I attended a very interesting presentation at Brookings last year on innovation. There was a panel discussion with CEOs from GE, AT&T, etc… One of the CEOs noted that large trans/multinational corporations have a great deal of influence in global stability. I am not an economist but it would appear that with the current state of the global economy, TNCs could be leveraged to improve conditions that may undermine regional stability. The track record of TNCs has been not been great if you consider BP in Iran and others but I think there is potential in this area.
Another consideration of how to address this issue can be found in the Y Narrative. I realize it is light on recommendations but there certainly are some issues worth considering in light of your question. I’ve heard the authors speak at NDU and they provide an excellent argument that goes far beyond what is in the paper.
This question directly relates to other discussions on the power of the state. The internet and other forms of IT are changing the way large masses of people around the globe communicate, daily. Your question is not as relevant today as it was during the Cold War since individuals and groups around the world are communicating daily. America's strategic communications are being conducted by our citizens despite of what the USG says or does. Consider in 04/05 when the USG was attempting to gain coalition support for OIF and US organizations and individuals were sending the message of immediate withdrawal to a global audience.
Two good references on this topic are:
The New Public Diplomacy: Soft Power in International Relations
The Digital Disruption
I know others, such as American Pie, have differing opinions on how to define US National Security but I like the simple definition offered by George Kennan (although I haven‘t been able to find the original reference):
"the continued ability of the country to pursue the development of its internal life without serious interference, or threat of interference, from foreign powers"
Bergen and Garrett from Princeton offer an excellent follow-on discussion of this definition.
“George Kennan's definition of national security has became a starting point for deliberations on the meaning of national security. However, transnational threats and globalization force us to broaden the categories of sources of "serious interference" in our "internal life" beyond rival states.
U.S. national security policy operates to secure primary public goods that are at the heart of the social contract between the people and its government: economic prosperity, governance continuity, ideological sustainability, military capability, population well-being, and territorial integrity. The environment that influences the production of these primary public goods is critical, and the United States must understand how radically different the context for producing these goods is in the 21st century compared to the Cold War. The structure and dynamics of Cold War international politics have given way to the “networked anarchy” of globalization.”
IMO the Critical Infrastructure model (not to be confused with the DHS program) may provide a useful starting point to examine what “internal life” may look like.
"Critical infrastructure are the assets, systems, and networks, whether physical or virtual, so vital to the United States that their incapacitation or destruction would have a debilitating effect on security, national economic security, public health or safety, or any combination thereof."
I provide this information to get to the actual response to your question. I think Foreign Policy is just a small component of a larger system that needs to be overhauled. National Security provides an umbrella term to capture many of the sub-components, national defense, intelligence, law enforcement, diplomacy and homeland security. EO 13434 was an excellent initiative that would have brought these communities of practice together but was bogged down by the federal bureaucracy. The USG must take a more balanced investment approach in the entire national security enterprise. Of course, in the current era of fiscal austerity this may mean less $$$ for DoD. Any effort to decrease funding will result in myriad of responses of why this line of reasoning is flawed and why we must preserve the present system.
Bookmarks