Insights from Members Weekend 2017

OCTOBER 31, 2017
By: Justin Chapman, Pacific Council

This year’s Members Weekend spanned two days of panel discussions, high-level keynote interviews, roundtables, and a debate on President Obama’s foreign policy. Experts from the U.S. Department of State, the Wilson Center, the RAND Corporation, the United Nations, and many others participated in our signature annual conference.

The conference’s breakout sessions included discussions on Mexico’s 2018 presidential election, Russia’s geopolitical ambitions, cybersecurity, State Department budget cuts, the energy sector post-Paris Accord, the resurgence of nationalist populism, and climate refugees.

The following are just a few of the insights from Members Weekend 2017.

____________________

Mexico’s uncertain political landscape

Chaired by the Honorable Michael C. Camuñez, president and CEO of Monarch Global Strategies LLC, and moderated by Mr. Christopher Wilson, deputy director of the Wilson Center’s Mexico Institute, this panel featured Dr. Pamela Starr, associate professor of international relations at the University of Southern California, and Mr. David R. Ayón, senior strategist and advisor at Latino Decisions.

Some predict that Mexico’s Institutional Revolution Party (PRI), which has long been the largest political party in Mexico, may be losing its grip on the executive branch. Meanwhile, NAFTA renegotiations between Mexico, the United States, and Canada continue with major implications for those three economies.

Starr and Ayón said that forces both domestic and natural are changing Mexico’s political landscape.

"The more the United States seems to be cutting Mexico off—by talking about building the wall, pulling out of NAFTA, and mistreating Mexicans who live in the United States—the more Mexico’s nationalist nerve will be actively revived."

Pamela Starr

"The recent earthquake changes the foundation for the election significantly," said Starr. "There’s no question that the people in Mexico City and the surrounding areas, as a result of the earthquake, are much less tolerant of politicians who are misspending and stealing their tax dollars."

Typically, Starr said, U.S. policy toward Mexico is not an issue in Mexican elections, but this time it absolutely is.

"The more the United States seems to be cutting Mexico off—by talking about building the wall, pulling out of NAFTA, and mistreating Mexicans who live in the United States—the more Mexico’s nationalist nerve, which has never gone away but has been lying dormant for a couple decades, will be actively revived," she said. This nationalist sentiment is the driver of uncertainty in Mexico’s 2018 presidential election.

Ayón pointed out that there is a lot of uncertainty about Mexican politics in general, not just the outcome of next year’s election. 

"Even before there was a ‘Trump factor,’ there were already other factors in place," he said. "Mexico underwent political reform in 2014. The members of the legislature elected next year will be able to run for reelection for the first time in modern Mexican history. And not everything is up for election next year, but almost everything is, including over 2,700 offices. Also, this may be a unique mobilization of an electorate in world history, where the machinery of the state will be utilized to mobilize people. There are things that could completely change the way we understand the dynamic of Mexican politics in just a few months."

He also pointed out that the Mexican people are ready for a change as well, as there is a sense that Mexico has experienced three failed presidencies in a row.

Finding common ground in U.S.-Russia relations

Moderated by Ms. Ann M. Simmons, global development writer and editor at the Los Angeles Times, this panel featured Dr. Sharyl Cross, director of St. Edward’s University’s Kozmetsky Center, and Dr. Yuval Weber, visiting assistant professor at the Daniel Morgan Graduate School of National Security. Cross and Weber both serve at the Wilson Center’s Kennan Institute as a global policy scholar and a global fellow, respectively.

In the past few years, Russia’s renewed assertiveness on the international stage has manifested in bellicose political rhetoric, military aggression, and even territorial conquest. Some of Russia’s actions, such as annexing Crimea and entering the war in Syria, have exacerbated tensions with Western countries. 

Weber pointed out that Russia, under Vladimir Putin’s leadership, is trying to regain the superpower status it had under the Soviet Union.

"Russia knows that whoever is the U.S. president after Trump will bring the hammer down on them," he said.

Cross argued that a robust management of U.S.-Russia relations is needed in order to avoid deepening distrust and conflict. She encouraged the two countries to focus on areas where they can collaborate and cooperate.

"The United States and Russia must seek to re-establish rules for interaction between the two states."

Sharyl Cross

"Restoring trust is hard," she said. "The United States and Russia must seek to re-establish rules for interaction between the two states."

Ahead of Members Weekend, Cross wrote a three-part series in the Pacific Council’s Newsroom about Russia’s challenge to the liberal world order. Click here to read parts OneTwo, and Three.

Tackling the cybersecurity problem

Moderated by Mr. Karlo Barrios Marcelo, program and development manager of the Mayor’s Fund for Los Angeles, this panel featured Mr. Ernie Liu, director of global security consulting services at FireEye's Mandiant, and Dr. Caolionn O’Connell, physical scientist and associate director of the Arroyo Center’s Forces and Logistics Program at the RAND Corpoation.

In March 2017, the Pentagon warned that China and Russia pose the most significant threat to America’s cybersecurity. Critical American infrastructure, including the nation’s electric grid, will remain vulnerable to catastrophic cyber-attacks from Russia and China for at least the next decade. In response to this ongoing threat, the U.S. Defense Department’s Defense Science Board has concluded that these vulnerabilities must be mitigated by urgently developing new cyber deterrence capabilities, including offensive cyber weapons designed to inflict damage on our adversaries and their leaders.

"It will take global cooperation to tackle the cybersecurity problem."

Ernie Liu

"It will take global cooperation to tackle the cybersecurity problem," said Liu. "It’s an asymmetric playing field. You don’t need a lot to be able to cause great damage. A group like ISIL, that has no fear of repercussion, can basically operate with impunity if they develop their capabilities."

O’Connell said that many people do not realize how easy it is for hackers to access and exploit digital weaknesses.

"There’s a lot of uncertainty," she said. "I would like to think that attacking our energy infrastructure is not high on the list of a potential adversary, but even more interesting to me is when our weapons systems start to get attacked. If those are capable of being taken offline, I don’t know what that means for warfare and how that would fundamentally change how we would approach war. It’s an unnerving future."

She pointed out that there are different levels of cyber threats, from kitty hackers to the dark web to niche firms to state-sponsored cyber warfare. 

"What’s happening in the real word, we see in the cyber world," said Liu. "From a U.S. perspective, the major players are Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea."

Gutting of the State Department

Moderated by Mr. David Helfenbein, senior vice president of Main & Rose, this panel featured Ms. Elisa Massimino, president and CEO of Human Rights First, and Ms. Karen Richardson, former deputy assistant secretary in the U.S. State Department’s Bureau of Public Affairs.

The Trump administration has proposed steep budget cuts of just over 30 percent to the State Department’s annual budget. Morale is low at the department as career diplomats resign and the administration shrinks the payroll or declines to fill key positions, including ambassadorships.

"My main concern with the proposed cuts is that they would make fostering American leadership on human rights immeasurably more difficult," said Massimino. "The leadership by the United States is not only essential for advancing human rights around the world, but it’s also vital for global stability and therefore vital for our own security here at home. And we can’t lead without a strong State Department."

She added that if the United States leaves a vacuum in terms of international leadership—by ceasing humanitarian assistance, brokering peace agreements, maintaining alliances, and contributing to multilateral institutions—another power that does not align with U.S. values will fill it.

"We heard from General Robert Brown, coming straight from the military, saying military force has to be the last resort," she said. "So the first, second, third, and all the things in between, that’s stuff that the State Department does. The military agrees the United States needs a well-funded State Department. If your overriding goal was to undercut American leadership on human rights, for sheer efficiency you couldn’t do much better than gutting the State Department."

Richardson agreed that cutting the budget for global health, development, and international organizations hurts the United States’ national security strategy.

"Educating more Americans about the benefits of diplomacy is one of the best ways to respond to the Trump administration’s State Department cuts."

Karen Richardson

"Rebuilding the diplomatic infrastructure of the State Department will take a while," said Richardson. "Recruitment of new talent is at stake. Educating more Americans about the benefits of diplomacy is one of the best ways to respond to the Trump administration’s State Department cuts."

Ahead of Members Weekend, Massimino wrote an article for the Pacific Council’s Newsroom on diplomacy, development, and Trump’s "America First" budget. Click here to read the article.

Beyond the Paris Climate Accord

Moderated by Mr. Ivan Penn, writer at the Los Angeles Times, this panel featured Ms. Suedeen G. Kelly, partner at Jenner & Block, Mr. Edward Muller, member of Transocean Ltd.’s Health, Safety, and Environment Committee, and Dr. Peter R. Hartley, the George and Cynthia Mitchell chair in sustainable development at Rice University.

Despite President Trump’s announcement of his intention to withdraw the United States from the 2015 Paris Accord in June, the agreement continues to represent historic action on the part of the global community to fight climate change. However, developing clean energy technology will be vital to ensure that the signatory countries are able to meet the ambitious reduction targets they set out for themselves.

Kelly said she does not believe the sky is falling in just because the Trump administration is withdrawing the United States from the Paris Accord.

"Because the Paris Accord is non-binding, whether we’re part of it or not isn’t as important as what were we going to do to implement it, and are we still going to do that?"

Suedeen Kelly

"Because the Paris Accord is non-binding, whether we’re part of it or not isn’t as important as what were we going to do to implement it, and are we still going to do that?" said Kelly. "The Obama administration was looking to implement it in large part with the Clean Power Plan, a regulatory approach to the electric sector to mandate effectively the retirement of coal. The Trump administration is not supportive of that."

Kelly pointed out that U.S. electric and gas markets can solve the challenge of carbon emissions because coal and oil are uneconomic. On its own, Kelly said, coal is losing market share, it’s not able to recover its costs in the market, and it’s retiring rapidly.

Muller argued that the uncertainties of politics around energy impact the economics of the industry.

"In a very capital intensive industry such as energy, when the political process keeps changing the rules, the ability to invest wisely is effected," said Muller. "Renewables, which look like they are part of the future, they require subsidies because fossil fuels are cheaper. California is spending more on climate issues than it spends for the University of California system. The cost, on average, per household in California for addressing climate issues is about $3,000 a year. Is that bad? Not necessarily. It might be a good thing. But is it understood by the public? Not at all. For someone who has been involved in deploying capital, this is worrisome because political subsidies change."

Hartley pointed out that high gas prices in the early 2000s in the United States stimulated much of the investment and development in new technology. Low-priced natural gas, which he said is by far the cleanest burning fossil fuel, has now replaced a lot of coal.

"Making natural gas more available internationally will have a tremendous impact on pollution," he said, adding that the United States is now poised to be one of the main exporters of natural gas.

Seeing through the narratives of nationalist populism

Moderated by former U.S. Ambassador to Hungary Colleen Bell, this panel featured Dr. Mabel Berezin, professor and director of undergraduate studies at Harvard University, and Mr. Ehsan Zaffar, senior advisor at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (who was speaking in his personal capacity).

Once viewed as a fringe phenomenon during the advent of globalization, populism has rebounded across numerous developed Western nations over the past few years. From the Brexit vote in Britain and the election of Donald Trump in the United States to the rise of far-right and anti-immigrant political parties like Alternative für Deutschland in Germany and elsewhere, populist movements have rattled the political establishment in the West and the liberal world order that has existed since the end of World War II.

Berezin said people have to be careful when they talk about nationalist populism so they don’t fall into narrative traps.

"We have to keep in mind that when we talk about right-wing populism, we’re basically talking about citizens making electoral choices," she said. "Nationalist populism has been very hard to ignore lately. The events of 2016 generate competing narratives among commentators, academics, and policymakers. These included a ‘newness’ narrative and an ‘end of populism’ narrative, but nationalist populism is not new and was certainly not defeated last spring during the French presidential election. These narratives are unhelpful going forward. They create a false sense of resolution when in fact populism’s roots are deeper and are important to understand, especially when trying to come up with solutions."

Zaffar said in conversations he’s had with many supporters of nationalist populism, there was a "deep, abiding sense of cultural dislocation and anxiety. This represents itself in the narrative that immigrants are bad or are taking away jobs. Their primary value is not multiculturalism, but rather economic survival."

The high-profile personalities who typically lead these populist movements are good at figuring out what scares people, Zaffar added, and using language that provides a quick and simple solution.

"What a charismatic, populist leader does, at the very least, is make his followers feel less afraid or alone or disconnected, and that’s why you see people behave irrationally and against their political and economic interests."

Ehsan Zaffar

"What a charismatic leader does, at the very least, is make his followers feel less afraid or alone or disconnected, and that’s why you see people behave irrationally and against their political and economic interests, because it’s more of an emotional motivation rather than a rational or logical motivation," he said.

Ahead of Members Weekend, Zaffar wrote an article for the Pacific Council’s Newsroom calling for a progressive populism. Click here to read the article.

How climate change compounds the refugee crisis

Moderated by Mr. Seth Stodder, former assistant secretary at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, this panel featured Dr. Alex Julca, economic affairs officer in the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs’ Development Policy Analysis Division, Dr. Karla Heidelberg, professor of biological sciences and environmental studies in the USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts, and Sciences, and Dr. Robert J. Lempert, director of the Frederick S. Pardee Center for Longer Range Global Policy and the Future Human Condition at the RAND Corporation.

Migration due to climate change is quickly becoming a reality for coastal communities and island nations as sea levels continue to rise. Despite this reality, the international legal system has been slow to catch up—"climate refugees" (those who cross borders due to environmental factors) are not protected as those who cross borders due to persecution and war.

"Climate change is causing and will continue causing instability in the developing world," said Stodder. "We have international legal policies to account for war and economic migrants, but not for climate refugees."

"In the challenging scenarios, where economic growth is not what we want it to be, there are roughly 100 million people who are going to be in extreme poverty who would not have been without climate change."

Robert Lempert

Lempert said the numbers of potential climate refugees could be staggering.

"In the challenging scenarios, where economic growth is not what we want it to be and climate change is really severe over the next couple decades, there are roughly 100 million people who are going to be in extreme poverty who would not have been without climate change," he said. "But developing nations do have an advantage because they’re building things anew, so they can do it right."

That said, Julca pointed out that the refugee crisis—compounded by climate change—is a problem for both developed and developing countries. He said that when it comes to climate change’s impact on the refugee crisis, it is important to keep in mind the origins and destinations of refugees as well as whether they have high or low skills.

"About 85 percent of migration from Africa is not to Europe or the United States, it is within the African continent," said Julca. "As for the skills of refugees, high income countries need both high and low skilled migrants, not only high skilled."

"Climate does change how people migrate and move around the world. That contributes to political instability."

Karla Heidelberg

Heidelberg stressed the need for experts today to teach and train the next generation about both the science and policy aspects of this issue.

"Climate does change how people migrate and move around the world," said Heidelberg. "We think of those as direct things, like a hurricane or tornado that displaces people, but what we’re not as good at seeing are the slower changes. For example, the slow desertification of areas that in the past were not deserts and now they are, so there’s crop failures, food security issues, and that contributes to political instability."

The panel agreed that the leadership of nations today are not prepared for issues of climate change that will disrupt the world, and that they must start thinking long-term.

____________________

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

Read more about this year's conference at the Members Weekend 2017 website. Watch videos and read summaries of Representative Karen Bass' keynote address, the plenary on the future of automation, Jerry Green's remarks on the Iran deal, the debate about President Obama's foreign policy, and an interview with General Robert B. Brown. Check out photos from the conference on our Flickr page.

Members Weekend is the West Coast’s premier forum on global affairs, convening business, civic, government, and academic leaders to exchange ideas and collaborate on pressing global issues. Take a closer look at this year's event, and read all Members Weekend analysis now in our Newsroom.

Workers Need New Skills to Avoid Automation’s Impact on Jobs

OCTOBER 30, 2017
By: Justin Chapman, Pacific Council

Automation is both a curse and a blessing, but there are many existing solutions to the inevitable impact on the labor market, Dr. Andrea Belz and Mr. Art Bilger told Pacific Council members during the "Future of Automation: The Next Industrial Revolution" panel discussion at Members Weekend 2017.

Belz is the vice dean of the USC Viterbi School of Engineering. Bilger is the founder and CEO of Working Nation. The discussion was moderated by Dr. Vandana Mangal, the founding executive director of the Easton Technology Management Center.

As the "automation revolution" continues to drive down production costs, streamline supply chains, and simplify operational processes, it simultaneously poses this daunting question: how will the rise of automation and artificial intelligence affect our labor market and the global economy? While some fear the worst when it comes to the potential loss of jobs and the impact that will have on the economy, others see opportunity and new possibilities.

This dynamic is not new; movements like the Luddites in Britain in the early 19th century revolted against increased industrialization and new technologies. But the speed at which change is now happening across major industries such as energy and transportation—including the development of clean energy, electric, self-driving cars, and artificial intelligence—has the potential to radically disrupt and transform society in an unprecedentedly short period of time.

Watch Working Nation’s video on the looming U.S. unemployment crisis, "Slope of the Curve":

Bilger stressed the need for retraining and reeducation programs for those whose jobs will be affected by automation.

"The slope of the curve in terms of changes in jobs over time has never been so steep," Bilger said. "We have to figure out ways to accelerate the process of retraining and reeducating those whose jobs will automate. It’s one thing to change K-12 curriculum, but reeducating those over 48 years old is a challenge. There are so many solutions for automation being worked on, they just don’t have good visibility."

Belz argued that math skills in particular need to be better developed in the coming generations.

"Unlike illiteracy, innumeracy is still acceptable for those entering the workforce," she said. "This will need to change. It is remarkable how difficult it is to fill engineering and technical jobs. If you look at the numbers during the Great Recession, there really wasn’t much of a recession in higher level categories of engineering, physics, etc. There are so many unfilled jobs, certainly here in Los Angeles today at a number of companies of all sizes. Every company today is a technology company. People opening restaurants are making sure they have opportunities for people to order through websites, etc. It’s not a universal problem that automation is wiping out jobs. If anything, it’s going to create entirely new jobs that didn’t exist before."

"We have this contradiction in that everyone walks around with more technology in their pocket than was used to fly to the moon in the 60s. Everyone is comfortable with technology, but they don’t see that as a skillset that they can transfer to their workplace."

Andrea Belz

Bilger agreed, adding that there are millions of unfilled jobs today across the country that generally require some level of technical experience. However, he said a large-scale reeducation process will not be easy.

"If someone didn’t have a really rewarding educational experience to begin with, the idea of now 28 years later going back into a classroom isn’t appealing," he said. "A lot of it has to do with the mentality set out at early ages about the idea of lifelong learning. Even for those of us who are well educated and have a terrific job today, five to 10 years from now it’s going to change dramatically and you’re going to have to be open minded in terms of reeducating and reskilling."

Belz said that the idea that there are so many people who may not be able to make the kinds of employment transitions that will be necessary is troubling.

"On the other hand, I also fundamentally believe in the power of technology as a transformative force," she added, "but it is certainly going to cause significant disruption inside of these different populations. We have this contradiction of a labor shortage and high unemployment. We have this other contradiction in that everyone walks around with more technology in their pocket than was used to fly to the moon in the 60s. Everyone is comfortable with technology, but they don’t see that as a skillset that they can transfer to their workplace. The more we make it clear where there is overlap, the better."

"There are a tremendous number of solutions [to the problems created by automation] that already exist. I’m actually hopeful, given what I’ve seen out there."

Art Bilger

Bilger ended on a positive note, pointing out the many individuals and organizations who are actively working on solutions to the problems that automation is causing and will cause in the labor market and other aspects of society.

"There are a tremendous number of solutions that already exist," he said. "I’m actually hopeful, given what I’ve seen out there."

____________________

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

Read more about this year's conference at the Members Weekend 2017 website. Watch videos and read summaries of Representative Karen Bass' keynote address, Jerry Green's remarks on the Iran deal, the debate about President Obama's foreign policy, an interview with General Robert B. Brown, and insights from other Members Weekend discussions. Check out photos from the conference on our Flickr page.

Members Weekend is the West Coast’s premier forum on global affairs, convening business, civic, government, and academic leaders to exchange ideas and collaborate on pressing global issues. Take a closer look at this year’s event, and read all Members Weekend 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.

Representative Karen Bass: Africa is a Land of Opportunity

OCTOBER 25, 2017

By: Justin Chapman, Pacific Council

The U.S. government and U.S. companies need to step up their economic activity on the continent of Africa as a way of strengthening the capacity of Africans to resolve long-standing issues on their own, said Representative Karen Bass (D-CA) during her keynote discussion at Members Weekend 2017.

"There is so much frustration and criticism about China’s involvement in Africa," she said. "We need to stop criticizing China’s involvement in Africa and step up our own. If Africans had a choice between China and the United States, they would choose the United States, but if the United States is not there, what are Africans supposed to do?"

Watch the entire conversation and read key highlights below:

"In Congress, Africa is actually a bipartisan issue," said Bass. "I work really well with my Republican colleagues on Africa. Even so, my colleagues don’t know much about Africa. Our perception of Africa is that it’s a continent of conflict, chaos, constant crisis, corruption, incompetence, and one that always needs our charity. One of the reasons I’m in Congress is to work to change our perception of the continent."

When it comes to Africa, Bass pointed out that the United States is behind the rest of the world.

"The rest of the world knows that Africa is a land of opportunity," she said. "The rest of the world knows how big Africa is; many Americans don’t realize that. You can fit the United States inside Africa three times. There are 54 countries in Africa. We tend to focus on the ones that are problematic, but we don’t realize that the majority of the continent is actually peaceful. The continent is poor. There are structural problems that need to be resolved. Much of the continent suffers from the vestiges of colonialism. But China, Russia, India, and Brazil are all very clear about the opportunities that the continent provides."

"The model is building the infrastructure and capacity of Africans so they can do things for themselves."

Karen Bass

On the security issues facing Africa, Bass said that the United States needs to start looking at them a little differently.

"Some of the issues are ideological, such as Boko Haram, a group that wants to take us back to the 10th century," she said. "But a lot of the young people that get involved in groups like Boko Haram are doing so for non-ideological reasons. You have to address the root causes of why there are these security issues in the first place. Africa is an overwhelmingly young continent. If we don’t figure out how to address the root causes and the economic situation, then it does lay the groundwork for terrorist organizations to do recruitment."

On the issue of U.S. foreign aid, Bass said that the United States should continue to provide funding, but in a different way.

"The model is building the infrastructure and capacity of Africans so they can do things for themselves," she said. "One of the ways our resources should be used is to help organizations like the African Union and the regional economic communities strengthen their own capacity."

Bass was interviewed by Mr. Grant Harris, CEO of Harris Africa Partners LLC and a former special assistant to the president and senior director for African affairs at the White House. Read his recent report, Why Africa Matters to U.S. National Security.

____________________

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

Read more about this year's conference at the Members Weekend 2017 website. Watch videos and read summaries of the plenary on the future of automation, Jerry Green's remarks on the Iran deal, the debate about President Obama's foreign policy, an interview with General Robert B. Brown, and insights from other Members Weekend discussions. Check out photos from the conference on our Flickr page.

Members Weekend is the West Coast’s premier forum on global affairs, convening business, civic, government, and academic leaders to exchange ideas and collaborate on pressing global issues. Take a closer look at this year’s event, and read all Members Weekend 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.

Was Obama’s Foreign Policy a Success? Most Members Say Yes

OCTOBER 23, 2017
By: Justin Chapman, Pacific Council

At Members Weekend 2017, panelists debated the question, "Was Barack Obama’s foreign policy a success?" The debate was moderated by Mr. Dan Schnur, director of the American Jewish Committee’s Los Angeles Region.

Mr. Robert C. O’Brien, managing partner at Larson O’Brien LLP, and Dr. Kori Schake, research fellow at the Hoover Institution, argued that Obama’s foreign policy was not a success. 

Dr. Matthew Spence, the William J. Perry Fellow at Stanford’s Center for International Security and Cooperation, and Ambassador John Emerson, former U.S. Ambassador to Germany, argued that Obama’s foreign policy was a success.

Watch the entire debate below and read about key highlights:

Members Weekend attendees voted on the debate question in both a pre- and post-debate poll on the Pacific Council mobile app. Before the debate, 56 percent voted "yes" and 44 percent voted "no." 

Spence laid out the differences in terms of America’s standing in the world between when Obama took office and when he left:

  • On the major issues affecting that matter most, President Obama left our nation much stronger and safer.
  • In 2008, Osama bin Laden was at large and was plotting every day to launch attacks against the United States, and we had no plan to get him. By the time Obama left office, Osama bin Laden was no longer around and al Qaeda had been decimated.
  • When Obama took office, Iran was about to get a nuclear weapon and the only serious plan to stop them was to start a war. America was in the middle of two major wars in the Middle East without end in sight. By withdrawing troops and negotiating the Iran nuclear deal, Obama turned these situations around as well.

O’Brien argued that the world Obama left behind was more dangerous, not safer:

  • Obama weakened our military and his ‘strategic patience’ and ‘leading from behind’ approach didn’t work.
  • Russia invaded Ukraine and annexed Crimea in response to the drawdown of U.S. troops in Europe.
  • China annexed the South China Sea because the Obama administration did not engage in freedom of navigation patrols.
  • Iran learned there was no behavior they could exhibit that could stop America from appeasement with the JCPOA and they cemented their hegemony over the Middle East.
  • Assad crossed the chemical weapons red line without penalty.
  • The United States withdrew from Iraq against the best advice of our generals and ISIL created a caliphate the size of Great Britain.
  • Kim Jong-un has busied himself building at least 60 nuclear weapons and the ICBMs to threaten the region.

Emerson argued that Obama restored America’s voice as a moral authority in the world:

  • Obama was able to rebuild our alliances and reengage in multilateral relationships that had in many instances gone fallow.
  • Instead of a Coalition of the Willing going into Iraq, we have a real coalition of 73 nations to defeat and degrade ISIL.
  • Obama was able to work with Russia, China, and our European allies to not only impose back-breaking sanctions on Iran but to develop an agreement to curb their nuclear weapons program that is looking better and better every day.
  • Obama worked to strengthen NATO.
  • At COP21, Obama worked with Xi to get the Chinese for the first time to agree to a ceiling on carbon emissions.

Schake laid out what the world would have looked like if the United States had eight years of a different foreign policy than Obama’s:

  • If Obama had not drawn a red line in Syria and then failed to enforce that red line, we might not have had 11 million Syrian refugees.
  • The hard work of winning the war in Iraq was done before 2008.
  • If it weren’t for Obama, ISIL would not have gained such a ferocious foothold in Iraq and Syria.
  • We would not have North Korea on the brink of having nuclear weapons and long-range missiles that could attack this beautiful city [Los Angeles] if Obama had not averted his eyes from that problem for eight years.

Answering the same question after the debate, "Was Barack Obama’s foreign policy a success?",  61 percent of members voted "yes," and 39 percent voted "no."

____________________

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

Read more about this year's conference at the Members Weekend 2017 website. Watch videos and read summaries of Representative Karen Bass' keynote address, the plenary on the future of automation, Jerry Green's remarks on the Iran deal, an interview with General Robert B. Brown, and insights from other Members Weekend discussions. Check out photos from the conference on our Flickr page.

Members Weekend is the West Coast’s premier forum on global affairs, convening business, civic, government, and academic leaders to exchange ideas and collaborate on pressing global issues. Take a closer look at this year’s event, and read all Members Weekend 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.

U.S.-Africa Policy Becoming Militarized, Experts Say

OCTOBER 12, 2017
By: Justin Chapman, Pacific Council

U.S. policy in Africa should focus more on strengthening good governance and economic growth and less on military operations, experts told Pacific Council members in a Situation Briefing teleconference about the operations of the U.S. armed forces in Africa.

General David M. Rodriguez is the former commander of U.S. Africa Command (USAFRICOM). Mr. Grant T. Harris is the CEO of Harris Africa Partners LLC and previously served as special assistant to President Obama and senior director for African affairs at the White House from 2011 to 2015. He recently published a report titled Why Africa Matters to U.S. National SecurityMs. Amanda J. Dory is the former deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for African Affairs at the U.S. Defense Department. Dr. Megan Becker, a lecturer at the USC School of International Relations, moderated the discussion.

Plagued by countless complex security issues that many experts classify in the "gray zone" of conflict, USAFRICOM—and the many African governments it cooperates with—faces volatile and uncertain political environments that are caused by rampant religious, economic, and cultural conflict. U.S. military forces are currently conducting about 100 missions in Africa at any given time.

"The U.S. military has played an important role in Africa, but it needs to fit into supporting a broader strategy," said Harris. "Over time, U.S.-Africa policy has been bipartisan, consistent, and focused on strengthening democratic institutions, advancing peace and security, strengthening development, and spurring trade, investment, and economic growth more broadly. We are seeing a break in this strategy and from these goals right now with this current administration. I fear we’re seeing a militarization of U.S.-Africa policy."

"If we’re only looking at the continent through the soda straw of counterterrorism and leaving out more holistic solutions to instability and conflict, we won’t be effectively countering violent extremism."

Grant Harris

He pointed to the proposed Trump administration budget for the coming fiscal year as prioritizing military action over humanitarian aid, development, and diplomacy. The budget, which was rejected by Congress, would have reduced aid to Africa from $8 billion to $5.2 billion.

"Those proposed allocations speak volumes in terms of the emphasis and worldview of the existing administration," said Harris. "We’ve seen that Africa has been less of a priority in terms of appointing leadership positions. Our embassies are idling somewhat, and there has been more of a focus on weapon sales to Nigeria or the rules of engagement in Somalia, but much less talk about governance, economic growth, and trade and investment issues. There is much more of a focus on the military and security tools, but those are less of a holistic approach. If we’re only looking at the continent through the soda straw of counterterrorism and leaving out more holistic solutions to instability and conflict, we won’t be effectively countering violent extremism. We have to look at job creation, supporting African partners in improving governance, and development."

Dory pointed out that "good governance" does not necessarily have to mean a Western style, multiparty democracy.

"What we need is good enough governance and progress to the point where you have government authorities with domestic legitimacy, power that alternates over time, checks and balances in terms of how power is accumulated and how resources are distributed," she said. "It has been such a short period of time since the majority of African countries became independent from colonial powers. Sometimes we fail to appreciate exactly how young these states are, and how they are struggling with basic state formation. Africa is still evolving. Some parts of it are evolving on a swift and positive trajectory, and other parts are failing. When we try to speak in generalizations about 54 different countries, we find ourselves in trouble at times."

Dory added that when it comes to U.S. assistance, what African countries need principally is investment and trade. She said that the private sector has an opportunity to step up.

"The American private sector is lagging, while other countries take full advantage of some of the investment opportunities in Africa."

Amanda Dory

"It’s fair to say that the American private sector is lagging, while other countries take full advantage of some of the investment opportunities in Africa," she said. "Within the U.S. government, State Department and USAID resources that focus on developing human capital, strengthening institutions, and economic development are critical. From a Department of Defense perspective, the department does not need more resources for Africa."

Harris added that U.S. businesses in particular are not seizing the economic potential that Africa presents.

"With China’s growing role on the continent, with North Korea looking to Africa to try to evade sanctions, with Russia hedging U.S. sanctions there, we’re not maintaining and deepening the strong bilateral relations with African countries on a whole range of issues," he said.

Dory said she does not think the United States needs to be concerned or feel competitive about China’s broadening role in Africa, while Harris said that at the same time, "American businesses need to be doing more to promote investment in African states because they are missing out on opportunities."

Rodriguez made the argument that "you can’t have great governance in Africa without great security, and you can’t have great security without great governance. If we get those two out of alignment, we’re going to create problems. Without those two, development will be much too expensive or will not last. All three are really interdependent."

"The U.S. military's long-term effort and strategic solution is really building the capacity of the Africans so that they can do it themselves."

David Rodriguez

Rodriguez said the U.S. military engages in Africa in several major ways. Those activities range from intelligence sharing to leadership training.

"We do very well at the tactical level, we’re less effective at the operational level, and at the institutional and strategic level it’s a long-term challenge that we continue to work on," he said. "The U.S. military engages with every level of government in host nations in Africa, from the tactical level and the people in the field all the way up to the minister of defense."

He explained that U.S. military exercises have expanded in Africa. Whereas they used to host primarily bilateral exercises, they now conduct many regional ones and work with multilateral groups like the African Union’s economic councils.

"This has been a change in Africa: we now see many different African nations working together on issues like Boko Haram and the conflicts in Mali and Somalia," he said. "Ten years ago, African soldiers made up about 28 percent of the UN peacekeeping missions, and now they’re up to 48 percent. This has been a huge capacity change over time that has been very helpful. Our exercises aim to work on the challenges African nations’ militaries face, such as command and control, intelligence, logistics, special operations, and special skills that they need."

Counterterrorism is a major area in which the U.S. military engages with African nations. Harris said he found it difficult to understand why Chad was added to the Trump administration’s travel ban, considering Chad’s long-time cooperation on terrorism and other issues.

"African-led solutions to African problems is an African Union mantra, which is something the U.S. government supports."

Amanda Dory

Rodriguez pointed out that U.S. military operations get a lot of press but that they are actually a small percentage of what they do in Africa. Those operations focus on counterterrorism against ISIL, al Qaeda, and the Islamic Maghreb in the north and west, Boko Haram in and around northern Nigeria, and the long-term fight against al Shabaab in Somalia. Dory pointed out that unemployment is the most cited issue for those who join extremist organizations in Africa. 

"One of the primary things the U.S. military does in Africa is intelligence sharing, and the other is advise and assist," said Rodriguez. "Those are the ways we interact and engage with Africa. The long-term effort and the strategic solution to this is really building the capacity of the Africans so that they can do it themselves. The toughest challenge there is building the institutions at the national level that can man, train, equip, and lead the effort so they can sustain themselves."

Harris added that the U.S. military is focused on helping African nations’ militaries professionalize and confront threats in their region.

Dory agreed, explaining that "African led solutions to African problems is an African Union mantra, which is something the U.S. government supports."

Listen to the full conversation below:

____________________

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

This teleconference was held in advance of Representative Karen Bass’ keynote discussion on U.S.-Africa policy at Members Weekend 2017.

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.