|
The focus my remarks is information technology and internationalism. Among those of us who are internationalists, we are always concerned about what might be called the "American question" of whether the U.S., which is now the world leader in terms of economic and military strength, is going to live up to its responsibility as a global power, or whether we are turning isolationist and plan to abandon our friends and neighbors in trying to solve problems around the world. If you look at what has been going on in the United States Congress recently, like the defeat of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, you might conclude the latter. What I want to look at is how internationalist sentiment in the U.S., is being affected by the main force of this new era, namely globalization and advances in information technology. That can then help us see what we all can do, including the third sector, to promote the continued cooperation and understanding that are essential to meeting the challenges we face in the coming century. A lot of the questions about isolationist tendencies in the U.S. come from polls and reports of American ignorance of and inattention to international news and foreign policy. In the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations' recent public opinion study (of which I am a co-author), there is evidence of this. Interest in news about U.S. relations with other countries has declined since its peak in 1990. On a list of what people think are the biggest problems facing the country, foreign policy-related matters represent the smallest percentage of total problems in 20 years. When people were asked to mention the biggest foreign policy problems facing the country, the most common response was "I don't know." Other findings that contribute to fears of isolationism in the U.S. include the decline in the percentages of people who see a vital interest in many countries around the world. And, reluctance to commit troops abroad leads many to conclude that Americans are turning inward. No hypothetical situation presented in the Council study, including invasions of Saudi Arabia, Israel, South Korea, Poland or Taiwan, generated a majority of support among the public for sending troops. These and other findings can create a gloomy picture. Yet, on the question "Do you think it will be best for the future of the country if we take an active part in world affairs or if we stay out of world affairs?" -the benchmark measure of internationalism-the public has not swayed from the solid, nearly two-thirds majority that have favored an active part for the U.S. in world affairs since 1974 when the study began. Other findings also demonstrate support for internationalism, including support for participating in peacekeeping operations through the United Nations, NATO and defense spending. So how can we reconcile these responses? If you look at international economic issues rather than traditional security matters, we find some clues. For example, 63% of the public said that economic strength was more important than military strength in determining a country's overall power and influence in the world. 54% said that globalization, especially the increasing connections of our economy with other around the world, is mostly good for the United States. 66% believe that foreign policy has a major impact on our overall economy. What this shows is that the basis of internationalism is shifting, from a security-focused phenomenon to an economic one. People are recognizing global economic interdependence and connecting this with the need to be engaged. The findings show that support for globalization correlates with stronger support for many types of international engagement, including an active part for the U.S. in world affairs, participation in U.N. peacekeeping operations, support for paying UN dues, favoring economic aid to other countries and maintaining our current level of commitment to NATO. So for those who fear a new isolationism among the American public, I think we can be encouraged by the finding that the forces of globalization, which are generally viewed as positive, are working against that tendency. What's going on in the Congress is a different problem, which I will come back to in a minute. The process of globalization has been driven, of course, not only by the policies of expanding international trade that were pursued throughout the Cold War, but by the advances in information technology, which have caused the explosion of information and channels of communication we now have available, including the Internet. This has brought globalization into peoples' homes and offices. (By the way, access to the Internet is now 50% in the U.S., and 9% in Germany.) The Internet is allowing people to have instant pen pals, poker buddies, business partners and other interaction with people from anywhere in the world as well as access to a world full of information, products and services. It would seem to follow, that in addition to the evidence we have that globalization broadly fosters greater internationalism, people's participation in or use of the information technology integral to the process, the Internet, would be a further boon to internationalism. Indeed, two of the reasons a majority of Internet users say the Internet is a good thing are that it brings together people with similar interests, and it allows them to get information that is unavailable anywhere else. Celinda Lake, president of a research and polling service, did a study on public investment in computer technology in the classroom. According to her, when people in focus groups explained why they thought this was important, they repeatedly mentioned the ability to get a more international education-for their kids to have a pen pal in Russia, for example. It was not a small thing to these parents: it was part of their understanding that young people won't get good jobs in the future if they have no exposure to the international realm. So whether or not people are actually using the Internet for international information and contact, it is clear that information technology in all its forms-is seen a positive force and has contributed to the general appreciation of global interconnectedness. This makes it easier for people to identify themselves with humanity as a whole as well as with a nation, and, as noted by Steven Kull in his book on the myth of isolationism, it leads Americans to be responsive to arguments that make a bridge between national values and global values, especially in a long-term framework. I have an example of that if we want to come back to it. While we may be cynical about the American public's relative lack of knowledge or even interest in foreign policy, the underlying values of our society and the awareness of our interconnectedness to the world which has been made stronger by the process of globalization and the information technology that drives it, do make it possible for opinion and policy leaders to generate support for policies of international engagement and cooperation. It really becomes a question of leadership, which brings me back to Congress. The defeat of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and the jeopardizing of our UN dues payments are the latest moves that have led to questions about whether we are turning isolationist. There has been a disconnect between leaders and the public, with many leaders believing Americans are more isolationist than they really are. But I don't think the problem is one of pre-meditated isolationism on the part of Congress. The nuclear test ban treaty and U.N. dues payments have been sacrificed to purely partisan politicking. This kind of politics is not just a problem for international policy, but for domestic policy as well. One of the effects of globalization that has been theorized is that as the power of multinational corporations, nongovernmental organizations and global financial markets becomes increasingly more significant, the power of national governments to control or shape events declines. This is an idea we need to guard against. If the power of government to shape events is allowed to decline either by choice or by inaction, globalization will not be a positive force. We need policies that protect privacy, that police anti-competitive practices, that provide job training and safety nets for people who are displaced. We need safeguards in the financial and capital markets, protection for the environment, cooperation through international organizations to help those around the world that need it, and antidotes to violence and aggression. To frame the discussion of U.S. leadership today in terms of isolationism versus internationalism is missing the point. As the forces of globalization become stronger, the question is really about defining the role of government or the state in this new era, a theme that has been coming up over and over again at this conference. This new era is extraordinarily complex. There is a lot of learning and educating that needs to be done to come to grips with it. The third sector will play a large part in this, and it must also adapt to the realities of the information age. While the channels of communication and the availability of knowledge and information have greatly expanded, there are two consequences of this: first, the quantity of information is not necessarily related to the quality of information. Second, the sheer volume of it places an extraordinary demand on our time and attention. As noted by Joseph Nye in a Foreign Affairs article, "A plentitude of information leads to poverty of attention." In order to "add value" to the debate, organizations will themselves need to globalize-band together, cooperate and better integrate the various information and knowledge they generate, making connections across specialties to create a bigger picture. That bigger picture includes knowing that globalization cannot fulfill its promise separate from the state and that the public will support an active U.S. leadership role in shaping this new era. |