A series of proposals centered on regulatory reform are squarely in the cross-hairs on Capital Hill. This includes the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act (the “REINS Act”). Long-brewing concerns about over-regulation, law-making, lack of accountability, rule-making abuses, waivers and more are driving lawmakers as they consider a variety of proposals. The over-riding consideration is this: over the past 80-plus years a major transformation in the structure of the federal government has occurred at the most basic constitutional level. There has been a continuing transfer of power from the legislative branch to the executive branch of government. This transformation has occurred without the passage of a single Constitutional amendment.
The powers and responsibilities of the Presidency are just days away for Donald Trump. While the winds of invectiveness continue to howl, what better source of soothing balm for the President-elect than the words of President Jefferson? We bring forward Jefferson’s advice from his first inaugural address.
Jefferson’s Advice
March 4, 1801 was Jefferson’s first inauguration day. It was the first inauguration to witness a change in power across political parties. It was also the first inauguration held in Washington, D.C. Jefferson walked to the ceremony early that afternoon to deliver his address.
The preservation of the American Constitution and American freedom is the paramount duty of any American President. American foreign policy is the mechanism through which these goals are prosecuted. American leadership is the means through which American goals are accomplished. The challenge for each president is to take the measure of his times, learn from the mistakes of the past, and foster and apply policies that are most likely to enhance the probability of achieving these objectives.
The Constitution
Too often over the course of American history presidents have misunderstood their times. They have either drawn the wrong lessons from the past or failed to understand the mistakes made by their predecessors. The recent past contains a pair of guiding lessons.
American Leadership: A Lesson from George W. Bush
In the aftermath of the attacks of September 11, 2001, President Bush determined to illustrate to the world that America would use its strength and power against any foe that it believed was a direct and immediate threat to American freedom and survival. But with this objective, his decision to invade Iraq became a stark example of a failure to apply lessons previously learned. Continue reading “American Leadership in the World – Lessons from Obama, Bush and JFK”
What makes a great leader? There are scores of books and articles on this subject. We could compile a list of most desirable qualities. We could draw references to George Washington, or quotes from Winston Churchill (well, we did borrow from Sir Winston, below). Our focus would start with integrity. But two qualities that don’t go together are these: leadership and hypocrisy. Which draws us to the sad tale of Senator Schumer, the minority leader in the United States Senate.
Integrity, Wherefore Art Thou . . .
What is integrity? At its core lies honesty. Honesty is being consistent in one’s moral and ethical standards. It is truthfulness or accuracy in one’s actions. Internal consistency as a virtue. Where one has conflicting values, it means accounting for the discrepancy.
Socrates, Esteemed for His Integrity
So how to identify integrity? No scientific method is available. We must look subjectively, and utilize this basic test: what could be more deficient in a leader than a failure to follow his own expressed rules and principles? Certainly, leadership and hypocrisy can’t work in tandem. So let’s look toward New York’s Senator Schumer. Continue reading “Leadership and Hypocrisy – The Sad Tale of Senator Schumer”
Thesis: The North Korean threat to the United States and its allies from North Korea’s nuclear and ballistic missile development is growing rapidly. There are increased risks to the United States. The risks cannot be understated. The direct danger to the U.S. mainland is growing amid increasing concerns to America’s pacific allies. Resolution of the dangers is complex and involves difficult issues with China, North Korea and others.
U.S. policy (sanctions) has failed to stop North Korea’s development efforts, which are accelerating. American must adjust its policy, and soon. If unchecked, North Korea development of nuclearized intercontinental ballistic missiles that can reach the U.S. mainland is inevitable.
The FBI and Department of Homeland Security issued a Joint Analysis Report (JAR) on December 29, 2016. The JAR claims to prove that the Russian government was behind the hacks of the Democratic National Committee and others. This JAR has failed to convince come cyber-security experts of Russian government complicity.
The U.S. China policy may well be affected as the result of revelations made last week by Thae Yong-ho. Thae is the most senior North Korean government official to defect to the west in almost twenty years. In his first interview since his August, 2016 defection, Thae shared insights that will likely have meaningful consequences to the future of the US-China relationship. Thae’s comments may well impact U.S. China policy under President-elect Trump.
North Korean Defector Thae Yong-Ho, Photo: Imgur
Thae indicated that North Korea believes China is fearful of a North Korean collapse. As a result, China’s ability to pressure North Korea over its nuclear program is limited. In the event of a North Korean collapse, Thae maintained, China would fear a unified, pro-Western Korea directly on its eastern border. As Thae put it, “North Korea knows this weakness of China. As long as Kim Jong Un is in power, North Korea will never give up its nuclear weapons, even if it’s offered $1 trillion or $10 trillion in rewards.”
Map of China and Korea, flatworldknowledge.com
Thae also stated that Kim would negotiate with the United States only after achieving his nuclear weapon objective. Kim does not view his nuclear weapon program as a simple bargaining chip with the United States. Of course, the U.S. goal has been to prevent North Korea from achieving its nuclear weapon objective.
Thae is a life-long diplomat and was North Korea’s number two person in London. The North Koreans branded him as “human scum”. Kim stated that “the North sees 2017 as the prime time for nuclear development” given the political changes in South Korea and the United States.
Implications for U.S. China Policy
Thae’s revelations explain the Obama Administration failure to gain China’s full cooperation to reign in North Korea. The Chinese have apparently been playing a duplicitous game. They have taken small steps to imply cooperation with the American policy. At the same time, they have never implemented the steps necessary to compel North Korean to abandon its program. The U.S. China policy thus becomes more nuanced.
Although China backed tough international sanctions against North Korea during 2016, the critical enforcement of penalties against North Korea remains an ongoing issue. The United States has long seen China as the key to force the North Koreans to abandon their nuclear program. Given Thae’s revelations regarding China’s concerns, seen from China’s perspective, a central premise of U.S. policy towards both China and North Korea is subject to full re-examination.
If China’s primary North Korean goal is to ensure the survivability of a North Korean government that remains a friendly ally and an indispensable buffer against the South Koreans, then the United States will face a policy restart in North Korea. The China-North Korea relationship may be more complex than U.S. officials have believed. By necessity, this will impact the U.S. China policy.
The North Korea Policy Dilemma Becomes Even More Difficult
The United States has pursued a variety of approaches to North Korea’s nuclear program over the past 24 years. Under President Obama, the U.S. policy took a definitive turn in 2012 when the North Koreans claimed to be committed to denuclearization and agreed to implement a moratorium on its ballistic missile launches. Two months later, continuing a long-standing approach whereby they say one thing and do another, the North Koreans violated the agreement. As a result, President Obama shifted his strategy and focused more heavily on a sanctions-based approach to North Korea. Obama’s new policy was known as “strategic patience”. The thrust of the policy was an attempt to bring the North Korean regime to its knees through crippling sanctions. The policy failed.
Kim Jong Un’s Nuclear and Missile Policies Are Aggressive and Provocative
As pointed out by Van Jackson, an Associate Professor at the U.S. Defense Department’s Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies, Kim Jong Un has implemented a very aggressive policy:
Van Jackson, North Korea Policy Expert
The last four years under Kim Jong Un have already seen 35 missile launches and three nuclear tests. In word and deed, Kim Jong Un has laid bare his intentions to mate nuclear warheads to long-range missiles, pursue a hydrogen-based nuclear bomb, and develop a submarine-launched ballistic missile capability, which has long been considered the gold standard of an assured retaliatory capacity.
In Jackson’s view, North Korea has determined to complete its nuclear weapons program:
Gone are the days in which it is possible to speculate that North Korea’s nuclear weapons were mere symbols or bargaining chips, or that the threat of nuclear attack was deeply hypothetical. . .
North Korea’s nuclear program is now more accelerated, less constrained, and more openly linked to its missile program than at any point in its history. Pyongyang is rushing to deploy a nuclear force that can ensure the regime’s survival . . . But Washington and Seoul are dealing with North Korea is if it were still the 1980s.
U.S. Policy to North Korea Must Adapt to Changed Circumstances
The United States’ goal of a denuclearized North Korea remains perhaps its most difficult foreign policy objective. Negotiations and sanctions have both failed.
Jackson points out that an American approach that involves (1) making nuclear threats, (2) unifying Korea if war occurs, and (3) constant preparations to deploy large-scale forces to win such a war, “removes incentives for North Korean nuclear restraint in the event of conflict. By holding to its old ways, the [U.S.-South Korean] alliance is unintentionally making any conflict more likely to go nuclear.”
The Trump Administration will now have to craft a policy that will both reign in North Korea while insuring that China achieves its apparent objective of maintaining a viable and separate North Korea. With the North Korean nuclear and missile programs proceeding rapidly, developing such a policy will likely be an early and important initiative for Mr. Trump. Threading this needle will be a significant challenge. North Korea continues to show no interest in discussing either its nuclear weapons or missile programs.
What might this new policy look like? Jackson suggests that a new U.S. policy should be based upon two fundamental principles. First, reduce “the role of nukes in alliance military signaling.” Second, “planning and curbing the objectives and scope of conflicts that break out.” Indeed, Jackson believes that American nuclear threats serve no purpose and only incentivizes North Korea to continue its program.
Thomas Jefferson famously wrote in 1787 that “the basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.” Yet, twenty years later as President, and on the other side of vituperative journalists, he stated: “Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle.” Jefferson did not trust the press in 1807. Today, the media is not trusted by the public.
All signs point to President-elect Trump implementing a major shift in the U.S.-China policy that has been in place since 1971. A primary purpose of President Nixon’s rapprochement with China was to leverage China against the former Soviet Union. The economic benefit of the rapprochement, though unforeseen at the time, was the development of a major bilateral trade and economic relationship between China and the U.S. Currently, there is over $700 billion in trade flows between the two countries.
President Nixon and Chairman Mao
However, recent years have witnessed growing cries of Chinese exploitation of this relationship, ranging from widespread intellectual property and industrial theft, to mercantilistic currency manipulation in order to advantage Chinese trade. Military issues exist in the South China Sea. The U.S. position with respect to mainland China’s one-China policy is apparently being reconsidered.
Introduction of Peter Navarro Into the Mix
President-elect Trump’s appointment of Peter Navarro as director of trade and industrial policy and as head of the new White House National Trade Council has amplified the likelihood of a major shift in U.S.-China policy.
Peter Navarro, new head of the White House National Trade Council
Among other things, Mr. Navarro has previously blamed China for the loss of 25 million American jobs. In his writings Navarro portrays China as a menace that cheats on trade in a variety of ways, including through the theft of intellectual property and illegal export subsidies. He has stated that the U.S. is already in a trade war with China and needs to fight back.
The President-elect has suggested that his goal is to level the economic playing field with China. Creating a variety of pressure points to achieve that objective may be wise. However, implementation of those pressure points may be tricky, if not outright dangerous. The risk of a tactical miscalculation is real.
We will explore these issues in more detail in a subsequent Opinion in the coming weeks.
The CIA has supposedly determined that Russian government hacks, as directed by Russian President Vladimir Putin, were the source for publication of Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails and related emails. Comments from a variety of private security firms buttress these claims. However, in an open letter dated December 12, 2016, the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) claimed that the emails were leaked, not hacked.
VIPS is no ordinary group of citizens with an opinion. Rather, it includes a group of highly accomplished retired and senior intelligence personnel. It’s steering committee includes intelligence luminaries including Thomas Drake (former senior executive with the NSA), Mike Gravel (former adjutant, top secret control officer and special agent of the Counter Intelligence Corps, as well as a former U.S. Senator), and famed NSA whistle blower William Binney (former technical director, world geopolitical and military analysis in the NSA), among others.
