Kathleen Hicks is the director of the International Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a bipartisan, policy research organization. She writes on U.S foreign policy and strategic futures. Hicks spoke at the LBJ School as apart of the Women and National Security Speakers Series.
Her lecture “Shifting Global Trends and the Collapse of the American Foreign Policy Census”, started with her run down of global trends. Which of course, came off just as overwhelming as she might have hoped. Hicks point: what do Americans see every morning when they wake up and look to their smart phones? And, knowing this answer, how should foreign policy respond?
Just touching the surface of the current stream of international crises and their effects, Hicks mentioned terrorism and ISIS, the Syrian and Yemen Civil Wars and the resulting migration to Europe. Iran and North Korea entered the discussion for a moment, as did China and its increasingly powerful role in the global arena. Hicks further convoluted the situation for American foreign policy makers and mentioned the current and future implications of urbanization and climate change. We are seeing this global churn and its dangerous effects, the growing appeal of populism and the rise of autocrats. Both of which, further muddy the water for global policy makers.
At the end of all of this, in a world where Americans can use their smart phones to analyze world happenings, Hicks then asked, what do Americans really care about?
Americans don’t want to lose their jobs. Americans want to earn a living. They fear trade, immigration, and automation. But Americans also care about the increase in political polarization in the US and rising partisan apathy. They care about the U.S role as a super power, despite the range and type of challenges that are increasing and continue to face the U.S.
If this seems like a rambling discussion of world politics and U.S. foreign policy, it is. And, I hope that’s what Hick’s wanted. At the end of her overview of our world and its effects on the American populace, Hicks offered a few recommendations for American foreign policy-makers. Despite the shift in America’s role as a super power, Hicks says there is no need for an overcorrection. She is confident that the world still needs a global leader and that U.S. isolation is not a viable option. But at the same time, she claimed that Americans want the attention and resources. They want policy-makers to focus on the U.S.
So, policy-makers need to channel most of their energy to the American people. The U.S. first needs to get their house in order before we can continue to be a global leader and hope to influence any events.
Hicks ended by recommending that policy-makers change the narrative in problem prevention. She thinks that development aid and assistance needs a better narrative with better measures. We also need to follow a multi-lateral approach in our security and development policy. We need alliances and allies around the world.
In the end, how do you respond to a lecture that is meant to overwhelm, but never actually provides concrete guidance? In fact, Hicks recommendations for shifting American foreign policy didn’t clarify any of the major issues our nation is facing. I found this discouraging, as I know that she is an expert in analyzing global affairs to strategically plan for the future. If her answers are vague and add no further certainty, I know that as I emerge as a policy informant I will probably struggle to make decisive, concrete recommendations for foreign policy-makers.
Ultimately, I agreed most with Hicks’ last point. We do need to reframe how we talk about development aid and foreign assistance. I think that there is a clear link between development and international security. In a political environment that continues to cut international aid budgets we need to emphasize the importance of increasing literacy rates overseas and how this can combat the extremism. Or, how access to clean water might be an increasing cause of conflict in the future.
But I’m also troubled by her addition that we need better measures for development aid. What does she mean by this? The development community has an excess of indicators, indices, rankings and ratings. Does she think we need more or do we need to sift through the excess and determine what measures are most useful?
Leave a Reply