Daniel W. Drezner
"On Global Governance, Think Tanks, and Angelina Jolie"
The Fletcher School
Convocation Address
September 2007
It is a great honor for me to share this dais with Dr. Hormats, Dean Bosworth, and Ms. De Sola.
This holds particularly true for Isabel. She was a student of mine last year. I have very fond memories of her showing up at my first Statecraft lecture, because her cell phone rang during class. From past experience, Isabel knew that this was a pet peeve of mine. She cleverly evaded any sanction for this act of mischief…. so I just thought I would mention it now, at this venue, in front of everyone.
This will come as shocking news to some of you, but most professors like having an audience hear them speak. When academics were children, they didn’t imagine themselves accomplishing heroic sports feats; they imagined themselves giving commencement addresses. An opportunity to address this large and distinguished an audience is a rare treat for someone like me.
I feel like I am obligated to impart some priceless nugget of wisdom, something that can be of use to you for the rest of your lives. After racking my brain for six weeks, here was what I was able to come up with (take paper out of pocket)…. never, under any circumstances, buy a cheap mattress. You will spend a quarter to a third of your lives on this particular piece of furniture. If you buy an inexpensive bed to save some money in the short term, your back will remind you of this error for the rest of your life. Take it from someone who once made this mistake – always splurge on your mattress.
Now when I told the other professors at Fletcher about my big piece of advice, they looked at me a little funny. Some suggested that I should also talk about my current research interests and how they resonate with the Fletcher community. Fair enough. I have actually been working hard on three different topics: the future of global governance, the value of the foreign policy community, and Angelina Jolie.
These three topics would appear to be unrelated, but bear with me. There are some common themes at work here.
The first question that has interested me this summer is the future of global governance. Since the end of the Second World War, international institutions like the IMF and NATO have acted as a policymaker’s pacifier. They cannot replace national governments as the locus of authority in world politics – but they can make policymaking significantly easier. These organizations are designed to establish, preserve, and protect the global rules of the game. Multilateral regimes have promoted trade liberalization, nuclear nonproliferation, and other public goods. They are far from perfect – but they have helped to ensure relative peace and prosperity for six decades.
These institutions thrived during American hegemony, but everyone in this audience knows that world is becoming more multipolar. Market analysts talk about the rise of the BRIC countries – Brazil, Russia, India and China. By 2025, the National Intelligence Council projects that China and India will have the world’s second- and fourth-largest economies.
This tectonic shift will pose a challenge to the international organizations that have been in place for the past half-century. Unless rising powers are given greater voice in these institutions, their future will be uncomfortably uncertain.
The problem is that as difficult as it is to write the rules of global governance, it is even more difficult to change them. Reforming existing organizations is a thankless and mostly unproductive task. Nations in relative decline do not surrender power and privilege easily. This is why, despite repeated efforts, there won’t be seeing a revamped UN Security Council anytime soon.
Some propose creating new institutions, like a Concert of Democracies. The proliferation of rules and organizations, however, can undercut the legitimacy of all global governance structures. If great powers can forum-shop at will, it weakens the norms encouraging national governments to obey the rules in the first place. American analysts, for example, praise NATO while fretting about the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.
Scholars and policymakers are aware that there’s a problem with the future of global governance – but no one yet has a good solution.
The second topic that has piqued my interest has been an angry debate between the “netroots” and the “foreign policy community.” Let me explain those terms a bit. “Foreign policy community” refers to collection of policy wonks who populate DC think tanks, influential op-ed pages, and Sunday morning talk shows. “Netroots” refers to the collection of bloggers and online activists, primarily but not exclusively on the left, who oppose the war in Iraq.
As you can imagine, the netroots are not really big fans of the Bush administration. But their real invective is directed at those analysts who opined about the Iraq war before it started. According to the netroots, the foreign policy community lacks any genuine expertise beyond self-promotion. Because they desire positions of power, they are reluctant to say anything that is seen as out of the mainstream. They are therefore guilty of numerous sins: corruption, careerism, and imperialism. The netroots are very angry that members of the foreign policy community have not suffered for pre-war errors of omission and commission.
Most members of the foreign policy community remain unaware of this indictment – which only gets the netroots into a deeper lather. Those who have responded, however, point out that the current netroots critique echoes how neoconservatives blasted the foreign policy community in previous decades. They further argue that being right for the wrong reasons (“Bush is like Hitler”) is not such a noteworthy accomplishment.
The final topic that has really grabbed my attention is Angelina Jolie – but it’s not what you think. I’ve been writing an article about the rise of celebrity activism in world politics. This kind of “star power” has been around for decades now, but there is something different about the latest wave of activism. The rise of soft news outlets, like MTV, ESPN or TMZ.com, allows many Americans to tune out world news. Soft news gives celebrities entrée into an audience that policymakers can’t crack.
Savvy entertainers have exploited soft news to push their issues to the top of the global agenda. Bono helped secure African debt relief in the Jubilee 2000 campaign. George Clooney and Angelina Jolie raised the profile of Darfur in the United States. On environmental issues, Al Gore has been more successful as a celebrity activist than he ever was as vice president. Some of you might be wondering if you should have attended USC’s film school instead of the Fletcher School.
Global governance, think tanks, and Angelina Jolie: what do these issues have in common?
They are all about challenges to established order. The reason that there is a global governance crisis right now is that the rising powers are not coming from North America or northwest Europe. China matters now in a way that they haven’t since the year 1500. India is being treated like a great power for the first time in modern history. The cliché about Brazil has always been, “it’s the country of the future and always will be.” Well, the future is now.
The netroots critique represents a challenge to the established policymaking order within the United States. Think tanks still matter, and their expertise is a valued commodity. The netroots, however, have amassed a lot of political influence over the past few years. Presidential candidates cannot dismiss them lightly – so they matter for policymakers.
The growth of celebrity activism also represents a challenge to the old policymaking order. When Sharon Stone attends the World Economic Forum, or Angelina Jolie is made a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, it suggests that there is more than one way to become a global mover and shaker.
There is another common theme that runs through these phenomena – the challengers are not necessarily better than the challenged. The long stretch of American hegemony has left a bitter taste in many parts of the globe. A China-led international system, however, would not necessarily be more comforting. Africa is now feeling the effects of China’s expanded influence – and Beijing is experience significant amounts of blowback in the continent. It will not be long before concerns about “American exceptionalism” are supplanted by concerns about “exceptionalism with Chinese characteristics.”
The dogmatism of the netroots should worry anyone who values open debate. Leading online activists speak admiringly of the neoconservative movement’s ability to squelch opposition through unrelenting attacks against their critics. Looking at netroot websites, they have put this admiration into practice. Unrestrained vitriol is, unfortunately, a useful tool when trying to maximize political influence – but it is a lousy way to think about foreign policy.
As for celebrities, some are competent in their activism, and some are… something else. For every Bono, there is a Mel Gibson.
My favorite celebrity idea from this summer was singer Peter Gabriel’s co-sponsorship of a group called “The Elders” – eminent persons like Desmond Tutu and Jimmy Carter. According to their website, The Elders will, and I quote, “use their unique collective skills to catalyze peaceful resolutions to long-standing conflicts… and share wisdom by helping to connect voices all over the world.” Now I like the idea of Bishop Tutu standing in the West Bank, holding a boombox over his head, playing “In Your Eyes” over and over again until the Israelis and Palestinians relent. But I’m not holding my breath on it working.
Is this a cause for despair? Not necessarily. Rising powers have the capacity to check the worst excesses of the established order – and vice versa. I do not want the netroots in charge of U.S. foreign policy – but I quite like the idea of them acting as a guard against establishment groupthink.
For all three topics, a mixing of challengers and challenged can provide the best of all worlds. It could also lead, however, to an unstable balance of power. And this, finally, is where you, the Fletcher students, enter the picture.
In attending the Fletcher School, you have made it clear you wish to belong to the foreign policy community. According to the Student Handbook, you aspire to positions of leadership and influence. You want to make the world a better place.
At the same time, you are all young enough to have avoided taking for granted certain assumptions that really old people – like me – have imbibed since birth. You should, at least, have some sympathy with those who challenge the orthodoxies of world politics. This gives you the potential to act as mediators between emerging powers and the establishment.
Let me close by quoting the Elders again. One of them – Mary Robinson – said that, “part of the wisdom of The Elders is to remind the young of values.” Well, part of the wisdom of Fletcher students should be to remind their elders of alternative points of view. Speaking from personal experience, in my first year here I learned as much from you as you may have learned from me. I am grateful for the exchange.
As you begin your year here at Fletcher, I encourage you to learn as much as possible. Be aware, however, that insight and understanding can come from many sources. A lecture hall does not have the monopoly on wisdom. For some of you, if greater understanding can only come from face-to-face interactions with Angelina Jolie or George Clooney, well, that’s a price you must be willing to pay.
Thank you very much.