22

Task ForcesThe Council sponsors an independent task force when (1) anissue of current and critical importance to U.S. foreign policyarises, and (2) it seems that a group diverse in backgroundsand perspectives may, nonetheless, be able to reach a meaning-ful consensus on a policy through private and nonpartisandeliberations. Once formed, task forces are independent of theCouncil on Foreign Relations and solely responsible for theirreports.

Through its independent task forces, the Councildemonstrates time and again its unique ability to convenehigh-level groups to help resolve or manage internationalproblems on a nonpartisan basis. Written simply andclearly and addressed to the experts as well as the inter-ested public, these reports make a difference. This year, anumber of task forces have had a particularly strongimpact.

The Independent Task Force on Cuba, chaired byBernard W. Aronson and William D. Rogers, issued a fol-low-on report that garnered as much interest as its firstinfluential report of 1999. The new report recommended

Council-sponsored independent task forces, Council Policy Initiatives (CPIs),and the Congress and U.S. Foreign Policy Program have over the yearsbecome major tools with which the Council has influenced policymakers andadvanced the foreign policy debate around the world and in the halls of Con-gress. The Center for Preventive Action, a major institutional priority, willdrive the much-needed search for concrete methods to prevent civil and eth-nic conflict in the complicated post–Cold War era.

Special Activities

Speaker Arnold Kanter, Senior Fellow, Forum for International Policy,Speaker Dov S. Zakheim, Adjunct Senior Fellow, Council on ForeignRelations, and Presider Alton Frye at the October 31, 2000, Meeting,“Council Policy Initiative on Humanitarian Intervention.”

23

Special Activities

that the United States move quickly to prepare for thenext stage in U.S.-Cuban relations, setting out a numberof useful steps—short of lifting general economic sanc-tions—that can and should be taken to prepare for thetransitions in bilateral relations and in Cuba. The reportcalls for new initiatives beyond recent congressionalactions, such as the sale of agricultural and medical prod-ucts and allowing all Americans to travel to Cuba.

The Independent Task Force on Brazil issued a letterand a memorandum to the president on U.S. policytoward Brazil, urging that the United States initiate with-out delay a thoroughgoing review of policy. The reportrecommends that the United States examine where it and

Brazil can work together on vital matters such as trade,drug trafficking, and regional security and move towardhigh-level sustained strategic dialogue with Brazilianleaders. Chaired by Stephen Robert, this task force wasextremely well received both in Brazil and in the UnitedStates and continues to generate massive interest amongthe press and policymakers. The task force will continuein a standby capacity, meeting at the call of the chair in theevent of significant developments as a result of thereport’s impact in Brazil. The task force report was alsotranslated into Portuguese.

Frank C. Carlucci chaired a task force on State Depart-ment reform that garnered intense interest at the highest

Edward P. Djerejian at the December 18, 2000, Meeting, “Videoconferenced Independent Task Force on Strategic Energy Policy: Challenges for the 21stCentury.”

24

Special Activities

levels. Cosponsored with the Center for Strate-gic and International Studies, the task forcepresented a plan of action to reform and revi-talize the Department of State, the forwardedge of American national security policy that,more than ten years after the fall of the BerlinWall, finds itself in a profound state of disre-pair. This task force did not attempt to reinventthe many findings and recommendations ofother blue-ribbon commissions but instead setout to synthesize the other reports into twobrief memos for the president and the secre-tary of state that articulate a “resources-for-reform” strategy to redress the department’sshortcomings.

The task force on U.S. policy toward NorthKorea, co-chaired by James T. Laney and Mor-ton I. Abramowitz, issued an important letter

to President Bush following the group’s fact-finding trip to SouthKorea and Japan. The letter urges full support for South Korea’sefforts at reconciliation with the North and recommends that theadministration pursue a verifiable elimination of North Korea’slong-range missiles, conduct a careful review of the 1994 nuclearaccord with Pyongyang, enhance U.S.–South Korea defense coop-eration, and continue robust trilateral coordination with Seoul andTokyo. This is the fourth set of recommendations by this task forcein as many years.

The central statement of the energy task force report, StrategicEnergy Policy: Challenges for the 21st Century, chaired by Edward L.Morse and cosponsored with the James A. Baker III Institute for

Public Policy of Rice University, is that we canno longer deny that we are in the throes of anenergy crisis. The report recommends that thepresident tell the American people about thissituation and make clear there are no easy orquick solutions. For many decades the UnitedStates has avoided adopting a comprehensiveenergy security policy, but today it faces theprospect of unprecedented price volatility andshortages. The report balances world energyrequirements, infrastructure constraints, envi-ronmental concerns, and domestic energy usechallenges and discusses in detail options andtrade-offs for near- and long-term policyactions.

Chaired by former Senator J. Robert Kerrey,the task force on Southeast Asia was formed outof concern that the untended problems in that

Speaker Bob Graham, Member, U.S. Senate(D-Fla.), and Speaker Brent Scowcroft,President, Forum for International Policy,at the October 12, 2000, Independent TaskForce Meeting, “Toward Greater Peace andSecurity in Colombia: Forging a Construc-tive U.S. Policy.”

Speaker Laura D’Andrea Tyson, Dean,Haas School of Business, University of California, Berkeley, and Presider M. DianaHelweg Newton at the October 24, 2000,Independent Task Force Meeting, “NewOpportunities for U.S. Economic PolicyToward Japan.”

25

Special Activities

region may erupt into developments of global proportionand threaten U.S. vital interests, as evidenced by some ofthe worst crises we have had to face since World War II—the Vietnam War, the Asian financial crisis, and Indonesianunrest, to name a few. U.S. engagement in Southeast Asia,and particularly with Indonesia, is a precondition for sta-bility and a necessary safeguard to minimize furtherpotential damage to fledgling democracies in the region.

The Japan economic task force, chaired by Laura D’An-drea Tyson, met over a two-year period to examine struc-tural reforms under way in the Japanese economy todetermine whether they were fundamentally changing theway business was being done in Japan. It issued a reportin October, coming to three broad conclusions: First, thereforms that have already occurred within Japan’s finan-cial system are in keeping with the interests and goals ofU.S. businesses; second, the United States could do aneven better job in fostering market liberalization in Japanby shifting its priorities from traditional and controversialbilateral trade targets to more multilateral processes; andthird, the United States should adopt a fresh approach inits economic negotiations with Japan to match the changesin the economic environment worldwide.

Frank G. Wisner II and Nicholas Platt are co-chair-ing a task force on India and South Asia cosponsoredwith the Asia Society on the premise that a broadenedengagement between the United States and India is

desirable. The task force will explore topics importantto the interests of both India and the United States inthe region. Ongoing troubles in Pakistan,Afghanistan, and Sri Lanka, for example, have adirect and continuing impact on India as well as onthe U.S.-India relationship.

The China and Russia economic task forces haveextended their work and will be issuing reports in the nextfew months and in the next program year, respectively.

Council Policy InitiativesThe Council undertakes a Council Policy Initiative (CPI) whena foreign policy issue is of current and critical importance butit seems highly unlikely that clashing views can be reconciled ina meaningful consensus by a task force. The goal of a CPI is tospark debate among interested Americans on key foreign policychoices in ways that can be easily understood by informed non-experts. CPI authors try to make the best case for each alterna-tive. To this end, the Council will publish a concise textcontaining the choices, written usually as speeches that a U.S.president could give, with a cover memo as if written by a keypresidential adviser, summarizing the choices and giving thenecessary historical and political background.

Project Director Alton Frye led a CPI on “Humanitar-ian Intervention: Crafting a Workable Doctrine,” which

Speaker Ronald D. Asmus, Senior Fellow, Europe Studies, Council on Foreign Relations, Speaker Morton H. Halperin, Senior Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations, Speaker Richard C. Holbrooke, Counselor, Council on Foreign Relations, and Speaker Richard N. Perle, Resident Fellow, AmericanEnterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, at the May 22, 2001, NATO Foreign Ministers Press Briefing, “What to Expect at NATO.”

26

Special Activities

addressed the dilemmas of humanitarian interventionthrough three different arguments, emphasizing themoral imperative to intervene, the strategic case to refrainfrom intervention, and the political prerequisite to bal-ance moral and strategic claims. The authors of the reportwere Holly J. Burkhalter, Dov S. Zakheim, Stanley A.McChrystal, and Arnold Kanter.

Congress and U.S Foreign PolicyProgramAn informed Congress is essential to an effective American for-eign policy, and an informed congressional staff is essential toan effective Congress. Reaching across party lines, the Coun-cil’s congressional staff roundtables provide a forum to discussmajor international issues under the Council’s tradition ofnonattribution.

Co-chaired by Thomas E. Donilon and Kenneth M.Duberstein, the Congress and U.S. Foreign Policy Pro-gram held more than 70 meetings on Capitol Hill, pro-viding a neutral setting for key congressional staffersfrom both houses of Congress to engage in nonpartisandiscussion of various policy matters. This year, the pro-gram hosted meetings on State Department reform, for-

eign policy priorities, how to deal with Beijing, freetrade, relations with Europe, and changing Arab atti-tudes toward Iraq, among others. Alton Frye directed theprogram.

Center for Preventive ActionThe Council founded the Center for Preventive Actionconvinced that preventive action is a desirable and attain-able instrument of U.S. foreign policy. Using expertknowledge, established networks, and the Council’sproven ability to run task forces and studies, the centerwill examine civil and ethnic crises around the world andpromote strategies and actions to preempt or mitigatedeadly conflict. The objective is to harmonize the contactsand influence of business, nongovernmental organiza-tions, and international organizations with the power ofgovernments in order to enable official actors to mobilizethe political will and forge the effective programs neededto avert or alleviate crises.

The center is being relaunched with William L. Nash asacting director, with an advisory committee chaired byJohn W. Vessey, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs ofStaff.

Speaker Carl M. Levin, Member, U.S. Senate(D-Mich.), and Speaker Jon Kyl, Member,U.S. Senate (R-Ariz.), at the September 25,2000, Campaign 2000 Debate, “Future U.S.Defense Policy and Military Spending.”