As President Barack Obama takes office, as part of a special feature Woodrow Wilson School faculty offer the new administration guidance on some of the key policy challenges facing the nation. In this latest installment of a series, School faculty address a number issues, including U.S. nonproliferation and arms control policy; global public health; and the president's management agenda. (Or, view previous faculty memos in this series).

Arms Control and Nonproliferation - Christopher Chyba, Professor of Astrophysics and International Affairs; Director, program on Science and Global Security

The immediate arms control and weapons proliferation challenges facing the Obama administration involve nuclear weapons, but there are other biological, space, as well as nuclear weapons issues that are not yet crises, but will worsen if they are not given attention on an ongoing basis.

In the nuclear realm, the administration faces bilateral, regional, and multilateral issues.  The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) that provides the underlying verification regime for U.S.-Russian nuclear arms reductions expires in December 2009.  A smart extension of the most important provisions must be found, despite the difficult U.S.-Russian relationship.  The North Korean and Iranian nuclear programs represent powerful and ongoing challenges to the nuclear nonproliferation regime, and ongoing threats to regional security.  Each of these slow-moving crises requires new efforts at solution.  

Finally, the administration must decide whether to work for U.S. ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) in time for the spring 2010 nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) review conference.  But whether Senate ratification is plausible by spring 2010, and how the CTBT interacts with overall U.S. nuclear weapons policy, remains to be determined.

The secretary of defense is required by law to conduct a review of the U.S. nuclear weapons posture and report to Congress by the end of 2009.  This Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) must reconsider a host of important issues, including nuclear deterrence, nuclear targeting strategy, arms control objectives, missile defense, and the nuclear weapons and weapons complex needed to support these requirements—including plans for replacing or modifying nuclear warheads, a topic fraught with technical issues and arms control symbolism.  The CTBT and START treaties are inextricably bound up with this posture review.  It’s clear from experience with previous posture reviews that significant change requires high-level White House attention to objectives endorsed by the president.

The NPR should also think through the connection between U.S. nuclear weapons and nonproliferation objectives.  The NPR process must mesh with a realistic vision for the future U.S. relationship with Russia, China, and U.S. allies--and how, within that vision, to safely reduce the number of nuclear warheads to much lower levels.  Clear discussions of U.S. nuclear intentions in the context of these important strategic relationships must take place on an ongoing basis with all these countries.

In addition, a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT) is a long-standing objective of the international community and another important part of the nonproliferation bargain, and needs to be seriously pursued.  Historically, negotiations over an FMCT have been tied, by China in particular, to discussions on arms control in space.  It is in everyone’s interests to minimize debris creation in space—space debris threatens every nation’s spacecraft, as well as the lives of our astro-, cosmo- and taiko-nauts.  The U.S. should pursue a ban on the testing of anti-satellite weapons; at a minimum it should pursue a limited test ban treaty banning the most environmentally dangerous (understood as the danger posed to orbiting spacecraft) tests.  

Finally, the U.S. should continue the ongoing work of strengthening and universalizing the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) to advance the global norm against the development or production of biological weapons.  In addition, international consensus must be found for a web of other prevention and response steps to mitigate the risks posed to human civilization by increasing biological power - without significantly curtailing the desperate need to use this power to combat infectious disease and improve food security.

Presidential Power and Constitutionality - Mickey Edwards, Lecturer of Public and International Affairs; former U.S. Congressman (R-OK)

All outgoing presidential administrations leave behind many items of great importance to be dealt with by successors.  It is rare, however, for a new president to be faced with the challenge - and the necessity -  of claiming for his office less authority than that exercised by the man he replaces.  Yet that is precisely the situation that will greet Barack Obama almost from the first moment of his presidency.

During the portion of President George W. Bush's presidency in which members of his own party controlled both the House of Representatives and the Senate, the Bush administration claimed the right to ignore federal law (a claim made by means of more than 1,100 signing statements to that effect) and did, in fact, violate federal law (authorizing electronic surveillance without the requisite court orders) with the assertion that as commander in chief during a time of war, he had inherent authority to do so.  Bush directed members of his staff (even former members, in fact) to ignore congressional subpoenas.  He authorized policies regarding the questioning of prisoners of war (an authority relegated under the Constitution to the Congress, not the White House).

Bush has been replaced by a man who taught constitutional law.  President Barack Obama has indicated on a number of occasions his disagreement with some of Bush's most egregious extra-constitutional claims of authority.  But he will be well aware that Bush, for his many faults, can nonetheless point to the absence of terrorist attacks on the United States after September, 2001, a fact Bush's supporters will use to justify the measures he put in place.

These are some of Obama's options: a discontinuation of the Bush administration's use of extraordinary rendition; closing American prison facilities at Guantanamo; exercising presidential vetos on the grounds that if he were to sign legislation with which he disagrees he would nonetheless be bound to follow the law; an insistence on court warrants before the executive branch conducts wiretaps.  And - something that will require a stiffer-spined Congress as well - a joint understanding within both the White House and the Capitol of where one branch's authority ends and the constitutional prerogatives of the other begin.

Nothing else -- no health care bill, no economic stimulus legislation, no energy independence initiatives -- will be of as great a long-term significance as whether or not Barack Obama restores the presidency to its proper role in American constitutional government.

U.S. Policy Toward Afghanistan - Amb. Robert Finn, Senior Research Associate, Liechtenstein Institute on Self-Determination; former U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan

A new administration could bring a new dynamic Afghanistan, enabling U.S. policymakers to focus on some of the areas that have consistently been identified as the major problems in Afghanistan, including corruption and lack of governance.   Afghan presidential elections in 2009 will be a referendum on President Karzai, who has been widely criticized for failure in these areas.  The U.S. government should help to ensure a free and fair election, one in which the several candidates who support a democratic and free market-oriented Afghanistan have an equal chance.  

One way to do this would be to push strongly for developing a trained and competent government bureaucracy.  Seven years after the U.N.-sponsored intervention in Afghanistan, there is still no government training academy and no objective structure for measuring the performance of government officials.  If Kabul cannot or will not do it, one or more provinces could function as model provinces for an improvement program, including education and guaranteed decent living wages for officials.  The Kabul government needs to take visible action against incompetence, corruption and involvement with the drug trade to reverse the growing disillusionment with its performance.  Words are not enough.

More troops are needed in Afghanistan, and recognition of the wider realities of Afghanistan is also necessary.  Pakistan is at least as much a problem as Afghanistan, with a central government that does not control significant elements of its security apparatus or territory and a population still in denial that the internal war now going on in their country is part of their problem and not simply a spillover from US efforts in Afghanistan.  The case needs to be made that al-Qaeda is the outside invader, and dialogue established with local leaders to end the violence that affects all who live in the region.

A separate issue is the nature of NATO involvement in Afghanistan, with reluctant allies sending troops that are handicapped by caveats limiting their participation and voters at home who in many cases are in as much denial as to the nature of their involvement in Afghanistan as those in Pakistan.  The new administration needs to share power, as it knows - and others need to share the burden.

In this regard, a new administration has a unique chance to chart a new course in relations with Afghanistan’s neighbors, both near and far.  The U.S. government's and NATO's efforts to line up access routes to Afghanistan need not be done in spite of Russia, but, if successfully managed, in consort with Russia.  It is time to stop ignoring the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and try to cooperate with it.  It has the population, placement and assets to make the difference in Afghanistan.  To do this, of course, the U.S. would have to convince Afghanistan’s northern neighbors that its goal is improving Afghanistan, and not wider strategic involvement in the tectonic arrangements of inner Asia.

Similarly, the pledge of the new administration to deal directly with Iran could utilize shared concerns in Afghanistan as an avenue to build a multidimensional relationship. Logistics, infrastructure development and the war against drugs are areas where Iran could be a partner instead of an enemy. The war in Afghanistan will necessarily continue for years, as the world community seeks to help Afghanistan become self-governing, self-sustaining and secure.  It is an essential conflict for the Afghans, and for us as well.  Now is the time to make new decisions to avoid the mistakes of history and hubris.

Democracy and the Rule of Law - Deborah Pearslstein, Research Scholar, program in Law and Public Affairs

With the backing of Justice Department legal advice that advanced a radically expansive view of executive power under the Constitution, the previous administration attempted to legalize a regime of detention, interrogation and trial that is now widely viewed as having undermined U.S. strategic interests in reducing the threat of terrorism.  Images of prolonged detention at places like Guantanamo Bay, and brutal torture at U.S.-held prisons like Abu Ghraib, have become prime recruiting tools for terrorist groups.  They have compromised our relationship with allies whose cooperation in global counterterrorism is essential.  And they have badly tarnished the United States reputation as a leading example of democracy under the rule of law.
 
The Obama administration is off to a fast and promising start in efforts to clean up the legal and political mess these policies have left.  Just days after taking office, the president signed much needed orders to close the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, suspend military commission trials, require all government agencies to comply with longstanding rules of humane treatment, and suspend badly flawed post-September 11 legal advice that helped to loose the executive branch from its obligation to comply with the law.  These orders are outstanding first steps – helping to weaken terrorists’ ability to rally forces against the United States, and to restore the United States’ reputation as a champion of human rights.  The decisions get tougher, and take longer, from here.
 
As newly formed administration task forces gear up to decide where current detainees should go, and how to design a sensible and lawful detention program going forward, it is worth keeping in mind the still salient warning of the great justice Oliver Wendell Holmes: “Hard cases make bad law.”  Decisions taken by the past Administration – ignoring our obligations under the Geneva Conventions to afford all detainees hearings upon capture, subjecting at least some fraction of detainees to torture and cruelty, transferring the detainees thousands of miles away from any area of active hostilities – have badly limited the lawful policy options available to resolve these cases. 

The taint of torture on some evidence may make it impossible to successfully prosecute some detainees who might otherwise have been lawfully detained pursuant to criminal sanction.  These cases are particularly hard.  In resolving them in and out of the federal courts, the new administration will accomplish a great deal if it does no more than prevent them from setting the baseline standard for counterterrorism detention in the years to come. 

Global Public Health - Adel Mahmoud, M.D., Senior Policy Analyst; former president, Merck Vaccines

Health is a major concern of human populations globally; it is at the front and center of development, social justice, and security.  The health of all touches us in many different ways and its current status can be summed up as “mission un-accomplished”.  The global and interdependent nature of health extends beyond borders and geography.  It is a multifaceted and complex challenge that has been met by fragmentary and politically-driven efforts.  We are at a crossroads, as we realize that considerable segments of the developing world will not achieve the Millennium Development Goals by 2015.  Continuation of business as usual or benign neglect will further the global gap in health and undermine global security.

America's historical and future pivotal role in promoting global health is an obligation and an opportunity.  It is the singular, most obvious mission for the new administration to begin repairing U.S. standing globally.  What is needed is to replace politically and philosophically determined policies with a recommitment to science, to serve the global population in its broadest sense. 

The health challenges faced require the application of the best American science and the conceptualization of the interface of fundamental, social and developmental pursuits.  But science alone will not achieve such desired results on a global level.  Equally necessary is American leadership.  In spite of the expanded financial and development assistance committed to global health, the field is fragmented and leaderless, with too many overlapping roles, responsibilities, and claims.  In the absence of a cohesive architecture for global health, the risk that fragmented, haphazard and competing interests will derail most of the achievements is real.  Money alone, even if much more is devoted to global health, will not do it.

U.S. leadership, therefore, based on a renewed commitment to science in partnership with people of the developing world as equals, should form the basis of a new approach.  It will take new organizational approaches both within the U.S. and globally to deal with the status quo, as piecemeal as it is.  Bold leadership is the most fitting role for the mission and destiny of the U.S.

The President's Management Agenda - Richard Keevey, Director, Policy Research Institute for the Region; Lecturer of Public and International Affairs

A new president always has a management agenda. Johnson had his planning programming and budgeting system; Carter his zero-base budgeting approach; Nixon his Management by Objectives; Clinton his National Performance Review; and Bush his Presidential Management Agenda.
 
Aspects of these agenda are still relevant today. But, President Obama needs to improve dramatically what I would call the four pillars of management: human capital; information technology; financial management; and decision-making.  He needs to insist on a better human capital recruitment, training and deployment agenda for the federal workforce. Better and savvier use of emerging information technology is critical so that employees can do their work more efficiently and effectively. Better financial management and oversight of the government’s assets is always essential. If one does not know what it has and how it accounts for it, it is hard to do the job - and presently the federal government is getting a failing grade in this category.
 
And finally, improvement must be made in how budgetary decisions are made to include expanded use of performance metrics. The government spends $3 trillion annually, and how it goes about making allocation decisions and measuring results is a hallmark of being a good steward of the country’s money.
 
In addition, to move his management agenda into the 21st century, the president needs to tackle four emerging challenges:
 
First, develop organizations that do not operate in the traditional hierarchical mode. Rather, embrace what is generally recognized in the private sector as collaborative-boundless networks whereby managers recognize that up and own is not the way to manage, but that managing across organizational and across jurisdictional boundaries is critical for success.  
 
Second, the federal government is highly dependent on contractors – partially because the human capital agenda has not been properly developed, but more important because the work of the federal government is so diverse and complex that it is critical that outside expertise be obtained. But, the government has been delinquent in how it manages its contract workforce that has led to excess costs and a disgruntled workforce. The president needs to direct his top managers to take a strategic view of how best to integrate and monitor the federal workforce with contractors so that all resources – government employees and contractors – can work as a team to achieve agency goals. We have no choice -- otherwise results will be severely curtailed.

Third, we live in a complex and dangerous world that requires a high level of security, but these security issues must be carefully managed to insure privacy. We must use technology smartly to protect our people and our assets, but the risk must be measured with a sensible concern for individual privacy. How one manages the integration of the two will be critical for the protection of our country, but also for the protection of our democratic society. The solution is not simple but proponents of both sides of the argument need to understand the problem and work for a viable solution.
 
And finally, the president must demand results and program accountability from his mangers. The culture of government must be honed so that individual mangers know the goals and objectives of the agency, and the need to achieve measurable results - because in the end results do matter, and our citizens expect the government to behave accordingly.