washington, D.C.: PIPA, 1995).
34 Anne Winter, Is Anyone Listening? Communicating Development in Donor
Countries (Geneva: United Nations Nongovernmental Liaison Service, 1996).
35 Garrick Utley, "The Shrinking of Foreign News: From Broadcast to Narrowcast,"
Foreign Affairs (March/April 1997).
36 Why Don't Americans Trust the Government? The Washington Post/Kaiser Family
Foundation/Harvard University Survey Project (Menlo Park, CA: The Henry J.
Kaiser Family Foundation, 1996).
37 Kull, Americans and Foreign Aid.
38 John Reilly, American Public Opinion and U.S. Foreign Policy 1995 (Chicago:
Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, 1995).
39 Kull and Destler, An Emerging Consensus, National Issues Forums Institute,
Mission Uncertain: Reassessing America's Global Role (New Jersey: John Doble
Research Associates, 1996).
40 Lake Sosin Snell & Associates, "A Women's Lens on Foreign Policy,",
(Washington, D.C.: International Women's Health Coalition, 1997).
41
Reilly, American Public Opinion.
42 Ibid.
43 Kull and Destler, The Foreign Policy Gap.
44 Examples from history include: Somoza's Nicaragua, Mobutu's Zaire, South
Africa under apartheid, and current-day Israel.
45 See, for example, Enhancing U.S. Security Through Foreign Aid (Washington,
D.C.: Congressional Budget Office, 1994). This study found "a fairly striking
correlation between economic malaise on the one hand and domestic unrest and
political instability on the other."
46 Jessica Mathews, "The Age of Nonstate Actors," Foreign Affairs
(January/February 1997).
47 Ibid.
48
Robert A. Senser, "To End Sweatshops: Workers' Rights in a Global Economy,"
Commonweal (July 18, 1997).
36
GLOBAL INTERDEPENDENCE
Henry Kissinger
Perils of Globalism
The IMF is no longer suited for dealing with economic crises.
ly. Sophisticated credit instruments provide unprec-
W
hat began 15 months ago as a currency
crisis in Thailand and then spread across
edented liquidity. Hedge funds, the trading
Asia now threatens the industrialized
departments of international banks and institutional
world.
investors possess the reach, power and resources to
No government and virtually no economist
profit from market swings in either direction, and
predicted the crisis, understood its extent or
even to bring them about. It is market stability that
anticipated its staying power. A series of IMF rescue
they find uncongenial.
packages has not arrested its spread and threatens
Broadly speaking, direct foreign investment ben-
the political institutions implementing them. In
efits from the well-being of the societies in which it
Indonesia a regime tainted by cronyism has been
operates; it runs the risks and is entitled to the
overthrown. But in Brazil, the crisis threatens one of
benefits of the host country. By contrast, modern
the most reform-minded governments in decades.
speculative capital benefits from exploiting emerg-
What was treated at first as a temporary
ing trends before the general public does. It drives
imbalance is becoming a crisis of the world's
upswings into bubbles and down cycles into crises,
and in a time frame that cannot be significantly
financial system. In the past 20 years, two Mexican
crises, in 1982 and 1994, spread to most of Latin
affected by the kind of macroeconomic remedies
America; the Asian crisis of 1997 has already
being urged on the political leaders.
infected Eastern Europe, South Africa and Latin
America. Each crisis has been more extensive and
F
or example, when Asian creditworthiness
began to fall, financial institutions and fund
has spread more widely than its predecessor.
managers holding the debt were tempted to
Free-market capitalism remains the most effec-
sell Asian currencies short, thereby accelerating
tive instrument for economic growth and for raising
devaluation and compounding the difficulty of
the standard of living of most people. But just as the
repaying debt. Speculators were acting rationally,
reckless laissez-faire capitalism of the 19th century
but the result was a deeper, more vicious and more
spawned Marxism, so the indiscriminate globalism
intractable crisis.
of the 1990s may generate a worldwide assault on
To maintain their overall performance, spec-
the concept of free financial markets. Globalism
ulators, as losses mounted in Asia, were driven to
views the world as one market in which the most
cash in their holdings in Latin America and thereby
efficient and competitive prosper. It accepts-and
spread the crisis. The capacity of smaller countries
even welcomes-that the free market will relent-
to deal with these massive capital flows is not equal
lessly sift the efficient from the inefficient, even at
to the temptations offered by the system. Regulators
the cost of periodic economic and social dislocation.
in the United States, Europe and Japan have not
But the extreme version of globalism neglects the
succeeded in dampening the increased volatility of
mismatch between the world's political and eco-
the market. And small and medium-sized countries
nomic organizations. Unlike economics, politics
are defenseless in the face of it.
divides the world into national units. And while
The speculators will argue that they are only
political leaders may accept a certain degree of
exploiting weaknesses in the market, not causing
suffering for the sake of stabilizing their economies,
them. My concern is that they have a tendency to
they cannot survive as advocates of near-permanent
turn a weakness into a disaster. If Brazil is driven
1/2
austerity on the basis of directives imposed from
into deep recession, countries such as Argentina
abroad. The temptation to seek to reverse-or at
and Mexico, heretofore committed to free-market
least to buffer-austerity by political means be-
institutions, may be overwhelmed.
comes overwhelming. Protectionism may prove
The crisis in Brazil is a case in point. Despite a
ineffective in the long term, but for better or worse,
reform-minded and, on the whole, efficient govern-
political leaders respond to more short-term cycles.
ment, Brazil faces a crisis partly because, as one of
the largest and most liquid emerging markets, it is
In Indonesia, a currency
one of the easiest from which to withdraw. If these
trends are not arrested, global flows of capital will be
impeded by a plethora of national or regional
crisis, having been
regulations, a process that has already begun.
The International Monetary Fund, the principal
international institution for dealing with the crisis,
transmuted into an
too often compounds the political instability. Forced
by the current crisis into assuming functions for
economic crisis, has
which it never was designed, the IMF has utterly
failed to grasp the political impact of its actions. In
the name of free-market orthodoxy, it usually
become a crisis of political
attempts-in an almost academic manner-to re-
move all at once every weakness in the economic
institutions.
system of the afflicted country, regardless of wheth-
er these caused the crisis or not. In the process, it
too often weakens the political structure and with it
Even well-established free-market democracies
the precondition of meaningful reform. Like a
do not accept limitless suffering in the name of the
doctor who has only one pill for every conceivable
market, and have taken measures to provide a social
illness, its nearly invariable remedies mandate
safety net and curb market excesses by regulation.
austerity, high interest rates to prevent capital
The international financial system does not as yet
outflows and major devaluations to discourage
have these firebreaks. Nor is there much of a
imports and encourage exports.
recognition that it needs them.
The inevitable result is a dramatic drop in the
Ours is the first period experiencing a genuinely
standard of living, exploding unemployment and
global economic system. Markets in different parts
growing hardship, weakening the political institu-
of the world interact continuously. Modern com-
tions necessary to carry out the IMF program.
munications enable them to respond instantaneous-
The situation in Southeast Asia is a case in point.
The Washington Post
MONDAY, OCTOBER 5. 1998
Crony capitalism, corruption and inadequate super-
vision of banks were serious shortcomings. But they
The risks that investors
did not cause the immediate crisis; they were a cost
of doing business, not a barrier to it. Until little more
than a year ago, Asia was the fastest growing region
are taking should be made
in the world, its progress underpinned by high
savings rates, a disciplined work ethic and responsi-
ble fiscal behavior.
more transparent.
What triggered the crisis were factors largely out
of national or regional control. The various coun-
in Indonesia, is now a negative 10 percent, in
tries had exchange rates linked to the U.S. dollar.
Thailand a negative 5 percent and in South Korea an
When China devalued in 1994, the dollar appreciat-
optimistic positive one percent. It could be argued
ed significantly starting in 1995, and the yen fell
that without the IMF program, conditions would be
sharply. Southeast Asian exports became less com-
worse, but this is no consolation to governments
petitive and export earnings fell. At the same time,
and institutions facing massive discontent.
the dollar pegs created unprecedented opportunities
The inability of the IMF to operate where politics
for speculation. It was possible to borrow dollars in
and economics intersect is shown by its experience
New York and lend them locally for at least twice
in Russia. In Indonesia the IMF contributed to the
the cost of borrowing-at no apparent currency
destruction of the political framework by excessive
risk. The borrowers invested in real estate and
emphasis on economics; in Russia it accelerated the
excess plant capacity, creating a dangerous bubble.
collapse of the economy by overemphasizing poli-
Local currency became overvalued and local curren-
tics. The IMF is, quite simply, not equipped for the
cy holders converted into dollars, inviting specula-
task it has assumed.
tive raids-all without significant warnings from
The immediate challenge is to overcome the
international financial institutions.
crisis in Brazil and preserve the free-market eco-
nomics and democracy in Latin America. A firm and
T
he U.S. Treasury, convinced that the matter
unambiguous commitment by the industrial democ-
could be dealt with regionally and gun-shy
racies, led by the United States, is essential to
after congressional reaction to the bailout of
buttress the necessary Brazilian reform program.
Mexico, refused to participate in the first round of
An expanding American economy is the key to
the crisis. But when the crisis spread to Indonesia,
restoration of global growth. Whether this is
the largest country of Southeast Asia, the threat to
achieved by a cut in interest rates or a major tax cut,
the global system could no longer be ignored.
a strong commitment to reinvigorated growth is:
At U.S. urging, the IMF intervened in both
essential.
situations with its standard remedies, leading to
Above all, the institutions that deal with interna-
massive austerity. Thailand's democratic institu-
tional financial crises are in need of reform. A new
tions have so far proved relatively resilient. But for
management to replace that of Bretton Woods is
how long can it sustain interest rates of more than
essential. It must find a way to distinguish between
40 percent, a negative growth of 8 percent and a 42
long-term and speculative capital, and to cushion the
percent devaluation of its currency?
global system from the excesses of the latter.
In Indonesia-a rich country with vast resources
and an economy that was praised by the World
T
he IMF must be transformed. It should be
Bank in July 1997 for its efficient management-the
returned to its original purpose as a provider
IMF, advised by an administration afraid of being
of expert advice and judgment, supplement-
accused of having political ties to leading Indonesian
ed by short-term liquidity support. When the IMF
financial institutions, decided to make its assistance
focuses on multibillion-dollar loans, it plays a poker
conditional on remedying virtually every ill from
game it cannot possibly win; the "house," in this
which the society suffered. It demanded the closing
case the market, simply has too much money.
of 15 banks, the ending of monopolies on food and
Congress should use the need for IMF replenish-
heating oil, and the end of subsidies.
ment to impose such changes.
But when 15 banks are closed in the middle of a
Further, the central banks and regulators of the
crisis, a run on other banks is inevitable. The ending
industrial democracies need to turn their attention
of subsidies raised food and fuel prices, causing riots
to the international securities markets, just as they
aimed at the Chinese minority that controls much of
did to international banking after the debt crisis of
the economy. As a result, as much as $60 billion of
the 1980s. Regulatory systems should be strength-
2/2
Chinese money fled Indonesia, or more than the
ened and harmonized; the risks that investors are
IMF could possibly provide. A currency crisis had
taking should be made more transparent.
been turned into an economic disaster.
Finally, the private sector must learn to relate
For a few months, a special Treasury represen-
itself to the political necessities of host countries. I
tative worked with the government and the IMF to
am disturbed by the tendency to treat the Asian
ease the pressures. But by April the IMF was back at
economic crisis as another opportunity to acquire
the old stand. This time the explosion swept away
control of Asian companies' assets cheaply and to
the Suharto regime. A currency crisis, having been
reconstitute them on the American model. This is
transmuted into an economic crisis, has become a
courting a long-term disaster. Every effort should be
crisis of political institutions. Any real economic
made to work with local partners and to turn
reform stands suspended. The shortcomings of
acquisitions into genuinely cooperative enterprises.
Suharto were real enough, but to try to deal with
them concurrently with the currency crisis has
The writer, a former secretary of state, is
produced a political vacuum in the most populous
president of Kissinger Associates, an
Islamic nation in the world.
international consulting firm that has
All this might make sense if the IMF programs
clients with business interests in many
brought demonstrable relief. But in every country
countries abroad.
where the IMF has operated, successive programs
© 1998. Los Angeles Times Syndicate
have lowered the forecast of the growth rate, which,
The Washington Post
MONDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1998
FROM
: Mulhauser and Associates
PHONE NO. :
Jul. 06 1998 04:57PM P1
Karen Mulhauser
Mulhauser and Associates
Management & Public Affairs Consultant
memorandum
TO:
Melanne Verveer
FROM:
Karen Mulhauser
Kin
RE:
Thoughts about building a constituency for global engagement and
social and economic development
DATE:
July 6, 1998
I have been reflecting on your request for ideas about building a constituency for global
engagement and international development at least weekly since we spoke. I have started
various drafts, but now as we hear reports from China, I realize I should wait no longer. What
follows is a brief outline. It does not include background information to justify the need to build a
constituency. I hardly need to provide that since Mrs. Clinton clearly understands the need.
I do want to let you know how very interested I am in the challenge, and how very
important a contribution Mrs. Clinton makes whenever she speaks about global issues. She is
able to bring the public's attention to these critical issues in a way that no one else is able. But,
as the attached memo states, I believe it is not enough for her efforts to get the public's
attention. 1 hope that with her initiative, Mrs. Clinton will take the public one step further and
empower it to enter public policy debates on global engagement, sustainable economic
assistance, and our future leadership role in the global community.
As you know, over the months since we first spoke of Mrs. Clinton's interest in building
an informed constituency for international issues, I have coordinated two international
conferences with USAID one on Girls' Education at which Mrs. Clinton was the Honorary Chair
and the keynote speaker, and the other was a Lessons Without Borders conference on
Women's Small Business Development. At the latter, a commitment was made to convene a
second Lessons Without Borders conference on women's small business development in
Chicago in May, 1999. At both, Mrs. Clinton was a highlight of the conference, and both were
excellent public education opportunities which provided useful lessons about how to do more to
get the public's attention.
She has a remarkable rapport with people here at home and throughout the world. I can
hardly wait to hear what she has to say about this most recent trip to Chinal
So, we must find a way to have her be a visible public educator, find the forums within
various sectors of our society for her to carry out this mission, and find the resources to make it
possible.
I have spoken with Jill Buckley and her staff about many of my ideas which are
summarized in the following pages. I will be happy to further develop these ideas and/or come
in again and speak with you if you think this is an approach to pursue.
1730 Rhode Island Avenue NW
Suite 712
Washington DC 20036
Phone 202.463.0180
Fax 202.463.0182
FROM : Mulhauser and Associates
PHONE NO. :
Jul. 06 1998 04:57PM P2
Building a U.S. Constituency for
Global Engagement and Social and Economic Development
The First Lady's Initiative
Submitted by Karen Mulhauser
July, 1998
This draft plan of action to build a constituency for global engagement and social and
economic development is presented in four sections:
I.
background summary of a few assumptions and understandings;
II.
goals of a Proposed First Lady's Initiative;
III.
basic components of the Initiative; and
IV.
possible next steps.
I. Assumptions and Understandings
The U.S. government is not likely to reverse its retreat from a commitment to bilateral
and multilateral development support in the absence of a visible and informed U.S.
citizenry that articulates the relevance of the developing world to our own - an
understanding that social and economic advances in less developed countries
advances the well-being of the people in our own country.
The United States has, and will probably always have, a leadership role in the global
community. The question this Initiative can address is what kind of leadership role
that will be. Will it be a role of global policing? Of military power? Of building
democracies? Of humanitarian and development assistance? Of global commerce?
The nature of our engagement is one that concerns us all and the decision about that
engagement is one that should involve an informed U.S. public.
The people of the U.S. can be divided into three different sectors when it comes to
attitudes toward global social and economic development, and any public education
initiative should approach these different sectors in different ways. These three
separate publics are the people who:
1. believe that the U.S. should not be giving foreign aid to other countries, we
have problems here at home, and besides it's just throwing money down a rat
hole. This sector I'll call "lost cause."
2. appear to not focus on global issues or are indifferent. Many have not formed
a judgment on international development assistance. This sector I'll call the
"movable middle."
3. already agree that the U.S. is a global leader with a responsibility to invest in
emerging markets and to provide the sustainable development assistance
which is both humanitarian and in our own economic interest. This sector,
2
FROM : Mulhauser and Associates
PHONE NO. :
Jul. 06 1998 04:58PM P3
while not formed as an advocacy constituency is nonetheless a constituency
that I'll refer to as the "already convinced."
Obviously one would have a different conversation with individuals from each of
these sectors, and so too an education effort would be designed differently for each
sector. A description of how to approach the different publics is in section 11 of this
memo.
Growing interdependence among nations is inevitable and should be embraced, not
feared or fought. The growing global marketplace redefines alliances. Changes in
the conditions of environmental or health considerations know no borders. Electronic
communications, especially the Internet, allow peoples worldwide to learn facts and
to allow ideas to move more freely and rapidly -- ideas that previously could only be
accessed by the powerful.
Of all the people's movements in the world, the women's movement has taken the
most advantage of the opportunities of interdependence to organize a global
constituency. Starting in 1975 with the first World Women's Conference in Mexico
City, but especially in the last decade, women from all regions of the world are
organizing TOGETHER to encourage governments and multilateral institutions to
adopt policies that would improve human rights conditions, environmental protection,
access to improved health delivery, and perhaps most importantly, equality in political
and private sector powersharing. Women took advantage of official UN and other
world conferences -- whether organized on the environment, housing, social
development or population - to meet frequently, share advances, and build a strong
global constituency which has demonstrated that all issues are women's issues.
While some organizations concerned with international development have in recent
years understood the imperative of educating the general public about the relevance
of the developing world and some have included the education of Congress, there is
not a group or network that effectively reaches a grassroots public and effectively
mobilizes a constituency to enter public pólicy debates on global engagement and
international development assistance. This Initiative could inform a broader public
which could then avail itself of the existing groups that are mobilizing informed
citizens to educate policymakers.
There is great wisdom in the recent document prepared by the Rockefeller Brothers
Fund, Global Interdependence and the Need for Social Stewardship. While I will
not repeat that report's findings here, I endorse them and believe the RBF paper
presents the necessary background information that justifies The First Lady's
Initiative or plan of action outlined below.
Similarly, the new video prepared by USAID, entitled Making a WORLD of
Difference: Celebrating 30 years of Development Progress, offers a good
overview of the progress as well as the remaining challenges to not "squander this
3
FROM : Mulhauser and Associates
PHONE NO. :
Jul. 06 1998 04:58PM P4
opportunity to improve the lives of future generations development is more than an
opportunity, it is also a global imperative."
II.
Goals of a Proposed First Lady's Initiative
Any major education and constituency-building effort should be designed 1) to inform,
(2) to build or grow, and (3) to mobilize.
The goals then of The First Lady's Initiative should be to:
inform the general public about the relevance of the developing world to our own
world. This involves major media campaigns designed to address the interests and
concerns of people whose minds are open and who can see some link between
events abroad and those here at home. Education can also occur through existing
networks of organizations that want to be part of the Initiative.
build an informed network of this emerging set of concerned organizations and
individuals. This network should be given opportunities to express support for global
engagement and international development assistance. Building toward a Citizen's
Congress on Global Engagement as described below, provides an interesting
framework for this growth.
mobilize this informed and concerned constituency to educate still others. Such
mobilizing efforts could involve existing organizations of domestic and international
development organizations.
To address these goals for a constituency concerned with the role of the U.S. in a global
community, we should have an approach - almost a system of triage - that is designed
to address the different concerns of the different publics described above: the Lost
Cause, the Movable Middle, and the Already Convinced.
In a system of triage, the strategists decide to put time and energy where a difference
can be made and where, without an intervention, there is no chance of positive
movement. Therefore, initially, the Initiative should not focus attention with the first
group that consists of individuals whose minds are made up and will resist, perhaps
vigorously, any information that is contrary to the no-welfare-abroad point of view.
Instead two parallel, but related, approaches should be considered with the Movable
Middle and the Already Convinced populations.
1. Educating the Movable Middle: An approach should be designed using
tested methods to help shape public judgment on issues by providing facts
and information in a manner that people will hear and understand. Much of
today's public opinion against global engagement is based on misinformation
or wrong information. In addition, where there is public support, people may
need additional information to increase the salience of their global concerns.
Opinions can be changed to become appropriate judgments once necessary
4
FROM : Mulhauser and Associates
PHONE NO. :
Jul. 06 1998 04:59PM P5
information has been provided Therefore, education efforts outlined below
are aimed at changing uninformed opinion to informed judgments.
2. Mobilizing the Already Convinced: This portion of the Initiative focuses on
the existing constituency that will grow. as a result of approach 1. above.
I believe strongly that it is not sufficient to get the facts out with an effective ad campaign
that educates people. I believe it is also very important for an informed constituency to
be mobilized as quickly as possible. These two parallel approaches -- education and
mobilization -- need each other. Those who will become informed as a result of The
First Lady's Initiative need to have a place to go to act on their newly understood
convictions, and those who already "get it" need an effective way to express their
knowledge, to think their expressions will make a difference, and to feel "part of a
movement".
It is true that many organizations, such as the Campaign to Preserve U.S. Global
Leadership, the Business Alliance for Economic Development, The Coalition for
American Leadership Abroad (CO-Lead), and NGOs such as the National Peace Corps
Association, CARE, World Vision and others, are beginning to implement advocacy
efforts, and that this new Initiative could focus entirely on educating the Movable Middle
and leave the Already Convinced to be mobilized by existing efforts. I however believe
that an initiative that does both, or is at least recognized as coordinating both, would be
more effective. Perhaps no other person than Mrs. Clinton would be recognized as
qualified to assume such an assignment.
III.
Basic Components of the Initiative
This portion is divided in two sections. One outlines possible education programs to
inform the Movable Middle, and the other outlines possible mobilizing programs for the
Already Convinced. These are just outlines and can be expanded if The First Lady's
Office is interested.
Both parallel education programs could be designed to build toward a CITIZEN'S
CONGRESS ON GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT in the year 2,000. Such a Citizen's
Congress would bring together diverse sectors of citizens to inform themselves and
others through the use of TV, satellites and interactive Internet activities. It could be
designed (with preparatory conferences in advance and discussion within various
sectors) to end with a consensus statement, or Citizen's Declaration of Interdependence.
Informing the Movable Middle
The media is an important component of an effective education campaign. Much of
the U.S. media - as is the case with the general public - is poorly informed about the
developing world. The international trips taken in recent years by Mr. and Mrs.
Clinton have helped inform those media personnel who have accompanied them. An
important media education program could be designed with Mrs. Clinton leading
5
FROM Mulhauser and Associates
PHONE NO. :
Jul. 06 1998 05:00PM P6
delegations of media to developing countries with the single purpose of their
education on issues of global interdependence. These trips funded at least in part by
The Initiative, would be for selected media who generally report on domestic issues
and who may become more sensitive to international linkages as a result of the
travels. Briefing sessions with the media could be provided by Mrs. Clinton and
selected experts on a regular basis for this growing media constituency as well as
other interested media.
A major ad campaign directed at the Movable Middle should be designed to take all
opportunities to inform the open-minded public about the relevance of the developing
world. Because international issues do have a salience with most people in the U.S.
and polls show that most Americans do support effective cooperative engagement,
an ad campaign could be designed to shape judgments and help build a constituency
to support those policy makers who agree. Examples of effective ad campaigns such
as the Tobacco Free Kids should be examined and appropriate lessons applied.
Good polling data about U.S. attitudes toward global engagement and development
assistance already exists. Message development and focus group testing is needed
to find the most effective way to deliver constituency-building messages. Such
messages will greatly assist media outreach as well as public education efforts
below.
Lessons Without Borders conferences, similar to those organized currently by
USAID, can be an effective way to inform people who are concerned about domestic
issues but do not yet articulate those concerns in a global context. These are most
effective when people with common concerns and interests who have benefited from
USAID and other development assistance, are brought to the U.S. and share their
experiences with U.S. counterparts. This was dramatically demonstrated recently in
Augusta, Maine where 1/4 of the participants in an international conference on
women's small business development were women from the developing world.
Equally important learning happens when U.S. community development workers
travel to developing countries to learn how lessons from USAID programs have
applications for U.S. problems as has been demonstrated with the Baltimore Lessons
Without Borders efforts which continue four years after they began in 1995.
A focus on youth will have a long term benefit as is demonstrated by Operation Day's
Work which is a development education program for school age children which
started in Norway 34 years ago. It now includes more than 900 high schools and
220,000 students. Norway schools have "International Day" and raise both
awareness of the issues related to developing countries, and they raise money for
less fortunate counterparts in developing countries. This youth-focused education
effort is credited with the strong development support from Scandinavian countries.
USAID has begun Operation Day's Work in the United States and hopes to join
Norway, Denmark and Sweden with long term program that ultimately lead to a better
informed public more likely to support international development programs. Other
youth-focused initiatives can be incorporated or expanded including Worldwise in the
6
FROM Mulhauser and Associates
PHONE NO. :
Jul. 06 1998 05:01PM P7
Peace Corps, Partners of the Americas and Sister City programs. A focus on youth is
necessary to prepare tomorrow's leaders for a more global community.
1. A focus on women should also be a central part of this education outreach initiative.
Polls demonstrate a gender gap with women being more supportive of humanitarian
and development assistance. U.S. women's groups with a domestic-focus have seen
their counterparts at numerous international conferences and despite the fact that
their plate is full with domestic concerns, they are perhaps more likely than other
domestic constituencies to make linkages with their global issues, to express
domestic issues in a global context, and perhaps lead the way for other sectors to
build a constituency for global engagement.
These and other public education efforts to reach the Movable Middle will get the
attention of a larger public, but that is not sufficient to build a constituency. Unless this
emerging citizenry is mobilized to demonstrate its convictions, our policies toward
developing countries and multilateral institutions may not improve.
Mobilizing the Already Convinced
The Already Convinced are often confused as to what to do that will make a difference.
Although there is public support for global engagement and development assistance this
support does not immediately translate into activities that will shape improved public
policies. Those political leaders inclined to lead on international issues do not feel the
support from constituents, and they will not until people who care about the developing
world are mobilized to demonstrate that concern.
I believe The First Lady's Initiative should include the creation of an infrastructure that
can respond to the needs, interests and concerns of the Already Concerned
constituency that will grow as a result from the activities outlined above. This
infrastructure should be designed to:
coordinate the educational efforts outlined above;
form collaborative partnerships with NGOs and domestic organizations that have
existing mechanisms to reach grassroots networks;
develop a web-page to provide the U.S. public with easy to access and easy to read
information that links our concerns with those of the developing world and links with
the more effective pages of other international development initiatives.
serve as a clearinghouse for national and local NGOs that want to be part of this
global engagement constituency.
refer concerned citizens to existing national and local groups such as the national
peace Corps Association.
organize a series of public briefings, debates, educational and media events and
coordinate with others to build toward a CITIZEN'S CONGRESS ON GLOBAL
ENGAGEMENT planned for the year 2000.
7
FROM :- Mulhauser and Associates
PHONE NO. :
Jul. 06 1998 05:01PM P8
IV. Possible Next Steps
If the ideas presented here are reflective of the interests of The First Lady's Office, some
or all of the following activities could begin almost immediately.
Develop a draft plan based on this and other ideas brought to the attention of The
First Lady's Office. The draft plan should include a scope of work and timeline.
Convene a brainstorming session with key individuals whose judgment is valued and
insights are needed to asses a draft plan. Such individuals might include Jill Buckley
and others from USAID, Colin Campbell, Susan Sechler, and others involved with the
preparation of the recent Rockefeller Brothers Fund publication, "Global
Interdependence and the Need for Social Stewardship", Steven Kull, Celinda Lake
and possibly other public opinion analysts, representatives of NGOs concerned about
building a constituency as well as from the corporate community with global interests.
It would not take much to grow this list beyond a useful size
Identify opportunities for Mrs. Clinton to lead media delegations to developing
countries. These delegation trips should be part of the overall plan. That is, if there
is a focus on outreach to women or children, the media that covers those issues
domestically should be the first delegations.
Consider points along the calendar for Mrs. Clinton to begin speaking out about the
Initiative. Some opportunities already exist and others will become apparent.
1. The fall, 1998 meeting of the Foreign Policy Association
2. January 13 - 15, 1999 Global Meeting of Generations
3. May 5- - 8, 1999 Lessons Without Borders conference in Chicago focused on
women's small business development
Begin plans for the Citizen's Congress on Global Engagement.
8
USAID
U.S. AGENCY FOR
INTERNATIONAL
DEVELOPMENT
April 30, 1998
Assistant Administrator
Bureau for Legislative
and Public Affairs
TO:
Melanne Verveer
Chief of Staff
Office of the First Lady
FROM:
Jill
AA/LPA Buckley USAID July Buckley
RE:
USAID TV/Public Education and Outreach Initiative
This memo is an interim update on the progress of our TV/Public Education and Outreach
Initiative. We will follow up within two weeks with a summary of options for the initiative.
What we'd like to do is give you a "menu" of sorts to review and discuss with the First Lady and
then meet to talk over the proposed options and possibilities.
As you know, we convened the first meeting of the IWG On 2/26/98. (The group currently
consists of representatives from USAID, Office of the First Lady, NSC, State, USIA and VOA.
We will include DOEd and Peace Corps in the next meeting.) Following that meeting, and our
subsequent conversation, we moved forward to meet with outside groups to gather ideas, gauge
levels of interest in direct participation, and rally support for this effort.
The groups we are meeting with fall into three main categories: groups with similar goals (e.g.,
Mott Foundation, Rockefeller Brothers, etc.); people with skills and technical expertise dealing
with broadcast media; and groups that might be interested in funding this initiative.
(The list is attached.)
From our two months of meetings six main themes consistently emerged:
Television and paid advertising:
PSAs are great and work well as part of very focused campaigns for a limited
audience. However, the type of television outreach we have in mind, the long-
term impact we hope to have, and the breadth and scope of audience we hope to
320 TWENTY-FIRST STREET, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20523
PHONE: (202) 647-9620
FAX: (202) 647-1770
-2-
reach, would clearly need to be based on a long-term, multiyear paid advertising
strategy, not just PSAs.
Most people believed that a paid ad campaign would be the biggest (and arguably
the most important) component to any public education and outreach initiative.
We would like to investigate creative programming opportunities (this could be
just the right time to take advantage of new FCC children's programming regs) as
well as stand-alone spots. We also want to reach out to cable TV, network TV,
the motion picture industry, and experts in children's television.
Saliency, message & audience:
There seems to be uniform concern about the saliency of our issue -- international
engagement is not seen by most people as relevant to their lives. There is very
good survey research available on this, as well as new compilations of data.
The Rockefeller Brothers Fund has just given a small grant to the Campaign to
Preserve U.S. Global Leadership to continue consolidation of all relevant polling
data. Most of the polling has been on attitude, not message, and we believe that
follow-up focus groups to narrow down and test messages would be essential.
Steven Kull, of the University of Maryland, is continuing his survey research and
is now focusing on the underlying "values" driving American people -- how
people see things in the larger context, what is important to them, and their own
image of the "public's point of view" toward international engagement.
There is no consensus on audience. Some believe we should try for a broad, mass
market general audience. Others think a smaller target would show more easily
measurable results. There are audiences that may be good to begin with, people
who are not part of our traditional constituency but have natural international
interests (e.g., ethnic groups with ties to a country, people who travel, people in
international clubs, foreign language press, international business, etc.).
We could also find the linkages between specific issues and themes that link to
the First Lady and resonate more easily with the general public. Then, we could
do outreach thematically with different messages for different "pockets" of
people.
Reaching youth:
The key to changing attitudes is reaching people when they are young. Youth,
generally, seem to be an untapped audience and international affairs a somewhat
neglected area in curricula. Reaching into schools has great potential and could
be achieved several ways through new, interactive school curriculum development
-3-
and school service clubs (e.g., Junior Achievement, 4-H, Future Farmers, Key
Club, American Field Service, etc.).
Reaching youth in school would also be a way to reach families and would be a
good foundation for extended community outreach. We could also provide states
with a program to fulfill volunteer service graduation requirements with, for
example, USAID's new Operation Day's Work - USA program. The link to
education is essential, not only youth in elementary and secondary schools, but
college students as well.
Internet:
The potential to "bring the world right into the classroom and home" is enormous.
Innovative use of the Internet could reach a wide audience of youth and adults and
expand our current network of Web users, constituents, etc. The Website could be
an extension of the in-school component of this initiative, as well as part of
ongoing media and community outreach. Outside technical expertise would be
essential in developing a cutting-edge, interactive Website.
Organization:
Clearly, there needs to be a grassroots component to this initiative to ensure its
success and long-term sustainability. Most people do not believe there needs to
be a new organization, rather a way to tie the existing ones together. One
suggestion was to expand the base of USAID's Lessons Without Borders
program by establishing it as an independent foundation and using it as a possible
umbrella organization through which we could run this initiative.
There is great interest in the business community (Chambers of Commerce,
Business Alliance, Campaign to Preserve U.S. Global Leadership, etc.), but the
level of buy-in needs to be heightened and the saliency issue addressed. There are
competing interests, but most people believed that the business community could
be brought together quickly in support of this initiative.
Funding:
This initiative would need to be a privately funded, multiyear, concerted effort to
ensure long-term sustainability and reach the broadest base audience with
repeated, consistent, relevant messages. An underlying concern is not the funding
itself, so much as the time needed to raise the considerable amount needed and the
vehicle/structure through which the money would be run.
Throughout our meeting process it also became clear that there are many people out there
thinking about the potential of organizing around this goal, and we found almost everyone
willing to be part of a core group to work with us and the First Lady's Office.
-4-
To date, we have spoken by phone or met with the following:
Bill White
President, CS Mott Foundation
Maureen Smith
VP Programs, CS Mott Foundation
Judy Samelson
VP Communications, CS Mott Foundation
Talked mostly about message, saliency and the importance of long-
term, strategic communications. Thought a paid ad campaign
would be the biggest (and most important) component.
Mark Gearan
Director, Peace Corps
Thought that the Peace Corps could be a great asset in this
initiative and that we could/should capitalize on its popularity.
Peter Fenn
Fenn & King
Media producer with international experience. Tie to the President
of the National Cable Television Association.
Jerry Klepner
Black, Kelly, Scruggs & Healy
Ties to Young & Rubicam and Burson Marsteller.
Jim Margolis
Greer, Margolis
Worked with State and White House on Africa pre- and post-trip
outreach ideas. Stressed need for long-term commitment.
Steven Kull
Director, Program on International Policy Attitudes, Center for
International Security Studies, University of Maryland
Author of The Foreign Policy Gap--How Policy Makers Misread
the Public and Americans and Foreign Aid--A Study of Public
Attitudes.
Susan Sechler
Aspen Institute
Author of Global Interdependence and the Need for Social
Stewardship report for the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.
Priscilla Lewis
Rockefeller Brothers Fund
Special Assistant to the President
Director of Communications
Currently working on a second collaboration with Susan Sechler.
Terry Bracey
Bracey & Williams
Barry Blechman
Stinson Foundation
Terry and Barry followed up our meeting with a plan outlining
how they believe US business could be involved in this initiative.
Pat McGuinnes
President, Council on Excellence in Government
Suggested The Partnership for a Drug Free America as a good case
study and possible model. Also suggested the possibility of
partnering with the current Peace Corps ad campaign.
Bunny Lester
Children's Television Workshop
Assistant VP, Development, Marketing & Communications
Offered suggestions about creative fundraising and volunteered to
help lead a fundraising campaign.
-5-
Sally Patterson
Winner, Wagner, Frances
Thought thematic outreach to small target audiences would be the
best way to link our issues to the general public.
Joanne Eide
NEA International Affairs
Jill Christiansen
NEA International Affairs
Stressed that the link to education is essential. Thought that certain
messages could (and would) be well received and understood by
children as young as elementary school age.
Karen Mulhauser
Mulhauser Public Affairs
Suggested expanding the base of the Lessons Without Borders
program as the umbrella organization to run this initiative.
Marlene Johnson
CEO, NAFSA: Association of International Educators
Thought an education component should continue through college.
Polly Donaldson
Director of Public Outreach, Partners of the Americas
Discussed the pros and cons of reaching out to the general public
vs. the "elites."
Liz Schrayer
President, Schrayer & Associates
Campaign Coordinator, Campaign to Preserve U.S. Global Leadership
Represents a coalition of over 300 businesses, including many
Fortune 500 companies.
Theresa Loar
State/ President's Interagency Council on Women
As we expected, she had good ideas and contacts for us to follow
up in the future.
We have also scheduled meetings with:
Tony Blinken
NSC
Jeff Meer
United Nations Foundation
Peter Hart
Peter Hart Research Associates
Barbara Shaller
AFL-CIO, International Relations
Karen Nussbaum
AFL-CIO, Women's Issues
Jim Moody
President, Interaction
Gibby Waitzkin
Gibson Creative
Jeff DaPuzzo
American Express
Richard Bates
Buena Vista / Disney
Jack Valenti
President & CEO, Motion Picture Association of America
JAN 14 '98 08:42AM
P.2
ABOUT FOREIGN POLICY
American women are more dissatisfied with the state of the
world than American men. Women are somewhat less attentive to
international news then men and appear to be less knowledgeable
then men about foreign policy events (Pew Research Center Surveys,
9/97 unless otherwise indicated)
Dissatisfied with
state of world
1997
1993
Women
71%
73%
Men
57%
59%
Attentive to
Correctly answer
International News
2 of 3 information
questions
Women
17%
29%
Men
23%
46%
More people believe that President Clinton is spending too
much time on foreign policy as compared to domestic policy although
the greatest number of people think he is spending about right
amount on each.
In the case of President Bush, a strong majority believed that
he was spending too much time on foreign policy as compared to
domestic policy.
10/91
9/92
12/93
10/94
6/96
Too much on foreign policy
58
70
36
45
36
Too much on domestic policy
1
1
17
4
3
About right amount of each
35
26
39
47
54
(CBS/NYTimes or NBC/WSJ)
The public is very clear in its belief that the vast majority
of President Clinton's time should be spent on domestic policy.
Earlier they thought that President Bush was more wrong than right
to concentrate most of his time on foreign affairs. In fact they
thought he had neglected domestic problems as a result of spending
so much time on foreign affairs.
President Clinton
Date
Source
Domestic/Foreign
1/9-12/97
Princeton
86/7
12/1-4/94
Princeton
85/7
10/21-24/93
Princeton
76/13
1/13-14/93
Yankelovich
76/14
President Bush
More Right/Wrong
12/26-30/91
20/70
JAN 14 '98 08:43AM
P.4
restrict imports to protect jobs in this country. (NBC/WSJ 3/96;
LATimes 8/96)
From 1947 at least through 1994, substantial numbers of
Americans felt that it was best for the future of this country to
take an active part in world affairs. (Gallup Organization)
1947
68%
1965
79%
1976
60%
1984
70%
1992
73%
1994
65%
In February 1996 53% disagreed with the proposition that the
United States should radically reduce its role in International
Affairs while 43% agreed with this proposition. On the other hand
late in that year 77% thought we in America worry too much about
people in foreign countries and don't take enough care of our
own. (Time/CNN 2/96; Tarrance Group & Lake Research 11/96)
In early 1995 78% of Americans felt that the United States
spends to much money on foreign aid and 87% of that group would cut
foreign aid. The problem is that Americans have a much distorted
view of the amount that is actually spent on foreign aid and when
faced with the actual level of spending 81% think the amount is
about right or too little.
On average Americans believed that it would be appropriate to
spend 8% of the federal budget on foreign aid and that 18% of the
federal budget in fact goes to foreign aid. when they learn that
the real expenditure is 1% of the federal budget their response is
as described above.
Again in mid-1996 when Americans were asked how much of each
$1,000 in GNP was committed to foreign aid, the median amount
"guessed" was $100 of every $1,000. When told that the realty was
$1.50, 73% thought it was the right amount of too little
(Survey by U of Maryland 1/95)
- 3 -
JAN 14 '98 08:43AM
P.3
11/13-18/91
15/79
10/9-13/91
14/81
9/27-10/2-91
22/69
(Harris)
Date
Neglected/Not happened
12/26-30/91
72/23
11/13-18/91
70/29
(Harris)
Throughout the 1st half of the 90's Americans believed that
the United States should reduce its involvement in world politics
in order to concentrate on problems at home rather than using its
world position to help settle international disputes.
Promote Democracy/Reduce involvement
6/21-22/95
21/72
10/25-26/94
22/71
4/21/94
29/66
9/19-20/91
19/73
(Time/CNN)
Beginning at least in the mid-70s there were strong feelings
that the country would be better off if we paid less attention to
problems overseas and concentrated here at home.
Date
Source
Agree/Disagree
9/12-15/95
U of MD
86/12
11/9/94-1/9/95
Univ. of Michigan
68/29
7/13-27/94
Princeton
84/15
5/18-24/93
Princeton
85/14
9/1-11/2/92
U of Michigan
72/26
9/6-11/7/88
U of Michigan
67/29
5/28-6/10/92
Princeton
88/11
11/7/84-1/25/85
U of Michigan
73/24
11/4/80-2/7/81
U of Michigan
78/18
12/6-14/74
Harris
87/11
Yet given all of the above, by nearly 2/1 in January 1996, the
public believed that the United States should remain a world power
even if costs and risks are high. (61% to 34% Princeton Survey
Research Associates)
As usual there is a certain amount of schziphrenia. In March
1996 72% reflected their belief that expanding exports to create
jobs is more important than restricting imports to save jobs.
The 5 months later, 63% said that the United States should
- 2 -
US International pending, 1962-2002
(Using CBO's Economic Assumptions)
27
24
21
in billions of 1997 constant dollars
18
15
12
9
6
3
0
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Source: Executive Office of the President of the United States, Historical Tables: Budget of the United
States Government for Fiscal Year 1997, 1996.
Notes: Data until 1996 is historical; figures from that point on are projections from the President's
request for FY 1997. Cuts in international spending in 2001 and 2002, beyond those specifically
identified in the President's budget, assume that international and domestic programs would be reduced
additionally by the same percent (and defense not cut further). Figures are outlays and use the
definition of international discretionary spending from the Budget Enforcement Act, which includes
funding for the State Department, U.N. peacekeeping, military aid, international broadcasting, and other
activities as well as development aid.
ROCKEFELLER BROTHERS FUND
1290 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10104-0233
April 30, 1998
Office of the President
Dear Colleague:
Eighteen months ago, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund joined with the World Bank to host
an unusual meeting of foundation executives, leaders of major humanitarian and environmental
organizations, and officers of large multilateral institutions. Entitled "Building a Constituency
for Global Interdependence," the meeting focused on the participants' shared concern about the
erosion of American support for the policies, programs, and agencies of cooperative
international engagement. Despite a great deal of talk about the global economy and the
unifying effects of communications technology, there has been a growing tendency on the part
of governments, the general public, and private funders to withhold support from development,
exchange, and capacity-building initiatives that reflect the reality and implications of global
interdependence.
The enclosed paper, Global Interdependence and the Need for Social Stewardship, grew
out of this meeting and subsequent smaller gatherings and conversations. Its publication marks
the formal launch of a project that seeks to improve Americans' understanding of global
interdependence and to build a stronger constituency for the global cooperation that will be
necessary if interdependent nations are to advance their common interests. At the heart of this
constituency-building effort, as the enclosed paper suggests, is a model of international
engagement in which military security, economic growth, and social stewardship - the
promotion of health, social stability, and human potential — are seen as mutually reinforcing
expressions of American interests and values.
Through additional meetings, publications, and other outreach activities, the Fund and
its partners in this endeavor hope to help spark a larger conversation about the purpose,
principles, and agents of American engagement in an interdependent world. These are complex
issues on which the public has far from made up its mind, and the opportunities for dialogue are
arguably greater now than they have been for some time. In fact, new polling data suggest that
public attitudes toward global engagement may be more positive than policymakers believe
them to be. Promoting and sustaining meaningful public dialogue around the issue of global
interdependence is an urgent, indeed vital challenge.
If this dialogue is to serve national interests, it must include the voices of
knowledgeable lawmakers and policymakers. As you take part in that dialogue, my colleagues
and I hope you will find our new publication and project informative and stimulating. We
welcome your comments and look forward to your involvement in future project-related
activities.
Sincerely yours,
Colin G. Campbell
Cahin Completell
TELEPHONE 212-373-4200 FACSIMILE 212 315 0996 EMAIL [email protected]
Melanne-
this wasa
text of Wolfensohn note:
handwritter
note To HRC
"My dear Hillary,
Pan
I have just returned from a visit to Nepal and India and want you to
know how warmly you are remembered. You and Chelsea made a great
impression and everyone from the Government officials, women's groups,
the guide at the Taj Mahal and the shopkeeper at the Marble (?) Gift Shop
-- all said how great you were.
This makes me even more anxious to work with you during the
second term on international issues. I know that the President has an
international agenda in mind, and for this I am very grateful, but you
personally can play a big role. If you have the time and interest I would
love to exchange some ideas with you re development, women and
children.
Elaine and I follow with pride all that you and the President are
doing. We wish you and our country great success next Tuesday. We
look forward to seeing more of you during the second term and to helping
you in any way we can.
With our warmest greetings to you both - Jim
cc: Melanne
give frequin paling
F
0
U
s
NATIONAL SECURITY
JAMES KITFIELD
MAYBE FOREIGN AFFAIRS MATTERS
T
he Cold War was a long haul,
Myth No. 1: "I'm only reflect-
full of sacrifices, and now the
ing the views of my constituents."
American people are in no
In fact, pollsters found
mood for new foreign adventures.
strikingly little differ-
"Do-gooders" who want the Unit-
ence between the na-
ed States to help cure the world's
tional electorate and
ills are less motivated and politi-
voters in congressional
cally potent than the realists who
districts whose representatives
intensely oppose sticking Ameri-
favor international disengage-
ca's neck out abroad.
ment. In the four districts, 76-77
A Member of Congress who
per cent of respondents were in
votes for foreign aid is inviting a
favor of strengthening the United
flood of negative advertising and
Peter Kuper/INX
Nations; 55-65 per cent favored
public ire. "Feel-good" national
contributing U.S. troops to U.N.
polls may support American en-
peacekeeping operations; 64-68
gagement in foreign affairs, but
per cent preferred that America
Members of Congress, who moni-
work through the United Nations
tor the public pulse through letters and phone calls from their
when military force was required.
constituents, say they detect a neo-isolationist heartbeat.
Myth No. 2: "Support for American engagement is 'squishy,'
This picture of an inward-looking America emerged from more
while a hard core of knowledgeable and politically active oppo-
than 80 interviews conducted recently with Members of Congress
nents favor reducing U.S. involvement in the world." Those
and their staffs, executive branch officials, policy analysts and
who "felt strongly" on the issue-based on their answers to 15
reporters and editors. The interview sessions and some related
foreign policy questions-were actually more likely to favor
workshops were conducted by the University of Maryland's Pro-
engagement. Respondents rated the most "active" in politics
gram on International Policy Attitudes, all part of a study on "For-
(judged as having given money to or worked in a political cam-
eign Policy and the Public."
paign, or having contacted Congress on a foreign policy issue in
Of course, the capital's politicians, policy makers and media
the past five years) were even more pro-engagement, with 71
pundits have long prided themselves on their intuitive grasp of
per cent favoring an "active part in the world."
the body politic. They're usually quick to seize on real or imag-
Myth No. 3: "Voters responding to polls on foreign policy
ined mandates. In 1993, newly elected President Clinton was cer-
engagement like to think of themselves as idealists, but they
tain that Americans had demanded a government-directed uni-
prefer hard-nosed realists representing them in Congress."
versal health care system. Similarly, the Republican revolutionar-
Though it is admittedly difficult, the pollsters tried to factor out
ies who stormed Capitol Hill two years ago were convinced that
the "poll effect" by using several clever approaches. Suffice to
the public had signed off on their Contract With America and
say, pro-engagement respondents tended to strongly favor can-
especially a large-scale dismantling of the federal government.
didates who closely reflected their own views. More surprising-
Mandates, like beauty, are often in the eye of the beholder. And
ly, anti-engagement respondents were far more hesitant to sup-
so a similar misreading of public attitudes may be behind the
port candidates who supported their view. Perhaps voters
notion that the post-Cold War American electorate is overwhelm-
actually like to think of themselves as hard-nosed, but prefer
ingly isolationist. Experts at the International Policy program, for
candidates who take a more idealistic or internationalist view of
instance, had long wondered why that conventional wisdom failed
the world.
to square with their national polls, which consistently showed a
Myth No. 4: "Any vote to pay U.N. dues or finance foreign aid
solid majority of Americans who believed that the United States
will end up as sound-bite fodder for negative advertising." It's
should "take an active part in the world," contribute troops to
the television spot every incumbent fears: "Congressman So-
U.N. peacekeeping operations, continue to support foreign aid
and-So: Year after year he's voted for foreign aid that sends bil-
programs and pay its U.N. dues.
lions of dollars out of the United States, much of it to corrupt
But the pollsters discovered that many politicians and their
governments with poor human rights records. We need a Rep-
staffs simply didn't trust the national polls. Chief among their
resentative in Congress who works on our problems at home
assumptions was the notion that national polls be damned, things
first-not wasteful, giveaway programs abroad.
are just different back home.
Well, maybe not. After reading the above advertisement for a
So the University of Maryland's center compared that percep-
hard-nosed challenger and an equally slick spot promoting an
tion against reality. First they chose four Members of Congress
incumbent's empathy for "hungry children and disaster victims
who have been wholehearted supporters of cutting foreign aid,
abroad," only 37 percent of respondents favored the challenger
withholding U.N. dues, restricting U.S. participation in U.N.
versus 53 per cent for the incumbent. Similar ads on the issue of
peacekeeping missions and in general curtailing international
U.N. dues revealed an almost identical split in favor of paying
engagements (the identity of the Members won't be disclosed
what we owe.
until after Election Day). Pollsters then conducted extensive sur-
In Washington, it's often said that perception can become
veys in the Members' home districts to determine how accurately
reality. The University of Maryland's polls suggest, however,
the Members' positions reflected the opinions of their con-
that politicians who are confident that they're carrying out the
stituents. What the poll takers discovered should deflate a few
wishes of America's isolationist majority may in fact be
widely held myths.
responding to a mirage.
2376 NATIONAL JOURNAL 11/2/96
667-2375
MEMORANDUM
November 25, 1966
FOR: Melanne Verver
FROM: Carol Lancaster Card
SUBJECT: Foreign Aid in Clinton II
As promised, I am sketching out what I think the major issues
on foreign aid are likely to be in Clinton II and aspects of them
that might be of particular interest to you. I shall describe
three pressing issues involving foreign aid likely to arise in the
coming months: budgetary levels; organization; and what for want
of a better term I shall call "advocacy" -- helping the American
people to appreciate better the purposes and impact of US aid
abroad.
1. At the core of most of these issues is the budgetary one:
what levels of foreign aid will be available to the US government
to pursue its interests and values abroad over the coming four
years? The first part of the answer to this question will come in
the aid levels contained in the 1998 budget the administration
sends to the Congress (likely to decided in the next several
weeks). The Congress will provide a second part of the answer as
it begins to cut from the administration's proposed level. As you
know, aid represents less than 1% of the federal budget but it is
a 'discretionary' expenditure and one that has had lukewarm support
at best from the general public, the 'informed public', the
Congress and, frankly, at times from within the administration
itself. Thus, it has been slashed substantially in the past two
years.
If projections for future cuts in aid hold (of roughly one
quarter to one third in real terms as part of the general effort to
balance the budget -- see attached chart), several consequences are
likely. First, the US may have to terminate its voluntary
contributions to certain UN programs if it is to preserve its
influence in others. My guess is that we will protect our
contributions to the politically popular and effective UNICEF
(which is headed by a US citizen) but possibly reduce radically our
contributions to the UN Development Program (also headed by an
American at present). Not surprisingly, cuts in UNDP have already
prompted other countries to call for the appointment of a non-
American to head the organization.
Second, the administration may also have to apply a triage
approach to which multilateral development banks it finances.
Congress has already refused to appropriate funds for the African
Development Fund (which is having severe management problems) and
there is talk that perhaps the economic success in Asia argues for
a decrease or elimination of US support for the Asian Development
Bank. Budget cuts will also make it difficult for the US to
support IDA, the soft loan window of the World Bank or even make up
its arrears. Past cuts in US support to these organizations have
already begun to erode US leadership in them. Further cuts will
result in our falling further and further behind other donors in
our contributions and even behind in our own commitments and weaken
our ability to lead yet further, in terms both of policy and
personnel. The overall budgets of these organizations may also
decline if other governments, usually tying their level of funding
to ours, cut their contributions.
Cuts of the magnitude projected will likely have a major
impact on our bilateral aid program. If levels to Egypt and Israel
are held harmless as they have been since the beginning of the
1980s, cuts of considerably more than one third will fall on the
rest of the bilateral aid program -- primarily on development
assistance. That program is roughly $2 billion at present (with
another $450 million in administrative expenses). A drop of one
third in the program and administrative levels will force a
significant reorientation both in the geographical and functional
scope of the program, probably leading the elimination of programs
in a considerably larger number of countries than is now
contemplated and possibly also forcing the elimination of funding
for particular sectoral activities. Cuts of this magnitude may
also lead the administration to consider a fundamentally different
approach to providing aid, with less emphasis on working through
its (unavoidably expensive) foreign missions and a more hands-off
approach reliant primarily on programming from headquarters. There
are numerous options for dealing with such cuts -- none of them
easy or pleasant. But one thing is certain: if these cuts occur
and especially if monies for the Middle East are protected, US
bilateral aid will be much diminished, much different than it is
today, and probably much more poitically oriented. Supporting
development will likely become a minor aspect of our relations with
countries in Asia and Latin America and possibly even Africa.
2. The second foreign aid issue likely to confront the
administration in coming months is the organizational one. It
seems likely that Senator Helms will return to the issue, proposing
again a reorganization of the foreign affairs agencies and possibly
holding up new appointments until his demands are met or his
support within the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (where all of
the Republicans supported him the last time this issue was raised)
is detached. Senator Helms will probably propose again that USAID
be merged into the Department of State. My own views on this issue
are no different outside the administration from what they were
within it: it is a terrible idea with very great potential costs
and very few benefits. The two agencies have different missions (I
have served in senior positions in each and can speak from some
experience) and different modis operandi. They both are struggling
with difficult management challenges and a merger would make those
changes immensely more difficult, probably paralyzing them both
until the details of a merger were thrashed out. Finally, it is
hard for me to see what will be gained by a merger -- not
significant budgetary savings unless one of the agencies is savaged
and not necessarily better coordination unless one literally takes
over the other.
However, if Senator Helms does raise the organizational issue
again, the administration will have once more to decide how it
responds. This could prove to be quite complex and contentious and
will require considerable interagency collaboration (which was a
bit ragged the last time the organizational issue was raised).
Periodic issues involving the foreign affairs budget (especially
when a crisis erupts with implications for deploying foreign aid
resources) will also raise the problem of inter-agency coordination
on managing increasingly scarce foreign affairs resources. These
issues underline a problem that we have both struggled with in the
past: the absence of someone in the White House with enough
knowledge of the programs and sufficient clout to bring about
effective coordination. There has been no such person over the
past several years and it has showed sometimes in the differing
positions agencies have taken on resource issues. That position
should, in my view, be in the NSC and should probably be the
responsibility of one of the deputies to the National Security
Advisor if it is to be done effectively. It is to be urgently
hoped that whoever heads the NSC in Clinton II will create such a
position.
3. One of the things that makes it so easy for Congress to
slash aid budgets, attempt to impose reorganizations, and often
micro-manage the aid program is that the public is often uninformed
about the issues at stake and unengaged in how they are decided
(with a few prominent exceptions). While most opinion polls show
that the general public is supportive of foreign aid, the issue is
a salient one for very few. The active constituency for foreign
aid is, in short, very weak. Even among foreign policy elites,
foreign aid appears also to have lost its salience. The small and
diminishing number of articles in the major policy journals is but
one indication of these changed views. And this diminished
salience is reflected in a relative passivity vis a vis budget cuts
and often a sense of policy uncertainty.
So what is to be done on this issue? Assuming that the
administration is clear about how it wants to use its foreign aid
as it bridges to the twenty first century and is organized
internally to manage its diverse aid programs effectively, it would
seem that there are three major groups to reach in an advocacy
strategy. First are the foreign policy elites. The second is what
I shall call the "engaged public". The third is the general
public.
To raise awareness and support of foreign policy elites inside
and outside the administration for foreign aid, two things would
appear to be necessary: a rationale for foreign aid that ties it
to a key element in US foreign policy generally and statements by
the President and Secretary of State to that effect. Possible
rationales might include tying foreign aid to a broader policy of
'conflict prevention' which may be an attractive formulation but
with a number of implications that would still seem to need
considerable refinement. Another approach might include an
increased emphasis in Clinton II's foreign policy on the importance
of 'non-traditional' issues like global population, environment and
so on which could be an important element in a post Cold War
approach to the next millenium. If there is no such rationale and
no articulation of it at the very top of the administration, it
will likely not make its way onto the agendas of the influential
voices in the foreign policy community.
How to inform and energize the "engaged public"? By the
engaged public, I mean Americans who are interested and informed to
some extent on foreign affairs, who are often active in community
or church organizations, and who might be willing actively to
support foreign aid programs. The members of the League of Women
Voters, Rotarians, and many, many others. What does it take to
persuade the engaged public to write or speak to their members of
Congress on issues or to the editorial boards of their local
papers? They have not just to be informed but they have to have a
stake in the issue. How can we bring about that? USAID's Lessons
without Borders is one approach. But more is needed. Let me
suggest an additional approach.
Suppose you decide to make a trip to Africa next year. You
will likely choose two or three types of themes to pursue on the
trip: the challenges of girls' education; women's productive
employment; creating and strengthening democratic institutions
where they have not existed before. The themes could be selected
not only for their intrinsic importance but because they can be
made meaningful to Americans through their own values and
experience the way most Americans approach many foreign affairs
issues in any case. (Girls' education involves the value Americans
place on opportunity for all children to have an opportunity to
better themselves; programs like micro-enterprise lending that
enables poor women to create jobs and expand their income (echoes
in new approaches to poverty in the US?) ; democracy provides for
freedom for all
)
Visits to aid funded projects while in Africa (I refer here to
projects funded by both multilateral and bilateral aid -- they both
need to be included) would call attention to these problems and the
solutions the US is trying to help Africans design and implement.
A healthy presence of the US press corps on such a trip might even
lead to print and electronic media reports on such projects
(judging from the past, however, this would take some real
effort ) The trip itself could lead to another book which would
call attention to one or more of the themes of the trip. After the
trip, you might consider doing a speaking tour within the US
(bringing along one or two Africans who have benefitted from such
projects to make it human and real) Attendees at such speeches
might include a strong representation of local community leaders
and groups who might then be persuaded to undertake some follow up
activities (jointly with USAID or other aid agency??) to continue
work on the particular problems. (For example, why not have the
League host newly elected African parliamentarians in their homes
for a week or two to help them understand how we deal with
constituency relations, etc.?) The key to turning a potentially
engaged public into an activist public is to get individuals
involved in an aid-related activity to give them a stake in the
overall program. There are many other approaches to this issue, I
am sure, and many others with ideas on them.
With regard to the general public, it is important to help
inform them on foreign aid through speeches and the media. But,
judging from the past, speeches without some sort of organized
follow up tend not to produce action and have relatively little
impact on Congress or other national leaders.
*
*
*
I do not pretend that this is an exhaustive agenda. It is
intended to help start a discussion of what are the issues and
possible strategies vis a vis foreign aid as we move into a new
administration. I would suggest that you might want to discuss and
develop your ideas further with two groups: key people within the
administration involved with foreign aid; and several people
outside it also engaged in the issues. You may want to organize
two separate meetings of these groups since the viewpoints of each
may be quite different and more frankly expressed separately. From
within the administration, I would suggest you include Brian Atwood
and Jan Piercy. Ideally, you would want someone senior and
supportive from the NSC and State but it may be too soon to
identify who those individuals might be. I wonder if you would not
also want someone from VP Gore's staff though I am not sure who
that would be either.
From outside the administration, perhaps you should chat with
Julia Taft of InterAction, one or more of the foundation heads that
organized the meeting at Potantico (to find out at least what
proposals and follow-up they proposed), perhaps even someone
supportive from the media and political consulting field.
There is much of significance to be done on foreign aid and an
enormously important role for you to claim. I hope I can be
helpful to you as you consider what you might do in this area. I
would be happy to be involved in any of these or other activities
where possible and appropriate.
Meanwhile, I wish you a restful and peaceful day for giving
thanks for the wonderful life we enjoy in this country and the
opportunity to help others reach for such a life. That, in the
end, is what this memo is all about.