2000 Security Cooperation Conference "Perspective Is Everything"

DISAM Journal, Summer, 2000 by Craig M. Brandt, Virginia Caudill, Karen Currie, Larry A. Mortsolf

PLENARY SESSIONS

Opening Remarks (Day One)

As Lieutenant General Michael Davison, Director, Defense Security Cooperation Agency, opened the Second Annual Security Cooperation Conference in Crystal City on 10 July, he presented the theme "Perspective Is Everything" as an appropriate motto for the security cooperation community which finds itself confronted by myriad changes resulting from this new era of a global strategy accompanied by rapid changes in technology and new missions. (See General Davison's complete remarks on page 73.) With perspective defined as viewing "relevant data in a meaningful way," Diane Halvorsen, head of DSCA's Reinvention Team, Mary Buehler also of the reinvention team, and Vanessa Murry, Director of DSCA's Legislative and Public Affairs office, presented a symposium designed to illustrate the variety of perspectives held by the participants in developing and implementing security cooperation policy. Instead of a total reliance on plenary sessions as was done last year, the primary proceedings of the conference resulted from ten panel sessions on different topics conducted over the two days, with a plenary resume of the issues presented in each.

Opening Speaker (Day One)

Former Ambassador Edward L. Peck, the opening day speaker, seized on the conference theme on perspective to deliver a primer on the verities and vagaries of international relations. He delivered a powerful, insightful, thought-provoking and humorous lesson, using his "Peck's Postulates" to explain the four basic points that make every aspect of foreign affairs easily understandable.

First, there are no absolutes; perception is everything. It is not what we say or even what we do that matters. The only thing that matters is how the other parties perceive what we're doing - because that is what controls how they react. Differing perceptions do not make one side wrong and the other right, but they do dictate what does or does not happen.

Second, there are only two things you can always depend upon sovereign nations doing.

* They will always behave as if they perceive themselves to be sovereign nations. This means they can do whatever they wish, and if another nation does not like it, they can do whatever they wish to affect a change,

* They will never ever do anything that they perceive not to be in their best interests,

Third, every international problem can be put into one of just three categories, if grouped solely based on who decides what to do about them,

* Unilateral issues, in which one country can make the decision all by itself. For example, the U.S. decides to break relations with Cuba,

* Multilateral issues, in which there is more than one participant and all must agree before a decision can be reached, e.g., the U.S. and Cuba decide to reestablish relations,

* Non-lateral issues, in which an outside party may have a great deal of interest, but is not directly involved in the decisions, e.g., the U.S. and the Arab-Israeli Issue.

Fourth, there is only one internationally recognized, universal explanation for every nation's foreign policies: "That's different." This explains why, for example, the U.S. can involve itself militarily in protecting the Kurds in Iraq, but only express mild concern over the harsher circumstances facing the Kurds in neighboring Turkey.

Evening Speaker (Day One)

As the speaker for the Monday evening dinner, Stephen French, the Minister (Defence Materiel) at the British Embassy in Washington. He offered the perspective of the United Kingdom but hoped that people would be able to draw wider parallels. In some instances, he addressed U.K. solutions. Stephen French recognized that size, political system, constitution are different, and it was therefore neither appropriate nor indeed possible to take some of these examples on board the U.S. or other systems, but perhaps they would strike chords and develop thoughts among other allies.

The perspective of the United Kingdom is the perspective of an ally, not just the formality of treaty obligations, but a deep and multi-facetted relationship, sustained by many different interactions every day. At heart, the U.S. and the U.K. share a deep-rooted community of interest. This is very important as we are striving for the same goal, and French believed this to be true of all in the room. Sometimes this gets overlooked, and we concentrate on the differences and problems. Although these are important, we must remember that this is generally at the margin. However, a much smaller U.K. cannot do everything that the U.S. does.

Mr. French pointed out what security cooperation means among other things, mutual benefits and interoperability. This means more than buying American! He mentioned ways in which the United Kingdom can contribute to interoperability through available technology, different processes such as new ways of contracting and partnering with industry; and other capabilities and operational techniques learned through different national experiences. As an ally, they gladly offer these things to the U.S.