The Fletcher School

One of the most popular classes at the Fletcher School is “The Role of Force in International Politics,” taught by Professor Shultz at 8:00 am on Mondays and Wednesdays. Despite its early hour, the class attracts a large number of students who want to understand why humans go to war, and whether there is anything that governments can do to make the future more peaceful than the past.

The Honorable Mitchell B. Reiss, Director for Policy Planning at the Department of State, President Bush’s Special Envoy for Northern Ireland, and a Fletcher alumnus launched his speech at The Fletcher School on October 6 with these questions. Reiss drew them from Kenneth Waltz’s classic text Man, the State, and War—required reading for Professor Shultz’s course—and applied Waltz’s theories to provide a practical framework for understanding the Bush Administration’s approach to foreign policy.

Reiss contrasted President Bush’s approaches to “evil-doers” and “bad regimes.” He said that while the United States has a responsibility to resist by any means necessary “evil-doers” who pose a threat to American civilians, the US has a number of policy options available to influence “bad regimes.”

Reiss also asserted that although many characterize Bush’s approach as “cowboy unilateralism,” it is in fact based on bilateral and multilateral partnerships. A recent Fletcher graduate later challenged this claim, inquiring as to why the US seems to oppose the rest of the world on issues such as the recent Iraq war, the Kyoto Protocol, and the International Criminal Court. Reiss replied that the US does have allies in Iraq, such as the U.K. and Australia, and that there would be opposition to these treaties in Congress regardless of who holds the presidency.

When Waltz wrote his book fifty years ago, he described competition between states as the primary cause of war. Underscoring the differences in today’s world, Ambassador Reiss said: “[O]ur greatest challenges possess more of a transnational and subnational character than an international one. Terrorism, loose nukes, chronic poverty and infectious disease, genocide and gross human rights abuses, fragile regions and failing states—these are all the defining threats of a new era.”

Thus, in addition to addressing the threats posed by rouge states and nuclear proliferation, Reiss also articulated the need to promote good governance, education, human rights, and international development in order to peacefully preempt threats that may be brewing in the Middle East and Africa. The Bush Administration strives to accomplish this through initiatives such as its Millennium Challenge Account and Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, US partnerships with the African Union, and United States Agency for International Development (USAID) projects.

Reiss emphasized the responsibility of the US to take an active role internationally. He stated that, “our status as the sole superpower obliges us to lead in world affairs.” Reiss also quoted a statement by Secretary of State Colin Powell that “multilateralism cannot work without leadership.” He concluded with an allusion to Waltz: “[I]n the absence of a world government, that leadership must come from a nation dedicated to building a future that is more peaceful than our past.”

After his presentation, Fletcher students and faculty challenged Reiss with questions about Iraq, Sudan, Israel, Iran, North Korea, Northern Ireland, and Russia. Demonstrating communication skills that he had cultivated during his years at Fletcher, Reiss responded diplomatically. Rahul Chandran, a first-year MALD student, asked about perception of the US in the world. Reiss acknowledged that the US international image is not what Secretary Powell would like for it to be, but posited that part of the reason for US unpopularity abroad is its unique position as a “hyperpower.” Rahul later commented: “It is encouraging that Dr. Reiss can maintain so much candor and coherence. It is a privilege to get to hear such insights in an intimate setting.”

Joy-Dee Davis, a second-year student, expressed concern about Bush’s policy of preemption, articulated in the National Security Strategy Statement. She commented that entering sovereign nations and using any means necessary to battle terrorism could be a violation of international law, and wondered whether this is the most appropriate way to build a culture of peace. Reiss responded that the US is cultivating relationships, sharing information, and working with other governments to combat international terrorism, which is a threat to everyone. Joy-Dee later said: “I appreciate the opportunity to pose a question to a high-level policymaker regarding my concern about the United States’ blatant flouting of international law.”

The global landscape has changed dramatically, certainly from the 1950s and especially since September 11, 2001. Security studies frameworks are useful starting points from which to understand threats, causes of war, and why states act. But the world is constantly changing, and we must take into account new actors, new technologies, shifting alliances, and the powerful influence of ideology and religion when planning national security policy. Ambassador Reiss provided a cogent argument for the Bush Administration’s approach to this new security environment, while incorporating a generous dose of traditional security studies theory. His Fletcher professors would be proud.

Article by Lilia Gerberg MALD '05