The Foreign Service Journal, March 2019

THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL | MARCH 2019 13 A Keeper… One of the Best The January-February FSJ , with its focus on eco- nomic diplomacy, was a “keeper”—one of the best issues in my 42+ years of reading the magazine. It was cogent, compelling and (most important) relevant to the contemporary Foreign Service, in addition to making the case domestically of why American diplo- macy still matters. I should note that I was an economic officer once upon a time and had the privilege of working for or with nearly all the featured authors. But the issue deserves praise on its merits. This is must reading for all new FSOs. You might consider whether to make the unpublished submissions available online for additional insights. Lawrence Butler Ambassador, retired Reston, Virginia Bravo! I waited to write this message until I found the time to read the entire December Jour- nal . So, it is a little late, but provides a solid basis for profound and sincere compliments to the Journal staff for turning out a really useful, informative and focused issue that goes where many others have never gone, and none have handled so well. The section on Foreign Service Nationals was of genuine significance and utility and was very well done. (Did you know that in the 1950s, some people thought FSN stood for Foreign Service LETTERS Native?) The coverage of the AFSA award winners was over the top, in terms of depth, length and—the key—recog- nition. It was a major break- through, a tribute to every- one involved. You and your colleagues are justified to be proud of all that you do, and do so well, but December was truly exceptional. One more bravo ! Ed Peck Ambassador, retired Bethesda, Maryland Foreign Assistance and Immigration Reform I am writing in response to Ambassador Stephenson’s President’s Views column in the November FSJ and in anticipatio n of the January-February 2019 edi- tion on economic diplomacy. As Ambassador Stephenson rightly points out, the American people need to better understand how investing in diplomacy helps keep America secure and prosperous. Equally, we need to bet- ter inform U.S. taxpayers how investments in foreign assistance benefit them and should be part of comprehensive immigration reform. The case can most clearly be seen at our southern border, where the new Mexican government’s position on maintaining asylum seekers there is predicated on opening discus- sions on economic assistance levels in Central America. While the American president looks to Congress to fund a border wall, NPR reported on Dec. 14 that Mexico is looking to the United States to fund a “migrant Marshall Plan.” Limited economic opportunities, poor governance and insecurity are all widely recognized as contributing to the drive to migrate. Nigerian Vice President Yemi Osinbajo recently suggested that European countries consider partnering with Nigeria by investing in the country and thereby discouraging the prevalent migration of its young people. Having served with USAID in some of the world’s poorest countries, I have frequently encountered would-be immi- grants who, like most Americans, seek a better future for their families. Those same individuals would be even happier to stay in their countries with their families, their familiar lan- guage, culture and his- tory, if only there were economic opportuni- ties, greater security and responsible, account- able governance. These are all things that U.S. foreign assis- tance seeks to improve, and at a lower price tag than social support and assistance programs in the United States. While not denying the significant contribution of immigrants to the United States, and acknowledging that we are much richer when we don’t just tolerate diversity but invite it, we must recognize that foreign assistance and humanitarian relief play a critical role in reducing the pressures that motivate migration. Employees of USAID and State have seen firsthand the benefits of U.S. invest- ments overseas. American taxpayers, including those who embrace “Make America Great Again” and “America First,” should better appreciate the cost- effective, self-interest of development