President Obama at the UN

The most significant speech given at the UN in my lifetime, in my opinion, was given by George Bush on September 12th, 2002. That speech laid out a clear case for war against Iraq. There was no doubt where the then president was headed and six months later we got there. That speech was specific, clear and it had a purpose. This particular speech could be viewed as the anti Bush September 12, 2002 speech. This was a broad outline of a vision with absolutely no clear way to get there. The president laid out what he has done over the last nine months to make the U.S. a better ally in the world: closing GITMO, ending torture, climate change, etc. This was yet another version of the President's trying to differentiate himself from George Bush. He never mentioned Bush by name but by referencing all that had been done since he took over, the assertion was clear.

After bashing Bush for a few minutes and telling the assembly how he had single handedly turned around our nation in nine months, the president laid out four pillars: 1)non proliferation, 2)pursuit of peace 3)preservation of our planet and 4)a global prospering economy. At one point, President Obama said this, "in too many parts of the world the concept of peace remains an abstract concept". I felt his entire speech remains an abstract concept.

In talking about nuclear non proliferation, he mentioned Iran and North Korea and said they would be "held accountable" for non compliance but never said how that would happen. That's what President Bush said for the better part of two terms and throughout both continued to pursue nuclear weapons with impugnity. President Obama said he would pursue an agreement with Russia and "forge new alliances". All of this sounds nice and it is also ultimately worthless. We have a complicated world and so far the president has no answers for either Iran's or North Korea's nuclear ambitions. Without a clear plan there, nuclear non proliferation is a nice concept without a plan.

With regard to the pursuit of peace, the President was even more broad. We will "form new alliances", "work together" and "work tirelessly". This is the sort of thing that the president said would happen in pursuit of peace. He scolded the Israelis for settlement expansion and Palestine for pursuing terrorism. The only news was the unprecedented confrontation by an American president of Israeli policy at the UN. The president said it was long past time we had a two state solution. This is of course a concept first introduced by his predecessor but the president didn't point that out. Besides having Abbas and Netanyahu sit down with him, the President had no specific plan to accomplish this two state solution.

On climate change, this part of the speech was similarly broad. China and India are not on board with the president's climate vision. He didn't even mention them by name. He certainly had no answers for how he would achieve his vision without their cooperation. Once again, we will "pursue cooperation" along with a host of soaring rhetoric that has no practical solution.

The portion dedicated to a new global economy was similarly broad. We would "confront corrupt regimes", "work together" and build a "global regulatory framework". All of this sounds nice. It's no different than things he's said for the last nine months. So far, besides broad outlines, the president has no answers.

Don't get me wrong. Speeches like this are fine. I certainly could have gone without the backhanded slaps at his predecessor. His criticism of Israel was, in my opinion, misguided. Still, most of what he said we can all agree with. Everyone would like a two state solution, however simply calling for it isn't enough. It's been nine months and even supporters must admit that so far there's little specific to back up his vision. He was criticized yesterday for similarly laying out his climate change vision at another speech while giving no specific solutions. At some point, the time for soaring rhetoric ends and specific solutions begin. There was none of that here. No one can walk away feeling confident that the president has any answers to solve any of the pillars that he mentioned. Those must come at some point, and they should come sooner rather than later. They didn't come this morning.

Clinton's North Korea Trip Difficult But Necessary

Ever since former President Bill Clinton came back from North Korea with two freed American journalists, Laura Ling and Euna Lee, there has been some debate as to whether or not the trip was wise. The most prominent critic of the trip was John Bolton.

The symbolism of a former president going to meet with Kim Jong Il I think is something that benefits Kim Jong Il a lot more than the United States, and it only encourages others to do the same thing," John Bolton, now a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, tells Madeleine Brand.

Clinton made an unannounced visit to North Korea on Tuesday and met with Kim. The two journalists, Laura Ling and Euna Lee, were released soon afterward. They arrived Wednesday in the Los Angeles area with Clinton, and were reunited with their families.

Writing in The Washington Post on Wednesday, Bolton called the visit a "knee-jerk impulse for negotiations" and "poorly thought-out gesture politics." He tells Brand that the case could encourage Iran, which arrested three American tourists last week for straying into their territory while hiking in northern Iraq.

"You can bet that in Tehran they watched this little performance in North Korea and are no doubt calculating how they might use it to their advantage," Bolton tells Brand

This criticism has also been picked up conservative pundits like Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham. It's true that this trip did absolutely created a propaganda bonanza for Kim Jong Il. It's true that such a trip would likely encourage more such behavior from despots. It's even true that this likely creates a geopolitical moral hazard.

That said, critics ought to know that ultimately the U.S. had little choice but to send President Clinton. First, those two journalists are Americans and they must have the full effort of the U.S. government behind them. Even if you dismiss the humanity of the situation, you'd still have to conclude that it was necessary.

Ultimately, the United States had little choice but to do what we did. Those journalists weren't going to be released without some gesture on our part. We can only assume that this was the smallest gesture we could negotiate. Il knew that he had propaganda material as soon as he captured them. He was NOT going to release them until he got a propaganda coup. That's what he got but without it, those two journalists would still be in a North Korean prison. Even if you were to believe that rescuing the journalists shouldn't be a priority, this was still the best option. If the U.S. government had done nothing, we would have been portrayed as cruel and uncaring of our citizens. The two journalists would have been used for propaganda for many, many years.

The concerns raised by the likes of John Bolton are legitimate. We don't ever want to send someone like Bill Clinton on a mission that allows a despot to use the former president for propaganda. Yet, the U.S. had an obligation, both morally and geo politically, to rescue the journalists. There was simply no other way to rescue them. The U.S. was going to suffer a propaganda hit as soon as they were captured. We made the best of a terrible situation using the former president. The criticism comes from legitimate fears but ultimately, there was no other option.

Did Kim Blink?

Last week I surmised that President Obama blinked when he pronounced that he would not board the North Korean ship that the USS John McCain had been tailing unless asked. (which wouldn't have happened) Meanwhile, the USS John McCain was continuing to tail the North Korea ship which appeared to be headed for Myanmar. Then, all of a sudden last night, the North Korean ship reversed course and appears headed back home.

A North Korean ship monitored for more than a week by the U.S. Navy has changed course and is heading back the way it came, U.S. officials said, as Pyongyang warned Wednesday it will take military action if anyone attempts to search its vessels.

The Kang Nam 1 — originally believed to be bound for Myanmar with suspicious cargo on board, possibly illicit weapons — turned around and headed back north on Sunday, two U.S. officials said on condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence.

The U.S. officials, speaking in Washington on Tuesday, said they do not know where the ship is going. But it was some 250 miles (400 kilometers) south of Hong Kong on Tuesday and heading north, one official said.

Initially, it looked as though President Obama was blinking in the face of confrontation. At the same time, he quietly kept the USS John McCain tailing this ship and that appears to have finally spooked Kim Jong Il who turned his own ship around.

Obama Blinks

The president was involved in a cross world geopolitical game of chicken with the tyrant of North Korea, Kim Jong Il, and it appears the president blinked.

The United States will not use force to inspect a North Korean ship suspected of carrying banned goods, an American official was quoted as saying Friday.

An American destroyer has been shadowing the North Korean freighter sailing off China's coast, possibly on its way to Myanmar.

Defense Undersecretary Michele Flournoy met with South Korean officials in Seoul on Friday as the U.S. sought international support for aggressively enforcing a U.N. sanctions resolution aimed at punishing Pyongyang for its second nuclear test last month. The North Korean-flagged ship, Kang Nam 1, is the first to be tracked under the U.N. resolution.

The USS John McCain (named for the father and grandfather of the current Senator) has been shadowing this ship. It's been on full alert and ready to engage. The U.S. suspects that this ship is carrying illicit weapons to Myanmar. The U.S., per a UN resolution, had the right to board any North Korean ship that it suspected of carrying illicit weapons.

Meanwhile, Il had promised war if any of his ships were stopped and not allowed to reach their destination.

The trip comes after North Korea's Foreign Ministry threatened war with any country that stops its ships on the high seas under new sanctions approved by the U.N. Security Council in response to its May 25 nuclear test.

It also vowed Saturday to "weaponize" all its plutonium and acknowledged a long-suspected uranium enrichment program for the first time. Both plutonium and uranium are key ingredients of atomic bombs.

So, what was set up here was a long distance geo political game of chicken. The president risked war by boarding the ship without permission. On the other hand, he would be backing down and again not enforcing a UN resolution by not following through. It turns out the President of the United States has chosen the former. President Obama has given the order not to board any ship if we aren't invited in. By doing so, he gives the tyrant a win in this round. Kim Jong Il often uses provocation to test the world to see how far he can go. Cleary, he has seen that he can go farther in testing our president.

Laura Ling and Euna Lee: the New Political Pawns

Today, we learned that American journalists, Laura Ling and Euna Lee, have been convicted to twelve years of hard labor in North Korea on charges of "grave crimes" agains the nation.

North Korea convicted two American journalists and sentenced them Monday to 12 years of hard labor for crossing into its territory, intensifying the reclusive nation's confrontation with the United States.

The Obama administration said it would pursue "all possible channels" to win the release of Laura Ling and Euna Lee, reporters for former Vice President Al Gore's San Francisco-based Current TV media venture.

The good news, if there is any, is that the two journalists, Ling and Lee, are likely to be put through the nightmare incarcenation scenario we all fear. The North Koreans understand that once they are released these two will tell their tale, and the North Koreans don't want to be seen as the vicious human rights abusers they are. So, it's likely they are not in a concentration camp but rather a prison where they are treated reasonably well.

They are also likely not to ever serve anywhere near twelve years they have been sentenced to. Such an action would make the reporters the center of all negotiations between themselves and every country, China included.

Rather, the North Koreans are likely holding them in order to extort something of value from the rest of the world. This is the Modus Operandi of not only the North Koreans but despotic regimes all over the place. This sort of extortion is part and parcel of despotic regimes going back years and years.

The North Koreans are likely using the two reporters in order to negotiate while they agree to halt this sort of kidnapping or halt something else they have no intention of stopping. That's another thing the North Koreans have done for years. They have been able to negotiate concessions from the rest of the world, for instance they've been removed from the State Dept. state sponsors of terror, while they continue to violate their own end of any and all agreements.

Unfortunately, Ling and Lee are now pawns in the latest reincarnation of this dance they have played for a long time. The reason this continues to happen is that they never face any real punishment for any of this extortion and often they are rewarded.

The Reality of North Korea's Bluster

It's simply impossible to know if all of the recent provocations by North Korea are merely saber rattling and attention gatherers or something more sinister. I suspect that even Kim Jong Il himself is not so sure what he is trying to accomplish. Here is something we can't get away from. In four months of the Obama presidency, North Korea has engaged in more acts of defiance and provocation than in eight years of the Bush presidency.



So, whatever the reason, Kim Jong Il feels a lot more freedom and power to provoke the rest of the world so far under President Obama than he ever did under President Bush. Supporters can dismiss this as nonsense, coincidence, or some sort of corollary anecdotal evidence that ultimately amounts to nothing in particular. Maybe, in fact, it does. I don't believe so. I believe that Il sees weakness and this has given him a renewed sense of power.



Just in the last week alone, he has had three missile tests and this morning he has proclaimed an end to the armistice that ended the Korean War fifty plus years ago.



Often, when some geopolitical event like this happens, we, conservatives, remind the political world that Joe Biden warned that President Obama would be tested. He warned that his mettle would be tested. We can view this as exactly that sort of a test.



So far, the Obama strategy has been to essentially ignore North Korea. They issue a stern statement of condemnation. Someone in the State Department concludes that the latest provocation is more evidence that North Korea is isolated and then they go to the UN Security Council for some sort of formal condemnation.



Since last night's newest missile test and this morning's announcement that the armistice is over, that's exactly the M.O. from the White House. It appears they would like to test that theory about defining insanity. The North Koreans have shown time and again that they don't care about condemnation, isolation, or any other strongly worded statement of condemnation.

Charles Krauthammer suggests arming Japan with nuclear weapons.


Others suggest restarting the regional missile shield. Still others suggest sending a plethora of Naval ships into the waters that surround North Korea as a show of force and a message that the bellicose language and actions stop now. What I do know is that what has been done isn't working and it's time for a new strategy.

Iran, North Korea and Pavlov

Yesterday evening, we all received this bit of news from North Korea.

North Korea claimed it carried out a powerful underground nuclear test Monday — much larger than one conducted in 2006 — a major provocation in the escalating international standoff over its rogue nuclear and missile programs.

The regime "successfully conducted one more underground nuclear test on May 25 as part of measures to bolster its nuclear deterrent for self-defense," the country's official Korean Central News Agency said.

Russia's Defense Ministry confirmed an atomic explosion at 9:54 a.m. (0054 GMT) in northeastern North Korea, estimating the blast's yield at 10 to 20 kilotons — comparable to the bombs that flattened Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Less than a week ago, we got similar news from Iran.

The U.S. State Department said Iran "keeps going in the wrong direction" and urged it to "halt" its development of nuclear and missile programs after the country launched a long-range missile Wednesday -- capable of hitting Israel and other targets in the Middle East.

"Both we, the United States, and the entire international community have long expressed our serious concerns concerning Iran's missile development efforts," State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said Wednesday.

These latest provocations should surprise no one. For years if not decades both countries have been provoking and threatening their neighbors and not only have they faced no repercussions but often these provocations have benefitted each of the nations.

Ivan Pavlov was a researcher in what is now known as classical conditioning. Through a series of both punishments and rewards, Pavlov was able to control the behavior of his subjects, both mice and dogs, in his experiments.

Pavlov's theories can be applied to both nations. We can take the provocations of both nations to at least 1979, when the United States embassy in Iran was taken hostage for more than a year. The hostages were eventually released mostly unharmed however the hostage takers themselves never faced any punishment. Since then, Iran has engaged in hostage taking on numerous occasions. Their latest attempt was a few years ago when they took a set of British Navy officers hostage. Those hostages were also released, not before being used for propaganda on Iranian television, but once again, the hostage takers themselves never faced any punishment.

On another track, Iran has been aggressively seeking to build a nuclear weapon. At the same time, Iran has been threatening Israel with destruction. Outside of a few relatively weak sanctions, Iran has faced no provocations for these actions either.

North Korea has done something similar. In the 1990's, they agreed to a nuclear freeze agreement with the United States. In the early years of the Bush administration, the world found out that North Korea had been systematically violating these agreements. Since then, North Korea has on occasion tested a nuclear weapon much like they did last evening.

Never has either nation faced anything more than the proverbial slap on the wrist for any of these provocations. In fact, most of the world would like to pretend that none of this is happening or matters. Some of the rest act as though they are both perfectly within their right to do all of this. This leaves very few ready and willing to confront both and either.

So, again, we are at a crossroads. Both the State Department and the President himself have condemned this action. All of this is the sort of bellicose talk that happens everytime one of these nations engages in provocation. Never does any of this talk amount to very much more than this. It's unlikely that this current situation will be any different than any other. Until and unless both these nations face stiffer punishment for this type of provacation they will only engage in more and more serious provocation. That's how it worked on the dogs. It's how classical conditioning works, and it's no different for both Iran and North Korea.

Why Not a World Without Nukes?

That's the title of a piece by Eugene Robinson and it's also a relevant question now that President Obama has made nuclear disarmament a central foreign policy platform. While War Games is a favorite movie of mine, it's despite not because of its theme. That theme is essentially "Why Not a World Without Nukes". In the end, after playing a computerized version of a nuclear war in which the whole entire world blows up, the computer, Joshua, says

strange game, the only way to win is not to play. How about a nice game of
Chess?

Now, this simplistic theme is what both War Games, President Obama and Eugene Robinson see the world through. Nuclear proliferation is a bad thing and we must do all we can to stop it. Don't get me wrong, I would love to live in a world with no nuclear weapons. However, I live in reality and in reality, such a world doesn't exist.

The real key to nuclear disarmament is how we get there. In this case, the devil is in the details. For instance, President Obama has decided to meet with Premiere Medvedev about about bi lateral talks for nuclear disarmament between Russia and the U.S. So, what if President Obama is successful? That will mean that Russia's dwindling nuclear stock pile is destroyed along with our own flourishing nuclear arsenal. At the same time, North Korea is expanding its program, Iran is trying to get one, and Pakistan and India both have significant programs as well.

Israel doesn't even officially acknowledge to have a nuclear program. Frankly, there is no way any president would ever get them to dismantle theirs. If they did, it would also spell the death of the nation. If Israel doesn't dismantle theirs, how will we get their enemies to dismantle their programs?

Finally, several rogue nations want to work in concert with rogue terrorist groups like Al Qaeda to develop a nuclear weapon that the terrorist group will use. Does anyone really believe either of those entities would be part of any non proliferation agreement?

So, where could we be? In months, President Obama could agree to dismantle our robust program at the same time the Russians dismantle their program. Given that ours is much more powerful than theirs, all that would really do is weaken the U.S. Furthermore, this would all be done while rogue nations and terrorist groups are seeking even more to acquire their own weapon. So, the reality is that a world without nukes would actually mean a world without U.S. nukes while most of our enemies would be increasing their arsenal.

Furthermore, the best way to end nuclear proliferation is to create defenses that would make nuclear weapons impotent. We have long been working on such defenses, and it is exactly these defenses that President Obama wants to reduce funding for. We can get to a world without nukes by creating a missile defense that would shoot or destroy any nuclear weapon and render it useless. That is still a long way off, but it requires much more research. It is this research that President Obama is now giving serious consideration to significantly reducing all while he is also seriously considering reducing our own arsenal of nuclear weapons.

That's just the beginning. Policy making is about prioritizing. We live in a world in which Al Qaeda would like to kill as many Americans as possible, where much of the Middle East wants Israel destroyed, Iran wants nukes, North Korea is provoking, and Russia invades its neighbors. Yet, it appears that President Obama's priorities lie in nuclear disarmament. Those priorities ignore other matters that have significantly more immediate risk. Pursuing our own nuclear disarmament will only encourage more armament from both Iran and North Korea. It will do nothing to subside the threat from Al Qaeda. Making nuclear disarmament a major priority means that President Obama doesn't seem to understand the priorities of the world going on.

"Why Not a World Without Nukes" is a fantasy dreamed up by people that occupy a scope near President Obama's own ideology in which they believe that the rest of the world will follow if the U.S. will only reduce its own nuclear weapons' commitment. Such fantasy is not only naive but dangerous.

The New York Philharmonic Plays the Star Spangled in PyongYang

The symbolism here is through the roof.

The New York Philharmonic performed "The Star-Spangled Banner" for North Korea's communist elite Tuesday — a feat of musical diplomacy aimed at improving ties with the isolated nuclear-armed country that considers the U.S. its mortal enemy.

The Philharmonic is the first major American cultural group to perform in the country and the largest delegation from the United States to visit its longtime foe.

The unprecedented concert represents a warming in relations between the nations that remain technically at war and locked in negotiations over Pyongyang's nuclear weapons programs.

The Philharmonic began the concert with "Patriotic Song" — North Korea's national anthem — followed by the U.S. anthem. The audience stood during both anthems and held their applause until the conclusion of the second.

...that is a concert I would want to attend