Tag: Canada
Trump reinvents the Foreign Service wheel
In an executive order issued yesterday, President Trump said the State Department has to implement the President’s foreign policy. Employees who don’t can be fired, he said. Secretary of State Rubio is tasked with reforming the Department to make sure the President’s will is done.
I have no objection to this in principle. It simply reiterates what I have long understood the role of the State Department to be. The problem isn’t with the objectives. It’s with Trump’s mistaken assumptions.
The reality
The assumption is that Foreign Service officers mostly dislike Trump and won’t implement his policies. The dislike for his policies is real. It will be hard to find a Foreign Service officer who wants the US to take over and own Gaza. Few would support tariffs on Canada and Mexico. Canada as the 51st state is not something American diplomats will want to negotiate. Ditto taking over the Panama Canal or Greenland.
Nevertheless, the mandate and tradition of the Service is clear: professional diplomats do what the President wants them to do. They will sometimes express their dissent, either informally or through a formal Dissent Channel message to the Secretary. But having stated their views, they do what they are told. Or resign. Or seek transfer to another job where the conflict does not arise.
I have been in situations where my personal and professional views differed from what I was supposed to do. I and others did not agree with Dick Holbrooke’s plan to end the Bosnian war. We objected to dividing the country into two ethnically defined entities. We spoke up in internal meetings and even appealed against the end-of-war ceasefire to the top of the State Department.
Overruled, I then did my best to contribute at Dayton to the outcome the President wanted. A German colleague and I negotiated the first agreement reached there. I also spent six months working hard in Bosnia to implement the divided solution I had opposed. And I spent another year supervising State Department intelligence analysts who identified threats to that outcome.
The consequences
The executive order reiterating in stentorian terms what is already understood will frighten some Foreign Service officers. They will be reluctant to speak up in dissent. Some will ask for transfers or resign. Others will have good job offers and take them. The President intends to intimidate. He will succeed.
Whether this is a problem depends on degree. The attempted firing of virtually all USAID officers is going to sharply reduce American capacity to provide foreign assistance. Trump apparently intends that. It will also reduce the capacity of those remaining to prevent waste, fraud, and mismanagement. That is a serious mistake.
But the longer term problem is recruitment. The Foreign Service needs experienced people with deep knowledge of other countries, their languages, their interests, and their cultures. Future classes of incoming diplomats will be sympathetic to the President’s America First agenda. They will fill the roles others have vacated. That is only natural. But that is not a way to get the experienced professionals diplomacy needs.
Yes, State needs cutting
I am not a die hard defender of the Foreign Service, the State Department, or USAID. I was Deputy Chief of Mission at US Embassy Rome in the early 1990s. After dissenting, I implemented budget-induced cuts of 10% of our Italian and American staff. It was painful to the people involved (and to me), but it did not seriously impair the Embassy.
I now believe the cut should have been much larger, starting with the excessive non-State Department staff. The US mission in Italy had 36 different agencies of the US government represented. That is typical of over-size US embassies. Unfortunately, the Trump Administration is calling for cuts in “national” (i.e. non-US) staff. That is the wrong end of the stick. The Americans are much more expensive. The national staff can be cut more readily once the American staff they support is reduced.
Yes, State needs cutting. But you have to start in the right place. Reinventing the wheel won’t get it done.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The bad ideas keep on coming
Two weeks have brought us these, just on the foreign policy front:
- Proposed take over Greenland, Panama Canal, Canada, and now Gaza.
- Eviscerated the world’s largest humanitarian agency, recalling all its overseas staff.
- Reached bogus deals to postpone promised tariffs on Mexico and Canada
- Failed to reach a deal with China, which retaliates.
- Arrested thousands of legal immigrants and try to deport them.
Gaza
Trump’s idea is to make Gaza “the riviera of the Middle East.” That’s not the crazy part. I’ve been there (between the two Intifadas, around 1999). Gaza would make a very nice resort community on the Mediterranean. It has beautiful beaches and a flat approach to the seaside. It could accommodate a good sized airport and seaport. When I was there, its hotels were capable of serving Kosher as well as Halal food, shipped from Israel.
But to accomplish his developer’s goal, Trump wants to remove the 2 million or so Palestinians who call Gaza home. When they visit soon, Egyptian President Sisi and Jordanian King Abdullah will tell him what they think of the idea. Neither is willing to accept large numbers of Palestinians even temporarily. Both think their more or less autocratic regimes would not survive such an influx. Neither would want to exclude the possibility of a Palestinian state in the future.
A US takeover of Gaza would require tens of thousands of troops for at least a decade of occupation. Not to mention tens of thousands of contractors to clear unexploded ordnance, clear rubble, and start reconstruction. The cost would be many billions even before beginning to construct the resort.
US occupation of Gaza would also end hopes of a Palestinian state. Hamas and Hizbollah terrorists, Houthi drones, and Iranian missiles would target the Americans. Defense would be costly. The opportunity costs of putting that many American troops into a static position in the Middle East would be astronomical.
The other real estate propositions
Trump’s other real estate propositions are no better. Greenlanders oppose becoming part of the US by a margin of more than 10/1. Canadians feel about the same way. Panama isn’t going to give up the Canal, which is not run by the Chinese, as Trump claims.
In short, none of these things are happening because they are all the fantasies of a failed real estate tycoon. Trump has been successful in tacking his name onto other people’s buildings, not in developing his own projects. That isn’t going to change.
USAID
I am no fan of USAID, but yanking its overseas personnel and abruptly closing its life-saving programs is irresponsible. Folding the agency into the State Department is not necessarily a bad idea. Canada, the UK, and Australia have all incorporated their aid agencies into their foreign ministries. But it has to be done carefully and thoughtfully, which is definitely not what we are seeing right now.
Aid should come in two varieties. One is unconditional humanitarian assistance needed to relieve human suffering. Food, water, health, and shelter for victims of natural disasters, poverty, and oppressive governments belong in this category.
The other is assistance on building governmental and nongovernmental institutions where people are striving for more open and just societies. Even if their governments are oppressive, we should be willing to consider assistance that will improve the situation. This latter type of assistance really does belong in the State Department. The humanitarian relief part should be freestanding.
Mexico and Canada
Mexico and Canada handled the tariffs well. They threatened to retaliate, then offered Trump concessions that they had already made during the Biden Administration. Canada is beefing up its border controls. Mexico has already deployed more troops to its border with the US. Trump swallowed these non-concessions and declared victory. Mexico did even better, as it got Trump to agree to limit arms trafficking from the US into Mexico. That has been a perennial Mexican complaint. Now they get to complain when the US fails to follow through.
It remains to be seen what will happen in 30 days, when the postponement of the tariffs expires. My guess is not much. Maybe another empty concession or two. Then return to the free trade agreement that Trump negotiated in his first term in office. Trump will declare it a win.
As for immigration, Southwest Land Border Encounters were way down already in November and December 2024. Trump can declare victory, ignoring the fact this was accomplished under Biden/Harris.
China
The 10% tariff on Chinese imports to the US is far less than Trump has sometimes bruited. Beijing was ready. It responded with both tariffs on imports to China from the US and limits on exports of rare earth metals. It also launched an antitrust investigation of Google and labeled a couple of US companies unreliable. Those latter moves are not for now important, but they may indicate one direction of Chinese policy in the future.
Americans buy a lot from China, on the order of $500 billion per year. Without equally priced other sources for the goods, the tariffs mean a $50 billion hidden tax increase on US consumers. That’s still relatively small. Wait until Trump gets to his 100% tariff.
Immigration
So far, the majority of people arrested in Trump Administration sweeps of immigrants have not been criminals. This isn’t surprising. All Administrations, including Biden’s, have kept themselves arresting and deporting criminal immigrants. Now the Administration has exceeded the capacity of Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facilities. So it is starting to release some detainees.
It is also flying hundreds on military planes out of the US to be repatriated. This is an expensive proposition. Someone will eventually tell the Defense Department to save its resources for a more useful purpose.
What could happen next?
Who knows. There is no lack of things we need to do. Trump can even be expected to stumble on a few.
Is there a better option for Iran than restoring maximum pressure? That is what the Administration is going to try to do. If that is preliminary to negotiations on both Iran’s regional malfeasance and its nuclear program, I’ll be for it.
The Administration seems headed for a tougher policy on Ukraine than many had thought possible. That’s good too, if it aims to end the Russian invasion and restore Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
But the ratio of good ideas like those to bad ones is unlikely to be high. The bad ideas keep coming because the President has so many of them.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The foreign policy smokescreen
As Donald Trump prepares to assume the presidency January 20, he is talking obvious nonsense about Canada, Greenland, and Panama. What is he up to?
The nonsense
The three propositions, as best I understand them, are these:
- Canada should become the 51st state;
- Denmark should sell Greenland to the United States;
- Panama should lower shipping fees through its canal or the US will take it back by military force.
None of this is happening. Nor is any of it desirable from America’s or even Trump’s own perspective.
Canadians pride themselves on their differences with the US. They include a national health system and wide social safety net. Absorbing its population of more than 40 million would tilt the American political scene definitively towards the Democrats. Nor would most US citizens want the francophone part of Canada. Absorbing even anglophone Canada would remove a buffer that shields the US from direct Arctic confrontation with China and Russia.
Denmark has already said it is not interested in selling Greenland, which has a population of only 57,000 or so. It has relatively large deposits of rare earth minerals. Those are available to the US with Greenland under Danish sovereignty. We only need pay the price. Owning Greenland would shift the burden of its defense to the US. It would also make the island a juicy target for America’s adversaries. We wouldn’t be able to limit its defense to the minimalist approach Denmark has taken.
The 1977 Panama Canal Treaty turned the Canal Zone over to Panama in 1979 and the Canal itself in 1999. A Panama-government-owned entity has run it well since. Trump has complained about high transit prices and claimed Chinese soldiers control the Canal. Prices are up due to water shortages that affect Canal operations. The claim about the Chinese is bogus, though there are Chinese companies running ports and building infrastructure in Panama.
The why
Why would a President-elect stake out objectives that are obviously not going to be reached? One reason is to gain leverage in upcoming negotiations. Trump is transactional. He figures weakening the Canadian government by pooh-poohing its prime minister will be to American advantage in coming trade negotiations. He’ll hope to get a deal for Greenland’s minerals that will exclude China. And he’ll try to get a discount for American shipping through the Panama Canal.
But there is more to this flood of bad propositions. Trump is trying to hide what is going on within his own electoral coalition. Its MAGA loyalists are in a verbal fracas with his new-found tech friends, including Elon Musk. The techies want H1B visas so they can import overseas technical talent they claim is not available in the US. Trump wants them too, as he uses them to import cheap labor for his hotels and golf clubs. But his MAGAtes see them as one more hole in the proverbial fence at the border.
There’s more. Trump is trying to distract from his blatantly unqualified presidential nominees. The worst of these, Matt Gaetz, for Attorney General, is gone. He fell victim to his own abuse of young girls. But the equally abusive and alcohol abusing Pete Hegseth is still up for Secretary of Defense. And Kash Patel, sworn to avenge what he alleges is Trump’s mistreatment, is hoping to sneak by as FBI Director. Not to mention the blatantly unqualified RFK Jr as Health and Human Services Secretary. And the Moscow-compromised Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence.
He’s succeeding
The presidential nominees and the Republican split on immigration policy are both more real than Trump’s dumb imperialist proposals. Canada is doing to remain independent, Denmark will keep Greenland, and Panama will keep the Canal. But once again he has us talking about things that don’t matter instead of the things that do. Trump isn’t really a master communicator in the sense of Ronald Reagan. But he is a master at setting the daily agenda, not only to attract but also to distract. His foreign policy smokescreen is succeeding.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
What good is a norm if it will be breached?
My cousin by marriage, Bill Caplan, is an engineer and former hi-tech business owner. After selling his business, he dared in retirement to get a master’s degree in architecture. He has devoted himself for years to unraveling the mysteries of energy conservation in buildings and how the world should respond to global warming. He is convinced that our current efforts are inadequate.
Smarter and better
But he is not urging faster and more. He is urging smarter and better.
Watch the video above. Bill argues that just constructing a building that uses less energy is pointless by itself, and even sometimes counterproductive. This is because production and transportation of the building materials emit so much carbon dioxide even before construction starts. That’s my crude account of his argument. Best to listen to him.
I have no doubt that he is correct on the merits. But I doubt that his proposed solution is adequate. He has devoted himself to raising the consciousness of practicing architects. That merits applause. They could correct some of the worst abuses. But you would have to give a lot of American Institute of Architect lectures to reach any significant number of them. We can hope the video embedded here gets lots of viewers.
The solution
A carbon tax can be more widely effective. It could raise the cost of materials whose production and transportation uses carbon and discourage at least some of the practices Bill cites. The European Union is implementing a carbon tax in 2026. Canada and twenty of the EU member states had already levied carbon taxes by 2023. Here are the European numbers:
I don’t know if these taxes are high enough or sufficiently well-designed to avoid unintended consequences. But the US would be well-advised to figure it out and follow suit. Our national habit of bemoaning high energy prices and avoiding gasoline taxes slows the transition to non-carbon fuels. Refusal to tax carbon also incentivizes subsidies to wind, solar, and nuclear. Better to make the polluter pay and allow the market to drive carbon reduction.
A norm is better than none
Bill is discouraged, as he sees the breach of the 1.5 degrees centigrade norm looming soon. That is bad. But I still think we are far better off than in the past. We knew the mechanisms and prospects of global warming when I worked on the first UN Conference on the Human Environment in 1972. Nothing was done to prevent the consequences for decades thereafter.
Now at least we have an agreed global norm that virtually every country on earth accepts, with the notable exception of Donald Trump’s America. Knowing that we are going to breach a norm is better than not having a norm at all. Avoiding 1.5 degrees of warming has mobilized a great deal more effort to slow global warming than previously. It might even eventually motivate a carbon tax in the US.
For more from Bill, see his Environmental Law Institute book Thwart Global Warming Now: Reducing Embodied Carbon Brick by Brick. For more on international norms, see my own Strengthening International Regimes: the Case of Radiation Protection, which discusses the 1.5 degree norm.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, September 18
– Senate has changed its dress code. I think that will lower decorum and seriousness.
– Senate Democrats need 67 votes to suspend the rules [in this case rule XVI on appropriations] to package 3 spending bills.
– Jake Sullivan and Wang Yi spent 2 days in important talks
– There’s a Sahel security pact
– Intercept says US got arms from Pakistan for Ukraine in return for IMF bailout
– WaPo says deal with Iran could lead to more. Brett McGurk explains and defends deal
– Trudeau accuses India of killing Canadian Sikh
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I republish here, with occasional videos of my choice. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, June 15
– NYT says US is still paying Russia billions for nuclear fuel.
– NYT also has more on US-Iran talks.
– Canadian quits China bank, claiming CCP interference.
– FT says Putin backs Defense over Wagner.
– SAIS prof Ed Joseph has a Kosovo plan.
– Europeans discuss guarantees for Ukraine.
– Politico’s China Watcher explains problems facing Blinken’s trip.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I republish here, with occasional videos of my choice. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
RSS - Posts
