Chair: Phyllis Oakley, ISD board member
Stapleton Roy, US State Department
Mark Malloch Brown, UNDP
Rapporteur: Mary Gawronski, ISD Associate

Phyllis Oakley set the stage by stating, "there is a new world coming, even if we don't know when it will start." She assumed that rather than seeing radical change, we will see change build in different combinations and forms that cannot be predicted with certainty. She then called upon the "wise men" of the panel to share their thoughts on the new world to come. Ambassador Roy focused on the nature of coming change, the U.S. leadership role in the world, and the need for adequate resources to carry out this role. Mr. Malloch Brown concentrated on the role of the United States in the sphere of international development, arguing that the world and the United States stand at a crossroads of choice between inclusion of poorer nations in the benefits of globalization or their exclusion, with all of the political and economic risk that would entail. The presentations were followed by a question and answer period.

Ambassador Roy emphasized that he was presenting his personal views and not necessarily those of the US government. He noted the many ways of approaching change: generic trends (e.g. changes in information technology, biotechnology, environmental or demographic issues); alternative scenarios such as global financial crisis, changes in behavior or fortunes of key powers such as Japan, China or the European Union; the rise of ideological challenges to democratic market economies; regional instability or changes in international organization; or even successes (such as in the case of Latin America), which might alter our traditional concepts of relationships. But, he concluded that to look to the future, we must look at ourselves since "one of the greatest challenges we face is the nature and quality of U.S. leadership." Our actions in terms of our key relationships, how we are perceived by others, our approach to issues such as national missile defense, and the degree to which we resort to unilateral actions will have enormous impact on our own role in the world and how the world develops. They will affect whether we are looked to as a leader or perceived as a powerful country operating for its own narrow interest. He referred to polls that show disquiet with U.S. leadership among allies and adversaries alike, and noted that this is often at variance with positive views of the United States as a country.

Change looms at a time when there is a serious problem of having adequate resources to carry out our leadership role abroad. "And, most Americans don't have a clue that we only spend one penny out of every dollar on our international affairs function." At the same time, democratization is encountering difficulties in some parts of the world and technological development widens income gaps and feeds the backlash against globalization. New developments in Russia and China, and the spread and miniaturization of nuclear weapons make the world a more dangerous place. Multipolarity has become the "buzz word" for those who oppose a sole superpower concept of leadership and want a world less dominated by the United States. "One of the biggest challenges is that in our history, over two centuries, we have never been successful in remaining engaged over time in a multipolar world."

To lead in such a world, we must have military, intelligence, and diplomatic preparedness. The military industrial complex helps to keep military preparedness at the center of our political process. "In the case of intelligence preparedness and diplomatic preparedness, we lack the type of domestic constituency and interest groups that can force our government to focus on the resource needs that are required." Therefore leadership is key to getting the preparedness that we need in these areas. Ambassador Roy concluded that, "we are simply not rising to the challenge of conveying to the American people what it needs in terms of resources for us to continue to play a positive and constructive leadership role in the world."

Mr. Malloch Brown opened by suggesting that the world is anxiously watching the Presidential elections and is concerned that there be strong American leadership to face the challenges ahead. He noted that U.N. agencies and poor countries are perplexed that increased U.S. spending for development and assistance has not been part of the "peace dividend." With a world population of some six billion people, almost three billion people in the poorer "bottom half" live on less than two dollars a day. American assistance to that group amounts to one dollar per person per year. But the demographic explosion expected to swell the world population to eight or nine billion by the second half of this century will take place in that poorer half of the world. At the millennium summit at the UN in September, world leaders committed to halving world poverty by 2015. This is not just a "UNish blue sky goal," but a target based on sensible calculation and attention to the East Asian model. High growth combined with heavy investment in education and health care has put East Asia on track to reach this goal by 2015. This is in contrast to the African model where a failure of growth strategy has resulted in instability, wars, explosion of HIV-AIDS, and increasing poverty.

We are at a fork in the road and ". . . have it in our power through the right policy mix and the right attraction of foreign investment to overcome the scourge of world poverty very rapidly and to substitute for it stable, market-oriented, democratic societies. The model for getting there is, indeed, seeding the right public policy environment." He maintained that this did not mean huge infrastructure investments, but "getting the software right." This means establishing the democratic framework for good governance and rule of law, investment in people in terms of education and health care, and sufficient infrastructure to encourage the first wave of domestic and foreign investment.

In speaking of the US role, Mr. Malloch Brown urged that the U.S. show more support and play a quantifiably larger role, but also that it recognize that "single-issue based foreign assistance" focused on countries of strategic importance or popular issues such as refugees or AIDS isn't as effective as a holistic approach. Funding an AIDS program in a country with no adequate public health system is "building a house on sand." US heavy reliance on development banks cannot substitute for providing other resources since lending institutions, important as they are, cannot provide the necessary "software of development." People must have the "sense of ownership" which is implicit in a multilateral approach. He urged that the U.S. work with the UNDP to promote the agenda of good governance that is critical to another "American Century," but cannot be achieved by a bilateral approach alone. In building support for democracy, America needs multilateral friends.

Mr. Malloch Brown concluded by saying that this is a time of choice. The 2000 election campaign was not marked by the kind of attacks on multilateralism seen in some past campaigns. The new President should take stock of the crossroads. He noted that, in the poorest countries, there is a real sense that they might finally be able to move "towards this extraordinary prosperous opportunity of integration into the phenomenon of globalization with the high growth rates and possibilities that brings." The alternative would be "a more protectionist closed future where not even democracy, but certainly not open markets and high growth can be taken for granted."

Mrs. Oakley noted that the speakers had provided much food for thought and proceeded to the question and answer period that expanded on many of the issues covered.

• In response to a question about interest in foreign affairs among the American public, Ambassador Roy noted that if we want to play a global leadership role, we must take the case to the American people and the message must come from leaders at the top.
• A question regarding the UNDP prompted Mr. Malloch Brown to speak of the changes the organization had undergone in recent years in adopting a focus on good governance, taking advantage of changes coming from globalization, and a holistic development strategy. Mrs. Oakley, drawing on her experience with refugee work, added that in seeking funding for foreign assistance programs it is critical to have champions in Congress. Mr. Malloch Brown, in addressing another question, observed that is easier to make the case for development programs when one moves from a government-to-government process into a society-to-society process. When NGOs and the private sector organizations become involved, support is more quickly forthcoming.
• It was asked if the prominence of the Commanders-in-Chief (CINCs) of the regional military commands on the international scene indicated an institutional shift giving the military more of a diplomatic role while diminishing the role of the State Department. Ambassador Roy replied that this is not a shift. Our top national security commanders work closely with Ambassadors in the field and are part of our diplomatic face to the world. Mrs. Oakley added that CINCs have resources. They can offer training, joint exercises, and some equipment. Resources are very important when trying to influence countries.
• In response to a question regarding the need for better dialogue between the business and development communities, Mr. Malloch Brown agreed that there has been some mutual suspicion and some conflicts of interest between the two groups. But, he added, business recognizes that it functions best in stable and democratic environments and he believes that the two communities are on track toward stronger partnerships.
• One questioner spoke of the Japanese model of encouraging community involvement in international affairs by creating offices of international engagement at the local level, institutionalized in local government. Mr. Malloch Brown noted that this has happened in one form in the United States with the explosion of NGOs that encourage interest in international programs. Ambassador Roy agreed, but noted that NGOs have single-issue focus and that it is important to have broad-gauged local involvement, such as state leaders on trade delegations.
• The subject of "exit strategies" was raised. It was noted that sometimes missions were left uncompleted and that closer cooperation is needed among NGOs, official organizations, military, and local authorities in a given country. Ambassador Roy said a differentiated approach to exit strategies is important. Sometimes you need an exit strategy and other times you must go to accomplish a mission and see it through for as long as it takes.
• Finally, it was asked whether there should be a national security component introduced into our educational system. Panelists agreed that it is important that the public understand the significance of America's leadership role. Mr. Malloch Brown raised the example of the Marshall Plan, which initially had little public support. When American leadership sent the message that a strategic investment could stabilize the "Pax America," the people responded. In today's situation, a modest financial investment could promote American values and assure a democratic, market-oriented world. But, we must have a President and a Congress willing to give this message top priority.

The session closed with Mrs. Oakley noting that the discussion had brought us around to the immediate problems facing us. "So, so much for the future, and on with the present!"