The Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, undertaken last year by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, was to issue an interim report “early this year,” then “in April.” It seems to have got stuck in a dispute over State’s authority over development assistance.
Modeled after the Defense Department’s Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), the purpose of the QDDR is noble: “Through aligning policy, strategy, authorities, and resources, the QDDR will provide the blueprint for our diplomatic and development efforts. The end goals are unified smart power; clear, mutually reinforcing State and USAID roles and missions; and tangible organizational change leading to excellence in performance.”
As it stands, the exercise seems to be living up to a quip that Anne-Marie Slaughter, State’s policy plans chieftain, made in a forum last year: “I hope the ‘Quadrennial’ part doesn’t refer to how long this is going to take.’”
The draft, surprisingly, has not leaked to the press as a draft study by the NSC, the Presidential Study Directive on Global Development Policy (PSD-7) has done.
That means the public knows little beyond the fact sheet and the names of internal working groups what the study is envisioning for diplomacy. The Defense Department Review is based on broad thinking about the challenges to be faced; nothing indicates whether that sort of work has been done for the QDDR.
Perhaps the planners are taking the National Intelligence Council’s (NIC) 2025 Project as their baseline projection. But that’s two years old. They can’t count on an Obama Administration National Security Strategy either. Still not out.
If the Beltway media are right that bickering over budget control and staff are dominating debate, that’s a pity. Consider what the State Department’s official mission statement says it is supposed to be doing.
Advance freedom for the benefit of the American people and the international community by helping to build and sustain a more democratic, secure, and prosperous world composed of well-governed states that respond to the needs of their people, reduce widespread poverty, and act responsibly within the international system.
The QDR takes a broad (perhaps too broad) approach, analyzing the threats to our citizens, before addressing organizational lineups and resources. The Department of State could too. State holds deep expertise in questions affecting ordinary Americans — the rise of new economic powers, the scarcity of clean water and other natural resources, armed threats from overseas, global migration. Let’s hope there is unseen debate at this level, too.
Othwise, the imbalance between the nation’s military power, which the Defense Secretary admits is unsustainable with our budget deficit, and its diplomatic capabilities will only widen.
