Day: May 28, 2018
Make America worthy
Memorial Day is never easy. It’s a holiday, but not a celebration. It commemorates the sacrifices of many generations, beginning arguably with the black community in Charleston even before the Civil War ended. It acknowledges the risks that have been run and those that we still face. It offers respect and dignity to those who have too often died without both.
Memorial Day merits particular attention this year. America has a president who has spent more than 16 months in office without visiting service members deployed in an active conflict zone. He lied Friday in a commencement address at the Naval Academy about military pay raises and the number of US Navy ships, subjects on which the cadets are presumably well-versed. They also know what to think of liars. Bone spurs gave Trump deferments during the Vietnam war, but they don’t appear to limit his golfing. He has visited a golf club on 22% of his days in office, but has found no time for the troops in Iraq, Afghanistan or Syria.
Our civilians who serve abroad get even less attention from this administration than those in uniform. It has sought to drastically cut the foreign affairs budget and limit US diplomatic and development commitments. Secretary Pompeo is sounding a lot friendlier to the Foreign Service than Trump or his predecessor, but it remains to be seen what he will actually do.
The most important diplomatic initiatives of this administration are disastrous: withdrawal from the Transpacific Partnership strengthened China, renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement is stalled, withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal threatens to splinter NATO and free Iran from its obligation to remain forever non-nuclear, and the much-vaunted Dotard/Rocket Man Summit is well on its way to being a case study in how not to conduct diplomacy.
So it is more important than ever that we distinguish our leadership from our institutions, the president from the flag. Trump and his campaign sought foreign assistance, contravening American law. His campaign also clearly received Russian help. The only question left unanswered now is whether he or his minions actively colluded with Moscow.
That is really of little interest to me. He has already demonstrated the kind of disloyalty I would regard as disqualifying for the presidency. That is why he is so determined to undermine the Mueller investigation: only by doing so can he distract attention from his own illegitimacy, which is not due only to the loss of the popular vote. It is also due to his consistent failure to be loyal to anything but his material personal and family interests.
All that stands against him is our institutions. They need our support. That means voting. It means speaking out to dissent and criticize. It means giving to causes that will insist on transparency and hold the government accountable. It means defending those whom Trump targets and targeting those who abuse power. It means broadening the tent of those who resist to include people with whom you don’t agree. It means standing up for ideals even when they seem hopelessly tattered.
Americans need to make America worthy of those whose graves we lay flowers on at Memorial Day.
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:
Peace picks, May 28 – June 3
- The Malaysian Election Tsunami: What Happens Next? | Wednesday, May 30 | 10:00 am – 11:00 am | Center for Strategic and International Studies | Register Here
The CSIS Southeast Asia Program is pleased to present ‘The Malaysian Election Tsunami: What Happens Next?’ a panel discussion featuring Dr. Meredith Weiss (Professor and Director of International Programs, University of Albany’s Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy) and Ambassador Joseph Y. Yun (US ambassador to Malaysia, 2013-2016). They will discuss the outcomes of 14th Malaysian general election, and what the election means for the state of democracy in Malaysia and the region.
- Asserting Taiwan’s International Space: The Challenges Ahead for Taipei’s Leadership | Wednesday, May 30 | 2:00 pm – 3:30 pm | Wilson Center | Register Here
Taiwan’s unique status in the world has come under greater pressure in recent months as China steps up efforts to challenge Taipei’s global standing. Taiwan remains a leading Asian economy and a vibrant democracy. Yet strained cross-Strait relations have made it increasingly difficult for Taipei to ensure its standing in the international arena. Join us for a discussion on the political, security, and social challenges ahead for Taiwan, and how Taiwan may be able to overcome some of its vulnerabilities to ensure a stable and prosperous future. Panel includes Irene Wu (Fellow, Wilson Center), Ian Reston (Research Fellow, Project 2049 Institute) and Gerrit van der Wees (Editor, Taiwan Communique and Lecturer, George Mason University).
- Brokering Peace in Nuclear Environments | Wednesday, May 30 | 2:30 pm – 4:00 pm | US Institute of Peace | Register Here
In the past two years, the world has witnessed multiple crises in regions where nuclear weapons are present: the Korean peninsula saw heightened tensions throughout 2017; China and India were involved in a major border crisis; violence between India and Pakistan on the Line of Control in Kashmir has been the highest in 15 years and the U.S. and its partners in the Middle East now face a highly uncertain future vis-à-vis Iran.
The U.S. has an innate interest in preventing nuclear war around the world. Along with other strong powers, the United States has been proactive in managing crises in nuclearized regions, most notably in South Asia, which has seen repeated bouts of escalated tensions since the end of the Cold War. Yet, as great power competition resurges and U.S. interests in Asia pit it against actors like Iran, Pakistan, and increasingly China, the U.S. role in crises in nuclearized regions may become more complicated. What implications could this have for the probability of conflict and for U.S. influence as other strong powers compete more aggressively with Washington in these theaters, including possibly using crises as opportunities to overshadow the traditional U.S. role as crisis manager?
Join the U.S. Institute of Peace on May 30 for a discussion on the opportunities, challenges, and risks of crises in regional nuclear contexts and policy options for U.S. diplomacy. Panel includes Amb. Joseph Yun (Senior Advisor to the Asia Center, US Institute of Peace), Lora Saalman (Vice President, East-West Institute), Feroz Khan (Research Professor, Naval Postgraduate School), Moeed Yusuf (Associate Vice President, Asia Center at US Institute of Peace), and Gregg Zoroya (USA Today Editorial Board).
- Turkey’s Snap Elections and the Impact on U.S. – Turkey Relations | Thursday, May 31 | 11:00 am – 12:30 pm | Turkish Heritage Organization | Register Here
On June 24, Turkey will go to the polls for snap presidential and parliamentary elections that will mark the country’s transition to the new presidential system that was approved in an April 2017 referendum.
These elections come at a time when Turkey’s relationship with the U.S. – its NATO ally and foremost security partner – is facing numerous challenges. Turkey and the U.S. remain at odds over the latter’s support of the YPG in Syria, which Ankara considers to be a terrorist organization. Meanwhile, various pieces of recent Congressional legislation have proposed bans on weapons sales to Turkey in response to Ankara’s purchase of Russian military equipment and the continued imprisonment of American citizens in Turkey.
How will this critical turning point in Turkey’s domestic governance affect its vital relationship with the U.S.?
Join THO on May 31 for a discussion with Turkish and American experts on how developments surrounding these snap elections and Turkey’s transition to a presidential system could impact the U.S.-Turkey bilateral relationship. Panel includes Richard Leiby (Editor and Writer, The Washington Post), Ragip Soylu (Washington Correspondent, Daily Sabah), Shawn Turner (CNN National Security Analyst and Director of Communication, Center for a New American Security), Yusuf Erim (Turkey Analyst, TRT World) and Guy Taylor (National Security Team Leader, The Washington Times). Moderated by Prof. Herbert Reginbogin (Advisory Board Member, Turkish Heritage Organization).
- Military Challenges in the Asia Pacific: US Responses to Regional Competition | Friday, June 1 | 9:00 am – 10:30 am | American Enterprise Institute | Register Here
The Asia Pacific security environment is more contested today than at any time since World War II. China’s increased assertiveness and North Korea’s unpredictability are not symptomatic of America’s decline, nor do they necessarily signal great power conflict. Rather, recent developments demand a close look at the changing terms of regional competition and America’s responses to it. In this hypercompetitive environment, how will the US and its allies and partners ensure regional stability?
Join AEI as a panel of security experts discuss how the US can keep its competitive edge in the Asia Pacific. Panel includes Roger Cliff (Center for Naval Analyses), Thomas Donnelly (American Enterprise Institute), Nathan Freier (United States Army War College) and Lt. Gen. Wallace (Fmr. Assistant Secretary of Defense, Asian and Pacific Security Affairs). Moderated by Philip Lohaus (American Enterprise Institute).
RSS - Posts
