Stories
Stories
Getting Security Right
In his many years of teaching and research on the topic of leadership, HBS professor emeritus D. Quinn Mills developed a “natural concern” about America’s approach to foreign policy. “In MBA and Executive Education classes,” he notes, “we often focus on the actions and strategies of political leaders because they offer compelling examples that are familiar to everyone.”
Mills’s new book, Masters of Illusion: American Leadership in the Media Age (Cambridge University Press), is the result of a seven-year collaboration with University of North Carolina economics professor Steven Rosefielde. Their impressively researched volume challenges global leaders in government and business alike to push beyond culturally entrenched attitudes and sound-bite media analyses to develop effective strategies based on emerging geopolitical and economic trends, and on vital lessons from military history.
You argue that it is not the war in Iraq or Islamic extremists who pose the greatest challenge to U.S. leadership in the coming decades, but rather emerging trends in other regions. Could you briefly outline those challenges?
There is plenty of current evidence that the Russians intend to reassemble their empire in some form in order to have enough population, resources, and geographic positioning to reclaim their past influence in the world. We believe that by 2010, they will be building fifth-generation nuclear capabilities. The threat of nuclear aggression among powerful nations did not disappear with the Cold War; it remains a major challenge for the United States and poses a more serious danger than terrorism.
The Chinese have a strong economy and a huge population, and they are modernizing and arming themselves very quickly. Their intense nationalism is fueled by a deep sense of grievance about their treatment by Western powers over the last several centuries. Our view is that in the evolving competition for power and wealth among nations, China’s economic strength and authoritarian government will lead to heightened tensions with the United States and allies such as Japan and Taiwan by 2020.
What about Europe?
The European Union poses a less immediate challenge, but a real one nonetheless. There is an element of the European leadership that would like to extend the EU’s strong economic situation to include greater unity in a geopolitical sense, as well. The way to build unification among European nations is to identify a natural rival, and since we already have a number of critics in Europe, we are a natural target.
The EU has some work to do to organize itself, so it is less likely to challenge our position as quickly as Russia or China.
The book advocates an overhaul of American foreign policy based on a philosophy of “strategic independence.” What are the key features of strategic independence?
We are accustomed in the United States to a multilateral approach to foreign policy, because for the last 100 years, we’ve always had strong allies. China, Russia, and Europe all sided with us against Germany and Italy during World War II, but our role in the world is now considerably different, and we need to develop a foreign policy that is in tune with new realities. Strategic independence is a policy of determining what is best for our national security and letting go of obsolete doctrines such as “mutual assured destruction” — an outmoded deterrent in an era of nuclear proliferation — or alliances with other countries based on the assumption that they share our interests.
This is a concept that business leaders instinctively understand. They may have close relationships with suppliers, customers, or competitors, but ultimately the company must develop its own strategy and policies in order to survive in a global economy. Our political leaders seem to have a great deal of difficulty adjusting to realities that corporations have readily taken in stride.
What do you mean by “harmonism” and “convergence” as they relate to foreign relations?
Harmonism is the notion that if it weren’t for a limited number of troublemakers, everyone in the world would want to live very much the way Americans do. President Bush MBA ’75 believes that, and most, if not all, of today’s presidential candidates share the same view. We disagree. We think there are many people who have totally different values and approaches to life. We may not endorse those views, but if we don’t acknowledge them, we’re in for trouble.
Convergence is the theory that all nations will eventually gravitate toward some form of capitalist, democratic free enterprise. When former State Department policy planner Francis Fukuyama described the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War as “the end of history,” he was one of many who promoted what I consider to be a mistaken notion: that capitalism and democracy would triumph globally, and that it was only a matter of time until every nation looked very much like we do.
When we empower U.S. political leaders who believe in harmonism and convergence, we get the war in Iraq. There was nothing wrong with getting rid of Saddam Hussein and making sure Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. Where we went astray was in deciding we could rebuild Iraq in America’s image. That is a course of action based on Americans’ wishful thinking and ignorance of the reality of other cultures and value systems.
Are there comparisons to be made in the way business leaders and political leaders pursue their agendas in the global arena?
There are a couple of important parallels. Many U.S. business leaders, despite the fact that their companies are international, still do not know enough about markets and business practices abroad. Similarly, recent American presidents, presidential candidates, and legislative leaders have shown an appalling lack of knowledge and experience when it comes to other nations’ cultures, history, and economic priorities. Another factor both business and government leaders struggle with is the media’s tendency to provide the public with oversimplified or just plain inaccurate information about political, economic, or competitive factors in other countries. That complicates policy formation and makes it harder for interested constituencies to understand what is in the best interest of a company or of the country.
If you had a chance to pose a question to the leading presidential contenders, what would it be?
What is the United States’ rightful role in the world? That’s the most important question to address at this point in history. And they would likely say that our job is to promote democracy and peace. What they should say is that our job is to stay above the fray and try to keep the competing forces in the world from getting into too much conflict, especially conflict that may affect us.
Post a Comment
Related Stories
-
- 15 Dec 2023
- Skydeck
The Musts of 2023
Re: Allison Phillips (MBA 1988); Marcus Wedner (MBA 1988); Kelly Mackey (AMP 199); Brian Crombie (MBA 1988); Munir Merali (AMP 184); Teresa Clarke (MBA 1988); Jagruti Oza (MBA 1988); Karen Hung (MBA 1998); Scott O'Neil (MBA 1998); Guy Spier (MBA 1993); Jeff Brown (MBA 1983); Mike Depatie (MBA 1983); Elizabeth Pulver Castleman (MBA 1993); Linda Cardillo Platzer (MBA 1978); Roberta Sydney (MBA 1983) -
- 15 Aug 2023
- Forbes
Twelve Alumnae Named to Forbes 50 Over 50
Re: Lisa Tatum (MBA 1998); Depelsha Thomas McGruder (MBA 1998); Sarah Harden (MBA 1999); Suzanne Strassburger (OPM 53); Gina Bartasi (OPM 33); Tanya Lombard (AMP 199); Jessie Woolley-Wilson (MBA 1990); Geeta Aiyer (MBA 1985); Mala Gaonkar (MBA 1996); Aileen Lee (MBA 1997); Purnima Puri (MBA 1997); Deborah Quazzo (MBA 1987) -
- 22 Feb 2022
- HBS Alumni Bulletin
Breaking News
Re: Elizabeth Hansen (PHDOB 2019); Jonas Heese (Marvin Bower Associate Professor); By: Jen McFarland Flint; illustration by Dana Smith -
- 15 Aug 2021
- New York Times
You’ve Never Heard of the Biggest Digital Media Company in America
Re: Ricardo Elias (MBA 1994)
Stories Featuring George Bush
-
- 02 Nov 2013
- New York Times
As Bush Settles Into Dallas, Golf Tees and Family Time Now Trump Politics
Re: George Bush (MBA 1975) -
- 01 Mar 2011
- Alumni Stories
Decision Points
Re: George Bush (MBA 1975) -
- 01 Sep 2008
- Alumni Stories
Letters to the Editor
Re: Anthony Pell (PMD 20); Deryck Tweedley (MBA 1958); Ron Demer (MBA 1964); Rob Brokaw (MBA 1974); Mike Clement (MBA 1971); Murph Levin (MBA 1968); Ken Brasfield (MBA 1968); Andy Tobias (MBA 1972); George Bush (MBA 1975); Mitt Romney (MBA 1974)