Tag: North Korea
Stevenson’s army, May 19
-Turkey slows down NATO expansion.
– Walter Pincus says Ukraine aid bill does more.
– Kupchan warns of overreach.
– China moves closer to North Korea, WaPo says.
– Israel practices attack on Iran.
– US News lists top recipients of US military aid.
– Lawfare reviews likely Biden policy on offensive cyber ops.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I republish here. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, March 30
– Institute for Study of War has regular military updates on Ulkraine.
– CRS has new update on US assistance to Ukraine.
– NYT notes that the top 3 German security agencies are now run by women.
– WSJ say Taiwan is drawing lessons from Ukraine.
– Reuters says North Korea missile test may have been deception.
-Kori Schake criticizes new defense budget.
History: National Security Archive has declassified material on the B61 bomb and a false alarm of a nuclear attack.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I republish here. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Madeleine was no madeleine
The French tarts are spongy and sweet. That would not describe Madeleine Albright. The first woman to serve as Secretary of State, in my experience she was remarkably similar in public and private. A bit stern but clear and forceful, she would push hard for her perspective on world issues.
Some liked her, some didn’t
Those who agreed with her were pleased. Ask any Albanian in Kosovo, where a bust of her stands in the center of Pristina. Those who disagreed found her flinty. Boutros-Boutros Ghali, the Secretary General of the UN whose second term she vetoed in the Security Council, no doubt thought her unreasonable and inflexible. She strived to be tough but fair. She mostly succeeded.
My interactions with her in recent years were limited but positive. I was in Pristina when the Kosovars dedicated her bust a few years ago. Parading in the main street with Bill Clinton, the Kosovars gave her lots of applause. But she attracted far less attention than the much taller former President, whose statue in Pristina is full-length.
I testified with her in December 2020 at the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. She was as sharp and clear as always, pushing hard for democracy and human rights in the Balkans. Generous to and engaged with students, she spent an hour with my SAIS class studying relations between Belgrade and Pristina. She spent childhood years with her diplomat father in Belgrade. But because of the 1999 NATO bombing, Serbs mostly dislike her.
I also ran into her at a dentist’s office, but she was uncoiffed, so I thought it best to steer clear and avoid embarassment. I think I got that right.
Her brand
Wherever you are in the world, Madeleine’s name is instantly recognized. This is unusual. There are lots of people named Madeleine. To me, in person she was always Madame Secretary. But everyone in the State Department called her Madeleine when she wasn’t present. She was unique. She projected a clear and compelling image wherever she went. Straightforward and determined, she didn’t waffle or prevaricate. She told you what she wanted and pursued it, with skill and finesse but no hesitation. “Madeleine” was a well-defined brand.
Tony Blinken uses the same approach, though a bit more understated. After the years of Trump’s wild exaggerations and outright lies, clarity and care has returned to high-level statements on foreign policy. The hyperbole and prevarication of Trump’s incompetent Secretaries of State are gone. You may not like what the incumbent says. But you know he isn’t exaggerating and intends to be clear and compelling, not emotional and ambiguous.
This is not the unipolar moment
Madeleine was Secretary of State during the unipolar moment. The United States she adopted as her motherland could do anything it wanted in the world. The Soviet Union was gone. Russia was a basket case. China was not yet an economic powerhouse. Iran and North Korea were relatively small clouds on the horizon. That has changed, dramatically. Russia, Iran, and North Korea are serious regional challengers. China is a serious global challenger. Madeleine has left us at a difficult moment.
We would be wise however to remember what she stood for. A determined liberal democrat committed to human rights, she believed the United States had a unique role and responsibility: to defend a world order based on those rights. A refugee from the Nazis, she disdained autocrats and supported their victims. She sought a peaceful world in which freedom could thrive.
She represented the best of us. May her memory be a blessing,
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, February 1
– Summits lead to deals. Qatar’s leader met with Biden and won “Major Non-NATO Ally status” CNN has background. Qatar promised help with the Taliban.
– Archives confirmed what Politico and others reported previously: President Trump often shredded documents which by law should have been preserved; so they’ve been taped together.
– There’s also more evidence that Trump sought DOD or DHS to seize voting machines.
– North Korea is bragging about its missile tests.
– NYT looks for patterns in recent African coups.
– [This came up in class Monday] FT analyzes German internal debates over Russia and Ukraine.
– Location matters.Both Boeing and Airbus promise to build new tankers in US.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I republish here. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, October 21
– On the Chinese missile: WaPo compares conflicting views; NYT notes skepticism; Jeffrey Lewis warns against an arms race.
– Dan Drezner likes Treasury’s new views on sanctions.
– Experts see North Korea diversifying its military.
– NYT reports that Trump wanted 250,000 troops to border & raids into Mexico.
– Sen. Cruz blocks nominee for State’s Mideast bureau.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The angel sings, but the devils are in the details
President Biden today gave his first speech to the United Nations outlining his foreign policy priorities and approach more clearly than he has so far. He aimed to restore trust in American leadership, not only in the aftermath of the Trump Administration but also in the wake of the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan and controversy surrounding the deal to sell nuclear submarines to Australia that shocked and annoyed France.
The priorities were strikingly different from Trump’s:
- Ending the COVID-19 pandemic.
- Slowing climate change
- Encouraging respect for human rights
- Rebalancing geopolitcs
- A level playing field for trade
- Ensuring benefits, and limiting harm, from technology
- Countering terrorism
The first three items would not have appeared on any Trump Administration list. Numbers 4-7 would have, but with a distinctly America First (i.e. alone) spin.
Biden’s means are at least as different from Trump’s as his priorities. He favors diplomacy over war, multilateralism over unilateralism, and the power of America’s example at home over American intervention abroad.
In my book, this is all well and good, but then come the difficulties in applying these methods to actual issues. Encouraging booster shots to Americans is likely not the best way to end the COVID-19 epidemic, but exporting vaccines to poor countries exposes the Administration to criticism, so Biden is trying to split the difference by doing both. Slowing climate change is a grand idea, but can Biden get the legislation through Congress to meet his own goals for limits on American production of greenhouse gases. Encouraging respect for human rights is fine, but what do you do about Saudi Arabia, whose Crown Prince is thought culpable for the murder of a US-based journalist? Rebalancing geopolitics is fine, but what if selling nuclear submarines to Australia requires you to blind-side and offend your longest-standing ally?
And so on: a level playing field for trade is hard to achieve when a major competitor is using prison (or slave) labor to produce manufactured good. Responding to state-sponsored cyber attacks is proving a particularly difficult challenge. Facial-recognition technology, with all its defects, is spreading rapidly around the world even though it is prone to misidentification and other abuses. You may prefer a less military approach to counter-terrorism, but if there is a successful mass casualty attack in the US the military response will be dramatic. Never mind that 20 years of military responses have not been effective and have killed a lot of innocent non-combatants.
As for methods, there too there are problems. The State Department is a notoriously weak diplomatic instrument. Can it carry the weight of additional responsibilities? Diplomacy may be preferable to prevent Iran and North Korea from getting a nuclear weapons, but will Tehran agree? A two-state solution would be best, but how can we get there from here? Multilateralism is often preferable, but not always possible. One of my mentors used to quote President Carter (I think) saying multilaterally where we can, unilaterally when we must. But that judgment is not a simple one. America should be a shining “city on the hill,” as President Reagan hoped, but what then about the January 6 insurrection and the anti-voting legislation in more than two dozen states?
Biden’s angel sang well this morning at the UN. But the devils are in the details. It isn’t going to be easy to get those right in a divided country and a competitive, if not downright chaotic, global environment.
RSS - Posts
