Following my June 19 post on bipartisanship as “foreign policy’s best hope,” I attended a discussion hosted by not-for-profit Partnership for a Secure America about ways the next President can work with both sides of the aisle on foreign policy and national security issues. Participants were Amb. Thomas Pickering, who has served under several Republican and Democratic Presidents; Bud McFarlane, former National Security Adviser to President Reagan; and Rick Barton, Senior Adviser, International Security Program at CSIS.
PSA’s Executive Director, Matt Rojansky, set the tone of the discussion in his opening: “The debate can be better, and therefore America as a country can do better.” What struck me immediately was the panelists’ earnest effort to engage in a dialogue. By no means did they hide from or apologize for their political leanings. But they listened to one another, conceded points, and tried, not entirely successfully, to find mutually acceptable solutions.
So, though the respondents may have disagreed on a timetable for Iraq withdrawal and on preconditions for Iran negotiations, they agreed that the next administration will need a formalized bipartisan mechanism (a commission or committee) to advise the president on national security issues. They shared the call for an increased use of diplomacy and negotiation abroad.
Reflecting Henry Kissinger’s comments earlier this month, each panelist recalled a time when the two parties would meet regularly to discuss foreign policy, a tradition that seems to have waned in Washington. Rick Barton noted that the American people are “eager for this conversation.” Bud McFarlane also wanted to “hearken back” to a time of cooperation. A true return to these “first principles,” not merely a “New Year’s Resolution,” warned Pickering, is the only way to move forward.
It is tempting to blame the breakdown of this relationship on the current administration. It is equally easy to look to some idyllic but abstract “past” where the parties traded advice rather than attacks. The panelists did neither. They recalled the professional and collegial relationships that party members used to have, and they look forward for ways to achieve such a rapport again.
Among their agreements:
- Bipartisanship is a necessary – and currently missing – element in forming foreign policy.
- The next president must formalize his commitment to bipartisan cooperation in the form of an advisory commission or committee that gives equal weight to Democrats and Republicans.
- Policymakers must emphasize diplomacy and negotiation, more than today’s reliance on hard power.
- Developing a cohesive energy policy must be a first priority for the next president, with the knowledge that the United States must lead in the innovation of new fuels and more fuel-efficient vehicles.
- Radical, extremist Islamism is a threat to America; we must engage would-be terrorists on an educational and religious level.
Take a look at video of the conference here at PSA’s blog, Across the Aisle.
Saudis explore public space for dialogue
June 20, 2008 Saudi Gazette and Crossroads Arabia
A new awareness campaign, launched by Saudi Arabia’s King Abdul Aziz National Dialogue Center promises to embed ideals of tolerance and open conversation into the Saudi national identity. As much an inquiry into prevailing attitudes as an appeal to change them, the project will promote unity and moderation within the Islamic faith as much as with non-Muslims. Read more about the campaign for dialogue here at the Saudi Gazette.
The blog Crossroads Arabia, written by a former foreign service officer in Saudi Arabia, has picked up on this endeavor, and is hesitantly optimistic about it. To “delve the range of thoughts about what constitutes ‘dialogue’” in a traditionally closed society like Saudi Arabia is indeed a good thing. The author notes this campaign’s capacity to contribute positively to tolerance of outsiders, non-Muslims,and fellow Saudis alike. However, the project cannot suggest that there is a “right way” or “wrong way” to talk. Avoiding this, the campaign has the potential to assess and even transform Saudi attitudes about outsiders and each other. Read why this is so at Crossroads Arabia.
June 19, 2008 The Washington Post and CKWS-TV
Washington Post columnist David Broder writes that, regarding partisan feuding in Congress, “there is hope of overcoming the divisive legacy of the past six years.” Sitting down with the Democratic chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Joe Biden, and that committee’s ranking Republican, Richard Lugar, Broder discovers that the senators’ relationship is always respectful, professional, and genuinely friendly. The two have, “without regard to ideology,” proposed major structural changes to America’s foreign policy, calling for cooperation, rather than bickering, in addressing major issues like the energy crisis. Read more about why Broder – along with Biden and Lugar – sees bipartisanship as the only way to craft a foreign policy that is truly in America’s best interest.
Broder is not alone in this view. Not only does he cite numerous similar relationships in Congress – between Democrat Carl Levin and Republican John Warner, for instance – but former secretary of state Henry Kissinger also made the same claim last week. He bemoans the lack of the “common enterprise” around which foreign policy was once built. Find out more about why Henry Kissinger believes congressional and even global common ground is needed for prosperity.
