Stephen Kelly, visiting professor of the practice in the Sanford School of Public Policy, arrived at Duke in 2008 as the U.S. State Department Diplomat in Residence and stayed after officially retiring from the foreign service in 2010. Among his assignments, Kelly served as the Deputy Chief of Mission to Mexico and Canada. The Chronicle’s Natasha Gupta spoke with Kelly about his experience in foreign service and thoughts on immigration in light of the 2016 presidential election.
The Chronicle: Why did you go into the field of foreign service?
Stephen Kelly: I was a Peace Corps volunteer in Zaire, now called the Congo, for two years [right after college]. At the end of two years, I was living with two Belgian priests who didn't speak English, so my French got really good because the language of instruction in Zaire at that time was French. I was interested in international affairs after my Peace Corps experience and thought that I’d work as a journalist for a few years and then as a foreign correspondent.
It was only [after graduate school] when I was working in North Carolina governor’s office in Raleigh and wrote for the Charlotte Observer that I realized journalism would be a slow road to international affairs. I took the competitive foreign service test, I passed and one thing led to another. It wasn't so much that I was interested in government service as I was in international travel and foreign adventure and fun. I had six or seven foreign service assignments—two in Europe, one in Africa, one in Indonesia, two in Canada and one in Mexico City.
TC: What was so alluring about the notion of working in Africa?
SK: Mali is a very dangerous country today, but it wasn't back when I was posted there. I traveled all the way from Bamako—capital of Mali—to Nouakchott, Mauritania through the scorching desert. We were well-stocked with spare fuel, water and even a gun. Unfortunately for us, that desert was not well-mapped. We were running out of roads, going from village to village and by the end, we were confused. Lucky for us, the drought that year worked in our favor, and we followed the dry riverbed and gave a ride to a local person while he directed us how to get to Kumbi Saleh. In hindsight, none of those decisions were my best or safest ones. But that was the thrill of the foreign service—I was getting to see things a normal human wouldn't.
TC: How did you end up at Duke?
SK: After the Mexico mission, I ran a senior department division at the State Department in Washington, and my next assignment was at Duke. I was a U.S. State Department Diplomat in Residence, and my job here was to recruit people for government service. I taught a couple of courses at Duke before my time here was up. And I loved it here in North Carolina so much that even after my official government term expired, I stayed back to teach at Sanford.
TC: You recently visited the Korean Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) in 2015. Can you talk a little bit about that?
SK: We were a part of North Korea because of the USO (United Service Organizations) tour. We had U.S. army officials conduct our tour and we got a chance to visit the a little house on the armistice village which was literally on the border between North and South Korea. This is where they conduct negotiations—where the North Koreans come in through the north door and the South Koreans through the south door. We went around and took a picture on the northern side with our kids, whom we adopted from Korea. Going up to the DMZ was a very exciting [but dangerous] feat. I had to sign a waiver, which said that if hostilities broke out, and I was caught in the crossfire, I couldn't hold the American or South Korean governments responsible for my demise.
TC: You teach a course about the U.S. borders at the Sanford School of Public Policy. What are your thoughts on Donald Trump’s viewpoint on immigration issues?
SK: I almost feel like making a contribution to Donald Trump’s campaign because every time he speaks about the wall in Mexico, it’s great for my class. It gives me so much to talk about! [Trump says] that we don’t control our borders and to a large extent that is true, but my question is why do we want to control our border? I don’t view the Mexico border as a problem, but he does. The purpose of my piece on Trump and DMZ in The New York Times was to emphasize the fact that we already have 700 miles of wall on the U.S.-Mexico border which looks a lot like the DMZ, and he possibly wants to make it worse?
The question which comes up a lot in my class is why doesn’t Mexico stop its citizens from crossing the border? Isn't the real solution to border security good cooperation on both sides? And my students get my open-borders perspective—I look at Canada and Mexico as partners and not threats. We should be moving towards a system where there should be less happening at the border and more at the perimeter of the three countries.
TC: What advice would you give to the next President of the United States?
SK: Immigration is a huge issue. Not only in America but also in Europe. Brexit shocked us all. Immigrant groups co-exist all over the world but don’t mix. So, the whole issue of integration exists all over the world now… If you're Donald Trump, you believe that immigrants enter the U.S. at a cost. What Trump says is factually untrue and in saying these things, [he is] doing a disservice to the country because it's creating a very negative talk around the topic of immigration, which has already so much emotion attached to it. Trump is leading us away from our true values. I believe that immigrants don’t come here to enjoy benefits or get food stamps—they come here to work. They have ideas and energy and [are] family people. But Americans feel economically threatened now more than ever and therefore, more friction exists.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.