Tag: United Nations
It ain’t over until Kim Jong-un sings
North Korea has agreed to talks on denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula as well as suspension of its nuclear and missile tests while the talks proceed. US/South Korean military exercises will continue as scheduled.
So what does Kim Jong-un get? He gets a big prize: a meeting with the US President, by May. For a brutal regime under tight sanctions that fears for its continued existence, that’s a big prize. Once upon a time, the US used to refuse to meet at all with North Korea, except in the context of the “six party talks” (that’s North and South Korea, China, Japan, Russia, and the US). Kim can’t take a meeting literally to the bank, but it is not surprising he values a North Korean leader’s first encounter with the US President, especially as the sanctions are biting. The Trump Administration merits credit for that.
Of course we’ve been to talks with North Korea on nuclear issues many times in the past. It’s a history that does not inspire confidence. There have been lots of failures, and even the negotiating successes haven’t lasted. North Korea has notoriously cheated on its obligations, including by selling sensitive technology to other countries. Not to mention that it is a brutal and oppressive dictatorship that treats its own people badly. And we haven’t always been sterling at maintaining our part of the bargains in a timely way. So good as the news is, it would be a mistake to get too excited, as Michael O’Hanlon reminded us just this morning.
That said, blocking or rolling back the North Korean missile and nuclear programs is a worthy goal. The threat to the continental US is still hypothetical, but the threat to US forces and our allies in South Korea, Japan, and Guam is all too real already. So too is the risk that North Korea’s successful nuclear and missile programs will inspire similar programs by South Korea or Japan, thus blowing a big hole in the global nuclear nonproliferation regime, which has helped to contain the spread of nuclear weapons to a relatively few countries (in addition to the Perm 5, India and Pakistan, Israel, and South Africa, which gave them up after apartheid ended, as did Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine after the collapse of the Soviet Union).
Even a freeze in the North Korean nuclear and missile testing is worth something. Its programs were making far more rapid than intelligence agencies anticipated if we believe what is said in the press. Of course Pyongyang can always restart its testing, whereas we can’t undo a meeting with the President. We can however keep the sanctions in place. We’d best do so. It ain’t over until Kim Jong-un sings a far better tune than temporary suspension of testing.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Inclusion prevents conflict
I spent part of the morning listening to presentations on the new UN/World Bank study Pathways for Peace: Inclusive Approaches to Preventing Violent Conflict, which at 341 pages will take me and you a while to digest. Gary Milante of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute ably moderated. Here are some of the salient points made at today’s session. I take notes on my phone, so no doubt I’ve missed some nuances and may well have made mistakes, for which I apologize in advance to both readers and presenters in advance.
Chuck Call, American University professor:
- Violent conflict has been worsening since 2010, largely due to the Middle East and terrorism.
- Vertical inequality (of income presumably) does not unequivocally correlate with violence, but horizontal inequality (between groups) does.
- Actors, leaders, and narratives are critical, institutions less so in this report than in the prior one.
- States are however key actors, but so too are sub-national and regional actors.
- Main sectors of contestation include land, political power, and services, with the main issue being exclusion.
- The costs of responding to violence are prohibitive; prevention is a good investment.
Chuck added some thoughts about future research directions that I won’t try to reproduce, except to say that they included the dynamics of exclusion as well as how and when it leads to violence. Here are his powerpoint slides.
Sara Batmanglich, peace and conflict adviser, OECD:
She underlined that the report is a unique joint effort of the UN and World Bank that puts people at the focus and suggests that we need far more attention to their feelings of hope, entitlement, dignity, shame, exclusion, empowerment and frustration, as well as their modes of coping. The report also suggests we need to reexamine how the $181 billion per year in aid from OSCE countries is spent, $74 billion in fragile states but only 1/3 of that on key arenas of conflict. There is an unfortunate bias towards very small (<$10k) and large projects (>$10 million), which is unfortunate since most conflict-relevant projects lie somewhere in that gap. We need to learn to build social cohesion and trust as well as develop economies.
Victoria Walker, assistant director at the Geneva Centre for Democratic Control of Armed Forces:
The report emphasizes governance issues, especially for the security sector, where too much of our effort is still devoted to “train and equip” and too little to governance issues like accountability and transparency. We need better indicators for these issues, as well as more focus on gender. Decentralization, which is emphasized in the report, is not only something good but also presents serious challenges from a governance perspective.
Seth Kaplan, who teaches here at SAIS:
- Leadership is key: it is needed to build trust across divides, promote dialogue and build inclusive institutions.
- Change depends on forming a coalition of actors committed to moving in a positive (peacebuilding) direction.
- Incentives are important, but they are not absolutes or unchangeable: they depend on framing and ideas.
- Group dynamics are important, especially how groups form, evolve and sometimes move towards polarization and mobilization.
- No state can be successful without national identity, so nationalism is an important force that we need to support.
- Redistribution of resources/services may be important to reducing conflict, but we need to be careful about backlash from those who lose privileges or resources.
- Commerce and entrepreneurialism have greater potential than we are currently exploiting for bridging divides.
- The state is not necessarily the central actor, so we sometimes need to work at the subnational level, to build peace by piece in countries like Somalia and Democratic Republic of the Congo as well as others.
Here are Seth’s slides.
There was only one clear point of contention. Chuck dissented on nationalism: he thought international institutions have no business in the nation-building business, only in state-building.
I was with Seth on that one: in places like Kosovo and Afghanistan, there is no way of avoiding implicit if not explicit support for the central government in its efforts to establish legitimacy with its entire population. And if it is not trying to do that, maybe you shouldn’t be supporting it with international assistance. Of course a country’s citizens and government are primarily responsible for their own identities, but I don’t see how we avoid putting a thumb on that scale.
I look forward to reading the report, which based on these notes sounds pretty interesting.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace picks, March 5 – March 11
- Oil in Iraq: Pathways to Enabling Better Governance | Monday, March 5 | 2:00pm – 3:30pm | Middle East Institute | Register here |
Despite setbacks from the war against ISIS, Iraq remains the world’s fourth largest producer of oil, second only to Saudi Arabia among OPEC states. However, the administration of this vital natural resource has been plagued by corruption and disputes over how revenues should be allocated to promote equitable economic growth. How can Iraq harness oil revenue to strengthen institutions, grow the economy, and empower Iraqis to rebuild their society? How are relations between Baghdad and Erbil and other sectarian tensions complicated by the “resource curse,” and what can be done to overcome it? The Middle East Institute is pleased to host a panel discussion examining options and priorities for improving governance in Iraq, featuring Erin Banco (investigative reporter for the Star-Ledger and NJ.com), Alan Eyre (US Department of State), Omar Al-Nidawi (Gryphon Partners), and Jean Francois Seznec (Scholar, MEI). The panel will be moderated by Randa Slim (Director of Program on Conflict Resolution and Track II Dialogues, MEI). ___________________________________________________________
- Preventing Conflict to Create Pathways for Peace | Tuesday, March 6 | 9:00am – 10:30am | United States Institute of Peace | Register here |
Violent conflict today is surging after decades of relative decline. Direct deaths in war, refugee numbers, military spending, and terrorist incidents have all reached historic highs in recent years. Today, the consequences of failing to act together are alarmingly evident, and the call for urgent action has perhaps never been clearer. To answer this call, the United Nations and the World Bank Group are launching their joint study, “Pathways for Peace: Inclusive Approaches to Preventing Violent Conflict” to share how defense, diplomacy, and development should work together to successfully keep conflict from becoming violent. Join the U.S. Institute of Peace to hear from experts on how the international community can promote better policies and programs to pave the way forward to peace. Featuring Oscar Fernandez-Taranco (Assistant Secretary-General for Peacebuilding Support, United Nations), Franck Bousquet (Senior Director, Fragility, Conflict & Violence, World Bank), Deqa Hagi Yusuf (Minister of Women and Human Rights Development, Somalia), and Nancy Lindborg (President, U.S. Institute of Peace), among others.
___________________________________________________________
- Performance and Prospects for Russia’s Economy | Tuesday, March 6 | 2:00pm – 3:30pm | Atlantic Council | Register here |
After a difficult transition to a market-based system in the 1990s, the Russian economy experienced rapid growth into the 2000s. However, in the last few years, falling gas prices, Western sanctions and diminishing foreign investments, and a continued lack of effective structural reforms have taken a toll on the economy and the citizens of the Russian Federation. The Russian economy has been buffeted by increasing re-nationalization of enterprises and international sanctions. It remains energy-focused, and highly oligarchical. Although recovering slightly, the trajectory and sustainability of the Russian economic model is under intense scrutiny. The possibility of additional sanctions just adds to the uncertainty. This panel, entitled “Performance and Prospects for Russia’s Economy,” will explore the development of Russia’s economy, including its place in the international economic system, and its prospects for the next decade. Featuring Dr. Sergey Aleksashenko (senior Fellow, Global Economy and Development, Brookings Institution), Dr. Anders Åslund (Senior Fellow, Eurasia Center, Atlantic Council), Elizaveta Osetinskaya (Fellow, University of California, Berkeley). Ambassador Clifford Bond (Former Ambassador to Bosnia and Herzegovina and Coordinator for Assistance to Europe and Eurasia, US Department of State) will moderate the discussion.
___________________________________________________________
- Governor Geraldo Alckmin of São Paulo on Brazil’s Economic and Political Outlook in an Unpredictable Election Year | Wednesday, March 7 | 9:30am – 12:00pm | Wilson Center | Register here |
Elected four times to lead São Paulo, Brazil’s richest and most influential state, Governor Geraldo Alckmin is widely expected to run in October’s presidential election. This will be a second attempt to reach the Palácio do Planalto for Alckmin, who lost to President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in 2006. Despite his low polling numbers—and widespread rejection of establishment politicians—seasoned political analysts believe the governor could emerge as a strong centrist candidate backed by the middle class and the business community, and someone who—if he wins—could build the alliances needed to govern in Brazil’s coalitional political system. However, the race is highly unpredictable and will likely remain so for months. Join the Wilson Center for a conversation with Governor Geraldo Alckmin; speakers and panelists include Paulo Sotero (Director, Brazil Institute), Cassia Carvalho (Executive Director, Brazil-U.S. Business Council), and Roberto Simon (Director, FTI Consulting), among others.
___________________________________________________________
- The Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership: Implications for Global Trade | Wednesday, March 7 | 2:00pm – 5:00pm | Wilson Center | Register here |
On March 8, representatives of eleven countries will meet in Chile to sign the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), creating a massive free trade bloc connecting 500 million people and economies with a combined GDP of over $10 trillion. Signatories include Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam. The current agreement includes several major economies that will have a profound influence on the future of global trade and investment. The United States withdrew from negotiations in January 2017. Join the Wilson Center to discuss the economic impact of the agreement for member and non-member countries and the future of integration of the Asia-Pacific region and the Western Hemisphere. Featuring the Honorable Carlos Pareja (Ambassador to the United States, Peru), the Honorable Ashok Kumar Mirpuri (Ambassador to the United States, Singapore), and Jeffrey J. Schott (Senior Fellow, Peterson Institute for International Economics), among others.
___________________________________________________________
- Regional Cooperation in the Middle East: The Baghdad Declaration | Wednesday, March 7 | 2:30pm – 4:00pm | Middle East Institute | Register here |
Since 2014, the Middle East Institute has convened the Middle East Dialogue, a Track 1.5 initiative involving current and former officials and senior experts from across the Middle East as well as from China, Europe, Russia and the United States. These meetings focus on the conflicts in Syria and Iraq, and on the principles and architecture of a new regional cooperation framework in the Middle East. At the Dialogue’s most recent meeting in Baghdad, the group issued a consensus document outlining Good Neighborhood Principles for the Middle East. Is a new regional cooperation framework possible in today’s Middle East? What are the principles and institutional architecture that would underpin this framework? What are the obstacles? What are realistic interim confidence-building measures? How can the international community assist in moving this process forward? MEI is pleased to host a panel discussion involving participants from the Middle East Dialogue. Featuring Naufel Alhassan (Deputy Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister of Iraq), Abdallah Al-Dardari (Senior Advisor on Reconstruction in the MENA, World Bank), and Paul Salem (Senior Vice President for Policy Research and Programs, MEI). Randa Slim (Director of Program on Conflict Resolution and Track II Dialogues, MEI) will moderate.
___________________________________________________________
- How Film Captures the Roles of Women in War and Peace | Thursday, March 8 | 9:30am – 12:00pm | United States Institute of Peace | Register here |
Ten years ago, the film Pray the Devil Back to Hell premiered at the Tribeca Film Festival, where it won the award for Best Documentary for its powerful depiction of the nonviolent women’s movement that helped bring an end to Liberia’s bloody civil war. Since its release, producers and directors have taken up the challenge to tell the stories of the often-invisible lives of women in conflict. These films have brought forward women’s critical voices to the stories of war and peace, and amplified the global agenda of Women, Peace and Security. Join USIP on International Women’s Day to discuss how film has been an innovative tool for translating policy frameworks into social change. This event will bring together the worlds of film and policy to celebrate the progress that has been made in advancing women’s roles in peace and security, and spreading their stories. Featuring Abigail Disney (Filmmaker & President and CEO, Fork Films), Michelle Bekkering (Senior Deputy Assistant Administrator, USAID), and Suhad Babaa (Executive Director, Just Vision), among others.
___________________________________________________________
- Japan-Korea Relations 20 Years After the Kim-Obuchi Summit | Thursday, March 8 | 2:00pm – 7:00pm | Carnegie Endowment for International Peace | Register here |
Nearly twenty years ago, the leaders of Japan and South Korea raised hopes for “a new Japan-Korea partnership for the twenty-first century,” backed by an action plan to foster broader cooperation and closer people-to-people ties. Although progress has been made, disagreements over history have stymied the desired transformation in their relationship, even as North Korean nuclear threats grow. This half-day conference—featuring scholars and former officials of that time from Japan, South Korea, and the United States—combines a look back with a look ahead, reflecting on what types of polices and initiatives have succeeded or failed since 1998 and why. Speakers and panelists include Douglas H. Paal (Vice President for Studies, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace), Carol Gluck (George Sansom Professor of History, Columbia University), and James Zumwalt (CEO, Sasakawa Peace Foundation USA), among others.
___________________________________________________________
- US-Sudan Relations: What’s Next? | Thursday, March 8 | 2:30pm – 4:00pm | Atlantic Council | Register here |
Following the Trump administration’s October 2017 decision to lift most economic sanctions against Sudan, the Atlantic Council sent task force members to Sudan in January 2018—the third delegation in two years—to conduct research in three critical, related areas: governance and political reform; economic reform and impediments to investment; and prospects for greater cultural engagement. The resulting issue briefs put forward recommendations for the United States and Sudan to continue their positive engagement in a way that serves US interests but also supports peace, security, and inclusive governance for the Sudanese people. Featuring Dr. J. Peter Pham (Vice President for Research and Regional Initiatives, Atlantic Council), Ambassador Tim Carney (Former US Ambassador to Sudan), and Dr. Jeffrey Herbst (Co-Author, Making Africa Work & former CEO of the Newseum), among others. Kelsey Lilley (Associate Director, Africa Center, Atlantic Council) will moderate the discussion.
___________________________________________________________
- Anti-Corruption and the Fight for Democracy in Russia | Friday, March 9 | 10:00am – 11:30am | Wilson Center (co-organized with Freedom House) | Register here |
Russian activists Nikita Kulachenkov and Mikhail Maglov will talk about their work exposing corruption in Russia from abroad and the impact that these investigations have on the Kremlin’s legitimacy. They will also discuss how illicit financial flows from Russia, including real state and luxury goods, reach the West and what can be done to stop them. Featuring Charles Davidson (Executive Director of the Kleptocracy Initiative, Hudson Institute), Nikita Kulachenkov (Forensic Investigator, Anti-Corruption Foundation), and Mikhail Maglov (Former Activist of “Solidarnost”).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
What Black Panther is really about
If you really want to know what Black Panther is about, read son Adam. He knows. My engagement with popular culture is so limited (unless you count opera and other classical music, which you shouldn’t) there is little hope I have anything interesting to say.
But I know a little something about international affairs and conflict, on which Black Panther has important things to say. When the thrill of the fight is over, the film rejects the notion that a strong and violent autocrat, even one with justifiable resentment who says he intends to liberate the oppressed, would be better than an equally strong but popular and merciful leader, not only for Wakanda but also for the rest of the world. Erik Killmonger gets a decisive thumbs’ down, not only from T’Challa, but also from the writer and director.
Erik has suffered an enormous injustice: his father’s murder and his own abandonment. He has trained and exercised his entire life in a determined effort to exact revenge. He is strong and clever. Ruthless, he does what he thinks he needs to do not only to gain power but also to keep it forever. He still gets soundly beaten. No end justifies the means.
Instead the film serves up an alternative, one that appears explicitly and surprisingly after the credits. Then T’Challa calmly offers Wakanda’s technology and brains to the rest of the world, rejecting his own father’s determined effort to keep Wakanda secret and isolated. The forum for this almost trite reassertion of globalist values is, of course, the United Nations General Assembly hall.
Rather than impose its power on the rest of the world, T’Challa chooses to offer it to all.
What we’ve got here is the triumph of generosity over selfishness, of sharing to make everyone better off rather than hoarding to make America first, of calm intelligence over frenzied ignorance, in short of Barack Obama at his best over Donald Trump at his worst.
Despite all the African regalia, music and choreography, Black Panther isn’t much about race, partly because its two protagonists (and almost everyone else) are both black.* The one significant white guy in the movie is a CIA agent–usually on the side of ignorance and the forces of evil–who joins forces with T’Challa and, despite himself, does his bit for the internationalist cause. Nor should anyone miss the decisive role of powerful and brainy women in determining the outcome, as well as the ultimately decisive entry into the final battle of a self-interested but still important ally.
I admit that I don’t often find a film that depends this much on special effects and gratuitous violence all that edifying. But how many movies are out there that teach this lesson about international relations: in the end, alliances, ideals, cooperation, generosity and intelligence beat lone strong men, brutal realism, vengeance, selfishness, and egotism.
*I predict I’m going to get in trouble for that sentence.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The risks of something nutty
I’ve been trying to follow my own good advice: Donald Trump is a distraction from the real things going on in this troubling and troubled world. Best to ignore his inanity and focus on what matters.
It isn’t easy. President Trump spent much of the week flogging the idea that we should arm school teachers to prevent mass shootings. This is a patently bad idea for many reasons:
- The perpetrators are always armed with greater fire power than a teacher could conceal;
- An armed teacher who survives confrontation with a perpetrator would face serious risks once the SWAT team arrives;
- The risk of harm to innocent bystanders from a teacher with a handgun would be far greater than the risk from the SWAT team;
- Few teachers would take up this privilege;
- The environment in schools would however become far more antagonistic between teachers and students than it already is, since the idea is to keep secret which teachers are armed;
- There would be a risk of students getting hold of a teacher’s gun;
- Administration of such a program, including training and storage of weapons and ammunition, would be burdensome, not to mention the costs of insurance and legal settlements.
Even the stationing of trained and armed uniformed guards in schools has not demonstrably helped.
Trump’s advocacy of this bad idea, which pleases his National Rifle Association donors, distracts from other things going on, most notably the indictments of his senior campaign officials (Paul Manafort and Rick Gates) on top of the indictments of more than a dozen Russians who hacked the 2016 election.
There can no longer be any doubt that Russia conspired to discredit the electoral process and support Trump’s candidacy. Nor can there be any doubt that President Putin blessed, if he didn’t actually order, the effort. The Russians also appear to have relieved Manafort and Gates of debt obligations while they were serving the campaign, in return for something still unknown. Both are likely headed for lengthy prison terms for “conspiracy against the United States” and other crimes, even as Trump’s supporters at a conservative political conference this week chanted “lock her up!”
That is not the whole story of this week’s real news. Washington has let it be known it has intercepts of the the Kremlin approving if not ordering an attack by Russian mercenaries on US soldiers and their allies in eastern Syria a couple of weeks ago. Moscow is also participating with the Syrian government in a ferocious bombardment of civilian targets in East Ghouta, outside Damascus, killing hundreds. A UN Security Council resolution intended to initiate a ceasefire is still held up, by guess who? Moscow is trying to eke out at least of few more days of air raids on East Ghouta, in hopes that is will surrender to Damascus after almost seven years of siege.
Trump continues his refusal to criticize Moscow, even if much of his Administration is trying to find ways to bite back. That in the end may be this week’s real news: what the President says is increasingly disconnected from reality and aimed mainly to protect himself from the Special Counsel’s investigation. The more he hears Mueller’s footsteps, the crazier Trump gets. He is becoming a kind of pugnacious and erratic figurehead presiding over an Administration that is far more in touch with reality and trying to prevent him from doing what his predecessor called “stupid shit.” I hope the saner folks succeed, but the risks of Trump doing something nutty are increasing.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Ugh
President Trump last night read slowly from a teleprompter and convinced much of America’s media that he could behave soberly and offer an opportunity for bipartisan action on immigration and infrastructure.
Less visibly, the speech was full of indications that danger lies ahead. This is a radical Administration. The President harbors ambitions that could get the country into lots of trouble.
Among these is a commitment to purging the Federal government of his opponents, who admittedly are many. As Slate notes, he called on Congress
…to empower every Cabinet secretary with the authority to reward good workers—and to remove federal employees who undermine the public trust or fail the American people.
This is a blatant attack on the Civil Service (and presumably also the Foreign Service), which he wants to replace with loyalists. He is accomplishing just that at the Justice Department already, where he has fired a Deputy Attorney General, an FBI Director, and a Deputy Director. All were well-respected professionals. Less visibly, hundreds and perhaps thousands of professionals are leaving other government departments. Trump will try to replace them with people who share his views on immigration, climate change, abortion, race, and the economy.
The President’s economic braggadocio failed to acknowledge that job growth was marginally faster under his predecessor, that record low unemployment for blacks had already been achieved before he was inaugurated, and that the benefits of his income tax cut go overwhelmingly to the very rich. Nor did he mention the big declines in the stock market yesterday and the day before, claiming credit only for the big run up in stocks since his inauguration. It would be odd indeed if the market had not reacted positively to his massive corporate tax cut, but I won’t be surprised if stocks now correct. Since he has claimed credit for the rise, he deserves blame for any fall.
Turning to foreign policy, the President prioritizes fair trade. So far he has done nothing to achieve it. He abandoned the Trans Pacific Partnership, which would have given the US a leading role in Asian trade. The 11 other countries involved are proceeding without the US, and without the provisions on labor and environmental standards the US championed. His renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement is going slowly, not least because so many American companies benefit from it. The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership with Europe is moribund. The US trade deficit has increased under Trump.
He also prioritizes immigration, blaming illegal immigrants for murdering two Long Island girls. But crime rates among immigrants are lower than in the general population. He wants an immigration bill that would provide a path to citizenship for people brought to the US illegally as children, but it would also fund his dubious “great wall” and shifts immigration away from family unification and diversity towards more “qualified” white people, even though current immigrants are already more qualified than native-born Americans.
Turning to more conventional foreign policy issues, the President said:
Around the world, we face rogue regimes, terrorist groups, and rivals like China and Russia that challenge our interests, our economy, and our values. In confronting these dangers, we know that weakness is the surest path to conflict, and unmatched power is the surest means of our defense.
Then he promises to boost defense spending in general and nuclear weapons in particular. The latter have little to do with current challenges, and the former is proving inadequate to meet them.
Yes, ISIS as an organized military force that controls territory in Iraq and Syria has been largely defeated, but no one expects its militants to evaporate into thin air. The civilian assistance efforts needed to counter the terrorists as they head underground–building inclusive and effective governance and economies–are nowhere to be seen in this Administration’s plans. Instead, Trump threatens to cut foreign aid to countries that vote against the US in the UN General Assembly, a threat that failed to garner support for the US move of its embassy to Jerusalem. Such heavy-handed conditioning of US assistance on a single issue irrelevant to US interests is guaranteed to reduce American influence abroad.
North Korea is the toughest of this Administration’s foreign policy challenges. Trump offered nothing in response to the threat its missiles and nuclear weapons pose. Instead he waxed eloquent North Korean oppression. This implies an American commitment to regime change, which is precisely the wrong thing to be signaling if you want to somehow limit Pyongyang’s nuclear and missile programs. Kim Jong-un sees them guarantees of regime continuity and will pursue them as long as thinks the US is out to overthrow him.
What was missing from the speech? Trump failed to mention the rules-based international order the US has painstakingly built since World War II, Russian interference in the US election, and his own Administration’s refusal to follow Congressional instructions to levy additional sanctions on Moscow. Putin is still pulling the strings. Ugh.
RSS - Posts
