tag:theconversation.com,2011:/africa/topics/department-of-state-34068/articlesDepartment of State – The Conversation2022-08-09T17:15:17Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1884832022-08-09T17:15:17Z2022-08-09T17:15:17ZHow the FBI knew what to search for at Mar-a-Lago – and why the Presidential Records Act is an essential tool for the National Archives and future historians<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/478302/original/file-20220809-13115-u9tdgl.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=17%2C0%2C5734%2C3828&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The gate to former President Donald Trump's home at Mar-A-Lago in Palm Beach, Fla., on Aug. 8, 2022. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/woman-talks-to-palm-beach-police-officer-in-front-of-former-news-photo/1242395114?adppopup=true">Photo by Eva Marie Uzcategui/Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>A new indictment of former President Donald Trump on July 27, 2023, added <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/27/politics/trump-mar-a-lago-special-counsel/index.html">another charge</a> related to retention of classified documents to an existing indictment issued last month. The charges followed a long process of the National Archives and Records Administration asking the former president on multiple occasions to return the records he took with him after he left office. The Conversation U.S. asked <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=_khILTgAAAAJ&hl=en">Shannon Bow O'Brien</a>, a scholar of the presidency at the University of Texas, Austin College of Liberal Arts, to discuss the history, law and customs associated with presidential archives.</em></p>
<h2>How do the archivists actually know what’s missing? Isn’t that hard to figure out?</h2>
<p>The archivists probably have a really keen idea of what is and what isn’t missing, based upon things that they’ve gotten out of other offices, like the vice president’s office and things that got deposited from the secretary of state, for example. There are a lot of papers that are referenced and cross-referenced, multiple copies or multiple things going in and out of offices. </p>
<p><a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=CQhTDwAAQBAJ">One scholar did a study of the presidents’ annual Christmas speech</a> at the Ellipse in Washington. He looked at how the speeches – from the Roosevelt administration to the present – developed, and it was kind of a ring-around-the-rosy inside the West Wing and within the departments – what went in, what went out, what went in, what went out. Who won and who didn’t win. Everybody left their marks on the speeches. All of those changes and requests appear in documents, and if part of the conversation is missing from the National Archives, it’s obvious. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A middle-aged white man is dressed in a navy blue business suit and sitting on a leather chair behind a wooden desk." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/478332/original/file-20220809-20-aa9bfu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/478332/original/file-20220809-20-aa9bfu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/478332/original/file-20220809-20-aa9bfu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/478332/original/file-20220809-20-aa9bfu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/478332/original/file-20220809-20-aa9bfu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/478332/original/file-20220809-20-aa9bfu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/478332/original/file-20220809-20-aa9bfu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">President Donald Trump in the Oval Office on Sept. 17, 2020.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/president-donald-trump-speaks-in-the-oval-office-during-an-news-photo/1273073640?adppopup=true">Oliver Contreras-Pool/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>We know from other presidents’ records that really comprehensive records are kept via daily manifests of what the presidents are doing. And while I am not a historian, it’s not unreasonable to assume that the other departments and agencies likewise have daily manifests of their top officials. So if they know that someone at an agency sent something over to the White House that was this or that, and it came back from the White House with this or that, then there should be a document somewhere that’s got something from the White House on it – and if you’re missing that, that’s a problem. </p>
<h2>Will the public find out what was in these documents, given that they are classified?</h2>
<p>The indictment against Trump spells out the grade of classification the documents had – they get different levels based on the level of seriousness – but only vaguely refers to the contents. We’ll be lucky to ever know if, and when, the documents get declassified, although some more description of the contents could come out during the trial.</p>
<h2>What’s the law that governs what happens to a president’s documents?</h2>
<p>It’s the <a href="https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title44/chapter22&edition=prelim">Presidential Records Act</a>. It came about originally because these guys, the presidents, were just kind of doing whatever the heck they wanted with their records. Hoover donates his; FDR doesn’t.</p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/trump-wants-the-national-archives-to-keep-his-papers-away-from-investigators-post-watergate-laws-and-executive-orders-may-not-let-him-169871">The act, first passed in 1978, says administrations have to retain</a> “any documentary materials relating to the political activities of the President or members of the President’s staff, but only if such activities relate to or have a direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President.”</p>
<p>An administration is allowed to exclude personal records that are purely private or don’t have an effect on the duties of a president. All public events are included, such as quick comments on the South Lawn, short exchanges with reporters and all public speeches, radio addresses and even public telephone calls to astronauts in space. Diaries and journals are off limits, but any <a href="https://www.archives.gov/files/guidance-on-presidential-records-from-the-national-archives-and-records-administration-2020.pdf">papers to carry out the job are public records</a>. </p>
<h2>Have there been other controversies over presidential records?</h2>
<p>There’s one that poses an essential question: What value can you place on history? In 1998, the Nixon estate felt his records had a monetary value of over <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1998/12/03/pricing-the-nixon-records/d15a3bb1-16a3-4d4c-99d8-cba4c806ef36/">US$200 million and sued the government, which had seized the records, for what they believed their value amounted to</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A middle-aged white man sits behind a desk and poses for a portrait." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/478333/original/file-20220809-11706-qsfa3v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/478333/original/file-20220809-11706-qsfa3v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=396&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/478333/original/file-20220809-11706-qsfa3v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=396&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/478333/original/file-20220809-11706-qsfa3v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=396&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/478333/original/file-20220809-11706-qsfa3v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=498&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/478333/original/file-20220809-11706-qsfa3v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=498&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/478333/original/file-20220809-11706-qsfa3v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=498&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The actions of U.S. President Richard Nixon prompted numerous federal presidential record-keeping laws after the Watergate scandal.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/richard-nixon-in-united-states-in-the-1970s-in-the-oval-news-photo/120446370?adppopup=true">Don Carl Steffen/Gamma-Rapho via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>There’s a two-decade background to the case. After he left the presidency, Nixon <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/433/425/">brokered a deal with the General Services Administration</a> about the retention of his records, but <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1998/12/03/pricing-the-nixon-records/d15a3bb1-16a3-4d4c-99d8-cba4c806ef36/">when knowledge of it became public, there was considerable outcry</a>. A large amount of material was to be withheld from public view, and there was concern the depth of Nixon’s true involvement in Watergate would be obscured. </p>
<p>Congress responded and in 1974, President Gerald Ford signed the <a href="https://www.archives.gov/presidential-libraries/laws/1974-act.html">Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act</a> to specifically apply to Nixon’s presidential materials. It gave the archivists the power to seize materials from Nixon’s time in the White House and return those deemed private. </p>
<p><a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/433/425/">Nixon immediately sued</a> over who possessed his records. While he had already been pardoned when it was enacted, Nixon was concerned about his reputation and legacy. He wanted control over what the public saw about his time in office. One of the major issues in front of the court involved the disposition of documents he believed were private. Given the scandal associated with his resignation, should these documents be inspected by archivists for veracity?</p>
<p>More important, did the government have the right to seize presidential documents?</p>
<p><a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/433/425/#471">In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court rejected all of Nixon’s arguments</a>. They said his privacy rights were still intact because the archivists were not making things immediately public but inspecting them and retaining public items while returning family ones. The court noted the “unblemished record of the archivists for discretion.” </p>
<p>In 2000, the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/13/us/government-agrees-to-pay-nixon-estate.html">lawsuit was settled</a> over the Nixon records, with the bulk of the settlement money going to pay attorney fees. Some observers were unhappy, because these documents should have already been considered public, but the decision was likely made to finally close this chapter on American history. In 2007, the <a href="https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2007/fall/nixon-lib.html">Nixon library in California became public and integrated into National Archives</a>.</p>
<p><em>This story, which includes parts of <a href="https://theconversation.com/whether-up-in-smoke-or-down-the-toilet-missing-presidential-records-are-a-serious-concern-176964">an article originally published</a> on Feb. 11, 2022, was last updated on July 28, 2023.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/188483/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Shannon Bow O'Brien does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A presidential scholar sets the history and context for the battle over President Trump’s official records – and says it isn’t the first records battle between the government and a former president.Shannon Bow O'Brien, Associate Professor of Instruction, The University of Texas at AustinLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1160492019-05-09T10:38:20Z2019-05-09T10:38:20ZUS ‘foreign terrorist’ designation is more punishment than threat detector<p>The Trump administration in April designated the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps of Iran, a branch of Iran’s military and intelligence services, as a <a href="https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/pages/hp644.aspx">terrorist group</a>. Any groups designated this way are cut off from potential U.S. funding, communications with Americans, travel to the U.S. and other American “material support.” </p>
<p>The <a href="https://theconversation.com/is-the-muslim-brotherhood-a-terrorist-organization-73576">Muslim Brotherhood</a>, an Egyptian political party founded on Islamic ideals, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/06/world/middleeast/muslim-brotherhood-trump.html?searchResultPosition=1">may be next</a>.</p>
<p>The IRGC is the first government agency to receive such a designation, which calls attention to the political purposes that often prompts additions and removals from the list. Since its creation in 1997, the State Department’s <a href="https://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm">Foreign Terrorist Organizations</a> list has been used to punish enemies, appease allies and advance discrete U.S. foreign policy interests. </p>
<p>My <a href="https://genius.com/Us-department-of-state-us-foreign-terrorist-watchlist-annotated">annotated version</a> of this list exposes the quirks, inconsistencies and strategic logic behind the “terrorist” designation, revealing why it’s hardly a master directory of the militant groups most likely to target Americans. </p>
<p><strong><em>This document was edited using <a href="https://genius.com/a/news-genius">Genius</a>. To see an annotation, click or tap the gray-highlighted part of the transcript. <a href="https://genius.com/Us-department-of-state-us-foreign-terrorist-watchlist-annotated">Go here</a> to view the annotations – or add your own – on the Genius website. Common spellings of group names are in parentheses.</em></strong></p>
<p><iframe id="tc-infographic-387" class="tc-infographic" height="400px" src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/infographics/387/38a9b06eebac6cd3b3bd47efa9e146afc25522fc/site/index.html" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/116049/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Eric Fleury does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A terrorism expert exposes the quirks, inconsistencies and foreign policy strategy behind the State Department’s terrorist watchlist.Eric Fleury, Visiting Assistant Professor, College of the Holy CrossLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/929112018-03-06T19:17:50Z2018-03-06T19:17:50ZUneasy US-Mexico relationship will survive ambassador’s resignation — but just barely<p>After two years on the job, U.S. Ambassador to Mexico Roberta Jacobson has announced that <a href="http://time.com/5182213/roberta-jacobson-us-ambassador-mexico-resigns/">she will retire</a> on May 5, 2018 — the latest in a growing list of career diplomats <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-missiles-diplomat/senior-u-s-diplomat-for-north-korea-to-retire-idUSKCN1GB0C1">to step down under Donald Trump</a>.</p>
<p>Jacobson has <a href="https://panampost.com/elena-toledo/2016/05/27/roberta-jacobson-arrives-in-mexico-as-new-us-ambassador/">worked in Latin America diplomacy for three decades</a>, including in the Obama administration’s effort to reopen the U.S. embassy in Cuba. She is an undisputed Mexico expert, highly regarded for her deft touch in <a href="https://www.voanews.com/a/mexicos-president-to-meet-two-trump-emissaries/3735363.html">smoothing ruffled Mexican feathers</a> after <a href="https://theconversation.com/twitter-diplomacy-how-trump-is-using-social-media-to-spur-a-crisis-with-mexico-71981">undiplomatic presidential tweets</a>. Her love of Mexican culture has endeared her to the nation. </p>
<p><a href="https://elpais.com/internacional/2018/03/01/mexico/1519927689_032875.html">Many analysts see</a> this seasoned diplomat’s departure as a devastating blow to U.S.-Mexico relations, which have grown tense under President Trump. His administration has sought to <a href="https://theconversation.com/trumps-threat-to-withdraw-from-nafta-may-hit-a-hurdle-the-us-constitution-81444">renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement</a>, deport thousands of <a href="https://theconversation.com/deportees-in-mexico-tell-of-disrupted-lives-families-and-communities-90082">Mexican citizens living in the U.S.</a> and repel “<a href="https://theconversation.com/just-who-are-the-millions-of-bad-hombres-slated-for-us-deportation-68818">bad hombres</a>” with a border wall.</p>
<p>The White House’s recent announcement that the U.S. will impose tariffs on steel imports — <a href="http://business.financialpost.com/news/economy/trump-ties-steel-aluminum-tariffs-for-mexico-canada-to-nafta">including on its NAFTA partners, Canada and Mexico</a> — have spurred <a href="https://ca.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idCAKCN1GC2W0-OCABS">calls for retaliation south of the border</a>.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"970626966004162560"}"></div></p>
<p>Yes, these two neighbors are more at odds than I’ve ever seen in <a href="https://annenberg.usc.edu/faculty/communication/pamela-starr">a quarter century of analyzing, teaching and writing on U.S.-Mexico relations</a>. But I wager the bilateral relationship will survive Jacobson’s departure. </p>
<p>Here’s why.</p>
<h2>Both countries need each other</h2>
<p>Mexico and the U.S. are key commercial partners, trading US$1.5 billion in goods and services every day. Together, the two countries <a href="https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c2010.html">did more than $556 billion in business last year</a>. Mexico is the <a href="https://www.export.gov/article?id=Mexico-Market-Overview">first or second export market for 28 U.S. states</a> and the <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-trump-effect-corn-exclusive/exclusive-as-trump-trashes-nafta-mexico-turns-to-brazilian-corn-idUSKCN1G61J4">single largest market for U.S. corn exports</a>. Mexico is also <a href="https://ustr.gov/countries-regions/americas/mexico">the third main supplier of imported goods and services</a> to the U.S.</p>
<p>The United States and Mexico also produce things together. Thanks to NAFTA, the U.S.-Mexico border doesn’t matter in product supply chains: An automobile may <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/joannmuller/2017/01/20/how-trumps-protectionism-would-destroy-auto-industry-jobs-not-create-them/#7c0bc2579b32">cross it as many as eight times</a> in the manufacturing process. No other country in the world, with the possible exception of Canada, is as tightly integrated with the U.S. economy.</p>
<p>In other words, the U.S.-Mexico relationship will survive Jacobson’s resignation in part because <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-us-should-treat-mexico-as-a-vital-partner-not-a-punching-bag-72350">markets in both countries depend on it</a>. </p>
<h2>A star team</h2>
<p>Full disclosure: Roberta Jacobson is a personal friend of mine. So I can attest that she has ensured that her departure will not derail diplomatic relations. </p>
<p>Jacobson, a smart leader, recruited a talented team to work with her in Mexico City, led by her <a href="https://mx.usembassy.gov/our-relationship/dcm/">Deputy Chief of Mission William Duncan</a>. Duncan, who previously served a tour in Mexico City as the embassy political officer, has been on the ground there since 2015. </p>
<p>Having previously worked on the international drug trade in Bogota, Colombia, he is also well-versed on counter-narcotics — <a href="https://theconversation.com/el-chapo-story-of-a-kingpin-or-why-trumps-plan-to-defeat-mexican-cartels-is-doomed-to-fail-71781">always a focal point of the U.S.-Mexico relationship</a>.</p>
<p>My sources say Duncan and other key foreign service officers will remain after Jacobson leaves. That should ensure the effective daily management of what is, in my assessment, America’s <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2017/02/03/the-u-s-mexico-relationship-is-dangerously-on-the-edge/">most complex but underappreciated bilateral relationship</a>.</p>
<h2>Business and bureaucracy to the rescue</h2>
<p>I’m also heartened by the knowledge that the U.S. and Mexico are bound by <a href="https://www.cfr.org/timeline/us-mexico-relations">generation of bilateral collaboration and mutual understanding</a>. Government officials from both sides of the border have a long tradition of meeting frequently to manage such <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2017/06/01/renegotiating-the-u-s-mexico-relationship-in-2017/">diverse policy challenges</a> as trade, security, immigration and public health. </p>
<p>That won’t change with Jacobson’s departure. Tedious as it sounds, bureaucracy can ensure that calm persists beneath the surface when quarreling presidents roil international waters.</p>
<p>In my opinion, reports that the Trump administration will <a href="https://www.expressnews.com/news/local/politics/article/San-Antonio-s-Whitacre-reported-to-be-Trump-s-12721585.php">nominate Ed Whitacre to replace Jacobson</a> are reassuring, too. A former AT&T and General Motors executive who brought the bankrupt auto manufacturer <a href="http://fortune.com/2013/01/23/how-ed-whitacre-brought-gm-back-from-the-brink/">back from the brink</a>, Whitacre should intimately comprehend the economic importance of the bilateral relationship. And, by all accounts, he is pro-NAFTA.</p>
<p>The 76-year-old previously <a href="https://therivardreport.com/whitacres-return-could-restore-u-s-mexico-relations/">partnered with the Mexican telecoms billionaire Carlos Slim</a>, and he served on the board of Exxon Mobil back when Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was CEO. I suspect Whitacre, who is a born Texan, understands the realities of U.S.-Mexico relations better than the White House.</p>
<h2>Trump’s dismal Mexico polling</h2>
<p>Despite these positive signs, I do worry for the future.</p>
<p>I know that Ambassador Jacobson resigned in large part because she, like many of her State Department colleagues, was frustrated working in an administration that <a href="http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/27/top-state-department-officials-step-down-in-black-friday-exodus/">does not value the insights and advice of its best diplomats</a>. Over the past year, Tillerson’s agency has lost dozens of mid-level officials and senior diplomats, including <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/feb/27/joseph-yun-us-north-korea-diplomat">North Korea envoy Joseph Yun</a> and <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/josh-rogin/wp/2017/07/26/state-department-head-of-diplomatic-security-resigns/">Security Chief Bill Miller</a>.</p>
<p>The gutting of the country’s diplomatic corps has, in my assessment, degraded the State Department’s ability to <a href="https://www.state.gov/secretary/115194.htm">do its critical job</a>, which is advising the White House and Congress on the essential nuances in U.S. foreign policy. </p>
<p>This has <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/10/is-trump-ending-the-american-era/537888/">already damaged American influence worldwide</a> and in Mexico. Two years ago, <a href="http://www.pewglobal.org/2017/09/14/mexican-views-of-the-u-s-turn-sharply-negative/">66 percent of Mexicans viewed the United States favorably</a>, according to Pew surveys. Today, two-thirds of Mexicans see the U.S. negatively. Just 5 percent have confidence in President Trump.</p>
<h2>A wild card south of the border</h2>
<p>Mexican politics may also complicate future relations. President Enrique Peña Nieto has mostly <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-will-mexico-deal-with-the-donald-71067">refused to respond to public pressure to return Trump’s broadsides against his country</a> because his administration sees cooperation as key to a successful NAFTA renegotiation. His restraint has <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/26/world/americas/mexico-pena-nieto-donald-trump.html">offended Mexicans</a>. </p>
<p>Mexico’s next presidential election is July 1. The leading contender, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, is both <a href="https://theconversation.com/in-mexico-a-firebrand-leftist-provokes-the-powers-that-be-including-donald-trump-78918">far less patient and much more nationalist</a> than Peña Nieto. As president, he may well see political advantage in distancing Mexico from Trump and the U.S.</p>
<p>The complexity of the enduring but endangered U.S.-Mexico relationship demands that the U.S. put its best diplomatic foot forward. With luck, Jacobson’s team will continue to do that under Whitacre’s leadership.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/92911/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Pamela K. Starr is a Senior Advisor for Monarch Global Strategies. She has received funding from the U.S.-Mexico Foundation for the U.S.-Mexico Network. She is also affiliated with the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).</span></em></p>The admired US ambassador to Mexico is resigning, even as the two countries spat over trade, immigration and Trump’s tweets. Can this critical diplomatic relationship survive yet another problem?Pamela K. Starr, Associate Professor of International Relations, USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and SciencesLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/815902017-08-01T00:17:04Z2017-08-01T00:17:04ZAre State Department cuts a major setback for genocide prevention?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/180428/original/file-20170731-5515-1xisd1m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>There are <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trump-abandons-the-human-rights-agenda">many indications</a> that human rights and international justice are not priorities for President Donald Trump’s administration. </p>
<p>As Foreign Policy has <a href="http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/07/17/tillerson-to-shutter-state-department-war-crimes-office/">reported</a>, one of the <a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/43213/">likely victims</a> of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s reorganization and cuts at the State Department is the <a href="https://www.state.gov/j/gcj/index.htm">Office of Global Criminal Justice</a>. This is the office that would, in theory, advise him and other government officials on how the U.S. should act to prevent or respond to <a href="http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=a/res/260(III)">genocide</a>, <a href="https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule156">war crimes</a> and <a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/crime-against-humanity">crimes against humanity</a>. Given the number of recent, ongoing and potential mass atrocities around the world, <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/342705-the-state-departments-retreat-in-the-fight-against?rnd=1500478588">some</a> are portraying the decision to shutter the office as a threat to America’s moral authority in the field of genocide prevention. </p>
<p>But is that an accurate assessment? </p>
<p>As co-directors of Binghamton University’s <a href="https://www.binghamton.edu/i-gmap/index.html">Institute for Genocide and Mass Atrocity Prevention</a>, we study the causes and consequences of genocides, and what is needed to prevent them. While we agree that U.S. commitment to preventing mass atrocities is important, we argue that the U.S. has for some time been taking more of a back seat on this issue than people realize.</p>
<h2>20 years of small successes</h2>
<p>The Office of Global Criminal Justice was created by <a href="https://www.state.gov/j/gcj/c53694.htm">Secretary of State Madeleine Albright</a> in 1997 “to focus American foreign policy on preventing and ensuring accountability for atrocities around the world.” This was in response to America’s failure to act in the face of a preventable genocide in Rwanda in 1994.</p>
<p>Until recently, the Office of Global Criminal Justice was headed by an <a href="https://history.state.gov/departmenthistory/people/principalofficers/ambassador-at-large">ambassador-at-large</a>, a diplomat of the highest rank authorized to represent the U.S. internationally. This gave the agency independence and flexibility.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/180275/original/file-20170730-5515-vijogc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/180275/original/file-20170730-5515-vijogc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/180275/original/file-20170730-5515-vijogc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/180275/original/file-20170730-5515-vijogc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/180275/original/file-20170730-5515-vijogc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/180275/original/file-20170730-5515-vijogc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/180275/original/file-20170730-5515-vijogc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/180275/original/file-20170730-5515-vijogc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Stephen J. Rapp, ambassador-at-large for war crimes issues at the United Nations Office in Geneva, 2010.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/us-mission/4295185601">United States Mission Geneva</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>For more than 20 years and under the direction of three ambassadors, the Office of Global Criminal Justice worked with a modest staff of about 12, and an annual operating budget of around <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/18/world/americas/state-department-war-crimes-office-closing.html?_r=0">US$3 million</a>. That is enough to cover the operating costs of <a href="https://s3.amazonaws.com/files.cnas.org/documents/CNAS-Carrier_Hendrix_FINAL.pdf">one U.S. aircraft carrier group</a> for about a half a day. Even so, the office helped support the U.S. claim to leadership in battling the worst and most shocking of the world’s mass atrocities.</p>
<p>The office has had a number of important wins. It coordinated U.S. policy toward the <a href="https://www.icc-cpi.int/">International Criminal Court</a> and led efforts to provide logistical and financial support to other international tribunals. It established a <a href="https://www.state.gov/j/gcj/wcrp/index.htm">War Crimes Rewards Program</a> for information leading to the arrest of those wanted in connection with international crimes. It led a campaign to pressure states not to make formal invitations to Sudan’s President Omar al-Bashir, an <a href="https://www.icc-cpi.int/darfur/albashir">indicted war criminal</a>. </p>
<p>More recently, the office was at the center of efforts to retrieve and authenticate smuggled photographs of victims of the <a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/43213/u-s-office-global-criminal-justice-chopping-block/">Syrian regime</a>. These photographs also allowed for an <a href="http://guernica37.org/2017/02/press-release-guernica-37-international-justice-chambers-g37-despacho-internacional-file-a-criminal-complaint-against-members-of-the-syrian-security-forces/">unprecedented criminal trial in Spain</a> against the Syrian security forces on behalf of one of the victims. The office has also helped with efforts to declare the Islamic State’s violent attacks on the <a href="http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session32/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx?sourcedoc=/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session32/Documents/A_HRC_32_CRP.2_%20E_AV.pdf&action=default&DefaultItemOpen=1">Yazidis in Iraq a genocide</a>.</p>
<p>While important, these actions do not reflect the full potential of the office or the U.S. government in genocide prevention. In our view, the U.S. has very little moral authority to lose if the office is eliminated.</p>
<h2>More talk than action</h2>
<p>The Holocaust is the most widely known example of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. World leaders, including several U.S. presidents, have espoused a commitment to “never again” allow such atrocity. Yet we have seen and continue to see examples, such as recent cases in Bosnia, Rwanda, Kosovo and Darfur, and ongoing situations in Syria and Myanmar, to name just a few. As journalist <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Slaughterhouse-Bosnia-Failure-David-Rieff/dp/0684819031/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1501178339&sr=1-1&keywords=slaughterhouse+bosnia+and+the+failure">David Rieff aptly wrote</a>, “never again” has seemed to signify only a U.S. commitment that “never again would Germans kill Jews in Europe in the 1940s.” </p>
<p>Genocide prevention requires a global commitment to the value of human lives – even the lives of people who do not live in places with strategic value. But government policies, the U.S. included, often calculate the value of human life based on economic and military measures. </p>
<p>The U.S. has repeatedly defined its interests narrowly – the domestic economy and direct threats to national security. The bar is set very high for the <a href="http://www.kentlaw.edu/academics/courses/admin-perritt/pdd-25.html">U.S. to commit troops</a> to U.N. peacekeeping efforts. Such conditions almost never exist. The most recent month for which data are available, June 2017, is typical. During that month the U.S. contributed 74 individuals of 96,853 troops, police, military experts and support staff to the United Nations’s 15 current <a href="http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/operations/current.shtml">peacekeeping operations</a>, <a href="http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/resources/statistics/contributors.shtml">none of whom are troops</a>. </p>
<p>Further, the U.S. took nearly four decades to ratify the <a href="http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=a/res/260(III)">United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide</a>. The convention, which was passed in 1948 and went into effect in 1951, was <a href="https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/States.xsp?xp_viewStates=XPages_NORMStatesParties&xp_treatySelected=357">ratified by 132</a> countries before the U.S. signed on <a href="https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/vwTreatiesByCountrySelected.xsp?xp_countrySelected=US">in 1988</a>. The other 16 stragglers who signed much later were mostly newly formed states, such as former Soviet Republics. </p>
<p>The history of the Office of Global Criminal Justice shows that well-meaning rhetoric often serves to mask lukewarm commitments. </p>
<p>After its inception during the Clinton years, the office survived the George W. Bush administration’s <a href="http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1035&context=djclpp">unfriendliness to international criminal law</a>. </p>
<p>The office might have expected a friendlier Obama administration. After all, <a href="https://fas.org/irp/offdocs/psd/index.html">Obama famously declared</a> in 2011 that preventing genocides and <a href="https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2011/08/04/presidential-study-directive-mass-atrocities">mass atrocities</a> would be “a core national security interest and a core moral responsbility” of the American government. </p>
<p>Although the Obama administration did not close the Office of Global Criminal Justice, it did take actions that reduced its effectiveness. When Ambassador-at-Large Stephen Rapp <a href="http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/01/15/top-war-crimes-diplomat-stepping-down/">stepped down in 2015</a>, President Obama did not nominate a successor. Todd Buchwald, who currently directs the office, does not have the diplomatic credentials of his predecessors that had been the office’s signature.</p>
<p>One could argue that Obama’s inattention to the office was offset by his creation of the <a href="https://www.state.gov/j/atrocitiesprevention/">Atrocities Prevention Board</a>. The board links 11 federal agencies to develop diplomatic, technological, military, educational and other mechanisms for understanding and countering the root causes of genocide.</p>
<p>Yet, while the board opened with much fanfare in 2012, it has has since been <a href="https://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/AtrocitiesPrevBoard.pdf">roundly criticized</a> for secrecy, invisibility and inaction in the face of the unfolding catastrophe in Syria. Along with the Office of Global Criminal Justice, the board too may be <a href="http://www.mantlethought.org/international-affairs/atrocity-prevention-board-dead-under-trump">soon be dismantled</a>. </p>
<p>Given these shortcomings on genocide prevention, the impact of Trump-Tillerson decisions to eliminate agencies may not be as significant as some expect. But it still sends a very powerful message to the world about the Trump administration’s lack of support for global efforts to end impunity.</p>
<p>As Clint Williamson, the Office of Global Criminal Justice’s second ambassador, <a href="http://apps.law.georgetown.edu/webcasts/eventDetail.cfm?eventID=3115">put it recently</a>:
“What worries me with this administration is that I am not sure that anyone even supports the very idea of international justice.” </p>
<p>That would be good news to current and potential perpetrators of the worst international crimes. </p>
<h2>What comes next?</h2>
<p>By its very nature, genocide prevention is an international effort. An increasing number of nongovernmental organizations in the U.S. and around the world are engaged in prevention efforts. The <a href="http://www.auschwitzinstitute.org/">Auschwitz Institute for Peace and Reconciliation</a>, <a href="http://www.genocidewatch.org/howpreventgenocideic.html">Genocide Watch</a>, the <a href="https://www.ictj.org/about">International Center for Transitional Justice</a> and the <a href="https://thesentinelproject.org/">Sentinel Project</a> are just a few examples. </p>
<p>Other governments are also stepping up. Lacking the economic or military might of the U.S., they are working collaboratively and focusing their attention closer to home. Regional associations of government officials dedicated to genocide prevention have formed in <a href="http://redlatinoamericana.org/">Latin America</a> and in the <a href="http://icglr.org/index.php/en/genocide-prevention">Great Lakes Region of Africa</a>. </p>
<p>Preventing or ending mass atrocities is not a responsibility exclusive to the U.S., nor is it assured with U.S. leadership. But it is hard to imagine effective prevention without substantial U.S. involvement. Any reductions in U.S. commitment, including the cuts likely under the Trump administration, are cause for concern.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/81590/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Some worry the US is losing its global moral authority under the Trump administration. But a close look at history reveals US leadership is not as strong as it seems.Nadia Rubaii, Co-Director, Institute for Genocide and Mass Atrocity Prevention, and Associate Professor of Public Administration, Binghamton University, State University of New YorkMax Pensky, Professor, Department of Philosophy, Binghamton University, State University of New YorkLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/806522017-07-07T22:51:47Z2017-07-07T22:51:47ZTrump’s friendly meeting with Putin further blurs US-Russia relations<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/177415/original/file-20170707-28795-hs65t5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">President Donald Trump shakes hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin at the G20 Summit </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/Evan Vucci</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>It emerged early this morning: a few seconds of <a href="https://twitter.com/BraddJaffy/status/883300124511830016">grainy footage</a> showing U.S. President Donald Trump shaking hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin at the G-20 summit in Hamburg, Germany. </p>
<p>Trump, the taller man, stoops to meet Putin on equal terms. He pats him repeatedly on the elbow, and then on the back.</p>
<p>Later, as they <a href="https://twitter.com/BraddJaffy/status/883328625646477312">sat side-by-side</a> in matching cream-colored chairs, Trump called it “an honor” to meet Putin. The Russian president noted that they had talked on the telephone several times, but that talking on the telephone is never enough. An interesting choice of words, given Putin’s disconcerting habit of <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/putins-latest-dirty-trick-leaking-private-phone-calls">leaking</a> the private conversations of foreign leaders.</p>
<p>So what can we learn about their relationship and the future of U.S.-Russia relations from this single meeting?</p>
<h2>Hidden planning</h2>
<p>They talked for more than two hours, far longer than the scheduled half hour. According to a <a href="http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/07/07/tillerson-trump-putin-g20-meeting-press-briefing-full.cnn">briefing</a> given later in the afternoon by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, they discussed Syria, Ukraine, terrorism and cybersecurity, including “interference in the democratic processes” of the U.S. and other countries. And Tillerson <a href="https://apnews.com/eaa310ccb6e04e0580759d4ce36e778b">announced</a> that the U.S., Russia and Jordan have agreed to a ceasefire in Southwest Syria between the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and opposition forces.</p>
<p>This was a substantial agenda, made to seem more impressive by clever expectations setting and misdirection undertaken by administration officials in advance of the meeting.</p>
<p>The official announcement of the ceasefire was held back so that the meeting would have a “deliverable.” However, the Associated Press gave the game away by <a href="https://twitter.com/jpaceDC/status/883354485095051264">reporting</a> the deal while Trump and Putin were still talking.</p>
<p>Before the meeting, White House officials had also told the press that Trump would not raise cybersecurity with Putin. But according to Tillerson, he did so repeatedly and forcefully, although Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov <a href="https://twitter.com/BraddJaffy/status/883385478476689409">suggests</a> Trump was accommodating toward Putin’s protestations of innocence.</p>
<p>And National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster had made an <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/29/world/europe/trump-puting-g-20.html?_r=0">alarming suggestion</a> that Trump would simply walk into the room and improvise an agenda. Instead, he seems to have had substantial discussions on many of the key topics in the <a href="https://theconversation.com/is-putins-russia-the-critical-threat-americans-believe-it-to-be-77531">U.S.-Russia relationship</a>. </p>
<h2>Clashing interests, friendly leaders</h2>
<p>Often in foreign policy, clashing interests between countries leads to clashing leaders. This was <a href="http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2017/05/25/trump-holds-more-positive-views-toward-vladimir-putin-than-both-his-predecessor-and-his-own-foreign-policy-team/">true of Putin and Obama, but not of Putin and Trump</a>. While many analysts of international relations downplay the role of leadership, the chemistry between Trump and Putin will play a central role in shaping the near-term prospects for the U.S.-Russia relationship. As a <a href="http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=2iPIu00AAAAJ&hl=en">scholar of political leadership</a>, I’ve seen how important personality can be in the conduct of diplomacy.</p>
<p>Putin and Trump have consistently <a href="http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2017/05/25/trump-holds-more-positive-views-toward-vladimir-putin-than-both-his-predecessor-and-his-own-foreign-policy-team/">spoken warmly</a> of each other. Both are tacticians, not strategists. Trump is often described as driven by the news cycle, seeking to capture the day’s headlines whatever the cost. Putin too is an <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02684527.2017.1313523?tokenDomain=eprints&tokenAccess=8GxdCpY7pgS7TEQQfA6u&forwardService=showFullText&doi=10.1080%2F02684527.2017.1313523&doi=10.1080%2F02684527.2017.1313523&journalCode=fint20">opportunist</a>, good at keeping opponents off balance but with only a vague sense of long-term goals.</p>
<p>Both disdain detail. Trump’s preparatory materials for his meeting with Putin were <a href="http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-fg-trump-putin-20170704-story.html">reportedly</a> written in “tweet-length sentences.” Putin, too, is impatient with homework. When he was president, George W. Bush found him “uninformed,” and <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/24/world/europe/3-presidents-and-a-riddle-named-putin.html#/">likened</a> negotiations with him to “arguing with an eighth-grader with his facts wrong.”</p>
<p>Both embrace a clash of civilizations view of international affairs. For example, Trump framed his <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/06/politics/trump-speech-poland-transcript/index.html">speech</a> in Poland around whether the West has “the will to survive.” He made an appeal for the <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/20045621?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents">unapologetic trumpeting</a> of “Western values.”</p>
<p>And yet the “Western values” Trump has in mind are very different from those articulated by G-20 host Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany. Where she talks of an <a href="https://www.g20.org/Content/EN/Artikel/2017/02_en/2017-02-18-merkel-sicherheitskonferenz_en.html">interconnected world</a>, Trump <a href="https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21710249-his-call-put-america-first-donald-trump-latest-recruit-dangerous">champions</a> a nationalism based on military and economic strength. He has a deep suspicion of institutions like NATO and the European Union.</p>
<p>This suits Putin. He, too, is suspicious of of the international institutions the United States helped build in the second half of the 20th century. He has consistently argued that the United States and the Russian Federation share an interest in defeating so-called radical Islamist terrorism. And he has <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02684527.2017.1313523?tokenDomain=eprints&tokenAccess=8GxdCpY7pgS7TEQQfA6u&forwardService=showFullText&doi=10.1080%2F02684527.2017.1313523&doi=10.1080%2F02684527.2017.1313523&journalCode=fint20">described</a> his wars in Chechnya, and later in Syria, as conflicts between civilization and barbarism.</p>
<p>Even though the U.S. and Russia have significantly divergent interests, and the U.S. has a serious grievance over Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, the common worldview and compatible personalities of their leaders make improved relations possible.</p>
<h2>What next for Trump-Putin?</h2>
<p>In his meeting with Putin, Trump will have sought to assess how much credit he has in the bank with the Russian leader. Can he and Putin work together to convert the partial cease-fire into a durable solution to the Syrian civil war, defeat the Islamic State and bring pressure to bear on North Korea to halt its nuclear program?</p>
<p>Putin, who regards reading people as one of his greatest skills, will have measured Trump. Trump’s words must sound good, but what do they signify? Is Trump able to carry forward an agenda that Putin finds amenable? Or is he so <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/15/opinion/trump-classified-data.html">lacking in focus</a> that his tweets and speeches and press conferences are verbiage disconnected from the process of government?</p>
<p>Further, is Trump promising a pro-Putin policy that will be impossible to implement if he is hemmed in on Russia by the <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/340634-why-senates-vote-to-sanction-russia-matters">Senate</a> and <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/07/07/majority-americans-wary-donald-trumps-dealings-russia-poll/458444001/">public opinion</a>?</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/80652/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stephen Benedict Dyson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A foreign policy expert takes a look at how the high-profile exchange between the U.S. and Russian leaders went down.Stephen Benedict Dyson, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of ConnecticutLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/781682017-05-23T20:54:36Z2017-05-23T20:54:36ZTrump’s Saudi Arabia speech confirms massive shift in US foreign policy<p>President Donald Trump studiously avoided the phrase “radical Islamic terrorism” in his <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/05/21/president-trumps-speech-arab-islamic-american-summit">speech</a> at the Arab Islamic American Summit in Saudi Arabia on May 21.</p>
<p>He instead accentuated the positive, calling the meeting a “historic and unprecedented gathering of leaders – unique in the history of nations” and stressing mutual respect and a desire to “form closer bonds of friendship, security, culture and commerce.”</p>
<p>He went on to say:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“America is a sovereign nation and our first priority is always the safety and security of our citizens. We are not here to lecture – we are not here to tell other people how to live, what to do, who to be or how to worship. Instead, we are here to offer partnership – based on shared interests and values – to pursue a better future for us all.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This elaboration of Trump’s “America First” approach to the world must have been welcomed by foreign policy realists. Realists would like it because it marks a turn away from the emphasis, or at least lip service, that <a href="http://www.nationalmemo.com/saudi-women-disappointed-trump-no-obama-human-rights/">the Barack Obama</a> and <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/06/bush.china.olympics/index.html">George W. Bush administrations</a> paid to things like human rights and democracy.</p>
<p>In my experience as a foreign policy expert and former U.S. ambassador, I have found that realists believe nationalism is still as much the driving force as it has been since the signing of the <a href="http://www.historytoday.com/richard-cavendish/treaty-westphalia">Treaty of Westphalia</a> in 1648, which ended the 30 Years War and established a system of international relations based on nation-states. </p>
<p>Under realist theory, every country tries to maximize its power in a zero-sum game because the international system lacks any supervision from any supranational entity. For realists, it’s always anarchy out there. Putting America first is just a recognition that every country puts itself first.</p>
<h2>What the Trump doctrine leaves out</h2>
<p>Trump’s declaration of his America First approach was mirrored by Secretary of State Tillerson’s <a href="https://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2017/05/270620.htm">recent remarks</a> to employees of the State Department. Tillerson stressed that the job of State Department employees is to promote American prosperity and security with little regard for the internal issues of other countries that are not related to those two goals. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/170662/original/file-20170523-5749-1qbcb1a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/170662/original/file-20170523-5749-1qbcb1a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/170662/original/file-20170523-5749-1qbcb1a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/170662/original/file-20170523-5749-1qbcb1a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/170662/original/file-20170523-5749-1qbcb1a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/170662/original/file-20170523-5749-1qbcb1a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/170662/original/file-20170523-5749-1qbcb1a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/170662/original/file-20170523-5749-1qbcb1a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Secretary of State Rex Tillerson speaking to State Department employees.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>From these two speeches, it’s clear that our “shared interests and values” do not include things that could be divisive, like respect for human rights and democracy.</p>
<p>The assembled leaders would likely have been pleased to hear that – most of them are autocrats, if not outright dictators. No official list of attendees was readily available, but a careful review of photos from the summit showed that about 55 nations were represented. Looking at where those countries fall on the rankings that the NGO Freedom House every year indicates why the audience was so receptive. </p>
<p>In its annual report, Freedom House assigns a numerical grade to 195 countries and 14 territories based on their score on 25 indicators derived from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Their total grade, which ranges between zero and 100, puts them into one of three broad categories – free, partially free or not free. Nearly half of the countries represented at the summit are rated not free, 40 percent as partially free and only 9 percent free, <a href="https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/FH_FIW_2017_Report_Final.pdf">based on rankings</a> from Freedom House. </p>
<p>Besides the United States, the only other nations at the summit categorized as free were Benin, Guyana, Senegal, Tunisia and Suriname. The U.S. was the most democratic country in the room, according to its Freedom House score of 89. None of the 27 countries in the world that rank higher than that were present.</p>
<p>While considerable progress has been made in recent decades in terms of increasing respect for these rights and liberties, 2016 was not a good year to the Freedom House Report. It registered net declines in these values in 67 countries and improvement in only 36. With the policy Trump described, in my opinion, chances for a better year in 2017 are greatly diminished.</p>
<h2>A receptive audience</h2>
<p>Many in the crowd must have been enthusiastic about Trump’s speech because governments that have little respect for human rights don’t like democracy. In addition, autocrats prefer decision-making to be confined to a small elite since it improves the economic opportunities <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Hung-En_Sung/publication/226036499_Democracy_and_Political_Corruption_A_Cross-National_Comparison/links/09e4150bc9b10ce238000000/Democracy-and-Political-Corruption-A-Cross-National-Comparison.pdf">provided by corruption</a>.</p>
<p>They won’t have to worry about American criticism under the Trump doctrine, since all that matters to America now is jobs and fighting terrorism. The fact that democracy and respect for political rights and civil liberties is the <a href="https://psmag.com/news/respect-human-rights-reduce-terrorism-14208">best way to combat terrorism</a> is something that doctrine fails to take into account. </p>
<p>There was one other thing Trump has said repeatedly in the past that he did not say at the summit. He did not call the press “<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/26/world/europe/trump-enemy-of-the-people-stalin.html?_r=0">the enemy of the people</a>.” But that was unnecessary, as nearly everyone in the audience probably already believes that.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/78168/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dennis Jett received funding from a Fulbright senior scholars grant in 2016 to do research and teaching in Israel.</span></em></p>For Trump, putting America first means that being a global leader on human rights may take a back seat.Dennis Jett, Professor of International Relations, Penn StateLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/690872016-12-08T02:11:50Z2016-12-08T02:11:50ZAn activist’s playbook: How to influence Trump’s cabinet and policies<p>As Donald Trump works to fill his cabinet, his choices have inspired considerable anxiety among his critics. Advocacy organizations such as the <a href="https://www.aclu.org/blog/washington-markup/aclu-responds-potential-nominations-sen-sessions-attorney-general-and-rep">American Civil Liberties Union</a> and <a href="https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/11/23/letter-president-elect-trump">Human Rights Watch</a> have reacted with concern and outright objections, in particular to the nomination of Sen. Jeff Sessions as attorney general and Rep. Michael Pompeo to lead the Central Intelligence Agency. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/11/18/us-trumps-justice-cia-picks-threaten-rights">They claim</a> these appointments show that “Trump’s administration will threaten human rights protections.”</p>
<p>In 1980, Ronald Reagan’s election similarly raised widespread <a href="http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=1107645107">anxiety</a> among human rights advocates. His nomination of <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/05/us/politics/05lefever.html">Ernest W. Lefever</a> to head the State Department’s Bureau of Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs heightened their fears. Lefever had been a vocal <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1977/01/24/archives/the-rights-standard.html?_r=0">critic</a> of Jimmy Carter’s emphasis on human rights in U.S. foreign policy.</p>
<p>Lefever’s nomination elicited a groundswell of opposition among members of Congress, human rights activists and the public that helped defeat his nomination. </p>
<p>My <a href="https://www.academia.edu/6717096/_The_Defeat_of_Ernest_Lefevers_Nomination_Keeping_Human_Rights_on_the_United_States_Foreign_Policy_Agenda_in_Challenging_US_Foreign_Policy_America_and_the_World_in_the_Long_Twentieth_Century_ed._Bevan_Sewell_and_Scott_Lucas_Palgrave_2011_">research</a> shows how this coalition succeeded. Its efforts could serve as a model for concerned activists today. </p>
<h2>‘Outspoken apologist’</h2>
<p>During the campaign, Reagan and his aides had criticized elements of Carter’s human rights policy. They <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1981/01/29/world/excerpts-from-haig-s-remarks-at-first-news-conference-as-secretary-of.html">charged</a> that Carter’s criticisms of repressive governments threatened U.S. national interests without meaningfully improving human rights. Such criticisms raised expectations that the Reagan administration would decrease the prominence of human rights in its foreign policy. At the outset of his presidency, Reagan’s aides suggested he would emphasize spreading democracy and defeating terrorism, rather than championing human rights.</p>
<p>In February 1981, the administration nominated Lefever, confirming these suspicions.</p>
<p>Opposition to the nominee was driven by policy differences, doubts about his qualifications for the role and concerns about his <a href="https://books.google.com/books/about/Nomination_of_Ernest_W_Lefever.html?id=y1V47SEZcwUC">cultural arrogance</a> toward human rights abuses in Africa and Latin America. Extensive and contentious congressional hearings followed, which undermined Lefever’s candidacy. </p>
<p>Lefever had a record of questioning the relevance of human rights to U.S. policy. An editorial in <a href="http://unz.org/Pub/Nation-1981feb21">The Nation</a> pointed out, “He is an outspoken apologist for the barbarous practices of right-wing dictatorships.” </p>
<p>In the 1970s, Congress had played a leading role in U.S. human rights policy. Many members of Congress <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/1981/0225/022532.html">interpreted</a> Lefever’s criticisms of Carter’s policy as opposition to their own efforts. As a result, there was also some rivalry between the executive and legislative branches during Lefever’s confirmation hearings. </p>
<p>Members of Congress who resisted Lefever’s nomination believed he opposed human rights legislation, public support for human rights and even the bureau to which he was nominated. Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Charles Percy, a Republican from Illinois, <a href="https://books.google.com/books/about/Nomination_of_Ernest_W_Lefever.html?id=y1V47SEZcwUC">expressed doubt</a> about Lefever’s commitment to human rights and personal integrity: “Concern for human rights is not just a policy of the United States. It is an underlying principle of our political system and a fundamental factor in the appeal of democracy to people throughout the world.”</p>
<p>They also expressed concerns about the candidate’s demeanor. Sen. Rudy Boschwitz, a Republican from Minnesota, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1981/05/23/world/reagan-firm-on-rights-choice-as-opposition-rises.html">said</a> Lefever “lacks the diplomatic skills needed for the post.” </p>
<p>Not surprisingly, many in the human rights community also actively opposed Lefever. They made repeated trips to Washington to campaign against his confirmation. Some attended and testified at his confirmation hearings. Prominent human rights scholar Louis Henkin <a href="https://books.google.com/books/about/Nomination_of_Ernest_W_Lefever.html?id=y1V47SEZcwUC">testified</a> before the Senate committee, “I do not believe that this law can be faithfully executed by someone who thinks there should be no such law, who has been firmly opposed to it in its spirit and in every detail.” </p>
<p>Activists at Helsinki Watch, a precursor to Human Rights Watch, <a href="https://books.google.com/books/about/Nomination_of_Ernest_W_Lefever.html?id=y1V47SEZcwUC">agreed</a>. According to <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Taking-Liberties-Decades-Struggle-Rights/dp/1586482912/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8">Aryeh Neir</a>, “We thought it vital for the future of the human rights cause to defeat him.”</p>
<p>Reagan’s supporters argued that Reagan “has just won an election,” and therefore deserved to have his nominee confirmed, as columnist <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1981/05/28/opinion/essay-the-new-haynsworth.html">William Safire wrote</a>. Yet, the committee voted 13 to four against Lefever – the first instance since 1959 that a president’s nominee had been <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1981/06/07/weekinreview/added-attractions-exit-lefever-with-a-nudge.html">rejected</a> by a Senate committee.</p>
<h2>New approach to human rights</h2>
<p>In the wake of the defeated nomination, the White House worked to convey its concern about human rights to Congress, the American public and an international audience. To do so, the administration deliberately leaked parts of a State Department memorandum entitled “Reinvigoration of Human Rights Policy,” which <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1981/11/05/opinion/essay-human-rights-victory.html">stated</a>, “human rights is at the core of our foreign policy.” In addition, it nominated a new candidate, Elliott Abrams, who garnered bipartisan support and a unanimous Senate confirmation.</p>
<p>After criticizing Carter’s policy on human rights during the 1980 campaign, Reagan and his aides had indicated that they wanted to transform U.S. policy once in office. Reagan may have been able to accomplish such a change through an evolutionary process, but observers viewed his selection of Lefever as extremist. </p>
<p>The efforts of members of Congress, human rights activists and the public prevented Lefever’s confirmation and ensured that human rights remained a rhetorical and substantive element of U.S. foreign policy in the years that followed. Members of Congress and concerned citizens can play a similar role in shaping the new president’s policies in the months to come.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/69087/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sarah Snyder received funding from the Open Society Archives, Yale University, and Georgetown University. </span></em></p>In 1981, many criticized Ronald Reagan’s nominee to head human rights initiatives in the State Department. Here is how activists mobilized to ensure the nomination was rejected.Sarah B. Snyder, Associate Professor, American University School of International ServiceLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.