Privatization of Foreign Policy Initiative

The Privatization of Foreign Policy Initiative examines the growing influence of non-state actors in the design and execution of U.S. foreign policy. The initiative approaches the world today with a simple, yet controversial proposition: that while the era from 1648-1991 represented the era of the nation-state; the period from 1991 to the present increasingly represents the era of the non-state actor. Growing limitations on the scope and reach of state power, coupled with a revolution in communication technology and the ongoing process of economic and political liberalization, are allowing non-state actors to play an increasingly vital and active role in nearly ever facet of international relations. The motivations driving these actors’ efforts vary greatly -- from altruism and ideology to profit -- creating significant dilemmas and opportunities for policy makers. As non-state actors continue to gain greater influence in U.S. foreign policy, we believe that policy-makers must learn to adjust to this new reality.

The goals of the Privatization of Foreign Policy Initiative are to:

Document and examine the increasingly influential and important role of non-state actors in the foreign policy process;
Foster greater awareness and debate about the consequences of this phenomenon for both policymakers and private actors alike; and
Contribute to an overarching, macro-oriented framework for understanding the role of non-state actors in global affairs.

The project will explore a number of questions surrounding state-non-state actor interaction. Among them: In what ways are non-state actors affecting the design and implementation of U.S. foreign policy? How should states respond to their increased involvement, including new frameworks for collaboration and regulation? What are the significance and the impact of “market-driven non-state actors” on foreign policy (a critical yet under-researched issue)?

The Privatization of Foreign Policy Initiative was launched at the World Policy Institute, The New School in March 2005 and joined the American Strategy Program at the New America Foundation in October 2006.

Staff
Articles

Staff

Co-Directors:

Maria Figueroa Küpçü
Senior Research Fellow, American Strategy Program

Michael A. Cohen
Senior Research Fellow, American Strategy Program

Articles

Now Who Loves America More? It's Not the GOP

Twenty-five years ago, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Jeane Kirkpatrick famously lambasted Democrats as "blame America firsters" and a party plagued by "self-criticism and self-denigration" of America. It was a speech at pace with an emerging political stereotype that suggested Democrats weren't quite patriotic enough and didn't love their country as much as Republicans did. This image of Democratic weakness and self-doubt became one of the most effective attack lines for Republicans -- and Democrats' greatest political liability.

Michael A. Cohen | Politico | October 14, 2009

McChrystal's Full-Court Press on Afghanistan Is Improper

Civilian control of the armed forces is one of the most sacrosanct tenets of American democracy. It assures us that military decision-making will be subordinate to the larger strategic perspective of our nation's elected -- and ultimately accountable -- leaders.

Michael A. Cohen | New York Daily News | October 4, 2009

The Powell Doctrine's Enduring Relevance

Once upon a time, there was a grand and influential foreign policy doctrine. It was based on some traditional notions about U.S. statecraft that placed severe constraints on when America went to war. It asserted that when the United States used military force, it must do so in overwhelming fashion and only in the service of vital national interests. For any military action, it counseled the dispassionate weighing of costs and benefits, recommended that policymakers have clear, realistic and achievable political objectives, and called for the

Michael A. Cohen | World Politics Review | July 22, 2009

Where the Real Fight Is

The conventional wisdom in Washington -- and the core of U.S. President Barack Obama's "Af-Pak" policy, which he announced in March -- is that Afghanistan is now the central front in the conflict formerly known as the war on terror. Pakistan is essential too, of course, and indeed, the thinking goes, you can't have a successful Afghanistan policy without a successful Pakistan policy. The problem with this conventional wisdom is that it gets the situation entirely backward: The real fight is in Pakistan, not Afghanistan,

Michael A. Cohen, Parag Khanna | Foreign Policy | July 16, 2009

Momentum Key for Health Care Bill

Throughout the 2008 presidential campaign, the one criticism heard perhaps more than any other from Republicans was about the cult of veneration that had developed around Barack Obama. He was the “second coming,” the Democrats’ “messiah,” a preening “celebrity,” the political ads joked. But the GOP might have been on to something. For Democrats and their ambitious domestic agenda, it’s all about Obama.

Michael A. Cohen | Politico | June 22, 2009

All Articles & Op-Eds | All Related Content | Program RSS Feed