US moving to 'smart power' diplomacy

Kris M Balderston is special representative for global partnerships in the office of the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. In Mumbai to meet government representatives, NGOs and corporate captains on what he calls “the new direction of foreign policy,” he spoke to DNA in an exclusive interview.

How does the new Global Partnership Initiative (GPI) work as a diplomatic initiative vis-a-vis the old school foreign policy narrative for the US?
Under the new diplomacy, we feel talking with governments is not enough, and want to build contacts at people, business and NGO levels. Increasingly, this is how foreign policy will be conducted. In fact, the US is most enthusiastic about what we call ‘smart power,’ as opposed to hard power (using force) or soft power (the traditional non-military stuff). We want to think beyond using only tax payers’ money to do all this. Private sector involvement will bring in both money and know-how.

But what was the need to creating a special GPI arm in the state department? 
We are a brand new team of 14 people, busy creating a database of people and resources around the world, researching issues, and joining the dots. If someone says, I want to do healthcare in Algeria, we are able to hook them up immediately.

It is not necessarily all altruistic. We understand that people need reasons to help. Companies may want to make money… diaspora may want to do something for their countries.  We organise business communities, NGOs, academia, faith-based groups. Of course, we focus on strategic places that the US government and state department wants to work in.

Compared to a decade ago, when fewer American organisations funded welfare initiatives, today there many. Is the American encouragement of the NGO and private sectors a result of the economy being on a downward slide?
Maybe the economy being on a downswing is forcing us to think differently, as the world has become smaller and interdependent. Sometimes, companies want to do good and also do well. In Brazil, General Electric sells lighting to a Rio de Janerio slum. They profit, but the lighting also makes the slum safer with reduced crime. We are looking at opportunities with a convergence of interests so everyone goes home happy.

Secretary Clinton has been vocal in supporting women drivers in Saudi Arabia. Will the GPI support people’s groups even if they are in direct conflict with their own regimes like in West Asia? 
These are classical carrot-and-stick situations. In recent months, the Secretary has been pretty vocal. If we have to ask, “How can you have a stable government and economy when half the population, the women, are not participating in the economy or the political system?” then it will be asked.

But when you create parallel service delivery systems, doesn’t that take pressure off governments? Why can’t the GPI simply mobilise?
There is a big need for both programmes and campaigns. Given the numbers and scale involved, governments may be overwhelmed. So I don’t think they grudge competition. Like the US, India too will need to find other ways to solve problems. Merely depending on tax payers will not help. We need private players too, and yet we can’t do away with the government and its role as the arbiter-facilitator.

How did the venture that has got worldwide recognition and praise — Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves — come up?
Studies show that 3.5 billion people worldwide use three stones with an open fire to cook, and nearly 2 million people die every year because of this. Studies show a co-relation between the distance women go looking for firewood, and the risk of being raped. We see this a lot in Congo, for example. We found this issue being ‘stovepiped,’ with each sector looking at it only from their agenda and nobody talking to the other. We got our environment department and health departments, private players, NGOs and foreign governments to chip in and raise US $ 137 million.