The Foreign Service Journal, December 2016

36 DECEMBER 2016 | THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL play a key role in Eurasian economies well into the next decade, a more vigorous and strategic U.S. economic engagement in selected non-Russian states can provide some basic alternatives to policymakers in these capitals. Looking Ahead to 2017: U.S. Policy Options The 115th Congress and the next administration will have piles of briefing books on their desks during their first days in office. ISIS, Syria, China, India, global pandemics and climate change will all compete for the limited time and attention of senior policymakers. However, Russia’s continued recalcitrance, Ukraine’s stability, the Baltics as a NATO outpost and succession concerns in Central Asia should all focus policymaker attention on Eurasia, which is vital to U.S. interests. Moreover, policymak- ers should look at the region as a whole, not broken into artificial bureaucratic boundaries. Make friends and influence people . Leadership succession decisions loom throughout the region, and U.S. policymakers should be prepared. This will require deep knowledge of competing political parties and clans, their business interests, and the views of weak and fractured civil societies. Repeat FSO assignments, investment in true area expertise and language competency in the Eurasia region should be encouraged to form lasting networks as mid-level decision-makers mature into the countries’ elites. Silos don’t work . Full integration of U.S. hard and soft power, including political, economic, security, law enforcement, intel- ligence, assistance and public diplomacy components, is essential. Too often, disagreement on one dimension of our relationship with a Eurasian state produces a lockdown in other areas. U.S. policy- makers should engage across platforms simultaneously to produce results in areas not directly related to a specific engagement. It’s the economy, stupid . It’s a stock phrase in Eurasian capitals: “We want more American trade and investment.” While the live- fire business environments of Eurasia make that an ambitious goal, more can be done to project American economic power. A revital- ized Trade and Development Agency focus in Eurasia, further Overseas Private Investment Corporation investment and a fully functioning Export-Import Bank of the United States authorized to work in Ukraine could go a long way toward stitching together broken infrastructure, reducing energy losses and supporting American exports and business partnerships. USAID’s Develop- ment Credit Authority has been used to spawn economic activity at the grassroots level and should be expanded. This will require a strategic, integrated look by the next administration to ensure full deployment of our commercial diplomatic assets. Mind the gap . Since the 1990s, graduate study in Eurasian affairs at U.S. universities has dropped significantly due to a focus on China and the Middle East and a decline in federal gov- ernment and academic support for a new generation of Eurasia specialists. This is a luxury we cannot afford. Increased funding for scholarships, in-country language training, fast-track intake programs into the federal government and student loan forgive- ness incentives should be simplified and revitalized. Past as Prologue? For the past 25 years, Eurasian governments have taken a cautious approach to political-economic development: private enterprise will be tolerated as long as it strengthens the state and does not threaten elite interests. That might have worked in the pre-internet, non-globalized world into which the Soviet succes- sor states were born, but it gets more difficult with every passing technological innovation. How a government treats private enterprise is almost always a reflection of its attitude toward its own citizens. A state that can fos- ter an innovative, entrepreneurial society, where citizens can safely turn an idea into a business, shows a government at peace with itself and the presence of a respected social contract. Governments that restrict the private sector out of fear of creating competitive institutions treat their own people with wariness and contempt. While Ukraine is struggling to become a more democratic, free market-oriented country, Russia, Belarus, Turkmenistan and other Eurasian states still long for the glory days of a strong central government. During my years in Eurasia, many of my counterparts and friends voiced the desire to become a “normal country.” Some Eurasian states have embarked on this path, trying to create an economy and society that can grow in the 21st century. Others have not. As the Eurasian states enter full adulthood, it is in our national security interest to ensure their success. n The Central Asian countries’ longer-term challenge: to add value to the supply chain and not simply become a “drive through” for Asian exports to the West.