The Globalization of Foreign Policy
In days gone by, a diplomat stopped his coach in front of the royal residence of a king in Europe, took off his top hat and spoke with His Royal Highness for an hour in French about history, politely told humorous anecdotes, the latest gossip from the residence city, and at the very end also diplomatically formulated the wish of his king to peacefully resolve a potential border conflict.
It is certainly the case that this approach was very, very distinguished and diplomatic, with veils and charm at the highest level so to speak, it was also for the most part—unfortunately so for the less diplomatic fellow citizen—fruitless and futile: consider the recurring wars in Europe prior to the 20th century occurring every five, ten or twenty years for a period of more than 500 years; or WWI, the premier example of diplomatic inability that completely laid waste to Europe and planted the seeds for WWII, which cost more than 50 million people their lives.
The result of classical, traditional diplomacy was therefore quite sobering.
The world of today practices a completely different foreign policy.
The new foreign policy in the age of globalization in the 21st century must be international, extending across the entire globe. It must develop new thought and a believable moral strategy to shape a better world, focused on actions to promote these goals.
One way to try to measure "Globalization" in foreign policy is the annual index of A.T. Kearney and the Foreign Policy Magazine of the Carnegie Endowment in Washington D.C. This index includes rankings of 62 countries for 14 variables grouped in four categories: economic integration (trade, foreign direct investment, portfolio capital flows, and investment income), personal contacts (international travel and tourism, international telephone traffic), technological connectivity (internet users and hosts), and political engagement (memberships in international organizations, international treaties ratified, contributions to UN Security Council missions). No wonder two of the smallest countries, Singapore and Ireland, are ranked on the two top positions followed by Switzerland, the Netherlands and Finland. For years, the smaller a nation, the more developed it is, the more contacts cross-border.
This index is a more theoretical statistical approach, but is shows some important trends in a world of more personal contacts, economic integration and technological connectivity.
Equally important to these factors are the factors of power and influence.
Who shapes the new foreign policy in the age of globalization?
Which country or organization will be in the best position in this new way of foreign policy?
Media and Peace Lovers?
With tremendous media attention, one war and terrorist assault follows another, and if one is not an expert—as with 99.99% of the inhabitants of this planet and that means not less than 6.5 billion homo sapiens—one does not really know the reason why one just killed another, beheads, blasts busses with women and children sky high, expels, lets starve, loves or hates passionately. (Most young journalists do not really know anymore either.)
Those, who in the face of so much horror develop a guilty conscience and in the blink of an eye, without a lot of personal effort would like to receive a clear one, join one of the various peace movements whose popular mission statements can be stated briefly and to the point:
“Love your neighbour as yourself!” Or: “Make love not war!” Pace! Frieden! Peace!
The President of the United States of America?
No longer an emperor or king (as they have eliminated themselves as is generally known) resides in a famous white office and residence on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington DC.
Wow! Big, Important! He does everything! The alpha-male of world politics.
No small job in our globalized world: he does it all wrong—anyway that is how 80% in the Arab world, 70% of the so-called intellectuals in the free world, 60% of the journalists and 110% of the peace activists see it. It doesn't matter what he does—he takes action, he doesn’t take action—from their viewpoint it is always wrong.
The power of the President, however, is in reality so restricted that the critics would immediately fall silent if they knew the truth, and the evil would cheer—for that very reason we won’t mention it. Those who know the White House and Washington behind closed doors understand what I would like to suggest here. Only so much: one can not master 6.5 billion people long-term over decades with 296 million Americans. The U.S. armed forces are just sufficient for a conflict à la Iraq—not more.
What about Europe?
Even today, Europe is still not a unity, but rather an agreeable patchwork quilt in puberty. Europe will become mature, but not at the present. That will take something more than 30 years. It is still the case that no U.S. Secretary of State can even call a single representative in Europe. In this respect, the foreign policy centers of power are still located at Downing Street 10, at the Elysee Palace or the Federal Chancellor’s office.
Somehow I like Putin because he would like to reunify his country, make it strong again and bring it forward. Unfortunately, he still doesn’t understand that Russia can only make the next step into a better future successfully when it allows and even supports the oxygen of freedom, pluralism and moves away now from the idea of a strong, unified state. And the Russian bear still acts obstinate and is not yet engaged in anyway on the side freedom and justice.
The UN Is It – or Not?
My God: the miracle worker of the good people!
Just call on the UN and everything will turn out all right!
But what is the stark reality?
Those who have a veto such as the semi-democratic Russia or the non-democratic China can block anything. At that point, the UN is as lame as a car that has had the battery removed, or a skier who has just had his skis taken away. The failure in the UN-protected areas in Kosovo (Srebrenica 6,000 under UN protection massacred) or in Dafur, Sudan (500,000 dead) unfortunately points out the reality of its powerlessness.
One of the decisive questions of the world politics is: will China become democratic? Currently, China is another dictatorship which does not sponsor the promotion of peace in the UN. It protects a terror-tyranny with atomic blackmail fantasies in North Korea, and simultaneously threatens the model democracy of Taiwan while offending the Western economic power Japan.
Stiff, too stiff. Large in population and economy, however, only average in military strength, trimmed back in the exercise of power due to its evil superpower ideology from WWII.
Who actually makes the new globalized foreign policy?
Who are the movers and shakers of today?
The Research Institutes or the famous Foundations?
There are outstanding institutes that actually motivate events in global foreign policy, for example, the IISS in London, the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, or CAP in Munich.
However, most are preoccupied with themselves, and their output and influence on foreign policy is for the most part small. They are afraid to take a position; they analyze more than shape necessary action proposals, react instead of act. They publish analyses mostly years after a war. They love conferences with big names that do more to stroke the ego than actively shape a secure world. The majority of the money is devoted to their own administration.
Governments and Parliaments?
Most politicians involved in foreign and security policy in parliaments and governments are allowed almost everything, except for taking a position, telling things as they are, and stating what they stand for. Because then they would not amount to anything. And who wants that as professional politician? They react only then when the public demands it and that is mostly the case when, via the media, a war becomes intolerable.
In the words of Fritz Kraemer:
“The very successful politician will lose his aggressiveness and part of his soul on every rung of the ladder leading him to the top during his long career of compromising and sailing with the wind. The harsh school of upward struggle may, in fact, have made him a master tactician, but the Holy Fire, the inner passion, the vision has gone, had to go.”*
Western foreign policy is for the most part reactionary, rather than proactive in shaping a better world. Almost no one stands out with creative concepts and plans by which we can design today's world more peaceably and safely in the coming decades. Foreign policy is for the most part a mix of lifeless bureaucracy and fear, almost always reactive and never preventive.
Yes, the global economy! Stability and freedom is needed.
As we are all only human, the lust for money to some extent holds this planet together. Whether Russia, China, Iran, or even Cuba: money makes the world go around and our foreign policy in the age of globalization with it. Today, money can best be earned in peacetime The global economic network tolerates conflicts less and less and appears as penicillin for the all-too-deep wounds of ideological conflicts.
The world economy needs open and free societies—needs peace and stability.
Long-term economic growth will only become possible with increased freedom.
The world’s wealth is concentrated in free countries. The lowest GNP per capita is found in countries that suffered under, or still suffer from dictatorship. For example, African countries are not poor because they are African, but because they still live under dictatorship—and that for more than 500 years. Russia is not rich with all its oil and other resources like Canada on the other hand, because it has had no democracy for over 700 years. The U.S. is rich and powerful because it gave its citizen freedom more than 200 years ago. West Germany was rich, East Germany poor. North Korea is extremely poor, South Korea rich. Vietnam is poor, Thailand rich, etc.
Powerful countries are developed because they are free.
Other countries—including many in the Islamic World—are paralyzed by absolute, totalitarian dogmas.
Freedom is the foundation for knowledge, development, and progress.
In the 43 dictatorships of today, the GNP is only six percent. 85 percent of the world’s wealth belongs to the people in the 89 democracies.
Modern economic systems in the age of globalization require independent scientists, creativity à la Einstein, open discussion, and freedom of responsibility. All of this is increasingly incompatible with the demands of totalitarian, all-knowing, all-powerful dictators.
We will only reach the UN’s stated goal of halving the number of people living in poverty by 2010 through a globalized strategy of democratization. It is not about the redistribution of wealth, but rather the creation of more economic and political freedom—and thereby significantly more stability in the world.
Yes, to the military!
The armed forces are also a very important stabilizing factor of foreign policy, regardless of which side they are on.
When Hitler, in 1937, asked his General Chief of Staff whether Germany ought to attack its neighbors, he said: “No!” He was removed from his position.
All over the world, rational generals are the ones who have prevented more wars than the average persons truly want to believe.
Condition: a balance of the power, no provocative weakness as shown by the Western democracies to Hitler in the 1930s.
The new methods and actors for the globalization of foreign policy
When considering the actors in foreign policy critically, we see that there is a lot of room for outsourcing, new actors and actions—the globalization of foreign policy.
At the core, one has to identify just who is putting forth the topics and proposals for action. It is a question of power, attention, and the genuine creation of peace.
But first a wicked example:
In my opinion, an excellent example of the globalization of foreign policy is al-Qaida.
It is an international network of intelligent, highly motivated young people with decentralized leadership, willing to sacrifice their own lives, a simple mission, attachment to a global belief, and a clear picture of the enemy. They have global sources of financing and are allied with other terror organizations all over the world.
International terrorism creates a maximum effect with a minimum of expenditures. It is an active global network of true believers.
What can we learn from this?
Something very important:
The new foreign policy in the age of globalization must be international, extending across the entire globe, and focused an action to promote its goals
Sorry neo-cons in the USA. Your concept “We make America strong first and thumb our noses at Europe” is simply too provincial, and with that no longer state-of-the-art as well as less effective than the stripped down model of your enemies!
A new and successful foreign policy in the new age of globalization needs active comrades-in-arms on all seven continents and cannot remain only nationally organized.
The nationally centered foreign policy of the 19th century has in the 21st century been replaced by a never before seen globalization of power influences, organizations, media, and personal contacts.
Never before have so many people maintained as many international contacts worldwide as today.
Never before was world such a village of global information and opinion.
Never before have events at a distance of several a thousand miles had such an effect on us.
Never before have so many committed people been involved politically in foreign policy as today.
This real globalization is a fact, not a mirage.
It has an enormous impact on the way in which nations interact with each other today.
Decisive is, however, not this new interdependence of globalization, rather which positive goals are pursued and by whom.
Everyone wants less poverty and war, more prosperity and peace on earth.
Even today, the powers of totalitarianism put the ideology and power of the state before the freedom of human beings, with the advanced powers of freedom and human rights.
Who, however, will win in the end and thereby the capture the opportunities of globalization to use for good or evil?
It will be decisive who can win over subsequent generations—al-Qaida or democrats?
It is important whether we find courageous young talents who will work for the ideas of freedom and prosperity in the 198 states of the world, and take over responsibility there.
Great historical events, whether the October Revolution in Russia, 9/11, the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America or the Human Rights Charter—all were realized by a very few elites who in a dark or bright moment of world history used their moment of opportunity with courage and determination to their advantage.
We need excellence and a new global elite of maybe only 500,000 young talents
In the words of the gifted talent scout Fritz Kraemer:
“Look for men and women of excellence!
Guide, help, assist, encourage them!”*
In the business world in particular, more talent should come out of your companies into foreign policy, thereby building up a new elite.
Fritz Kraemer rightly said, “Even large talents require a talent scout to discover and support them.” We need different networks of mentors, who help guide young people over years in the taking on of responsibility.
Mission for more freedom necessary
A moral mission is indispensable. Only it can increase freedom in the world and the promotion of free, open and tolerant societies on our globe.
We need a responsible elite which does not demand privileges for itself, but takes on responsibility for others.
In this respect, we must once again attend to values more strongly and reduce the excesses of materialism. In particular, the new elite in the Western world needs spiritual orientation—a challenge for the Christian Church in particular. Moral relativism is our greatest danger in globalization.
Establishing new and active networks in foreign affairs
A better, more modern foreign policy requires international networks. Good examples of such organizations are the Young Presidents Organization YPO with 10,000 young entrepreneurs worldwide combining all cultures of this world, or bilateral organizations such as the American Council on Germany or the International Crisis Group. Amnesty International also belongs here, although this organization has lost much of its credibility as its criticism is often too heavily laden with ideology.
Media effectiveness and more responsibility needed
Representation in the media is perceived as reality. Especially effective are the images on TV.
The media has a particularly large responsibility to present not only murder and homicide, but also positive examples and deeper analyses. This is a task for the responsible media owners and lead editors.
The Internet is important as a media tool of globalization
Not only al-Qaida, but also the new networks use Internet as a new global medium of foreign policy.
For example the World Security Network Foundation—an independent, nonprofit organization which I founded some years ago in New York—is building a new elite global network for foreign and security policy with the purpose of “Networking a Safer World.”
The goal is the networking of a young elite—those twenty to forty years of age—in America, Europe, Africa, and Asia using the new medium of the Internet, as well as the promotion of an international discussion of new solutions and proposals.Young authors can publish their own analyses worldwide.
A network of 30 young editors with 17 nationalities report from New York, Washington D.C., Tokyo, Paris, Vienna, London, Rome, Moscow, Ankara, Singapore, Beirut, New Delhi, Peshawar, Germany, China, and Eastern Europe led by WSN Global-Editor-in-Chief BrigGen (Ret.) Dieter Farwick, former Director of Germany's "Federal Armed Forces Intelligence Office" and close aid to former German Defense Minister and later NATO Secretary General Manfred Woerner.
An International Advisory Board consisting of 41 well-known experts from 14 countries - the USA, Germany, Russia, the UK, Turkey, France, Switzerland, Estonia, Kosovo, Hungary, Italy, Lebanon, Pakistan and Greece- including ten generals and admirals (Luigi Caligaris, Klaus Naumann, Peter Regli, Klaus Reinhardt, Ed Rowny, Bill Odom, Götz Gliemeroth, Lord Peter Inge, Sebastian Roberts, Chuck Saffell), journalists (Herbert Kremp, Jens Krüger, Thomas Lipscomb, Henning von Steuben) , professors and scholars (Mensur Akgün; Ron Asmus; Rod Beckstrom, J.D. Bindenagel, Robert Dujaric; Peter Forster, Ortwin Gebauer, Amin Hashwani, Christian Hacke, Robert Hunter, Michael Inacker, Joachim Krause, Ludger Kühnhardt, Holger Mey, Mark Minevich, Mike Munson, John Nomikos, Ivo Paparela, Andreas Pruefert, Arben Qirezi, Sergey Rogov) and politicians (Samy Gemayel, Geza Jeszenszky; Tunne Kelam, Joe Schmitz, Peter Kurt Würzbach) advises WSN.
170,000 members of the international information elite including 65,000 business executives and lawyers; more than 54,000 professors, assistants, and alumni of elite universities such as Harvard, Yale, MIT, and INSEAD; 32,000 journalists; 16,000 foreign and defense experts; and more than 3,000 members and staff of parliaments, receive a weekly electronic newsletter with new analyses of foreign and security policy—the largest of its kind worldwide.
www.worldsecuritynetwork.com reports daily on new developments around the globe and receives more than 2 million hits monthly. With the “proposals” we publish, WSN makes a contribution to the discussion of all of the “hot topics” in world politics.
115 media partners (including CNN, UPI and Newsweek) and 60 institutes (including RAND and IISS) cooperate with WSN and make use of the analyses.
WSN supports the young elite with a Scholarship program. In 2004, Dmitry Udalov, the nineteen-year-old President of the Student’s Association in Moscow, received an invitation for his first visit to New York and Washington D.C. He is now Editor Russia. In 2005, Manuela Paraipan, from Romania was awarded the WSN Scholarship to visit Beirut as Editor Broader Middle East.
WSN is also working together with seven research institutes on the international Codes of Tolerance, designed to promote cooperation between diverse cultures.
Do we prevent war or just get involved when it is too late ?
The “strategic community” devotes a great deal of thought to one of the fundamental questions of humanity: War or Peace? We analyze the global situation, considering the overall picture and the finer details.
But do we prevent war?
Do we create peace?
In our mass and media culture, with its undue focus on the “here and now” and its tendency to exaggerate the importance of irrelevant events, we always seem to be trailing behind when it comes to “war.”
Not until it is too late, do political institutions take decisive action. Not until a war has broken out, do we ask “Why?”
Only when thousands have died, do journalists and politicians devote intensive thought to the question of how such events could have been prevented. So it was in the run-up to WWI and WWII, to the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, to Kosovo and 9/11.
We need much more active crisis prevention.
A lack of awareness, crisis management and targeted action
There is a lack of public awareness about imminently threatening crises and conflicts, a lack of analytical judgment and crisis management, but above all, a lack of targeted action before the situation explodes.
We have to rouse people out of their apathy, to raise awareness of trouble spots before wars break out, to outline proposed solutions and to draw media attention to security issues at an early stage.
Above all, however, the “strategic community”—politicians, journalists, academics and opinion-leaders around the world—have to convey new creative ideas and policy recommendations to decision-makers at lightening speed via the Internet.
Action and Pop as a new PR tool in foreign affairs
The international new aid for Africa concerts Live 8 of Sir Bob Geldof on the occasion of the G 8 meeting in Scotland on July 2, 2005 with the demand for cancellation of debts showed how with stars and actions foreign policy can be influenced effectively and globally.
The self-appointed globalization opponents also count here, whether or not one shares in their goals and methods.
The foreign policy of today is globalized.
We all have to shape a better reality for our global village, not only adapt to a bad one.
Only when the movers and shakers of freedom and justice use these new means consistently, will our world become as a result a little more peaceful and our children happier tomorrow.