January 4, 2018--Let the Games Begin!

Kim Jong-un and Trump Donald-un are at it again. We've moved from "Little Rocket Man" to back-and-forths about whose nuclear button is bigger than whose. (Fortunately, on both sides, there are no such buttons.)

Do you think these world leaders have a size problem? We know that "Little Marco" Rubio felt that way about candidate Trump's hands and other body parts. 

This ends the entertainment portion of this posting. 

The rest is perhaps even hopeful.

Remember back in the early 1970s, after 20 years of estrangement between the United States and "Red" China, both sides were looking for a face-saving way to begin to engage each other.

The U.S. ping pong team was in Japan competing in the world table tennis tournament. Since they were in the neighborhood, the People's Republic of China invited them to come to Beijing for a series of exhibition matches. 

Never mind that our team was trounced. What turned out to be important was not the ping pong but the fact that this represented the beginning of communication between both sides which culminated in 1972 with fierce Cold Warrior Richard Nixon visiting China, most remarkably sitting down to talk with maximum leader, Mao Zedong. The rest is the history we are living with today.

There may be, may be something similar happening right now on the Korean peninsular.

With the Winter Olympics less than a month from opening in South Korea, in his annual New Years address to the world, North Korea's president Kim Jong-un hinted that he would like to talk with his South Korea counterpart, Moon Jae-in, about the possibility of the North sending athletes to the games. I suppose in the tradition that enemies put aside their weapons to compete in the Olympics.

Quickly, President Moon took up Kim's offer. They or their representatives have already made plans to meet in the demilitarized zone as early next week and they have already reconnected the hot line between the two Koreas. We know that when they meet they will be talking about more than ski jumping.

Obervers in Asia and the West are noting that this is an attractive strategy for each side--for Kim it shows some flexibility in regard to talking to those who oppose him and his nuclear program. It also, as many are putting it, "drives a wedge" between two erstwhile allies--South Korea and the United States. Presuming that if Moon agrees to meet it will be in defiance of Trump, president of South Korea's longest time ally, the United States.

On President Moon's side of the table, it shows his independence from the United States. That his is not a puppet regime. We have been a huge presence there from the years of the Korean War until today. Nearly a remarkable 70 years. Currently there are 37,500 U.S. military personnel in South Korea, and for decades we have been the the major patrons of most South Korean political leaders.

But Moon, who recently come to power as a "liberal" has sought to put some distance between us and his country. So this wedge may be just what he is seeking--some measure of independence from our influence.

In a frenzy of threatening tweets about Pakistan, the Palestinians, Iran, and North Korea, President Trump has indicated he has no problem with the two Koreas talking with each other.

Perhaps he too is hoping that this small opening, not unlike the ping pong diplomacy of the 1970s, will lead to a way for us to back off while saving face. 

This has not been Trump's MO--backing off or looking for ways to save face--but one never knows with someone as unpredictable and as embattled as he. Maybe he will switch to becoming as obsessed with Pakistan or Venezuela as he is with North Korea. In his world, that could be a version of a good thing. And it does fit an America First agenda of sorts, though Pakistan has at least 100 nukes and I'm not sure provoking them as he recently has is such a good idea.

It is fragile things of this sort that we hope for and cling to.

August 29, 2016--English Not Spoken Here

Mid-September we are planning to spend a few days in New York City.

It's a long, seven-hour drive for a brief visit so we are considering alternatives--the train (too many connections required), JetBlue (we'd have to deal with airports and long security lines), and then there is a bus from Portland to Midtown.

This so-called Concord "luxury bus" is reported to be quite comfortable, is only $138 roundtrip, and offers snacks and a movie.

I asked a friend, Ronnie, who recently took it, what kind of snacks they offered, hoping they would include popcorn because watching a movie on I-84 while munching popcorn sounds diverting. When he said they do, I said to Rona, "Let's book it."

Its New York City terminus is East 42nd Street. A short walk to the subway or a fifteen-minute taxi ride to our apartment.

"Book it," I said again. And so we did.

A few days later there was a piece in the New York Times about the ever-changing taxi situation in town.

I hadn't realized that the Taxi and Limousine Commission had already eliminated the geography test for potential drivers. This means that one can't count on his knowing where Lincoln Center is or Rockefeller Center. Forget Kings Highway and Flatbush Avenue in Brooklyn or the Grand Concourse in the Bronx. Yankee Stadium could also be a mystery and maybe even Nathan's Famous in Coney Island.

What a contrast with London where aspiring drivers study for literally years to memorize cover-to-cover every street and mews in the city bible, London A-Z. As remarkable as it may seem, neurologists claim that the effort not only assures riders that they will get the shortest route to Trafalgar Square, but that driver's brains are physically enlarged.

What happened to NYC cabbies' brains is another story that I won't touch.

Now, the TLC is eliminating the requirement that drivers know English. From my experience, anecdotally, I already assumed that English was not required since it is not easy to have much of a conversation with most drivers. But this move makes it official.

The lead City Council sponsor of the legislation to eliminate the English requirement, which was signed with enthusiasm by pandering mayor, Bill de Blasio, said that the English requirement was "a barrier for would-be drivers from immigrant communities who were looking for work."

Sponsors also claim, preemptively, that Uber drivers, already putting a lot of yellow cab drivers out of business, are not required to speak English.

Again anecdotally, this does not appear to be a problem because all that I have used spoke perfect English and, with or without GPSes on their smartphones, knew where they are going.

With the street smarts that still thankfully exist in the city, the Times quotes a 26 year-old cook who lives in Queens, David Hernandez, "If you're in New York, you must speak English. This is an English-speaking country."

Even for drivers who come from an amazing 167 countries, with the largest share from Bengali-speaking Bangladesh (24 percent) and Urdu-speaking Pakistan (10 percent), this still is an English-speaking country.

To help you out, if you're in town and  hail a cab and want to get to Lincoln Center and your driver is from Bangladesh, here transliterated in Bengali is "Take me to Lincoln Center"--

Āmākē inlyāṇḍēra liṅkanē tairi ēkadharanēra jhalamalē sabuja raṅēra kāpaṛa kēndra nitē

May 26, 2015--Osama bin Laden's Instructions to Applicants

Last week, the Department of Homeland Security published a list of the books and papers Navy Seals found in Osama bin Laden's bunker in Abbottabad, Pakistan. In the press, most attention was paid to his books. Even Michiko Kakutani, the New York Times chief book reviewer, wrote about his reading habits, especially taking note of his obsessive interest in the United States and the West.

She noted how bin Laden was particularly interested in American foreign policy. Among other volumes, on his bookshelf were the report of the 9/11 Commission; Bob Woodward's Obama's War; Paul Kennedy's Rise and Fall of Great Powers; and Noam Chomsky's Hegemony of Survival: America's Quest for Global Domination.

Mention was also made of a job application form that job seekers were required to fill out if they wished to be considered for al Qaeda. Little was said about it beyond the question about which next of kin should be notified after recruits were blown to smithereens in a suicide bombing. The role most likely to be assigned to Westerners.

Here are other questions from the actual application--Osama's "Instructions to Applicants." Including how it might be filled out by an eager Western al Qaeda follower--

Date of arrival in the land of Jihad:

I do not yet have my airline ticket. I am waiting for a sale or to use frequent flyer miles and when an aisle seat is available. If accepted by your organization I will keep you informed of my plans. I assume a one-way ticket makes sense.

How long do you plan to stay in the Jihadi theater?

I did not know it was a theater. But that sounds cool. The timing, of course, is up to you. I imagine your associates set the schedule for training, propaganda videos, and suicide bombings.

Are any of your friends in the Jihad theater?

Maybe my college roommate. He took a course in Islamic history and one summer his parents took him on a trip to see the pyramids. I haven't been able to reach him lately. He doesn't respond to my texts or emails so he may already be in the theater.

Education Level: Primary . . .  Elementary . . . Secondary . . . College . . . 

Forgive me, Imam, but in my country "primary" and "elementary" are the same thing. So as not to confuse recruits who, unlike me, do not have college degrees, perhaps eliminate one or the other. I was a communications major in college, had a GPA of 3.40 and 1,450 SAT scores.

When did Almighty Allah bless you with this gift?

I decided what to do with my life while watching a rerun of Lawrence of Arabia on Netflix.

Have you researched or invented anything in any domain?

After college, since there were no jobs available, I worked on developing apps for iPhones. And I have this idea for a Jihadi video game that maybe could be used for training purposes. It's called Doorway to Paradise. If you'd like, I can send it to you by email.

List the countries to which you have travelled and the purpose of the trip(s) . . .

One summer after my junior year I went to France and Italy to take in the sights. My favorite place was Venice. I loved all the canals.

How many trips have you taken to Pakistan and for what reason(s)?

None yet but I am looking forward to visiting. There's a great Pakistani restaurant near my apartment that I go to all the time. I always have chicken tikka and saag paneer.

List the experience or expertise you have in any area.

I know Facebook, Snapchat, Twitter, and Instagram. Also word-processing, Photoshop, and Excel. And I have a drivers license with no moving violations and know how to use a stick shift which I assume will be useful if you decide to accept me into al Qaeda.

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.