Will Ron Johnson learn to love the bomb or start worrying?

December 14, 2017

Thomas A. Loftus (Norway, 1993-1998)

Cross posted from Madison.com

—–

Today in Oslo the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons will be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for its role in getting the U.N. General Assembly to propose for ratification a treaty to outlaw the use of nuclear weapons — a move approved in July by 122 nonnuclear nations.

Today in Washington a staff person at the White House is busy dotting i’s and crossing t’s to finish an update of the Nuclear Posture Review ordered by President Trump. It will endorse a new class of more “usable” weapons and, couched in benign language, a new rationale for a president to order a first strike.

Today in the Foreign Relations Committee of the U.S. Senate there is a proposal to limit the president’s power to launch a first strike by requiring that he consult in advance with the secretaries of Defense and State and the attorney general, who would have to state that the first strike is legal. Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson is a member of the committee.

Today the president could alone launch Armageddon and announce it in a tweet.

The movement in the Foreign Relations Committee is prompted by the mercurial nature of President Trump. It is the first time in 40 years there is a discussion in Congress on the use and utility of nuclear weapons.

New weapons, like a low-yield warhead for a ballistic missile or nuclear-tipped Tomahawk sea-launched cruise missiles, will increase the “thinkability” of their use because fewer people would be killed.

To understand, watch the war room scene on YouTube of the film “Dr. Stangelove Or: How I Stopped Worrying and Learned to Love the Bomb,” in which General Buck Turgidson (played by George C. Scott) is pitching a first strike on the Soviet Union to President Merkin Muffley (played by Peter Sellers) and promises “10 to 20 million casualties tops.”

Sen. Johnson is a Republican and I am a Democrat, but we share Norwegian heritage and a Lutheran upbringing and with that comes an optimism that prevails in the face of all facts to the contrary.

The Nobel Peace Prize being given to ICAN today provides hope. My friend former Defense Secretary William J. Perry at age 90 is vigorously advocating for the control of nuclear weapons (www.wjperryproject.org). And the new Outrider Foundation in Madison will soon launch a public education interactive website on the threat of nuclear weapons. I am a board member (www.outriderfoundation.org).

Nuclear weapons policy is rarely presented to voters, but it has been. I was one of many members of the Wisconsin Legislature to sponsor a resolution to put on the ballot in September 1982 a referendum in support of a freeze on nuclear weapons.

It read: “Shall the Secretary of State of Wisconsin inform the President and the Congress of the United States that it is the desire of the people of Wisconsin to have the government of the United States work vigorously to negotiate a mutual nuclear weapons moratorium and reduction, with appropriate verification, with the Soviet Union and other nations?”

The referendum passed with a 75 percent vote. Much of what it called for came to pass in the START treaties.

I urge Sen. Johnson to recognize the need to restrain the power of the president to launch a first strike, and the peril of any policy that would create more “usable” nuclear weapons. Instead, I hope he is inspired by the prestigious Nobel Peace Prize being awarded today to a group seeking to abolish nuclear weapons from the face of the earth.

Advertisements

Gauging the Impact of Economic Sanctions

December 8, 2017

J. William Middendorf II (Netherlands, 1969-1973; Organization of American States, 1981-1985; European Union, 1985-1987)

and

Dan Negrea

Cross posted from The Washington Times

—–

Carl von Clausewitz thought of military war as a continuation of diplomacy through other means. Economic sanctions are economic war and should be similarly regarded as tactics subordinated to a diplomatic strategy.

Economic sanctions take many forms. The 1961 quarantine of Cuba targeted the whole country, but the 2014 Russia sanctions singled out a few economic sectors, enterprises and individuals. The Iran sanctions of a decade ago used asset freezes, an oil embargo and financial isolation, while the current sanctions against North Korea emphasize trade restrictions. And they can be imposed by single countries or multilaterally.

Sanctions can be designed to discourage behavior, punish actions, cause regime change or weaken a country’s economy. Or simply to advertise displeasure with certain behavior.

In 2014 the United States, Europe and their allies imposed economic sanctions on Russia in response to its occupation of Crimea and aggression against Eastern Ukraine. There was grave concern at the time that Russia planned to occupy even more Ukrainian territory and attack Baltic NATO members Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. The sanctions included travel restrictions against Russian officials, transaction bans affecting certain energy firms and banks, and export controls on energy equipment. Russia was also denied access to Western capital markets. The sanctions weakened the Russian economy and depressed the ruble.

Simultaneously, NATO increased its military presence in member countries bordering Russia to discourage Russian military adventurism.

The West was signaling that changing borders by force is unacceptable. Russia was going to pay an economic price for its aggression against non-NATO member Ukraine and a military price if it attacked a NATO member. Russia did not withdraw from Crimea or stop interfering in Eastern Ukraine because of the sanctions. But the combination of sanctions and a firm NATO stance discouraged Russia from further aggression in Ukraine and a move against the Baltics.

Starting in 2006, the U.N. Security Council imposed several rounds of sanctions on Iran for violating nuclear non-proliferation agreements. Iran’s military was enriching uranium for nuclear weapons and building missiles to deliver them, while Iranian officials were making hostile statements against America and its allies. The almost-universal economic sanctions against Iran were the toughest any country had ever faced and virtually every segment of its economy was affected. The energy sector was particularly hard hit by an embargo on oil exports and restrictions on insurance for oil tankers serving the Iran trade. Iran was even cut off from SWIFT, the world’s bank transaction network, and forced to use gold as currency. The Iranian economy was on its knees: Between 2011 and 2014, Iran’s oil exports fell by half and the rial plummeted.

But the Obama administration gave it all away in exchange for the very bad Iran nuclear deal. The agreement limited Iran’s uranium enrichment only until 2025 and it did not restrict research on nuclear weapons or on testing missiles to deliver them. The Iranians were able to push President Obama into this pact because they figured out that he was desperate for a deal, any deal, to avoid military conflict. They even forced him to ignore the Syria genocide and his famous red line to get this deal. One of the authors of this article served in the Reagan administration and saw a different kind of president. Ronald Reagan walked away from the 1986 Reykjavik negotiations when he could not cut a good deal with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. The economic sanctions against Iran worked, but their effect was squandered by a flawed strategy.

President Trump’s North Korea goal is crystal-clear: Rogue North Korea will not be allowed to have nuclear weapons with which to blackmail the United States and its allies. The U.S. has enlisted almost the entire world community to impose the harshest economic sanctions on North Korea. But this will not be enough. “The North Koreans will eat grass before giving up their nukes,” said Russian President Vladimir Putin. And he is right.

But America is going beyond sanctions. Through skilled diplomacy it is further isolating North Korea from the world, even from China, its vital ally. And, critically important, the U.S. has left the military option on the table. No one can predict the outcome of this conflict, but the U.S. is getting the odds in its favor.

Reluctantly, America and its allies must sometimes use coercion to safeguard world peace. Sanctions can crush an economy, but by themselves they will not force a dictator to change course — dictators don’t care if their people become grass eaters. To be effective, sanctions must be melded with the threat of hard power and skilled diplomacy into a comprehensive strategy.

One more thing: In their opposition to dictators, America and its allies must remain confident in the superiority of our Western democratic principles. The West and the dictators are separated by a line of principle, to borrow a recently coined term, and we are on the right side of the line.

The National Security Emergency We’re Not Talking About

November 30, 2017

Madeleine K. Albright (Secretary of State, 1997-2001; United Nations, 1993-1997)

Cross posted from the New York Times

—–

America’s diplomatic professionals have issued a dire warning about the crisis facing the State Department: Scores of top diplomats, including some of our highest-ranked career Foreign Service officers, have left the agency at “a dizzying speed” over the past 10 months.

“The rapid loss of so many senior officers has a serious, immediate and tangible effect on the capacity of the United States to shape world events,” wrote former ambassador Barbara Stephenson, president of the American Foreign Service Association (AFSA).

As a former secretary of state, I agree. This is not a story that has two sides. It is simply a fact that the United States relies on diplomacy as our first line of defense — to cement alliances, build coalitions, address global problems and find ways to protect our interests without resorting to military force. When we must use force, as in the fight against the Islamic State, our diplomats ensure that we can do so effectively and with the cooperation of other countries.

Change within the Foreign Service and the State Department’s civil service is not unusual. In fact, the system is designed to bring in fresh blood on a regular basis. There is, however, a big difference between a transfusion and an open wound. There is nothing normal about the current exodus. President Trump is aware of the situation and has made clear that he doesn’t care: “I’m the only one that matters,” he told Fox News.

Sadly, the official who should be highlighting the State Department’s vital role has not done so. On Tuesday, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson denied that the department is being hollowed out even while defending the president’s plan for a massive reduction in his agency’s budget. Meanwhile, for reasons that make sense only to him, Tillerson has delayed filling many of the most important diplomatic posts in Washington and overseas. All too often, foreign officials have sought to engage the department at a high level only to find no one with whom they can speak.

The administration’s disdain for diplomacy would be alarming under any circumstances, but two factors make it worse. First, while the United States is tying a rope around its feet, our competitors are running ahead. Trump’s recent trip to Asia was considered by many a success because there were no obvious disasters, but that is hardly a reassuring standard by which to judge the performance of an American commander in chief. The fact is that on trade and climate change, the U.S. government is now irrelevant; on security issues, we are ineffective; and on the use of cybertools to undercut democracy, we have a president who believes Vladimir Putin.

Second, the damage being done to America’s diplomatic readiness is both intentional and long-term. The administration isn’t hurting the State Department by accident. Tillerson maintained a freeze on hiring long after most other Cabinet officials had stopped. The number of promotions has been cut in half and the quantity of incoming Foreign Service officers by more than two-thirds. He is effectively shutting down the State Department’s pipeline for new talent.

As a professor at Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service, I see the consequences of all this firsthand. In the past, my best students have come to me seeking advice on how to enter public service. Now, more and more are telling me they do not see a future for themselves in government. In some cases, this is because they disagree with administration policies, but more often it is because they fear that their efforts and pursuit of excellence would not be valued.

This was never a problem under President Barack Obama or President George W. Bush, but it is a problem now. According to AFSA, the number of individuals taking the Foreign Service exam this year is on track to plummet by more than 50 percent.

If the U.S. military were facing a recruitment and retention crisis of this magnitude, few would hesitate to call it a national security emergency. Well, that is what we are facing. And while it saddens me to criticize one of my successors, I have to speak out because the stakes are so high.

What can we do? We can support bipartisan-minded leaders in Congress who have rejected the reckless cuts the administration proposed in our country’s budget for international affairs. We can amplify these warnings about the hollowing out of the State Department. We can strengthen our case by enlisting business leaders who understand the importance of the work our embassies do across the globe. We can help young people understand that time is sure to bring new leaders with more enlightened ideas about the importance of diplomacy and development to the interests and values of the American people.

Whenever my students ask me whether they should serve in government under this administration, I remind them that the reason we love America so much is that, here, the government is not one man or woman. The government is us, and public service is both a great privilege and a shared responsibility. This is our republic. We must do all we can to keep it strong.

Dismantling the Foreign Service

November 28, 2017

R. Nicholas Burns (Greece, 1997-2001; NATO, 2001-2005; Under Secretary for Political Affairs, 2005-2008)

Ryan Crocker (Lebanon, 1990-1993; Kuwait, 1994-1997; Syria, 1998-2001; Pakistan, 2004-2007; Iraq, 2007-2009; Afghanistan, 2011-2012)

Cross posted from The New York Times

—–

The Foreign Service, our country’s irreplaceable asset for understanding and interacting with a complex and dangerous world, is facing perhaps its greatest crisis. President Trump’s draconian budget cuts for the State Department and his dismissive attitude toward our diplomats and diplomacy itself threaten to dismantle a great foreign service just when we need it most.

The United States is facing an extraordinary set of national security challenges. While we count on our military ultimately to defend the country, our diplomats are with it on front lines and in dangerous places around the world. They are our lead negotiators as we work with our European allies in NATO to contain growing Russian power on the Continent. They are our lead negotiators seeking a peaceful end to the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. Our diplomats are assembling the coalition of countries in East Asia to counter the irresponsible regime of the North Korean dictator, Kim Jong-un.

Foreign Service officers in more than 280 embassies and consulates aid American citizens in trouble overseas, help American companies overcome unfair barriers to trade and investment, coordinate counterterrorism and narcotics programs and manage development and humanitarian aid to distressed countries.

Diplomats negotiate the landing and basing arrangements for American troops overseas, such as at Central Command’s major Middle East base in Qatar. Our strongest and smartest presidents have known that integrating our diplomatic and military strategies is the most effective way to succeed in the world today.

Both of us served overseas and in Washington for decades as career diplomats. We were ambassadors during both Republican and Democratic administrations. We are proud of the nonpartisan culture of our brethren at the State Department. President Trump and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson can count on them to work tirelessly, loyally and with great skill for our country.

But we are concerned the Trump administration is weakening the Foreign Service by a series of misguided decisions since taking office. It has proposed a 31 percent budget reduction for the State Department that would cripple its global reach. It has failed to fill the majority of the most senior ambassadorial positions in Washington and overseas. It is on track to take the lowest number of new officers into the service in years.

It has even nominated a former officer with a scant eight years of experience to be the director general of the Foreign Service, the chief of its personnel system. The nonpartisan American Academy of Diplomacy (of which we both are members) advised Congress that this would be “like making a former Army captain the chief of staff of the Army.”

As a result, many of our most experienced diplomats are leaving the department. Along with the senior diplomats who were summarily fired by the Trump team early this year, we are witnessing the most significant departure of diplomatic talent in generations. The drop in morale among those who remain behind is obvious to both of us. The number of young Americans who applied to take the Foreign Service officer entry test declined by 33 percent in the past year. This is particularly discouraging and will weaken the service for years.

We are not arguing that the State Department is a perfectly functioning agency that requires no improvements. We support creating a culture of reform and renewal at the department. The Trump administration is right to look for budget and operational inefficiencies to ensure the best use of taxpayers’ money. We also agree with the American academy’s support for the elimination of more than 60 special envoy positions to save money and improve effectiveness. The Trump team should additionally consider shifting more positions from Washington to diplomatic posts overseas.

The recent decision by Mr. Tillerson to downsize the Foreign Service by up to 8 percent of the entire officer corps, however, is particularly dangerous. The Foreign Service, which has about 8,000 officers who do core diplomatic work, is a fraction of the size of the military. The service is already overwhelmed by the growing challenges to the United States on every continent. In our view, Mr. Tillerson has failed to make a convincing case as to why deep cuts will strengthen, rather than weaken, the service, and thus the nation. This is not about belt tightening. It is a deliberate effort to deconstruct the State Department and the Foreign Service.

That is why Congress must now exercise its constitutional responsibilities to overrule the most dangerous aspects of the administration’s plans. House and Senate committees must continue to oppose the huge budget cuts. Congressional committee chairmen should block the appointments of Trump nominees clearly unqualified for service. And Congress should ensure that there are sufficient funds to entice patriotic young Americans to join the Foreign Service. Senators John McCain, Republican of Arizona, and Jeanne Shaheen, Democrat of New Hampshire, are leading the bipartisan questioning of Mr. Tillerson’s hiring freeze and warning of its dire consequences.

We are ringing the village bell in alarm because Mr. Trump’s neglect of the State Department will harm our country at an already dangerous time. The Foreign Service is a jewel of the American national security establishment, with the deepest and most effective diplomatic corps in the world. All that is now at risk.

Big Lessons for Japan and America from three small countries

November 14, 2017

Curtis S. Chin (Asia Development Bank, 2007-2010; Asia Fellow, Milken Institute)

Cross posted from The Japan Times

—–

When Prince Akishino and his wife Princess Kiko visited Bankok late last month to attend the royal cremation of the late King Bhumibol Adulyadej, they joined representatives of nations large and small. Together, they all bid a final farewell to a monarch whose remarkable 70-year reign coincided with the transformation of a nation and a continent.

The destruction of World War II and that of the Korean and Vietnam Wars, as well as the tremendous economic troubles that once swept large parts of Asia starting in 1997 beginning in Thailand seemed a world away.

The story of Asia today is one driven by its largest nations and economies. A slow-growing Japan and an increasingly assertive China dominate headlines, as do the mounting tensions that continue to be a major focus of U.S. President Donald Trump’s ongoing visit to Asia.

Yet, three of the region’s smallest countries each offer up a lesson for all of “Asia rising” as well as for the United States and Japan.

First: environment matters. “Going green” is a phrase embraced for many years by both countries and companies — in words, if not action.

The small Himalayan kingdom of Bhutan — 750,000 people in a nation of only 17,500 square kilometers — offers, however, an example that large nations can learn from.

Bhutan’s leaders have put conservation at the heart of their environmental agenda, pledging to keep the country carbon neutral and writing into their constitution the requirement that 60 percent of the nation must remain forested. Other initiatives include bans on plastic bags, restrictions on private vehicles in the capital Thimphu, and a commitment to become the world’s first 100 percent organic-farming nation.

Second, democracy must be nurtured. Another of Asia’s smallest countries, with 1.2 million people and 14,875 square kilometers, offers an example of how people can move forward post-conflict and take control of their own destinies, when given the chance.

The former Portuguese colony of Timor-Leste, also known as East Timor, this year held its first parliamentary elections administered without U.N. oversight since the country regained independence in 2002 from Indonesia. The results were a peaceful and powerful example to many nations, big and small, increasingly doubtful of the wisdom of entrusting their citizens with the power to vote.

While significant economic challenges continue, the people of this newest of Asian nations deserve praise as they progress from decades of conflict and centuries of colonialism. Timor-Leste was ranked first in the Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index 2016 for Southeast Asia and fifth in Asia, behind the well-established democracies of Japan, South Korea, India and Taiwan.

Third, rule of law powers business. The densely populated city-state of Singapore, 5.6 million people in an area of only 719 square kilometers, is a leading example of a small nation that thinks big — and succeeds big. With one of the highest GDP per capita in the world, Singapore showcases the economic benefits of transparency and the embrace of free markets and free trade.

Singapore has not reached global prosperity by conforming to “small-country guidelines” or “thinking small.” This prosperous “Lion City” is ranked the second easiest place in the world to do business in the World Bank’s just released Doing Business 2018 report, behind New Zealand, and the seventh least corrupt economy in the world according to Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index 2016.

As small fish in the big pond that is Asia, these three nations’ futures are by no means certain in a region that will continue to transform in the decades ahead.

According to United Nations estimates, India is on track to replace China as the world’s most populous nation. Wealth and inequality likely also will continue to grow across Asia, as will the risk of military conflict amidst competing demands for energy, water and other resources, including in the South China Sea.

As Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and Trump underscored in Tokyo, Japan and the U.S. share a vision for an Asia-Pacific that is both prosperous and at peace. Much though will depend on their actions and that of others, including China and North Korea.

Countries will continue to apply economic or military pressure to shape their smaller neighbors’ behaviors and policies — no different than today. Traditions will also endure in places such as Thailand and Japan, with their embrace of centuries-old traditions and institutions.

Asia and the Pacific, however, will be better off if all nations adopt some modern-day, “small-state ideas” offered up by Bhutan, Timor-Leste and Singapore — namely the embrace of a greener, more representative and more transparent future for all their citizens.

Albert Einstein, Donald Trump and North Korea

November 3, 2017

Thomas A. Loftus (U.S. Ambassador to Norway, 1993-1997)

Cross posted from The Cap Times

—–

Seventy years ago Albert Einstein, in an Atlantic Magazine article entitled “Atomic War or Peace,” changed American opinion on the use of nuclear weapons.

Einstein’s intended audience in 1947 was the American people, not politicians or generals. His message: “Americans may be convinced of their determination not to launch an aggressive or preventative war. So they may believe it is superfluous to announce publicly that they will not a second time be the first to use the atomic bomb.” Einstein thought refusing to publicly outlaw first use of the bomb was a mistake.

Einstein’s immense credibility and the lucidity of his reasoning had great influence on the generation that had gone through WWII. It offered a way forward to a future without nuclear war. His ideas to contain nuclear weapons would continue to be influential after the Korean War and with baby boomers who grew up in the Cold War always thinking there might be a mushroom cloud in their future.

President Trump’s trip to Asia this month gives an opportunity to change course by stating a policy the two Koreas, Japan and China understand. #1. We will honor our treaty commitments. The United States, by treaty, is responsible for the defense of Japan and South Korea. It is called a mutual defense treaty. #2. We do not want Japan or South Korea to pursue the development of nuclear weapons. #3. We will not introduce nuclear weapons into South Korea, including so-called tactical weapons. #4. We will open talks with North Korea with no preconditions.

Today we stumble toward a war with North Korea where nuclear weapons could be unleashed, not only intentionally following a war of words by the countries’ two leaders, but through accident or miscalculation.

There are questions as to whether the North Korean early-warning system is fail safe, meaning its pre-programmed softwear could trigger a counterattack by mistake. And should North Korea develop a solid fuel rocket, the danger of war by mistake increases.

I personally experienced how frighteningly easy it would be for mixed signals to result in a nuclear conflagration. As the United States ambassador to Norway, I was at the Andoya Rocket Range in north Norway on Jan. 19, 1995, to meet scientists from Cornell University on a research project. The next day a powerful rocket, the Black Brant XII, would be launched, and would pretty much go straight up and peak at a height of 1,400 kilometers. The goal of the research was to gather data on something new: a daytime look at the northern lights. Shortly after launch, the Russian early-warning system tagged it as an attack because the system was programmed to calculate the height, arc and speed of an incoming missile and trigger a counterstrike based on that. Luckily the Russian officer of the day figured out the system got it wrong and stopped the alert. But still, Russian President Boris Yeltsin was given the Black Box and his unsteady finger was on the nuclear trigger for the next 24 hours.

If we enacted a policy that includes the four points above, the risk of both an intentional launch of a nuclear weapon and the mistaken launch of one would diminish.

In high school, I read Einstein’s article, which was reproduced as a short book. To us, war was not abstract. We practiced in school what to do when the Soviets dropped the bomb. Five miles from Sun Prairie where I grew up, Truax Field in Madison housed an Air Force Nike missile base assumed to a Soviet target. Highways were marked for evacuation routes. A big issue in the 1960 presidential race between Kennedy and Nixon was the “missile gap.” The morality of dropping bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was being debated and it was becoming common knowledge that after China entered the Korean War there had been a plan by the generals to drop the atomic bomb on North Korea. And perhaps it would have happened had we not had civilian control of the military.

The stated goal of the current administration is to pressure North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons. This isn’t a realistic goal. We need to pursue the four points above, along with Einstein’s admonition that America “will not a second time be the first to use the atomic bomb.”

But how do the American people become motivated enough to inform the politicians and generals and the ersatz Dr. Strangeloves of today of their disagreement with a muddled, contradictory, war-risking policy where what passes for lucidity is the phrase, “Everything is on the table”?

Here is how Einstein said it: “The atomic scientists, I think, have become convinced that they cannot arouse the American people to the truths of the atomic era by logic alone. There must be added that deep power of emotion which is a basic ingredient of religion. It is to be hoped that not only the churches but the schools, the colleges, and the leading organs of opinion will acquit themselves well of their unique responsibility in this regard.”

Americans can learn from the struggles and wins of Rwandan women

October 6, 2017

Swanee Hunt (U.S. Ambassador to Austria, 1993-1997; Chair, Inclusive Security)

Cross posted from The Hill

—–

If the hand-wringing of pundits has left you in despair that this country is beyond healing, learn from the women of Rwanda.

Most people rightly recall that small nation in East Africa as the site of a 1994 genocide of unspeakable brutality, in which as many as one million (mostly Tutsi) died in a span of 100 days. With machetes and clubs, Hutu extremists slaughtered not only neighbors, but even Tutsi in their own families. The country was decimated — the equivalent of 32 million Americans murdered this fall.

What fewer people know is that when the killing ended, the impossible happened. Women created 15,000 village councils that formed a leadership pipeline; they designed a grass-roots justice process that allowed healing; they took on influential roles historically denied them.

As chaos cracked open the culture, women surged into the breach: today they hold a world-record 64 percent of parliamentary seats. They passed landmark legislation enabling females to inherit property, which opened paths to economic opportunity.

An astounding 55,000 community health workers have been elected by their neighborhoods. Illiteracy has plummeted, thanks in part to compulsory education for girls as well as boys through the 9th grade.

These advances, forged primarily by women, have made Rwanda the gold standard for development in Africa. Virtually free of corruption, the nation’s annual economic growth has averaged eight percent.

Over the past two decades, Rwanda’s women have built bridges across the deepest chasm imaginable. To put a lid on strife, the government forbade the use of ethnic labels. And women took transformative reconciliation an unfathomable step further, adopting hundreds of thousands of orphans of the other group.

Why should this matter to Americans? Of course we should care as humanitarians. But there’s another reason. It’s at the heart of our security, our well-being, and our pocket books.

It’s a matter of insistent cooperation. Compared to men, American women co-sponsor more bills across party lines, and the huge majority declare to researchers that they’re more willing to reach across aisles. The examples are usually little known, but sometimes front- page “above the fold.” A few weeks ago, women in the Senate joined hands to protect healthcare for the poor. And remember 2013, when they dramatically banded together to avert a government shutdown.

Of course, we’ve seen only hints of what collaboration can mean in our Congress. That’s primarily because women’s representation the United States doesn’t come close to our Rwandan counterparts. Just 20 percent of our Congress is female, far from the “critical mass” (around 30 percent) that can reshape an institution.

Embarrassingly, 120 countries have a higher percent of women legislators than we do.

How do we change this? Americans aren’t going to formalize a gender quota, which is a matter of course in most countries. But our political parties could adopt minimums to reduce the huge disparity of men to women. In fact, one-third of Congressional Democrats are female; the problem is that the GOP women’s caucus has only eight percent. Republican women do run, but they have a very hard time getting out of their primary races, which are closely guarded by good ol’ boys.

Apart from quotas, we can embrace other Rwandan strategies. There, women rose because of a pull from the top and push up from the bottom. Cues from leadership matter; in both parties, high officials should be urging specific women to run, then supporting them with money and top talent to break through and win.

But let’s take apart our situation further: As Rwandan women graduated from their village boards to climbed a ladder of councils, they built a knowledge base of issues as well as the political process, and they formed professional connections. Likewise, we can support an unruly female crowd to step onto political rungs from city-wide boards to major municipal and state-wide offices. Every one of us could join organizations like She Should Run or Running Start, and encourage women we know to throw their hats in the ring.

The good news is that U.S. women compete evenly in open-seat races. Our structural problem is that Congressional incumbents (mostly men) are re-elected at a rate well over a whopping 90 percent. Some doors may open in 2018 since an unusual number of Republican men are likely not to run again, in part because home district resistance to President Trump’s policies is so vociferous.

Genocide has no silver lining. Still, Rwanda is our teacher. If women there reinvented a country out of smoldering ashes, surely we Americans can clear the way for women to break gridlock, embrace differences, and restore civility in our country.

As Hong Kong dims, Asia can learn much from Singapore, East Timor and Bhutan

October 3, 2017

Curtis S. Chin (Asia Development Bank, 2007-2010; Asia Fellow, Milken Institute)

Cross posted from the South China Morning Post

—–

Twenty years ago in Asia – as Hong Kong returned to China under the “one country, two systems” formula, there was hope that the former British colony would set an example for a freer, more progressive China.

Those days, for now, seem past as China cracks down on dissent in the run-up to a landmark Communist Party congress, and as Hong Kong jails democracy campaigners over anti-China protests. Hong Kong may no longer be the role model it once was, should Beijing’s moves, unintentional or not, transform this economic showcase into “just another Chinese city”.

Yet, at a recent Milken Institute Asia Summit that looked back 20 years to 1997 and ahead 20 more to 2037, I found hope that, amid the diversity of Asia, there remain numerous examples of a way forward for all of the region.

The story of Asia today remains very much one driven by its largest nations and economies. An increasingly assertive China, a slow-growing Japan, a rising India and a still emerging Indonesia dominate the headlines, along with mounting tensions from the Korean peninsula. Yet, all of “Asia rising” can take a lesson from some of the region’s smallest countries.

From three small countries come three big lessons for a greener, more representative and more transparent Asia. My hope for Asia 2037 is that these small nations – Bhutan, East Timor and Singapore – can inspire and show the way.

“Going green” is a phrase that has been thrown around for many years by both countries and companies. But despite the rhetoric, Asia is increasingly polluted, with man-made forest fires and smog-enveloped cities an annual occurrence. At least one Asia-Pacific nation, however, both talks the talk and walks the walk.

The small Himalayan kingdom of Bhutan – 790,000 people in a nation of 38,000 sq km – offers an example that its much larger neighbors (China to the north and India to the south) can learn from.

Bhutan’s leaders have put conservation at the heart of their environmental agenda, pledging to keep the country carbon neutral and writing into their constitution the requirement that 60 percent of the nation must remain forested. Other initiatives include bans on plastic bags, restrictions on private vehicles in the capital Thimphu, and a commitment to become the world’s first 100 percent organic-farming nation.

Money can’t buy you happiness

All this is in line with the philosophy of a “gross national happiness” index, as advocated by the fourth king of Bhutan, Jigme Singye Wangchuck. This approach to development goes beyond traditional economic measures, such as the gross national product, which only captures the economic value of goods and services produced. In addition to environmental conservation, the Gross National Happiness Commission also considers sustainable and equitable socio-economic development, the preservation and promotion of culture, and good governance.

East Timor votes in presidential election, signalling age of stability in Asia’s youngest nation

Another of Asia’s smallest countries, East Timor, with 1.2 million people and 14,875 sq km, offers an example of how people can move forward post conflict and take control of their own destinies, when given the chance.

I returned recently to this former Portuguese colony located on the eastern half of an island shared with Indonesia. The trip was as part of an international election observation mission from the Washington-based International Republican Institute. The East Timor government had invited observers to monitor the first parliamentary elections administered without UN oversight since the country regained independence in 2002 from Indonesia. The results were a peaceful and powerful example to many nations, big and small, still struggling to put the power of the vote in the hands of their citizens.
East Timor votes in presidential election, signalling age of stability in Asia’s youngest nation

While significant economic challenges continue, the people of this newest of Asian nations deserve praise as they progress from decades of conflict and centuries of colonialism. East Timor was ranked first in the Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index 2016 for Southeast Asia and fifth in Asia, behind the well-established democracies of Japan, South Korea, India and Taiwan.

Why Hong Kong can never be Singapore: just blame history

The densely-populated city state of Singapore, 5.6 million people on an area of only 719 sq km, is perhaps the leading example in Asia of a small nation that thinks big – and succeeds big. With one of the highest per capita gross domestic products in the world, Singapore showcases the economic benefits of transparency and the rule of law. Its neighbors would do well to adopt this nation’s embrace of free markets and free trade in their own search for drivers of growth and foreign direct investment.

Understandably, the pushback was significant when Kishore Mahbubani, dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore, recently argued that small states “must always behave like small states”, in remarks that were perceived to be a criticism of Singapore’s recent foreign policy.

Singapore did not succeed by thinking small, nor has it reached global prosperity by conforming to “small-country guidelines”. Having developed from a fishing village to a first-world country in just a few generations, Singapore also has become the leading finance and trade hub in Southeast Asia and a role model for rule of law. This prosperous Lion City is now ranked the second-easiest place in the world to do business in the World Bank’s “Doing Business 2017” report, behind New Zealand, and the seventh least-corrupt economy in the world, according to Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index 2016.

As a small state, should Singapore hide when ‘elephants’ fight?

Being ambitious is not a bad thing. Small in geography need not mean small-country mentality and policies.

Over the past 20 years, I have seen first-hand the accomplishments and continuing challenges of Bhutan, Singapore and East Timor. Still, as small fish in the big pond that is Asia, these three nations have futures that are by no means certain.

In the two decades ahead, Asia will continue to transform. According to United Nations estimates, India will trade places with China six years before 2030 to become the world’s most populous nation, en route to 1.66 billion people by 2050. Wealth and inequality are likely to grow, as will the risk of military conflict amid competing demands for energy, water and other resources. Paradoxically, a more populous Asia dominated by large nations might also prove “smaller” as trade and technology further link the ­region.

All share a vision for an Asia-Pacific that is prosperous and at peace in 2037. Much, though, will depend on the world’s biggest powers and the region’s largest nations.

Here’s a prediction. Large countries will seek, in the years ahead, to apply economic or military pressure to shape their smaller neighbors’ behavior and policies – no different than today. Asia and the Pacific, however, will be better off if all nations adopt some modern-day, “small state ideas” offered up by Bhutan, East Timor and Singapore – namely, the embrace of a greener, more representative and more transparent future for all their citizens. That ideally will ring true in both Hong Kong and Beijing one day.

Back to the Future: Reagan, Trump and Bipartisan Tax Reform

September 29, 2017

Stuart E. Eizenstat (Ambassador to the European Union, 1993-1996)

Cross posted from The Hill

—–

With the startling, positive outreach to the congressional Democratic leadership to forge an agreement on short-term funding of the government to avert a shutdown, increasing the debt ceiling and funding Hurricane Harvey relief, followed by further efforts to enlist Democrats on immigration reform and tax reform, the door is now more open than seemed possible for President Trump to create a bipartisan coalition for tax reform and tax cuts, just as Republican icon Ronald Reagan did in 1986. While Trump in 1991 told Congress the 1986 tax act was an “absolute catastrophe” because it closed real estate loopholes important to his business, as president he has warmly endorsed it.

The 1986 Tax Reform Act, signed by President Reagan almost exactly 31 years ago, was the first across-the-board tax reduction for everyone since the Kennedy tax cuts, and there have been none since. President Carter tried and failed to pass a comprehensive tax reform bill in 1978-’79, even with a heavily Democratic Congress.

The essence of the Reagan plan, embraced by the Democratic leadership that controlled the Congress, was to create a fairer, simpler tax system, with lower rates and fewer tax breaks for the wealthy and corporations, that did not inflate the budget deficit. By appealing to Democrats with the liberal idea of closing tax loopholes, shelters and deductions for the wealthy, with the conservative Republican philosophy of lowering tax rates, he forged a bipartisan coalition.

The act lowered personal and corporate tax rates, while remaining revenue neutral by broadening the tax base through eliminating tens of billions of dollars in tax loopholes for the wealthy and corporations. It also lowered the capital gains rate from 20 percent to 28 percent, agreeing with Democrats that capital gains generally benefiting the wealthy should be taxed at the same rate as ordinary income from workers — the heart of Reagan’s and now Trump’s blue-collar support. Reagan said in championing the bill that he wanted to “close the unproductive loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share.”

It exempted millions of low-income families from a federal income tax by expanding the standard deduction, personal exemption and earned income tax credit; it drastically reduced the number of tax brackets, with the top rate for individuals cut from 50 percent to 28 percent; and it slashed corporate tax rates from 48 percent to 34 percent, paid for by eliminating or reducing corporate tax breaks.

Since the 1986 act, presidents and successive Congresses have eroded some, but not all, of its benefits. Scores of special, targeted tax breaks and shelters have been passed. The top tax rate for individuals has now increased to 39.6 percent, and the number of brackets has jumped to six.

For sure, President Trump is in the Oval Office in a different era: the middle of American politics has eroded; both parties are more partisan, less willing to compromise, and more subject to pressures from their left and right flanks. Yet even liberal champion Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) voted for the 1986 Act.

Trump’s approval ratings are under 40 percent — far below Reagan’s. It will be harder to close loopholes to offset the revenue loss from tax cuts, and congressional Republican leaders seem less interested in doing so, relying upon “dynamic scoring” — that somehow tax cuts will produce so much more economic growth, tax revenues will magically close the deficit, something which has never been shown to happen.

The Republican leadership is so anxious to pass a tax bill by the end of the year, it will leave little room for the kinds of reforms Reagan and the congressional Democrats achieved to earn the tax cuts. If there is a 2017 tax bill, it is likely to be almost all tax cuts, with no tax reforms to broaden the base.

Still, there are important lessons to be learned from Ronald Reagan’s approach.

He announced his intention for comprehensive tax reform in his 1984 State of the Union message, almost a year before he submitted his proposals, so it was well thought through, and went through a lengthy odyssey in Congress, with full hearings, markups and deliberation. While Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin and National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn have been assiduously working on a tax bill for several months, speed seems to be a key goal for both the administration and the Republican leadership, to have one major victory before the end of the first session. This will almost certainly lead to cuts without Reagan-type tax reforms.

Ronald Reagan also courted Democrats, including Speaker Tip O’Neill (Mass.), Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.), and Rep. Richard Gephardt (Mo.) and Sen. Bill Bradley (N.J.), who already had a similar bill in the hopper, working with the politically gifted Treasury Secretary James Baker. Trump got off on the wrong foot by threatening Missouri Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill to support the principals of the tax proposal he presented in her home state. But he has recently rectified this with a sincere outreach to a number of key Democratic leaders, as Ronald Reagan did.

There are substantial hurdles to forge a bipartisan consensus: Democrats are insisting that most of the individual tax cuts be focused on the middle class, and that deep tax reductions be paid for by loophole closings; Republicans are intent on deep corporate and upper income individual tax cuts, with little reforms to pay for them. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center indicates the Trump plan could add over $3 trillion to the deficit in the first 10 years alone, and that 40 percent of the cuts would go to the top 1 percent of earners.

But still, as in 1986, there is broad, bipartisan recognition that:

  • our tax system is too complex and unfair;
  • that reducing high marginal tax rates can encourage taxpayers to lessen reliance on tax shelters;
  • that our corporate tax system in the globalized world economy leaves U.S. corporations at a competitive disadvantage, with the highest marginal tax rates among OECD countries — although far lower actual rates, with all the special tax breaks — encouraging them to invest in low tax states abroad;
  • that U.S. corporations should be encouraged to bring back the more than $2.5 trillion they have parked abroad and make job-creating investments rather than use them for stock dividends and share buybacks;
  • that individual tax brackets should be narrowed; and
  • that the tax code favors debt over equity, by allowing deductions for interest but double-taxing corporate equity income.

The most important lesson from 1986 is that Ronald Reagan showed consistent leadership at key points when the bill seemed doomed, going to Capitol Hill, writing letters to wary Republican members, and using his bully pulpit to stay on message about its importance to audiences around the country. This will be a major test for President Trump, to see if he has absorbed Reagan’s lessons. By indicating to Democrats that he does not want to focus his tax cuts on the wealthy, he is sending a powerful signal. The tax debate is also a test for the Democratic leadership to rise to the occasion, as they did in reaching agreement with Ronald Reagan three decades ago.

America Needs More Ambassadors and We Need Them Now

September 29, 2017

Nancy Brinker (Ambassador to Hungary, 2001-2003; Chief of Protocol, 2007-2009)

Cross posted from FoxNews.com

—–

America stands in the midst of great challenges at home and threats from abroad. If we fail in our duty to sustain and foster stronger ties between nations, then we run the risk of fracturing centuries-old alliances that have served to keep our people safe and prosperous.

The president of the United States – in addition to his duties as commander-in-chief, healer-in-chief and chief executive – is also our chief diplomat. In this capacity, he is granted the constitutional responsibility of appointing ambassadors to serve as our top representatives on the ground in nearly 200 nations across the globe.

Our ambassadors represent our eyes and ears inside each of these nations, overseeing a team of career diplomats and representatives of vital U.S. organizations. The diplomatic corps represents the best exchange program America has to offer, and it is up to our ambassadors to lobby for our interests with presidents, chancellors, kings and prime ministers in each of these countries.

Yet, according to the American Foreign Service Association, only 47 ambassadors out of 188 positions we should have filled have been nominated. On average, it has taken three months for Trump administration ambassador nominees to be confirmed from the time they are nominated.

With aggression from North Korea and Russia on the rise, and stability in the Middle East in short supply, our current lack of ambassadors hinders friendships, imperils economic development and undermines our national security.

It is in America’s best interest that the Trump administration move swiftly to name ambassadors to these vacant posts. It is also incumbent upon Republicans and Democrats in the Senate to heed the president’s calls for bipartisanship and come together and swiftly confirm them.

Ambassadors come from all walks of life and diverse backgrounds. They are strong leaders, pragmatic negotiators and skilled managers with tremendous experience. They are recruited from both the public and private sectors and carry with them a vast portfolio of knowledge and important relationships that have been accumulated over decades.

From governors, to real estate magnates, to professional football team owners and educators, every ambassador is different from the next, and each brings his or her own personal touch to the countries they are stationed in. Foreign service officers are conducting yeoman’s work, and they rightly deserve to be praised for it. However, it is our ambassadors who bear the blessing of the president.

To his credit, President Trump has already nominated some exemplary statesmen to serve on behalf of our nation’s interests abroad. Jon Huntsman, Terry Branstad and Richard Grenell are highly capable and more than prepared to serve with distinction in Russia, China and Germany.

Taken together, their experience in government and business will help grow and maintain goodwill for America, foster relationships with international corporations, and illustrate to friend and foe alike that the United States is prepared to bring the full force of our diplomacy efforts to international crises.

Having served as ambassador to the Republic of Hungary from 2001-2003, I know that ambassadors are the best conduit to serve on the front lines of protecting and promoting American interests in an increasingly interconnected world.

I began my work in Budapest 15 days after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. With a staff of over 400 people, we helped further economic and security interests, and even developed stronger cultural ties between our nations through art and humanitarian causes, including a march over the Chain Bridge in Budapest to raise awareness for breast cancer.

If America wants to have more friends, then we must be a friend first. With aggression from North Korea and Russia on the rise, and stability in the Middle East in short supply, our current lack of ambassadors hinders friendships, imperils economic development and undermines our national security.

President Trump offered a forceful speech and candid assessment of world affairs at the U.N. General Assembly. Congress must work with him to nominate and confirm more ambassadors as quickly as possible.

Nancy Brinker is founder of Susan G. Komen and Race for the Cure.