If we are able to observe in the afterlife the accuracy of the statements that we made while on Earth, there must be no one more blessed with eternal happiness than the Spanish philosopher George Santayana, whose famous observation, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it,” is confirmed every day.
Right now, Santayana must be particularly delighted with our colleagues at the Heritage Foundation, who, it appears, have forgotten yet again how important educational and cultural exchanges have been for America’s security, public diplomacy, and international leadership. The foundation’s October 28, 2010, Backgrounder on Budget and Spending proposes eliminating these programs entirely (along with many other worthy international programs). This is particularly dismaying because, only a few years ago, NAFSA cosponsored an event with the Heritage Foundation and others at which leading experts made a strong case for placing international education and exchange at the heart of America’s public diplomacy efforts. In 2008, when NAFSA released International Education: The Neglected Dimension of Public Diplomacy, which advocated more resources and a strengthened role for exchanges, Heritage’s Jim Carafano wrote: “The association has to be commended for bringing attention to a vital issue impacting on national competitiveness. Americans need to pay attention.”
Exchanges were an integral component of America’s strategy to construct a secure post-World War II international order and to ensure that the values of free nations endured. At the end of the Cold War, a new Republican Congress forgot the past and declared exchanges to be no longer necessary. Programs were decimated by draconian budget cuts. Ironically, it was a Republican administration that rediscovered the virtues of these programs. In the aftermath of 9/11, President George W. Bush understood that although the Cold War was over, the battle of values wasn’t—and would never be. Under his Presidency, and with the cooperation, initially, of a Republican Congress and then of a Democratic one, exchange programs enjoyed a renaissance. Now, apparently, we are forgetting once more, and a new Republican Congress is being presented with an agenda that again declares these essential programs to be obsolete.
Those of us who value and defend educational and cultural exchange must recognize that we share part of the blame for this unfortunate situation. We all too readily jump on whatever bandwagon exchanges are riding at the moment—whatever talking points work in the battle for our appropriation—and so we are at risk when the political winds shift, the political agenda changes, and new talking points drive the debate. I well remember, when I worked for the House Foreign Affairs Committee, those halcyon days when Members of Congress couldn’t introduce exchanges legislation fast enough. Why? Because, the argument went, the Soviet Union was in some sense outdoing us in this field, and we had to compete and catch up. These were wonderful taking points—until there was no more Soviet Union. We were left without a rationale, and the consequences followed.
What is the rationale for exchanges today? We must do a better job of articulating this. After 9/11, we want people to like us, not to hate us. We’ve had a merry ride on the appropriations bandwagon as our political leadership added more funds to the exchanges budget every year so people would like us. All of these funds are necessary, but our rationale is insufficient to sustain them. Our rationale isn’t as powerful as the programs—and that is a dangerous situation. We are all delighted that whenever the President, the First Lady, Secretary Clinton, or Under Secretary McHale touch down in a foreign land, a standard element of their talking points is, “We need more exchanges with this country.” That is important—but it’s not a policy.
Ultimately, the enduring value of exchanges lies in the reality that America is bound to the global community—that our security, our freedom, and our well-being are bound to the security, freedom, and well-being of others. As NAFSA said in the aforementioned paper, this was the vision that drove the postwar generation of foreign policy leaders—that “America’s security lay in a secure world, where people were free to pursue their aspirations for themselves and for their children.” That is still the case today—and exchanges are as essential to building and sustaining that vision today as they were then. And as long as there is international politics, they always will be. This is a vision that does not obsolesce, and that can survive the vicissitudes of politics. But to ensure that it does, we must make sure that our exchange programs are conceived, structured, and conducted to advance this vision.
To quote NAFSA’s public diplomacy paper again,
When Congress began to downgrade [exchange] programs at the end of the Cold War, deeming them no longer a priority, it was excising the connective tissue that binds the American people to the world’s people.
It was a mistake then; it is a mistake now. Last time, we understood our mistake only after we made it. This time, let’s remember the past before we repeat it.
Thanks for the post Vic!
I too was surprised to read about the Heritage Foundation’s position in their recent Backgrounder. In the March 20, 2009 issue of the Backgrounder (http://bit.ly/dkNWrx), Bruce Klingner argued that North Korea may be the most intractable foreign policy challenge facing President Barack Obama. Klingner offered several policy suggestions for the U.S. to consider beyond the six-party talks including, but not limited to, expanding public diplomacy efforts including facilitating “formal student and cultural exchange programs.”
Also of concern to me are recent statements made by Senator-Elect Pat Toomey [R-PA] a week before the elections on both Fox News and CNBC about proposed budget cuts to Federal international education programs as a way to offset some of the cost of the tax cuts he proposes. Video of both interviews with Toomey where he discusses this issue were embedded in the following IHEC Blog post http://bit.ly/cPvorQ
Well I certainly hope that the importance of exchanges rise back up. I can remember my parents sending me on exchange when I was in middle school and we had students from China when I was in college. It seems only natural for me to prepare my children for the same wonderful experience.
I truly believe that having the expereince to visit and live among another culture was part of molding me into the truly liberal and flexible person that I am today. I was a wonderful learning experience and it showed me that other cultures are the different but have the same basic needs as I.
While those who have had international experience value it, recognize the benefits they’ve gained for themselves, and see the contribution to the nation these programs make, they should also convey to their members of the Senate and the House their own views on these programs. Constituents can shape the thinking of members, and are the best advocates for the programs. And where possible, a short op-ed, or letter to the editor, of local papers can also reach a lot of influential readers, included elected officials. We need to step up our efforts to broadcast the importance of these programs at a time that America’s competitiveness in the global setting is not assured without broadening the bandwidth of American students’ experiences and knowledge bases.
It seems to me that the public space in which we now debate policy has become very muddy – I’m not sure how else to say this; but as someone who has lived and worked in Washington DC for a long while, it’s obvious that the process of “influencing” policy-making has become more complex. It’s not necessarily like it used to be – as Naomi infers. Write, visit Congressional offices, etc. It used to be like that. Is that enough today? The level of discourse about all policy matters has grown so coarse and partisan that I’m just not sure how easy it is to apply rational advocacy methods to influence public policy. NAFSA has always taken the very high ground as do our members when it comes to “making the case” for continued support for international education. But, after the elections, who is or will be listening to rational thinking on the Hill? I’m pessimistic that it’s going to be any easier to identify members who are open to civil and rational debate on issues that matter to our field.
Marty -
You make good points about the changes in American politics and governance. Given those, it is likely that we now need to influence those who influence Congress if we think federal funds can be increased (at a time like this); or we need to seek alternate means of support (as institutions are doing); or new models of internationalization (on which some organizations are currently working). That said, traditional means continue to be pursued by advocacy groups, with some success. And the absence of positive advocacy could result in worse outcomes. Naomi
I have been wondering also about seeking alternate means of support for these programs as Naomi mentions. If these programs are as wonderful and vital as we all believe (and they are), why can we not begin to wean ourselves from government (taxpayer) support and begin making the well documented case that we are required to make to DOS/ECA anyway to other potential supporters? This way, our vital programs and their results continue, but not at the whim nor the expense of government/taxpayers/Congress.