May 2, 2018--Let's Make A Deal

With Kim Jong-un saying last Sunday that he will give up his nuclear arsenal if Trump pledges not to invade North Korea, Kim and Trump could conclude a deal in less than half an hour. 

What else would need doing besides Trump figuring out the  theatrics of the summit meeting?

If Trump didn't require more than a day in Moscow in 2013 to run the Miss Universe Pageant, talk about a Moscow Trump Tower, and do whatever that night in Moscow's Motel 6, the situation with North Korea, thanks to Kim, is shaping up to be even more of a walk in the park.  

Of course Trump will make that pledge if that's all it takes. No need for dozens of diplomats (which we, by the way, no longer have) to work on the devils in the details. All Kim has to do is agree to having a couple of UN disarmament people resident in North Korean to make sure Kim complies. And all Trump has to do is, well, not very much. 

No need for Kim to schlep all the way to Singapore or Mongolia to meet. He doesn't have a dependable airplane to get him there anyway and the train he rides around in is so ladened with bombproofing that it can rumble along at only 22 miles per hour. He'd have to leave Pyongyang tomorrow to get to Singapore by mid May. 

To make things simple and convenient they could meet on Air Force One. Trump could fly it into Pyongyang Sunan International Airport and Kim could use an Uber to get to the meeting.

I'm making light of this because I think I may be hallucinating. I temporarily increased my meds last week and I don't trust myself these days.

But the more serious side of me senses the makings of a deal. To sign off on one there needs to be self-interest on all sides. 

And there is.

Let's start with South Korea. If we stumble into a war on the peninsular, which was feeling more and more likely just before the Olympics--remember "little rocket man" and who had the bigger nuclear button--military experts estimated that in the first half hour up to half a million Koreans would be killed. Of course, Pyongyang would be bombed back to the Stone Age and Seoul to the Iron Age, there would be no winners, very much including the global economy. So hyper-capitalistic South Korea doesn't want to go there. No more Samsung? No more Kia? No more Hyundai? 

Also, nationalist South Korean president Moon would very much like to shrug off the heavy American presence and hand, freeing his country of client statehood.

China also would like to see the U.S. less dominant in Asia. It is their goal to have us withdraw our 23,500 troops from Korea and for us to be less dominate in the regional economy. And our diminished role advances China's aspirations and worldview. 

Of course they would have to figure our a way to deal with a new Tiger Economy, millions of refugees wanting into China, and the possible unification of Korea. Korea would instantly become the new Germany and thus an economic power to reckoned with. China would have to figure out how to accommodate and/or co-opt that.

What a deal would mean to North Korea is evident. People there would have electricity and food, the roads would be fixed and Kim would have an Air Force One of his own. He also could use the money that participating in winning the Nobel Prize would provide. Perhaps for Kim, more than anything else, he would morph from pariah status to player on the world stage.

Trump too in important circles is a pariah but if he were to sign off on such a deal he would have a chance to get off that schneid. It might even help Republicans win more seats in the House of Representatives than currently projected and make it less likely that Trump would be impeached. It might also be an incentive for him to declare mission actually accomplished and decide to turn the keys over to Mike Pence.

He also could use the Nobel cash.

Kim at Pyongyang Airport

April 23, 2018--Contortions

It has been painful to witness progressives, Democrats twisting themselves into contortions as they attempt to come to grips with what is happening with the North Koreans.

Their problem is less with Kim Jong-un and the North Koreans than with how to think about and react to Donald Trump's involvement.

Remember how during the 2016 primaries he said it would be his "honor" to meet face-to-face with Kim? He was roundly criticized and mocked by both his Republican and Democratic opponents as being naive and inexperienced in the world of global diplomacy. He was chastised for asserting that traditional forms of diplomacy (which included many months of pre-summit negotiations between lower-level staffs) were the necessary prerequisites to meetings between heads of states. Particularly hostile ones.

Think Kissinger meeting privately with Zhou Enlai before Nixon would consider getting together with Zhou much less Mao.

Failing to recall how neophyte Barack Obama was roundly criticized and mocked by his political opponents (Hillary Clinton leading the pack) during the 2008 campaign when he declared he would be willing to meet face-to-face with the leaders of Iran and North Korea in the search for peace, progressives, opposing Trump now in such ahistorical, knee-jerk fashion are being, well, intentionally forgetful, hypocritical, or both.  

So now we not only have a heads-of-state meeting on the books for late May/early June, but we appear to have Kim making all sorts of preemptive concessions about his nuclear weapons program.

First he announced he was suspending all testing of missiles and nuclear warheads. Then, again without demanding anything in return, he announced over the weekend that he will be shutting down his nuclear weapons research and fabrication facilities. He wants, he says, to turn his focus to the collapsed North Korean economy.

This latter promise is discombobulating progressives. On Saturday and Sunday, for example, on CNN and especially MSNBC, former senior Obama national security advisors and staff have been all over the airwaves struggling with how to think about and respond to these overtures.

First, and most appropriately, they expressed skepticism, warning that the North Koreans for decades have made promises of this sort that they haven't kept. Then they dismissed the evidence that the extra-severe sanctions imposed on the North Koreans, mainly by the U.S. and China, have led to the further hollowing out of the North Korean economy, such as it is, and this is forcing Kim to the table. 

They are ignoring this evidence because, as with Kim's pledge to scale back his weapons program, not to have criticized what seems to be unfolding would give tacit if not overt credit to Trump, as unlikely and crazy and as confounding as what may be happening might turn out to be. 

Liberals so despise Trump that they cannot bear to give some credit, much less offer any praise for his leading the effort to bring this about.

Most outrageously, if Trump pulls this off he would be a leading candidate to receive a Nobel Peace Prize. If the unthinkable were to occur, he as well as Obama would have one. 

Worse--all of us in our heart-of-hearts know Obama didn't really deserve his whereas if we manage to make a verifiable deal with the North Koreans, Trump will have earned his.

Sometimes the world is too confounding to deal with. This may turn out to be one of those occasions.

Kissinger and Zhou Enlai

April 3, 2014--Very Foreign Policy

Barack Obama came into office offering the hope that he would work effectively to reset America's tattered international relations

After nearly a decade of failed preemptive wars and empty preened for having "won" the Cold War, it was time, he intoned, for a fundamental change of direction.

It seemed as if Obama understood the issues both from study and having spent formative years in the less-developed world. His very being offered the promise of new approaches--less Western, less chauvinistic, more nuanced.

During the 2008 campaign he made a powerful speech in Berlin that outlined his global vision and called for dramatic new approaches in our relations with allies, adversaries, and the uncommitted. Then, early in his presidency, in Cairo he outlined a new agenda for America as he saw us interfacing with Islamic nations and aspiring peoples. His very words, it was thought, would spark change.

There was so much hope unleashed that the Nobel Prize Committee awarded the Peace Prize to Obama preemptively. In anticipation of all that he would for certain accomplish.

But by now almost all of this early promise has been unfulfilled.

Where in the world, after nearly six years, have we seen any of this promise realized?

In the Middle East? Just yesterday Mahmoud Abbas effectively scuttled any possibility for improvement in relations between Israel and the Palestinians. In a funk, John Kerry cancelled a meeting with him and flew home. Mission not accomplished.

Russia moved into Crimea and threatens the rest of Ukraine. The famous reset button is long forgotten. Mentioned now only for the purpose of mockery. Relations are so frayed between Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin that they can barely be in the same room together.

What to make of Syria? A country, an ancient civilization destroyed while we couldn't can't figure out how to be influential much less directly helpful. Obama drew red lines and than ignored them.

And what about Egypt? We were complicit in the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak and now, after a reasonably democratic election that saw the Muslim Brotherhood brought to power, after they were deposed by the generals, we see in place an even more oppressive regime than Mubarak's. It is also impervious to U.S. influence.

Then there is Saudi Arabia. Whatever one thinks about their leadership (very little), for 70 years we have had a mutually beneficial relationship. We buy their oil and sell them arms to defend themselves from and buy-off Islamists living and plotting in their midst. Because of our feckless policy with Syria and the Saudis' perception that by showing uncertainty and weakness Iran will soon have nuclear weapons, they have not just distanced themselves from us but are actively thinking about developing nuclear weapons of their own. It may be a hold-one's-nose relationship, but it has been useful to us and our European and Asian allies and, out of self-interest, needs to be retained and strengthened. Does anyone anymore think Obama is capable of this?

Where else?

Thanks to Obama's anti-terrorist polices, including the overuse of drones and grossly intrusive N.S.A. surveillance, even formerly friendly foreign leaders such as Angela Merkel are estranged. Also, Delima Rouseff, the president of Brazil, will not longer talk civilly with Obama thanks to our listening in on her private communications. Was any of this spying necessary? Are we safer for it? It is difficult to imagine anyone believes we are.

The Japanese have less and less use for us; and the Chinese, resenting Obama's "tilt" to Asia, if they didn't hold so much of our debt, would distance themselves further from us than at present. They have not been helpful in containing the North Korean nuclear threat and equally uninterested in weighing in about nuclear proliferation in Iran. The want the oil. And, frankly, our T-Bills.

Turkey, once held up as the ideal moderate Islamic nation, is unraveling and we have totally lost influence there. And forget Sudan, Pakistan, Yemen, Afghanistan, or the Central African Republic.

I could go on.

Making this list late last night got me good and depressed. What, happened, I wondered, to all that initial promise now so dissipated?

One could say that sometimes out of nationalistic chaos a new, preferable order will emerge. What we are seeing are the final gasps of a failed colonial paradigm. The remnants of 18th century empires; the redrawing of the redrawn borders at the end the First World War; and yes, America's economic empire. All are in their death throes. And death throes are always painful and difficult.

On the other hand, I thought, might there be some important cases where the Obama foreign policy is actually working?

What about India, I asked myself. I haven't heard much from there recently except occasional nuclear saber rattling over border disputes with Pakistan. Weren't we substantially estranged from them during the Cold War? Wasn't India tilted toward the Soviets? Yes, but haven't we in recent years been able to establish a "special relationship" with them? Facilitated by that fact that both of us are leery of China? Actually, hasn't Barack Obama been adept at maintaining and filling in the details of what that special relationship could mean? Didn't he call our relationship with India the "defining partnership of the 21st century"?

Indeed he did, when he visited in 2010. So what have I been reading recently in the New York Times?

Sadly, more of the same.

As reported there, "Almost four years later, the United States and India have found themselves on opposite sides of the world's most important diplomatic issues," from Ukraine where India is siding with the Russians to disagreeing about U.S. military policy in Afghanistan.

A senior Indian diplomat summed matters up this way--"There is a feeling that no one in this administration is a champion of the India-U.S. relationship." That should not be. India is the second most populace nation and has a burgeoning economy. Having a sound relationship with them should be a national priority.

When looking for an explanation about how, in this instance, high hopes have been dashed, Jonah Blank, an analyst of the now nonpartisan RAND cooperation said--

In this administration there is a small group of people in the White House making all the decisions, so issues that are important but not urgent rarely get the attention they deserve.

This sounds sadly familiar. Many who have written about the inner workings of the Obama White House say the same thing--Obama has chosen to cut himself off from almost all outside influence and depends upon a very few ultra-trusted advisors who go back to his Chicago days.

He famously said after being elected, "Make no new friends in Washington." At that he has been remarkably successful

This may be a good approach to negotiating one's way though the political thicket in the Windy City but no way to run the world.