The Republic of Dissent

Ze speech

I'm having an awful week. My anemia is back in full force and it is kicking my you know what. Nevertheless, I wanted to write on Obama's speech in Cairo today. My personal opinion is that it will matter not in the immediate future, but in the next decade if it is followed by change (there is that awful word again), by something more substantives than syrupy words and good intentions. Speeches matter in international relations when they are followed by actions and that they announced the beginning of a new era in a country's foreign policies. It is for that reasons that although George W. Bush speeches were criticized for their dullness, arrogance, and their simple-mindedness, they were meaningful. In simpler terms, Ze speech will matter if it is the beginning of something new, the first step in the creation of a new era in American foreign policy (I have my doubts, but hey, I could be). Reza Aslan has a more critical take on the speech, but I think that it is because he bought in the whole messianic mystique that came with Obama's election:

Obama should have chosen Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim nation, a moderate, pluralistic, wildly successful democratic country whose citizens just last month overwhelming voted for secular and moderate Muslim parties over the country’s more radical Islamist groups. Instead, by choosing Cairo as the backdrop to his speech, Obama has in effect rewarded Egypt’s president for life, Hosni Mubarak, for his bloody, blatantly anti-democratic, and dictatorial rule.(...) While it is becoming increasing clear that the new administration has abandoned the half-hearted and ultimately hypocritical democracy-promotion program of the previous administration, it is equally clear that the Muslim world has done no such thing. On the contrary, as I have written in these pages before, the overwhelming majority of people in the Middle East (78 percent, according to Gallup International) consider democracy “the best form of government” and continue to clamor for greater political freedoms, especially in countries like Egypt.
What the Muslim people want to hear is what kind of pressure America is willing to place on its dictatorial allies in order to force them to address their people’s aspirations for genuine political, economic, and social development. The truth is that, after four months of Obama in the White House, the Muslim world has had its fill of his platitudes about “mutual respect.” They want to know what actions the Obama administration is willing to take to fundamentally change America’s relationship with the Muslim world. Chiefly, they want to hear about Obama’s specific policy recommendations for dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian issue.

Self-interest is for suckers

“The 11th Commandment for liberals seems to be, "Thou shalt not intervene out of self-interest." Intervening in civil wars for humanitarian reasons is OK, but meddling for national security reasons is not. This would explain why liberals supported interventions in civil wars in Yugoslavia and Somalia but think being in one in Iraq is the height of folly. If only someone had thought of labeling the Korean conflict a humanitarian intervention back then, we might not face the horror and the danger from North Korea today.” Jonah Goldberg, “Fight Today or Occupy Forever.”

The video du Dimanche: the North Korean misery, which Nukes can't hide

The video du jour: Colbert and Kim Jong-il

The transformation of John McCain

Times have changed. In 2000, throughout the primaries it was then Governor Bush trying to emulate McCain by arguing that he was a reformer with results. Today, it is McCain trying to become more like President Bush to win over social and religious conservatives. He had some amazing things to say about the North Korea crisis, which showed me that he had chosen right now to run for president not as the candidate of change, but rather for as the one of continuity as far as foreign policy and national security is concerned. John McCain is in fact suggesting that the Clinton foreign policy is responsible for all of the wrongs of today and that for that reasons Democrats and liberals should just be quiet and be thankful that Bush is trying to correct their mistakes. I like the old McCain better, but again that one wouldn’t have been able to become the early favorite to become the republican presidential candidate. But does McCain has to become president to be the politician of his generation or rather does he have to stop being a maverick to win in 2008? Here is what Herr McCain said:

I would remind Senator (Hillary) Clinton and other Democrats critical of the Bush administration's policies that the framework agreement her husband's administration negotiated was a failure. (…) The Koreans received millions and millions in energy assistance. They've diverted millions of dollars of food assistance to their military (…) We had a carrot-and-no-sticks policy that only encouraged bad behavior.

Food for thought: From the people who brought you the war in Iraq, here is North Korea and the failure of diplomacy

“In the case of North Korea, we have talked to our enemy, and it only has made him stronger. It’s time for action.” Rich Lowery, “A Blast at the Lamont Doctrine.”

“Proponents of more diplomacy argue that, had the United States pursued a more rigorous diplomacy, we could have convinced China and South Korea, once diplomacy failed, to support a more coercive approach. But Beijing's geopolitical calculation--a nuclear North Korea may not be so bad when compared with the alternative of a unified Korea allied with Washington--precludes getting tough with Kim. And the growing pains of South Korea's immature democracy have complicated Washington's attempts to work with it on the North Korea issue.Even worse, the "more-diplomacy" argument overlooks the basic truth about our North Korea problem, which is that we are willing to live with a nuclear North Korea, because the alternative is a major war. In which case, our policy should be based on the premise that we will be living with a nuclear North Korea until the Kim regime is gone. Such a policy requires first getting ourselves out of the six party talks, so we can focus on defending ourselves and reassuring our nervous allies an and South Korea that our nuclear umbrella will protect them. […] But a continued policy of conference diplomacy and empty threats will give us the worst of all worlds: more nuclear weapons in North Korea and more alliance problems with  South Korea and Japan. The lesson we should be teaching Pyongyang is that breaking your commitment to non-nuclearization leads not to concession after concession, but to isolation, pressure, and the uncomfortable position of having a nuclear arsenal pointed at you.” Dan Blumenthal, “ He huffs and puffs.”

The video du jour : North Korea between propaganda and reality

These two videos show two very different pictures of North Korea. The firs shows how it is possible to enslave a country for more than 50 years. The second shows the consequences of pursuing absolute power.

North Korea and the Test

North Korea’s officials have proudly declared to the world that they tested successfully a nuclear device. It is painfully obvious that North Korea is going to remain an obstacle to the stability of north-east Asia for the next few decades probably until its leader Kim Jong-iI dies. North Korea knows that there are few things that the world can do to punish it for its provocations because Edward Reed of the Asia Foundations argues, “Sanctions will mean a further reduction in standards of living and fewer resources for the people. It raises the question whether internal domestic pressures will become a factor in future developments.” Iran has shown North Koreathat the West has neither the power nor the will necessary to oppose nations who are willing to pursue nuclear weapons by any means necessary.

Ian Well via the Agonist has an excellent article, which explains the North Korea problem by avoiding unhelpful clichés and by oversimplification. Money quote:

Let's put to bed the idea that Kim is a madman. It's neither useful nor accurate. The United States declared three countries part of an axis of evil and invaded one. So the other two countries started ramping up their nuke program.

[…] The problem with North Korea having nukes is less that they will use them, than that when the North Korean collapse comes (and it's only a question of when, not if) all those materials, scientists and technologists will be up for grabs. Who knows where they'll land.

[…]There are two countries today whose nuclear programs need to be dismantled - North Korea and Pakistan. Because they are proliferators. (And a serious President would have a heart-to-heart with both China and Israel, neither of whose hands are clean.)But that would require actually acknowledging the problem, acknowledging that those countries have reasons for having nukes, and finding ways to convince them their self interest includes not having them. (And, honestly, bombing Pakistan into rubble in 2002 would have made a lot more sense than invading Iraq.

In the meantime: no, North Korea is not irrational. But George Bush is impotent, and they know it. A smart president would throw up his hands, find out the price for stopping the program, round up the money from allies, and pay.

Since, however, we have Bush, I'd get used to North Korea having more nukes.

The Axis of Evil Speech and North Korea Part deux

The Financial Times in its Editorial this morning did what I did two days ago and looked back at President Bush's axis of Evil speech and the impact that it had on North Korea. Its conclusion is the same as mine, "Mr Kim's continuing antics also throw America's broader "axis of evil" strategy into sharper relief. It is four-and-a-half years since Mr Bush conflated the war on terror with the threat of weapons of mass destruction and elevated Iraq, Iran and North Korea into a special category of global pariahs. The record so far is not good. Far from having milked global sympathies from the September 11 2001 attacks to isolate the most dangerous rogue states, the US is today seen as more of a problem than a solution." The Editorial also offers three lessons which President Bush should learn from this episode:

First, talking to other countries - particularly those that hate you - is not a sign of weakness. Many of the Bush administration's leading figures cut their teeth as inveterate opponents of detente with the Soviet Union in the 1970s. Instead of learning from Ronald Reagan, who used direct talks to exploit the USSR's weaknesses in the 1980s, they continue to portray anyone favouring dialogue as appeasers. [..]

Second, democracy cannot easily be implanted in foreign soils. As we have seen in Iraq and are worryingly close to observing in Afghanistan, where the Taliban are threatening a comeback, building democracy requires more patience and investment than Mr Bush has so far been prepared to offer. Military occupation rarely leads to democracy. But without a minimum level of stability it cannot hope to survive.

Finally, multilateralism often works. In late May, Mr Bush showed he had belatedly grasped this point by offering multiparty talks to Iran. Already there are signs that the mere offer of dialogue has sown divisions among Iran's mullahs. How much more could have been saved if Mr Bush had done this in 2003 when a better chance presented itself? ...

Let's hope that the Bush administration learns from the mistake that was the axis of evil. Apparently, President Bush seemed to have learn something since he emphasized the fact yesterday in his news conference that the North Korean problem would be resolved diplomatically and multilaterally.

The axis of evil speech and its impact on the US and North Korea relationship

On January 29, 2002, President Bush gave his second State of the Union Address in which he referred to North Korea as part of the Axis of Evil with Iraq and Iran. That speech was a mistake for three reasons.

1. It made it impossible for North Korea (Iraq and Iran) to have any other type of relationship than one of confrontation. That State of the Union Address was well written and assertive, but it was also misguided and reckless because it assumed that the US had the might and the resources to deal with three “enemies” at the same time. The President used strong words, which could only provoke strong reactions:

Our second goal is to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening America or our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction. Some of these regimes have been pretty quiet since September the 11th. But we know their true nature. North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens. Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom. Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror.  The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade.  This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens -- leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children.  This is a regime that agreed to international inspections -- then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world. States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world.  By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger.  They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred.  They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States.  In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.

The President made two critical errors. He put North Korea together with States with which the US had had direct or indirect military conflict and sent the message to the North Koreans that the US had every intention to have a confrontational relationship and regarded it as a rogue nation, which it had to pacify.

2. The second reason why this speech was a mistake is that it was purely ideological in the sense that it was based on the belief that the US had to use strong language and to use force to win the fight against terrorism. The problem is of course is that the fight against terrorism is not just about power and about force, it is also about ideas and about values. By focusing on strength and by making the US more egocentric, the Bush administration made the fight against terrorism an American enterprise when it is a universal one since it is in my opinion a fight for the survival and the soul of humanity. North Korea is today a threat not only to the United States, but also to countries such as Japan. Unfortunately, the fact the US personalized the issue by pointing to North Korea and by making it a foe makes it difficult to deal with this issue in a pragmatic manner. The US has to deal with Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and North Korea but it is clear that it needs allies. Unfortunately, countries are more reluctant to come to the aid of the US precisely because they feel uncomfortable with the ideology, which President Bush enunciated in that second State of the Union Address, one that believes that strength and force are everything and are the solutions to every global problems
3. Finally, the axis of evil speech was a mistake because it made the United States and the way it uses its power the focus of the fight against terrorism when the focus should have been placed on the terrorists and on the fact that terrorism is unacceptable no matter what its goals are. North Korea is able to launch missiles on the Fourth of July because it knows that it will not have to face a united international community. The North Korean authorities know that there will be countries (Russia, China among others), which will support its actions either by minimizing their importance and refusing to support tough measures to make them stop or by reveling in the fact that North Korea is defying the US.
4. The biggest question for the Bush Administration is what they should do now. Unfortunately, there aren’t many options available to the US and in my opinion, it is important that US officials do everything in their power by changing the relationship with the North Korea from one where conflicts are unavoidable and even desirable to one where cooperation and coexistence become the objective. President Bush was right to say in its axis of evil speech that North Korea was an oppressive regime, but unfortunately, as Iraq showed, it is very difficult for the US to get of an oppressive regime and to put a more stable and democratic one in its place.

While I was sleeping: my trip to New York, football, Madonna, Joe Lieberman, North Korea, and Madonna again

I got back early this morning from my trip to New York, which was wonderful. It felt good to come back to New York and it was difficult to leave it even though I think that DC has its good sides. I had a good time and the hardest thing for me was to resist the need that I had to write notes from my blog to comment on the news and other issues.

1. My stay in New York started very well since France beat Brazil (Football) on Saturday and since I was able to rub the faces of the people I was in by going to eat at a Brazilian Restaurant and by reminding them that France is the oldest team left in the World Cup. That victory made my day and my long weekend for that matter for I stayed on cloud where everything felt great.
2. On Sunday, I went to the New York Public Library, which is my favorite place in New York not only because it has books, but also because I believe that it is one of the few places you can go to New York to find some peace.  I relaxed and read a little because I wanted to be ready for the main event, the one, which had actually brought me to New York: the Madonna concert in Madison Square Garden. I just have one word to describe the concert: wow! It was the fourth time that I was seeing Madonna in Concert and  even though I know I can't be objective because I am her number one fan, I have to say that when I see her, I am always reminded how important it is to know yourself, to know your limits, and to believe that you have the ability to overcome and to transcend them.  What makes Madonna great is that she knows who she is, she knows what she does well and what she doesn't do well and she is able to do her best because she believes in herself. So I have the time of my life.
3. Finally, throughout my long weekend, I couldn't help reading and watching the news. Although a lot happened throughout my trip, I kept thinking about Joe Lieberman and I felt sick to my stomach. I have to admit that I like Joe Lieberman and that even though I don't agree with him on a lot of things, I believe that he has principles and I admired him for it. I think that what happened to Lieberman is what happens to people who believes that faith, religion, and morality have crucial roles to play in politics.  Joe Lieberman is so sure to be right on Iraq and on everything else that he stopped feeling the need to convince people and to explain to them why in spite of the fact that Democrats are for the most part anti-Iraq war, he still believes in this war.  Joe Lieberman forgot that a leader isn't just a person who acts based on his principles, but also someone who takes on the task, the obligation that he has to convince his followers, his electorate that he is doing what is right for the United States. I hope that Joe Lieberman wins the Democratic primary, but I also believe that once he has agreed to take part in it, he can't then say that if he loses, he will run an independent campaign.
4. As I was getting back to DC, I heard about North Korea and the launch of its missiles and I thought about the axis of evil speech of President Bush and I wonder if  he would chance that speech if he had the chance. It is obvious to me that once President Bush announced to the world that Iran and North Korea were enemies to the US, then he left them no other choice, but to act as enemies to the US.  I don't think that ignoring North Korea is the answer because the North Koreans leaders aren't petulant children just asking for some attention, they are adults who believe in what they are doing and who have the means to become a serious threat in that region of the world.
5. Finally, I want to get back to the Madonna concert to end this note. Many people are always surprised by the fact that I loooovvvvve Madonna and that I have for most of my life. I always tell her that she has all the qualities that I admire and that I would like to have: discipline, self-confidence, courage, perseverance, flexibility, and she is a hard worker. I love Madonna because she shows that how far you can go with some talent, a big ego and a lot of hard work. I am going to be watching the game between France and Portugal in a few minutes. I hope France wins. I have this itching feeling that it isn't going to happen, but I am going to watch because I love that team and because I believe in Zidane.