When ABC News’ Martha Raddatz asked four national security thinkers to list top priorities for the new administration, discussion at the U.S. Institute of Peace “Passing the Baton” conference swung quickly to the pros and cons of disruption—specifically, President-elect Trump’s spontaneous declarations, via Twitter, on foreign affairs. 

panel

“I’m going to try to be polite,” said former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright in the first of three panel discussions that made up part of the conference Jan. 9 and 10. “I’m very concerned about the tweets.” Policies are shaped by careful work and explained to other governments via diplomatic channels to ensure clarity and accuracy, she said. The tweets risk “destroying” systematic work of government systems, Albright said.

Admiral James Stavridis, the former NATO commander, said social media posts have a place in a communications strategy, but off-the-cuff presidential tweets could disrupt chains of command. “Let’s say a tweet appears that says ‘Hey, the next Iranian gunboat that crosses the bow of a U.S. Navy ship is going to get blown out of the water,’” Stavridis said. That “has an effect, all the way down to that young commanding officer” in “rules-of-engagement moments. … You potentially kind of create this short circuit,” he said. “I think it can be the same in diplomacy” or economics.

“Let me actually embrace the tweets,” said the Atlantic Council’s Frederick Kempe. “Unpredictability … can be useful politically “on many issues.” Still, “on the global stage, the U.S. has to be predictable. Its allies have to know where it stands. Its adversaries have to know where it stands.”

The “overarching” question for Kempe was, “Can we save, adjust, reinvigorate the global system of practices, values” that has included a cohesive Europe but is threatened by Russia and by upheaval from the Middle East? China’s role in weakening or strengthening a rules-based international regime will be critical, he said. 

For Stavridis, cyber security will be a big challenge. “In cyber we have the greatest mismatch between the level of threat—which is quite high—and our level of preparation, which is quite low,” he said. 

Senator Tom Cotton offered three “priorities that would fundamentally advantage the United States in strategic competition.” He suggested “substantial increases in our defense budget” and a “thorough-going review of our strategic posture,” notably in nuclear armament, because of recent Russian and Chinese nuclear-weapons developments. And, he urged, “accelerate the shale revolution in American energy production” to strengthen the United States as “a global energy superpower.”

Related Publications

Ethiopia’s Problems Will Not End with a Military Victory

Ethiopia’s Problems Will Not End with a Military Victory

Tuesday, November 24, 2020

By: Aly Verjee

As violence continues over control of the northern Ethiopian region of Tigray, Ethiopia’s future remains unsettled, even if the conflict ends soon. Achieving the federal government’s security objectives in Tigray is unlikely to resolve both new and entrenched political challenges, and already delayed national elections, now expected in 2021, may prove a severe test of Ethiopia’s political order, and consequently affect broader regional stability. Reconciling the electoral process with efforts for reconciliation and national dialogue is now even more imperative.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Conflict Analysis & Prevention

Looking for Trouble: Sources of Violent Conflict in Central Asia

Looking for Trouble: Sources of Violent Conflict in Central Asia

Wednesday, November 18, 2020

By: Gavin Helf, Ph.D.

This report offers a road map for understanding the most likely sources of violent conflict in the post-Soviet nations of Central Asia—ethno-nationalism and nativism, Islam and secularism, water resources and climate change, and labor migration and economic conflict. The analysis draws from emerging trends in the region and identifies the ways in which Central Asia’s geography and cultural place in the world interact with those trends. It suggests that the policy goals of the United States, Russia, and China in the region may be more compatible than is often assumed.

Type: Special Report

Conflict Analysis & Prevention

The Best Hope for Sustained De-escalation in Syria

The Best Hope for Sustained De-escalation in Syria

Wednesday, November 18, 2020

By: Mona Yacoubian

As the conflict in Syria approaches its 10th anniversary, a holistic political settlement encompassing the entirety of the country is unlikely in the near to medium term. More than eight years of diplomatic initiatives have yielded only limited results. The two principal tracks—the Geneva and the Astana/Sochi processes—are running up against the complexity of the conflict and an emboldened Assad regime; neither process is sufficient on its own to generate momentum toward a lasting political settlement for the whole of Syria. However, creatively bridging these two processes could bring greater stability to those areas of Syria still beyond the Assad regime’s control, assuaging the suffering of some Syrians, and potentially serving as a building block for a longer-term settlement.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Conflict Analysis & Prevention

View All Publications