Cross-posted from the February 21, 2012 blog post by Ambassador John Price

_____

“When the missionaries came, the Africans had the land and the Christians had the Bible. They taught us to pray with our eyes closed. When we opened them, they had the land and we had the Bible.”        – Jomo Kenyatta, Founding Father and First President of Kenya, 1964-1978

In June 2011, I traveled to Zimbabwe and by private charter flew over miles of arable land, as far as the eye could see. Most of it lay fallow since Mugabe’s confiscation policy towards the former owners, immigrants from Europe, but having a long history of living in the country. Zimbabwe, formerly known as Rhodesia in its prime, was considered a bread-basket of Africa, a major exporter of agricultural products. While I was there, rumors ran rampant that China was in the process of a land-grab, gaining access to millions of hectares (1 hectare = 2.47 acres). From the air I could see many streams and tributaries emptying into the great Zambezi River, which waters flow into Lake Kariba, the second largest man-made lake in Africa, spanning over 6000 km2; bordering between Zambia and Zimbabwe. Water for agriculture cultivation seemed abundant.

Since the 1950s, China has had an economic and military presence in sub-Saharan Africa, with a major base in Tanzania. In more recent years China has stepped-up its influence in the continent, pursuing numerous oil and mineral concessions, such as in Sudan, Nigeria, Angola, Zambia, Zimbabwe and South Africa. China is currently working in over forty countries locking up the natural resources.

In 2000, China launched its First Ministerial Meeting in Beijing, inviting a number of African leaders. That followed with the Second Ministerial Meeting in Addis Ababa in 2003. Since then China has held similar conferences every three years, to advance its economic interests in the African countries. Forty-eight African leaders attended the 2006 Beijing gathering; and in 2009 fifty leaders showed up at the Egypt event. To ingratiate themselves with the leaders, China has pledged more than $15 billion in new loans for capacity building, and promised to cancel the debt of some of the poorest African nations. Reportedly, China has infused more capital into the sub-Saharan African countries than the IMF and World Bank.

China’s efforts have now turned to acquiring control of thousands of acres of arable farm land (at bargain prices) in Zimbabwe, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Madagascar and elsewhere on the continent. India and Saudi Arabia are also pursuing large concessions of arable land to also feed their people, using the African’s land and water resources.

Notably the Saudis and neighboring Arab countries have been busy leasing tracts of land in Kenya, and in Sudan which is one of the poorest-destitute countries in sub-Saharan Africa. The West Darfur region of Sudan is where more than five million people have been displaced, and thousands have died from genocide and starvation.

Since 2004, the United States has poured over 4 billion dollars of humanitarian assistance into Sudan, with little to show for it. Now the benefits of our food-aid dollars spent to alleviate hunger in Sudan are going to “unjustly enrich” China, India, Saudi Arabia, Emirates, South Korea and others, who are taking arable land which should be cultivated to feed the starving Sudanese people. In addition the Saudis have been active seeking land deals in Senegal, Mali, Tanzania, and Ethiopia, all of which also have food shortage issues.

The Tsunami-wave of “neocolonialism” is sweeping over sub-Saharan Africa’s precious resources. China’s race to acquire arable land will ultimately gain it twice as much as all the other countries vying for similar farm land. These countries however, should be more humane in their approach to sub-Saharan Africa; not just become land-grabbers but responsibly infuse Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) dollars into the African communities for sustainable development programs. This will enable the people to eat and allow them to sell their remaining production at fair-market prices. China and the other rich countries would be well-served to undertake this humanitarian gesture, and still be able to share in Africa’s bounty for their own growing population.

China has a long history of not interfering with the internal affairs of a country, turning a blind eye to corruption, cutting deals with dictators, overlooking genocide, and avoiding participating in humanitarian aid programs. China however, will provide technology and infrastructure assistance, if it benefits their extraction of resources. Chinese contractors and workers currently account for over one million transplants to sub-Saharan Africa, taking jobs away from the poverty-stricken Africans. Even when the Chinese contractors employ Africans, they do not teach them any skills, keeping them working at the lowest paying jobs, for long hours a day. In addition Chinese immigrants have now gravitated to operating retail shops selling their imported Chinese goods; others are pursuing the service sectors which further diminish local job opportunities.

Beyond tying up mineral and oil resources, the new focus on agricultural land is very concerning. “Controversial land acquisitions were a key factor triggering the civil wars in Sudan, Liberia and Sierra Leone…conditions are ripe for new conflicts to occur in many other places,” says Jeffrey Hatcher, director of global programs for the Rights and Resources Initiative (RRI). International land rights specialist Liz Alden Wily notes, “local land rights are being repeatedly and tragically ignored during an astonishing buying spree across Africa.” She further notes that it is “affecting a minimum of 428 million of the rural poor in sub-Saharan Africa.” Land rights experts further note, “the indigenous and traditional communities are generally excluded from a process…deprive them of land and resources essential to their survival.”

It is important for these land-grabbers to understand there are thousands of years of history with the many different ethnic groups and cultures; the impact of the European traders, missionaries, and colonialists has already been felt by the thoughtless partitioning of the historical ancestral lands. Wily proffers, “With the speed and scale of this surge into Africa in the last five years, the chief concern should be that investors are cutting deals with governments for land that really belongs to individual rural communities.”

Alfred Brownell, an attorney and director of Liberia’s Green Advocates notes, “You don’t need guns to kill people. When you take food from a village by destroying farm lands and cash crops, you are starving its people. If you destroy their grave sites, poison their drinking water, obliterate their cultural heritage…there is no doubt you are removing an ethnically defined population from their land.”

The United States on the other hand, has withdrawn from a number of countries in sub-Saharan Africa because those countries lack democratic institutions or has perceived security concerns; because of congressionally mandated budgetary cutbacks; because a country has been labeled as a supporter of terrorism and had economic sanctions placed on them.

We cannot give up our long-established democratic principles and tenets of freedom, but we need to stay actively engaged in sub-Saharan Africa, and work within the framework of understanding other people’s cultures–not necessarily to enhance access for our own economic gain, but rather to help address the people’s struggle to survive; and encourage government leaders not to seek the short term benefit from selling land concessions, but look at the long term benefit of helping their people find a way to escape the trap of poverty.

_____

I would like to think, as the Russians and Chinese seem to believe, that Bashar Assad can end the carnage in Syria and still remain a viable leader for his country…but that time has passed. I met with President Assad five times between 2001 and 2005 as a private citizen, representative of the think tank community or as part of the American Task Force for Lebanon. At that time, he still had the chance to make his presidency a force for progress and stability.

During these meetings, Assad emphasized that he had made a strategic choice on peace with Israel, and furthermore was ready to secure the border with Iraq during a time of the Iraqi war when it was disruptive to US interests.  He noted the need to stop the transit of terrorist forces through his territory, including Hamas and Hezbollah. He even occasionally mentioned reforms, but indicated that, like his father, the survival of Syria was paramount, meaning the Assad regime.

At the time, Assad preferred a comprehensive agreement with the US that addressed both sides’ needs, so that any and all problems between us would be put on the table for resolution before tackling preferred options or individual confidence building measures by either party. In one conversation he said, “We are not your soldiers,” explaining that rather than small-tit for tat-confidence building measures demanded by the US, he preferred to have agreement on the overall package first.

This message of a possible way forward was carried back through several channels to the US government. So angered by Assad’s policies in Iran and Lebanon, the US was unwilling to engage Damascus without concrete signs of change. At the time, America’s decision didn’t appear defensible, although in hindsight it may be now.

It is a fact that without American interest to engage them, Assad went shopping and began to negotiate a peace deal with Israel under the sponsorship of Turkey. Leaving the US out of the regional equation meant that Lebanon faced even greater uncertainty and danger, and US interests were left to the goodwill of others.

We will never know if Assad was serious about a “package deal.” It’s too late for second guessing. He had his chance and the Russians should understand this long history with Bashar Assad and the chances he had to prove himself. The question now being debated long and loud is “how?”

The primary challenge is how to engage him in a single-minded dialogue that moves him towards an exit sooner rather than later. Russian officials failed this month to secure any concessions from him after the Russian and Chinese veto at the UN Security Council postponed possibly more severe action against Syria. Their minimal formula of a national unity government with a deliberately slow power-sharing agreement is doomed by the lack of support in the international community and the Arab League, as well as the Syrian opposition. And there is genuine concern that Sunni extremists, funded by outside sources, pose a significant threat to the many confessional groups in Syria, including Christians, Druze, Alawites, and even Iraqi refugees.

The debate about ousting Assad ranges and rages from the simplistic to the unworkable. The future of the Syrian people is in peril without a way forward that ends the regime and restores a sense of communal balance before it is too late. But then, it may already have reached a tipping point into civil war. Assad’s departure may not heal Syria but it will reduce the likelihood that the conflict will mirror the chaos in Libya and Yemen.

The international community, with Arab leadership, must continue to tighten the noose around the regime through coordinated actions that do not require UN Security Council actions, until such time that Russia and China are persuaded to follow suit.  Assad’s so-called referendum cannot slow the pressure for reform and reconciliation. Only consistent and determined actions on the part of the international community will demonstrate to Russia and China that Syria’s real intentions do not serve theirs.  In the end Assad must be denied all remaining support, including Russian and Chinese, and the resources he has to continue the violation of the Syrian people. If we act now, Syria may be spared the violence of ethnic and sectarian strife that lurks behind the current conflict between the regime and the Syrian people.

Cross-posted from the February 2, 2012 blog post by Ambassador John Price

_____

In the Horn of Africa, Sudan is considered a failing state. The United States closed its embassy in Khartoum in 1996. This country with a significant Muslim and Christian population, has had internal strife, interclan fighting, safe-havens for terrorist groups and terrorist training camps; participated in genocide—all of which have become the norm ever since. Our absence there had provided a paucity of reliable in-country intelligence information.

A former diplomat who was the Sudan country-watcher in the 1990′s, told me that information gathering was difficult under the best of circumstances, but would have been more accurate had the United States kept an active presence there.

Sudan’s north and south regions are becoming a humanitarian crisis, but we need to be equally concerned about the western Darfur region, which has been a humanitarian disaster with a rootless society of more than five million people, even though the United States has infused more than $4 billion in assistance since 2004.

Sudan is one of the richest oil-producing countries in Africa, with over six billion barrels of oil reserves. The income from the rich Abyei region is more than $2 billion per year, equating to almost $50 a person, based on Sudan’s current population. Revenue sharing would go a long way to curb disaster relief programs.

In Sudan peace negotiations have been persistent, but progress can be measured only by optimism, rather than substantive lasting solutions, even after the 2005 Peace Agreement.

The partitioning of Sudan was the only viable solution to resolve the ethnic differences between the Muslim north and Christian south, with each of these societies being given their own homeland as sovereign states, with defined borders. Since the oil resources are located in the Christian south, this economic obstacle will need to be overcome with a fair revenue sharing arrangement between both states. The Darfur region needs to be addressed as ethnically or culturally the tribes there do not fit into either the north or the south. As for the killing fields of Darfur, if solutions are not found and implemented the genocide there will continue. I believe the mayhem that ensued in the semiautonomous south and Darfur regions might have been avoided had the United States stayed actively engaged with a permanent diplomatic presence in 1996.

The U.S. Embassy in Khartoum was reopened in 2003, headed by a chargé d’ affaires, but not an accredited ambassador. The United States has had a number of special envoys in Sudan since, but the effect has been nominal, since they were there for limited periods of time. It is erratic diplomacy at best. To successfully engage Sudan we need a full time accredited diplomat there.

In January 2011, a self-determination referendum vote was held in southern Sudan as provided for in the 2005 peace accord between the Khartoum government and the Sudan People’s Liberation Army/Movement. On February 7, the results were announced with the majority of the people voting in favor of independence. South Sudan officially became an independent state on July 9, 2011. However the borders were never totally defined, so a further referendum vote on the oil rich Abyei region still needs to be held, once its borders are established and residency issues resolved.

Meanwhile fighting and chaos continues to exist between the northern and southern armies and rebel militia forces. To add to this instability there is tribal fighting and rustling of large herds of cattle, the main stay for these tribes located in the areas adjacent to the disputed Abyei oil region. This instability has brought about a new humanitarian crisis without having resolved the one in Darfur.

The partitioning of the north and south territories was brokered with U.S. input, in an attempt to resolve the long standing disputes between these ethnically different regions. But the process fell short of establishing a lasting peace, with properly defined borders, and an oil sharing agreement. The theory was like the “camel-in-the-tent” story. Once you get the head of the camel in the tent, the rest of the body will follow. Well that did not work. So let’s go to the next theory—a diplomatic approach, starting with a fully accredited ambassador to engage the parties of interest, on a consistent basis, to reach a lasting peaceful solution.

Cross-posted from the January 6, 2012 blog post by Ambassador John Price

_____

As discussed in my book, “When the White House Calls”, in July 2006 Osama bin Laden urged the mujahideen in Somalia to fight anyone who might weaken their grip on power. At that time the Islamic Courts Union (ICU) factions had strengthened their grip on the capital of Mogadishu, and surrounding villages as far south as the Kenya border, pressing for their control under Sharia, the strict Islamic law.

Backed by the United States, Ethiopia sent in troops to support the UN backed Transitional Federal Government (TFG). With the help of Eritrea the ICU militia attacked this coalition. Ultimately the fledgling TFG took control of Mogadishu in December 2006. Out of this chaos the ICU clans re-grouped, but never gained back their previous dominance. From the ashes grew an offspring youth group, called al-Shabaab, which were more brutal than their elders. These young men had no economic future, with only a strict Koranic indoctrination since birth. Recruitment into the ranks of the al-Shabaab organization was successful for these fundamentalist trained young men. Their Taliban style attracted many followers from far away haunts. In their mission to take control of Somalia many innocent Somalis died from starvation and their brutality. Forced to evacuate from their villages many were displaced, fleeing to refugee camps which swelled to several hundred thousand Somalis.

Ethiopian troops, supporting the weak TFG, were perceived more as invaders and occupiers (a familiar tone), with many innocent Somalis being caught in the crossfire. By 2009 the Ethiopian troops wore out their welcome carpet and were withdrawn. Conflicts, mistrust and hatred have existed between Ethiopians and Somalis for centuries. School children in both countries were taught about this eon old divide. No hugs, kisses or handshakes awaited these so called liberators.

The influence of al-Shabaab, al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups extends beyond Somalia, which has made the Horn of Africa and East Africa one of the most dangerous places in the world over the past twenty years. The Global War on Terror continues in this region. Terrorist tentacles have spread to other parts of sub-Saharan Africa, including attacks in Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania and western Africa in places like Nigeria, and Mali. As radical Islamists spread their influence, the Horn of Africa is becoming the epicenter for these extremist groups.

To assume that the re-entry of Ethiopian troops today, along side of African Union and Kenyan troops will route out the terrorists, may in the near term not be possible. Every day another child becomes a soldier, created by a radical Wahhabist imam’s influence. So if we capture or kill every al-Shabaab youth or al-Qaeda member there today, we still will not win the War on Terror.

If democratization only is our goal in these countries, tribal and ethnic cultures will trump our form of democracy. Patient diplomacy and full engagement of this region is the real answer. The Somalis need our humanitarian aid, but more importantly they need sustainable economic development programs, secular education for all children, village health care solutions, water and power sourcing, and agriculture experts to serve as mentors.

These long range solutions will take an active engagement by the United States— possibly taking another twenty years to take root. However, the United States has allowed the de-stabilization to continue, unabated, since we exited Somalia, closing our embassy in Mogadishu in 1991. We had a chance to make a difference there, when the more secular warlords defeated Somalia’s brutal dictator Siad Barre, who had ruled for over twenty years, until he was overthrown in January 1991.

It is not too late to fully engage this failed state. However, continued short term military actions are not the answer to accomplish a permanent peace solution. It is like putting a band-aid on a puncture wound.

Op-Ed as it appeared in the December 15, 2011 issue of The Tribune (India)

_____

China continues to plan and execute its strategic projects in different parts of Asia and elsewhere to expand its area of influence as a major world power. The latest is its military base in Seychelles, ostensibly established following a request from the government of this tiny island nation. It is China’s first overseas base of its kind, which is linked to its first aircraft carrier to be launched soon. The Chinese military presence in Seychelles should also be seen against the backdrop of Beijing’s anti-sea piracy operations going to begin shortly along with Thailand and Myanmar. The Chinese explanation is that it has gone ahead with its Seychelles project because it needed “safe navigation” facilities in the Indian Ocean region. China has such refuelling facilities in Oman and Yemen, too.

But New Delhi has reasons to feel disturbed as Seychelles, not far away from India, also has a US drone base. Besides Seychelles, the US has a major military base in Diego Garcia. Earlier, it was the US which was accused of contributing to the militarisation of the Indian Ocean region. Now China has started playing the same role. China’s activities in the region will be more visible now as, besides its Seychelles base, it has signed a contract with the UN-backed International Seabed Authority for the exploration of polymetallic sulphide ore deposits in the Indian Ocean for 15 years.

It is not only India but Japan and Vietnam will also be closely watching China’s moves to gain considerable naval strength in the region. Vietnam cannot take the development kindly as China unfairly protested against the recent pact that India signed with Vietnam for the exploration of gas and oil in the South China Sea. For India, the establishment of China’s military base in Seychelles appears to be linked to its strategy of having a string of pearls around India. But for countries like Vietnam, Singapore and the others in the ASEAN grouping, it is part of Chinese over-assertiveness to make them realise that they must learn to live with Chinese dominance in the region. These countries are looking towards India to play its rightful balancing role. India must not let them down.

~ It Should Be No Surprise ~

As noted in my book “When the White House Calls”, on February 6, 2007, Sir James Mancham, former president of the Republic of Seychelles, met with United Press International in Mahe, just before President Hu Jintao of the Republic of China made his official visit to the island nation. China has a growing interest, both economically and militarily, in sub-Saharan Africa and the Indian Ocean region, as reflected in Mancham’s remarks:

“President Hu Jintao of the People’s Republic of China will pay an official state visit to the islands after a tour of eight African countries. For China, each country Hu visits will be to reaffirm negotiations for raw materials, energy supplies, aid assistance, debts forgiveness, and negotiations, which is aimed to secure China’s quest for global positioning. China needs a military base in the Indian Ocean. It is considered that the Seychelles has the best global position for her need in Africa and the Indian Ocean region.”

During Hu Jintao’s visit he established some far reaching economic agreements and left $20 million to show his good faith, to this small island nation of 80,000 inhabitants. He also promised follow-up meetings with some of his top ministers and military leaders to further solidify their agreements.

In September 2007, Colonel Leopold Payet of the Seychelles People’s Defense Forces went to Beijing to come to an agreement on behalf of his government for more China-Seychelles military cooperation in the Indian Ocean.

Seychelles are entering a new day on the global stage, which hopefully after a long chapter under autocratic rule, since the 1977 Marxist coup d’ etat, will not now put this fledgling democracy under the domination of China.

Published in the December 23, 2001 issue of The Straits Times (Singapore)

_____

As President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently observed, a major focus of American attention in the coming decades will be to expand and deepen American relationships with the Asia-Pacific region. Approximately 40 percent of America’s export earnings are generated in Asia, and the region is poised to be the United States’ fastest growing market. The economic growth in Asia is shifting the overall architecture of the global economy – and the US must play a decisive role in shaping Asia’s direction and significantly increase America’s participation in this new global economy.

Since the accession of Hawaii as its 50th state, the US has had a significant Pacific presence. Given its unique geography, the US is both an Atlantic and Pacific power. And among his many firsts, Mr. Obama, born and raised in Hawaii, is also America’s first “Pacific President” who spent a part of his own childhood in Asia. Never before have the substantive and the symbolic been so well aligned to propel a robust and creative re-engagement with and in Asia.

The Asian diaspora in the US is also an important element of America’s success formula. Asian sensibilities and sensitivities are now deeply embedded in our national identity, and have become an integral part of the American mosaic. Asian Americans are increasingly visible in their representation of America. Asian Americans in public service include Cabinet secretaries, ambassadors, governors and other high-ranking government officials. More and more Asian Americans are now captains of industry and civil society. As a society, America is increasingly embracing its Asian heritage and Asian roots in a uniquely inclusive American fashion.

The American approach under President Obama and Secretary Clinton has purposefully taken the longer view. It explicitly recognises that enduring partnerships are multifaceted – they eschew a zero-sum attitude and seek a higher level of mutual benefit and mutual aspiration. This is based on a clear-headed recognition of economic, political and security self-interests, but reinforced by a deeply held mutual respect. These relationships are not state-to-state or business-to-business alone, but must involve the full spectrum of our intellectual, cultural and civic institutions.

The US remains a magnet for Asian students, and it is a good thing. Many will go back and some might opt to stay, but in either case, the US must ensure that their commitment and connection to America remain strong. They can work together with America to address current crucial challenges. The issues that will define America’s future – energy and environment, education, health care, human rights, caring for the aged, and others – are all where we need to learn and innovate together.

Asia itself is quite diverse and increasingly the new pan-Asian challenge will be to maintain regional progress without being dominated by one culture or nation. Despite the misadventure in Vietnam, the overall American stance in Asia has not been hegemonic or territorial. Friends and even sceptics in Asia know that an American presence and engagement helps maintain a sense of equilibrium.

America will be increasingly called upon to provide the security reassurance, hence the introduction of a modest military presence in Australia. But even more importantly, the US will be called upon to contribute American know-how and values – such as fair trade, adherence to human rights and transparency – in the development of the new Asia.

Despite the rough times America faces now, its iconic values of democracy and inclusion remain respected across Asia. This was perhaps best illustrated by Mrs. Clinton’s historic visit to Myanmar, which effectively broke loose the stagnated status quo. This is a contribution that perhaps only the US could have done.

Many Asian societies are grappling through a search for transition from authoritarian to tolerant and democratic impulses, and they look to American ideas of democracy and technologies of Facebook and Twitter.

Throughout our history, America has navigated through periods of tension between its global engagement and a desire to retreat to isolationism. Tough times and election-year rhetoric tend to exacerbate and amplify these divides. As America deliberates and chooses in 2012, it is important to be mindful that America’s national self-interest is intertwined with the trajectory of Asia. Washington must view Asia not as a threat but as an opportunity for furthering essential American ideas and interests.

As published in the December 2011 issue of Perspectives, a Layalina Productions publication

_____

The media and pundits have a proclivity to portray a negative picture of America, representing an unfair and short-sighted view of both what it took to earn to greatness of America and what it will require to reassert our leadership in the world. The challenges faced by this administration are unprecedented, and it is only fair to say that President Obama has demonstrated a willingness to do much of what was necessary under very difficult circumstances. Without minimizing the difficulties encountered and our impatience, it is useful to take stock of where we are.

President Obama took office in a widespread belief that the war in Iraq was never-ending. Even though as a US senator and a presidential candidate strenuously opposing the war, Mr. Obama knew that he had to transition out of this misconstrued war in a manner that would not hurt US interests or embolden the forces in Iran in fueling greater anti-Americanism in the region. It took a great deal of planning, fortitude and level-headedness for this administration to lay the groundwork towards a systematic disengagement from an unpopular and unnecessary intervention initiated by the Bush administration.

A President does not have the luxury to wish away the circumstances he inherited or the series of blunders that got us into our predicament. In addressing the problems affecting our economy, as well as our foreign policy, President Obama faced the fact that we had inherited deeply entrenched quagmires and has been methodically seeing through the process of repairing the economy and disengaging from Iraq. While the economic recovery remains vulnerable to shocks, there is no doubt that we averted a far bleaker crisis, and are gradually rebuilding our economy. Additionally, in the case of Iraq, the last US combat brigades departed in 2010. The remaining 50,000 personnel are expected to leave by December 31, 2011, on the path to bring an end to this “endless war.”

After getting rid of Osama bin Laden, President Obama in his recent pronouncements has laid out a roadmap for America’s eventual disengagement from Afghanistan. This plan, earlier endorsed by General Petraeus, now the newly appointed Director of the CIA, current Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and his predecessor Robert Gates, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, has an initial drawdown of 10,000 troops with a total reduction of 33,000 by the end of next summer. While channels of negotiations have been established with the Taliban to chart the future course of Afghanistan’s politics and governance, we will still have about 68,000 troops overseeing the process. Although the endgame in Afghanistan remains unpredictable, it is still wise to have in place determinants of an evolving exit strategy that this administration has laid out.

By 2008, numerous polls indicated that respect for America and its credibility were eroding in virtually all parts of the world. In Europe, where we have historically enjoyed the best relations, our public approval plummeted. The negativity towards the US was most severe in the Middle East and South East Asia, where key Muslim and Arab populations where shifting away from seeing America as an ally, including in countries that had traditionally been our friends. During my travels as a former US ambassador, I heard many longstanding friends of the US bemoan that the American beacon seemed so distant and dim.

It is in this backdrop that President Obama courageously took the message of America to Cairo, an epicenter of the Arab and Muslim cultures. As President Obama declared in Cairo that America was a friend of the Muslim world and that the American values of democracy and inter-religious tolerance would also benefit the Arab and Muslim worlds, his speech was denigrated by many cable show pundits and Republican politicians as naïve or capitulatory. Nothing could have been farther from the truth. In 1987, President Reagan courageously asked Mr. Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall and that inspired hope. In 2009, President Obama‘s historic speech to an auditorium filled with young Egyptians (and broadcast across the world) was a similar message of hope. There is no doubt that the young people heard a message that resonated far and deep, fostering a momentum of hope unprecedented by any American president in the region. Despite the criticism that ensued, we should not forget the visionary approach that has characterized this administration in numerous ways. The Global Entrepreneurship Program led by State Department exemplified President Obama’s engagement to create a bridge between the MENA region and America in based on our country’s entrepreneurial culture. It is this very same vision that is now guiding the Obama administration in engaging with the Arab world in the post-Arab Spring.

The swiftness of the Arab Spring took all of us by surprise. But even in this fluid situation, country after country, the President has shown that the United States understands the aspirations of the millions, supporting their political aspirations toward the creation of democratic environment and a prosperous economy. What was particularly galvanizing was the large number of young women who were in the forefront of this struggle. This is a different dynamic than what we typically imagine – and represents early triumphs of democratic, progressive ideals over the extremism of fatwa-based Al Qaeda rule. This progress, however, is tenuous, and there is much the US can and must do to empower and support those fighting decades-long dictatorships. As much as we are relieved with the political outcome in Tunisia, recent events in Egypt, Yemen, Syria and Libya must be taken notice of and addressed directly. Any attempt to hijack the process by vested interest groups must be thwarted. We must not lose sight of the popular demands of the vast majority of these people and not succumb to any interim expediency. History will never forgive us.

At a time when we face competition from an economically robust and expansive China, an ideologically-determined Iran, and the destruction of violent extremism which garners support from East and South Asia to the Middle East, to the oil and mineral-rich continent of Africa, the US must provide a robust vision of the future that is morally grounded in our own practice of an inclusive, forward-thinking society. It is our willingness to rely not only on our military superiority, but also our “soft power” to assist nations achieve security and prosperity based on a respect for individual rights and economic opportunity that will reassert America as a beacon of hope and a model to aspire to. As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton once said, “Respecting rights isn’t choice leaders make day-by-day, it is the reason they govern”.

America has always been at its best when it has led by example and with humility rather than by dictate. President Obama and Secretary Clinton deserve to be commended for taking this high ground when it would have been politically convenient to play to our worst fears and stereotypes.

_____

At a time when violence is raging in Syria as the deadline to begin implementing an Arab League sponsored plan is to expire—throwing a solid agreement into chaos amid fear that this situation could lead toward civil war; while Egypt cools down from an eruption of anger at the ruling military council prior to the Parliamentary elections; with the Arab Spring uprising in neighboring Tunisia and Pakistan’s president supporting a request for Washington’s help in reining  in the country’s powerful military,  the call for democracy needs our guiding hand.

A diplomatic presence is a necessity, freeing President Obama to join efforts on economic growth and maritime security.  Now fear of the economy has replaced fear of terrorism.  Our Ambassadors abroad are placed in strategic positions to our global stance.  We must rely on those at our posts to be observant and decipher the meaning.  With hot spots erupting in the Delta, a Congressional debate on military spending puts the national security at risk as Iran is asserting herself seeking with a nuclear program and Israel has already shown its appetite for attacking the danger next door.  As allies, it becomes our war too.  Defense cuts at this time would invite aggression to our borders.

Already there are signs of more trouble ahead with the attack on the British diplomatic compound in Tehran and Western countries recalling their ambassadors.   We, in the West, see a greater involvement in foreign affairs as a way to influence the world’s direction in a future that presents many global challenges.  The need for a strong, professional diplomatic corps is essential as we move forward in this future.

All considered, is this the time to cut funding for the State Department and defense?

_____

The November 14, 2011 letter addressed to the Members of Congress urging them to “support a strong and effective International Affairs Budget,” and further stressing that “these programs are critical to America’s global leadership and represent strategic investments in our nation’s security and prosperity,” is most timely.

During the most trying times in recent history for the State Department, from 2001 to 2005, more than one thousand new positions were absorbed by assignments to Afghanistan and Iraq; at the same time, there was a shortage of more than one thousand positions elsewhere around the world. The budget cuts mandated by Congress in the 1990s for overseas embassy operations, and the subsequent terrorist attacks and threat of attacks against U.S. embassies gave rise to an increased budget for the Bureau of Diplomatic Security and almost eight hundred new positions related to security, yet no real increase for our foreign affairs programs.

The establishment in 2007 of the new House Appropriations Subcommittee on State Foreign Operations, and a similar Senate committee, directly places more emphasis on State Department foreign operations and programs such as USAID, the Peace Corps, and the Millennium Challenge Account. Hence, budgeting for the Foreign Affairs programs should no longer take a backseat to other government agencies. It is crucial that the structures which carry out U.S. foreign affairs programs be funded adequately so we are not perceived around the world as isolationists.

In my meetings with sub-Saharan African leaders while I was U.S. ambassador, and subsequent interviews with African leaders for my book, I heard repeatedly that the United States is considered a “fair-weather friend.” The U.S. government needs to have a consistent, dependable foreign policy, including foreign assistance programs for sub-Saharan Africa, that aim to rebuild trust and friendships.

In the book “When the White House Calls” I deal with our bilateral relations with the host countries, and concerns about our lack of foreign affairs funding. I also share some insights from Secretary of State Warren Christopher’s testimony during the 1995 foreign affairs budget hearings. I have excerpted several passages from, Our Foreign Policy chapter, regarding the former secretary’s testimony.

“We should not forget that foreign assistance is a real bargain for American taxpayers.” Secretary Christopher went on to add, “Recent polls suggest that the American people think that up to 25 percent of federal spending goes to foreign assistance, and that 8 percent should be the maximum. In fact, we spend less than 1 percent of the total federal budget on foreign assistance—about 12 cents a day for each American citizen—in contrast to about 18 percent still spent on defense.”

Asserting that our “diplomatic ‘field offices’ abroad also constitute an invaluable early-warning intelligence system,” the Secretary added “their rapid-fire political, military, and economic reporting is essential to the crisis-prevention work of Washington national security decision-makers.”

Responding to questions about whether our foreign assistance made any real  difference in developing countries and what would happen if we just stopped giving it, Secretary Christopher responded by saying, “Both we and they would suffer. Our foreign assistance programs are intended to promote the kind of economic growth and political stability that are critical to U.S. national security and economic well-being. Failing to provide aid to developing countries would therefore jeopardize our  national security.”

The Secretary pointed out that “it costs a hundred times as much to deal with humanitarian crises as it does to prevent them.” For example, it cost the United States more than $2 billion to deal with Somalia, and $1 billion to address Rwanda’s problems.

Secretary Christopher, under pressure from Congress, recommended that USAID close down twenty-eight missions abroad, shutter ten U.S. Information Agency (USIA) offices, and cut more than three thousand job positions; USIA’s activities and programs merged with the State Department programs.

Secretary Christopher and former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger asserted that the United States could still maintain a strong diplomatic presence overseas. Secretary Christopher talked about “the principle of universality,” wherein the United States must maintain an official diplomatic presence in every country where it is welcome. I would have gone further and said that we should maintain a presence in every country that is a voting member at the United Nations.

Operating leaner in carrying out our foreign affairs was the goal of Congress and State Department. Cutting resources for such basic programs as books, libraries, research tools, and an American Corner filled with reading and educational material about our country gave radical imams the edge by allowing them to take over as the main source of education in many Muslim countries. Only where a vestige of colonialism still existed were some books and educational material still available for secular studies.

The United States has pushed the “electronic highway” as the new paradigm to replace the physical experience of touching, feeling, and reading a book or even the social experience of visiting a library. But in the less developed countries of sub-Saharan Africa, where computers and dependable power are not readily available, such an approach to learning is limited, if not impossible. Without books, students in these countries wouldn’t have a chance.

The total savings in eliminating the USIA libraries, reference centers, and associated cultural activities were estimated to be $9.1 million annually—a minuscule amount to keep open the main highway of knowledge.

While the State Department allowed the budget cuts to reduce or eliminate the U.S. diplomatic presence in a number of countries, the Diplomatic Security Service suddenly saw a dramatic increase in funding to strengthen security at the remaining embassies. This money would have been better spent on prevention in the first place, by having an American presence on the ground providing good intelligence and reporting. A continued presence in Sudan and Somalia, for example, would have allowed us to engage directly with the leaders in one country and the warlords in the other, rather than having to do so peripherally. Part of the problem with our foreign policy is that we will not engage people we consider our enemy, and in a number of cases have used our military might to resolve political and ideological differences. Fighting doesn’t always provide for a long-lasting, peaceful outcome. I truly believe that having embassy representation in every country to engage the leaders is better than having CIA operatives or military troops on the ground, as they are often perceived as destabilizers, invaders, occupiers, or infidels.

I concur with the letter’s summation, “Now is not the time for America to retreat from the world.” A properly funded foreign affairs program is very vital to our security interests. The decision makers in Washington do not believe the Salafist jihadist movement is an eminent threat. Africa is half-way around the world, but for al-Qaeda and other insurgents, America is only a door-step away.

I truly hope that the Members of Congress will read the letter signed by the former Secretaries of State, and act appropriately to protect our nation’s interests.

_____

Let’s set the plate by reviewing the facts. The US has only 4% of the world’s population but produces 25% of world GDP – about $15 of $60 trillion last year. While we bemoan our economic doldrums, obviously this is an extraordinary achievement which we should nurture.

The US engine of growth has stimulated global growth of historic consequence. Compared to when Thomas Jefferson was president, the global population is 9 times larger, lives 3 times longer and is 25 times richer.

Global violence has declined dramatically on a per capita basis, making our time the most peaceful in human history. The US possesses half the strategic military weapons on the globe and has troops or an interest in over 100 of the 200 nations listed at the U.N.

These facts about economics and violence may be counter-intuitive but they are nonetheless true.  As Daniel Patrick Moynihan used to say, everybody is entitled to her own opinion but not her own facts. I have no interest in arguing the facts. They are stipulated. Those who disagree with them need to look in the facts further before making conclusions.

We live in a globally inter-dependent political economy where our 4% has been historically important in driving world progress not just the progress of the West and certainly not just our own country. And as we can see from the debt crisis, talk about protectionism or isolationism is sheer nonsense – it’s totally irrelevant to the facts.

So there’s no question the US needs a State and Defense budget. The question we need to be asking is how much we must spend if we  do so effectively. State is easier to address than Defense in that regard, so let me start there.

Foreign aid provides a few drops of the rainfall the US produces to stimulate global progress which is inter-dependent with our own progress. More of that rain comes from private foreign direct investment, multi-lateral loans and investments, and immigrant-American remittances than comes from foreign aid. Philanthropy and foundations (NGOs) also provide significant aid overseas.

In fact the multiplicity of fund sources, agendas and development models often renders foreign aid useless or counter-productive for the donor. William Easterly, who directed World Bank projects for a decade, opines that the $2.4 trillion in aid since World War II has had almost no effect on global poverty. And it might come as a surprise to Americans who oppose immigration to know that Hispanic-Americans, for example, send many times the dollars to their families “back home” than US foreign aid sends to the Latin American nations they come from.

To channel foreign aid so it produces results, State can put its funds only where an integrated sustainable development is underway. That means three Ps are integrated in what I call an Enterprise Solution:

• P1 is a wealth-creation investment that involves the local population in ownership and project management not just labor.
• P2 is an energy generation and distribution capability that undergirds P1 and sustainable economic development in the locale.
• P3 involves a whole range of community developments including building solar communities, private enterprises, housing, commercial shops, health and education services, and so on.

The 3P development integration attracts additional Foreign Direct Investment, multilateral aid, philanthropy, NGOs as well as the entrepreneurs in the locale. It creates GDP that the locals own and not just the foreigners.

As for the Pentagon, if the Super-Committee fails to provide a budget solution, the Defense budget will be slashed across the board, crippling US Defense posture according to the military chiefs. Cutting budgets across the board is nonsensical in any organization and in Defense it is beyond that, it is irresponsible.

The Pentagon conducts bottom-up reviews, which is a good process, but today it needs a top-down mission statement more than anything else. The winding down or gearing up of actual and potential wars in the Middle East are a big part of this equation, it seems to me.

In addition, there are approximately 70 nations where US military are stationed for a mission and thus exposed to terrorism or violence. As I noted at the beginning, our military presence is a consequence of the facts we live with today and which can kill us tomorrow.

Once the military missions are known, budgeting can be rationalized. If possible, the Defense budget should reflect the values of the Enterprise Solution for the nation where it is operating. This was and is a huge problem in Iraq and Afghanistan, where the military operations went fine but then no 3P development program integrated with State (and all the other sources) took over. That is why those wars stagnated in my view. The mission is not over when the enemy is militarily defeated. That’s when the development mission starts.