FollowMohamed
El-Erian
Chief
Economic Advisor, Allianz;
Some
bold and simple policies have merit; Friday’s executive order that
temporarily bans the citizens of certain countries from coming to the U.S., and
stops indefinitely the entry of Syrian refugees, is not one of them.
As
designed and implemented, there are genuine doubts about the order’s
effectiveness in meeting its stated objective of preventing terrorism. It also
risks a lot of collateral damage and unintended consequences that ultimately
could prove counterproductive and harmful to national security, the economy,
and America’s moral authority, values and standing in the world. Even the
order's merits as a domestic signal are in doubt, and it risks damaging the
credibility and effectiveness of future policy initiatives from the White
House.
The
travel ban is succinctly stated: “To protect the American people from terrorist
attacks by foreign nationals admitted to the United States.” With immediate
effect, it forbids entry for specified periods of time to citizens from seven
countries (Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen).
But
this is an extremely blunt approach to an important issue. Early reports on its
application suggest that even long-time holders of multiyear visas for the
U.S., together with green card holders and dual nationals, are are being
refused entry at airports or being
prevented from boarding planes destined for America. This includes people who
have been living in the U.S. legally for many years, have been vetted, and are
productive and integrated members of their local communities. Judging by Google, which stated
that more than 100 of its employees traveling abroad are impacted by the order,
it also covers tax-paying U.S.-based workers who productively contribute to
national growth and, as of this weekend, were on business trips or holidays
abroad. They may now be stranded.
It
is not clear whether the travel ban also applies to those working at the
international institutions that the U.S. hosts, including the International
Monetary Fund and the World Bank. The uncertainty is enough to stop some staff
from traveling abroad on business, thereby reducing the effectiveness of these
institutions. Then there are the students at U.S. educational institutions,
some of whom are still in the process of returning for their new terms.
No
wonder so many people from across the political spectrum are questioning the
executive order -- and deploring its highly discriminatory nature and the
related threats to what makes the U.S. so special and so admired. The ban risks
undermining the U.S.'s moral authority, along with its standing and the respect
it commands. In turn, this can undermine the credibility of President Donald
Trump's administration, creating potential headwinds to the effectiveness of
its future measures in a wide range of areas.
I
suppose that some may feel that all this would be warranted if the ban can
deliver on its objective. But here, too, there are problems.
Several
people have already pointed out that none of the terrorist incidents suffered
by the U.S. in recent times, including the horrible Sept. 11 attacks, were
perpetuated by citizens from the seven designated countries. The ban could have
other harmful consequences. Some have noted that it applies to people who
fought alongside American troops in dangerous situations, and includes some who
acted heroically, saving our men and women in uniform. This is but one of the
adverse signals that the executive order transmits to the many supporters and
fans of the U.S. living in the named countries.
I
understand, and very much share, the desire to reduce terrorist risks. As
currently designed and implemented, the travel ban is not a good way to do so.
This
post originally appeared on Bloomberg View.
No comments:
Post a Comment