Bridging the Gap Between Academia and Policy on Asia: Some Examples from Personal Experience

[ 25 ] Bridging the Gap Between Academia and Policy on Asia: Some Examples from Personal Experience Robert Sutter The ability to carry out fruitful and effective interchange between government officials and academic specialists often depends on personalities , competing priorities, and other circumstances. The record of interchange between academia and the U.S. policy realm on sensitive issues dealing with Asia, for instance, was active at various times during the Cold War and has grown since that time. Congress’ increasing role since the end of the Cold War in formulating U.S. foreign policy has opened many more avenues for constructive interchange between academic specialists and often influential policymakers in Congress. At both senior and lower levels, academic specialists have entered U.S. administrations in order to help chart policy, and have returned to scholarly pursuits following their government tenure. The influence of important scholars such as Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and Joseph Nye is well recognized. Congress has often been more open than the executive branch to various academic and other viewpoints, and such expertise has been sought out for congressional staffs and in hearings and other deliberations over policy. This brief essay will recount some of the multifaceted ways that the administration and Congress have sought out academic insights in the conduct of U.S. foreign policy since the late 1970s. Most of this analysis is based on personal experience regarding interchange at working levels involving Congress or the administration on one side, and academic specialists, either in person or through their writings, on the other. As an analyst, specialist, and then senior specialist in Asian affairs with the Library of Congress’ Congressional Research Service for over 20 years, and having undertaken shorter tours of duty as an Asian affairs specialist with two Senate committees, the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Intelligence Council, I have had extensive experience at working-level interchange involving Congress and, to a lesser deRobert Sutter, Visiting Professor in the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, has published many books, numerous articles, and several hundred government reports dealing with contemporary East Asian and Pacific countries and their relations with the United States. He has held a variety of analytical and supervisory positions with the Library of Congress, and also served for two years as the National Intelligence Officer for East Asia and the Pacific at the U.S. National Intelligence Council. He can be reached at . bridging the gap • roundtable [ 26 ] asia policy gree, the administration. I have occasionally had the opportunity to deal with senior congressional leaders as well as more routinely with committee chairs and other members of Congress seeking influence in areas of Asia policy. I have dealt extensively with Assistant Secretary-level interaction in the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations, yet interactions involving Cabinet-level policymakers (apart from U.S. intelligence leaders) were rare. Close Personal Support Perhaps the greatest payoff in scholarly-government interchange comes when academic specialists are called upon, as a result of their writings and reputations, to provide close personal support to administration or congressional officials. When addressing issues important for U.S. Asia policy, it is common practice on the part of a number of congressional members with responsibility for salient aspects of policy to solicit the advice of knowledgeable academic specialists. The specialists often are called to the member’s office to meet and discuss issues, perhaps in the presence of others— including the experts on the member’s staff, some of whom might come from an academic background. The academic specialists are also asked to provide briefing papers based on their academic writings, insights, and knowledge that would be of use to the member in deliberating over policy. Even more common is the practice of top congressional staff members—on committee staffs or on members ’ staffs—to solicit the advice of relevant academic specialists, whether in person or in writing. The fruits of this kind of work often assist members and committees as they prepare for policy initiatives, conduct investigations, or carry out hearings or other oversight activities. Also relatively common is for congressional members with new responsibilities concerning Asia to include academic...