Tag: North Korea
The 7 – 1 reality sitcom
That’s what is meeting in Quebec today. The odd one out at the G7 is the United States, which has managed to unite Canada, the UK, Germany, France, Italy and Japan in a display of pique against President Trump’s trade policy. That’s what you get for using spurious national security arguments to raise tariffs on steel and aluminum rather than pursuing your complaints through the World Trade Organization (WTO) and withdrawing from a nuclear deal with Iran that the other 6 view as vital to their security.
The vodka will be flowing in Moscow, which will be delighted to hear its Shanghai Cooperation Organization (that’s China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan) compared favorably with the more venerable, more powerful, and in the past more effective G7. President Putin is getting his money’s worth: Trump is dismantling Washington’s relationship with its friends and allies in both the Atlantic and the Pacific, dramatically weakening the West and providing openings for Moscow and Beijing to fill the vacuums. Trump has even called for Russia to be invited back into the G7 (which for a time was the G8). If you find that hard to believe, watch it:
Trump is also claiming this morning that Iran has moderated its behavior due to his withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal:
They’re no longer looking so much to what’s going on in Syria, what’s going on in Yemen and lots of other places. They’re a much different country over the last three months.
This is completely untrue. Iran has done nothing to withdraw or lessen its involvement in Syria, Yemen, and other places. It is not only the same country over the last three months, it is getting ready to start up a plant to produce advanced centrifuges for uranium enrichment.
And the President is vaunting his meeting next week with Kim Jong-un:
Obama, Schumer and Pelosi did NOTHING about North Korea, and now weak on Crime, High Tax Schumer is telling me what to do at the Summit the Dems could never set up. Schumer failed with North Korea and Iran, we don’t need his advice!
No Democratic president ever wanted to concede a summit with the North Korean dictator without getting something in return up front. Trump has done so, to no noticeable benefit to the US so far. Nor is there any sign he will get anything tangible in Singapore, though you can bet on his vaunting a fantastic triumph.
The simple fact is that Trump is finding it a lot easier to offend America’s friends and allies than to get anything from our adversaries, who recognize that he is a bullshitter who flogs flim-flam. It would all be laughable–a kind of reality sit-com–if it weren’t real. The G7-1 is however unified and represents an economy larger than that of the US. Trump may prefer a light-on-substance summit with Kim Jong-un, and he may want to falsely claim that Iran has moderated its behavior, but neither our friends nor our adversaries will be fooled. The only fool in this reality sit-com resides in the White House.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Things aren’t getting better
I’m back from 10 days in Piedmont (that’s Italy, not Virginia), where the inhabitants are far better at ignoring their politics than most of us in DC. I didn’t have a single serious conversation about the government crisis there, which after weeks of uncertainty has produced a coalition that is almost as weird as the Freedom Caucus combining with the Green Party in the US. My Italian friends don’t like it, but they know their governments are highly constrained by the European Union, market forces, and a tradition of compromise. So let’s have lunch.
Here things are less felicitous. The food isn’t as good and the politics are less constrained. Here’s a quick summary of some changes while we were away:
- The Dotard/Rocket Man Summit is back on for June 12, but with an important difference: the President says it is the beginning of a process, not the precedent-shattering agreement on denuclearization he advertised once upon a time.
- The US is levying tariffs on European steel and aluminum and threatening them on luxury cars. These will all eventually be found to violate our obligations to the World Trade Organization, but the current Administration doesn’t care about that.
- The Europeans are trying to figure out how to ensure Iran continues in the nuclear deal by allowing it to reap economic advantages, which will require them to block US “secondary” sanctions.
- President Trump has declared himself above the law, not only on Twitter but in a letter sent by his lawyers in January to the Special Counsel claiming he can end the investigation or pardon himself. The last president to make such a bold claim was Richard Nixon. We know how that ended.
- Trump has also issued pardons clearly intended to signal to his former minions (Michael Cohen, Paul Manafort) that he has their back if they keep silent.
- Just yesterday, the Special Counsel accused Manafort of witness tampering in a case pending against him for lobbying for a foreign entity (namely the Russia-backed president of Ukraine) without proper registration. The evidence includes wire taps.
Senate Democrats are warning that they won’t lift sanctions for a quicky nuclear deal with North Korea, but there is precious little they can do on the other issues. The Republicans are remaining united in backing Trump in both the House and the Senate. If Trump fires Mueller or pardons his minions, all indications are nothing will be done about it in Congress, but it is becoming harder to see how the judicial investigations can be entirely shut down.
In other news, the President canceled a meeting at the White House with the Superbowl champion Philadelphia Eagles because some of them want to continue their kneeling protest during the national anthem.* This from a president who himself had to be reminded by his immigrant wife to put his hand on his heart during the national anthem:
*PS: I was wrong about this. It turns out the Eagles had never knelt, but quite a few of them refused the invitation to the White House. Trump canceled the event in order to avoid being embarrassed, then scheduled another event at which he demonstrated he does not know the words to either the national anthem or “America the Beautiful.” Impossible to make this stuff up,
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace picks, June 4 – 10
- U.S. – North Korean Summit: Cancelled or Postponed? Tuesday, June 5 | 1:30 pm – 4:30 pm | The Heritage Foundation | Register Here
What are the ramifications of the sudden termination of the planned meeting between President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un? What factors led to the cancellation and has the door been permanently closed on a diplomatic solution to the North Korean nuclear problem? Will North Korea abandon its moratorium and resume nuclear and missile tests and escalate tension on the Korean Peninsula. Will there be a resumption of advocacy for a U.S. preventive military attack on North Korea? As Pyongyang, Seoul, Beijing, and Washington engaged in summit diplomacy, Japan had been the neglected partner. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe had established the closest relationship with President Trump of any world leader but then seemed ignored during the summit mania. Does the U.S.-North Korea summit cancellation vindicate Abe’s firm approach to Pyongyang or has there been lasting impact on his political strength as well as Japan’s relationship with the United States?
Join us as two panels of distinguished experts discuss these and other topics as well as make recommendations for U.S. policy in the uncertain time ahead. Speakers include Duyeon Kim (Visiting Senior Research Fellow, Korean Peninsula Future Forum), Dr. Lee Sung-Yoon (Kim Koo-Korea Foundation Professor in Korean Studies and Assistant Professor, The Fletcher School, Tufts University), Dr. Sue Mi Terry (Senior Fellow, Korea Chair, Center for Strategic and International Studies), Dr. Jeffrey W. Hornung (Political Scientist, The RAND Corporation), James Schoff (Senior Fellow, Asia Program, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace) and Yuki Tatsumi (Co-Director of the East Asia Program and Director of the Japan Program, The Stimson Center).
- The Long Search for Peace in Afghanistan | Thursday, June 7 | 1:30 pm – 4:30 pm | US Institute of Peace | Register Here
Please join the U.S. Institute of Peace on Thursday, June 7 for a multi-panel discussion on practical steps for the search for peace in Afghanistan. This effort has moved to center stage in recent months following President Ashraf Ghani’s late February peace offer to the Taliban, a series of major international conferences that consolidated support for a peace deal, and a wave of pro-peace demonstrations across Afghanistan. Crucial questions nonetheless remain: What it will take to get the Taliban to join peace talks in earnest? What will a prospective peace agreement look like? How does the peace process affect the Afghan and international military campaign?
The event will examine the issue from two crucial perspectives: the top-down effort to reach a political settlement involving the Taliban, and the bottom-up effort to forge peace in local communities. We will feature a distinguished and diverse range of American, Afghan, and other experts who have directly worked on this issue in government, the United Nations, academia, and civil society. They will provide a comprehensive look at an effort that is vital to Afghanistan’s future, but often poorly understood outside a small community of experts. Speakers include Steve Brooking (Deputy Special Representative of the UN Secretary General for Afghanistan), Laurel Miller (Former State Department Acting Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan), Barnett Rubin (Senior Fellow and Associate Director of the Center for International Cooperation, New York University), Michael Semple (Visiting Professor, Institute for the Study of Conflict Transformation and Social Justice, Queen’s University, Belfast), Kate Clark (Director, Afghan Analysts Network) and Erica Gaston (Non-Resident Fellow, Global Public Policy Institute). Moderated by Johnny Walsh (Senior Expert on Afghanistan, US Institute of Peace).
- Colombia’s Choice: Analyzing the First Round of the Presidential Election | Thursday, June 7 | 3:00 pm – 4:30 pm | Inter-American Dialogue | Register Here
On Sunday, May 27, Colombians head to the polls for the first round of a critically important presidential election, the first since a peace accord was signed with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) in late 2016. Polls show Iván Duque of the Democratic Center Party with the lead, followed by Gustavo Petro, who heads a leftist coalition. The country remains highly polarized around the terms and implementation of the peace agreement. Combating corruption and curbing drug cultivation and trafficking are key challenges, as responding to the exploding migration crisis in Venezuela. The next government will also have to deal with a tough fiscal situation as it seeks to improve education, health and infrastructure.
The Dialogue is pleased to host a discussion after the first round of the presidential race, to interpret the results and explore what we can expect, should there be a second round on June 17. What is the outlook moving forward? What are the implications of the vote for addressing the country’s wide-ranging and complex peace/security, political, economic and social agendas? Speakers include Catalina Botero (Dean of the Law School at Universidad de los Andes), Juan Carlos Iragorri (Director, Club de Prensa, NTN24) and Peter Schechter (Political commentator and co-host of the Altamar Podcast). Moderated by Michael Shifter (President, Inter-American Dialogue).
- U. S. – Indonesia Relations and the Rise of China | Friday, June 8 | 10:00 am – 11:30 am | The Heritage Foundation | Register Here
The Rise of China is a reality. Its influence – and the opportunity it represents – is being felt from the Pacific to the Atlantic. Southeast Asia, however, is a neighbor. Indonesia, in fact, given Indonesian maritime claims, is right next door. Indonesia has a centuries-long history of dealing with China’s power. How should its government today see the balance between threat and opportunity represented in its rise? How should it make the most of China’s economic contributions to the region’s development? How should it push back on unwelcome initiatives, particularly around issues of maritime security? Where are the intersecting areas of interest with the United States and how should it view a U.S.-China rivalry? What is ASEAN’s role? These are just a few of the questions on the table for this event. Please join us we explore them and many more with our distinguished guests. Speakers include Hon. Rizal Ramli (Former Coordinating Minister for Maritime Affairs and former Coordinating Minister for Economic Affairs, Republic of Indonesia), Cameron Hume (Chairman, American Indonesian Chamber of Commerce, and former U.S. Ambassador to Indonesia) and Brian Harding (Deputy Director and Fellow, Southeast Asia Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies). Hosted by Walter Lohman (Director, Asian Studies Center).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Get serious
Pantelis Ikonomou, a former IAEA inspector and nuclear security consultant, writes:
President Trump’s sudden decision, two months ago, to meet the DPRK’s Kim Jong-un was enigmatic in its cause and ambiguous to its goal. Some observers regarded it as opportunity while others as trap. Then through a polite letter to his counterpart few days ago, the President announced his decision to cancel their summit. Yet, preparations are still currently in process.
Would the swinging between ‘’summit,’’ “no summit,’’ and again “summit” result in new disappointments or in relief? As long as question-marks are hanging over the summit, uncertainty grows, as does danger.
What is the summit’s attainable goal? Do both sides have the same understanding of “denuclearization”? What is the “no summit” follow-up plan? What is this pendulum’s driving force? Is there inability to comprehend the complex nature of a nuclear crisis? It is worth recalling Obama’s confession to Bob Woodward on his thoughts during a sensitive nuclear briefing he was given at a secure facility in Chicago: “It’s good that there are bars on the windows here because if there weren’t, I might be jumping out.”
Summit or no summit, proper consideration of some key facts is paramount for the peaceful solution of DPRK’s nuclear crisis:
- Pursuing denuclearization by force is impossible. A nuclear holocaust would be the result.
- The DPRK giving up its nukes completely and effectively, within a reasonable time and in an agreed, verifiable and irreversible manner, would be an improbable expectation. As the most recent Worldwide Threat Assessment says:“ Pyongyang’s commitment to possessing nuclear weapons …. while repeatedly stating that nuclear weapons are the basis for its survival, suggests that the regime does not intend to negotiate them away.”
- States who acquired nuclear weapons outside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), like India, Pakistan and allegedly Israel, never abandoned them. They were and remain their strongest deterrence. The exception of South Africa in 1991 was forced by the end of apartheid.
- Nuclear weapons outside the international legal frame constitute a well-defined global threat. The global nuclear security architecture would be severely undermined by accepting new nuclear weapons owners.
- Mitigation of risks related to nuclear threat is a top priority task, according to IAEA’s nuclear security guidelines and to any serious national security response plan.
Political determination is the precondition for a successful agreement. Erratic decisions detached from comprehensive planning and expert advice would not engage the DPRK nuclear crisis at the level of its complexity and with the importance it deserves.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Played
The Iran nuclear deal was an exchange: relief from sanctions in exchange for a halt and partial reversal of Iran’s uranium enrichment and plutonium capabilities. While President Obama made it clear the US would no longer actively seek overthrow of the Islamic Republic, there was no guarantee of that policy’s continuity. Nor was there a deal on Iran’s regional behavior, though Obama clearly hoped that would moderate as Iran’s economy recovered from sanctions and its people stopped rallying around the flag and instead sought rising living standards and more foreign contact.
That process had barely begun–with economic protests and criticism of Iran’s foreign adventures–when President Trump withdrew the US from the deal earlier this month. The protests are petering out as Iran seeks some way of continuing the nuclear deal with Europe, Russia, and China.That will be difficult because US “secondary” sanctions will force most major European companies to abandon business with Iran. But so far at least the EU seems determined to find a way. There is no reason to believe that Moscow, Beijing, and importantly New Delhi (India is a major importer of Iranian hydrocarbons) will not find a way of continuing to do business with Tehran.
Secretary Pompeo has announced the US list of demands to renew negotiations, with the aim of full diplomatic recognition, which is code for no more efforts to overthrow the regime. No one thinks Iran will even begin thinking about meeting those conditions. The US tried for decades to torpedo the Islamic Republic. There is no reason to believe the Trump Administration’s efforts in that regard will strike fear into the hearts of the ayatollahs. Quite to the contrary: the Supreme Leader thrives on American hostility. Trump is doomed to failure in dealing with Iran: either the nuclear deal will be maintained because the Europeans find a way to defy US sanctions, or Tehran will return to pursuing all the technology it needs to build and launch nuclear weapons.
He is heading in the same direction with North Korea. Once again, he is offering guarantees of regime survival and economic prosperity in exchange for “denuclearization.” The trouble is both National Security Adviser Bolton and Vice President Pence have hinted that without an agreement the US will pursue a Libya option, which the North Koreans interpret not unreasonably as Kim Jung-un meeting the same fate as Muammar Qaddafi, who was slaughtered after giving up his rudimentary nuclear program by Libyan rebels who had Western support. Not to mention one other difficulty: Kim is one of the most brutal dictators on earth. Does the US really want to be guaranteeing his permanence in power? Trump obviously doesn’t mind, any more than he minds offering the Islamic Republic the same deal.
Of course Kim would have no reason to believe any US guarantees, even with an American ambassador in Pyongyang. The change in US approaches to Iran and North Korea between Obama and Trump as well as the Trump Administration’s incoherence and inconsistency would make even a fool hesitate to rely on Washington. Kim is no fool. He will do nothing irreversible to his nuclear and missile programs, knowing full well that Trump can guarantee nothing. So when he yesterday blew up at least part of his country’s nuclear testing facilities in front of Western TV crews, you can be sure whatever was destroyed was now worthless to him.
Kim will propose a phased approach to “denuclearization.” If the phases include giving up his existing nuclear weapons, that will only be at the end of a long process, which he can ensure will never be reached. In the meanwhile, Kim will achieve many of his objectives. He has already put himself on a par with the President of the United States. Any early meeting, next month or thereafter, will confirm his equal status and legitimacy, both internationally and domestically.
While mumbling about a possible postponement, Trump appears desperate for a meeting to give him a chance to claim his first foreign policy success. Hence his touting rumors of a Nobel Prize that the Norwegians will not be interested in giving him. The North Koreans know a sucker when they see him. Kim is playing Trump, successfully.
PS: Somebody got Trump smart. Less than an hour after I published this, he withdrew from the Dotard/Rocket Man Summit. That was the best he could do: he was in way over his head.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace picks, May 21 – 27
- After ISIS, Will Iraq’s Elections be the Next Step to Stability? | Monday, May 21| 2:00 pm – 3:00 pm | US Institute of Peace | Register Here
On May 12, Iraqis go to the polls to elect members of a new national parliament. This is the fourth election since the fall of Saddam Hussein, but the first since the military rollback of the Islamic State-declared caliphate. The country’s new leaders will be faced with the challenge of rebuilding, stabilizing, and healing their country as the United States and the West continue to decrease their military presence.
Join us on May 21 for a provocative town hall debate with foreign policy experts Kenneth Pollack, from the American Enterprise Institute, the National Defense University’s Denise Natali, and USIP’s Sarhang Hamasaeed, moderated by Joshua Johnson of the public radio program 1A. The discussion will focus on how Iraq’s leaders can overcome years of sectarian violence and find unity, as well as what a future alliance with the West may look like.
- North Korea and the Fine Print of a Deal: A View from Congress | Tuesday, May 22 | 9:00 am – 10:00 am | US Institute of Peace | Register Here
The United States is engaged in high-stakes negotiations with North Korea over its nuclear program as the White House prepares for the summit between President Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un. But nuclear capabilities and missiles are not the only items on the negotiating table. An eventual settlement could include some difficult concessions and require significant oversight and legislative action on the part of Congress. In addition to a potential restructuring of U.S. forces in South Korea, a grand bargain could result in a range of due-outs for Congress, from sanctions relief and economic incentives to multilateral political arrangements.
Two Members of Congress and military veterans, Representative Ted Lieu (D-CA) and Representative Steve Russell (R-OK), will examine the importance of this ongoing diplomatic effort, possible outcomes of negotiations, and the role they hope Congress plays in the coming months at USIP’s third Bipartisan Congressional Dialogue on May 22.
- What Lies Ahead for Afghanistan: The Various Scenarios | Tuesday, May 22 | 12:00 pm – 1:30 pm | The Middle East Institute | Register Here
The way forward in Afghanistan seems as unclear as it has ever been. An outright military victory against the Taliban and other insurgent groups appears to be unachievable. The prospect of insurgents overrunning the country soon appears similarly unlikely. At the same time, a negotiated peace seems presently improbable. At least on terms outlined by the Kabul government and international community, the Taliban shows little interest in reconciliation. The long-term commitment of the United States and its coalition partners to an indefinite military presence and financial support cannot be taken for granted.
After nearly 17 years of fighting and state building in Afghanistan, we are still asking how conflict ends and what the endgame for Afghanistan looks like.
To discuss possible scenarios, the Middle East Institute (MEI) is pleased to host an expert panel. MEI’s Director of Afghanistan and Pakistan Studies, Marvin G. Weinbaum, will moderate the discussion with Javid Ahmad, a nonresident fellow at the Atlantic Council’s South Asia Center; Courtney Cooper, an international affairs fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, and Seth Jones, director of the Transnational Threats Project and a senior adviser for the International Security Program at the Center for Strategic International Studies.
- The Implications of the US Embassy Move to Jerusalem | Tuesday, May 22 | 2:00 pm – 3:30 pm | The SETA Foundation at Washington DC | Register Here
On Monday, May 14, 2018, the US officially opened its embassy to Israel in Jerusalem. The move, which had been delayed by Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama, was announced by President Donald J. Trump on February 23. While Trump’s announcement was welcomed by Israel, it was condemned by Palestinian leaders and other US allies in the Middle East.
Please join the SETA Foundation at Washington DC on May 22 for a timely discussion on what the move of the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem means for future US policy in the region, how US allies and adversaries will react to the move, and what it means for the Israel-Palestine peace process. Panel includes Geoffrey Aronson (President, The Mortons Group), Lara Friedman (President, Foundation for Middle East Peace), Ghaith al-Omari (Senior Fellow, The Washington Institute), Kadir Ustun (Executive Director, The SETA Foundation at Washington DC). Moderated by Kilic B. Kanat (Research Director, The SETA Foundation at Washington DC).
- Can Power-sharing Arrangements Deliver Peace? | Thursday, May 24 | 10:00 am – 12:00 pm | US Institute of Peace | Register Here
Power-sharing arrangements are often touted as a means to address conflict between two parties. But practitioners and policymakers alike agree that the foundation for such arrangements requires considerable strategy and planning, including articulating clear objectives and expectations. Under what conditions do power-sharing arrangements work? What are the key ingredients to help unity governments succeed? Do power-sharing arrangements build political trust by delivering to citizens?
Join the U.S. Institute of Peace for a discussion exploring these critical questions. By exploring recent research in the Philippines, the panel will consider the effects a power-sharing peace agreement has on citizens’ trust in the national government, helping policymakers better understand how to build political trust in the aftermath of intrastate conflict. Panel includes Rosarie Tucci (Director, Inclusive Societies, US Institute of Peace), Susan Stigant (Director, Africa Programs, US Institute of Peace), Caroline Hartzell (Professor, Political Science Department, Gettysburg College), Matthew Hoddie (Associate Professor, Towson University), and Joseph Eyerman (Director, Center for Security, Defense and Safety, Research Triangle Institute International).
- America First, Europe alone? | Thursday, May 24 | 2:00 – 3:30 pm | Brookings Institution | Register Here
For the first 16 months of the Trump administration, European governments have sought to work closely with the United States, rather than opposing it publicly. However, differences over the Iran nuclear deal, the Paris Climate Accord, trade, and the nature of sovereignty have led some observers to predict the end of the Atlantic alliance. On May 24, the Brookings Institution will convene an expert panel to discuss the trajectory of trans-Atlantic relations; whether the allies can bridge the gaps that divide them; how important Europe, and particularly the European Union, is to the Trump administration; and whether European states can and will fend for themselves.
The discussion will feature Brookings’s Robert Bosch Senior Fellows Amanda Sloat and Constanze Stelzenmüller, and Kenneth R. Weinstein, president and CEO of Hudson Institute. Edward Luce, Washington columnist and commentator for the Financial Times, will moderate the discussion.
RSS - Posts
