The United States should continue to promote democracy around the world, Dr. Condoleezza Rice told Pacific Council members. Rice is the author of a new book, Democracy: Stories from the Long Road to Freedom.

Rice was the 66th U.S. Secretary of State (2005-2009). The conversation, moderated by Pacific Council director Ambassador Robert H. Tuttle, was wide-ranging and covered topics such as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, cooperating with Russia, the crisis in Venezuela, democracy in China, trade and populism, and more.

"We need to help countries that are trying to find their way to democracy to work on issues of institutional design," said Rice. "Our founding fathers were people who worried a great deal about how institutions would relate to one another. They knew instinctually and with their experiences with the British that a too strong executive was a problem. So they made Congress a separate but equal branch of government. They created courts that could check the power of the president. They created federalism and room for civil society. They advocated for a free press and they put it all together in a remarkable thing called the American Constitution, and it has been evergreen."

Rice added that she’s not necessarily saying that new democracies should look like the U.S. Constitution, but that they should at least have those basic elements.

"You cannot have too strong an executive, or you will get an authoritarian," she said. "You must have a free press. You need an independent judiciary. But the most important thing we can do is be patient. I’m always struck by how impatient we are with countries that are just making those first steps toward a democracy. Of all the people who should be patient, it’s Americans, because it took us quite a while to get it right. The United States was founded with a birth defect: that would be slavery. You need patience to get to that mystical place where people trust institutions."

"I’m always struck by how impatient we are with countries that are just making those first steps toward a democracy. Of all the people who should be patient, it’s Americans, because it took us quite a while to get it right."

Condoleezza Rice

Rice cited a number of examples of countries that have successfully transitioned to democracy.

"We had a very successful set of relatively smooth transitions to democracy after the Soviet Union collapsed," she said. "When you look at countries that were under communist rule and just a few years later are electing parliaments and presidents and have free speech, that’s a relatively remarkable transition to democracy."

She told a story about traveling to Nigeria with President George W. Bush and seeing portraits of former presidents who were all military officials, with one exception.

"This is the continent where ‘president for life’ got coined," said Rice. "When Goodluck Jonathan lost Nigeria’s election in 2015, he called his opponent and he said, ‘You won the election, I concede, and I’m here to help support you.’ Those moments are really quite remarkable because they show that countries are maturing. Now there are plenty that have gone the other way, but we have to celebrate the democracies that are succeeding around the world."

Rice rejected the argument that democracy cannot survive in some regions of the world, such as the Middle East. She particularly took issue with the argument that "those people aren’t ready for democracy," which she finds to be a patronizing argument.

"Often it’s a cultural argument," she said. "When political scientists can’t explain something, their residual category is ‘culture.’ Asians were too Confucian. Well, there are now a bunch of Asian democracies. Africans were too tribal. Well, there are now a bunch of African democracies. Latin Americans preferred caudillos and men on horseback and kept experiencing military coups. Well, there are now a bunch of Latin American democracies. Germans were once too martial and just obeyed orders. Well, they’ve done pretty well with democracy. The only place it is ‘legitimate’ to say this about any longer is the Middle East. It is true that the problems in the Middle East are complicated by the marriage of politics and religion. One of the things the U.S. founding fathers did right was separating politics and religion so that the state could not have a religious preference."

Rice added that the Middle East is experiencing twin revolutions.

"People are saying, ‘Enough with dynastic, autocratic, corrupt regimes that don’t deliver,’" she said. "On top of that, the borders of those countries were artificially drawn on the back of an envelope by the British and the French after the Ottoman Empire collapsed. These states were held together by monarchs and dictators. Due to developments like social media, these states are no longer stable. The only way that the Middle East ultimately achieves peace is through democratic institutions being the way people resolve their differences. Otherwise, someone is just going to oppress someone else."

On the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan

Rice lamented that Americans have become reluctant about democracy promotion, which she said is likely because they associate it with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"But those were not about democracy promotion," she argued. "I would not have gone to President Bush and said, ‘Use the American military to overthrow Saddam Hussein and the Taliban so that we can bring democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan.' That would have been a misuse of military power. We overthrew those regimes because we had security problems. In Afghanistan, the Taliban was harboring al Qaeda after 9/11. In Iraq, Hussein was a threat in the region; we thought more imminent because we thought he had reconstituted his program of weapons of mass destruction. But we didn’t go to Iraq and Afghanistan to bring democracy any more than we went to Germany to bring democracy when we overthrew Adolf Hitler. However, once you have decapitated a totalitarian regime, you have to have a plan for what comes after. We thought Iraq and Afghanistan ought to have a chance for democracy."

Ultimately, Rice explained, promoting democracy means standing up for those who are oppressed around the world, which she said is a worthy objective for the United States.

On cooperating with Russia

Despite being adversaries and despite the ongoing complications in U.S.-Russia relations, Rice said that there are areas where the United States and Russia could and should cooperate with each other. She acknowledged, however, that it will not be easy.

"Putin thinks he’s uniting the Russian people in greatness and avenging the end of the Cold War," said Rice. "He has called the collapse of the Soviet Union ‘the greatest tragedy of the 20th century.’ That makes U.S.-Russia relations pretty difficult because his view is one that’s revisionist and revanchist about the end of the Cold War."

"I would not have gone to President Bush and said, ‘Use the American military to overthrow Saddam Hussein and the Taliban so that we can bring democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan.' That would have been a misuse of military power."

Condoleezza Rice

Rice said that one area where the United States should cooperate with Russia is the war in Syria.

"Because we didn’t act in Syria four or five years ago, the Russians filled the vacuum," she said. "We wouldn’t be in this situation if we had acted. Sometimes when you don’t act, you lose options. We will live forever with the stain of not having acted and the hundreds of thousands of Syrians who died as a result and the millions of Syrians who were displaced. We can’t make Bashar al-Assad go away, but the Russians can. We should say to the Russians, ‘Are you sure you want to pin your hopes on Assad?’ We’re going to have to end this war through Moscow. We need to convince Putin that Assad is not Russia’s best long term strategy."

The other place where the United States and Russia should cooperate is North Korea, Rice said.

"If a missile can reach Alaska, it can reach Vladivostok," she said. "They must not like what they’re seeing in North Korea either."

On the crisis in Venezuela

Rice said that the political and economic crisis in Venezuela should be getting much more attention than it currently is.

"Maduro is like Chavez without the charm or brains," said Rice. "I don’t understand why the Organization of American States and Latin American countries are not all over Maduro to have a transition to elections in a couple years so that you can get this half-crazy, brutal person out of the region and end this tragedy in Venezuela. Because if somebody doesn’t find a peaceful way out of this, there’s going to be a violent revolution. If the Andean states think they’ve got problems now, just wait until that happens."

Rice said that Venezuela needs to be a top priority for the United States, but that Latin American countries must also help.

On Chinese democracy

Rice also made the case for promoting democracy in China, while pointing out that the dynamic between its communist political system and market reforms will eventually force a further liberalization of the society.

"I think nature is going to take its course," said Rice. "The Chinese government is depending on the fact that it has legitimacy based on prosperity, but you can only count on that for so long because people’s expectations keep growing. They know they need to reform to a more market-based economy. But once you release those market forces, you can’t really control the country from the top-down anymore. Now there’s an uncomfortable fit between an authoritarian political system and an economic system that’s changing quite dramatically underneath. Over time, China will have to make some moves toward liberalization. The question is, will the government be smart enough to see it?"

"I’m confident in America’s democratic institutions to handle just about anything."

Condoleezza Rice

Rice argued that the United States should continue to speak for those who are voiceless in China, such as human rights advocates and fighters for religious freedom.

"One day, people in China are going to get their rights, and if we take our eye off the ball here we will have been on the wrong side of that history," she said.

On trade and populism

Rice pointed out that the anti-trade sentiment in the Trump administration is part of broader backlash against globalization.

"In order to get back to a place where we are comfortable with trade again, we’ve got to deal with the basic causes of this attraction toward populism," she said. "The fact is there are a lot of people who are not doing very well. They were desperate and angry and they were looking for somebody to give them a reason for why they weren’t doing very well. Populists give you easy reasons. They tell you it’s the immigrants, it’s the Mexicans, it’s the Chinese. If you’re on the left, it’s the big banks. Of course, we all know that that’s not why people aren’t doing very well. It’s broad changes in the economy—automation and a whole bunch of other reasons—that people with low skills are not doing very well. You’ve got to address that problem in order to get back to a place where people are comfortable advocating for free trade again."

"The fact is there are a lot of people who are not doing very well. They were desperate and angry and they were looking for somebody to give them a reason for why they weren’t doing very well."

Condoleezza Rice

Rice pointed out that populists have changed the conversation, so that even political centrists now will not talk about free trade and immigration the way they used to. She added that identity is a part of this equation as well.

"Most people never live more than 25 miles from where they were born, compared to the global elites who move freely around the world," she said. "There was bound to be a culture clash, particularly because global elites got very self-satisfied, started denigrating the values of people who weren’t part of the global elite, laughing at them, putting them down, saying they were attached to their guns and religion, and they got mad. A friend of mine called the 2016 election the ‘Do you hear me now?’ election."

She added that it is not going to be enough to simply defend the liberal order. These underlying issues will have to be addressed as well.

"However," she concluded, "I’m confident in America’s democratic institutions to handle just about anything."

____________________

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

Ahead of this event, Dr. Rice wrote an article for the Pacific Council’s Newsroom about why the United States needs to make every effort to reinvigorate democracy around the world. Read it here.

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.

China’s agenda in Latin America is purely economic, not political or security related, Dr. Lourdes Casanova and Mr. Peter Hakim told Pacific Council members in a Situation Briefing teleconference.

Casanova is the academic director of Cornell University’s Emerging Markets Institute. Hakim is the president emeritus and a senior fellow at the Inter-American Dialogue. The discussion was moderated by Dr. Saori Katada, an associate professor of international relations at the University of Southern California.

"There’s very little evidence that China wants anything more than just economic relations in Latin America," said Hakim. "Both China and Latin America want to sustain their economic relationship."

There is increased speculation that China may replace the United States as a stronghold in Latin America, following rhetoric from U.S. leadership on trade and immigration. Bilateral trade between China and Latin America grew 2,400 percent between 2000 and 2013 and Chinese President Xi Jinping visited several Latin American countries only days after Donald Trump won the U.S. election in November 2016.

"There’s very little evidence that China wants anything more than just economic relations in Latin America."

Peter Hakim

Casanova and Hakim pointed out that Chinese leaders visit Latin America more often than U.S. leaders do, but that relations between Latin America and China are nothing new. Trade in the region dates back centuries. 

"Trade relations between China and Latin America are strong, but increasingly China is also playing the role of the main investor in the region," said Casanova. "China has become the main trading partner of a number of countries in the region, including Venezuela, Peru, Brazil, and Chile, as well as the second biggest trading partner of Latin America after the United States. China has been key for the boom years of Latin America, but now we are in another phase. It remains to be seen how Latin American governments will react to China’s new role as a major investor in the region."

Hakim said it would have been difficult to imagine in the early 2000s the kind of presence China now enjoys in the region.

"It was almost like the expansion of the universe after the Big Bang," he said. "China was not on the map in Latin America. There were so many other countries that were doing far more business and politics with Latin America. Now China is the largest trading partner of South America. China has come on very strongly. They began to finance through loans a variety of construction projects, mainly having to do with their own access to commodities. They built better ports, highways, and railroads to facilitate that access. Now China is investing in many of the companies in the region, but I don’t think it exceeds the United States on investment yet."

"What worries me is that China has a clear strategy for Latin America, but Latin America does not have a strategy for China."

Lourdes Casanova

Casanova added that China is the most important trading partner for many countries, not just Latin American countries, so relations between China and Latin America should be kept in perspective.

Hakim said that China has laid out a specific strategy about their intentions in Latin America. 

"They certainly lay out very clearly what their objectives are and where they want to be," he said. "Not surprisingly, at this point not a single Latin American country has much of a strategy for dealing with the influx of Chinese investment. Certainly there’s no coordination between the countries."

Casanova is also concerned that Latin America does not have a strategy for China’s increased presence.

"What worries me is that China has a clear strategy for Latin America, but Latin America does not have a strategy for China," she said. "They don’t have a five-year plan, they don’t have a plan for the short, medium, or long term. Brazil is being forced to sell and to do whatever is needed to get out of its economic crisis and grow again. In this rush to get funds from China, Brazil has not had time to think about what it needs to do in the next four to five years. They need to develop a win-win strategy so that Latin American countries also benefit from this new relationship."

"Ultimately, Latin America is doing what it has to do to find new revenues of investment and trade."

Peter Hakim

Hakim said there is little reason to expect any deliberate slowdown from China.

"China looks at Latin America as an important source of many of the things China needs for its continuing rapid development at home," he said. "Latin America has really welcomed the Chinese."

That said, Hakim does not believe that China is going to displace the United States in Latin America, just that its economic ties and influence are certain to grow.

"The question is, will Trump’s attitude to trade and overseas production mean a U.S. retreat from Latin America?" said Hakim. "Ultimately, Latin America is doing what it has to do to find new revenues of investment and trade."

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.

The Pacific Council will use its network-based approach to tackle the complex issue of global water scarcity, Jennifer Faust and Rachel Cardone told attendees of the Leading Together Conference in Dallas, Texas, the premier conference for the philanthropic community.

Faust is the Executive Director of the Pacific Council, where Cardone currently serves as Global Water Scarcity Project Fellow. Matt Petersen, the chief sustainability officer for the city of Los Angeles, spoke on the panel with Faust and Cardone. Shaheen Kassim-Lakha, director of international programs for the Conrad N. Hilton Foundation, moderated the session.

"How do we connect domestic issues and our domestic reality around water with international affairs? Oftentimes those things are really disconnected," said Cardone. "What we can do is build awareness and inspiration and excitement around water and related opportunities for investment, and add new thinking and disruption within the California innovation mindset. Our goal is to find an organizational voice that connects the dots between water scarcity and trade, energy, politics, and security."

Last year, the Pacific Council launched its Global Water Scarcity Project, an initiative that aims to utilize interactive programming connecting California’s water scarcity issues to foreign affairs.

Last year, the Pacific Council launched its Global Water Scarcity Project, an initiative that aims to connect California’s water scarcity issues to foreign affairs and build a case for understanding California’s international water scarcity risk. This project was made possible with support from the Conrad N. Hilton Foundation, a leader in helping the world’s vulnerable and disadvantaged communities gain access to safe water.

Through the initiative, the Pacific Council aims to contribute to foreign policy discussions and decision-making around water scarcity, with a long-term vision of helping to achieve the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030.

Cardone discussed some of the challenges that water scarcity presents both locally and globally.

"The growing global population—particularly in urban areas, with diets that increasingly include meat—coupled with finite and increasingly degraded naturally-fresh water sources, has led to global water scarcity issues," she said. "Of the water that is on the earth’s surface, and underground, only about one percent of it is accessible to humans. Beyond that, it starts to cost more, and people generally don’t like to pay for their water. Over the last 50 years or so, because surface water has become more polluted and scarcer in terms of volume, people are tapping into groundwater as their insurance policy to make up the difference."

"We can see that water is a threat multiplier not just at the international level in conflicts such as Syria or Yemen, but also between Northern and Southern California."

Rachel Cardone

Cardone added that the implications are bigger than just people’s drinking water needs or the enormous amount of water it takes to grow food. She said that water is a threat multiplier in conflict situations.

"We can see that not just at the international level in conflicts such as Syria or Yemen, but also between Northern and Southern California, and between California and its partners on the Colorado River," she said. "There’s a policy space in thinking about water scarcity as it relates to conflict and how those can be resolved in a constructive way."

Faust explained that the Pacific Council saw a lack of leadership in this area—connecting local water scarcity issues to similar problems around the globe—and decided to take on the task.

"We’re a global policy institute with members who cut across every single field there could possibly be," she said. "If there’s someone who’s going to take the global lead on water scarcity and connect it to what’s happening in the United States and abroad, it could and should be the Pacific Council. It is a very natural issue for us. We can add value to this topic. We see the connections to what’s going on here in the United States to what’s going on abroad. We could bring incredible intellectual leadership, and we can get the ear of policymakers."

Faust said that the initial phase of the Council’s Global Water Scarcity Project involves considering questions such as: "How can California’s efforts to address water cross-pollinate with the world? Are there lessons from California that can be shared with the world, with other urban centers? And vice versa. What can California learn from the Middle East? From Israel? From Australia? From all these places around the world that are confronting a lot of the same kinds of issues in their own context."

"If there’s someone who’s going to take the global lead on water scarcity and connect it to what’s happening in the United States and abroad, it could and should be the Pacific Council."

Jennifer Faust

For example, Peterson pointed out that the city of Los Angeles set a goal of 20 percent water conservation citywide, including residential, commercial, and industrial. Now the city is on its way to reduce water imports by 50 percent by 2025 and to get 50 percent of its water to be locally sourced by 2035. Since November 2014, L.A. has saved 60.5 billion gallons of water, which is enough to fill 91,700 Olympic-sized pools. 

"The U.S. West talks a lot about climate change and water," Faust said. "We recognize the importance of it. We already feel it. We see the wide-ranging effects that water has in the place where we do a lot of our work. Even in California there are people who go without clean water for drinking. And often we think of that as a developing country kind of issue, yet it’s happening right here in the United States."

Cardone said that developing the Council’s Global Water Scarcity Project has been a rewarding challenge.

"The Pacific Council is a network-based organization," she said. "We wanted the strategy to be outcome-oriented but with the understanding that with networks you’re not always sure what all the outcomes are going to be. Ultimately, the best change could perhaps be somebody within the network happens to have a conversation with somebody in the Trump administration and suddenly there’s policy now. You never know how these things work out."

"Even in California there are people who go without clean water for drinking. And often we think of that as a developing country kind of issue, yet it’s happening right here in the United States."

Jennifer Faust

That said, the program model aims to inspire action as quickly as possible, with an initial goal of building a strong network culture.

"It’s really about catalyzing a network of members who have professional lives of their own and are leaders in the Los Angeles area and along the West Coast, and who are passionate about international affairs," said Cardone. "The Pacific Council works as a resource broker and incubator, pulling together compelling programming for those networks to then be the actors through their networks. We want to connect their personal experience with California’s drought to international policy."

The process of building the project’s strategy was interactive. Pacific Council focus groups met in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, and Silicon Valley to share ideas. Experts from a variety of institutions in Washington, D.C., and around the world—including many at World Water Week in Stockholm, Sweden—provided feedback on the project. A steering committee guided the creation of a multi-year strategy; its members included representatives from the private sector, NGOs, government, water utility boards, the military, and more.

"The Pacific Council is a network with a cross-section of expertise in our membership from every walk of life, from the private sector to current government to future government to younger members," said Faust. "Millennials are the kind of people who want to be involved in community-building. They are values-driven and they have ambition. They’re going to be the army for these kinds of issues for tomorrow. We’re looking at a network-based solution for this big, complex, interconnected systems problem."

____________________

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

The stakes in the upcoming French presidential election are extremely high, Mira Kamdar and Philippe Le Corre told Pacific Council members in a Situation Briefing teleconference.

Kamdar is a Paris-based member of the New York Times’ Editorial Board. Le Corre is a Visiting Fellow of Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institution’s Center on the United States and Europe.

On May 7, voters in France will decide on their next president between Emmanuel Macron, leader of the “En Marche!” party, and Marine Le Pen, former leader of the National Front. 

"There is more at stake in this incredibly important election than the future of France and the European Union. Western democracy—and maybe even democracy itself—is at stake," said Kamdar. "Voters have an incredibly stark choice before them. The candidates could not be more different."

Macron is a political centrist and new to politics, whereas Le Pen represents France’s far-right, anti-immigrant, anti-EU movement.

"If Marine Le Pen is elected, all hell is going to break loose."

Mira Kamdar

"If Marine Le Pen is elected, all hell is going to break loose," Kamdar said. "She has promised to hold a ‘Frexit’ referendum shortly after winning to pull France out of the EU, and she also wants to close France’s borders. Her whole thing is that France and Europe are being overrun by immigrants and French civilization is at stake. She would also take France out of NATO."

Kamdar said many in the United States are attempting to understand the French election by viewing it through the lens of the 2016 U.S. presidential election, with Le Pen as Donald Trump and Macron as Hillary Clinton. 

"It’s a mistake to take that analogy of what happened in the U.S. election and apply that template to the French election," she said. "It’s a very different situation and the French presidential election process is very different. There is no Electoral College in France. The polls in 2016 showed Clinton winning the popular vote, which she did. If the polls remain correct in France, Macron will win, because if he wins the popular vote, he wins. That’s it."

"There is no appetite for Frexit in France. A number of polls very clearly show a majority in favor of remaining in EU."

Philippe Le Corre

Kamdar said the presidential debate this week between Macron and Le Pen was divisive and lacking in civility.

"The debate was incredibly acrimonious," she said. "One gets the sense that Le Pen knows she’s probably not going to win this election. She made no effort to appear presidential and just did as much as she could to take down her opponent. Macron spent the early part of the debate sparring with her, but toward the end he pulled it together and presented himself in a way that French voters could imagine him being president."

Both Kamdar and Le Corre predicted that Macron will win the presidency on Sunday.

"This election is the clash of two cultures and ideas in France," said Le Corre. "If Le Pen wins and [Germany Chancellor Angela] Merkel’s opponent wins in September, we will be heading toward a different kind of Europe. Le Pen and her supporters want to restore an old France that is no longer with us because of globalization. There is no appetite for Frexit in France. A number of polls very clearly show a majority in favor of remaining in EU."

"It’s a mistake to take that analogy of what happened in the U.S. election and apply that template to the French election."

Mira Kamdar

Kamdar and Le Corre agreed that whoever wins the presidency, they will then face a very divided and fractured electorate heading into the country’s legislative elections in June.

"There have been many people vowing to vote for him on May 7 and then join the opposition on May 8," Kamdar said. "He has a big challenge ahead of him if he is elected on Sunday in pulling the country together and recreating some kind of political center, because right now the center has fallen apart."

Le Corre pointed out that Russia has been financing Le Pen’s former party, the National Front.

"She is basically being received in the Kremlin almost as a head of state by Putin," he said. "On the other hand, Macron has been the subjected to attacks by not just hackers but also the Russian media."

Kamdar added that if Macron and Merkel win their respective elections, it will represent "a major pushback against Russian meddling" in western affairs.

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.

This year’s Spring Conference featured panel discussions, roundtable dialogues, and a keynote interview with Representative Ted Lieu (D-CA). The conference also included three plenary sessions: a discussion on the EU’s struggle for stability; an examination of the future of war; and a look into the operating environment for the U.S. Marine Corps.

Other sessions included discussions on U.S.-China relations, challenges and opportunities for public diplomacy, the state of the free press around the world, NAFTA renegotiations, emerging issues in the Middle East, and immigration policy in the United States.

What follows are just a few of the many notable insights from the conference.

____________________

The Evolving U.S.-China Relationship

Moderated by Ira Kasoff, senior counselor at APCO Worldwide, this panel featured former U.S. Ambassador to ASEAN Nina Hachigian and David Kang, director of the Korean Studies Institute and professor of international relations and business at USC.

"I believe the United States needs to engage with China," said Hachigian. "We have important differences on human rights, cyber security, and other issues, but those are not reasons to hold our relationship hostage. While cooperation is the only real sensible option, we have to be very firm when our interests do differ. If the United States does not stand up for individual liberties, liberal democracy, and the rule of law, no one else is going to do it."

Kang said that despite popular opinion, China is not a problem to be solved.

"China is a massive, complicated country that we are all going to have to live with," said Kang. "It’s not going away. It’s going to be a long process of sorting out how China, the United States, and other players in the region are going to live with each other. It’s not going to be all the democracies lined up against all the autocracies. It’s much more complicated than that."

Challenges and Opportunities for Public Diplomacy

Moderated by Jay Wang and Pamela K. Starr of the USC Annenberg School, this panel featured Fadi Chehadé, chairman and CEO of Chehadé & Co., and Kimberly Marteau Emerson, board member of Human Rights Watch. This session was co-sponsored by the USC Center for Public Diplomacy.

"While we have invested a lot in hard power, we should not overlook soft power tools to dissuade extremist ideologies and narratives," said Wang. "Increasingly we are seeing state actors using disinformation campaigns to influence elections worldwide. We should not be solely focused on countering narratives of others; our task is to broadcast a strong positive narrative of our own."

Emerson emphasized the importance of human rights in public diplomacy efforts.

"Human rights have been a pillar of foreign policy in both Democratic and Republican administrations since Jimmy Carter," she said. "I take the position that President Trump’s actions have seriously weakened America’s global image. They have undermined its moral authority to promote, project, and protect human rights, diminishing its core soft power tools."

"We should not be solely focused on countering narratives of others; our task is to broadcast a strong positive narrative of our own."

Jay Wang

Chehadé discussed how public diplomacy helped shape the internet and how it is governed today.

"Public diplomacy tools helped save a ‘One Internet’ system, rather than having many different internets around the world," he said. "Going forward, we need innovation in governance just like we have innovation in technology. Just about everything will be talking to the internet in the near future."

Emerging Issues in the Middle East

Moderated by Scott Kraft, deputy managing editor of the Los Angeles Times, this panel featured Shira Efron, policy researcher at the RAND Corporation, Jerrold D. Green, president and CEO of the Pacific Council, and Steve Miska, a national security consultant.

"Israel has been able to improve relations with a number of different countries," said Efron. "It maintains peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan. There is also peace with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, and in Africa, there are indications of rapprochement between Israel and Chad and Mali, two predominantly Muslim countries. They’re also advancing ties with Indonesia. And Israel and Turkey reconciled in the summer, ending a six-year rift between those two countries. Meanwhile, we are likely going to see a continuation of U.S. policy regarding the Israel-Palestine issue."

Green argued that the current administration must be clear about U.S. policy toward the Middle East.

"Take the Iran nuclear deal as an example," he said. "Either you tear it up, which is not going to happen, or you support it. To basically undermine it while perpetuating it is the worst of all possible worlds."

Miska said he is not seeing much difference in U.S. policy toward the Middle East between the Trump and Obama administrations.

"There is an amazing consistency in U.S. foreign policy from administration to administration."

Steve Miska

"There is an amazing consistency in U.S. foreign policy from administration to administration," said Miska. "From a military perspective, I don’t see a real change in the Trump administration’s policy in northern Iraq and Syria with respect to ISIL. It is only a matter of time before militarily they are defeated. The real challenge is governance after the fact, the humanitarian fallout, and how to broker an agreement amongst the elites."

The State of the Free Press Around the World

Moderated by Paul Rosen, former chief of staff at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, this panel featured Rory Carroll, U.S. West Coast correspondent at the Guardian, Kimberly Murphy, assistant managing editor of the foreign and national desk at the Los Angeles Times, and Vera Zakem, director of strategic partnerships and project director on European Stability at CNA’s Center for Strategic Studies.

"I’m more worried about the state of the free press both in the United States and globally than I have been in 35 years as a journalist," said Murphy. "There are more journalists in prison around the world right now than we’ve seen in our lifetime. The recent crackdown in Turkey has resulted in dozens and dozens of people put in prison. In Russia, we see not only most independent media squelched, but also journalists murdered. In Mexico, journalists are under threat for investigating both the drug cartels and corruption in the government.  Domestically, the journalism industry is facing some of the biggest hurdles we’ve ever had, including financial issues and getting access to information."

Carroll agreed with Murphy’s "bleak assessment."

"These are grim times for the industry," he said. "Our economic model is slowly imploding. We can’t pay our bills, which inhibits what we can do and makes us much more vulnerable to all sorts of pressures from governments and others. But there has to be hope. We’re trying to use innovative thinking and optimism to find ways around this. We are trying to adapt to a very challenging environment."

Zakem pointed out that many developing countries have a weak media environment, which has fed the rise of fake news.

"Investigative journalism is critical to combating fake news."

Vera Zakem

"There’s a lack of professional skills and lack of trust in the journalistic profession," she said. "Adding to that, there’s a lot of corruption and a lack of transparency in authoritarian regimes. In that environment, there’s a propensity for fake news and propaganda. We have to rely on good investigative journalism to determine whether a story is false. Investigative journalism is critical to combating fake news."

Immigration Policy in the United States

This panel featured Margaret Peters, assistant professor at the UCLA Department of Political Science, Carl Shusterman, immigration attorney, and Michael Castle Miller, executive director of Refugee Cities.

"The Trump administration needs to recognize the facts on the ground regarding immigration," said Shusterman. "It’s not as simple as building a wall."

"Economists have longed observed the beneficial impacts of allowing refugees and immigrants to work in the economy."

Michael Castle Miller

Peters pointed out that nativism is not new and cautioned against portraying Americans as more nativist than they have been in the past.

"We had extremely racist-based national origin quotas in the early 20th century, such as the Chinese Exclusion Act, so I think we’re actually generally more supportive of immigration and a more tolerant society today," she said. "But what has happened is we don’t have the business side reining in the nativists as well. There are many industries that once upon a time were the major drivers of support for immigration that either just don’t exist or have become extremely protective, high-tech firms that don’t need low-skill migrants."

Miller proposed the creation of special economic zones in certain countries where migrants and refugees are allowed to work, even if national rules do not allow them to work.

"What we’re trying to do at Refugee Cities is take the concept of special economic zones for migrants to countries that are hosting huge refugee populations—Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, northern Africa—where the politics just aren’t there to allow these people to work in these countries," he said. "Economists have longed observed the beneficial impacts of allowing refugees and immigrants to work in the economy. They create more jobs over the medium to long term than they take."

Mixed Signals on NAFTA Renegotiations

Moderated by John Nahas, partner at Engeocom-Invicta Trading LLC, this panel featured Eric Eide, director of international trade for the Los Angeles Mayor’s Office, Rick Van Schoik, portfolio director at North American Research Partnership, and Pamela K. Starr, professor of international relations and public diplomacy at USC.

"While Mexico expressed its willingness to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement [NAFTA]—there is, after all, a lot that can be improved in this agreement—the Peña Nieto administration made it clear that it would walk away from the negotiations if the United States attempted to raise current tariff levels, impose new quotas, or if the renegotiations did not benefit Mexican national interests," said Starr. "Mexico has been reminded by U.S. actions and administration rhetoric that the United States can be the greatest threat to Mexican well-being, even as it remains the greatest potential opportunity."

Van Schoik said that undoing NAFTA would be very complicated and potentially impossible, and also touted the benefits of the trade agreement.

"It has been said that NAFTA was the greenest trade agreement ever and we have evidence of that," he said. "If the United States, Canada, and Mexico can host the World Cup in 2026 as three nations, why can’t we get along as three nations?"

Eide argued that trade between the three countries is "absolutely crucial" for all three, adding that there is a lot at stake for Los Angeles in particular.

"Mexico has been reminded by U.S. actions and administration rhetoric that the United States can be the greatest threat to Mexican well-being, even as it remains the greatest potential opportunity."

Pamela K. Starr

"It is worth emphasizing that both Mexico and Canada are not waiting around, but proactively working on a strategy to both try to salvage and build their trade relationship with the United States while also diversifying beyond U.S. markets,"” he said. "I think having NAFTA is far better than not having NAFTA. I’m concerned about walking away from that agreement because I think there’s a lot that it helps to do to foster trade between our three countries. There are opportunities to further increase particularly environmental and labor provisions, and to help bolster the digital economy that’s so important to Los Angeles."

____________________

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

Spring Conference highlights the work and expertise of the Pacific Council community of members and partners. Read all Spring Conference analysis now in our Newsroom.

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.

South Korea and the United States should keep their mutually beneficial free trade agreement in place, experts told guests of the Pacific Council and the Korea Foundation during the SeouLA Forum in downtown Los Angeles.

SeouLA convened dynamic business, civic, government, and academic leaders from the United States and South Korea to exchange ideas and discuss key bridges in the U.S.-Korean relationship, including trade policy, innovation, and economic and cultural ties. 

The panel featured Taeho Bark, professor at Seoul National University; Byung-il Choi, professor at Ewha Women's University; Clara Gillispie, senior director of trade, economic, and energy affairs at the National Bureau of Asian Research; Yong Suk Lee, fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies; and Yunjong Wang, adjunct professor at the Catholic University of Korea; and was moderated by Wook Chae, professor at Kyung Hee University.

The U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS) was enacted in March 2012. Since it came into force, nearly 95 percent of all bilateral tariffs have been eliminated. The United States is now South Korea’s second largest trading partner, and South Korea is the sixth largest trading partner of the United States.

"U.S.-Korea economic relations in general look very strong. I’m sure it’ll remain strong for many years to come, as long as the [free trade] agreement remains in place."

Taeho Bark

"Maybe it is too early to have an overall evaluation after only five years, but even so, it is fair to say that KORUS enables Korea and the United States to accomplish mutually beneficial trade relations despite the sluggish global trade flows," said Bark. "U.S.-Korea economic relations in general look very strong. I’m sure it’ll remain strong for many years to come, as long as the agreement remains in place."

Gillispie said there is "an incredibly positive role for U.S.-Asia energy trade in particular."

"Countries are looking for the supplies and choices that best provide three core needs: economic security, environmental security, and geopolitical security," she said. "Korea has been quite thoughtful and one of the leaders in the region in terms of codifying its national framework for its energy policy. Trans-Pacific trade can play a powerful role in addressing these goals."

She added that there are a number of areas where collaboration "should and ultimately very easily could support common goals for both the United States and countries across Asia, including Korea."

"There is an incredibly positive role for U.S.-Asia energy trade in particular. Trans-Pacific trade can play a powerful role in addressing these goals."

Clara Gillispie

Wang pointed out that South Korea’s current political turmoil is negatively impacting the country’s economic growth this year. President Park Geun-hye was recently impeached, removed from office, and later arrested for charges of corruption and influence-peddling.

"Without strong political and policy responses to the economy, our growth rate, particularly this year, looks very pessimistic," Wang said. "However, we have some good news—and that is because of the United States. We expect our exports to the United States will grow this year. We expect the U.S. interest rate will grow, and our economy will be in better shape. The gap is narrowing between U.S. and Korean interest rates."

He also noted that South Korea is experiencing a rapid demographic change due to its aging population, which is having a negative impact on the economy.

"The older generation is experiencing an increased life span, but no appropriate pension or other means to support them in retirement, so they have to work," he said. "Most older people are not beneficiaries of the national pension scheme. They have to rely on themselves. As people entitled to the national or other private pension schemes grow older, this problem will disappear. In the meantime, our savings rate will grow. Korea’s current account surplus is expected to disappear by 2042 as it becomes one of the most aged economies in the world."

Lee talked about the changing tide of public opinion on free trade and made the case that the impact of technological change, rather than trade, is much stronger on labor markets.

"I think everyone has felt a wind of change in terms of trade," he said, adding that free trade agreements may be entering a period of crisis. "The United States no longer believes in the benefits of multilateral free trade agreements. Trump’s approach is ‘fair,’ bilateral trade. The underlying concern in these shifts in trade policy around the world is basically about the loss of jobs. There’s an increased perception that trade and globalization destroys jobs and negatively impacts wages. There is conflicting evidence and one can use whatever evidence they want to pursue their political trade agenda. But technological advances have a much stronger impact on the decline of the labor market than imports from Asia. Governments should focus on retraining these workers with new skills."

Lee added that Korea’s exports to the United States are predominantly tech-based. He said Korean firms can offer technology training as part of fair trade, not just to employees but through general outreach training programs.

"It could be goodwill that translates to better bilateral trade relations," he said.

Choi said that KORUS has had a positive effect on economic competition in the region.

"When Korea was negotiating the agreement with the United States in 2006, it generated dynamic competition in the region," he said. "Because of this, China was anxiously trying to strike a balance, so the Korea-China Free Trade Agreement was initiated. It created a ripple effect."

Now there are many trade agreements being negotiated in Northeast Asia, Choi pointed out, including the China-Japan-Korea Free Trade Agreement, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, ASEAN+3’s Asia-Pacific Regional Economic Cooperation, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

"A lot of trade experts believe the U.S. withdrawal from TPP is an opportunity missed. It’s been a win-win for China."

Byung-il Choi

"A lot of trade experts believe the U.S. withdrawal from TPP is an opportunity missed," said Choi. "Because of Brexit and the election of Trump and so on, a lot of people are talking about the beginning of the end of the global trading regime we’ve been building for a long time. It’s been a win-win for China. They’ve been able to create a middle class, for example."

As for the future of KORUS, Choi said that a renegotiation will be difficult for both sides.

"It took five years to negotiate the [agreement]," he said. "All of South Korea was divided on the issue. If the United States tries to amend the agreement, Korean negotiators will be faced with a tough job: how to address U.S. concerns and at the same time dealing with domestic politics. If the agreement is amended, it will provoke China to further accelerate their change from factory China to consumer China."

____________________

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

Read more about SeouLA, including a summary of Tony Seba’s keynote address and a summary of the first panel on economic revitalization through new technology.

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.