Think-Tanks Do the Things Diplomats Cannot Do

For several years already, the Russian International Affairs Council and the EastWest Institute have been working together on a project regarding Russia–U.S. cooperation in cybersecurity. Cameron Munter, CEO and President of EWI, shares his thoughts on the ways progress in bilateral relations could be reached, the purposes think-tanks address and the qualities a true diplomat would need.

For several years already, the Russian International Affairs Council and the EastWest Institute have been working together on a project regarding Russia–U.S. cooperation in cybersecurity. Cameron Munter, CEO and President of EWI, shares his thoughts on the ways progress in bilateral relations could be reached, the purposes think-tanks address and the qualities a true diplomat would need.

Before working at the EastWest Institute, you were career diplomat. And you’ve been working in diplomatic sphere for a long time. So has the job itself changed throughout the years?

RIAC and EastWest Institute seminar “Russia-US Cooperation to Combat Cybercrime and Protect Critical Infrastructure”

Yes, it has. I think we can now speak of a “new diplomacy.” And the new diplomacy gets further away from what I learned more than thirty years ago — we were taught traditional Westphalian diplomacy, the diplomacy of state-to-state interaction. It still happens, it’s still important, but there are many problems that are bigger than just state-to-state issues. Take the example of the environment, take the example of international crime or terrorism: these are questions where the problem does not respect state borders. Another important thing is that the people who engage in diplomacy are not just government people. It is sometimes NGOs, sometimes journalists, sometimes businesspeople. The task of diplomacy is now broader, and the participation is more diverse. This makes it much more complicated and much more difficult, but it is the only way to solve the existing problems.

With all the crises that are now taking place in the world, do you think that people expect more from diplomats? Is there more pressure than there used to be?

That’s a good question. I’m not sure what expectations are. In the U.S. there is a certain difficulty in that we are a very strong military nation, and you may have noticed that President Trump has selected many soldiers, many generals, to be his advisors. So this represents, at least in the United States, a faith in the military, and diplomats think differently than soldiers. I’ve worked very closely with soldiers, I’ve worked in Iraq and in other places. But there are certain tasks for soldiers and certain tasks for diplomats. And I hope that in the future people will look more to the tasks of diplomats. The second part of this question is who are these diplomats? Are they the same old people? In the old American diplomacy, they were white guys with white hair, just like me. Now the diplomatic corps have become more diverse: there are a lot of women, people of color, and people of different backgrounds. What is more, there are non-diplomatic approaches. I’ll give you an example. Before I left the diplomatic service, I had been ambassador to Pakistan. In Pakistan I had a very large aid budget to solve the problem of polio; we spent a lot of money, and we failed. After I left, I became a consultant for the Bill Gates Foundation. And the Bill Gates Foundation approached polio and public health in different ways. They are not smarter, they are not better, they are just different. I think, they will succeed by 2018, they will eradicate polio in Pakistan and in Afghanistan. To me this means that not every problem is a problem for the state diplomats. And this is just an example of how diplomacy changes, and that the expectations that people have for diplomats also change.

You now are head of a quite old think-tank. It seems that a lot of people are bit skeptical toward think-tanks as such, especially in Russia. In the U.S. it might be different as the tradition is a little older. What is the mission of a think-tank these days, and are they successful in accomplishing it?

RIAC and EastWest Institute Policy Brief “Suggestions on Russia-U.S. Cooperation in Cybersecurity”

I think we have to be humble and modest in our expectations. We are not the diplomatic corps. We are not a big company. So we have a small niche, as we say, but it’s a good niche. Now, EastWest Institute, where I work, is a little different than most think-tanks. Most think-tanks in the United States, the famous ones like Carnegie or Brookings — hire experts who write long books about public policy. Here is a book about global warming, here is a book about international crime, here is a book about Europe or something. Our think-thank is really more like a network. So what is expected of us? We bring people together and we talk. A think-tank can do this kind of thing differently than a government, because we are not official. We have a certain role, and we can try ideas that governments can’t. Even if people are skeptical, we can pave the way for governments to agree. That’s what you are doing too at RIAC!

Moving on along your career path, you did teach at a university. What should the IR-majoring students be taught? We studied mostly the “classic” books, the end-of-Cold-War books and those of the 90-ies. What could be relevant today?

I have very strong feelings on this. When I left diplomacy, I was hired to teach at a university in California, and my title was not “professor”. My title was “professor of practice.” So, “professor of practice,” what does this mean? It means that, in an undergraduate study course, you have eight semesters. Seven semesters you study exactly what you read in IR, traditional books by Henry Kissinger, textbooks, books about multilateral affairs, how does the European Union run, Huntington, philosophy, his Clash of Civilizations, etc. They are important, they are the intellectual grounding that people have. But I was only teaching the last semester, the eighth semester. And in my seminar, I said, “you know all those books you read? Push them aside. I’m going to tell you what it’s like to be a diplomat.” And I think both sides are important. So what I would teach them was the practice of crisis. Now, it’s important for people to understand that foreign policy is not diplomacy. Foreign policy is what the people in Moscow, the people in Washington decide to represent their country. Diplomacy is what you do with it, how do you implement it. So in my course, I would make my students go through a crisis. What happened in 1956, when Britain and France invaded Egypt and the Americans made them stop? What happened? I went back to 1989—what happened in Central Europe when the Berlin wall fell? I had them go through what happened in 2008, I took them with me to my embassy when I was in Belgrade, and the Americans recognized Kosovo, and they burned my embassy down. So we talked about it: what do you do? Do you look in your book to find out when your embassy is on fire? No. What do you do? What do you think about? What do you tell people to do? So my answer to you is that I believe a student who wants to study international relations needs both. You need the theoretical underpinning, you need the background, but you also need some exposure to what really happens.

Now imagine you have a number of well-educated graduates willing to work at your think-tank: who do you hire to work for the EastWest? What people do you want to work for you?

It’s interesting, because we have a mixture of people. We have some people who are program officers. Let’s say we want to do a program in India, and we want to talk with the Indians about their relations with China and the distribution of water—very specific. I hire someone who maybe knows something about India. Maybe he doesn’t even study international relations. Maybe he is an expert in hydraulics. Maybe he is a guy who is from Pakistan, and he speaks good Indian languages and Chinese language, or something like this. So I don’t look for whether you went to Harvard, or MGIMO, or anything like this. I look whether you have the specific quality. Secondly, we always bring with us people who are not specifically trained in the field. That is, I went to Lebanon to do negotiations with the Lebanese about their government—how they would form a government. I took with me three businessmen from Silicon Valley. Do they know about Lebanon? Nothing. Do they know about creative thinking? Lots. So, as we say, they thought out-of-the-box. So the answer for you is, there is no one kind of person I am looking for at EastWest. I am looking for someone who is bright, creative, and has certain skills. There’s no magic way to convince me. It is what happens at each time. To me, the question of character is more important than the question of brains. This may sound funny, but I think anyone can be smart. Not anyone can be empathetic. If you are talking to a guy in Iraq, and his mother was killed by your soldiers, you have to deal with him almost like a psychologist.

It’s kind of a prejudice, but sometimes it’s good to explain it: you have to have masculine and feminine qualities. You have to be able to be decisive. You have to have courage, but you also have to have empathy, the so-called “feminine” quality. You have to realize, when to show sympathy and when to show toughness? And in many ways, it’s the quality of an actor. You have to take on the role that you are given. Still, you have to be sincere. Because when you are doing diplomacy and you are not sincere, other people know it.

Yes, they feel it right away.

Flickr / EastWest Institute
Cameron Munter and Maria Smekalova at Russia-U.S. Cooperation in Cyberspace Roundtable in London

Say you are the Russian ambassador, I’m the American ambassador, and I read this message to you and I’m saying “we think this,” and I’m faking, making a face or something like that, you will say, “this guy is not serious.” But if I say “we are very angry that you have done this,” he writes a message back—“the Americans are very angry.” This is the point of this message. It has to be sincere. Because in this way, how does Moscow know what the Americans think is important? There are many jokes that diplomats are liars, it is very funny and ironic. If you lie, you are a terrible diplomat.

Speaking of what is important—now we have a long list of what we need to work on in Russia — U.S. relations. So, what are the first steps we take now?

The first thing the Americans are to do is to figure out what the Russians want. And speaking of the Russians—there’s not one thing that the Russians want. There’s many things: the interests of the Russian generals and Russian businessmen differ. We have to pay attention, we have to listen, we have to be able to hear, “what do they want?” I hope the same is happening on the Russian side. I hope the Russians as well are saying, “what do the Americans want? What do the Westerners want?”

Not a good place to start.

Not a good place to start. Just like when I was dealing with Pakistanis and Indians. They disagree on Kashmir. This is not a good place to start. So, what you then need to do is to find common ground. What do people in Russia care about that Americans care about? And one thing that EastWest works on is the question of counter-narcotics. There’s a drug problem in Russia, there’s a drug problem in America, and we bring in our friends from Iran, as it faces this issue as well. Where does it come from? Afghanistan. The Russians know a lot about Afghanistan, the Americans know a lot about Afghanistan and the Iranians — know more than both of us about Afghanistan. How do we work together? Even though we are sometimes suspicious—the Americans do not always love the Iranians — we know that when it comes to drugs, we have a common problem. So, when I think of Russia-U.S. relations, I think of the problems that Russia will face in five years, in ten years? What are the ways in which Russia might need help, and America would like to give help? If we believe that the common goal is a stable, democratic, prosperous Russia that gets along with its neighbors, how can we help? Probably it means we would like to work together against terrorism.

If you want to read the news, where do you go?

I go online. I start with the New York Times, because for me it is the paper of record in the United States. I make sure that I read other press: because I lived in Pakistan I read the Pakistani press, because I lived in Serbia I read Serbian, I speak German so I read German and French press as well. I want to get a sample of the world. But mainly, the paper I start with is the New York Times.

What book have impressed you the most, maybe IR-related, maybe not, maybe some non-fiction, that you have read?

It’s very hard to say, because I don’t look so much for the analytical books, but for the books that have a certain feel to them. As we want to understand President Putin, I read the biography by Fiona Hill. And then I read some fiction. I was reading a piece by the French writer Antoine de Saint-Exupery, where he writes about flying his airplane over the desert, and it reminds me of my time in the desert, when I worked in Iraq. So, my answer to you is a mixture of fiction, which is evocative to your heart, and history and biography, which is for your mind. And I believe strongly—my last message for you is: you need both. You need to work from the heart and from the mind. Otherwise, you can't conduct diplomacy effectively.

Interviewed by Maria Smekalova, RIAC Website editor