Archive for the ‘East Asia and Pacific’ Category

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.

Advertisements

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.”

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.

Tea Leaves: Progress on the Bumpy Road to Democracy

September 1, 2017

Curtis S. Chin (U.S. Ambassador to the Asian Development Bank, 2007-2010; Asia Fellow, Milken Institute)

Cross posted from the Nikkei Asian Review

—–

A decade ago, I traveled to East Timor, also known as Timor-Leste, to look at the condition of roads and other infrastructure in Asia’s newest country. I was working with the Asian Development Bank at the time, and returned in 2010 for a follow-up visit. It was not until July this year that I returned again — this time as an independent election observer, to witness firsthand the country’s ongoing journey to democracy.

Just like the country’s roads, that voyage remains a work in progress, undoubtedly with more bumps and twists along the way. But in a world awash with cynicism, and with democracy under pressure in so many countries, I found hope in this young nation of some 1.2 million people.

The parliamentary election that I observed and a presidential poll held in March were the first run without international assistance since a United Nations mission left in 2012. A Portuguese colony for 273 years until 1975, East Timor was forcibly occupied by neighboring Indonesia until 1999, and regained its independence only in 2002 after a transition administered by the U.N.

My election day began before dawn, to the sound of roosters, in the small mountain town of Ainaro, where I stayed in a guesthouse a short walk from a beautiful colonial church. For most of the day, with my interpreter Arianto, our driver Angelo and a smartphone app that showed polling stations, I traveled on roads good and bad, and crossed rivers on bridges new and old, throughout the region.

Ainaro district, some 4-5 hours’ drive from the capital Dili, is a special place. Here, Xanana Gusmao, who would become the first president of East Timor, spent many years directing resistance to Indonesian occupation. During World War II, Ainaro was where Imperial Japan’s efforts to conquer this region came to an end.

In contrast to the mayhem and violence back then, the scenes I saw were festive and peaceful. Voters waited quietly at polling stations that opened promptly at 7 a.m. Until the polls closed early afternoon I saw voters coming on foot, by motorcycle and by bus or truck to cast their votes. Young or old, each showed a voter identification card, had his or her name confirmed on voter rolls and entered an election booth to mark a choice from some 21 political parties. A nail was provided to punch a hole in the ballot. Afterward, each voter dipped an index finger into a well of indelible ink to help prevent double voting.

Weeks later, national pride in what happened on that sunny Saturday election day can still be sensed, even as political parties jockey for position in the formation of a new government. “Once again, we have shown the world that Timor-Leste is a democratic country,” my interpreter, and now friend, Arianto Martins de Jesus told me. “The election has brought new hope for Timor-Leste’s people, no matter who leads the government.”

As with all governments — democratically elected or not — a key challenge will be delivering on people’s hopes. Running an election can be the easy part, in contrast to forming a government and running a country. But hope there is, even if at first glance East Timor is struggling on several fronts. Poverty remains high, as does youth unemployment. Oil and gas reserves, the government’s primary source of revenue, could well be depleted by 2022.

Yet notable strides have been made in the last decade to improve living conditions and increase economic opportunities. The Dili I visited in July is a far cry from the one I first saw a decade ago. Plans for East Timor’s first internationally branded hotel, a Hilton, have just been announced, and the international franchises Burger King and Gloria Jean’s Coffees are already in Dili. The infant mortality rate has almost halved since East Timor regained independence, and malaria cases have declined dramatically. Although not all in the region yet agree, East Timor’s accession to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations is richly deserved, and would help to lock in progress.

Before making the long road trip back to the capital after election day, I stopped in the old church in Ainaro and caught the start of Sunday service. Much was in the local language, but now and then I heard the word “Alleluia.” Praise and celebration were certainly in order. There may be challenging times ahead for East Timor, but the country’s commitment to the rule of law, peace and democracy bodes well for its future. This tiny young nation is an example to much larger neighbors which are still struggling, or even stalling, on their own bumpy paths to democracy.

Why Timor-Leste Deserves to Join ASEAN

August 23, 2017

Curtis S. Chin (U.S. Ambassador to the Asian Development Bank, 2007-2010; Asia Fellow, Milken Institute)

Cross-posted from The Japan Times

—–

Fifty years since its establishment, it is time for the Association of Southeast Asian Nations to welcome another member into its midst—with Japan’s support.

The recent meeting of Southeast Asian foreign ministers in the Philippines drew more attention than usual to its concluding communique. More so than in past versions, this year’s ASEAN concluding joint statement made clear the grouping of 10 nations’ hopes for a demilitarized South China Sea. In one paragraph, the communique also noted “the importance of maintaining and promoting peace, security, safety and freedom of navigation in and over-flight above the South China Sea.” While not explicitly named, China was very clearly the focus of attention.

Garnering much less attention was the single paragraph that “noted Timor-Leste’s application for ASEAN membership and looked forward to the continued discussion” about reports and capacity building regarding that small Southeast Asian island nation’s longstanding efforts to join the regional bloc.

That’s unfortunate. ASEAN should welcome the accession of Timor-Leste, just as Laos and Myanmar were welcomed in 1997, and Cambodia in 1999.

I had the privilege of serving as an election monitor for Timor-Leste’s recent parliamentary election as part of the International Republican Institute’s (IRI) election observation mission. I was struck by the passionate commitment of the Timorese people to the democratic process, and inspired by their optimism about their country’s future. I believe that the country is in a strong position to continue progressing in its own development and make a positive contribution to the development of Southeast Asia. Timor-Leste deserves ASEAN support for its efforts to further integrate and engage with the wider region.

After regaining independence from Indonesia in 2002, Timor-Leste declared its desire to join ASEAN and applied for membership in 2011. While its ultimate accession is likely, there is a chance that the delays that have arisen over the past six years may persist indefinitely. Such a development would not only deprive the Timorese of a chance for further development; ASEAN would forgo an opportunity to welcome a country that can serve as a valuable example of a successful democracy to fellow members.

Over the past 15 years, Timor-Leste has grown into a well-functioning democracy where citizens actively engage with their government. The country was ranked as the most democratic in Southeast Asia by the Economist Intelligence Unit’s 2016 Democracy Index, and 43rd in the world—an impressive feat given the country’s traumatic experience during the 24-year Indonesian occupation.

One of the important ways Timor-Leste has been able to deliver sustainable democratic reforms has been through its openness to regional and international support. To this end, organizations like IRI have worked with civil society, government bodies and political parties to help them represent Timorese citizens responsively and effectively. IRI has worked in the country since 2002, and its assistance has been an important contributor to the country’s democratic consolidation.

Likewise, when I served as the U.S. ambassador to the Asian Development Bank and traveled to Timor-Leste in years past, I saw the importance of regional and international economic assistance to this and other developing countries first-hand. The ADB has supported infrastructure expansion, macroeconomic capacity-building and community-based development in Timor-Leste, and is well-positioned to assist not just in improving the country’s roads, but also its water supply and sanitation systems. I grew to appreciate the complementary nature of different types of development assistance, and found that the aid provided by the ADB complements the assistance provided by groups like IRI, and vice-versa.

As ASEAN continues to grow in importance, it is vital that its members collectively pursue policies that advance the region’s development in a sustainable manner. At a time when democracy is backsliding in the region, Timor-Leste’s accession to ASEAN would provide the region with a valuable example of how citizen-centered democracy can deliver a more prosperous and stable future.

Additionally, Timor-Leste’s accession to ASEAN would be economically beneficial to the region. Despite its small size, Timor represents a relatively untapped market for Southeast Asian trade; likewise, the region represents a largely untapped market for Timorese goods. In short, this would be a win-win situation for the region, and an important example for how inclusive economic development can sustain growth that benefits all.

During the lead-up to the election, election administrators, political parties and other stakeholders worked collaboratively to ensure a credible electoral process. This commitment to the rule of law and democratic institutions bodes extremely well for Timor-Leste’s potential as a cooperative and responsible member of ASEAN. My experience travelling through this small yet vibrant nation has driven home the benefits for all of proceeding with Timor-Leste’s accession.

Now is a time for coming together. We owe no less to the many people who across Asia’s newest nation proudly held up an indelibly-inked finger as a mark and proof of democracy in action.

What Are the Opportunities for ASEAN?

July 14, 2017

Curtis Chin (U.S. Ambassador to the Asian Development Bank, 2007-2010; Asia Fellow, Milken Institute)

Cross posted from Yale Insights

Asia’s importance in the world economy is large and growing; the continent already accounts for one third of global GDP, according to the World Bank. While the giant economies of China and India get the most attention, the countries of Southeast Asia are contributing to that growth as well. PwC’s Long View forecast sees Thailand, Malaysia, Vietnam, the Philippines, and Indonesia moving into the world’s 25 biggest economies, with Indonesia rising to number four globally, by 2050.

Those countries, plus Brunei, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, and Singapore, are part of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), which gives them collective economic and political heft. The Council on Foreign Relations describes ASEAN as the most developed example of regional integration outside of the EU. (That isn’t to say the two unions are easily comparable. EU members share sovereignty through a strong, legally-based, central institution, while ASEAN is a consensus-based intergovernmental agency with no element of sovereignty sharing.)

In addition to providing some measure of economic integration, ASEAN provides much-needed stability to a region that was the site of war and genocide for much of the late 20th century. But that doesn’t mean that Western-style democracy is taking hold. Earlier this year, Phil Robertson, deputy director of Human Rights Watch’s Asia division, told Agence France Presse, “Human rights is in a precipitous downward spiral in every ASEAN country except perhaps Myanmar, and that’s only because military rule in that country was so horrible for so long.”

To understand the economic opportunities and development challenges facing the region, Yale Insights talked with Curtis Chin ’90, former U.S. ambassador to the Asian Development Bank and currently an Asia fellow at the Milken Institute.

Q: Can you put ASEAN in context, in Asia and the world?

When people talk about Asia, too often, they’re really just discussing China and India. Clearly those are two giant and very important countries, but there’s more to the region. Put together, the 10 nations of ASEAN have a population of 630 million people. That’s not the billion-plus population of China or India, but it’s very clearly significant. If it were a single economy, ASEAN, at $2.4 trillion, would be just the third largest in Asia. On the other hand, it would be the fifth largest in the world.

The $274 billion invested from the U.S. into ASEAN in 2015 is more than went to China, India, Japan, and South Korea combined. That may be surprising, but I think it’s testament to the tremendous opportunity that ASEAN offers whether as a production base, a market to sell services and products, or as a source of ideas and innovation for the rest of the world.

Q: What are the opportunities and challenges the ASEAN countries face?

It’s important to recognize that Southeast Asia is tremendously diverse. ASEAN includes the city-state of Singapore with its modern infrastructure, population of 5 million people, and role as a hub for financial innovation. It also includes the archipelago nations of the Philippines and Indonesia with populations of 100 million and 250 million, respectively, each spread over thousands of islands. And it includes Myanmar, which is very much finding its way forward in terms of governance and stability. The rules, laws, and structures you need to put in place to attract investment are still being developed. The other countries—Malaysia, Brunei, Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos—all have their own unique concerns and different levels of economic development. Leading each of these countries presents very distinct challenges.

Q: As an association of countries, how does ASEAN compare to the EU?

There’s been a lot of compare and contrast between Southeast Asia and what is going on in Europe. Critics will say the consensus-based ASEAN way is slow. The organization has existed for 50 years but only in 2015 did the countries come together to create the ASEAN Economic Community, or AEC.

The AEC is bringing down trade barriers and moving towards, not a European-style common market, but a distinctly Southeast Asian one. The AEC doesn’t mean free trade and free movement of labor, but it has meant freer trade and freer movement of labor. They haven’t moved towards a single currency, and looking at what’s happened in Europe, I don’t think that’s going to happen anytime soon in Southeast Asia. But ASEAN is still coming together, albeit slowly, step by step while the EU is facing Brexit and questions about its future.

To its great credit, Europe has come together in a way that has meant peace for seven decades. Southeast Asia, too, was a region torn by war, and ASEAN has been a tool to bring these diverse nations together in a peaceful manner to slowly build a stronger economy for them all.

Q: Are there specific examples of cooperation that you’d point to?

Examples of greater cooperation and integration would include ASEAN working to address human trafficking and the illegal wildlife trade. More needs to be done, but they are making progress. Malaysia, Indonesia, and Singapore are coming together to address the challenges of slash-and-burn forest fires that take place every year—pollution knows no borders. As an outsider—although I live in ASEAN—I want them to do more, but they are taking steps forward. It is very important that institutions get stronger, and that individual governments and companies figure out ways to better work together.

When I was the U.S. ambassador to the Asian Development Bank, many people thought that the BRIC countries [Brazil, Russia, India, and China] would really drive the next phase of global growth. In the last couple years, those economies have not grown as fast as people once envisioned. Now, when people ask me whether the next global star will come from Southeast Asia, I say that any of them could take off, but to get there they need to focus first on what I call the “little BRIC”: bureaucracy, regulation, interventionism by government, and corruption.

Clearly, government structures and regulation are necessary, but when does it go too far and reduce the incentives to start a company or hire more people? When is there too much government interventionism in an economy? When is corruption out of hand? For me, the little BRIC is the true economic constraint on growth in Southeast Asia, in ASEAN, and the world.

Q: Are there examples of countries that have found good ways to address some elements of the little BRIC?

The right balance will likely vary country to country and might change over time. As an American, I might think Singapore has too much regulation, but clearly Singapore is doing well and I know the leaders are also thinking through how to encourage more innovation and how to move to a next level of development.

And in terms of corruption, Singapore is among the 10 least corrupt countries on Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index. The U.S.is only in the top 20. Unfortunately, for a number of ASEAN countries, corruption is an area where there is tremendous need to improve.

Q: In addition to the AEC, there are a number of trade deals that do or may involve ASEAN, including the TPP and RCEP. What’s happening with trade in the region?

China is central to that question. How does China deal with the rest of Asia, and how does the rest of Asia deal with China? That’s critical both economically and militarily, especially with tensions in the South China Sea.

When I think of the alphabet soup of trade deals or potential trade deals, overall integration is a wonderful thing. But we also have to recognize that the consequences of trade have not been equally distributed. Thus the pushback in Europe in the United States, and also in Asia. As we develop trade deals moving forward, countries and companies will need to think through how their citizens or employees will benefit, and if they are going to be hurt by a trade deal, what needs to be done to address that.

If we’re going to have greater free trade, if we’re going to have greater fair trade, more needs to be done to communicate the pluses and minuses of each deal. That will let people make an informed decision, whether it’s the right way to go, or not. And we need to figure out what will ensure that prosperity goes beyond a very small group of people.

Q: What is happening with the digital economy in ASEAN?

When people think of ASEAN, they often think about it as a source of natural resources—the tremendous oil and gas reserves in part of the region—or they’re thinking about ASEAN as production-based: the value of the labor of the people of the Philippines, Indonesia, or Thailand. But ASEAN today shouldn’t be thought of only in those terms. ASEAN today should be looked at as an opportunity even in areas like high-tech and the digital economy.

I saw an interesting statistic, which was that even though ASEAN might only have 630 million people, there are 700 million digital consumers. Clearly many individuals are using multiple devices, but it shows ASEAN’s digital economy is growing in leaps and bounds and will continue to do so. That sector is projected to grow 500%, to $200 billion, by 2025.

Q: What about infrastructure?

There is still tremendous need in areas like power, water, sanitation, and roads throughout much of the region. By one estimate the need is more than $22 trillion through 2030, but there is a significant infrastructure financing gap.

Beyond simply finding the funding, I think that approach needs to be refocused. Too often, development is simply about building. We need to also think through how we maintain and update what is being built.

When I sat on the Asian Development Bank’s board, I became, some would say notorious—I would like to say helpful—in underscoring what I called the three Ps of responsible development. That is, people, planet, and partnership. Responsible development takes into consideration the people that are being impacted by a project, the impact on the broader environment, and the reality that there isn’t enough capital at the ADB, World Bank, or even now the new Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. The reality is that for the region to move forward, these countries need to encourage their private sectors.

At the end of the day, Asia’s way forward must include a thriving private sector in each country because government cannot be the driver of job creation. Even in China, we’ve seen the government thinking through how they can use the private sector to move their economy forward, to increase growth. There just isn’t enough money to build an economy on state-owned enterprises.

Q: How does that dovetail with your work as the inaugural Asia Fellow at the Milken Institute?

The Milken Institute is a nonprofit, nonpartisan economic and policy think tank that focuses on increasing prosperity. These are questions that are very much on the minds of the leaders of Southeast Asia: “How do we get economies to move forward? How do we get there to be more growth and more evenly spread growth?”

For the Milken Institute, capital market development is key. Without capital to allow for implementation, even the best idea remains simply an idea. What’s critical for the countries of ASEAN is that they need to bring together their own private sectors, public sectors, and civil societies to develop strategies to increase access to capital. As the nations of Asia-Pacific address this little BRIC, foreign direct investment is more likely to come in, which will drive job creation.

And today there are many different ways that countries and companies can access capital. It’s no longer a loan to the government from the World Bank or a business loan from a local bank. There are lessons from the United States, from Europe, and from around the world that I think countries of ASEAN will increasingly want to adopt.

America’s Hostage Negotiation Strategy is Broken

June 26, 2017

Bill Richardson (Governor of New Mexico, 2003-2011; Secretary of Energy, 1998-2000; U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, 1997-1998; U.S. Congressman from New Mexico, 1982-1996)

Cross posted from The Washington Post.

___

Otto Warmbier was laid to rest June 22 by his loving family in their town outside of Cincinnati, nine days after he was brought home in a coma after 17 months of imprisonment in North Korea. The North Korean government described him as a prisoner of war, so by their own definition, his death is their absolute responsibility, pursuant to the Geneva Conventions. That the North Korean government kept him in an unresponsive state without proper medical assistance constitutes a crime in terms of international law and flouts common decency.

The blame is theirs. The lesson for us is that America’s hostage negotiation strategy is broken.

I’ve helped rescue hostages from around the world and from North Korea, specifically. In 1994, I negotiated the return of downed Army helicopter pilot from North Korea and the remains of his co-pilot. In 1996, I helped bring American Evan Hunziker back from North Korea. I, and the team at my center, worked for 15 months to try to gain Otto’s release, including a visit to Pyongyang in September.

To bring these cases to a resolution, we often work on three parallel tracks: identifying opportunities to create leverage; engaging directly with captors to ascertain what it might take to secure hostages’ release; and working with the families of those taken hostage, who often find themselves in need of guidance. Working on all three tracks remains viable, but Otto’s case shows that it’s time for a paradigm shift.

First, we have to recognize that time is no longer neutral. In past instances, all that mattered was working toward an outcome, no matter how long it might take. But urgency must be the new norm if we’re to have a chance at curtailing the physical and mental abuse that prisoners can face, particularly when dealing with unpredictable actor. In the year-plus since Otto was detained, Kim Jong Un contravened a litany of humanitarian norms regarding treatment of hostages. The regime still hasn’t provided a believable explanation for Otto’s coma, and why they failed to disclose his condition to the family or diplomatic proxies in the country.

But timing is only part of the problem. Previous hostage negotiations have had success largely because outside actors have been effective in pressuring their client states. Maybe North Korea doesn’t have an incentive to appease America, but China, which works with both countries and fears the collapse of the North Korean state, does. Otto’s case, though, underscores the reality that the final stages of negotiations between sovereign states often need to be undertaken by the parties themselves — here, the governments of the United States and North Korea.

Yet despite the clear need for governments to resolve these cases bilaterally, the U.S. has no clear policy on how to handle instances in which Americans are held as collateral by foreign governments. It’s not that the U.S. hasn’t tried to improve its overall approach. In the final years of his administration, President Barack Obama made a concerted effort to rethink how the government treats hostage cases, primarily in circumstances where Americans are held by terrorist organizations. The creation of the Hostage Recovery Fusion Cell was a step in the right direction. It’s meant to encourage agencies and departments to share relevant information among all participating actors in securing the release of prisoners held by terrorist groups, and exists to provide channels to keep families informed on the progress of their relatives’ cases.

But that’s not enough. Families who have engaged with the HRFC have expressed frustration at the lack of information-sharing — something the HRFC was ultimately supposed to fix. Other families who have hired private external negotiators have been stymied by strict rules regarding the sharing of information with outside parties working to create the conditions necessary for a deal to be reached.

Yet we know coordinated private diplomacy is often critical. Unconstrained by traditional diplomatic choreography, private diplomacy leverages preexisting personal relations and trust that can lead to the sharing of information and creative flexibility, something with which government struggles. To try to bring Otto home, for example, representatives from my center met more than 20 times with North Korean officials. The information gathered was critical. Coordinating and sharing these efforts between government and private diplomacy can unleash a set of tools largely ignored, and in some cases eschewed, to date. For example, a small gesture of recognition — a note delivered privately — from the United States indicating that it would see Otto’s release as a humanitarian gesture, could have helped bring him home earlier: private diplomacy working hand-in-hand with government.

Yet for all the shortcomings of U.S. hostage policy, President Trump has yielded one clear success with the release of Aya Hijazi, who was held by the Egyptian government until shortly after the president’s White House meeting with Egypt’s President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi. Trump deserves credit here, but his administration can’t rely on this sort of leader-to-leader diplomacy as a primary approach, as it would incentivize governments to take Americans captive, not to mention forcing the president to shift focus from important geostrategic issues.

To secure the release of the other three U.S. citizens being held in North Korea, Joshua Holt in Venezuela, Siamak Namazi in Iran and Austin Tice in Syria, to name a few, the administration must first treat these cases with urgency rather than patience, and second, convene a contact group, including private diplomacy actors across the political and private spectrums, to identify case-by-case strategies and levers. Personal relations are assets and they do not exclusively lie inside one administration.

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.