In the Midst of a ‘Monumental Shift’ in U.S.-NATO Relations

FEBRUARY 24, 2017
By: Justin Chapman, Pacific Council

U.S.-NATO relations are undergoing a period of major change, Dr. Gale Mattox and Ms. Elisabeth Braw told Pacific Council members during a Situation Briefing teleconference on U.S. involvement with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) under the Trump administration.

Mattox is a Global Women’s Leadership Initiative fellow at the Wilson Center. Braw is a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council. The discussion was moderated by Dr. Mietek P. Boduszynski, an assistant professor of politics at Pomona College.

"I don’t think NATO and the United States are on a collision course, but they’re on a clear course of change," said Mattox, "a change that will inevitably challenge the historical course of the transatlantic alliance since its inception in 1949. NATO is in the midst of a monumental shift in strategy, organization, and enhanced resilience and coherence."

Some NATO member states are worried that the United States will not protect them against unfriendly aggression. In July 2016, then-candidate Donald Trump said U.S. military support for NATO member states was conditionally based on whether they meet their financial obligations to the bloc, a departure from more than 60 years of bipartisan foreign policy in the United States.

"NATO is in the midst of a monumental shift in strategy, organization, and enhanced resilience and coherence."

- Dr. Gale Mattox

One day before the Pacific Council’s Situation Briefing, U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis essentially issued an ultimatum to NATO members, saying, "America will meet its responsibilities, but if your nations do not want to see America moderate its commitment to the alliance, each of your capitals needs to show its support for our common defense" by the end of the year. Meanwhile, Russia and NATO are both currently engaged in building up an unprecedented military presence in the Baltic region.

"It’s clear that all 28 member states—and soon to be 29 with the inclusion of Montenegro—agree on the fundamental commitment to NATO," said Mattox. "But of course there are a lot of differences in detail, particularly as it relates to burden-sharing. I don’t think Secretary Mattis’ comment that the United States might ‘moderate its commitment to NATO’ is misplaced. It is to be taken seriously. The United States cannot be expected to carry 72 percent of the burden indefinitely."

Braw added that NATO has not lost its relevance since the end of the Cold War but that there is a recognition in Europe that this is a time of major change for the alliance.

"Nobody believes Trump would ever seriously consider fully retreating from NATO, but Europe does know it has to do more to provide for its own security," said Braw. "One country in particular can do more and that country is Germany. You can’t just beg for security, you have to put something in yourself. This is certainly a wake-up call for Europe to step up to the plate."

"One country in particular can do more and that country is Germany. This is certainly a wake-up call for Europe to step up to the plate."

- Elisabeth Braw

Mattox agreed, pointing out that while the United States spends 3.6 percent of its GDP on defense, Germany pays 1.2 percent and has half the unemployment of many NATO members. For its part, Germany does indeed want to adhere to its commitment of spending 2 percent of its GDP on defense, several German officials recently told the Pacific Council.

At the same time, Braw pointed out, spending 2 percent of GDP on defense doesn’t actually measure commitment to NATO.

"It just means you’re putting serious money into your own defense to collectively benefit the alliance," said Braw. "Italy could spend 10 percent on defense and it wouldn’t necessarily benefit NATO in any sort of way. Italy currently spends just 1 percent on defense, but it provides a crucial element of security in Europe because its Coast Guard and Navy patrol the Mediterranean. That’s a lot more important than Italy spending 2 percent on defense, which it could achieve by buying a bunch of tanks it doesn’t need."

Mattox laid out the three phases of NATO to date: the Cold War of 1949-89, the peace dividend of 1991-01, and the age of terrorism of 9/11 to 2014. She then argued that NATO has entered a fourth phase prompted by the takeover of Crimea by Russia and the events in Ukraine.

"Russia has embarked on a modernization of their defense spending," said Mattox. "No one knows what Russia will do next. Some worry they’ll go into Moldova, some worry about the Central Asian countries."

"Every European capital in NATO is pinning their hopes on Defense Secretary James Mattis. There is a sense that as long as he’s there, it will be okay."

- Elisabeth Braw

Braw pointed out that Russia has put several 9K720 Iskander missile launchers in Kaliningrad, a Russian province that is separated from the rest of the country and sandwiched between Lithuania and Poland along the Baltic Coast.

"Those missiles can travel up to 500 kilometers, putting them in the range of several European capitals," said Braw. "They’re also extremely accurate, so if you wanted to hit the Royal Palace in Stockholm, the Iskander would reliably hit the Royal Palace in Stockholm. This is a very problematic development because it puts a wedge between NATO allies about if and how to respond, since Sweden is not a NATO member. That’s exactly what the Russians intended."

Braw also said that there is alarm in Europe about Trump’s ties to Putin.

"Every European capital in NATO is pinning their hopes on Defense Secretary James Mattis," she said. "They think he is the one person in the Trump administration who will be okay. He is hugely trusted in Europe, and has a made a very clear commitment to NATO in the past and spoken strongly for the need for the United States to be involved in alliances. There is a sense that as long as he’s there, it will be okay."

Listen to the full conversation below:

____________________

Justin Chapman is the Communications Associate at the Pacific Council on International Policy.

The views and opinions expressed here are those of the speakers and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Pacific Council.

Cyber Threats are Among the Most Serious Facing the U.S.

FEBRUARY 21, 2017
By: Justin Chapman, Pacific Council

Cyber threats are very real and among the most serious facing the United States, Dr. John Launchbury told Pacific Council members in a discussion about the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s (DARPA) role in developing innovative information science and technology for U.S. national security.

Launchbury is the director of the Information Innovation Office (I20) at DARPA. Following his opening remarks, the discussion was moderated by Dr. Elizabeth Bodine-Baron, director of the RAND Corporation Center for Applied Network Analysis and System Science.

Since 1958, DARPA has been at the forefront of innovation for the U.S. Department of Defense. The agency is responsible for some of the world’s most significant scientific and technological breakthroughs, from advances in precision weapons and stealth technology to the modern internet, automated voice recognition, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, and more. 

"The problems that our nation faces in cybersecurity are facing enormous attention," said Launchbury. "The president has called for a national plan to address these problems and we’re working actively with other elements of the federal government to respond to this request. There is also strong bipartisan support in Congress for work in this area. If you add to this the emerging energies from the private sector, it adds up to a lot of momentum to do something about this problem. This is a good thing because the threat has grown."

"The president has called for a national plan to address [cybersecurity] problems and we’re working actively with other elements of the federal government to respond to this request."

Dr. John Launchbury

Launchbury pointed out some recent examples of high-profile cyber-attacks, including on the Office of Personnel Management, where millions of personnel records including security clearance information were stolen; Sony Pictures, where the theft of data and emails led to the cancellation of a major motion picture; and the Democratic National Committee during the recent presidential campaign, which is the subject of ongoing attention and investigation as it relates to the Trump administration’s ties to Russia.

"As we’ve seen, the computer servers of both the government and commercial enterprises have been vulnerable to attack," said Launchbury. "Any system, whether military, government, or commercial, that is connected to the internet is potentially vulnerable. A serious cyber-attack could jeopardize national security, military operations, the power grid, the financial sector, and so on."

Launchbury said there is no single silver bullet that can fix everything. Even a combination of advanced technology programs cannot entirely solve the problems the world faces in the cyber domain.

"We have a huge cybersecurity deficit built into our systems," he said. "For many years, we have been building vulnerable software on top of vulnerable software. So how can DARPA help?"

DARPA was originally created by President Eisenhower in 1958 as a response to the Soviets' surprise launch of Sputnik, the world’s first satellite. DARPA’s mission was to prevent such a surprise from happening to the United States again. DARPA was also the birthplace of the internet itself, which is now an infrastructure that supports all aspects of modern life, ranging from critical national security to commerce, entertainment, finance, healthcare, and social interaction, as well as crime, espionage, and cyberwarfare.

"We’re developing technologies to detect, isolate, and characterize cyber-attacks against the electric power grid, which would have severe economic and human costs for the United States."

Dr. John Launchbury

"At DARPA, we focus our cybersecurity goals in three areas: hardening systems against cyber-attack; figuring out how to get our jobs done even in the presence of insecurity; and developing the tools and techniques to win in the cyber domain against our adversaries," said Launchbury. "We’re developing technologies to detect, isolate, and characterize cyber-attacks against the electric power grid, which would have severe economic and human costs for the United States. The goal of our program is to provide skilled cyber and power engineers with the system tools that would enable them to restore power within seven days after a cyber-attack."

Launchbury said that there are many policy issues that arise as they develop new technologies. It is often the case that developments in technology allow for and inform policy options, not the other way around.

"We’re working to enhance our understanding of who’s responsible for attacks," said Launchbury. "At the moment, it’s almost impossible to tell who pushed the button to launch a cyber-attack. In response, DARPA has developed techniques like active authentication. The idea is that the computer recognizes you as you by how you use your machine. The way we use a computer is unique to us as individuals. The particular way you move the mouse, the particular cadence you have on the keyboard, all of those things are very individual. So someone may login to your banking website and after a while the website says, ‘I don’t think you’re Joe. I’m not going to let you transfer that money. I need a higher level of authentication.’ We’re trying to find ways to use that to identify cyber attackers."

DARPA continues to work on encryption technologies, including homomorphic encryption, which allows operations and calculations on data while it is still encrypted. Encryption technology, though, provokes concerns about the tradeoff between privacy and local or national security, Launchbury said.

"Privacy is a big concern and we’re developing technology like encrypted facial recognition to address that," he said. "How do you find the right balance between private interests and public oversight? We’re in the situation where we’re really struggling with this."

"The incentives for both companies and the government to protect their customers or employees from cyber-attacks have to improve."

Dr. John Launchbury

Launchbury also lamented what he sees as the unwillingness of many organizations to accept risk of attack rather than spend the time and money to build in high levels of security.

"The social and economic costs and consequences of failing to secure one’s system have not been high enough yet to warrant upfront security investment," he said. "The incentives for both companies and the government to protect their customers or employees from cyber-attacks have to improve."

Meanwhile, Launchbury said individuals can take measures to protect their own data and identity by keeping their software updated, using a different password for each account and also using a password manager, and being cautious whenever asked for a password.

Looking at the bigger picture, Launchbury said the United States needs to look at the cybersecurity situation holistically, as well as help develop international norms.

"We don’t yet have international cyber norms," he said. "For example, when is a cyber-attack an act of war?"

Ultimately, Launchbury has hope that the United States can do what it takes to protect the nation against cyber threats.

"When our private and public sector organizations come together to solve a problem, we can be a powerful force in creating technologies, capabilities, and policies for national security," said Launchbury. "Cybersecurity is a problem for all of us now. Let’s invent effective ways to work together to solve this problem for us all."

____________________

Justin Chapman is the Communications Associate at the Pacific Council on International Policy.

The views and opinions expressed here are those of the speaker and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Pacific Council.

Kevin Rudd: 2017 is the Year of Living Dangerously

FEBRUARY 16, 2017
By: Justin Chapman, Pacific Council

The United States and the international community will have to "live dangerously" in 2017, former Australian prime minister Kevin Rudd told Pacific Council and Asia Society members during a discussion about the challenges facing Asia and the United States within the currently shifting global order.

Rudd is the current president of the Asia Society Policy Institute. Following his opening remarks, Rudd continued the discussion with the Honorable Mickey Kantor, a Pacific Council director and former U.S. secretary of commerce and trade representative. This event was presented in partnership with the Asia Society Southern California.

"We seem to have an extraordinary confluence of risk, uncertainty, and change at multiple levels occurring simultaneously, therefore testing policymakers and political leaders in a manner that is beyond normal," said Rudd. "One of those uncertainties is the United States itself."

Watch the full video below, courtesy of the Asia Society:

Rudd said that every government around the world is asking, "What will Trump’s election mean in terms of policy? We understand what happened in the presidential election in terms of this groundswell in forgotten America, and where the president’s convictions seem to lie by statements he has made, but how will all of that translate into actual policy?"

Rudd sees U.S.-China and U.S.-Russia relations as the two major areas of concern in the international community.

"What will happen in the process of U.S.-Russia normalization, if that’s what we can call it?" said Rudd. "Ukraine, Syria, and sanctions are the three main issues there. When you actually unpack each of those, there is a formidable degree of difficulty and complexity in achieving what many expect to be a path toward normalization. One of the uncertainties that we need to anticipate is the fact that U.S.-Russia relations may not normalize to the extent that people might expect, due to factors beyond the control of President Trump."

"One of the uncertainties that we need to anticipate is the fact that U.S.-Russia relations may not normalize to the extent that people might expect."

Kevin Rudd

On U.S.-China relations, Rudd said the Trump administration would be wise to support the "One China" policy.

"Once they get that issue out of the way, I think our friends in Beijing are pragmatic enough to have an open conversation and negotiation about trade, investment, the South China Sea, and North Korea," said Rudd.

He added that President Trump’s critiques of China are led primarily by his domestic agenda, in terms of China "stealing" American jobs and industry.

"There are significant elements of truth in the critique, and this will be a hard message for our friends in Beijing to hear," said Rudd. "On trade, investment, currency, and the restrictions behind the border in China on these issues, there is a deep criticism in the United States toward China. Parallel to that in the U.S.-China relationship is what will then happen on outstanding national security issues in the South China Sea and North Korea."

According to Rudd, by any objective measure the calculation of the national security policy establishment in the United States and its allies is that North Korea’s nuclear program is that the single greatest objective threat to security in the year 2017.

"It’s a technical question, not a policy question," said Rudd, referring to the fact that North Korea already has nuclear capabilities. "It’s a technical calculation about how many bombs do they have? What’s their missile range and accuracy? Can their weapons be neutralized? Does the world accept a nuclear-armed and capable North Korea as a responsible member of the global nuclear club or not? If not, what can be done about it? That is the absolute essence of the discussion which must now be conducted between the Trump and Xi administrations."

"Does the world accept a nuclear armed and capable North Korea as a responsible member of the global nuclear club or not? If not, what can be done about it?"

Kevin Rudd

On the subject of multilateral organizations, Rudd said it remains to be seen how the Trump administration will interact with the international community.

"With the United Nations, we still don’t know," said Rudd. "Trump’s statements about the UN so far have not been on the positive side. But this is America’s child. If you walk away from it, a large part of your global soft power goes with it."

Rudd spent the last two years chairing the Independent Commission on Multilateralism, established by the International Peace Institute in September 2014 to study the future of the UN. The commission published their findings in December, and Rudd authored an op-ed on how to reform the UN, of which he is a major advocate.

"The United Nations is America’s child. If you walk away from it, a large part of your global soft power goes with it."

Kevin Rudd

Rudd also considered the future of the democratic project in light of the past year’s trend of populism around the world, including the growing sentiment against free trade and globalization.

"Our collective democratic project is under deep challenge," said Rudd. "I say to our American friends, ‘The way you conduct your democracy domestically has deep global resonance.’ People watch. If America engages in retreat and retrenchism, and if its own democracy becomes fouled through this acute adversarialism in Congress, before you even add the other deep cancers within the system in terms of campaign finance and redistricting, these messages go beyond U.S. borders."

Rudd concluded that there are reasons to be concerned about the shifting global order in 2017, but that western values are still worth fighting for.

"What happens to the democracy if and when President Trump’s constituency concludes that he has no solutions to the dislocations of globalization, in the economy, in employment, because of the onward march of technology and capital?" Rudd wondered. "Do you then have such a deep and fundamental breach with the validity of the democratic project that they just look elsewhere? We’re not there yet, but when you start to see people look outside the center-left/center-right mainstream of politics for radical alternatives, then I think we’re on something of a slippery slope. If we think democracy is a political system worth defending, we must tend the garden well."

____________________

Justin Chapman is the Communications Associate at the Pacific Council on International Policy.

Check out photos from this event on our Flickr page.

The views and opinions expressed here are those of the speaker and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Pacific Council.

The Future of U.S.-Mexico Relations is Unpredictable

FEBRUARY 10, 2017
By: Justin Chapman, Pacific Council

The U.S.-Mexico relationship is the strongest it’s ever been, but its future is uncertain, Dr. Pamela Starr and Mr. Seth Stodder told Pacific Council members in a Situation Briefing on recent developments between the two neighboring countries.

Starr is the director of the U.S.-Mexico Network and a professor of International Relations at the University of Southern California. Stodder is the former Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security for Border, Immigration, and Trade Policy. Presented as part of the Pacific Council’s Mexico Initiative, the discussion was moderated by Ms. Katja Newman, founder and president of KSN Consulting.

"However things turn out over the next four to eight years, the bilateral relationship will change in ways that are likely to be unpredictable," said Starr. "The relationship is being defined by President Trump himself, through his rhetoric, his tweeting, and his penchant for using private sector negotiating techniques for diplomacy."

On January 25, President Donald Trump signed two executive orders directing the construction of a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border, promising that Mexico will reimburse U.S. taxpayers for the cost of construction. Following that action and a subsequent Twitter exchange, Mexican president Enrique Peña Nieto canceled his planned visit to the White House.

"Mexico has three very powerful tools in its foreign policy toolbox: geography, its multi-party democracy, and a new nationalism that is bubbling up in Mexico today."

Pamela Starr

"Since the 9/11 attacks, there has been a bipartisan effort in both the Bush and Obama administrations to strengthen the U.S. relationship with Mexico," said Stodder. "Both administrations worked closely with authorities in Mexico to remove unnecessary barriers to trade; deepened cooperation on law enforcement in fighting the drug cartels, counter-terrorism efforts, and securing the North American perimeter; and worked together on the migration challenges."

That important relationship, Stodder added, has been "thrown up in the air because of this administration’s rhetoric and the fight over the wall."

Stodder said he does not believe the border wall will solve the migration problem, adding that the actual number of people coming across the border from Mexico to the United States is at a 40-year low.

"The wall will actually anger Mexico and insult Mexican voters who could be tempted by a nationalist candidate in the 2018 presidential election," he said.

Starr believes that regardless of who is elected president of Mexico in 2018, that person will be a nationalist.

"That’s almost a forgone conclusion," she said. "There is a new nationalism bubbling up in Mexico today. Mexico has three very powerful tools in its foreign policy toolbox. One is geography; put simply, Mexico is not going anywhere. Mexico matters to the United States in ways that no other country beyond Canada ever will. Another tool is that Mexico is a multi-party democracy, which means Mexico’s negotiators can ignore Trump’s taunts because they have other actors within Mexico who can respond. The third tool is this new nationalism that generates this cacophony of voices that are loudly screaming that Mexico will not be taken advantage of."

"Mexico has intercepted and returned hundreds of thousands of Central Americans, by U.S. request. That cooperation could stop."

Seth Stodder

Starr said this is a peculiar moment between the United States and Mexico, rather than a relationship on the brink.

"President Trump inherited a relationship that was the best that it has ever been between these two countries," she said. "There has been very close collaboration across the board: on counter-narcotics, terrorism and counter-intelligence, trans-migration, water resources, and of course very close economic collaboration. But at the same time, the rhetoric and initial actions of the Trump administration have generated a level of tension in the relationship that we haven’t seen at least since the mid-1980s. That combination is unlike anything we’ve seen before in the bilateral relationship."

Stodder agreed that Mexico has been a major partner to the United States in managing migration flows, especially coming from Central America.

"Mexico has moved from primarily a source country for illegal immigration into the United States to a transit country," he said. "The demographics of who is actually being apprehended by the border patrol have changed. Now over half of them are not coming from Mexico but rather Central America."

He pointed out that the combination of the environmental crisis, economic crisis, and gang violence in the Northern Triangle countries—Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador—is driving hundreds of thousands of people to head north.

"Mexico has intercepted and returned hundreds of thousands of Central Americans, by U.S. request," said Stodder, adding that that cooperation could stop if U.S.-Mexico relations sour.

"Mexico is in a vulnerable position. Its economy is structured to trade with the United States, particularly the manufacturing sector. Anything that threatens that will damage the Mexican economy."

Pamela Starr

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is another area where there could be potential cooperation or frustration between the two countries, the speakers said. During the campaign, then-candidate Trump derided NAFTA as a disaster and a job killer and vowed to renegotiate it. Starr said the collapse of the trade deal would be a disaster economically for both countries.

"The most likely significant risk in a renegotiation of NAFTA is that a lot of investors will keep their money on the sideline and wait until they know what the new rules of the game will be," she said. "The biggest threat to Mexico is that in a renegotiation of NAFTA, the U.S. government wants to insist on some form of a border tax or tariff or quota that will be designed to force down U.S. imports from Mexico."

Starr added that Mexico will face significant economic consequences if the renegotiation of NAFTA is messy or even drawn out.

"Mexico is in a vulnerable position," said Starr. "Its economy is structured to trade with the United States, particularly the manufacturing sector. Anything that threatens that will damage the Mexican economy."

Listen to the full conversation below:

____________________

Justin Chapman is the Communications Associate at the Pacific Council on International Policy.

The views and opinions expressed here are those of the speakers and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Pacific Council.

Executive Order on Refugees Does More Harm Than Good

FEBRUARY 6, 2017
By: Justin Chapman, Pacific Council

The U.S. government's vetting process for admitting refugees into the United States is already extreme, Dr. Elizabeth Ferris and Colonel (r.) Steve Miska told Pacific Council members during a Situation Briefing teleconference on the impact of President Trump’s executive order temporarily suspending the U.S. refugee program.

Ferris is an Institute for the Study of International Migration Research Professor at Georgetown and a non-resident senior fellow in Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institution. Miska is a national security consultant for the Global Peace Foundation and recently retired from the military after 25 years of service. The discussion was moderated by Ehsan Zaffar, a senior advisor at the Department of Homeland Security.

"Vetting isn’t easy," said Ferris. "You have to be really careful about who comes into the country, but we’re being awfully careful now. The vetting procedures are quite extensive and take a long time."

On January 27, President Trump signed an executive order titled "Protecting the nation from foreign terrorist entry into the United States." The order suspended the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for 120 days. Resettlement for Syrian refugees has been postponed indefinitely and the total number of refugees admitted into the United States will be capped during the 2017 fiscal year at 50,000. Once reinstated, the resettlement of Christian refugees will be given priority.

"The signal we sent to the Iraqi security forces is that the United States does not even trust its closest partners. That frays the relationships between U.S. and Iraqi forces."

- Steve Miska

"I think about the immigration system as an ecosystem, almost like a coral reef," said Miska. "It evolves and it’s sensitive to changes in conditions. This executive order was akin to somebody coming along and dropping an anchor onto this very sensitive coral reef. As a result, the relationships with our closest local indigenous partners are damaged."

Miska said that interpreters and other local national partners are critical for mission success in combat zones, adding that this executive order makes it seem like the United States is abandoning them.

"They take a huge risk by working with us, and if they do not think they have a lifeline from us, that gives our adversaries a greater chance of coercing and undermining their ability to support our efforts," he said. "The signal we sent to the Iraqi security forces is that the United States does not even trust its closest partners. That frays the relationships between U.S. and Iraqi forces."

Ferris said one of her main concerns is how countries like Lebanon or Turkey will interpret this action, considering they are hosting millions of refugees themselves.

"When they hear the United States, with all of its resources and proud traditions as a country of immigrants, say, ‘We can’t take anymore, there are too many serious security concerns that we can’t deal with,’ I’m concerned what this will do to an already overtaxed and fragile international system," she said.

"One of the things that make me proud to be an American is that we have been a haven for the world and embraced multicultural diversity."

- Dr. Elizabeth Ferris

Ferris is also concerned about what this order will mean for U.S. identity.

"One of the things that make me proud to be an American is that we have been a haven for the world and embraced multicultural diversity," she said. "Regardless of your accent or where you come from or your religion, you can be as American as apple pie, but that’s something that we’re in danger of losing. It’s being eroded by these particular executive actions."

Both Miska and Ferris agreed that the vetting process in place is already appropriately extensive.

"I’m not sure that some of the people making these policies are familiar with the procedures that are actually already in place in terms of vetting for security and multiple checks and multiple security agencies that look at the files," said Ferris. "If someone wants to enter the United States and do harm, they’re not going to pick the refugee resettlement route because it does take such a long time and it’s so intrusive in terms of the process. The policymakers really need to understand the present system, and if there are areas that can improve, then by all means make those improvements."

"If someone wants to enter the United States and do harm, they’re not going to pick the refugee resettlement route because it does take such a long time and it’s so intrusive in terms of the process."

- Dr. Elizabeth Ferris

Miska agreed, adding that the system in place is already what he would call "extreme vetting." He also pointed out that the refugee resettlement program has not been the source of terrorist attacks in the United States.

"There already is a fairly tight level of vetting that occurs," he said. "The attacks since 9/11 have predominantly been from homegrown terrorists, mainly U.S. citizens. They didn’t infiltrate the United States through refugee channels. I’m skeptical that much can be achieved by Trump’s executive order halting the refugee program. I suspect that what will be determined is that the system is already actually pretty secure in terms of the level of vetting that goes on."

Listen to the full conversation below:

____________________

Justin Chapman is the Communications Associate at the Pacific Council on International Policy.

The views and opinions expressed here are those of the speakers and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Pacific Council.