Brookings Institution Foreign Policy Director James B. Steinberg Think Tank Expert Trying To Shape Changing World by John Shaw James B. Steinberg, director of the Brookings Institutionís foreign policy studies program, said the international political system is undergoing a profound transformation. It is being reshaped, he explained, by large historical forces, the policies of governments, the activities of corporations and civil society, and the grand strategies articulated by research groups and individual analysts. In an interview at his Brookings office, Steinberg said he and his colleagues want to help frame the debate about the strategic options that the United States now confronts. "We are at a time of first-order questions about the nature of the international system. What is the role of the United States? What are the tools at our disposal," he asked. "We are now debating strategy in a fundamental way, and think tanks have an essential role to play when these first-order questions are being debated, especially think tanks that go deeply into these issues." Steinberg said the end of the Cold War and the revol ution in communications technology provide new opportunities for global growth and development. But many of these same forces are also intensifying such threats as terrorism, financial volatility, ethnic conflict, international crime and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. "We are in one of the most dynamic periods of foreign policy, in which the very question of what the role of the United States is, what our objectives should be, what our strategy should be, are up for grabs and on the front pages of the newspapers every day," he said. Steinberg argues that there is an urgent need for American policymakers and analysts to reassess U.S. strategy in the post-Cold War era, and that the United States faces a challenge similar to what global leaders confronted after World War II when they created the United Nations, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and other global institutions. "Itís fair to say that this is the most fluid period of national security strategy since 1946 to í47," Steinberg said. "Itís very important that we understand the character of the debate because if we caricature it, we miss understanding the big choices and what the strategic options are." Friendly, intense and focused, Steinberg has shifted smoothly from the ivory tower of the research world to the trenches of senior policymaking in the U.S. government. He received a bachelorís degree from Harvard in 1973 and a law degree from Yale Law School in 1978. Early in his career he worked as a law clerk, a foreign policy aide to Sen. Edward Kennedy, a fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies and a policy analyst at the Rand Corp. Steinberg was in the top tier of policymaking during the Clinton administration. During the early months of the administration, he was appointed the deputy assistant secretary of state for intelligence and research. A year later, he was promoted to the prestigious post of director of the State Departmentís Policy Planning Staff. During President Clintonís second term, Steinberg served as deputy National Security Council adviser, working under NSC chief Sandy Berger. Steinberg was deeply involved in the administrationís foreign policy formulation and implementation and played a key role in managing crises ranging from Kosovo to East Timor. After leaving the government in 2000, Steinberg spent a year as a senior adviser to the Markle Foundation, working on a technology and development project. He then accepted the position to head up the Brookings foreign policy program in the fall of 2001, replacing Richard Haass, who left to direct the State Departmentís Policy Planning Staff under the Bush administration. "I couldnít have picked a better place to do my own work and also have some influence on the broad direction of U.S. foreign policy," Steinberg said, adding, "We want to influence day-to-day policy debates, but we also want to shape our research agenda to look over the horizon and do deeper work. Brookings has always seen itself as a bridge between the more academic and the more public policy-oriented think tanks. We have a tradition of calling it as we see it, with work that has deep intellectual rigor." Founded in 1916, the Brookings Institution is devoted to research, education and publication in economics, governance, foreign policy and social studies. It is an independent, nonpartisan research organization that seeks to improve the quality of American public policies. Brookings addresses current and emerging policy challenges and offers recommendations for dealing with them in language that is accessible to policymakers and the general public. Steinberg and his colleagues in the Brookings foreign policy department host conferences, write books and essays, and seek creative ways to shape the foreign policy agenda. They are working on major projects focusing on U.S. foreign policy, the White Houseís National Security Council, the environment and development, homeland security, Iraq, Korea, South Asia, and the United Statesí relationship with the Islamic world. The Brookings foreign policy program manages three policy centers: the Center for Northeast Asian Policy Studies, which was started in 1998; the Center on the United States and France, which was established in 1999; and the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, which was launched in 2002. Steinberg is studying the changes in U.S. foreign policy pushed by the Bush administration, especially the so-called Bush Doctrine regarding preventive war. He said the administration has gone beyond endorsing the widely accepted policy of pre-emptionóstriking an enemy as it prepares for an attackóand is embracing the far less accepted concept of preventive war, which allows for striking an enemy even in the absence of specific evidence of a coming attack. Steinberg cautioned that the administrationís new preventive war doctrine carries serious risks. First, it reinforces the global view that the United States is too quick to use military force and is willing to do so outside of the strictures of international law. Second, it might increase the administrationís inclination to use force before exhausting diplomacy. Third, it undervalues the role of deterrence. Fourth, it legitimates a wider scope for the use of force that could be adopted by other nations, suchas India and China. Finally, the strategy doesnít distinguish between eliminating dangerous capabilities and removing unfriendly regimes. Steinberg said he is concerned that the administration has made force the first resort rather than the last in dealing with international challenges. Moreover, a doctrine promoting the early use of force poses enormous risks not only for the stability of the global system, but also for U.S. national security because of the destabilizing consequences of war. "When we arrogate to ourselves the right to decide whether the use of force is legitimate, we seriously undermine our ability to get the cooperation of others," Steinberg said, arguing that some administration officials are more inclined to use force and threats than persuasion and diplomacy. "Some in the administration believe that the most important thing is that our adversaries fear us. For them, it doesnít matter if other countries respect us or like us. They believe it is most important to be feared," he said. "But the great strength of America throughout our history is that our leadership has been widely seen as benign, and this has allowed us to sustain our leadership. There is a danger that this current attitude will create an environment in which it will be hard for the U.S. to persuade others to follow our leadership," he added. Steinberg said the Bush doctrineówhich places a stronger emphasis on preventive war, coalitions of the willing rather than alliances, and stepping away from international legitimacyóis not sustainable in its extreme form over the long term. But he admitted that the Bush doctrine does offer a point of departure to rethink how the United States should work with other nations. More specifically, the U.S. government now has the chance to have a debate with its allies, particularly in Europe and East Asia, to re-examine when force should be used, how to deal with threats, and what the role of international institutions such as the United Nations and NATO should be. Steinberg believes the administration is starting to pull back from the more sweeping implications of its new doctrine. "There is a sense that the administrationís preventive war doctrine was a broad theoretical framework that really only c overed one case: Iraq," he said. "We are seeing from the administration a tacit admission that a recalibration of their foreign policy is necessary. We are seeing a tactical adjustment," he added, citing the administrationís more multilateral approach to disputes with Iran and North Korea. Steinberg said his think tank is determined to play a constructive role in the debate over U.S. foreign policy and is working on alternatives that build on the strengths of Bushís foreign policy while correcting its weaknesses. "There is a crisis of legitimacy in the international system now," he said. "The United Nations is seen as irrelevant or incapable of dealing with global challenges. But many are deeply disturbed with the idea that the only alternative to the U.N. is American unilateralism." Given his background in government, Steinberg is very interested in intelligence issues and the effort to overhaul the U.S. intelligence community. In the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, Steinberg said there has been some progress to redesign the U.S. intelligence apparatus but not enough fresh thinking. "We are tackling the symptoms of the problem that led to 9/11. But we are keeping the same institutions and structures that got us to where we are now," he pointed out. Steinberg argues that the formal, hierarchical and compartmentalized information strategies of the past need to be replaced with a new architecture that features flexible, decentralized networks of public and private information providers, analysts and users. He said the U.S. government needs to carefully assess its vulnerabilities against the capability of terrorists, and that the nation must also adopt clear, public guidelines governing the collection, retention and dissemination of information, in addition to developing strong procedures for oversight and accountability. Global poverty and the lack of economic development in many countries will also require some creative thinking. "As part of the post-9/11 world, I think there is growing recognition that the challenge of development is not an issue on the margins, or just a humanitarian challenge, but one that is deeply connected to global security, global health and the global economic system," Steinberg explained. Eager to explore how the information technology revolution can help poor nations advance, Steinberg said that information communications technology can bring new ideas to those outside the global mainstream, advance specific development objectives and foster broader economic development. He also wants Brookings to take the lead in exploring Americaís turbulent relationship with the Islamic world. "There is such a profound failure to communicate between the U.S. and the key governmentsóand especially their publicsóthroughout the Islamic world that our ability to accomplish our long-term objectives is threatened," Steinberg said. "We just canít survive in a world in which most people in these countries see the U.S. as an enemy and threat. "This is going to be a very long-term challenge," he continued. "Itís going to take a very sophisticated answer. We have to understand much more deeply the forces of change in the Islamic world. The people there must see that the U.S. is on their side." Steinberg said he relishes the opportunity to participate in these debates from Brookings. "Itís always difficult to think radically new about the way we do business. There are a lot of institutional imperatives that favor change at the margins, that favor working under existing frameworks. But if you always proceed by incremental change you may never get an effective solution to the problems you face," he said. "Itís important to get policymakers out of the incremental box and to think seriously about big changes. We are determined to come up with leading ideas. Itís important to think about the broad agenda." John Shaw is a contributing writer for The Washington Diplomat.