Washington, D.C., March 24, 2011 -- The Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR), released by the State Department last December, provides a road map for the future of U.S. diplomacy and development. But in a political climate dominated by fiscal and budgetary constraints, the QDDR focuses on the need for new investments in civilian power when it should have focused on trade-offs, according to a new article in The Washington Quarterly by CNAS Vice President and Director of Studies Dr. Kristin M. Lord and Bacevich Fellow Brian Burton.
Lord and Burton praise many of the initiatives set forth in the QDDR but suggest that if the QDDR does not help produce real change, it could create disillusionment with the broader effort to strengthen civilian power in support of U.S. national interests. The United States will risk entering a period of "smart power fatigue" that will only further sap the strength of the agencies upon which U.S. foreign policy relies.
Former State Department Director of Policy Planning and co-director of the QDDR Anne-Marie Slaughter agrees with the article's call to set priorities in a resource-constrained environment, noting, "Leading through civilian power means directing and coordinating the resources of all America's civilian agencies to prevent and resolve conflicts. In this constrained economic environment, we will have to make tradeoffs, but diplomacy and development cannot fall by the wayside."
The Washington Quarterly article caps a year-long CNAS project on U.S. diplomacy and development designed to help inform the QDDR process.
Other CNAS publications in this series include:
Did the State Department Get the QDDR Right?, by CNAS Vice President and Director of Studies Dr. Kristin M. Lord and Bacevich Fellow Brian Burton, Spring 2011
Managing 21st-Century Diplomacy: Lessons from Global Corporations, by CNAS Vice President and Director of Studies Dr. Kristin M. Lord and Senior Fellow Richard Fontaine, December 2010
Beyond Borders: Developing Comprehensive National Security Policies to Address Complex Regional Challenges, by CNAS Senior Advisor Dr. Patrick Cronin and Bacevich Fellow Brian Burton, December 2010
Eye to the Future: Refocusing State Department Policy Planning, by CNAS Senior Fellow Richard Fontaine and Bacevich Fellow Brian Burton, August 2010
Planning Diplomacy and Development: Force Planning Applications for the State Department and USAID, by CNAS Bacevich Fellow Brian Burton, August 2010
Contractors in American Conflicts: Adapting to a New Reality, by CNAS Senior Fellow Richard Fontaine and President Dr. John A. Nagl, June 2010
Engaging the Private Sector for the Public Good: The Power of Network Diplomacy, by CNAS Vice President and Director of Studies Dr. Kristin M. Lord, January 2010
Learning from Experience: Lessons from the QDR for the QDDR, by CNAS Bacevich Fellow Brian Burton, January 2010
Non-CNAS publications and events related to the QDDR include:
Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, U.S. Department of State QDDR web page
Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, United States Agency for International Development web page
Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, QDDR Facebook page
Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, QDDR Wikipedia page
Secretary Clinton Releases the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, U.S. Department of State Town Hall video, December 2010
Clinton's Remarks on the First Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, Transcript, Center for Foreign Relations, December 2010
Leading Through Civilian Power: 2010 QDDR, U.S. Department of State briefing slides, Washington Post, December 2010
An Independent Commentary on the QDDR, by Sixteen former and retired senior career officials from the U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International Development, December 2010
Weighing an Ambitious QDDR, by Laurie Garrett, Yanzhong Huang, Isobel Coleman, and Paul B. Stares, Council on Foreign Relations, December 2010
Concepts Are Not Enough, by Anthony H. Cordesman, Center for Strategic and International Studies, December 2010
The QDDR: Does Quadrennial Stand for How Long it Will Take to Complete?,,by Matt Armstrong, MountainRunner, September 2010
State Department Launches Inaugural Review of Diplomacy and Development, by Sheila Herrling, Center for Global Development, July 2009
The Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review Highlights Many Themes Prevalent in PNSR Publications, Project for National Security Reform, March 2011
Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review: Our Assessment, by Gordon Adams, Rebecca Williams, and Matthew Leatherman, The Stimson Center, December 2010
Muddling Through: How Development's Past Shapes Its Future, by David Ekbladh, The Belfer Center, November 2009
MFAN QDDR Blog Series: Time for Hard Questions, by George Ingram, Modernizing Foreign Assisstance Network, March 2010
The First Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review: Strengthening America's Role in the 21st Century, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, seminar video, December 2010
Foreign Policy: Reversing Diplomacy's Feedback Loop, by Daniel Drezner, National Public Radio, December 2010
Clinton Announces State Department Review Stressing Conflict Prevention, by Mary Beth Sheridan, Washington Post, December 2010
Clinton Pledges Bigger Role for Besieged State Department, by Mark Landler, New York Times, December 2010
State Department Pledges Major Reforms with New QDDR, by Josh Rogin, Foreign Policy, December 2010
QDDR: No Bull's-eye, But Generally On-target, by Stephen Johnson, Foreign Policy, December 2010
NGO Community Likes State's QDDR But Worried About Implementation, by Josh Rogin, Foreign Policy, December 2010
Hillary Clinton's Vision for Foreign Policy on a Tight Budget, by Howard LaFranchi, Christian Science Monitor, December 2010
Clinton Speech Signals Transformation at State, by Spencer Ackerman, Washington Independent, July 2009
U.S. Considering Combining Military, International Affairs Budgets, by Kevin Baron, Stars and Stripes, November 2010
Pinstripes to Cargo Pants, Clinton Tailors New Vision for Diplomacy, by Elise Labott, CNN, October 2010
Diplomacy And Development Review, Voice of America editorial, January 2011
Comments
Thus:
a. As with Germany and Japan after World War II (Marhall Plan, etc.),
b. Same-same re: China and Russia after the Cold War (Protect and Expand Globalization; Engagement and Enlargement, etc.),
c. And Iraq and Afghanistan today (whatever),
The "Follow-Through" or "Follow-Up" strategy and commitment -- that is developed, adopted and implemented after these wars -- is as important as the strategy and commitment that wins these wars.
The overall rational -- then as now -- being, that in order to see the Cold War mission through to its true end (the full, complete and successful integration of China, Russia, India, etc.), this would require that the remaining non/less-integrated states and societies of the world would, likewise, need to be brought on-line.
This, so as to adequately service and support the wants, needs and desires of these huge new population groups, which now would have -- not limited communist/socialist aspirations/requirements -- but unlimited "Western" ones.
Lacking such a Cold War strategy "follow-through" (engagement and enlargement), it was/is believed that the Cold War sacrifices and successes might all be for naught; as these newly integrating great and rising powers might easily fail in their capitalist-plus experiments, and slip back into communism or something far worse (become "failed" great/rising states -- with substantial quantities of WMD).
With this foundational reasoning suggested, what now are our thoughts re: the QDR and QDDR, and our evaluation of their progress and priorities (or lack thereof)?
To get a better handle on all of this, could we start by saying that:
a. While America's instruments of power, during the Cold War, were focused on providing the environment for the conversion and transformation of the non/less-integrated great powers of the world (the USSR and pre-capitalist China) -- via a defensive approach called "containment,"
b. Today, with Russia and China significantly converted and transformed, America's instruments of power are now focused on providing the environment for the conversion and transformation of the rest of the non/less-integrated world -- via a more offensive approach one might call (for lack of a better term) "engagement and enlargement."
Is this (item "b" above), or some similar construct, the base-line concept we should use when discussing such things as "progress" and "priorities" re: the QDR and the QDDR?