Tag: North Korea
Silly and sad
Jared Kushner’s much-hyped Peace to Prosperity economic proposal for Palestine, published over the weekend by the White House, is like a three-legged stool that is missing two legs. It can serve little purpose without two others: a Palestinian state with the sovereign authority required to implement the plan and an Israeli state ready to cooperate with its Palestinian neighbors in that process.
Both are absent from Kushner’s $50-billion proposition. He manages to discuss empowering Palestinians and Palestinian governance without mentioning Israeli checkpoints and other security controls, the split between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, and Israeli settlements and territorial control in the West Bank as well as Israel’s continuing embargo of Gaza. Kushner wishes away all the driving forces of the conflict in order to wave a shiny future that has no practical means of implementation. This is the real estate prospectus version of international politics: show them what it might look like and investors will flock.
Only they won’t, because Arabs and Jews are not dumb. Both know this is silly. No money will flow until the other two legs of the stool are put in place. Palestine needs a secure, unified, and democratic political future before it will get the public and private investment and enhanced trade of the sort Kushner imagines. I’ve been to Rawabi, the truly magnificent Palestinian showcase town built with Qatari funding. It will remain a showcase, not a prototype, so long as the Palestinian state remains weak and Israeli cooperation weaker.
Many peace negotiators try Kushner’s gimmick: a fat economic proposal to sweeten the bitter political and security pills that have to be swallowed. As a State Department official in 1995, I wrote the one-page, three-year, $3 billion proposal that Dick Holbrooke carried into Sarajevo to sweeten the pot. Admittedly it wasn’t as glossy as Kushner’s. It got precious little attention, because it didn’t address the issues that caused Bosnia and Herzegovina’s 3.5-year war. I hasten to add that it is about how much we spent, but to little avail, because the underlying causes of the conflict were not resolved in the Dayton peace agreement.
Erratic though he is, Trump is a one-trick pony. He maximizes pressure, flashes an attractive but entirely imaginary future, and then either caves himself or moves on to his next self-generated crisis. Cases in point: North Korea, Venezuela, Israel/Palestine, and now Iran. The Palestinians are not going to buy a one-legged stool. Imagining they will is silly. But it is also sad. It reduces America to the international equivalent of a real estate huckster.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Humanitarian challenges in North Korea
June 11 the Cato Institute hosted an event on North Korea giving a humanitarian perspective from individuals who have worked in North Korea. The panel featured Heidi Linton, Executive Director of Christian Friends of Korea, Randall Spadoni, North Korea Program Director for World Vision, and Daniel Jasper, Public Education and Advocacy Coordinator for Asia for the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC). The panel was moderated by Doug Brandow, a senior fellow at Cato.
Jasper gave an overview of the AFSC’s 66-year effort in North Korea since the organization first answered calls for NGOs to help with reconstruction in 1953, shortly after the cease-fire was agreed upon. Jasper said food security is integral to the current conflict, but sanctions put in place to pressure North Korea restrain humanitarian missions. Travel is disrupted and organizations need to apply for special waivers, which are costly and take up to several months to receive. More than ten million North Koreans are estimated to be food insecure. Jasper also touched on cultural exchanges, reuniting families, and returning the remains of fallen soldiers from the Korean war as efforts that can help build bridges and improve relations without much cost. AFSC recommends removing travel restrictions, adhering to humanitarian exemption clauses, and seeing humanitarian issues as bridges instead of a stick.
Heidi Linton shared personal stories from her recent trip to North Korea with the Christian Friends of Korea, during which she helped set up a hepatitis-B clinic and treat over 360 patients. She too emphasized the unintended consequences of sanctions on ordinary civilians. Last fall’s flooding caused widespread infrastructure damage. Replacement parts for construction and farm equipment are limited due to sanctions. Linton said the US has the capability to help the suffering population through humanitarian missions and show North Koreans that America has good intentions.
Randall Spandoni’s work in North Korea focuses on disaster relief and providing clean water to North Korea’s population, of which 40% does not have regular access to clean water. By building water wells, time is freed up for individuals to work on trade or business and spend time with their families. The health implications of access to clean water are significant. Spandoni echoed his fellow panel members’ view that sanctions and import restrictions hamper NGO humanitarian efforts in North Korea, saying his organization’s latest shipment of well-building equipment took 1.5 years to approve.
Asked in what way the missions have been hampered or restricted by the North Korean government, Linton said that everything done in North Korea is managed by North Korean counterparts and that trust and freedom to act have been built slowly over the past decades. Spandoni added that the general lack of trust makes everything take longer than it would elsewhere. “The bureaucratic system in North Korea is just not structured well to receive aid,” Spandoni noted, adding that the US also imposes many hurdles.
Asked to what extent the aging infrastructure and lack of services is due to capacity issues and to what extent the government just prioritizes other projects, no one on the panel had a clear answer, but Linton restated that the lack of resources, money, and general know-how definitely play into it.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Flim Flam 101
President Trump’s threat of tariffs on Mexican imports to the US was never credible, as it would have devastated the US auto industry and American agriculture. It was a transparent bluff intended to raise the President’s personal visibility, as Senate minority leader Schumer said. Trump got nothing new in the one-page joint statement that resolved the “crisis.” The Mexicans had agreed months ago to the main provisions of the agreement he greeted as a “great deal.”
This is now a boringly familiar pattern. It was what Trump did with Canada and Mexico in renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement, which produced a “United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement” (USMCA). Aside from being the worst acronym in the lexicon, USMCA is no more than NAFTA 2.0, a much-needed update of a decades-old agreement. No big triumph, and the Administration is having a hard time getting it approved in Congress.
Bluff is also what Trump with North Korea when he threatened military action and settled instead for a one-page “best efforts” pledge that fell short of previous Pyongyang commitments to denuclearize. There has been no significant progress since, despite a second failed summit in Hanoi, as Kim Jong-un has moved to shore up relations with Russia and China, neither of which has much reason to do favors for Trump. North Korea remains as much, if not more, of a threat to the US as in did in January 2017 at Trump’s inauguration.
The pattern was similar in soon forgotten Venezuela. Trump’s threats against President Maduro caused a temporary “crisis” but led nowhere. Maduro is still in power in Caracas while the American-backed interim president has failed to gain significant support in Venezuela’s armed forces. With no possibility of even a vague one-page statement in sight, Trump has moved on to other targets.
Iran is getting the typical Trump treatment. While deploying military assets to the Gulf and allowing National Security Adviser Bolton to talk tough, President Trump and Secretary of State Pompeo have been begging for talks with Tehran. Pompeo has dropped his 12 preconditions. The President had never endorsed them. What the Administration wants now seems to be nothing more than an opportunity to sit at a table and berate Iran for building missiles and using proxies to project power in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen. Any statement from such “talks” would be no more substantive than Trump got out of Mexico.
The Iranians are no fools and could teach a Flim Flam 101 of their own. All their threats to close the Strait of Hormuz fall in this category, as their own ships pass there, as well as those of other nations delivering Iranian oil. The Iranians no doubt know that the Trump Administration is incapable of negotiating anything like the 159 pages of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), aka Iran nuclear deal. If ever they agree to talk about missiles and the use of proxies, Tehran will no doubt ask for reciprocity: removal of US weapons from the Gulf and an end to US military support to Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar.
Tehran knows those will be non-starters for the US. The only likely outcome of talks with the US would be an exchange of prisoners: Iranians held on criminal charges in the US for Americans (including Iranian Americans) held in Iran. Trump may decide that would be worth his while, as it would give him a much-needed boost on the international stage, where he is more pariah than hero. But I have my doubts he’ll be willing to pay the price for even that small gain: the Iranians will want relief from at least some of the sanctions that are tanking their economy.
Trump is a bad negotiator who follows a transparent pattern: threaten, cause crisis, settle for little, declare victory, take personal credit. It isn’t working. He has been unable to negotiate a single agreement worthy of presidential attention, and his threats are making other countries hedge their bets. The bullying with sanctions and tariffs is gaining nothing. It is instead undermining international confidence in the US and making other countries look elsewhere for leadership. Would you do business with a flim flam man who bullies?
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks June 10- June 15
1. India’s Election results: Impacts on the Economy and Economic Relations with Washington|June 10th, 2019|2:30pm-4:30pm|Wilson Center, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC 20004|Register Here
On May 23, India’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) was catapulted back into power with a landslide victory in national elections. Two of the biggest immediate challenges in its second term will be economic: Tackling rising unemployment, and pursuing an economic reform plan that struggled during the BJP’s previous term. The new Indian government will also confront considerable challenges in its trade relations with Washington, a key partner. What is the election result’s impact for India’s economy? What might it mean for the U.S.-India economic relationship, which has lagged behind the fast-growing defense partnership? What is the potential for bilateral cooperation in the high-tech and innovation sectors? More broadly, how significant are the strains on the commercial side, and to what extent do they affect U.S.-India strategic partnership? Do U.S.-China trade tensions have implications for India and U.S.-India relations? This event will address these questions and more.
Moderator:
Michael Kugelman, Deputy Director and Senior Associate for South Asia at the Wilson Center
Speakers:
Suman Bery, Public Policy Fellow at the Wilson Center
Richard M. Rossow, Wadhwani Chair, U.S.-India Policy Studies, Center for Strategic and International Studies
Seema Sirohi, Senior Journalist and Columnist, The Economic Times (India)
Jeremy Spaulding, Founder and President, JMS Innovation & Strategy, and Senior Advisor and Program Architect, Alliance for US International Business
2. The Deal of the Century: What About Palestinian Citizens of Israel?|June 11th, 2019|10:00am-11:00am|Foundation for Middle East Peace, 1319 18th Street NW Washington, DC|Register Here
In addition to examining the ramifications of recent political and legislative developments in Israel and the so-called “Deal of the Century,” panelists will discuss the central role of the Palestinian Arab minority in promoting the conditions necessary for a sustainable peace and how the international community can support it in that role.
Moderator:
Lara Friedman, President of the Foundation for Middle East Peace (FMEP)
Panelists:
Jafar Farah, Founder and Director of the Mossawa Center, the Advocacy Center for Arab Citizens in Israel
Shibley Telhami, Sadat Professor for Peace and Development, Director of the University of Maryland Critical Issues Poll, and a nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.
Maya Berry, Executive Director of the Arab American Institute (AAI).
Jeremy Ben-Ami, President of J Street, bringing to the organization deep experience in American politics, a strong belief in the power of diplomacy and a passionate commitment to the state of Israel.
3. Strategic Interest and Leadership in the United Nations|June 13th, 2019|9:30am-11:00am|CSIS Headquarters, 1616 Rhode Island Ave NW, Washington, DC 20036|Register Here
Although there are existing criticisms surrounding the United Nations, a functioning United Nations remains in the U.S. interest. One of the most critical roles the United Nations plays is addressing global problems and burden sharing the costs of security, development, and other public goods. CSIS would like to use this opportunity to identify areas of bipartisan agreement over the U.S. role in the United Nations. Please join us for a public armchair discussion with Governor Bill Richardson and Catherine Bertini which will reflect on the progress made at the United Nations since its formation and will examine how the United States can partner with the United Nations for its economic and national security interests.
Speakers:
Catherine Bertini, Former Executive Director, United Nations World Food Programme
Bill Richardson, Former Governor of New Mexico and Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations
4. The Future of Taiwan-US Relations | June 12th, 2019 | 10am-12:45am | The Heritage Foundation, Lehrman Auditorium 214 Massachusetts Ave NE Washington, DC 20002 | Register Here
In this, the 40th year of the Taiwan Relations Act, it bears evaluating the state of the Taiwan-US relationship. There are many positive signs, arms sales, significant unofficial diplomatic contact, and a peak in Congressional activity. There are also signs of reserve on the part of the US administration, including uncertainty over the sale of F-16 fighter jets that have been under consideration for more than 10 years, a failure to pick up on the idea of a US-Taiwan Free Trade Agreement, and a low key opening of the new American Institute in Taiwan. On the other side of the relationship, Taipei is election season, with a range of possible outcomes. So where are US-Taiwan relations today and where are they headed in the short to medium term. Please join us for an assessment, led by Deputy Foreign Minister Szu-chien Hsu and a discussion with leading experts on the relationship from both sides of the relationship.
Panel 1: Economic Statecraft and Opportunity
Panelists:
Moderator: Walter Lohman, Director, Asian Studies Center, The Heritage Foundation
Szu-chien Hsu, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Republic of China (Taiwan)
Riley Walters, Policy Analyst, Asia Economy and Technology, The Heritage Foundation
Roy Chun Lee, Associate Research Fellow and Deputy Director of the Taiwan WTO and RTA Center, Chung-Hua Institution for Economic Research
Panel 2: The Defense of Taiwan, Peace and Security
Moderator: Walter Lohman, Director, Asian Studies Center, The Heritage Foundation
Panelists:
I-Chung Lai, President of the Prospect Foundation
Scott Harold, Associate Director of the RAND Center for Asia Pacific Policy
5. What is happening in Idlib?|June 13th, 2019|11:00am-12:00pm|Turkish Heritage Organization|Register Here
Please join THO as we host a teleconference on the current situation in Idlib. More details will be announced soon.
Speakers:
Ammar Al Selmo, White Helmets Volunteer
Mariam Jalabi, Representative to the UN for the Syrian National Coalition
6. The Role of Open Data in Strengthening Nigerian Democracy|June 11th , 2019|2:00pm-3:30pm|National Endowment for Democracy, 1025 F Street, N.W., Suite 800, Washington, D.C. 20004|Register Here
Transparent, accessible, and credible data has emerged as a key tool for safeguarding the integrity of Nigeria’s democracy against conflict, corruption, and abuses of power. Data empowers civil society, journalists, and citizens to hold power-holders accountable and to expose and address corruption. Data equips government to make policy by providing foundational information about the Nigerian population and its needs. Data improves Nigeria’s information space, countering disinformation and enhancing the quality of reporting. Yet, data has not been used to its full potential in Nigeria. Though the government is increasingly releasing data to the public, it is often inaccessible and difficult to understand. Further, lack of capacity and political will has hindered robust data collection on critical issues. Join us in discussion with our esteemed panelists.
Speakers:
Joshua Olufemi, Current head of knowledge and innovation at Premium Times and Program Director at the Premium Times Centre for Investigative Journalism (PTCIJ) in Abuja
Christopher O’Connor, senior program officer for West Africa at the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a private, nonprofit foundation dedicated to the growth and strengthening of democratic institutions around the world
7. Peering Beyond the DMZ: Understanding North Korea behind the Headlines|June 11th , 2019|12:00pm-1:30pm|Hayek Auditorium, Cato Institute|Register Here
Negotiations between Washington and Pyongyang over North Korea’s nuclear weapons program are at an impasse, and tensions are rising. And while neither side appears to want a war, the path to a diplomatic solution remains unclear. What is obvious, however, is that most U.S. policymakers have little understanding of what the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) is or how it operates, a fact that limits America’s ability to peacefully resolve the crisis. Join us as our panelists offer their insights into the “Hermit Kingdom”
Moderator:
Doug Bandow, Senior Fellow, Cato Institute
Panelists:
Heidi Linton, Executive Director, Christian Friends of Korea
Randall Spandoni, North Korea Program Director and Senior Regional Advisor for East Asia, World Vision
Daniel Jasper, Public Education and Advocacy Coordinator for Asia, American Friends Service Committee
Moderator: Doug Bandow, Senior Fellow, Cato Institute
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Overload
The Trump Administration has taken on a lot of foreign policy burdens:
- Replacing Venezuelan President Maduro with opposition interim President Guaido.
- Ending North Korea’s nuclear program.
- Solving the Israel/Palestine conflict.
- Getting Mexico to end transit of asylum-seekers headed for the US.
- Negotiating a trade deal with China.
- Initiating talks on nuclear, missile, and regional issues with Iran.
Right now, President Trump is in London taking on still a few more burdens: encouraging Brexit, negotiating a trade deal with whatever remains of the UK thereafter, and pushing Boris Johnson as the next Prime Minister. So far, he is failing at all these things.
That is not surprising. The US government finds it hard to do two things at once, much less six high priorities and dozens of others lower down the totem pole. It is hard even to talk about priorities when there are so many. And some interact: you can’t impose tariffs on China without weakening Beijing’s commitment to sanctions on North Korea. Nor can you get Europe to support Jared Kushner’s cockamamie Middle East peace plan while dissing the Union’s interest in maintaining the nuclear agreement with Iran.
Any serious president would be re-examining and resetting priorities, with a view to accomplishing something substantial before the November 2020 election, less than 18 months off. Trump isn’t going to do that, because he believes he can create reality by what he says rather than what he accomplishes. Today in London he said the protests were negligible and the crowds adoring. He was booed pretty much everywhere he went in public. The photos with the Queen (courtesy of @Weinsteinlaw) couldn’t be more telling:
But no doubt Trump and his loyal press will portray the state visit as a great triumph.
That however does not change the reality. Trump has bitten off far more than he can chew. American prestige almost everywhere is at a nadir. Only in countries where ethnic nationalism or autocracy or both are in vogue does Trump enjoy some support: Hungary, Poland, Brazil, the Philippines, and Israel. Making America great again is admired only by those who have similar ambitions.
Without wider international support, there is little prospect that Trump can deliver on more than one or two of his foreign policy priorities before the next election. Failure to cut back on the multiple, sometimes contradictory, efforts makes it less likely that any will succeed. The Administration is overloaded and doomed to failure.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The last error
Pantelis Ikonomou, a former IAEA nuclear inspector, thinks out loud:
- Though nuclear proliferation is a paramount global threat, super powers fail to demonstrate sufficient competence in responding.
- World expectations based on the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) that nuclear weapons states will preserve global peace in accordance with their responsibilities are plainly becoming wishful thinking.
- The authority and competence of the world’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, has been downgraded by its founders and historical proponents, the nuclear weapons states.
- Denuclearization of North Korea is going nowhere. The pendulum-like rhetoric on both sides, Washington and Pyongyang, combined with the risk of miscalculation or a military error, enlarges the dangerous vicious cycle.
- Washington might seriously consider the mitigation of Pyongyang’s fears for its security, as Beijing suggests, rather than playing the military threat card. This was after all the prevailing approach in the 2015 Iran nuclear deal
- US withdrawal from JCPOA (2018) and Iran’s recent announcement of partial withdrawal from it lead to new risky situations. Tomorrow, no one should be surprised.
- At the same time, US National Security Strategy (2017) and the Pentagon’s Nuclear Posture Review (2018) both stated that American nuclear capability will be strengthened and its nuclear arsenal modernized. Reason given: deterrence of Russia.
- On a precisely equivalent level are President Putin’s repeated statements (2018-2019): Russia needs to maintain its super power status through advanced nuclear capabilities.
- The rest of the “legal” nuclear club – China, the UK, and France – follow suit. Why not? – they might ask.
- In parallel, the de facto non-NPT nuclear weapons states, India, Pakistan, most probably Israel and now North Korea, keep developing their nuclear arsenals and ballistic capabilities.
- Moreover, more nuclear candidates, are getting ready for their geopolitical nuclear race.
- Unfortunately, nuclear issues are complex, making a sound solution of nuclear crises difficult even for strong, authoritarian, and ambitious world leaders.
- Nuclear armaments are not a financial or political game. They are the leading global threat to human civilization.
- It is time to getting serious. The speed of developments makes derailing of constraints on nuclear weapons control likely. That would be the last human error.
RSS - Posts
