Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

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.


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)


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.

More Citizen-Ambassadors, Please Mr. Trump

January 9, 2017

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

Cross-posted from The Daily Caller of January 6, 2017

In 1995, I wrote an op-ed published in the International Herald Tribute entitled “No More Embassies for Sale, Please.” I argued for an end to the long-standing, bipartisan practice of appointing wealthy donors with limited foreign policy knowledge from the Presidential victor’s camp to plum ambassadorships, usually numbering 30 to 40% of the total. In the 20 years since, we have gone through five presidential election cycles and, therefore, five cycles of political appointments with, I would maintain, no abatement of the practice.

But with the election of Donald Trump, we are at a unique juncture. There is an opportunity now to break away from this custom. No President-elect in the modern era has arrived at inauguration with as few debts to large campaign contributors. President-elect Trump ran a highly unconventional campaign, largely on his own nickel. He was outspent by a huge margin–and won. No President-elect arrives less beholden to big contributors.

He has few debts as well to media and entrenched elites. Pundits and talking heads of the big networks, the editorial boards of major newspapers and think tanks, the circle of Washington insiders, all preponderantly were consistently critical or actively hostile. Viewing current coverage, they will be unlikely in my estimation in coming months to extend the incoming President even the ordinary benefit of doubt accorded other new Presidents.

President-elect Trump’s electoral debts are owed only to millions of everyday Americans who are counting on him to bypass the big donor class and leapfrog the media and the establishment to speak to and for them and to listen to their voice. They are counting on him to (borrowing from Frank Sinatra) do it his way, that is, the way he promised them. And his way includes getting things done efficiently and effectively (think of the bang-for-the-buck ratio that the Trump campaign achieved!) and with a laser focus on what’s best for America.

What’s best for America in foreign policy, I would maintain now as I did in 1995, is to staff embassies with citizen-ambassadors who first and foremost share the President’s vision and values and are knowledgeable about international affairs, willing to immerse themselves in learning about the countries to which they will be posted, and equipped with the particular qualities that will enable them to be eloquent, persuasive representatives.

An ambassador is the President’s personal representative to a foreign country–his eyes, ears, and spokesperson on the ground. The prerequisite for nomination to this critical position is the recognition that foreign policy is, indeed, a federal responsibility and that Americans elect a President to define and articulate their values and priorities in terms of a viable and coherent foreign policy. Our senior diplomat in a foreign country must be in tune with those values and priorities as the President sees them.

The antidote to the habit of rewarding donors isn’t the appointment of more career diplomats to ambassadorships. We depend on such technicians for their skills and knowledge–their expertise–but it is, ultimately, the American people who choose our foreign policy values and priorities when they elect a President. Career service officers, while valuable, hold no monopoly on diplomatic skills and, unfortunately, too often bring their own baggage in the form of prejudices against the elected President and their own career objectives. Uppermost, the senior representative of the President in a foreign country needs to understand and share wholeheartedly the President’s policy goals and vision.

There are many Americans among Trump supporters–in business, academia, and other sectors–who have the requisite knowledge and skills to make great citizen-ambassadors and who, because of their accomplishments in the private sector, could take on the responsibilities of representing America in the mold and spirit of a Benjamin Franklin or John Jay (among our first citizen-ambassadors), that is to say, as an act of selfless national service.

At this critical point, we need such citizen-ambassadors more than ever. Providentially, we have the opportunity because of the unique, paradigm-shattering circumstances of Donald Trump’s election to see them appointed in significant, game-changing numbers.

Human Potential is the Middle East’s Greatest Resource

November 30, 2016

Madeleine K. Albright (64th U.S. Secretary of State)


Stephen J. Hadley (National Security Advisor for President George W. Bush)

Cross-posted from Al-Arabiya English


There is something exciting happening in the Middle East. While many in the United States and elsewhere see only war and crisis, there is bigger change afoot that has the potential to break the current cycle of conflict.

Over the past eighteen months we have been engaged in a bipartisan initiative seeking to identify a new and better approach toward peace and prosperity in the Middle East. We visited with and listened to people from the region. We consulted the region’s experts. We sought voices from all levels of society, from refugees and students to business leaders and monarchs. What we found was a sense of confidence and determination, even amidst all the challenges that the region now faces.

At the heart of the Arab uprisings in 2011 was the idea that people in the region wanted the chance to define and pursue their own vision for the future. Where governments sought to suppress these aspirations, war and instability broke out, destabilizing not just the region but also setting off massive refugee flows and terrorist movements that have upended Western politics.

Yet in other parts of the region, governments took the uprisings as a signal that they needed to provide more opportunity for their people. In some cases, like Tunisia, this meant corrupt leadership being forced to step aside to let the people chart their own course. In others, like Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, governments have sought reforms within the system, striving to put young people front and center in helping to shape their countries’ futures. While they still have much progress to make, they are moving in an encouraging direction.

Harnessing the power of youth and technology

We heard about young people eager to build their own businesses rather than relying on government to provide employment. We learned that 36 percent of Arab youth aspire to start their own companies, and are using the power of new technology to do so. We also found that one third of these Middle East start-up founders are women—more than ten times the rate of female founders in Silicon Valley.

This is a population that is full of ingenuity, using their resourcefulness to solve problems where their governments have failed them. Syrian refugees in Jordan are harnessing the power of 3D printing to build prosthetics for victims of violence. And in cases where people don’t yet have the necessary skills to accomplish their goals, they are using tech-enabled education tools to learn what they need to know, even in the absence of formal classrooms.

We believe that this vast human potential is the Middle East’s greatest resource. However, despite their growing self-confidence and capabilities, the people of the region still need help for these positive efforts to take root.

The single biggest barrier standing between the Middle East and a prosperous future is the continuing instability generated by the civil wars in Syria, Libya, Yemen, and Iraq. Regional actors have proven themselves as yet unable to bring these wars—and their worst atrocities—to an end. At the same time, they are more willing than ever to try, including through devoting their own resources to the effort. A relatively modest amount of leadership and assistance from the United States and other concerned members of the international community could go a long way toward helping to begin to wind down these conflicts.

‘Outsiders will not make the efforts’

But we should make no mistake here. The days when outside powers could dictate events in the region are over—if they ever existed in the first place. The days of massive troop deployments or military occupations by any outside power are past. Instead, outside help and support must be focused on empowering and enabling the people of the region and their leaders to chart and achieve their own vision for the future. The region needs more local initiatives that gain regional and global support.

Outsiders will not make these efforts, however, if the people and governments of the region are not taking the kinds of actions that will lead to sustainable peace, prosperity, and stability. For without such action by the region, outside efforts will be losing investments. What we learned from the region is that its governments need to make real progress toward transparent, accountable, effective, and fair governance free of corruption. They need to deliver for their people—for all of their people—regardless of gender, sect, tribe, religion, or family connections. And they need to create opportunities for their people not only through better education but also through regulatory reforms that can encourage and enable entrepreneurship and innovation.

If these changes take place, they can become a New Compact for the region—one which improves not only relations between regional states and outside powers, but also redefines how the states of the Middle East interact with each other and, most importantly, with their people.

There is a pathway out of the current regional crises. But our efforts of the past year and a half have taught us that a new strategic approach is required. The Middle East must bet on its people and on a new partnership among the international community, the states of the region, and their people. Only in this way can the Middle East realize its vision of a more peaceful, prosperous, and stable future.

Appropriate U.S. Response to Russia

November 1, 2016

Thomas F. Stephenson (Ambassador to Portugal, 2007-2009)


Post World War II history suggests convincingly that the best way to deal with Russian aggression is by demonstrating the strength and will to respond in a forceful fashion. Obvious examples are the strong manner in which President Kennedy dealt with Premier Khrushchev during the Cuban Missile Crisis and the way President Reagan interacted with Mr. Gorbachev at Reykjavik and in its aftermath as he laid the groundwork for the end of the Cold War and critical arms reduction agreements. Interacting with Mr. Putin, however, may well be even more challenging than dealing with either Khrushchev or Gorbachev as Putin gives all the indications of being the consummate bully. The only thing he understands or respects is strength and force, and little so far in the conduct of this Administration demonstrates the will power to take strong action. In fact time and again, the approach of “leading from behind” and “too little too late” has undermined whatever credibility we had with Mr. Putin at the beginning of 2009. Let’s review how we got to where we are currently in Ukraine and Syria.

To be fair to the current Administration, the preceding Administration had not provided a strong precedent, as it did little to prevent Russia under Medvedev from carving out South Ossetia and Abkhazia from the sovereign country of Georgia. But as Mr. Putin reclaimed the presidency of Russia in 2012, he had already observed 1) the absence of any supportive response from the Obama Administration to the Green Revolution in Iran in 2009, 2) the cancellation, under pressure from Russia, of a promised missile defense system in Poland, 3) very modest support for the French led actions surrounding the overthrow of Gadhafi in Libya in 2011, and 4) the total failure to enforce the red line drawn in Syria regarding the use by Assad of chemical weapons in 2012. Why wouldn’t Mr. Putin doubt our resolve and have no compunction or concern about taking the actions that he has in Ukraine and Syria?

Clear commitment to and demonstration of strength with only very judicious actual use of force are critical to convince the bullies of this world like Mr. Putin that the United States has the resolve and the ability to turn back inappropriate and irresponsible acts of aggression. I’ve had the privilege of listening many times to former Secretary of State George Shultz talk about how he and President Reagan chose to deal with such acts of unwanted aggression during the Reagan Administration. They, of course, took steps to restore our military strength, but they used very limited force only three times following the tragic bombing of our marine barracks in Beirut in 1983. We used a very modest amount of military force in Grenada very shortly after the Beirut bombing to rescue 300 Americans being held hostage there, we executed a surgical strike against Gadhafi in retaliation for an attack on our forces in Berlin in 1986, and in a very crisp response to mining activities by Iran in the Persian Gulf in 1987 we sank an Iranian ship that was deploying illegal mines after removing and immediately freeing all Iranian sailors on board. In all three instances a clear message was delivered. An attack on the United States and its allies will receive a proportionate response quickly and decisively.

Unfortunately, little that we have done so far with regard to Russian aggression in Ukraine or Syria has been either timely or appropriately proportionate. In Syria there was a point in time when one could discern the good guys from the bad guys and provide equipment, training, and support sufficient perhaps to enable the opposition to overthrow Assad. Creation of a “no fly zone” was an option recommended by a number of foreign policy experts, including former Secretary Clinton, but was never acted upon by the Administration. By the time we’d fiddled around for months and allowed the Russians to play the key role in negotiating the removal, supposedly, of all chemical weapons from Syria, we’d lost most of the leverage we might have had or been able to obtain, and Russia was in the driver’s seat in terms of protecting their friend Assad. ISIL/Islamic State has obviously complicated enormously the situation in Syria and clearly in Aleppo, but Russia has a very strong presence in Syria today and will be very hard to dislodge, largely because of “too little, too late” on our part. There is still some possibility, however, that it’s not too late to change the current course of events in Syria. A ‘no fly zone” and some sort of “safe-haven” enforcement could still improve the situation in Syria, but it will take resolve on our part and create risk of escalation that we have been unwilling to assume to date.

The situation in Ukraine is clearly very different. Putin’s aggressive actions to carve up and usurp as much of Ukraine as he can is all part of his longer range aspiration to recreate substantial parts of the Soviet Union or at least reestablish Russian influence, if not total dominance, in these neighboring countries. Our pathetically weak response to these actions in Ukraine have or will only encourage this type of aggression in the Baltic States initially and prospectively in other parts of Eastern Europe. Once again the impact of “too little, too late” is clearly being demonstrated. While our diplomats continue to participate in agonizingly unproductive discussions, Mr. Putin is shoring up his military positions in this greater theatre and will no doubt continue to use the excuse of protecting native Russians as he pursues his goals of territorial reclamation. As the remaining areas of Ukraine not yet under Russian control observe the lack of serious U.S. assistance in their plight, it must appear as though it is only a matter of time before they too are annexed by Russia.

Diplomacy and negotiation have been only very modestly successful at best to date with Russia relating to the terribly troubling developments in both Syria and the Ukraine. What incentive does Mr. Putin have to negotiate with us and our allies, when we demonstrate little evidence that we will back up our periodic threats with force. Recent shoring up and redeployment of NATO forces in the Baltics and Poland is a positive step, but we need to return to the Reagan-Shultz approach of saying what we mean in our interactions with Mr. Putin and being prepared to show that we mean what we say with decisive use of measured and proportionate force.

What Should be the U.S. Response to Russia in light of Russian and Syrian Government Attacks on Aleppo?

October 5, 2016

William J. vanden Heuvel (Ambassador to the United Nations European Office, 1977-1979)


The security of the United States is unacceptably endangered without a cooperative respectful relationship with Russia. The problems that divide us cannot be solved by war.

The Charter of the United Nations obliges the Permanent Members of the Security Council to work together to prevent war. The Ukraine, Syria, the refugee and migration flow which threatens the stability of all of our European allies, the increasing threat of nuclear confrontation — all of these crises demand that diplomacy find a way to restore sanity to our deliberations and avoid a resumption of the Cold War. Those who have the power to make peace possible will bear the obloquy of history if war becomes their choice.

Elie Wiesel Was the World’s Moral Compass

July 6, 2016

Ronald S. Lauder (Ambassador to Austria, 1986-1987)

Cross-posted from Ambassador Lauder’s July 5, 2016 special to Fortune.


Thirty years ago, I traveled to Auschwitz with Elie Wiesel. I had been to the camp before. I had seen the barbed wire, the barracks, the guard towers. I had stood in the gas chambers where a generation of Jewish children perished as the hands of evil. But to experience Auschwitz through Elie’s eyes, through the eyes of the man who taught the world about the horrors of the Holocaust, changed everything for me. It changed the way I think, and it lit a flame in me that burns to this day.

Elie once observed that the survivors of the Shoah “had the right to give up on humanity.” But Elie refused to give up. When I joined him at Auschwitz, I found a man not filled with hate, but with sadness and determination. Sadness over all those who were lost, and determination to honor their memory with action and impact.


Brexit Hangover: A Field Guide for Americans

June 24, 2016

Marc Ginsberg (Ambassador to Morocco, 1994-1998)

Cross-posted from Ambassador Ginsberg’s June 24, 2016 special to the Huffington Post.


The political and financial impact of yesterday’s “Brexit” vote will have long-lasting and profound implications for the U.S. presidential campaign, for U.S. – European relations, and for Europe itself. Once the Brexit proponents finish downing their champagne, the hangovers will settle in, for certain. They know not what they doneth.

Shockingly, the Brexit tally vote defied the sure money touted by London’s bookies. They were long and wrong on the odds, but the sure loser was Prime Minister Cameron; his bet was fatal – both to his political career and to a united United Kingdom. After all, the Brexit referendum was Cameron’s political miscalculation, who in a desperate moment of political lunacy succumbed to demands to appease rebellious Tory Euro-skeptic back-benchers and agreed to hold this ill-conceived referendum. Before his nation in front of 10 Downing Street, Cameron, his lips quivering, emotionally threw in the towel and spitefully resigned his office. Why? No one knows. Was his resignation really necessary in the heat of the moment?

As a result of the vote, the grave consequences to Britain’s political system and economy will reverberate for years – all in the name of abiding anti-immigrant sentiment in England and throttling the pesky, red-tape laden Brussels bureaucrats in the European Union’s redoubt. Revelers are rejoicing over the hopeful return of British sovereignty, but the end of 40 years of EU membership do not come without a price – and not just for the Brits.