Time to Negotiate with North Korea

June 23, 2017

Thomas Graham, Jr. (Special Representative of the President for Arms Control, Nonproliferation and Disarmament, 1994-1997)

Cross posted from the June 23, 2017 edition of U.S. News and World Report

—–

The great Cold Warrior and international negotiator Ambassador Paul Nitze once said to me “Whenever I enter one of these negotiations (U.S.-Soviet nuclear arms negotiations) I try to imagine the narrow strip where both sides can stand comfortably. Then I try to steer U.S. policy toward that place.” That is a good construct for important and sensitive negotiation with an adversary. And it could work with North Korea as well. Whatever one thinks of North Korea, with their horrible record of human rights and disregard for human life, they do have interests, which they acknowledge, and they will negotiate if approached correctly and very carefully.

North Korea, officially the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, is a dangerous state with a long track record of being willing to sell anything to anyone for its own benefit, and a history of state terrorism against South Korea. As such, it poses a double danger. First, the DPRK could sell nuclear weapons to Iran or to terrorist organizations, or it could transfer bomb production technology as it did to Syria during 2005-2007. Second, a nuclear-armed North Korea, with ballistic missiles currently capable of reaching targets throughout Northeast Asia and likely capable of reaching the United States within a few years, is a grave threat to South Korea, Japan and America.

However, Pyongyang’s policy over the years has also included a certain realpolitik and willingness to negotiate. The North Korean regime, which has few allies in the international sphere and grapples with crippling domestic problems, is above all interested in survival, economic benefits and a diplomatic relationship with the United States. Military action against North Korea is not an attractive option; the huge North Korean artillery and rocket forces amassed along the Korean Demilitarized Zone pose a serious threat to Seoul that is less than twenty miles away; and in recent years, uncertainty has developed about what the DPRK might do with its nuclear weapons. Diplomacy is the only practical option.

Some say that the North Koreans are irrational but the track record does not necessarily bear this out. The United States utterly crushed North Korea during the Korean War but 64 years have passed since the end of that conflict, and the Kim family remains in control. The North Koreans have a weak hand and they have played it with skill. Their objectives have always been clear: survival, economic benefits and a relationship with the United States. In the past, to the extent the U.S. was prepared to pay this price, agreement with the DPRK was possible. Playing on this the Clinton administration made real progress: the DPRK nuclear program was essentially shut down – not eliminated but shut down – and an agreement ending their ballistic missile program was close.

For its own purposes, the Bush administration decided to abandon all the Clinton progress, adopt a confrontational position toward North Korea and include North Korea in the president’s axis of evil speech in early 2002. Later that year, just before North Korea withdrew from the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, a U.S. delegation was in Pyongyang. There, among others, the U.S. delegation met with First Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs Kang Sok-ju who accused the United States of singling out North Korea for nuclear attack and, among other memorable statements, said “We are part of the axis of evil, and you are gentlemen. That is our relationship. We cannot discuss matters like gentlemen. If we disarm ourselves because of U.S. pressure, then we will become like Yugoslavia or Afghanistan’s Taliban to be beaten to death.”

The hardline was back. Over the next 15 years arms limitation was largely abandoned. North Korea conducted five nuclear weapon tests and many ballistic missile tests. The DPRK has become a direct threat to the United States. And the new ruler of North Korea, Kim Jong-un, had raised the stakes. Arguably, negotiation is still possible but now in addition to survival, economic benefits and a relationship with the United States, the DPRK wants to be recognized as a nuclear weapon state, something the United States cannot and should not do.

However, if catastrophe at least at some level is to be avoided, negotiations have to be attempted. The North Koreans likely will be open to making an agreement that they perceive to be in their interest. The trick will be to find the terms of such an agreement that would also be in the interest of the United States. The alternatives are not attractive. Leon Sigal, a long-time, non-government expert on North Korea has suggested an approach of seeking a temporary suspension of North Korea’s nuclear weapons program while both sides discuss reciprocal steps that the U.S. could consider in order to address North Korea’s security concerns. There may be interest in this in North Korea. This could be a place to start.

Why a Re-Balanced State Department Budget Should Include Support for Cultural Diplomacy

June 14, 2017

Curtis S. Chin (Asian Development Bank, 2007-2010)

Cross posted from Ambassador Chin’s LinkedIn Page.

______

GWANGJU, SOUTH KOREA – From here on a Korean peninsula split between North and South, to Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., where U.S. Secretary of State Rex. W. Tillerson recently testified before a Senate Appropriations Committee on the FY 2018 State Department Budget Request under U.S. President Donald J. Trump, our world remains as divided as ever.

Tillerson made clear that the Fiscal Year 2018 budget request of $37.6 billion “aligns with the [Trump] administration’s objective of making America’s security our top priority.” While there would be “substantial funding for many foreign assistance programs,” he said, other initiatives would see reductions. The State Department and USAID budget, he noted, had increased more than 60 percent – a “rate of increase in funding [that] is not sustainable” – from Fiscal Year 2007, reaching an all-time high of $55.6 billion in Fiscal Year 2017.

“While our mission will also be focused on advancing the economic interests of the American people, the State Department’s primary focus will be to protect our citizens at home and abroad,” said Tillerson in his prepared remarks introducing the budget request.

Time to Get Creative with Diplomacy

Yet, with disruption and division haunting our world, the United States needs to get creative and double down on diplomacy in all its forms. This can be done cost-effectively and in a way that showcases America at her best.

This is particularly important in places such as South Korea and elsewhere in Asia and the Pacific – a region that continues to be a key driver of global economic growth. Much of the region remains worried about an increasingly aggressive China and would welcome strengthened U.S. engagement.

Certainly, there is no substitute for the “hard power” of a strong military and a willingness to deploy and use military assets. U.S. engagement in Asia will benefit from an America that is stronger both economically and militarily.

That was clear when former U.S. President Barack Obama’s failure to act after his “red line” was crossed in Syria unintentionally undermined his much publicized “U.S. pivot to Asia.” That Obama-era initiative came to be seen by many in the region as more rhetoric than reality and, as I argued on CNN, “more bark than bite.”

Soft Power Has Its Advantages

But “soft power” too has its advantages. This must be kept in mind both by the U.S. president and the leadership of the U.S. Congress as work moves forward on an overall FY 2018 budget that gets spending under control while advancing American interests.

Trump should be applauded for not shying away from the hard work of seeking more balanced economic and trade engagement, and more sustainable, if not yet balanced, budgets.

I believe that a final, negotiated FY 2018 budget request for the State Department should include continued funding – if not a gradual increase – of what has been a relatively small amount of money allocated every year to the soft power of “cultural diplomacy.”

Roughly defined as the use of an exchange of ideas, traditions and values to strengthen relations and encourage engagement, cultural diplomacy is perhaps most easily seen in the use of music, arts and sports to build cross-cultural understanding.

Beyond “Ping Pong Diplomacy” in Asia

Famously, in the early 1970s, an exchange of table tennis players between the United States and China helped pave the way for a visit to Beijing by then President Richard Nixon. Then, it was “ping pong diplomacy.”

Today, it could well be the power of American football or music that helps America and Americans to better connect abroad – and that includes with counterparts in long-time allies, such as here in South Korea. Likewise, the power of South Korea’s culture from its rich traditions to the new wonders of K-pop and Korean TV dramas are advancing South Korean interests and “brand Korea.”

This February at the Asia Culture Center in the South Korean city of Gwangju, I was honored to join our U.S. Charge d’Affaires Marc Knapper from our embassy in Seoul to support American cultural diplomacy in action. Some 100 participants and their families and communities in Korea came together with a team of dancers from the Battery Dance Company in New York to help build understanding and bridge divides. Gwangju is the 6th largest city in South Korea and the birthplace of that nation’s modern democratic movement.

“Inclusion is the name of the game,” said Battery Dance Company founder and director Jonathan Hollander to me, “with disabled students working with high school dance majors; Filipino young women and a high school hip hop dance club; North Korean defectors; middle-aged ladies from a community dance group; and the Gwangju Ballet.”

Cultural Diplomacy at Work: Dancing to Connect

I first came to know Hollander when I served some 15 years back on the bipartisan Advisory Committee on Cultural Diplomacy under U.S. Secretaries of State Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice. That committee was authorized by the U.S. Congress and established in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, as security concerns led to increased restrictions on travel and greater scrutiny of visitors from some Muslim-majority countries.

I now serve on the Battery Dance international advisory board as part of my own efforts to encourage cultural exchange – and build understanding of the United States.

“Cultural diplomacy becomes a real live thing when you get diverse people into a space together and differences are erased, borders crossed, preconceptions challenged [and] cooperation engendered,” said Hollander. “Both the US and Korea are experiencing social upheaval at the same time. Tensions are high. What does the future hold?”

Perhaps, we should once again look to the past to answer that question amidst new U.S. restrictions on visas and potential temporary travel bans from some countries.

Nearly 12 years ago, in September 2005, the eight-person Advisory Committee on Cultural Diplomacy issued a report to the then-U.S. Secretary of State underscoring the importance of strengthening U.S. engagement internationally as positive perceptions of the United States fell, particularly in the Arab and Muslim world.

Our committee included Republicans and Democrats in the world of academia, culture, business and government.

The Linchpin of Public Diplomacy

In our report, “Cultural Diplomacy: The Linchpin of Public Diplomacy,” we urged the then-Secretary of State to consider a number of recommendations that would strengthen America’s soft power in the ongoing battle of ideas, and create a cultural diplomacy infrastructure and policy for the 21st century.

As I found later through the Battery Dance Company and other organizations, whether supported by the U.S. government or U.S. businesses abroad as part of their corporate social responsibility efforts, sometimes it is not the career diplomats who are our best American representatives. Indeed, everyday Americans as well as American businesspeople, athletes, entertainers and performers are often best positioned to convey the vibrancy, the innovativeness and warmth that is also the United States.

While the mandate and work of our bipartisan advisory committee finished long ago, here are two recommendations we made that are worth revisiting even as U.S. State Department and USAID budgets are possibly reallocated and reduced.

First, we recommended providing advanced training and professional development opportunities for U.S. Foreign Service Officers who are public affairs officers and have responsibility for public diplomacy and cultural diplomacy through their careers. This would include particular attention to upgrading their ability to use research, polling, and new media, including social media. This cannot be “your grandfather’s State Department.”

Second, we recommended expanding international cultural exchange programs. We sought to underscore the power of open, not closed, doors. At that time, we focused on inviting more Arab and Muslim artists, performers, and writers to the United States, and sending their American counterparts to the Islamic world.

Today, the need for smarter, enhanced U.S. engagement extends around the world, including to the Asia and Pacific region. As China continues to militarize “islands” it builds in the South China Sea – through which much of U.S. trade with the region transits – an opportunity exists for the United States to positively raise its profile through diplomacy as a more responsible power and partner in the region.

Enhancing Security through Cultural Diplomacy

Back in 2005, the advisory committee wrote that “cultural diplomacy can enhance our national security in subtle, wide-ranging, and sustainable ways,” and underscored that such diplomacy efforts require a generational commitment of funds, expertise, courage and time. Those words still ring true.

In 1848, the British statesman Lord Palmerston is said to have commented that nations have no eternal allies or permanent enemies, but only eternal and perpetual interests. Working to win the hearts and minds of reasonable people everywhere remains very much in America’s interests.

Certainly, the challenges of budgets and bureaucracy remain, but it is time for the United States to recommit to diplomacy – cultural, commercial and educational. As Trump and Tillerson disrupt the staid halls of the U.S. State Department, there should be no ignoring that robust, strengthened diplomacy is good for American security and also makes long-term economic sense.

Mexico: Off to the Races

June 2, 2017

Antonio O. Garza (U.S. Ambassador to Mexico, 2002-2009)

Cross posted from Ambassador Garza’s website

___

The U.S.-Mexico relationship is once again back in the headlines and this time it’s not just changing, it could be completely redefined. After months of anticipation, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer submitted a two-page letter to Congress on May 18th, which announced the Trump administration’s intent to renegotiate NAFTA. The letter spurred the U.S. government into action, triggering the start of a consultation process—where businesses, industry groups, and private citizens can submit comments—and public hearings scheduled for later this summer. By early fall, negotiators from all three countries will begin sitting down together to hash out the details, with the goal of wrapping up the negotiations in early 2018.

To put it simply, reshaping NAFTA—an agreement that underpins over a trillion dollars in trade and that touches every major sector of the three countries’ economies—in only a few months is remarkably ambitious. While Mexican officials would like to end the process before the start of their presidential campaign cycle in early 2018, delays seem not just likely but inevitable. Throughout the process, expect to see a renewed focus on the trilateral relationship, which we are already witnessing through cross-border events and publications, as civil society groups and businesses seek to share their opinions and insert them into the negotiations.

However, while the upcoming NAFTA negotiations might be tough, the even more game-changing process in Mexico is going to be tackling the country’s rule of law challenges. On this front, 2017 has been a grim year, with setbacks for the recent anti-corruption reforms, fugitive corrupt governors, and the highest homicide rate for a first-quarter in the last two decades. Among those killed since January were six journalists, a particularly dark stain on an already bleak record. As I wrote for USA Today earlier this week, making improvements in protecting journalists and human rights defenders is not just going to be good policy, it will be the substance of strong leadership and presidential legacy.

Finally, for those of you keeping an eye on Mexican politics, this Sunday, June 4th marks the governor races in the State of Mexico, Coahuila, and Nayarit. Of the three, the State of Mexico race is the one to watch, as President Enrique Peña Nieto’s PRI party has not lost the state in a century. The latest polls, however, show the PRI candidate Alfredo del Mazo to be neck and neck with the leftist Morena candidate Delfina Gómez. While the PRI’s success at holding the state and Morena’s ability to pull in voters with its anti-corruption, populist message is expected to provide a sneak-peek for next year’s presidential elections, the fact that the race is so close (after the PRI won this governorship by 20+ percent in previous years) is already a strong indicator of the state and country’s political mood.

U.S./Mexico: Improving Tone, But Nothing’s Final

April 20, 2017

Antonio O. Garza (U.S. Ambassador to Mexico, 2002-2009)

Cross posted from Ambassador Garza’s website

These past few weeks have presented the Trump administration with its first real foreign policy tests. Syria’s use of chemical weapons, the United States’ retaliatory airstrikes, the nuclear standoff with North Korea, and China and Russia’s constant maneuvering in this ever-moving foreign policy chess board. Yet in these globally-focused days and weeks, Mexico—once seemingly the administration’s top focus—has skirted below the radar.

Today’s U.S.-Mexico relationship is marked by a relatively thoughtful tone, which I for one interpret as good news. As the economic tensions have eased slightly, the continental conversation has begun to center more on fair trade, each countries’ interests, and job creation, a healthier tone for beginning NAFTA negotiations than the protectionist talk that dominated economic discussions just a few months ago.

On bilateral security cooperation, the discussion has also become more focused. Throughout the change in U.S. administrations, law enforcement on both sides of the border have continued to work together with little interruption. And at the highest level, DHS Secretary John Kelly has continuously heralded the United States’ cooperation with Mexico as both positive and critically important.

Yet while bilateral relations may be on more stable ground, Mexico continues to face its own range of domestic drama. In the ongoing saga of fugitive governors, there has been some recent success. Interpol and Guatemalan officials captured Veracruz Governor Javier Duarte in Guatemala and Italian officials nabbed former Governor of Tamaulipas Tomas Yarrington, with both now facing charges of corruption and collusion with organized crime. Yet, there are still governors on the run, with former Chihuahua Governor Cesar Duarte missing and possibly hiding out in El Paso.

The stories of corruption and ongoing violence will continue to play out as we move ever closer to Mexico’s presidential elections in July 2018. To get a sense of what Mexico’s population is feeling in the election’s lead-up, be sure to watch the State of Mexico’s election this coming June. President Peña Nieto’s PRI party has governed the state for almost a century, but the three opposition candidates are making it a close run. Also tellingly, insecurity has been a big theme of the campaigns with both the PRI and the PAN releasing TV spots that focus on the state’s security conditions.

However, one cautionary note before we fall back into a more predictable and comfortable bilateral relationship or get swept away in Mexico’s electoral intrigue. While the U.S.-Mexico bilateral relationship is on better footing, now is not the time for complacency. Ensuring cooperative economic and security relations requires consistent and tireless effort to protect what works and continually improve those areas where things could be better. This may always be true, but amid shifting policies, it’s critical.

“What’s the Best Country?”

March 30, 2017

Faith Whittlesey (Ambassador to Switzerland, 1981-1983 and 1985-1988)

Doug Sears (Former Foreign Service Officer)

Cross-posted from The Daily Caller

___

The New York Times earlier this month ran a story about the recently released U.S. News best countries ranking. Unsurprisingly for those who have lived and worked there—Switzerland was ranked #1. Another un-surprise–the United States was ranked #7. The writer for The New York Times predictably attributed the U.S. slide to President Trump, despite the fact he has been in office less than 3 months.

But if we are willing to look elsewhere–and admit that maybe a new Dark Age of Trump has not suddenly succeeded a Golden Age of Obama/Clinton (the U.S. stock market doesn’t seem to think it has)–perhaps it might dawn on us that the new administration is actually trying its best to put into practice some lessons, maybe derived from the Swiss, that could better serve us the next time U.S. News gets around to doing its survey.

Read the rest of this entry »

What Could Possibly Go Wrong When Dealing with the Russians?

February 22, 2017

Thomas A. Loftus (Norway, 1993-1998)

Cross-posted from The Cap Times of Madison, Wisconsin

___

A look at history should give President Donald Trump pause if he and his administration think they understand the workings of Russian minds. The 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan provides a lesson in how the Soviet Union and the U.S. miscommunicated and misunderstood each other — with long-lasting, dire results.

On Sept. 21, 1995, as Norwegian ambassador I hosted a private lunch for Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin and Admiral Stansfield Turner. Vodka was served.

Dobrynin had been the Soviet Union’s ambassador to the United States from 1962 to 1986, from JFK through Ronald Reagan. His book “In Confidence: Moscow’s Ambassador to Six Cold War Presidents” is a must-read. Stansfield Turner was the head of the CIA for Jimmy Carter.

It was a sunny day in Oslo and the three of us chatted like old friends, as we had come to know each other over three days at a closed-door conference hosted by the Nobel Prize Institute recounting the Russian invasion of Afghanistan in 1979.

The conference can best be described as “What didn’t we know, and when didn’t we know it?”

All of the actors making decisions during the 1979 invasion were at the conference, including the head of the KGB and the head of the White House National Security Council. It was to be an oral history of those in the Soviet Union involved in the fateful decision to invade Afghanistan and those in the Carter administration who decided how to respond.

The 1979 invasion was the end of “detente” — the thaw in the Cold War that began in 1969 as the new policy of President Nixon and that produced the SALT 1 treaty reducing nuclear weapons.

A direct telephone link between Washington and Moscow — “the red telephone” — was installed at that time so the leaders of the two world powers could talk and avoid a crisis that could escalate into war.

That phone must have been off the hook in December 1979 because it became clear from the conference — my memory helped by reading the now-available transcript — that neither side knew what the other was doing or thinking despite being sure they did.

The Soviets thought that the U.S. would understand that this action was directed at keeping a Muslim country on their southern border from falling apart. The inept government the Soviets had been propping up was about to be overthrown.

The Carter White House thought the invasion was part of a grand plan to expand the Soviet Empire and that the Soviets were creating an “Arc of Crisis.”

The Soviets’ reading of Washington was that this local matter in their “near abroad” would be criticized but would not harm the U.S. relationship under detente.

Dobrynin: “I am trying to tell you how we really thought. There was no discussion in the Kremlin of any Grand Design. There was no discussion in the press — well, the press did not matter — nor in the Politburo, or the Foreign Ministry. I spoke privately with Brezhnev at the time and there was never a single word about it. … In one of the meetings Brezhnev even asked me, “Anatoly, where is the ‘Arc of Crisis?'”

As a result of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, there was a Western embargo and sanctions on the Soviet Union, and President Carter pulled the United States out of the Moscow summer Olympics in 1980.

The war lasted nine years, over a million civilians were killed and millions more fled as refugees to Pakistan and Iran. The CIA started a not-so-covert action to harass the Soviets: “Charlie Wilson’s War.” The fighters against the Soviets became radicalized and when President Mikhail Gorbachev ordered the Soviet 40th Army to return home, what was left in Afghanistan was a mess that turned eventually into the Taliban and al-Qaida.

If President Trump deals with the Russians thinking he knows how they think, there will be disappointment — not deals. And, if President Putin, a man too clever by half, thinks the new administration gives him license in his “near abroad,” tragedy will result.

Treat Mexico as a Strategic Partner

February 21, 2017

John D. Negroponte (Mexico, 1989-1993)
James R. Jones (Mexico, 1993-1997)
Jeffrey Davidow (Mexico, 1998-2002)
Antonio Garza (Mexico, 2002-2009)
Carlos Pascual (Mexico, 2009-2011)
Earl Anthony Wayne (Mexico, 2011-2015)

An edited version of this piece appeared in The Washington Post.

______

Mexico is of enormous importance to the United States. We have strong strategic interests in a relationship of respect and collaboration with Mexico while we work through differences on trade, security, and migration.

US-Mexico relations touch the daily lives of more Americans than ties with any other country, whether through culture, commerce or travel. US prosperity and the security of our homeland are deeply affected by the type of relationship we have with our southern neighbor.

Much can be improved between Mexico and the US for the good of both countries, but tackling these challenges need not be a win-lose proposition. Both countries can gain security and prosperity. Reviving the animosity and “distance” that characterized our relationship in the seventies or eighties is dangerous and runs counter to our interests.

The six of us have served as U.S. Ambassadors to Mexico, managing the ever-improving relationship across Democratic and Republican administrations since the late eighties. We have seen firsthand the strategic value of working cooperatively with Mexico to tackle common problems, including crime, terrorism and global economic competition. Along the way, Mexico has become a more democratic and prosperous country, making it a better and more reliable partner.

We are now deeply concerned to see this foundation shaken. Public attitudes in both countries are being soured by exaggerated public accusations. Mexicans believe that their national “dignity” has been insulted. Champions of closer cooperation with the US are on the defensive. Nationalist voices are gaining traction. This is not in America’s long-term interest.

The United States and Mexico started our modern journey to closer partnership with the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement. Collectively, the six of us have worked through every stage of NAFTA. This is not a perfect agreement, but neither is it the job killer some have construed. Since NAFTA was signed in 1993, U.S. jobs linked to trade with Mexico grew from 700,000 to 4.9 million. The value of our two-way trade has grown six fold, reaching $584 billion in 2015. Mexico is now the second largest market for US exports, larger than our exports to China, Japan, and Germany combined. Mexico is the third largest buyer of US agricultural products. We build many things together, with parts crossing borders in both directions – so much so that finished Mexican manufactured exports were found to have 40% U.S. content.

US jobs moved to Mexico, but others were created by NAFTA. A 2013 study estimated that the US is $127 billion richer each year because of extra NAFTA trade. New studies have made clear that the big causes of US manufacturing job losses are automation and trade with China, not NAFTA. NAFTA can be improved to help boost the US economy in such areas as “rule of origin,” services, e-commerce, border inefficiencies, and labor standards. Those are the issues that should be negotiated based on facts to strengthen a long-term relationship that makes both countries more competitive.

Energy deserves special mention. Under NAFTA, Mexico’s nationalized energy sector was still off limits to US companies. In 2013, Mexico opened investment and trade in oil, natural gas, electricity, renewables, and refined fuels to US and other companies. Today, the US exports more natural gas and gasoline to Mexico than to any country. In December, major US companies won licenses to develop Mexico’s oil reserves, while others are partners in new pipelines. These openings make North America more energy secure.

The US deficit with Mexico gets more public attention than it deserves. Mexico represents 8% of our deficit. Our deficits with China, the EU and Japan are larger. The deficit with Mexico declined by over 40% between 2010 and 2015, even as our trade grew 35%.

A sharp point of contention has been over the border wall and migration. The great irony is that today there are 1.1 million fewer undocumented Mexicans in the US than in 2007. Apprehensions of Mexicans at the border have reached the lowest levels of this century. Mexico has joined us to manage the surge in migrants from Central America, deporting over 165,000 from its southern border in 2015, more than the United States did. Publically demanding that Mexico pay for a wall that Mexicans don’t think is needed has fueled anti-American nationalism. That limits the capacity of Mexico’s government to work with us to find solutions.

Common borders also made Mexico and the United States partners in national security. Ever since 9/11, Mexico and the US have worked closely to stop potential terrorists from entering the US. We also work to improve the fight against illicit trafficking. The trafficking of heroin and other drugs into the US and the smuggling of weapons and drug profits into Mexico fuel violence, corruption, and deaths in both countries. Still, during the years of our collective service, law enforcement officials have built trust, competency and legal channels to act against criminal networks. That cooperation needs to be strengthened, not undermined.

Together, the authors have witnessed profound and positive changes in the US-Mexico relationship over the last quarter century. We urge that the US engage in serious, fact-based negotiations over differences on trade and other issues. Intimidating or denigrating remarks make it harder to reach outcomes that support American economic and security interests and fuel anti-Americanism in Mexico. Workers, companies, and communities of both countries will prosper with a long-term strategic partnership between the US and Mexico. Let’s keep building it.

‘Mr. Apprentice’ Can Look To Switzerland For A Model To Help Close U.S. Youth Skills Gap

January 27, 2017

Faith Whittlesey (Switzerland, 1981-1983 and 1985-1988)

Patrick Gleason (Director of State Affairs at Americans for Tax Reform)

Cross-posted from the January 26, 2017 issue of Forbes

Chief among the problems facing Donald Trump as he takes presidential office is the youth skills gap between what the U.S. education system currently produces and what employers actually need to compete nationally and globally in the 21st century.

Around 2008, German carmaker Porsche invested about $2.12 million in its Leipzig apprenticeship training center.

It’s no secret it has become all too easy to get a college degree today without having learned much of marketable value, which helps explain unacceptably high levels of both youth unemployment (above 10%) and youth underemployment (estimated at 40% for recent college graduates).

The President might look to Switzerland, with youth unemployment at 3% and its global gold standard apprentice system, as a possible model for the U.S. in closing the skills gap. The good news is that Trump already has. As we recently learned, Switzerland’s apprentice system was very much a subject of discussion of a Dec. 21 phone call between Trump, who praised the Swiss education system, and Swiss President Johann Schneider-Ammann, who called to offer congratulations to the President-elect.

Nancy Hoffman—who co-leads the Pathways to Prosperity Network program involving Harvard Graduate School of Education and a number of states working to ensure more young people complete high school and attain a postsecondary credential—explains how the Swiss apprentice program works:

“Seventy percent of teenagers [16 and older] in Switzerland spend their week moving between a workplace, a sector organization [such as the machine tools industry], and school. … They do everything an entry-level employee would do, albeit under the wings of credentialed teachers within the company. They are paid a monthly starting wage of around $800, rising to around $1,000 by the time they are in their third year.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Will Mexico and Canada Be Willing to Reform NAFTA?

January 23, 2017

G. Philip Hughes (Barbados and Eastern Caribbean, 1990-1993)

Cross-posted from the Latin American Advisor, a publication of the Inter-American Dialogue

Also appears on the White House Writers Group website

President-elect Trump has been relentlessly critical of NAFTA from the beginning of his candidacy. After almost a quarter century, it is perfectly plausible that the tripartite NAFTA agreement could use a review—updating and improvement. President Trump will certainly have the power and authority to propose—and, if necessary, insist on—re-negotiating NAFTA with Mexico and Canada. It is hard to see how or why Congress would try to stop him. But if they don’t already know, USTR-designate Richard Lighthizer, and Commerce Secretary-designate Wilbur Ross will soon discover that Mexico and Canada will have their own lists of grievances, frustrations, demands and ambitions for a re-opened NAFTA negotiation. The result will be a product of give-and-take horse-trading—just as NAFTA is. Only better, the administration will explain. It would have to be. Where can you go but up from what Mr. Trump calls ‘the worst trade deal … in the history of the world’? Re-negotiating NAFTA, in whole or part, is plausible and probably do-able. Abrogating NAFTA is not. While the ability to ‘walk away’ is a hallmark of ‘The Art of the Deal,’ the new Trump trade team must know that, over the last two decades, the production base of most of the U.S. economy’s real sector has become quite thoroughly integrated across the Canadian and Mexican borders. Disrupting that would play havoc with supply chains, prices and employment on a continental scale—probably not a sure-fire vote-getting strategy.

Here’s What Plan B in the Middle East Should Look Like

January 17, 2017

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

and

Dennis Ross (Special Assistant to President Obama, 2009-2011)

Cross-posted from the January 12 issue of The Washington Post

We have long worked to promote peace between Israelis and Palestinians, believing that with two national movements, the only realistic answer is two states for two peoples. Unfortunately, this objective has never been less attainable. We believe, therefore, that it is time for a Plan B — an approach that incoming president Donald Trump might broker.

Ironically, the ill-conceived and deeply flawed U.N. Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlement activity has made a Plan B even more necessary. By declaring all settlements “a flagrant violation under international law,” the resolution undercut the sole formula that stands a chance at some point of reconciling Israeli and Palestinian needs on final borders — accepting settlement blocs and engaging in territorial swaps. Instead, it has hardened positions on both sides.

Even without this counterproductive resolution, realities on the ground and political and psychological gaps between Israelis and Palestinians make a comprehensive two-state peace agreement illusory at this time. But doing nothing is a prescription for drifting toward a one-state outcome, a result that, due to demographics, would mean Israel over time would become a binational state and no longer majority-Jewish and democratic. Our Plan B would promote peaceful coexistence through practical steps that restore shattered trust on both sides, protecting Israel’s security while creating a more prosperous and less resentful and violence-prone Palestinian population. Plan B can help resolve the dilemma facing Israel, a high-tech wonder thoroughly integrated into the global economy but more politically isolated than ever. Meanwhile, it could provide Palestinians more living space for development, reduce incentives for Palestinian violence and help preserve effective counterterrorism cooperation between Israeli and Palestinian security forces.

The start lies in a new vision for Israel’s West Bank settlements, formally recognizing that not all settlements are the same when it comes to preserving a two-state outcome. They would continue to be protected by the Israeli military; there would be no unilateral withdrawals, as disastrously occurred in Gaza; and three major new sections of the incomplete security fence would be built to block infiltration by terrorists.

To reduce tensions with Israel, building could continue unabated within the three major settlement blocs near the pre-1967 Green Line, where over 8 in 10 of all settlers live on less than 5 percent of the West Bank. These blocs are consistent with a two-state outcome and in a final settlement would become part of Israel, with other land within Israel swapped and becoming part of the Palestinian state.

But settlement expansion would cease in those areas outside the blocs in what could eventually become a demilitarized Palestinian state. No hilltop and other outposts, now illegal under Israeli law, would be legalized retroactively, and strict rule of law would be observed to prevent construction on Palestinian private land and to preserve the option of a Palestinian state with contiguous territory. While politically difficult for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu given his current coalition, his “hard-line” defense minister, Avigdor Lieberman, has come out in favor of reaching an agreement with the Trump administration allowing Israel to build within the blocs but not outside them. Under Netanyahu, only a small percentage of settlement expansion has occurred in these isolated settlements during the Obama years.

The other centerpiece of Plan B would be empowering the Palestinian economy through the kind of private-sector development the Trump administration should like, rather than sending more U.S. aid to the Palestinian Authority. The 1995 Oslo Interim Agreement divided the West Bank into three areas, in two of which the overwhelming majority of the 2.7 million Palestinians live with no Israeli settlements, and only in the largest of which, Area C, the Israelis retain complete control.

Today, Area C is 60 percent of the West Bank and contains almost all of the West Bank’s natural resources and agricultural land. The key to economic advancement for the Palestinians lies in their residential, commercial, agricultural and industrial development, none of which is now allowed without Israeli permits, which are almost never granted. Palestinian access to land, water, electricity, education, health services, bank branches and even ATMs is very limited, while Israeli settlers benefit from all of these and even have their own roads. At a time when the Israeli economy continues to grow healthily, small wonder the Palestinian economy is in shambles, with high rates of unemployment.

There should be broad Israeli political support for taking concrete steps to improve these dire conditions by increasing the number of Palestinians working in day jobs in Israel, thereby reducing the 50,000 illegal Palestinian workers and increasing remittances that could be invested in the West Bank. Building permits in Area C could be vastly expanded, along with greater access to water, electricity and other essential services for Palestinians throughout the West Bank, spurring development. Israeli and Palestinian banks could be connected through the SWIFT interbank system.

The World Bank estimates these steps could add 35 percent to the Palestinian gross domestic product and increase Palestinian jobs by an equivalent amount. In addition, U.S.-supported Qualifying Industrial Zones allow products with at least 10 percent Israeli content to come to the U.S. duty-free: These exist in Jordan and Egypt and could be established in the West Bank to foster Israeli-Palestinian business cooperation and create employment.

Plan B is not a substitute for a political outcome; it is designed to change conditions so that meaningful negotiations not feasible today might become possible over time, while reducing tensions in the meantime. By starting with Plan B, the next president could pave the way later on for the ultimate, elusive deal.