Nina Hachigian: Why Domestic Policy is Linked to Foreign Policy

Description: How does domestic policy link to foreign policy?

Question: How does domestic policy link to foreign policy?

Transcript: I don’t think people make that connection enough, but it was a really interesting thing in doing the research- that we found that many of the criticisms that are laid at the feet of these other powers are actually, at the end of the day, factors that the U.S. has a lot of control over. So, for example, there is- during a period- a lot of concern about more and more innovation happening abroad, so more innovation going to India or to China or to Russia. And, at the end of the day, that is a good thing for the United States because if, you know, an Indian scientist comes up with a cure for Alzheimer’s, you know, Americans will benefit by that. So- and there’s no ceiling to innovation that- and there’s any infinite number of ideas out there. But, the United States has to continue innovating here at home, and that’s where domestic policy comes in, so that if we do a better job of educating our kids, especially in math and science, a much better job, then we would be able to- we’ll be prepared to thrive in a future even where more innovation is happening elsewhere, but that’s true across the board. It’s true of healthcare, so jobs are moving overseas because we don’t have a healthcare system here that works. And entrepreneurs are less likely to leave their corporate jobs because they can’t take the healthcare with them, and workers who are displaced because of trade are more anxious because they also lose their healthcare benefits, so you know, those are just two examples, but there are many more about how if we get our act together here at home, we’ll do much better on the global stage.

Question: Why the disconnect and how can that equation be changed?

Transcript: I mean, to take your first question first, I think that- I think it’s a leftover. I think it’s a leftover from when we did live more in a world where you could separate the domestic and the international, and I think it’s really 9/11 that was a wake-up call to how things have really changed, but really, I mean, it’s technology that makes things different now. You know, technology is- you know- changes everything, but it’s also changing international relations, and it’s what makes global capital markets possible, and it’s what makes terrorists so powerful, and what makes disease, you know, able to transmit across countries so fast, because we travel so much now. So it’s technology that’s the ultimate driver, and I think we are just catching up mentally to the fact that things are different now. What can change it, I think, is a- well, particularly a President, a new President who sees it differently, and I think there’s some hope that, you know, our candidates might see it differently, and I think it’s just an education process. It’ll just be incidents- continued incidents and hopefully, not bad ones, that make Americans aware that we are now very bound to the world.

Question: Has Globalization been accepted by policy makers?

Transcript: I think policymakers differ widely on their acceptance of it. I do think there is a generational element to it, and I think that’s why Obama’s message is different- is resonating differently among young people. But I think that there are some policymakers who, I think, are able to accept and see change better than others. I think that’s a special talent that some people have- just to see the world and accept it as it is, as opposed to, you know, how it was when their mental maps were constructed. But I think people like Parag are key to being able to do that ‘cause they come to it without all that baggage of years of history where things were so different- I mean, things were so different during the Cold War. It’s a very different era we’re in now, and I think it’s off- it’s just a lot harder for people who lived through that, who were ducking under their desks, you know, during air raids than it is for people who grew up afterwards.

Question: Have we reached an era of non-polarity?

Transcript: Not yet. I think- I mean, the United States is still the world’s only superpower, and I think we will be quite powerful for some time, that we do have to lead in an entirely different way than how we have been leading if we want to maintain the security and prosperity of Americans. I think that’s really essential. That gets back to trying to see the world as it is, that we have these new, powerful actors on the stage who want respect, who want a say and who will have a say one way or the other, and I think the United States has to sort of leverage that power as opposed to fearing it. But I don’t see yet that we’re in an age of multi-polarity or non-polarity. I still think states actually have a lot of power- not as much as they used to, of course- but they still have a lot of power. For example, climate change- climate change is going to be solved by states, if it’s by anybody. It’s not gonna be solved by businesses, certainly. And it’s not gonna be solved by NGOs- they will help- both of those groups will help, but, ultimately, it’s countries that are gonna have to take the, the hard decisions.

Question: Is it fair for the US to ask developing countries to develop sustainably?

Transcript: I think politically, we absolutely have to get our act together first before we can ask anybody else to- before we can credibly ask anybody else to step up to the plate and do it themselves. I mean, the fact is that China and India cannot follow our path because the world cannot sustain it. But we have to switch off our current path before we can ask them to- with any- you know, with any hope of success. We’re really giving them a free ride now, in the fact that we have not been able to curtail- we haven’t even begun to be serious about curtailing our own carbon use.

Recorded on: 5/14/08