Donate NowHow is American national security like astronomy?
Prior to the 16th Century, Ptolemy's idea of an Earth-centric solar system dominated the scientific community for well over a thousand years. However, we view Earth today as one of many planets that orbit the sun, thanks to Copernicus' radical ideas. Bruce Jentleson, Duke University professor and State Department consultant, then applied this history to President Obama's National Security Strategy, released less than one month ago.
Jentleson argued that the United States' traditional mentality has been similar to Ptolemy's Earth-centric solar system: America at the center of everything and the rest of the world surrounding it. On the other hand, the new National Security Strategy is more Copernican; it views America as an important force in the world, but not at the center of the world. The global community does not and should not revolve around American culture, economics or power.
Thursday morning, the New America Foundation hosted a panel discussion unraveling the complicated issues within President Obama's new National Security Strategy. The panel described in lay man's terms the strengths and weaknesses of Obama's Strategy. Many of the panelists discussed the current Administration's interest in shifting the American public's idea of its standing in the world from one of dominance to one of cooperation. The implications of today's discussion highlight the increased importance of our work here at the Pulitzer Center.
Our work at the Pulitzer Center is particularly relevant in promoting public understanding of the global crises we all face. It informs public opinion on consensus-building when dealing with systemic issues, from the importance of water as a strategic resource to the impact of climate change on global communities. The focus on the shift from unilateralism to multilateralism "is not decline-ism," Jentleson explained, "It's just more realistic."
In the video below, panelist James Locher (former Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflicts) emphasizes the importance of consensus-building and "shared values:"
Easier said than done. Jentleson agreed with panelist Michael Lind (author of The American Way of Strategy) that consensus-building is an excellent alternative to the Cold War idea of centralized planning. Lind also argued that rather than simply patching the holes in outdated 1940s international institutions, the international community should design new institutions that operate more efficiently. However, Jentleson described the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference as an example of the pitfalls of what he dubbed "messy multilateralism." Very little was accomplished, and as Pulitzer Center staff member Summer Marion wrote, "[the conference] generated more heat than light."
While the new National Security Strategy does little to address the "how" question of consensus-building, the Pulitzer Center's reports on global threats continue to become more relevant to discussions on national security. As the threat of fragile states increases, the importance of our coverage of fragile states increases as well. In contributing to the global discussion on communal issues, the Pulitzer Center also contributes to the national discussion on security issues in ways that are becoming more and more relevant as the United States shifts toward a more consensus-focused model.
Christian Pelfrey is a senior at the College of William & Mary and the Pulitzer Center Summer 2010 Security Intern.