Amitai Etzioni Notes

White House Council for Social Advisers (CSA)

The suggestion that the President may wish to add to the White House’s existing bodies a Council of Social Advisers (CSA) has two versions. One, suggested by Fritz Mondale, and one outlined here.

1.    Mondale’s version of a CSA

Mondale’s goals for CSA are:
•    The establishment of a Council of Social Advisers (CSA), modeled on the Council of Economic Advisers, to assist the President in the formulation and direction of national social policy.

•    The submission by the President of an annual Social Report to Congress, prepared by the CSA and comparable to the annual Economic Report.

•    The creation of a Joint Committee of Congress to review the President’s annual Social Report just as the Joint Economic Committee exercises oversight in the field of economic policy.
Mondale’s objectives are

•    To provide an arm’s-length perspective on the nation’s social needs and conditions, free from the vested interests and tunnel vision of federal agencies and pressure groups.

•    To bring the expert knowledge and prestige of prominent social scientists to bear on the task of developing social information and the tools of social measurement.

•    To create a highly visible, public forum for the discussion of social goals and priorities capable of attracting the attention of the nation and with direct access to the President.

•    To ensure that the analyses and recommendations that emerge are subject to the review of the legislative branch, the academic world, and the private sector.

•    To develop effective social indicators for identifying social needs and for illustrating the progress—or lack of it—being made in meeting them over time.

•    To provide a framework for improving the coordination of social programs.

In short, Mondale saw it largely as a social statistical agency.

2. Our version of a CSA

We envision the goal of the CSA as to advise the President on all matters of social policy other than those concerning economics or security. These include policies that strengthen the third sector, especially the country’s hundreds of thousands of voluntary associations and civic bodies; that encourage faith based work within the confines of the 1st Amendment; that promote the fulfillment of civic duty via agencies such as the Peace Corps, Vista, AmeriCorps, the Teacher Corps, and the Citizen Corps;  promote understanding and dialogue among social groups that differ in their social backgrounds, identities, and beliefs (including racial, ethnic, and sexual orientation);  promote assimilation of new immigrants while assisting them in maintaining their sub-cultural heritages (i.e., promoting diversity within unity); promote community organizations;  promote dialogues about our responsibilities to one another, to the nation, and to the inchoate global community.

The CSA will be composed of social scientists who have shown a capacity to develop public policies. It could incorporate several existing bodies such as the White House Office of Faith Based and Community Initiatives.

To measure and call attention to the social state of union, the CSA would publish an annual report on various social indicators such as the number of Americans who served as voluntary firefighters, emergency medical technicians, or in other forms of volunteerism; the amount of funds raised for social purposes by various foundations and charities; and the number of hate crimes committed, among others, along the lines of the Mondale proposal.

For more information, contact Amitai Etzioni at etzioni@gwu.edu or (202) 994-8190.

Bush Legacy: A well done for Libya

As President Bush is packing, a review of his legacy is starting in earnest. Much of it is troubling at best, and all too often, it is profoundly regrettable. However, he deserves kudos for the way his administration dealt with Libya. Even more important: It suggests steps the next administration should consider in dealing with other rogue states.

In 2003, Libya ended its support of terrorism, compensated the victims of a previous attack, and, most importantly, dramatically announced that it was voluntarily dismantling its nascent nuclear program and other weapons of mass destruction programs. Indeed, Libya’s centrifuges and mustard gas tanks, as well as some SCUD missiles, were loaded onto a U.S. ship and removed. Sensitive designs of nuclear warheads were transported on a chartered 747 to the United States. Thirteen kilograms of highly enriched uranium were moved to Russia (America has no blending-down facilities for uranium), and chemical weapons shells were destroyed. Tripoli has been credited with helping the United States to shut down a global black market for nuclear weapons technology run by the Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan. In short, major contributions to international security were made on two important fronts: nuclear deproliferation (vastly preferable to inspecting facilities still in place) and prevention of terrorism.

All this was achieved without firing a shot, in part because in this case no attempt was made to change the regime. Libya was allowed to maintain its form of government, although now that the security goal has been achieved, Libya is encouraged to move toward a regime that respects human rights and is based on free elections.

Applying the Libya Lesson to Iran and North Korea
Both Iran and North Korea are reported to have sought non-aggression treaties or security guarantees from the West as part of a deproliferation deal. Selig Harrison of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars reported that Iran, during 2004 negotiations with the “European Three,” offered guarantees that its nuclear program was “exclusively for peaceful purposes,” in exchange for an understanding that the West would provide “firm commitments on security issues.” Similarly, North Korea has repeatedly put security guarantees on the table as one of its conditions for halting its nuclear weapons programs.

There is no way to determine a priori whether Iran and North Korea made these offers in good faith or merely to gain time in order to further expand their nuclear programs. From their view-point, however, one can readily see the reasons these regimes might seek such a deal. Both nations are facing military bases belonging to the United States and its allies close to their borders. If the United States and its allies were willing to remove those bases and provide assurances that they would neither attack directly, nor indirectly subvert these harshly authoritarian regimes, one can see why their governments would be willing to give up their nuclear weapons programs.  The only way to find out if this analysis is valid is to offer such a deal seriously.

One thing, however, is clear on the face of it: One can hardly expect these governments to consider seriously a deal that would remove those currently in power, the very same ones that must agree to the deal—which is exactly what regime change entails. It would be like demanding that Bush turn over the reins to Gore, or replace the U.S. Constitution with Islamic sharia!

The deal that the Obama administration should consider can be simply put—if you deproliferate and cease supporting terrorism (the Libya formula), we will leave your regime intact—and it is less bitter than it might initially seem to some. It would not mean that the West must engage in some kind of Faustian bargain and give up its liberal soul to purchase security. Regime change is coming on its own in Iran soon enough, and has already come in some form in most communist states—North Korea, granted, is an exception.  In Iran, many reporters have found that the majority of the population rejects the mullahs’ strict theocratic rule and would prefer modern political and economic life along Western lines (from consuming alcohol to sporting popular consumer brands).  In spite of the mullahs’ bellicose foreign policy pronouncements, their authority is waning.  And there is much more conflict among various factions of mullahs than is commonly acknowledged in the Western media. Furthermore, Iran has started to liberalize its economy, which in the longer run tends to undermine politically authoritarian regimes. 

 Finally, we must face the fact that no matter how much money and effort the United States and its allies expend, they cannot make such nations into liberal democracies. As we have seen time and time again, the West can easily topple Saddam or the Taliban, but it cannot establish a liberal-democratic regime in their place. Hence, there is little to be lost and much to be gained by providing security guarantees and other rewards in exchange for deproliferation, and an end to harboring, financing, and equipping terrorists. Obama’s big tent should have room for acknowledging that in Libya, the Bush Administration did well, and its approach is well worth extending to other rogue states.

   

New Consensus: Pakistan is the hot spot

What a difference a few weeks—and a few new reports—make in assigning priorities to protect the world from WMDs. Until a few weeks ago, a report by four leading statesmen—Henry Kissinger, Charles Schultz, Sam Nunn, and William Perry—was all the rage. They argued that the place to start making the world safe from nukes was Russia and the United States. If these two superpowers would move toward zero stockpiles, the other nuclear states would follow. When we argued (Wrong Priority) that the nuclear hot spots are failing states (especially Pakistan) and rogue states (especially Iran), we got little traction.

But this was a few weeks ago. Now we are pleased to report the conclusions of the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism. It states: “Were one to map terrorism and weapons of mass destruction today, all roads would intersect in Pakistan.” And “Pakistan is an ally, but there is a grave danger it could also be an unwitting source of a terrorist attack on the United States — possibly with weapons of mass destruction.”

Most importantly, we find in the National Threat Initiative’s report, Securing the Bomb 2008, that:

Pakistani security systems face immense threats, from nuclear insiders, some of whom have a demonstrated willingness to sell practically anything to practically anybody, to armed attack, potentially by scores or hundreds of jihadis. In at least two cases, serving Pakistani military officers working with al-Qaeda came within a hair’s breadth of assassinating former president Musharraf. If the military officers guarding the President cannot be trusted, how much confidence can the world have in the military officers guarding the nuclear weapons?

[N]uclear stockpiles in Pakistan face immense threats, both from nuclear insiders (some of whom have strong jihadi sympathies and a demonstrated willingness to sell nuclear weapons technology) and from outsider attack. Pakistan is now al-Qaeda’s world headquarters, and that in itself makes it a frightening location for nuclear weapons and weapons-usable materials.

One Pakistani nuclear expert estimated that some 10 percent of Pakistan’s nuclear scientists were sympathetic to violent Islamic extremists. Serving Pakistani military officers have cooperated with al-Qaeda in at least two assassination attempts on former president Musharraf—raising the possibility that military officers guarding nuclear weapons might do the same.

Finally, we read in Foreign Policy magazine’s 2008 Terrorism Index, a poll of top US foreign policy experts, that “For a majority of the experts...instability is making Pakistan a country fraught with risk. A large majority, 69 percent, of the experts considers Pakistan the country most likely to transfer nuclear technology to terrorists.”

If these reports do not convince the new foreign policy crew that Pakistan deserves first priority in the drive to prevent terrorists from getting their hands on WMDs, nothing will.

Bad News Vaclav Klaus

Vaclav Klaus, the president of the Czech Republic, is taking the helm of the EU. He will serve as EU President for next six months, as of January 1, 2009. This is not necessarily good news for Europeans, Americans, or any one else, given that my encounters with his oversized ego are rather typical for him.

The following is excerpted from My Brother’s Keeper (Rowman and Littlefield, 2003):

The hostile reception new communitarianism encountered from some of the Czech leaders mirrored concerns initially raised by leaders and intellectuals in other former communist countries when they were first exposed to our message. It also reflected the particular position of its prime minister, Václav Klaus. Klaus has been credited with the quick transition of the Czech Republic from a communist to a capitalist economy. He defines himself accurately as an extreme Milton Friedmanite and has taken great personal umbrage to my book The Moral Dimension, which challenges libertarian assumptions of Friedmanite economics. When Klaus ran into me during the World Economic Forum in Davos in 1997, he grabbed my lapel, waved his index finger in my face, and announced in a booming voice, “You are crippling my republic! You are undermining what we are trying to do! You do not understand that egoism and the profit motive are the best part of human nature. You work for those who want to return my country to communism!”

Fortunately, I was aware before this encounter that understatements and mincing words were not Klaus’ trademark. Rather than punching back, I tried to calmly defend the communitarian position. My main argument was that by providing people with a strong but community-based social fabric, they would not react to rough and tumble capitalism by running back into the arms of a communist-ordered social life.

After the translation of my first communitarian book, The Spirit of Community, into German, Klaus joined a seminar I was conducting in Alpbach, Austria, for the European Forum in 1998. For a short while, he listened, but then he pulled out a prepared statement and read in a voice that vibrated down the corridors, and up the Alps.

Communitarianism... in its aversion to individualism and its advocacy of coercive means of fostering human association, is another form of collectivism.

Klaus next voiced concern alluded to by other leaders of previously communist countries:
 

Communitarianism wants to socialize us by forcing us into artificial, not genuine, not spontaneously formed--groups or groupings.

Communitarianism cannot win through preaching only.... they try to reach the legislators and to legislate the world according to their dreams.

By this time the seminar was familiar with our viewpoint. It seemed that most present considered Klaus’s barrage to be way off the mark. It made it easier for me to respond gently one more time.

After the seminar Klaus and I went for a long stroll and then joined a few others for a lunch that lasted nearly three hours. It soon became obvious that Klaus’s bluster was skin deep. He rushed to emphasize that “there was nothing personal in my statements” and that “I just enjoy debating.”

During lunch he regaled us with stories about his boxing days, about testing a new racing car and other daredevil acts he was involved in. When others chimed in with their anecdotes, Klaus would soon work to recapture the center of attention. It did not take a psychologist to figure him out. Moderation, whether as a brand of communitarianism or lifestyle, did not suit Klaus’s personality any more than a society could be based on his extreme libertarian principles. The fact that his government fell apart, despite his very considerable economic achievements, suggested that there might be more room for communitarianism in the Czech Republic than Klaus favored. (It would not take much.)
 
The best evidence to that effect was the leadership of Václav Havel. When Klaus heard that Havel had invited me to participate in his Forum 2000, Klaus simply said, “He is not my kind of a guy!” and for once Klaus was very much on the money. Every bone in Havel’s body--and more importantly, the depths of his soul--is dedicated to the civic society and, through it, to his version of communitarianism. Havel carried his vision not merely to his people but to large parts of the world, through speeches that have won him great acclaim and following.

I was very much looking forward to exchanging ideas with him. On arrival in the pompously elegant, baroque Prague Castle in which the Forum took place, I found that Havel was surrounded by VIPs, including Hillary Clinton, Henry Kissinger, Adam Michnik (a flamboyant, well-known Polish dissident), Wei Jingsheng (a leading Chinese dissident), a bishop, a chief rabbi, and an Indian poet-philosopher who kept reciting the same poem about the inner beauty of lotus flowers. Moreover, Havel was absent from a good part of the proceedings; his staff explained that his health required that he rest frequently.

When I finally found myself alone with Havel, I found that his command of English was not much better than mine of Czech, in which I could not so much as buy a Pilsner Urquell. I did, though, not leave Prague completely empty-handed. I brought with me the text of a new address by Havel that we published in our quarterly The Responsive Community. In it, Havel predicted that in the next century the nation-state would cease to evoke the kind of emotional and irrational commitments it had in the past. Loyalty to the state would instead be divided among families, communities, and organizations of which we are members. Above all, he called for a commitment to principles higher than the particular interest of this or that nation, especially to human rights, freedom and human dignity, which Havel suggested are a reflection of an “infinite” and “eternal” force.

I have no firsthand evidence to support my hunch that the Czech people’s views lie somewhere between Klaus’ hostility and Havel’s natural communitarianism. Possibly, as the distance from the communist days increases, Czechs will find it less onerous to acknowledge their own communitarian bases and expand on them.

One thing I can conclude with much confidence: citizens of all former communist societies cannot go long without some new, shared moral understanding. Those in older capitalist nations need them too, but their absence is merely more glaring in the vacuum left by collapse of communism. Communitarianism has a lot to suggest to these people--especially if we are better able to show to that it has no affinity whatsoever to communism.

Red vs. Green Infrastructure

Not all infrastructure has been created equal. Some parts are yesterday, and should be relegated to the famous dust bins of history rather than cemented into our future. Their light is blinking red—stop investing in them, as much as is politically possible. The best examples are those elements of our infrastructure that serve cars and encourage the use of fossil fuels. Contrast them with green industries, led by providers of public transportation and of sustainable energy sources such as wind and solar power.

To sharply separate the elements of red and green infrastructure is not some academic exercise, although I grant you that professors thrive on making such distinctions. At issue is nothing less than the Christmas list that Obama is preparing for us in the form of a massive stimulus package. He plans to introduce a major “infrastructure” program of which he spoke in a radio address on December 6: “I have asked my economic team to develop an economic recovery plan for both Wall Street and Main Street that will help save or create at least two and a half million jobs, while rebuilding our infrastructure, improving our schools, reducing our dependence on oil, and saving billions of dollars.” However, there is no clear indication which kinds or elements of infrastructure will be favored versus left out. Observers report generally that “It’s now clear that Obama intends to stimulate the economy through large direct government spending on infrastructure projects as well as through business and individual tax cuts.” However, they do not report on any distinctions between various elements of the infrastructure, whether you call them red and green or otherwise realize that they greatly differ from one another in terms of the place they ought to have in our future.

You may say, “Wait a moment, I heard Obama repeatedly stating that he will make green jobs, support green industries, and work for energy independence.” True enough, but these welcome moves are not part of the infrastructure package, but additional measures to which we are told about 10% of the funds, or $50 billion, will be dedicated. Good idea; however, this does not mean that we should refrain from asking to what the majority of the funds will be dedicated. News suggests at least initially much of the funds will go to red infrastructure, which may be unavoidable, but one could add

green conditions. “Public works” may indeed be needed, but let’s make those green ones, too. For instance, just granting money to states and localities will not do; strings should be attached ensuring that funds will be dedicated to green infrastructure and not to favorite projects that serve the automobile.

The list is not difficult to draw: Busses and passenger vans should be on the green list, not cars. Hence no funds for highways, roads, and bridges unless they first set aside bicycle lanes and diamond lanes for public transportation. Funds for light rails are green. The same is true for new sources of energy, domestically generated, and for fixing our antiquated electrical grid. Not so for loans to nowhere for auto makers.

One can differ about what exactly is to be included in the green list, and for which elements of our infrastructure the red light should be flashing. However, hopefully, as we respond to the questionnaires Obama and his team are emailing to people, we will be sure to note that the grand drive to improve the infrastructure of the nation should let the old elements wither away, and promote those a 21st Century economy requires.