http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113hr1771ih/pdf/BILLS-113hr1771ih.pdf
113TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
H. R. 1771
To improve the enforcement of sanctions against the Government of North Korea, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
APRIL 26, 2013
Showing posts with label the U.S. foreign policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label the U.S. foreign policy. Show all posts
A Better Approach Towards North Korea by Jeffrey Sachs
A
Better Approach Towards North Korea
Jeffrey
Sachs, Director, Earth Institute at Columbia University; Author, 'The Price of
Civilization' 04/15/2013
In
2003, Libyan strongman Muammar Qaddafi agreed with the US and Europe to end his
pursuit of nuclear and chemical weapons in order to normalize relations with
the West. Eight years later, NATO abetted his overthrow and murder. Now we are
asking North Korea to end its nuclear program as we once asked of Qaddafi.
North Korea's leaders must be wondering what would await them if they agree.
US foreign policy is based on the idea that the US can dictate who rules and
who does not, and which countries can keep nuclear weapons and which cannot. Moreover, the US Government reserves the right to change its opinion on these matters.
It supported Qaddafi until it did not. It supported Saddam until it did not; it
supported Iran's Mohammad Mossadegh in the early 1950s until it joined the UK
in toppling him; and it supported Panama's Manuel Noriega until it toppled him.
This list goes on, and North Korean leaders must suspect that they are next.
There
is a huge problem with this strategy. Not only does it sow enormous discord and
violence around the world. It also sows a deep distrust by other countries of
US intentions and policies, and contributes to an arms race by at least some of
these countries. Iran and North Korea pursue nuclear programs in part to
ward off the kind of regime change that they've seen other non-nuclear
opponents suffer at the hands of the US.
America
continues in the regime-change business to this day. The current target is Syrian
leader Bashar al-Assad, whom we've declared, "must go." He's a
very nasty guy, no doubt, like many others around the world. Yet by declaring
that Assad must go, the US and Europe contributes to an escalation of
bloodletting as the Assad regime brutally battles a rebellion stoked by Western
arms and US intentions to topple Assad.
(DO
– so, when it comes to Syria, is the author calling for Obama to act on the
principle of non-intervention?)
In
fact, America's real target is not even Assad, but Assad's main backer, Iran.
Americans are trying to topple Assad mainly to staunch Iran's regional
influence in Syria and Lebanon. We claim we are tightening the noose on Assad,
but in fact we are abetting the devastation of Syria itself as the result of a
proxy war with Iran.
Through
decades of practice, regime change comes naturally to the US Government and
especially to the CIA, which carries out much of the operational support. Yet
the US Government fails time and again to factor in the serious and sustained
blowback that inevitably follows our overthrow of foreign governments.
Consider, for example, the history of our current confrontation with Iran.
In
1953, the US and UK conspired to overthrow Iran's democratically elected Prime
Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, who had committed to the grievous sin of believing
that Iran's oil belonged to Iran rather than to Britain and the US. Mossadegh
was brought down by the CIA and MI6 and replaced by the despotic Shah of Iran,
who governed ruthlessly with US backing until the Iranian Revolution in 1979.
In light of this history, Iran's current pursuit of nuclear-weapons capability
is far more understandable.
Iran
also has three not so friendly nuclear neighbors - Israel, India, and
Pakistan - all of which are allied with the US despite their
failure to sign, ratify, or honor the terms of the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty. Being a nuclear power is based on, well, power, not
on international law. That the US demands that this or that state must
denuclearize while others flout the treaty is an assertion of power, not
principle. Nor are such demands likely to be heeded by Iran, given their
plausible fear that unilateral disarmament would be met not by peace with the
US, but by US attempts to destabilize the regime.
Which
brings us back to North Korea. Secretary of State John Kerry is onto something
when he broaches the idea of opening negotiations with North Korea. Every
experienced observer in the world notes that North Korea's erratic behavior
is mainly an attempt to be heard, acknowledged, and respected. As Kim
Jong-un told basketball star Dennis Rodman, he simply wants Obama to call him,
"because if we can talk, we can work this out."
But
Kerry then went on this weekend to make the usual US demands. There will be no
phone call until North Korea first pledges to denuclearize. In other words: surrender
first and we'll talk afterwards.
I
am reminded of one of John F. Kennedy's most famous admonitions: "And
above all, while defending our own vital interests, nuclear powers must avert
those confrontations which bring an adversary to a choice of either a
humiliating retreat or a nuclear war. To adopt that kind of course in the
nuclear age would be evidence only of the bankruptcy of our policy -- or of a
collective death-wish for the world."
If
we act calmly and sensibly, we can easily defuse the current crisis. North
Korea is looking for respect, not war. It's time to talk, to lower the heat,
and to avoid a confrontation or the imposition of impossible or humiliating
demands. And we need to remember, if we are to induce good behavior among others,
we will have to stop our bad habit of killing them afterward.
How to Talk Kim Jong Un Off the Ledge by Joel Wit
How
to Talk Kim Jong Un Off the Ledge
Is
John Kerry ready to deal with North Korea? Here's how to do it.
BY
JOEL WIT, JENNY TOWN | APRIL 12, 2013
U.S.
Secretary of State John Kerry's visit to Asia is an important opportunity to
start fashioning an off-ramp from the crisis on the Korean peninsula. "We
are seeking a partner to deal with in a rational and reasonable way," he said upon landing in Seoul Friday. But if
Kerry is to succeed in his mission, the United States will need to discard two historical myths: that Pyongyang has used
bellicose behavior to squeeze aid out of a cringing United States, and that the
North always cheats on its agreements. This caricature is not only wrong but also
hamstrings America's ability to deal effectively with a dangerous adversary.
Exhibit A
is the 1994 U.S.-North Korean Agreed Framework negotiated by Amb. Robert
L. Gallucci, who was then my boss at the State Department. Under the agreement,
Pyongyang pledged to dismantle its large plutonium production program and
return to the Non-Proliferation Treaty in exchange for two light-water reactors
and heavy fuel oil. Although the arrangement was reached after a crisis
triggered by North Korean brinksmanship, the results were a success for U.S.
foreign policy. At the time, U.S. intelligence estimates predicted that North
Korea could build up to 100 nuclear weapons by 2000. Fast-forward to 2002, when
the agreement collapsed, and the North only had fissile material for a handful
of bombs. Moreover, key nuclear facilities had deteriorated so much that they
could not be salvaged. The North still has not recovered from that setback.
As
for the assistance provided to North Korea, even on that count Pyongyang came
up short. Not only did the North Koreans trash their multi-billion dollar
nuclear program, but all they had to show for it were two incomplete
concrete-filled holes in the ground that can still be seen on Google Earth. No
money was given in cash to Pyongyang. North Korea did receive a few hundred
million dollars worth of heavy fuel oil under the framework agreement, but that
seems a small price to pay for gutting a program on the verge of churning out
100 bombs.
(exhibit B)
Another
deal, cited by a conservative scholar during our recent joint appearance on the
Lehrer Report, was reached in 1998 when, according to him, "the Clinton
administration paid North Korea almost $200 million worth of food aid for
the empty privilege of inspecting an empty cave in the aftermath of
North Korea firing a long range missile over Japan on Aug. 31, 1998."
Since
I led the inspection, I know what happened. The whole episode was a
self-inflicted wound, not the result of Korean pressure tactics. The
Clinton administration made a deal to inspect the "empty cave" when
the conclusions of one intelligence agency that thought the North Koreans were
violating the 1994 agreement by hiding a secret nuclear facility (most agencies
didn't think so) were leaked the to the New York Times. Even though the North
Koreans warned American diplomats that there was nothing there, the
administration had to cover its domestic flank. Sure enough, there was nothing
there and there never had been. The intelligence agency's analysis was simply
wrong.
Food
aid was indeed part of the deal, but the scholar neglected to say that the
United States had planned to give it to the North Koreans anyway. The
administration was not providing aid because of Pyongyang's bluster, but rather
for humanitarian reasons since the North's population was suffering from a
famine that may have killed as many as one million people. When the nuclear
story broke, the decision was made to fold it into the inspection deal to avoid
having to fork over any new assistance. That sounds to me like a smart move.
(exhibit C)
As
a postscript, afterwards the Clinton administration reached a deal with
Pyongyang imposing a moratorium on tests of long-range missiles and
space-launch vehicles that lasted seven years until 2006. What did we give the
North Koreans in return? The United States promised only to continue diplomatic
dialogue, not to provide economic assistance. Just think how much worse the
missile threat would be today if the North had not lost all of that valuable
time.
(exhibit A regarding the second myth)
Do
the North Koreans cheat on agreements? Pyongyang's pursuit of a uranium
enrichment program beginning in the late 1990s violated the spirit of the
Agreed Framework, but the United States detected these activities early on.
Had Vice President Al Gore won the election, plans were already in place to
confront the North. Unfortunately the George W. Bush administration did nothing
and allowed the problem to fester. The North Koreans did, however, abide by
agreements to implement the Agreed Framework. (Many covered the
construction arrangements for building the two reactors and one established a
joint U.S.-North Korea project to safely store spent nuclear fuel rods at its
Yongbyon facility that contained plutonium.) The same applies to a host of
other arrangements until the framework ended in 2002. The bottom line: Whether with the Soviet Union or North
Korea, as President Ronald Reagan said, the key is to "trust but
verify."
(exhibit B)
Some
may point to the February 2011 Leap Day deal that quickly broke down as
an example of how you cannot reach agreements with North Koreans. But that
episode was really a lesson on how knowing history is important. Even before
the ink was dry, private experts noticed that the unilateral statements issued
by Washington and Pyongyang allowed a big loophole, only banning "long-range
missile tests," a formulation the North had long insisted did not include
space-launch vehicles. Sure enough, the North claimed the agreement did not
cover space-launches, fired off an Unha rocket with a satellite on top, and the
agreement collapsed.
(conclusion)
The
fact is diplomacy, if conducted with care, can and must play an
important role in finding solutions, even with North Korea. Contact
with the North Korean leadership can clarify its intentions in a way that
cannot be done by parsing the words of Pyongyang's bellicose press releases. We
might learn that there are peaceful paths forward or that the North is indeed
bent on confrontation. Either way, clarity is essential given the
seriousness of this situation. Diplomacy is also an important tool in building
coalitions; it could garner support from China, which is desperately interested
in reinvigorating the diplomatic track, and also would be welcomed by our
allies who have the most to lose from any confrontation with Pyongyang. That is
certainly true for South Korea, whose new president has signaled her desire to
reengage Pyongyang.
In
addition to echoing public warnings against aggression, at the appropriate
time, Washington could use meetings with North Korean diplomats stationed at
the United Nations (the so-called New York channel) to signal a
willingness to engage in unconditional discussions to see if there is a path
forward. If Pyongyang agrees, subsequent discussions should involve
higher-level officials to insure the close attention of the North's leadership.
Those discussions should explore a broad agenda, including Pyongyang's concerns
-- reaching a peace treaty and lifting sanctions -- and Washington's priorities
-- ending the North's nuclear and missile programs. If all goes well and common
ground is identified, the exploratory talks could be used as a platform to spin
off more formal negotiations. U.S. allies and the Chinese, all of whom might
eventually join the talks, would be kept closely informed.
So
let's hope that Kerry will use this trip to go beyond reciting standard,
boilerplate talking points. A new diplomatic offensive, which might open an
avenue to peaceful resolution of the current crisis, would demonstrate that the
United States understands that exercising leadership means more than just
flexing military muscle. What's the alternative? More threats, more
instability, and possibly even a war that nobody wants.
Mr. Obama Goes To Israel - THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Mr.
Obama Goes To Israel
March
13, 2013 Wednesday , THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN.
In
case you haven't heard, President Obama leaves for Israel next week. It is
possible, though, that you haven't heard because it is hard for me to recall a
less-anticipated trip to Israel by an American president. But there is a
message in that empty bottle: Little is expected from this trip -- not only
because little is possible, but because, from a narrow U.S. point of view,
little is necessary. Quietly, with nobody announcing it, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has shifted from a necessity
to a hobby for American diplomats. Like any hobby -- building model
airplanes or knitting sweaters -- some days you work on it, some days you
don't. It depends on your mood, but it doesn't usually matter when that sweater
gets finished. Obama worked on this hobby early in his first term. He got stuck
as both parties rebuffed him, and, therefore, he adopted, quite rationally in
my view, an attitude of benign neglect. It was barely noticed.
The
shift in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from necessity to hobby for the U.S.
is driven by a number of structural changes, beginning with the end of the cold war. There was a time when it was
truly feared that an Arab-Israeli war could trigger a wider superpower
conflict. During the October 1973 war, President Nixon raised America's
military readiness to Defcon 3 to signal the Soviets to stay away. That is not
likely to happen today, given the muted superpower conflict over the Middle
East. Moreover, the discovery of massive amounts of oil
and gas in the U.S., Canada and Mexico is making North America the new
Saudi Arabia. So who needs the old one?
Of
course, oil and gas are global commodities, and any disruption of flows from
the Middle East would drive up prices. But though America still imports some
oil from the Middle East, we will never again be threatened with gas lines by
another Arab oil embargo sparked by anger over Palestine. (Btw) For China and India, that is another matter. For
them, the Middle East has gone from a hobby to a necessity. They are both
hugely dependent on Middle East oil and gas. If anyone should be advancing
Arab-Israeli (and Sunni-Shiite) peace diplomacy today it is the foreign
ministers of India and China.
Writing
in Foreign Policy magazine last week, Robin M. Mills, the head of consulting at
Manaar Energy, noted that ''according to preliminary figures reported this
week, China has overtaken the United States as the world's largest net oil
importer.'' Mills described this as a ''shift as momentous as the U.S. eclipse
of Britain's Royal Navy or the American economy's surpassing of the British
economy in the late 19th century. ... The United States is set to become the
world's biggest oil producer by 2017.''
(in terms of regional stability)
At
the same time, while the unresolved Israeli-Palestinian conflict emotionally
resonates across the Arab-Muslim world, and solving it is necessary for
regional stability, it is clearly not sufficient. The
most destabilizing conflict in the region is the
civil war between Shiites and Sunnis that is rocking Lebanon, Syria,
Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain and Yemen. While it would be a good thing to erect a
Palestinian state at peace with Israel, the issue today is will there be
anymore a Syrian state, a Libyan state and an Egyptian state.
Finally,
while America's need to forge Israeli-Palestinian peace has never been lower, the obstacles have never been higher: Israel has now
implanted 300,000 settlers in the West Bank, and the Hamas rocket attacks on
Israel from Gaza have seriously eroded the appetite of the Israeli silent
majority to withdraw from the West Bank, since one puny rocket alone from there
could close Israel's international airport in Lod.
For
all these reasons, Obama could be the first sitting American president to visit
Israel as a tourist.
(regardless of the shift, Israel has a good reason to take risks to
resolve the conflict)
Good
news for Israel, right? Wrong. While there may be fewer reasons for the U.S. to
take risks to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, there is still a
powerful reason for Israel to do so. The status quo today may be tolerable for
Israel, but it is not healthy. And more status quo means continued Israeli
settlements in, and tacit annexation of, the West Bank.
That's why I think the most important thing Obama could do on his trip is to
publicly and privately ask every Israeli official he meets these questions:
''Please
tell me how your relentless settlement drive in the West Bank does not end up
with Israel embedded there -- forever ruling over 2.5 million Palestinians with
a colonial-like administration that can only undermine Israel as a
Jewish democracy and delegitimize Israel in the world community? I
understand why Palestinian dysfunction and the Arab awakening make you wary,
but still. Shouldn't you be constantly testing and testing whether there is a
Palestinian partner for a secure peace? After all, you have a huge interest in
trying to midwife a decent West Bank Palestinian state that is modern,
multireligious and pro-Western -- a totally different model from the Muslim
Brotherhood variants around you. Everyone is focused on me and what will I do.
But, as a friend, I just want to know one thing: What is your long-term strategy? Do you even have one?''
The Bidenization of America
The
Bidenization of America
The
veep is no joke -- and he's making a serious play for 2016.
BY
DAVID ROTHKOPF | JANUARY 14, 2013
·
Forget
Dick Cheney: Joe Biden is the most influential vice president in American
history. He is poised for a role in the Obama administration's second
term that seems sure to make Cheney look like a shrinking violet, and Al Gore
look like little more than a spear-carrier for Bill Clinton.
·
Consider
this: The veep has thus far taken the point role in the two most important
initiatives of this year for the Obama administration: the fiscal cliff
battle and gun control. He is perhaps the president's single most
influential foreign policy advisor. Obama's incoming national security team
is Biden's favorite players from his days as chairman of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee. John Kerry and Chuck Hagel are seen as far closer to
him than to the president. Tom Donilon, the president's national security
advisor, is also seen as close to the vice president, which should come as a
surprise to no one since his wife, Catherine Russell, is the vice president's
current chief of staff. Biden's previous chief of staff, Ron Klain, is one of
two men considered likely to replace Jack Lew as Obama's chief of staff.
Biden's top national security advisor, Tony Blinken, is seen as heading for a
promotion (if moving away from this particular vice president could be seen as
a step up), either stepping in for U.S. U.N. ambassador Susan Rice should she
someday become national security advisor or moving over to a top job in Kerry's
State Department.
·
In
terms of day-to-day foreign policy decision-making, Biden is a regular at the
morning meeting at which the president, Donilon, outgoing White House
counterterrorism chief John Brennan, Donilon deputy Denis McDonough, and
Blinken review the latest intelligence and make the big decisions that are
passed along to the other arms of the administration to execute. Obama consults
Biden regularly, and is known to respect his opinion greatly. This was
sometimes a bone of contention for officials like
Bob Gates and Hillary Clinton, who often sought a tougher line on key issues
than the generally more dovish team led by Biden. But those officials are gone
or leaving now.
·
The
goofy Uncle Veep persona that follows Biden around like a stray dog, largely
thanks to his garrulousness and occasional slips of the tongue, could not be
farther from the reality of the role this seasoned Washington insider is
playing. Washington is a town in which relationships are currency, and given
the fact that the president is both relatively new to the city and not exactly
a social animal, it is Biden's ties that are often critical to helping the White
House advance its goals. This was never clearer than at the turn of the New
Year, when it took Biden's personal intervention with Senate Minority Leader
Mitch McConnell to broker the deal that saved America -- for a while at least
-- from going over the fiscal cliff.
·
While
the role Biden is playing may come as a surprise to outsiders, it is not the
one for which he has been preparing his whole life. I vividly remember a story
told to me by my former boss, the late Rep. Steve Solarz, who, upon arriving in
Congress in 1978, discovered he was also allowed on the floor of the Senate. So
he walked over one night and discovered, pacing the floor and orating remarks
into the Congressional Record, young Senator Joe Biden. The chamber was empty
save for a tired-looking gentleman sitting at the chair, but Biden was
gesticulating and emoting as though he were speaking to a stadium. At that
moment, Solarz used to say, it was clear to him that this was a guy who was
planning on a run to the top.
·
Insiders
say that Biden, who would be 74 come the 2016 election, is intent on succeeding
Obama in the Oval Office. Further, there are clearly some around Obama who see
him as a more desirable choice than Clinton. Indeed, there are rumblings
that the old Obama-Clinton divide -- never far beneath the surface -- may widen
again as a White House camp dominated by Biden tees things up for the next
presidential season.
·
Unlike
Cheney, however, who wore his influence like the Star Wars character he evoked
wore his helmet and cape, Biden remains one of the few Washington figures who
can actually be described as beloved by many. It might seem that it is
his humor or his million-dollar smile that have earned him that affection. But
in reality, to those on the inside in this administration it has been his
loyalty, his tirelessness in pursuit of some very tough goals, his willingness
to speak candidly to the president, and his special combination of experience
and intelligence that have put him in this unique role.
·
No
one saw it coming. Except, of course, the people who have been paying attention
to his steady (or is it relentless?) ascent for the past three and a half
decades.
U.S. Cash Rewards Program to Include International Criminal Court Arrests
U.S.
Cash Rewards Program to Include International Criminal Court Arrests
by
Jennifer Trahan January 10th, 2013
[Jennifer
Trahan is associate clinical professor at the Center for Global
Affairs at the NYU School of Continuing and Professional Studies (NYU-SCPS).
She is also chair of the American Branch of the International Law Association
International Criminal Court Committee and was a member of the American Bar
Association’s 2010 International Criminal Court Task Force.]
Congress
recently approved a bill expanding the U.S.’s “Rewards for Justice” program to include apprehension of
individuals wanted by international tribunals such as the International
Criminal Court. The bill, passed by the Senate on December 20 and House
on January 3, and promoted by U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for Global Criminal
Justice Stephen J. Rapp, covers rewards for information leading to
the transfer to or conviction by an international criminal tribunal
(including a hybrid or mixed tribunal), of any foreign national accused of war
crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide ….
While
the U.S. Government still clearly remains wary of the ICC and is not
anticipated to ratify the ICC’s Rome Statue at any time in the near future, the
legislation is a further positive step that strengthens U.S. constructive
engagement with the Court. Other recent positive developments include U.S.
deployment of 100 special operations forces as military advisers to
Uganda to assist with the apprehension of members of the Lords Resistance
Army led by Joseph Kony; statements
by State Department Legal Advisor Harold H. Koh that the U.S. respects
its obligations as signatory to the
ICC’s Rome Statute (obligations the second Bush Administration attempted to
revoke); and U.S. participation at
ICC-related meetings, including meetings of the Assembly of States Parties
to the ICC.
During
the second term of the Obama Administration, the U.S. should further solidify
the US-ICC relationship by formally reactivating U.S. signatory obligations and
articulating a clear policy position of U.S. support for the Court, which is
designed to prosecute the worst instances of genocide, war crimes and crimes
against humanity. Congress should repeal the ban on direct U.S. financial
support of the Court, to which the U.S. has supported referral of the
situations in Libya and tacitly supported referral of the Darfur
situation. The U.S. should also press for referral by the U.N. Security
Council of the situation in Syria, which has now claimed an estimated 60,000
fatalities, to the Court for investigation and prosecution.
Leader of the Free World: Obama's 2nd-Term Foreign-Policy Priorities
Leader of the Free
World: Obama's 2nd-Term Foreign-Policy Priorities
NOV 7 2012
What it will mean for
the president to "finish what we've started" on the global stage
Barack Obama
campaigned for reelection by asking Americans to give him another term so he
could "finish what we started" in 2008. "We've come too far to
turn back now," he said. "We've got too much work to do to implement
health care. We've got too much work to do to create good jobs. We've got too
many teachers that we've got to hire. We've got too many schools we've got to
rebuild. We've got too many students who still need affordable higher
education. There's more homegrown energy to generate. There're more troops that
we've got to bring home .... That's why I'm running for president of the United
States of America." Last night, he won that second term. Today, the work
begins.
Not surprisingly,
Obama's domestic agenda for the next four years doesn't look much different
from his first-term agenda. The economy may now be slowly improving rather than
worsening, and the unemployment rate has been dropping instead of rising, but
economic issues will remain his most urgent concern. He recently told MSNBC that
if reelected, his first priority will be to push for passage of a debt
reduction plan to cut spending and raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans. He
said he will have a "mandate" to take that balanced approach, and he
sounded confident that Republicans in Congress will agree.
Immigration Reform
Expected
Obama has also
outlined economy-boosting initiatives aimed at increasing manufacturing and
energy production, investing in infrastructure, and encouraging businesses to
hire more workers. But there is also unfinished business from his first term
that will need attention. His administration still has work to do to implement
his banking reform plan, and much remains to be done on his 2010 landmark
health-care reform legislation -- so-called "Obamacare" -- which is
scheduled to take effect in 2014.
Many observers expect
Obama to take up immigration reform. Days before the election, Obama told a
reporter, "Should I win a second term, a big reason [will be] because the
Republican nominee and the Republican Party have so alienated the
fastest-growing demographic group in the country -- the Latino community."
Judd Legum, the editor
in chief of ThinkProgress, a liberal online political news site, says Obama is
also likely to return to the issue of climate change, which went nowhere in his
first term, largely because of concerns that regulation would worsen the
already bad economy. "I do think the extreme weather we've been having in
the United States -- particularly Hurricane Sandy, which just hit the East Coast
-- is going to draw renewed attention to [climate change], and I think there's
hope that Obama will take up some of these initiatives that were talked
about," Legum says. "Maybe a cap-and-trade program to limit carbon
emissions, or maybe something else."
Obama 'Unleashed'?
The president's
second-term foreign policy agenda also looks set to largely build on what he's
already begun. There's the war in Afghanistan to wind down by 2014, the
anticipation that tough sanctions on Iran will bear fruit, and the recent U.S.
pivot, both militarily and economically, to the Asia-Pacific region.
Republicans warned before the election that a second-term Obama, freed from the
pressure of being reelected because of term limits, would be
"unleashed" and emboldened to pursue his own agenda.
Christopher Preble,
the vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the CATO
Institute, says that's a wrong assumption. Second-term presidents care about
their legacy, he says, and want to leave office as popular figures. And beyond
that, there are always political repercussions for the president's political
party. "If a president were to do something in foreign policy that was
dramatically at odds with what the public wanted, they risk doing serious harm
to [their] party, and I think they care about that," Preble says. "We
actually saw that, to a certain extent, in the second Bush term, when President
Bush tried to make some changes to foreign policy, but on the critical issue of
Iraq - which, by 2005-2006, the public had turned decisively against -- his
decision to expand the war, contrary to public sentiment, I think clearly hurt
the Republican Party in 2006 and 2008."
On the big issues,
Preble says he expects Obama to continue the same policies he has for the last
four years. He points out that sanctions on Iran are working - they have
crippled the country's banking sector, hobbled its oil industry, and sent its
currency plummeting. "All of those things will take some time, but they
appear to be having some effect, at least on the state of the Iranian
economy," he says. "So I think he is likely to continue along that
path for a while longer."
Mideast Not a Priority
Preble doesn't agree
with the speculation in some quarters that a second-term Obama will feel freer
to take a tough line with Israel and press the Jewish state for concessions on
the Israeli-Palestinian issue. In fact, he doesn't see that issue as a priority
for Obama. "Whenever the United States applies pressure to the Israeli
government to, halts the expansion of settlements in the Palestinian
Territories, it has failed," Preble says. "And so if he's likely to
go down that road, I can't imagine that he's likely to succeed. I frankly would
be surprised if he invests a lot of political capital there, considering all
the other issues on the table."
On the issue of Syria,
where a bloody war between the government and antiregime fighters drags on,
Obama has taken a largely hands-off approach, except to help organize the
disparate rebel factions and lead international calls for President Bashar
al-Assad to step down. Preble says "barring some very dramatic
change," considering U.S. public opinion against another U.S. military
operation, Obama will stay the course.
Obama's much-heralded
"reset" with Moscow at the start of his first term led to cooperation
on issues including Iran and Afghanistan, but President Vladimir Putin is now
in power and demonstrating what many see as open disdain for the United States.
Preble said his sense is that Obama "hasn't really made a connection with
President Putin," but he doesn't foresee major changes in U.S.-Russian
relations, and in fact doesn't rule out Russian cooperation on Syria and even
China.
And finally, on China:
Obama talked tough during the campaign about Beijing's trade policies - calling
them unfair and even illegal - and vowed to take action. He has already
overseen Defense Department changes that will increase the U.S. military presence
in the Asia-Pacific region and serve as a counterweight to China's military
ambitions in that part of the world. Preble says in the wider Asia-Pacific
region, he expects Obama to strengthen U.S. ties with traditional allies like
Japan, South Korea, and Australia, but also to reach out to countries that have
shown interest in closer U.S. ties, like Vietnam, Indonesia, and the
Philippines
This post appears
courtesy of Radio Free Europe/Radio
Liberty.
Vote Korea! - voting the party platforms on the Korean peninsula
Vote Korea!
by Stephan Haggard November 6th, 2012
For those of you who
read this blog and are still undecided, you might consider voting the party
platforms on the Korean peninsula. We looked through them, picked out all
references to the Koreas and reproduce them below. It has become accepted
wisdom that there is little difference between the two candidates on foreign
policy, or at least that the two were fighting for the middle ground in the
third debate. Although we have reported on bipartisan
moments, and recognize the limits of simple word
searches–”Korea” in this case–the platforms do in fact reflect subtle foreign
policy differences.
The Koreas—and Asia
more generally–appear much more frequently in the DNC platform. South Korea
comes up several times in the context of the Obama administration’s trade
policy. He takes credit for signing the KORUS, “but not before he strengthened
these agreements on behalf of American workers and businesses.” The DNC also
touts the KORUS FTA as a stepping stone to the TPP. The Republican platform
also underlines the importance of an open world economy, of course, but does
not specifically mention the Korean FTA as an exemplar in that regard.
On North Korea, a
second Obama administration would “continue to confront North Korea, another
regime that ignores its international obligations by developing nuclear weapons
and missile technology, with a stark choice: take verifiable steps toward
denuclearization or face increasing isolation and costs from the United States
and the international community.” The platform emphasizes collective action
against North Korea, including through the UN, the imposition of sanctions and
the hope of working with China. It also explicitly mentions the need to work
with Russia on a range of issues—including North Korea—and chides the Romney
campaign for “the Cold War mentality represented by Mitt Romney’s
identification of Russia as ‘our number one geopolitical foe.’”
We missed the fact
that the Democratic platform includes a proliferation red line: “the transfer
of nuclear weapons or material by North Korea to states or non-state entities
would be considered a grave threat to the United States and our allies, and we
would hold North Korea accountable for the consequences of such action.”
The Republican
platform cites North Korea as an example of the administration’s weakness and
tendency to “lead from behind.” “The current Administration has responded with
weakness to some of the gravest threats to our national security this country
has faced, including the proliferation of transnational terrorism, continued
belligerence by a nuclear-armed North Korea, an Iran in pursuit of nuclear
weapons, rising Chinese hegemony in the Asia Pacific region, Russian activism,
and threats from cyber espionage and terrorism.” The platform goes on to state
that “the U.S. will continue to demand the complete, verifiable, and
irreversible dismantlement of North Korea’s nuclear weapons programs with a
full accounting of its proliferation activities.” Neither platform really
outlines the elements of a new strategy for achieving that objective.
A major section of the
Republican foreign policy platform addresses the need for missile defenses,
both national and regional, and North Korea naturally emerges as a rationale
for doing so.
South Korea also comes
up in the context of the pivot—or rebalancing—toward Asia. The DNC platform
states that the US will continue to deepen its alliance relations in the
region, but not simply for the purpose of deterrence. “We will also expand our
networks of security cooperation with other emerging partners throughout the
region to combat terrorism, counter proliferation, provide disaster relief,
fight piracy, and ensure maritime security, including cooperation in the South
China Sea.”
The Republican
platform states that the US is a Pacific nation and underlines the importance
of continued American leadership through its alliance relations. It also makes
explicit reference to North Korea in the context of human rights policy. With
our allies, “we look toward the restoration of human rights to the suffering
people of North Korea and the fulfillment of their wish to be one in peace and
freedom.” No argument from us on that point.
Don’t forget to vote!
From the DNC Party
Platform
Opened Markets All
Over the World for American Products. President Obama and the Democratic Party know that
America has the best workers and businesses in the world. If the playing field
is level, Americans will be able to compete against every other country on
Earth. Over the last four years, we have made historic progress toward the goal
of doubling our exports by 2015. We have taken steps to open new markets to American
products, while ensuring that other countries play by the same rules. President
Obama signed into law new trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and
Panama that will support tens of thousands of private-sector jobs, but not
before he strengthened these agreements on behalf of American workers and
businesses. We remain committed to finding more markets for American-made goods
– including using the Trans-Pacific Partnership between the United States and
eight countries in the Asia-Pacific, one of the most dynamic regions in the
world – while ensuring that workers’ rights and environmental standards are
upheld, and fighting against unfair trade practices. We expanded and reformed
assistance for trade-affected workers, and we demanded renewal of that help
alongside new trade agreements.
Free and Fair Trade. We have also sought to promote free
and fair trade. Because of the economic dynamism of the Asia-Pacific region,
which is already home to more than half the global economy, expanding trade
with that region is critical to creating jobs and opportunities for the
American people. Building on the free trade agreement with South Korea that
President Obama signed, we are working with our partners in the Asia-Pacific
Economic Cooperation Forum to create a seamless regional economy, promote green
growth, and coordinate regulatory reform. Alongside Australia, Brunei
Darussalam, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam, we are
on track to finalize the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a historic high-standard
agreement that will address new and emerging trade issues, lower barriers to
the free flow of trade and investment, increase exports, and create more
American jobs. Exploring opportunities to shape the multilateral trading system
to reflect the role and responsibility of major emerging markets in the global
economy is a critical part of the President’s trade agenda.
North Korea. President Obama will also continue to
confront North Korea, another regime that ignores its international obligations
by developing nuclear weapons and missile technology, with a stark choice: take
verifiable steps toward denuclearization or face increasing isolation and costs
from the United States and the international community. That is why the
administration worked with international partners to impose the harshest
multilateral sanctions on North Korea in history. And it is why the President
has made clear that the transfer of nuclear weapons or material by North Korea
to states or non-state entities would be considered a grave threat to the
United States and our allies, and we would hold North Korea accountable for the
consequences of such action.
Russia. Crucial to achieving all of these
objectives has been, and will remain, expanded cooperation with Russia. The Cold
War mentality represented by Mitt Romney’s identification of Russia as “our
number one geopolitical foe” ignores the very real common interest we share
with Russia in reducing nuclear stockpiles, stopping additional proliferation
by countries such as Iran and North Korea, and preventing nuclear materials
from falling into the hands of terrorists.
Asia-Pacific. As we have sought to rebalance our
foreign policy, we have also turned greater attention to strengthening our
alliances and expanding our partnerships in the Asia-Pacific region. In part,
this is in recognition that the United States has been, and always will be, a
Pacific power. And, in part, it is a recognition that America’s future security
and prosperity will be fundamentally interconnected with Asia given its status
as the fastest growing economic region, with most of the world’s nuclear powers
and about half of the world’s population. The President has therefore made a
deliberate and strategic decision that the United States will play a larger and
long-term role in shaping this region and its future.
President Obama has
made modernizing America’s defense posture across the Asia-Pacific a top
priority. We remain committed to defending and deepening our partnerships with
our allies in the region: Australia, Japan, New Zealand, the Philippines, South
Korea, and Thailand. We will maintain a strong presence in Japan and on the
Korean Peninsula to deter and defend against provocations by states like North
Korea, while enhancing our presence in Southeast Asia and in Australia. We will
also expand our networks of security cooperation with other emerging partners
throughout the region to combat terrorism, counter proliferation, provide
disaster relief, fight piracy, and ensure maritime security, including cooperation
in the South China Sea. And we will continue to invest in a long-term strategic
partnership with India to support its ability to serve as a regional economic
anchor and provider of security in the broader Indian Ocean region.
Meanwhile, the President
is committed to continuing efforts to build a cooperative relationship with
China, while being clear and candid when we have differences. The world has a
profound interest in the rise of a peaceful and prosperous China, but China
must also understand that it must abide by clear international standards and
rules of the road. China can be a partner in reducing tensions on the Korean
Peninsula, countering proliferation in Iran, confronting climate change,
increasing trade, and resolving other global challenges. President Obama will
continue to seek additional opportunities for cooperation with China, including
greater communication between our militaries. We will do this even as we
continue to be clear about the importance of the Chinese government upholding
international economic rules regarding currency, export financing, intellectual
property, indigenous innovation, and workers’ rights. We will consistently
speak out for the importance of respecting the universal human rights of the
Chinese people, including the right of the Tibetan people to preserve their
cultural and religious identity. And we remain committed to a one China policy,
the Taiwan Relations Act, and the peaceful resolution of cross-Strait issues
that is consistent with the wishes and best interests of the people of Taiwan.
The United Nations. International institutions – most
prominently the United Nations – have been a centerpiece of international order
since the mid-20th century. And just as American leadership was essential to
forging the architecture for international cooperation after World War II, the
President and the Democratic Party are committed to modernizing its
infrastructure for the 21st century – working to reform international bodies
and strengthen national and multilateral capabilities to advance peace,
security, and opportunity.
We have restored
America’s leadership at the UN by cooperating with our partners there when we
can and respectfully disagreeing with them when we must, reversing the previous
administration’s disdain for the UN. The President’s leadership at the UN has
enabled us to make real progress on a number of top national security
priorities, including getting Russia and China on board to implement the
toughest UN sanctions ever on Iran and North Korea.
From
the GOP Party Platform
The Current
Administration’s Failure: Leading From Behind. The Republican Party is
the advocate for a strong national defense as the pathway to peace, economic
prosperity, and the protection of those yearning to be free. Since the end of
World War II, American military superiority has been the cornerstone of a
strategy that seeks to deter aggression or defeat those who threaten our
national security interests. In 1981, President Reagan came to office with an
agenda of strong American leadership, beginning with a restoration of our
country’s military strength. The rest is history, written in the rubble of the
Berlin Wall and the Iron Curtain. We face a similar challenge today. The
current Administration has responded with weakness to some of the gravest
threats to our national security this country has faced, including the
proliferation of transnational terrorism, continued belligerence by a
nuclear-armed North Korea, an Iran in pursuit of nuclear weapons, rising
Chinese hegemony in the Asia Pacific region, Russian activism, and threats from
cyber espionage and terrorism. In response to these growing threats, President
Obama has reduced the defense budget by over $487 billion over the next decade
and fought Republican efforts to avoid another $500 billion in automatic budget
cuts through a sequestration in early 2013 that will take a meat ax to all
major defense programs.
Missile Defense
Imperiled. We recognize that the
gravest terror threat we face—a nuclear attack made possible by nuclear
proliferation—requires a comprehensive strategy for reducing the world’s
nuclear stockpiles and preventing the spread of those armaments. But the U.S.
can lead that effort only if it maintains an effective strategic arsenal at a
level sufficient to fulfill its deterrent purposes, a notable failure of the
current Administration. The United States is the only nuclear power not
modernizing its nuclear stockpile. It took the current Administration just one
year to renege on the President’s commitment to modernize the neglected
infrastructure of the nuclear weapons complex—a commitment made in exchange for
approval of the New START treaty. In tandem with this, the current
Administration has systematically undermined America’s missile defense,
abandoning the missile defense bases in Poland and the Czech Republic, reducing
the number of planned interceptors in Alaska, and cutting the budget for
missile defense. In an embarrassing open microphone discussion with former
Russian President Medvedev, the current President made clear that, if he wins a
second term, he intends to exercise “more flexibility” to appease Russia, which
means further undermining our missile defense capabilities. A Republican
President will be honest and forthright with the American people about his
policies and plans and not whisper promises to authoritarian leaders. A strong
and effective strategic arsenal is still necessary as a deterrent against competitors
like Russia or China. But the danger in this age of asymmetric or
non-traditional warfare comes from other quarters as well. With unstable
regimes in Iran and North Korea determined to develop nuclear-tipped missiles
capable of reaching the United States, with the possibility that a terrorist
group could gain control of a nuclear weapon, it is folly to abandon a missile
shield for the country.
U.S. Leadership in the
Asian-Pacific Community. We are a Pacific nation with economic, military, and cultural
ties to all the countries of the oceanic rim, from Australia, the Philippines,
and our Freely Associated States in the Pacific Islands to Japan and the
Republic of Korea. With them, we look toward the restoration of human rights to
the suffering people of North Korea and the fulfillment of their wish to be one
in peace and freedom. The U.S. will continue to demand the complete,
verifiable, and irreversible dismantlement of North Korea’s nuclear weapons
programs with a full accounting of its proliferation activities. We celebrate
the political and economic development of most of the nations of Southeast
Asia. Their example of material progress through hard work and free enterprise,
in tandem with greater democracy should encourage their less fortunate neighbors
to set aside crippling ideologies and embrace a more humane future. While our
relations with Vietnam have improved, and U.S. investment is welcomed, we need
unceasing efforts to obtain an accounting for, and repatriation of the remains
of, Americans who gave their lives in the cause of Vietnamese freedom. We
cannot overlook the continued repression of human rights and religious freedom,
as well as retribution against ethnic minorities and others who assisted U.S.
forces dur
Anti-American Violence in the Middle East
Anti-American Violence
in the Middle East
SEP 14, 2012
Q1: What was the
security situation in Libya leading up to the attack on the U.S. consulate in
Benghazi?
A1: As international attention focused on
the violence in Syria over the past year, many hoped that Libya was beginning
to stabilize. Embassy personnel from many countries were returning, business
delegations and consultants explored opportunities in the oil-rich nation, and
successful elections were held in July. But these few signs of normality
masked a deeply unstable, lethal environment. The young government
confronted a still-unsteady nation abundant with weapons, Qaddafi
loyalists, uncontrollable militias, and Salafi jihadi fighters. The new
government has been unable to impose a monopoly on the use of
force or secure the weapons that were pilfered from Qaddafi’s dispersed
arsenal. Whereas the Egyptian Army largely controls that nation’s weapons, in
Libya small groups still hold truck-mounted antiaircraft guns, mortars, and
rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs). This past summer included a spate
of attacks on nongovernmental organizations, Sufi shrines, and Libyan
government buildings. In June and July in Benghazi, Tunisia’s consulate and
Britain’s ambassador to Libya were both assaulted in separate incidents, and an
improvised explosive device (IED) was used against the U.S. mission.
Q2: Are we likely to
see similar attempts on U.S. embassy personnel elsewhere in the region?
A2: Only hours following the attack on the
U.S. mission in Benghazi, the U.S. embassy in Yemen was assaulted. While no
Americans were killed in the more heavily fortified compound in the capital of
Sana, U.S. diplomatic staff are increasingly at risk across the region. But the
well-armed, heavy assault in Libya was qualitatively different from
what transpired in Egypt and Yemen. Those climbing the walls at the U.S.
embassy in Cairo and smashing windows at the U.S. embassy in Sana were unequal
to those in Benghazi, who used machine guns, mortars, and RPGs. Though these
crowds lacked the armament of those in Libya, their numbers, improvised
weapons, and motivation make them dangerous nonetheless. The threat
in such a highly charged environment is that more heavily armed militants
could use such riots as cover for deadly attacks.
Q3: How will the
attacks affect U.S. policy in the Middle East?
A3: While horrific, the attacks will not
likely lead to a fundamental shift in U.S. military deployments in the
foreseeable future. Yet, they will likely trigger a rethink of how U.S.
diplomats are allowed to do their jobs in the Middle East. President Barack
Obama reiterated his commitment to working as a partner with the new Libyan
government, and that is not likely to change as long as the Libyan government welcomes
U.S. support. How the United States goes about cooperating with Libya and other
regional governments, however, is less clear. Ambassador Christopher Stevens
was an active diplomat throughout Libya and had built a rapport with rebel
groups in Benghazi during the most violent days of the uprising against Qaddafi.
That made him an indispensable interlocutor with the new Libyan government and
a range of political forces in Libya. His killing raises doubts about the
procedures in place to secure U.S. diplomats, and it could lead to limiting
the kinds of activities and contacts U.S. diplomats are allowed to
pursue throughout the Middle East. Such a setback would further
isolate U.S. diplomats at a time when U.S. interests are served by wider
engagement.
Q4: Why is
anti-American violence increasing in the Middle East?
A4: The overthrow of authoritarian
regimes in Libya, Tunisia, Yemen, and Egypt in 2011 unleashed violent
anti-American forces that the previous governments had largely kept in
check. Some of those forces have used the pretext of an offensive film
produced in the United States to foment anti-American sentiment and actions. In
the wake of political upheaval, governments are less capable and willing to
rein in militant forces that pose a threat to U.S. interests and to their own
societies. In many cases, the police are just a shadow of their former selves,
domestic intelligence services are in disarray, and all manner of crimes are on
the rise. This increase in violence poses a challenge not only to U.S.
diplomats but threatens to undermine the fragile transitions underway
throughout the region.
Aug. 30-31 DPRK Daily
7 of 10 Lawmakers Want
Humanitarian Aid
Daily NK. 8/30/12 By
Cho Jong Ik
A new survey has
revealed that 7 out of 10 members of the 19th National Assembly are in
favor of the consistent provision of humanitarian aid to North Korea, along
with the separating of such aid from political and military concerns.
Professor Kang Dong
Whan of Donga University reported the survey findings at a debate event held
yesterday by the liberal 'Korean NGO Council for Cooperation with North Korea'
and 'Korean Council for Reconciliation and Cooperation'.
According to the
survey findings, 63 out of the 88 lawmakers polled responded that they either
“agree” (39) or “strongly agree” (24) with the statement “Humanitarian aid
should proceed independent of the inter-Korean political and military
situation.”
Only 4 lawmakers came
out against the statement, while 20 more gave a neutral response.
The survey, which was
conducted by a combination of email, fax and face-to-face meeting between July
24th and August 22nd this year, included 39 lawmakers from the ruling
Saenuri Party, 38 with the opposition Democratic United Party, 3
from the left wing United Progressive Party, 3 from the right wing
Liberty Forward Party and 5 independents. There was no requirement
to respond to every question.
Asked what the
greatest benefit of humanitarian aid is, 25 responded that “it provides a
minimum safety valve for inter-Korean relations” and 16 said that “it improves
the North Korean people’s image of South Korea”, while both “it improves the
humanitarian situation in North Korea” and “it improves inter-Korean relations”
garnered 15 votes each.
In line with the
findings, 34 of the respondents called for the phased removal of the May 24th Measures, the policy
put in place following the Cheonan sinking of March 26th 2010, while 24
said the measures must be eased in some areas including humanitarian aid, and
22 called for the measures to be removed entirely with immediate effect.
More on GOP
Foreign Policy I: The
Platform
Peterson Institute for
International Economics. 8/30/12 By Stephen Haggard
This week and next, we
follow up on some earlier posts on Republican foreign policy, starting with the
platform today and then looking at the major policy speeches by Senator McCain
and former Secretary of State Condeleeza Rice.
There is a debate
about whether party platforms matter. They are clearly not serious policy
documents. No president in his right mind would be formally bound by them, and
they are often seen as a sop to various otherwise-disaffected factions. On the
other hand, platforms signal campaign themes and are revealing of policy
currents within the party that might politically constrain the administration.
The title of the
chapter of the Republican Party platform dealing with foreign policy is
“American Exceptionalism.” The central doctrine is the standard claim that
peace is best advanced through American military strength, an unobjectionable
argument to which both parties would agree. But the Republican platform mixes
this with a doctrine of American exceptionalism—“the conviction that our
country holds a unique place and role in human history”—and that we should rely
on Divine Providence to assure continued American greatness.
The main charge
against the current administration is that it has “led from behind” and has
“responded with weakness to some of the gravest threats to our national
security this country has faced, including the proliferation of transnational
terrorism, continued belligerence by a nuclear-armed North Korea, an Iran in
pursuit of nuclear weapons, rising Chinese hegemony in the Asia Pacific region,
Russian activism, and threats from cyber espionage and terrorism.” A Wall Street Journal preview suggests that
Syria and Iran are likely to get particular attention.
The administration’s
weakness is evident in proposed defense cuts, about which there has been a
tremendous amount of confusion, some of it purposeful on both sides of the
aisle. Particularly maddening are charges by both parties that the other side
is solely responsible for the looming sequestration cuts. In fact, the whole
purpose of the sequestration cuts was to force compromise. But the Republicans
appear to have gotten the better of this commitment mechanism because they can
now blame the Democrats for military cuts.
That said, the
Republicans are correct that the Obama administration has proposed a gradual
decrease in military spending as a component of the much-needed fiscal
consolidation; the Republicans have not—to my knowledge—outlined what role
military spending plays in their efforts to move toward a more balanced budget.
The Council on Foreign
Relations has an extraordinary useful set of graphics that place the Obama cuts
in context. Some are the natural result of a decline in so-called Overseas
Contingency Operations (Iraq and Afghanistan) but some of the cuts—setting
aside the sequestration–are real and would drop spending below the trough of
around 4% of GDP hit in 2000.
On the other hand, it
is worth noting that this leaves the US accounting for about 42% of world
military spending; if we add in NATO, Japan, South Korea, Israel and Saudi
Arabia that total rises to about 64% If we sum military spending by all
democracies—on the theory that such weapons are less likely to be turned
against other democracies—the total rises to about 87%.
Ultimately, the debate
should not be about a magic number but about the systems and personnel
expenditures required to achieve strategic aims. But as we all know, the
military budget is not just about security and the Republican platform makes
clear that “a struggling economy…can ill afford to lose 1.5 million
defense-related jobs.” (Politifact has a useful survey of how you can get to
this number if the full $1 trillion of sequestration and planned budget cuts
are made, mostly through the multiplier from declining defense procurement and
base closings; needless to say, however, it is a worst case scenario and does
not ask whether these workers could be more productively employed doing
something else).
On Asia, several
paragraphs are reproduced here, with some commentary:
The Platform. “We are
a Pacific nation with economic, military, and cultural ties to all the
countries of the oceanic rim, from Australia, the Philippines, and our Freely
Associated States in the Pacific Islands to Japan and the Republic of Korea. With
them, we look toward the restoration of human rights to the suffering people of
North Korea and the fulfillment of their wish to be one in peace and freedom.
The U.S. will continue to demand the complete, verifiable, and irreversible
dismantlement of North Korea’s nuclear weapons programs with a full accounting
of its proliferation activities.”
SH. We do not see
anything here that differs in substance from the Obama administration approach,
which continues to combine “strategic patience” and the willingness to resume
talks when North Korea is serious about them; as we noted in the Brookings
dialogue cited above, Romney spokesmen have said that a Republican
administration would remain committed to the Six Party Talks. However,
elsewhere the platform does state a more robust commitment to the development
of missile defenses, including not only regional ones but a national system as
well.
The Platform: “We will
welcome the emergence of a peaceful and prosperous China, and we will welcome
even more the development of a democratic China. Its rulers have discovered
that economic freedom leads to national wealth. The next lesson is that political
and religious freedom leads to national greatness. The exposure of the Chinese
people to our way of life can be the greatest force for change in their
country. We should make it easier for the people of China to experience our
vibrant democracy and to see for themselves how freedom works. We welcome the
in- crease in trade and education alliances with the U.S. and the opening of
Chinese markets to American companies.
The Chinese government
has engaged in a number of activities that we condemn: China’s pursuit of
advanced military capabilities without any apparent need; suppression of human
rights in Tibet, Xinjiang, and other areas; religious persecution; a barbaric
one-child policy involving forced abortion; the erosion of democracy in Hong
Kong; and its destabilizing claims in the South China Sea. Our serious trade
disputes, especially China’s failure to enforce international standards for the
protection of intellectual property and copyrights, as well as its manipulation
of its currency, call for a firm response from a new Republican
Administration.”
SH. The first
paragraph strikes an appropriate tone and backs off some of the more hostile
rhetoric that serves little concrete purpose. The concerns raised in the second
paragraph are all legitimate, but I am straining to see the difference with the
Obama administration, which also clearly shares these concerns; we again
recommend Jeff Bader’s thoughtful reflection on the first Obama
administration’s Asia policy.
Next: what do McCain
and Rice have to say?
RMB Exchange Up 44% as
6.28 Fear Spreads
Daily NK. 8/31/12 By
Kim Kwang Jin
The Chinese Yuan-North
Korean Won exchange rate is exceedingly volatile these days even by North Korean standards.
Having struck a high
point of 1300 North Korean Won on the 27th, a 44% rise over the rate the
previous week, by the afternoon of the 30th the exchange rate had lost some of
that value, falling back to 1100won. Nevertheless, 1100won is still extremely
high; the price of Yuan only topped 1000won on the 27th, though it subsequently
fell back.
In line with the
rising exchange rate, rice is currently selling at very high prices;
approximately 6500 Won in Hyesan, Yangkang Province yesterday. This is a huge
increase; from 3000won/kg at the beginning of June to 4000won/kg at the
beginning of August.
According to a source
from the city, people cite the introduction of new economic management
measures as the cause.
“People know that when
new economic measures get announced, the prices of goods skyrocket," she
explained. "Among the economic measures there is both a dramatic rise in
wages and the raising of prices to realistic levels, and as people are now
learning about those so rice keeps going up.”
The reason why news
about new economic measures is able to inspire such volatility is that high
rates of inflation also occurred on previous occasions when economic measures
were implemented, noticeably the July 1st Economic Management Reform Measure of
2002 and the currency redenomination of November 2009. At this point, the
source noted, people's fears about the 'June 28th Policy' are greater
than their expectations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)