The Foreign Service Journal, July-August 2017

THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL | JULY-AUGUST 2017 13 Paris Agreement— U.S. Withdraws, the World Reacts P resident Donald Trump announced on June 1 that the U.S. would pull out of the Paris Agreement on climate change. The United States’ role in the agreement had been under discus- sion throughout the president’s recent overseas trip to the Middle East and Europe. From the Vatican, where Pope Francis presented Pres. Trump with a signed copy of a papal encyclical calling for cooperation in combating climate change, to the NATO summit in Brussels, climate change remained at the forefront. In a speech announcing his deci- sion, Pres. Trump declared that the Paris Agreement was a “bad deal” for the United States and that compliance with “the onerous energy restrictions it has placed on the United States” would cause damage to the U.S. economy. The reaction fromworld leaders has TALKING POINTS been uniformly negative. German, French and Italian leaders issued a rare joint statement shortly after the president’ s announcement, in which they regretted the president’s decision and stated: “We deem the momentum generated in Paris in December 2015 irreversible.” Describing the Paris Agreement as a “vital instrument for our planet, societies and economies,” European leaders also rejected the president’s suggestion that the agreement could be renegotiated with terms more favorable to the United States. China and India both took the oppor- tunity to reaffirm their commitment to the Paris Agreement and cooperation with the European Union in economic and technological matters. Apart from the environmental consid- erations, there are also concerns that the decision will damage the United States in the eyes of the international com- munity. The United States is now one of only three countries not to be a part of the Paris Agreement (the other two are Nicaragua, who felt the terms did not go far enough, and Syria), and some nations are questioning whether America wishes to retain the United States’ unofficial title as “leader of the free world.” In the meantime, non-U.S. govern- ment actors in the United States—promi- nent U.S. companies, numerous mayors, the state of California and others—are issuing statements of support for the agreement, and promising to abide by it. —Gemma Dvorak, Associate Editor Business Leaders Back State Department and USAID O n May 22, 225 business leaders from across the United States joined the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition in send- ing a letter calling on Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to support a strong budget for U.S. foreign affairs agencies. Recognizing that 95 percent of the world’s consumers live outside the United States, the letter reminded Sec. Tiller- son of the role played by diplomats and development experts in opening up new markets for U.S. exports, strengthening America’s economic interests abroad and supporting jobs within the United States. “Strategic investments in diplomacy and development make America safer and more prosperous,” the letter con- tinues. “Our embassies and consulates around the world are essential partners for American businesses to ensure we can compete on a level playing field. Trade promotion programs have helped drive American exports, which today make up almost 13 percent of America’s $18 trillion economy and support about one in five American jobs.” Chris Policinski, president and CEO of Land O’Lakes, Inc., a farmer-owned agricultural cooperative, said: “The bang Heard on the Hill A FSA continues to see an outpouring of support for the Foreign Service, the Department of State and USAID. Many public figures are stepping forward to defend diplomacy and development as the most cost-effective national security tools. Here are just a few: “The work that our diplomats do in the field to advance American inter- ests under difficult circumstances is undervalued. I salute members of the State Department because they put their lives on the line.” —Representative Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.), at a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, May 18 “There’s nothing ‘soft’ about what the State Department does and what they can do for American security.” —Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), in an interview at the Council on Foreign Relations, April 10 “A 29 percent cut [from the State Department’s budget] means you really have to withdraw from the world because your presence is com- promised. That may be the goal of this budget. It’s not my goal. This guts soft power as we know it.” —Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), chair of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs, May 23