USIP President Jim Marshall spoke at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) on March 11 for the release of a new report, “U.S. Navy Humanitarian Assistance in an Era of Austerity.” Marshall delivered the keynote address and participated in a panel discussion with Admiral (ret.) Gary Roughead (Hoover Institution), Rear Admiral (ret.) Thomas Cullison (CNA Institute for Public Research), and moderated by CSIS’s Dr. J. Stephen Morrison.


The report is the product of a year-long effort led by Admiral Roughead and the CSIS Global Health Policy Center. It argues that U.S. Navy proactive humanitarian engagement—missions that go beyond U.S. Navy response to natural disasters to include more sustained and strategic engagement through planned aid projects—is valuable and should be continued. The report further notes that under increasing budget pressure, the performance of these missions must be enhanced, long-term sustainability must be taken into account, and the Navy must find ways to clarify goals, demonstrate impact, and improve funding practices and policies in the future. Moreover, the report calls for expanded planning time that integrates a wider range of actors, including with other U.S. government agencies and potential nongovernmental (NGO) partners.


In his keynote, Marshall underscored the importance of “soft power,” especially during a time of federal budget constraints. He argued that sustained programs like U.S. Navy proactive humanitarian engagement are important pieces of U.S. foreign policy and national security interests. Nevertheless, Marshall said, a core challenge now is how to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of these programs and, importantly, how to communicate impact to funders—notably the U.S. Congress. Marshall argued that in today’s fiscal and political environment, in which it is increasingly difficult to convince many in Congress and elsewhere of the value of funding foreign aid, “it’s never been more important to demonstrate the effectiveness of soft power” as a means to advance U.S. interests. In particular, he underscored the need for planners and funders to reassess the appropriate mix of military and civilian capabilities in meeting U.S. soft power objectives.

While the military can and should play a key role, adequately funding civilian engagement projects over potentially more costly military deployments could lead to meeting core objectives at lower cost. Leveraging capabilities, increasing budget flexibility, and legitimizing the actions of partners and actors—particularly those that are low-cost, high-impact—across a variety of sectors are increasingly important to meeting these goals.

Explore Further


Related Publications

What’s Next with North Korea?

What’s Next with North Korea?

Tuesday, August 13, 2019

By: Frank Aum; Ambassador Joseph Yun

It’s been over a month since President Trump became the first sitting American president to set foot in North Korea. After months of stalled talks, this third Trump-Kim meeting was greeted with optimism, as the two leaders agreed to resume working-level negotiations. Not only have those talks not started up again, but North Korea has since conducted several missile tests in what many experts believe is a bid to maintain pressure on Washington and Seoul.

Mediation, Negotiation & Dialogue

A Primer on Multi-track Diplomacy: How Does it Work?

A Primer on Multi-track Diplomacy: How Does it Work?

Wednesday, July 31, 2019

By: Jennifer Staats ; Johnny Walsh; Rosarie Tucci

If you asked someone to define diplomacy, chances are they would describe two governments meeting, shaking hands, sitting at a table, and negotiating an official agreement. But that more traditional view of diplomacy is only one iteration, often called track 1 diplomacy. Diplomacy can occur in a number of forms, or “tracks,” that engage various participants, from academics to policymakers to heads of state. In an increasingly complex global environment, peacebuilders and diplomats looking to address difficult policy challenges are increasingly incorporating track 1.5 and track 2 dialogues—often referred to as “back channel” diplomacy—into their strategies.

Mediation, Negotiation & Dialogue

View All Publications