Changing Foreign Policy

The overwhelming theme in contemporary foreign policy has been setting aside regional collaboration and focusing disproportionately on domestic issues. The United States among many others has developed a relative distaste to any form of intervention (political or diplomatic), due to the cumbersome engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan during the previous decade. Meanwhile, powers with vested interests in supporting the Syrian regime have subtly positioned their foreign policies as strategies of segmented indirect engagement, rather than openly collaborative action facilitated through international bodies like the United Nations or NATO.

Many foreign policy experts have criticized and compared the international communities differing actions during the Libya crisis of 2011 and the current Syrian crisis.  The reality is, Syria does significantly differ than that of Libya in 2011. An underlying differentiator continues to be that all intelligence points to question of whether the “Free Syrian” movement retains democratic or liberal principles as the Libyans did last year. The plight of the Arab Spring or Arab Awakening— whatever you may call it— has seemingly been segmented from the Syrian conflict . Foreign policy experts have deemed the opposition “unknown.” This has drawn comparisons to the United States training a then-unknown Taliban of decades later during the 1979 Russian invasion of Afghanistan.

Being able to even establish “no-fly zones” within in Syria appears implausible, as the Assad regime’s missile defense systems remain prominently in place to counteract any external forces. From an international perspective, both Russia and China have economic, political, and ideological uniformity with that of Assad, making any UN-backed plan unlikely. Even if UN Special Envoy Brahimi were to successfully negotiate a mutually agreed ceasefire, invoking both parties to put arms aside and step up to the negotiating table at this point remains highly unlikely.

All this being said, what options are we left with? Rational discourse argues that an internal conflict must remain simply that, and any actor trying to intervene would either not have the means to fully engage, or tactically produce a concluding resolution. As you’re reading this, city wide shellings are taking place, displacing innocent Syrians who are simply looking for a democratic future, economic prosperity, and a chance to succeed in life. We don’t want to look back and compare this to a Rwanda ’94 or Bosnia ’99 type “resolution”—leaving humanity ever weaker, and solidifying the international community’s stance that preventing mass atrocities remains in the hands of a select few states. In that scheme of things, no one wins.

Solving this crisis is not a game of checkers; this is a multi-tiered game of chess. There are several elements that must come into effect for any plausible situation to take have the potential of taking place. From an international and a geopolitical perspective, we can make progress in truncating this conflict. However, several actors must take action simultaneously to give it a shot.

Above all, the zeitgeist of foreign policy within key actors must comprehensively change. While the American economy and European sovereign debt crisis remain significant issues of grave importance, they shouldn’t diminish or place the Syrian conflict as an issue of secondary importance. All key international actors must begin to accept that the wars and conflicts of our past were in fact our past, and we must begin to collectively address new global challenges.

Building a Check-Mate

First, the Arab League must play a heightened role in ending this conflict. By taking a unified foreign policy approach to bringing all sides within this crisis to the negotiating table, the Arab League retains the unique ability to usher in democratic reforms in Syria. The Arab League must pass a sweeping resolution condemning the atrocities taking place in Syria, collectively calling for ceasefire.

Second, the Obama Administration must take a stronger stance on Syria. Understandably, President Obama has been fighting for his political life against a well-funded Romney campaign, however, this should not diminish the significance of a proactive foreign policy on Syria. President Obama must bring more attention to the conflict within Congress, and build a broad coalition as it currently is against Iran to pressure the Assad regime. The president must follow this by building out stronger economic sanctions and working diplomatically with Russia and China to justify action. Obama’s team can and should play a similar role that it did during the Libyan crisis of 2011, only this time leading diplomatically from the front.

Third, from the UN perspective, Lakhdar Brahimi’s cease-fire plan must play a stronger role in ending this humanitarian crisis. Brahimi was recently noted to have finished “serious discussions” with Syria’s foreign minister, Walid Moallem, in attempts to bring all parties to the negotiating table. Successfully engaging the Assad government to end the violence requires a three-fold approach:

• Engaging the Iranians to convince them to support a ceasefire
• Negotiating with Russia and China to produce a Security Council resolution establishing humanitarian safe-zones throughout Syria
• Calling on Assad to put ideas on the table for how he can envision an end to the conflict.

Establishing humanitarian “safe-zones” is a plausible first step to ending the violence in Syria. A broad, sweeping plan remains to be deployed— one that convinces both sides to consider the broader implications of continued killings. Bringing the United Nations into Aleppo, Damascus, and Maaret al-Numaan among other cities will lay down the framework for beginning the peace-building process, democratic transition, and encourage refugees to return home.

Let’s Talk Turkey

Fourth and finally, the role Turkey plays in this crisis is one of utmost importance. As it stands, Turkey is the only state to have engaged in direct military conflict with Syria during the past 20 months. However, the conflict for Turkey has just as much to do with Kurdistan as it does Syria. Prime Minister Erdogan is focused on curtailing any Kurdistani support for the Assad regime, and has vested interests in exerting its geopolitical influence.

Turkey has actively protected Syrian refugees pouring in across its borders, supported Free Syria’s military and political movements, and even struck back at its southern counterparts militarily when provoked. In June, a Turkish plane was shot down flying in international airspace, leading Prime Minister Erdogan’s government to retaliate with force. This is the first outside military intervention in this unique “internal conflict.”

But what can Turkey realistically do to end this conflict? Turkey has evolved into a pivotal power within the Middle East and Europe, and now is the time to solidify its stance as an emerging and geopolitically strong state. With a strong economy, progressive politics, and relatively stable government, Turkey must can and should take a leading role in building a broad coalition decisive enough to present a feasible means of forcing ceasefire negotiations.

Turkey stands at a unique intersection diplomatically; it maintains good ties with the European Union, while fortifying strong ties with the United States. Additionally, Turkey maintains diplomatic relations with both China and Russia, playing an integral role in Near East, European, and Asian affairs. For any crisis to begin a move towards collaborative negotiations, Prime Minister Erdogan must champion a diplomatic resolution. This can be streamlined through the collective security clause of the NATO Treaty, which specifies that an attack on one member is considered an attack on all members.

After 20 months of conflict in Syria it’s time that our international community works together to provide a practical solution to this conflict. While the Assad has yet to be clear on whether he envisions a peaceful transition to democratic reforms, and although the regime still retains support in his country, leaving innocent civilians dead in the streets is a humanitarian crisis that must end. Foreign policy may not be at the forefront of many actors’ agendas, but we must work together to pressure a regime that has killed over 30,000 civilians to end his campaign of violence. I believe that a concerted effort from multitude of actors— the Arab League, the United States, Brahimi’s peace plan, and Turkey— can further lead us to a better tomorrow in Syria.

I came across one particular aspect of Secretary Clinton’s speech that day in a report, entitled “U.S. Initiatives to Promote Global Internet Freedom: Issues, Policy, and Technology“. Clinton delegated the idea of Internet freedom becoming a central tenet of U.S. foreign policy, going as far as to advocate a single, global Internet shared by all countries.

“It’s about whether we live on a planet with one Internet, one global community, and a common body of knowledge that benefits and unites us all, or a fragmented planet in which access to information and opportunity is dependent on where you live and the whims of censors.”

Thinking about what she said that day got me asking: Could we really come to a day where the Internet transcended border lines and united a global community of independent thinkers, online debates, and the free flow of information? Perhaps not. In an age where our international community has made strides to unite global initiatives, the principles of state sovereignty  resoundingly remain a priority above anything else.

That said, it doesn’t seem completely implausible to imagine a day where countries eliminate the barriers and state-run filtration systems, and focus primarily on establishing one unified Internet. Clearly, states like China, Iran, and Bahrain will remain difficult to persuade in taking up these proposed policies.

What Would It Take?

The United Nations as an acting body must make Internet freedom a greater priority on its agenda, and openly criticize governments that oppress its citizens digitally. A combination of NGOs must echo the principles directed from the world body, and work diplomatically with governments to engage them with open-Internet initiatives. A treaty of sweeping reform, much like the Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968, should be developed, and member states unwilling to comply must be criticized openly within the General Assembly.

I often get told from friends and colleagues that the United Nations as a global body is “pointless” and “irrelevant” due to states’ rights taking precedence. While I do acknowledge that there are distinct limitations to the enforcement of treaties and UN-sponsored policies, I simply refuse to take a position that writes off the international body as irrelevant. Tell that to the countless hours of effort put towards assuaging  humanitarian crises (Rwanda, Darfur, Kosovo, Somalia, etc.), providing food and water to impoverished people, and the development of global programs like the WFP and UNICEF. The list goes on and on.

One Internet

Secretary Clinton’s remarks will always strike a chord for 21st Century Statecraft and open Internet initiatives. I think it’s important to remember the overwhelming privileges we’ve received from living in societies where the Internet remains open and free. Let’s not forget the digital uprisings that came as a result of the SOPA/PIPA protests in the United States earlier this year, topped off with the shut down of Wikipedia and Reddit among others. For countries and citizens living under the “whims of censors” as Clinton put it, pressuring autocratic regimes to move towards a single Internet is the only logical way forward. All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men and women to do nothing. Let’s take a step forward for digital rights while in its relative infancy.

While ostensibly this bill intends to challenge the growing number of child pornography and illegal drug websites surfacing in the Russian Federation, the legislation simultaneously gives the Federal Government the ability to shut down sites it ambiguously finds offensive. One particular clause within the legislation notes that the Registry Operator, the organization tasked with identifying sites deemed offensive or containing illegal information, notes that “any other information which is prohibited to spread in Russia, by the decisions of courts” can be considered for blacklisting. The potential for corruption surrounding this legislation could set a dangerous precedent for the free flow of information on the Internet.

Cracking down on websites that can be seen as malicious and morally harmful to a younger generation gives the Duma the power to censor websites it subjectively deems inappropriate. This can lead to a slippery slope  that could result in the limitation of freedom of speech and freedom of information for Russian citizens. From a political perspective, parties like United Russia could have the ability to blacklist websites that support issues they deem controversial or contrarian to its core ideology. The implications could lead to ongoing political and social confrontations from special interest groups seeking to prevent their opponents from gaining power.

The Internet has become a component of political organization, and as a means of discourse that permits a multitude of opinions and discussions to take place. As Russian President Vladimir Putin enters into his second separate term as president, an influx of protests have taken to the digital and physical streets. While these demonstrations have acutely focused on openly criticizing the United Russia Party’s leader, it’s in Putin’s greatest interest to take a firm stand on this legislation and ensure that provisions and clauses are clearly designated to become limited in scope and remain solely to the types of websites intended. Any misuse of this power will result in more Russians distrusting his ability to choose human rights issues over political gain.

By pushing this legislation through government in just a little over one month, real implications of  this law have yet to be fully acknowledged and understood. The universal principles of freedom of speech and freedom of the information should not become at-risk based on a particular legislatures discretion to prevent unfavorable coverage via the web. The Russian Federation, and specifically Putin, have the opportunity to demonstrate the necessity for fundamental human rights and begin improving public perception among its young and displeased citizenry. As an international community, highlighted by the United Nations’ declaration of digital rights, upholding Internet freedom is a fundamental right granted to all. Legislation masked as a tool to prevent offensive websites should not infringe upon any Russian citizens right to voice their opinions. Even if you disagree with my position, having the right to engage in debate via the Internet is what has improved the way we understand issues.

That said, I wanted to take the time to write about an idea I had in regards to how technology can be utilized to improve international development. It’s always been my thinking, that although bureaucracy and having a strong internal infrastructure in the non-profit sector can be effective, other times it can be counterproductive by limiting streamlined action and the ability to react quickly to the current task at hand.

The reality, ladies and gentleman, is that our world has serious issues that need serious attention focused on them. From global humanitarian crises in the Sahel region of Africa, to promoting economic growth and entrepreneurship in Nicaragua, there is no shortcoming of opportunities for development and progress.

But what if we could utilize technology and the global village theory to give people a voice to promote ideas and projects that can improve the quality of life where they live? What if we gave the world’s unheard entrepreneurs and thought leaders a chance to lend their voices on issues they see on a local level? Once these projects were fully thought out from a logistical and methodological perspective, the idea of crowd-donating (much like what Kickstarter does) could give people a legitimate platform to promote their creativity for some of the world’s most pressing issues.

I want to know who’s interested in working together with me on this. If we could even dedicate 30 minutes of each day to thinking of creative ways to promote international development, the opportunities for progress would be infinite. Then, implementing the principles that Charity Water and other accountability-based organizations use, we can track funding to the dollar and ensure that wasteful spending and illegitimate practices are eliminated from the entire process.

This may be overly-idealistic and naive, but history shows that creativity and a desire to enact change can sometimes be enough to spark the innovation that can improve our world. Let’s not kick the can down the road anymore.

Education reform has been a central issue in American politics for decades. The constant battle between understanding the “right way” to educate students has been debated through and through. While politicians and bureaucrats continue to quarrel over which national program is best suited to fix our country, Silicon Valley startup “Khan Academy” has begun to transform the way we think and the way we learn.

Run like a technology company, this non-profit created by Salman Khan combines innovation, technology, and common-sense to transform the way we interpret information. Students of all ages can watch videos covering a wide range of topics, and move at a pace that suits their comprehension levels.

Projects like Khan Academy are changing the status quo of traditional education paradigms. The days of 30 students attempting to follow along as a teacher writes on a white board are drawing to a close. New, innovative means of education that provide personalized education can essentially give any student the direct attention that they need. I’m not saying that teachers are obsolete. Rather, great teachers are now even more important to facilitate positive learning experiences for students, while utilizing forward-thinking programs such as Khan Academy to increase overall quality of education.

The tech-revolution in modern education systems is continuing to grow and provide innovative solutions to problems that have puzzled educators for decades. I truly believe that education is what you put into it. The influence of technology to providing students and life-learners with immediate access to  knowledge represents an opportunity to further catalyze our next generation of leaders in Science, Math, English, and the Arts.

The recent announcement of Middle East expert and public intellectual extraordinaire Vali Nasr being appointed as dean of The John’s Hopkin’s University’s Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) signals the evolution of modern international relations education.

“The nature and focus of education in international affairs are changing as global challenges require innovative approaches, greater attention to technology, and addressing new demands in the job market.” said Nasr in a released statement, adding, “SAIS has a very important leadership role to play in shaping the future of education in international affairs.”

It’s important to acknowledge the emphasis Nasr assigns to finding innovative approaches to global challenges and the need for greater attention to technology. The traditional study of international relations has long been analyzing the relationships between states, the role states play, and the outcomes from decision-making processes in respect to the foreign policy of states. Despite these traditional studies of international relations, the role technology plays in shaping foreign policy and understanding world affairs will have greater significance as old methodologies continue to adapt to contemporary changes. For example, a greater emphasis will be given to the role of technology in the fall of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak when analyzing how the 40-year ruler was pressured to step down. Similarly, the role innovation played in NGOs like Invisible Children focusing worldwide attention to an issue primarily discussed within international relations circles will require new thinking and teaching in 21st Century diplomacy. I imagine that universities will need to integrate older ways of thinking and with forward-thinking courses that prepare scholars challenges that will require a comprehensive understanding of technology.

While the study of international relations will still remain grounded in the aforementioned disciplines, we simply cannot disregard when the future dean of the top school for international studies acknowledges the importance of technology and innovation in its schools’ curriculum. As global thinkers, those deciding to study international relations have the distinct advantage of being born into a digital era, harnessing inherent understandings of technology that can then be applied toward a traditional school of thought and a rapidly developing world.

Photo Credit: Reuters

Princeton Professor Anne Marie Slaughter recently wrote a blog post discussing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s remarks during a recent United Nations Security Council meeting  calling for a resolution to end the violence in Syria. While diplomatic relations are typically addressed from government to government, Secretary Clinton decided to speak directly to the people currently oppressed from a brutal regime.

Speaking to the Syrian people, Clinton stated: “Syria belongs to its 23 million citizens, not to one man or his family.”

While this isn’t groundbreaking statement that will receive front page headlines from The New York Times, it represented a dynamic shift in 21st Century Statecraft. A high ranking official of the United States government speaking directly to the people of a country during a UNSC meeting represents a changing paradigm in how diplomatic relations are taking place. When a government fails to take care of its people, alternative measures must be taken.

The fascinating aspect of this for me is the role that technology plays and will continue to play in digital diplomacy. Civilians in Syria have evolved into journalists in their own right, utilizing camera phones and video cameras to upload videos of the government crackdowns on its people, serving as an upfront reminder that these atrocities are occurring everyday. I believe that Secretary Clinton’s remarks during the meeting reflect that cry for help, and a recognition that our world body must act swiftly and collectively to prevent more killings of innocent people.

My hope is that greater exposure to atrocities will somehow catalyze action from our world leaders, despite clear political and social restrictions. Taking Egypt for example, the “Twitter Revolution” as it was called, coordinated Egyptians gathering in Tahrir Square that brought about the inevitable fall of President Hosni Mubarak, and served as a message to forces outside the country’s jurisdiction to voice their objections to anti-government crackdowns. Despite this, it was the Egyptians internal plight that resulted in the downfall of the autocratic leader, rather than calls from world leaders for the recalcitrant Mubarak to step down. Does this mean that technology plays little to no role in coordinating third-party political action to result in democratic reform? Surely not.

What the Twitter Revolution did in fact help us understand was that the massive amounts of people coordinating using social media and technology focused the world’s attention on the issue, pressuring Mubarak to step aside. The combination of Egyptians protesting in the streets, and people around the world (including world leaders) voicing their opinions directly concerning the issue produced a result that ended up benefiting greater Egyptian population.

Reverting back to Syria, it becomes imperative that the people are given every opportunity to voice their opinions, and utilize technological tools in order to do so. Just as Secretary Clinton chose to use the UN as a platform for connecting with the Syrian people, so too must the Syrian people with the limited tools and bandwidth they have, continue to coordinate action and realistically personify the headlines in the streets of Homs and Damascus.

Thus far, Charity Water has funded over 6,000 clean water projects, raising more than $40 million for communities worldwide.

Despite these inspiring accomplishments that shouldn’t go overlooked (see descriptive intro above), the real genius of Charity Water lies in its use of technology to promote transparency surrounding donations. Often times, many of us (including myself) feel turned-off to donating to non-profits, mainly because it seems like we can never fully understand where the money we gave is being used. Charity Water has over-compensated for the lack of accountability in other NPOs, by utilizing Google maps and geo-targeting to give people a clear (pun intended) understanding of where the money they donate is heading.

Take the above photo for example. When you donate money to Charity Water, you can physically see on the map which project you money has funded, and how many projects are currently being developed based on location. This simple, yet powerful method has taken the concept of donations to the next level, and given people a greater incentive to donate in the future. Not only that, but it has given Charity Water an esprit de corps that is unparalleled in the current field.

If that demonstration hadn’t dissolved any skepticism, Charity Water takes it one step further. By publishing the progress of specific “Water Projects”, people can literally see from the comfort of their smart phone or tablet exactly how much money was raised per project, and read field notes from Charity Water staff documenting the day-in and day-out operations. This practice has opened a flood gate (pun certainly intended) of donations for Charity Water, and given people strong sentiment to donate again.

Where is the Non-Profit Sector Heading?

As technology continues to infuse accountability and immediacy into our lives, so will the non-profit sector become revolutionized by the technological advances granted to us. Organizations will be expected to track funds virtually, and many more will evolve to become branded as lifestyle missions. I envision people being able to utilize websites to see precisely how their money is being put to use, while Facebook will continue to grow as the premier fundraising tool in the world — making donations easier, faster, and more efficient.

There’s a reason we’re seeing some of the world’s top global thinkers, such as Scott Harrison, bringing innovation to the non-profit sector: the challenges of tackling global issues have taken precedence over simply making money. Social entrepreneurship will continue to thrive with technologically-savvy thought leaders, pushing the limits of progress into the 21st Century. I encourage anyone interested in the non-profit world to consider working for one, or even creating your own. Study what Charity Water has accomplished, and see how you too, can make a difference in this ever-developing world of ours. I know I will.

“We are convinced that an open Internet fosters long-term peace, progress and prosperity.  The reverse is also true.  An Internet that is closed and fractured, where different governments can block activity or change the rules on a whim—where speech is censored or punished, and privacy does not exist—that is an Internet that can cut off opportunities for peace and progress and discourage innovation and entrepreneurship.”

“History has shown us that repression often sows the seeds for revolution down the road.  Those who clamp down on Internet freedom may be able to hold back the full impact of their people’s yearnings for a while, but not forever… Leaders worldwide have a choice to make.  They can let the Internet in their countries flourish, and take the risk that the freedoms it enables will lead to a greater demand for political rights.  Or they can constrict the Internet, choke the freedoms it naturally sustains—and risk losing all the economic and social benefits that come from a networked society.”

Sha Zukang, the Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs, recently spoke at a conference at Stanford University about the importance of connection technologies (i.e Internet, mobile phones, and text messages) in promoting development in today’s modern world. While it seems universally agreed upon that giving people access to technology is the right thing to do, little attention is focused exactly as to why this is so important. The truth is, creating digital initiatives will not only provide immediate access to information, but it will also give people access to government and elected officials, which will provide greater transparency in political discourse. Here are some statistics that may open your eyes to how far technology has progressed.

• In 2011, seven trillion text messages were sent around the globe
• There are currently six billion mobile devices worldwide
• There are currently 1.2 billion mobile web users
• By the year 2015, 183 billion smart phone apps are expected to be downloaded

Giving people access to technology will not only stimulate development, but increase the likelihood of education as well. With the recent announcement of Apple’s iBooks 2, societies around the world will have instant access to courses and textbooks spanning multiple concentrations and academic disciplines. This will not only provide people without the same educational opportunities the ability to access leading academic institutions, but it will also result in greater standards of living for people that invest in their personal development. I can imagine a day when a tablet becomes the norm for students in schools and universities around the world, providing access to hundreds of textbooks and lectures on-the-go.

Furthermore, giving people access to mobile technology and Internet access will not only integrate societies, but create new markets for developing entrepreneurs to have access to innovative streams they never had. It’s important for institutions such as the UN and countries like the US to take the lead on bridging the “digital divide” and provide access to necessary tools for development. People like Alec Ross, senior adviser on innovation for Hillary Clinton at the State Department have created programs like Statecraft 3.0, in an effort to bridge the technology gap and establish Internet societies in countries abroad. There will be a day when access to public records, political debates, and town halls will be conducted via social media platforms. It’s up to our elected officials and government institutions to adapt to these changes or risk falling behind in the global environment.

While the UN has taken strides to improve digital life in developing countries, the increase of public-private partnerships will have the potential to catalyze stronger growth and increased connectivity. For example, the Eastern African Submarine Cable System (EASSy) sets out to provide a multi-country, multi-partner, fiber-optic cable project that will connect 21 African countries to each other and the rest of the world. This collaborative effort will result in lower broadband costs and spur investments from other companies moving forward.

The importance of providing digital opportunities around the world will remain an important issue for global development in 2012 and beyond. Having access to the Internet should no longer be a luxury, reserved for the developed countries, but a necessity for all nations worldwide. The open Internet will contribute to free societies, public discourse on central issues facing communities, and knowledge and education for those that seek it.