For the past eight years, we have sort of drifted in a vacuum when it comes to foreign policy. Like in a movie where the astronauts are cast adrift in space, that is how our so-called foreign policy has been. We have not had a foreign policy per se, what we have had for the last eight years is a "reactive" policy, a foreign policy (for lack of better name) that was purely reactive. We did not institute new policies or practiced new ways of dealing with other countries, we simply either abandoned old policies as we did with Cuba and Iran (and now Israel!), and called it a new beginning, or just react to whatever the other country does. Witness what is taking place with the so called Russian "hacking," the cyber war.
Overall, we've had a miserable track record for the last decade or so when it comes to foreign policy. We are in the process of losing Syria completely to Assad, owing to our complete mismanagement and lack of action. Our relations with Russia has gone from bad to worse, mainly due to our total lack of policy when dealing with Putin. We have simply reacted by implementing sanctions and verbally condemning his actions. This has gotten us nowhere except to further alienate us. Now with this latest "cyber war," we are doing exactly the same thing. Our congress and president are making statements condemning Russia and announcing that we will do "something" in retaliation. It is a same old story that is only going to make matters worst! Naturally, Putin announced that Russia would not just standby waiting for our retaliation. So, it's going to be Russia's reaction to our reaction, and so forth!
Our relations with Israel are probably at its lowest point ever. Obama and Netanyahu never got along right from the start. They are not only complete opposites in personalities but apparently in their views on the Middle East and especially Arab-Israeli relations. The most recent U.S. move in the UN was indeed a betrayal. A US veto would not have changed the outcome, but it would have shown US support for Israel. By abstaining from voting, the US has essentially taken the Palestinian side. Kerry's long explanation of US decision to act (or not act) as it did, really did not make much sense. In particular, his statement that US was seeking the peaceful coexistence of two states, Israel and Palestine, but that a Jewish state and a democracy was not possible. What exactly did he mean by that? Was he saying that Israel is not a democracy and that Jews cannot be a part of democratic system? It just made no sense and further infuriated Netanyahu!
We have not had a policy of any kind when it comes to dealing with North Korea. The last time there was any attempt to deal with North Korea took place during Clinton administration and it was very badly handled. In fact, you can blame the current situation to the mishandling of that "deal" that Clinton had struck with North Korea. The way we have been "handling" the North Korean situation is by beefing up defenses around South Korea and Japan and encouraging Japan to increase its defensive capabilities. This, of course, simply causes North Korea to increase its nuclear development and belligerent behavior. How else are they going to react since there are no means for them to deal with us?
Our "experts" have been saying that China was the key to the whole problem with North Korea. It was China that supported North Korea economically throughout the sanctions and it was China that could control North Korea. Well, China did help North Korea and continues to do so, but now we discovered that China really has no control over North Korea. China is eager to sell goods to them, but really cannot tell them what to do! So now, after all this time, we are finally aware that North Korea is truly a rogue and will do what it decides to do, not what China or Russia tells it to do!
The problem with North Korea that we have is much more severe than what our government is telling us or what the news media is reporting! A slightest error, miscalculation or misunderstanding could lead to another war in Korea, this time much worst than before! A mechanical or an electronic glitch on one of their missile or nuclear tests could send a nuclear warhead to South Korea or Japan, starting an exchange in missile attacks and counter attacks. But even if a hot war does not erupt, we cannot continue to force North Korea to live under those very brutal sanctions. If China stops selling goods to North Korea, you can bet that they will find a market for their nuclear weapons to raise hard cash! Do we want ISIS or other such terrorist organization to have nuclear weapons in their possession? North Korea will not hesitate to sell its nukes, after all, they won't just sit there and starve. To survive, they will sell to whoever offers to buy!
If I painted a gloomy picture of today's landscape, well.....that is because it is gloomy! This is what the new administration will be facing. So, rather than constantly criticizing and finding fault with every little thing to do with Trump, saying things like "he is not my president!" I think we need to come together as a nation and hope for the best. It really annoys me to see politicians still grandstanding and making inflammatory statements about their political opposites, but then, they are politicians!
Every election half of the population will be unhappy because their candidate, their party did not win. That is the nature of our system. You would think people of America have learned to live with that after all these years! Let's hope that the new administration will not continue with this "reactive" policy and does develop a "foreign policy!" We cannot afford to start another cold war with Russia, nor can we risk having another war in Korea or have North Korea sell its nuclear weapons to the terrorists. Israel is our only true ally in the Middle East, why are we alienating Israel? Does our government really think we are better off dumping Israel and becoming friendlier with other Arab nations? The new administration is going to have to take a stand, make some hard decisions in the direction that we are heading, and create a new foreign policy!
Thursday, December 29, 2016
Wednesday, December 21, 2016
Our Future Relations with Russia and a Refresher in World History
There is no doubt that our relationship with Russia will change with the new administration. The change may be very slight, or it could be major, creating a new world order that may not please everyone. Europe in particular is extremely nervous about any gains that may be made by Russia. Since the end of World War Two, Europe, for the most part, has had a dysfunctional relationship with Russia. Part of Eastern Europe was under the influence and rule of the old Soviet Union, while the Western Europe lived in fear of imminent attack by the so-called Warsaw Pact, a Soviet led military alliance of Eastern Bloc. With the demise of the Soviet Union, despite the disappearance of the threat of Warsaw Pact, many European nations still feel very mistrustful and fearful of Russia.
Ironically, there are those in Europe who see Putin in a more favorable light than we do. They see Putin as someone that is rough around the edges, a bit too blunt perhaps, but nevertheless someone who puts his country's welfare above all. They may not see him as the cold blooded former KGB officer who is a ruthless modern day Stalin. Some Europeans see their own leaders as being too weak and too steeped in political maneuvering to be of any good for their country. So, in a sort of a grudging way, they see Putin in a more favorable light than some of their own leaders.
Europe's outcry over Russia's behavior in Ukraine is strictly based on the fact that they fear for the loss of their own territory! It may seem far fetched to us, sitting an ocean's width away, but for many European countries, Russia's aggression in Ukraine translates to possible aggression against their own country in the near future. Yet, as everyone knows, despite the outcry and condemnations, no European country has done anything to stop Russia. Why is that? I think it is possible that most European countries are well aware of the history behind Ukraine and Russia, history that binds the two countries making them more similar than dissimilar! Yes, there were Ukrainians that welcomed the German army and some even volunteered to serve in the special SS unit that Nazis established. But those were anti-Soviet Ukrainians, not anti-Russian. Stalin and the Soviets were hated in many parts of Russia and the former Soviet Union. At the same time, Ukraine and Ukrainians had the largest partisan forces, partisans that everyone agrees played a key role in defeating the Nazis.
Historically Ukraine has been part of Russia going way back even as far as the 10th and 11th Centuries. At that time the land of Rus (today's Russia) was settled by Vikings and split into principalities, each ruled by a knyaz or a prince. Such was the case with Moscow and other Russian settlements like Minsk, that later became cities. Kiev (in Ukraine) was the largest and the most powerful principality at the time. Prince Vladimir of Kiev was the first to be baptized and thereby started the spread of Orthodox faith throughout Russia. All of the people living in the various principalities in the land of Rus spoke the language that became known as Russian, and vast majority became of Orthodox faith.
Yes, there were regional dialectical differences, but everyone could communicate in the common language which became Russian. On and off, throughout history, some of these former principalities would try to break away and create an independent state, but invariably they returned to the fold. Ukraine gained some degree of independence as a Cossack state run by Zaparozhian Cossacks in the 17th and 18th Centuries. But they all succumbed eventually to the Russian Tsar in Moscow. So, Ukraine has been part of Russia for at least three centuries, but in fact, has been tied to Russia going back to pre history of that region.
Between 1853 and 1856, Russia fought the combined forces of England, France, Sardinia, and the Turkish Ottoman Empire in what was called the Crimean War. No one at the time even gave a thought that perhaps Crimea was not part of Russia. It was simply thought of as the part of Russia that was on the outer fringes of the Russian Empire. Ukrainians were considered Russian, although some today, as well as in the past, insisted on separating the two. The former Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushev was a Ukrainian, as was Leonid Brezhnev! Stalin was a Georgian, and most Russians never really considered him to be Russian. Stalin spoke Russian with a thick Georgian accent and many of his mannerisms and choice of speech were not Russian. Not so with Khrushev and Brezhnev, no one ever called them Ukrainian....they were Russian. As Putin said in a press conference once, before all the mess began in Ukraine, "We are the same people!"
The situation and the relationship that exists between Russia and Ukraine is not simple and clear cut. Ukraine and Ukrainians have been part of Russia for many, many years. Of course there are Ukrainians that are fiercely independent and want to stay separate from Russia. But, their ties and connection to Russia are much stronger and deeper than most outsiders are aware. Puerto Rico in the Caribbean and Guam in the Pacific became our possessions in 1898 after the Spanish-American War. Puerto Ricans and Guamanians are U.S. citizens. Any problems in those territories would be considered our own internal problems and we would certainly not welcome any foreign intervention. Earlier, after the Mexican-American War of 1846 to 1848, we gained a huge chunk of territory in our Southwest, mainly Arizona, New Mexico, and parts of Texas! Some in Mexico still consider those areas as Mexican territory! Are those states not part of the United States? Can you imagine if foreign powers intervened if we had some internal troubles? It may seem unrealistic to us, but that is how most Russians and most certainly Putin, view the situation in Ukraine. It is an internal problem even though Ukraine gained independence in 1990.
This long preamble about Ukraine and Russia's and our own historical past was meant to show that not everyone sees things the same way. If Trump's administration makes concessions in trying to establish a better relationship with Russia, I have no doubt that part of it will be our easing of sanctions connected with their actions in Ukraine. No doubt this would cause great uproar not only here domestically but with some European nations. But, keep in mind that despite verbal condemnations, the European countries really haven't done much in a way of sanctions. They are too dependent on Russia for natural gas supply as well as petroleum, among other things! When it comes to sanctions against Russia, ours are the biggest and most damaging to Russia.
Diplomatic negotiations are nothing but good horse-trading. There is no magic, no hocus-pocus involved. There is no special training that helps to develop skills for diplomatic negotiations. It is simply good negotiating skills, ability to recognize what the other side wants and how to get what you want without giving up everything! Compromise is huge part of negotiations. If you are not willing to compromise, you won't be able to reach an agreement. So, it is give and take. We will no doubt have to give up some things to gain others. Let's hope we have better negotiators representing our interests and we won't end up as we did in the Iran Nuclear Deal!
Ironically, there are those in Europe who see Putin in a more favorable light than we do. They see Putin as someone that is rough around the edges, a bit too blunt perhaps, but nevertheless someone who puts his country's welfare above all. They may not see him as the cold blooded former KGB officer who is a ruthless modern day Stalin. Some Europeans see their own leaders as being too weak and too steeped in political maneuvering to be of any good for their country. So, in a sort of a grudging way, they see Putin in a more favorable light than some of their own leaders.
Europe's outcry over Russia's behavior in Ukraine is strictly based on the fact that they fear for the loss of their own territory! It may seem far fetched to us, sitting an ocean's width away, but for many European countries, Russia's aggression in Ukraine translates to possible aggression against their own country in the near future. Yet, as everyone knows, despite the outcry and condemnations, no European country has done anything to stop Russia. Why is that? I think it is possible that most European countries are well aware of the history behind Ukraine and Russia, history that binds the two countries making them more similar than dissimilar! Yes, there were Ukrainians that welcomed the German army and some even volunteered to serve in the special SS unit that Nazis established. But those were anti-Soviet Ukrainians, not anti-Russian. Stalin and the Soviets were hated in many parts of Russia and the former Soviet Union. At the same time, Ukraine and Ukrainians had the largest partisan forces, partisans that everyone agrees played a key role in defeating the Nazis.
Historically Ukraine has been part of Russia going way back even as far as the 10th and 11th Centuries. At that time the land of Rus (today's Russia) was settled by Vikings and split into principalities, each ruled by a knyaz or a prince. Such was the case with Moscow and other Russian settlements like Minsk, that later became cities. Kiev (in Ukraine) was the largest and the most powerful principality at the time. Prince Vladimir of Kiev was the first to be baptized and thereby started the spread of Orthodox faith throughout Russia. All of the people living in the various principalities in the land of Rus spoke the language that became known as Russian, and vast majority became of Orthodox faith.
Yes, there were regional dialectical differences, but everyone could communicate in the common language which became Russian. On and off, throughout history, some of these former principalities would try to break away and create an independent state, but invariably they returned to the fold. Ukraine gained some degree of independence as a Cossack state run by Zaparozhian Cossacks in the 17th and 18th Centuries. But they all succumbed eventually to the Russian Tsar in Moscow. So, Ukraine has been part of Russia for at least three centuries, but in fact, has been tied to Russia going back to pre history of that region.
Between 1853 and 1856, Russia fought the combined forces of England, France, Sardinia, and the Turkish Ottoman Empire in what was called the Crimean War. No one at the time even gave a thought that perhaps Crimea was not part of Russia. It was simply thought of as the part of Russia that was on the outer fringes of the Russian Empire. Ukrainians were considered Russian, although some today, as well as in the past, insisted on separating the two. The former Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushev was a Ukrainian, as was Leonid Brezhnev! Stalin was a Georgian, and most Russians never really considered him to be Russian. Stalin spoke Russian with a thick Georgian accent and many of his mannerisms and choice of speech were not Russian. Not so with Khrushev and Brezhnev, no one ever called them Ukrainian....they were Russian. As Putin said in a press conference once, before all the mess began in Ukraine, "We are the same people!"
The situation and the relationship that exists between Russia and Ukraine is not simple and clear cut. Ukraine and Ukrainians have been part of Russia for many, many years. Of course there are Ukrainians that are fiercely independent and want to stay separate from Russia. But, their ties and connection to Russia are much stronger and deeper than most outsiders are aware. Puerto Rico in the Caribbean and Guam in the Pacific became our possessions in 1898 after the Spanish-American War. Puerto Ricans and Guamanians are U.S. citizens. Any problems in those territories would be considered our own internal problems and we would certainly not welcome any foreign intervention. Earlier, after the Mexican-American War of 1846 to 1848, we gained a huge chunk of territory in our Southwest, mainly Arizona, New Mexico, and parts of Texas! Some in Mexico still consider those areas as Mexican territory! Are those states not part of the United States? Can you imagine if foreign powers intervened if we had some internal troubles? It may seem unrealistic to us, but that is how most Russians and most certainly Putin, view the situation in Ukraine. It is an internal problem even though Ukraine gained independence in 1990.
This long preamble about Ukraine and Russia's and our own historical past was meant to show that not everyone sees things the same way. If Trump's administration makes concessions in trying to establish a better relationship with Russia, I have no doubt that part of it will be our easing of sanctions connected with their actions in Ukraine. No doubt this would cause great uproar not only here domestically but with some European nations. But, keep in mind that despite verbal condemnations, the European countries really haven't done much in a way of sanctions. They are too dependent on Russia for natural gas supply as well as petroleum, among other things! When it comes to sanctions against Russia, ours are the biggest and most damaging to Russia.
Diplomatic negotiations are nothing but good horse-trading. There is no magic, no hocus-pocus involved. There is no special training that helps to develop skills for diplomatic negotiations. It is simply good negotiating skills, ability to recognize what the other side wants and how to get what you want without giving up everything! Compromise is huge part of negotiations. If you are not willing to compromise, you won't be able to reach an agreement. So, it is give and take. We will no doubt have to give up some things to gain others. Let's hope we have better negotiators representing our interests and we won't end up as we did in the Iran Nuclear Deal!
Monday, December 19, 2016
US-Russia Relations, Past, Present, and Future
Right now there is quite a bit of noise and protestations surrounding Trump's win in the elections. Bill Clinton blamed the Director of FBI and "angry white men" as he put it (yes, that's what he said!), as the two main causes for Hillary's loss in the election. Others are blaming Russians, saying that no doubt the Russians hacked into our computer systems (mainly those of the Democratic Party Headquarters) and caused the elections to be swayed in favor of Trump. There has been a "cyber war" going on for over a decade between countries. We hack into many countries' computer systems and they in turn do the same to us. The biggest offenders in this regard are Chinese, also our biggest trading partners. So this whole business of hacking is no big news! All of those folks who swore to leave for Canada if Trump won the election are still around and haven't shown any indication of moving anywhere, much less to Canada, perhaps they are awaiting for the final results of the electoral count! Whatever the case may be, the plain simple fact is that, good or bad, the elections are over so let's get over it!
Along with protestations about Trump's election, some are also voicing alarm over what they perceive to be Trump's favoring of Russia. His choice for Secretary of State is someone who has had a long, friendly relationship with Russia and Putin in particular. Trump himself has periodically expressed desire to develop better relations with Russia, so perhaps this is the beginning of a new US-Russia relationship? I've already blogged earlier and mentioned that Trump appears to want to establish a different relationship with China and re-establish ties with Taiwan. As I said in that blog, in doing so, he no doubt wants to change the geopolitics in Asia, particularly in the Northeast Asia, what used to be called the Far East.
Our relations with Russia have never been good, not even during World War Two when we were supposedly allies and were fighting common enemies. However, even during that period, when we were "friendly" and sent tons of Spam (no, we weren't hacking their computers, I meant the kind that you eat and is a great favorite in Hawaii!) as well as lend-lease aircrafts and other goodies, the relations between the two countries was not that great. Stalin and many of his politburo members mistrusted the U.S., they remembered that only some 25 years earlier we had sent troops to both Siberia (Vladivostok) and European Russia (Archangel) to fight Bolshevik troops! In Archangel we were allied with British Expeditionary Force, in Vladivostok with the Japanese! However, our attempt to affect the outcome of Russian Civil War failed.
Twenty five years later we were allied with Russia because we were fighting Nazi Germany and, let's face it, we needed them! Of course, they needed us too, but Spam and lend-lease equipment notwithstanding, Russia basically fought Nazi Germany all alone in Europe for a number of years, for a three year period! Stalin kept pressuring Roosevelt and Churchill to open a second front, to relieve the pressure on the Russian army. Churchill wanted to delay opening a second front as long as possible. He wanted to sap the strength of the Russians and in fact, thought of continuing advancing eastward after Germany was defeated! Roosevelt was against it. He thought not only that it was a bad plan, but he did not want to double cross our ally, the Russians. Stalin was well aware of all that was going on. That is one reason why he was so demanding during the division of real estate after the war!
To find the period when we indeed had "good" relations with Russia you would have to go back to the 19th Century and the Tsarist time! But even during that period, our relationship tended to go hot and cold and Teddy Roosevelt didn't endear himself to Russia when he, as the arbiter during the San Francisco Peace Treaty, so generously awarded Japan with all of the territory in the Far East, including Manchuria and Korea, at the end of Russo-Japanese War in 1905. Teddy and the U.S. did this because we did not want Russia to expand its territory in the Far East. Japan, of course, promptly colonized Manchuria and Korea. Of course, we had our colony in Philippines and other interests, like trading concessions in China.
The end of World War Two saw the start of the "Cold War" which lasted until the fall of the Soviet Union. During the 80 odd year period of the existence of the Soviet Union, we were never able to become "friends" with Russia. The closest we came was toward the tail end of the Soviet Union when Gorbachev instituted glastnost and perestroika, trying to normalize relations with other countries. When Soviet Union collapsed we had an opportunity to improve our relationship with Russia, but the country was in such chaos that we kept our hands off, so to speak. During Boris Yeltsin's eight year tenure as the President of the Russian Federation, we could have made some gains, but except for very small advances, nothing much was achieved. Bill Clinton, it appeared, was not very interested in improving relations with Russia, or he simply did not know how to approach Yeltsin. When GW Bush took over, Putin had stepped into the presidency for his first go around. At first Bush and Putin seemed to get along, but like all presidents, Bush was very strongly influenced by his cabinet advisors who for the most part disliked and at that point, had little respect for Russia. This was reflected in Bush's dealings with Russia. At one point Putin extended a friendly hand offering petroleum and other resources when we first went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Unfortunately, Bush turned a cold shoulder at the advice of his cabinet. This started the downturn of our relations with Russia and Putin.
Russia in general and Putin in particular, both have a complex when it comes to the U.S. Russians feel that the U.S. thinks of Russia as being inferior to U.S. in all respects. It may very well be that we are superior to Russia in military power, economic wealth, and high technology. But nobody likes to be thought of as second class, and most certainly does not want to be reminded. It seems that some of our leaders are prone to make statements and act in such a way that it does send that signal to Russia. A recent statement by one of our prominent leaders that, "Russia is not our friend," is enough not just to ruin any possibility of friendly dialogue but more than likely made some anti U.S. Russians! We have to keep in mind that some countries or cultures are highly sensitive to language or behavior that they perceive to be offensive or downgrading their status. Our politicians, as a rule, just don't seem to give a damn. Russians are not the only ones that we seem to be constantly offending.
Obama administration has not been very successful at improving relations with Russia. If anything, it has gotten much worse. I won't go into details, but suffice it to say that perhaps only Netanyahu of Israel has had worst experience dealing with Obama administration than Putin. So, if by some chance there will be the much needed mending of relations between U.S. and Russia with Trump's approach, it can't be any worst than it is now! We have become the biggest trading partners of our enemy of the 1950s and 60s....PRC. The sky hasn't fallen and we seem to get along despite the fact that they are a communist nation! We have made peace with Vietnam where we fought a bloody war and have left some very bad memories. Recently we made peace with Cuba, another communist country that was our sworn enemy. Surely it wouldn't hurt to try to better our relations with Russia, the only country with a nuclear arsenal that is bigger than ours!
I have no doubt that concessions will be made in the political arena if we are to improve our relations with Russia, "normalize" them! Trump will no doubt be accused of committing treason, or at the very least an egregious act, when trade-offs take place with Russia to improve relations. But unfortunately that is the nature of politics. We dumped Taiwan to improve our relations with PRC and we betrayed our own Cuban-American community in Little Havana when we made up with Castro. There is no free lunch, unfortunately. I just hope whatever deals we strike are not going to be the ones that take us to the cleaners, as it seems to have taken place in the recent past. Whatever the case may be, unless we want to start another "cold war," we need to do something about improving our relations with Russia.
Along with protestations about Trump's election, some are also voicing alarm over what they perceive to be Trump's favoring of Russia. His choice for Secretary of State is someone who has had a long, friendly relationship with Russia and Putin in particular. Trump himself has periodically expressed desire to develop better relations with Russia, so perhaps this is the beginning of a new US-Russia relationship? I've already blogged earlier and mentioned that Trump appears to want to establish a different relationship with China and re-establish ties with Taiwan. As I said in that blog, in doing so, he no doubt wants to change the geopolitics in Asia, particularly in the Northeast Asia, what used to be called the Far East.
Our relations with Russia have never been good, not even during World War Two when we were supposedly allies and were fighting common enemies. However, even during that period, when we were "friendly" and sent tons of Spam (no, we weren't hacking their computers, I meant the kind that you eat and is a great favorite in Hawaii!) as well as lend-lease aircrafts and other goodies, the relations between the two countries was not that great. Stalin and many of his politburo members mistrusted the U.S., they remembered that only some 25 years earlier we had sent troops to both Siberia (Vladivostok) and European Russia (Archangel) to fight Bolshevik troops! In Archangel we were allied with British Expeditionary Force, in Vladivostok with the Japanese! However, our attempt to affect the outcome of Russian Civil War failed.
Twenty five years later we were allied with Russia because we were fighting Nazi Germany and, let's face it, we needed them! Of course, they needed us too, but Spam and lend-lease equipment notwithstanding, Russia basically fought Nazi Germany all alone in Europe for a number of years, for a three year period! Stalin kept pressuring Roosevelt and Churchill to open a second front, to relieve the pressure on the Russian army. Churchill wanted to delay opening a second front as long as possible. He wanted to sap the strength of the Russians and in fact, thought of continuing advancing eastward after Germany was defeated! Roosevelt was against it. He thought not only that it was a bad plan, but he did not want to double cross our ally, the Russians. Stalin was well aware of all that was going on. That is one reason why he was so demanding during the division of real estate after the war!
To find the period when we indeed had "good" relations with Russia you would have to go back to the 19th Century and the Tsarist time! But even during that period, our relationship tended to go hot and cold and Teddy Roosevelt didn't endear himself to Russia when he, as the arbiter during the San Francisco Peace Treaty, so generously awarded Japan with all of the territory in the Far East, including Manchuria and Korea, at the end of Russo-Japanese War in 1905. Teddy and the U.S. did this because we did not want Russia to expand its territory in the Far East. Japan, of course, promptly colonized Manchuria and Korea. Of course, we had our colony in Philippines and other interests, like trading concessions in China.
The end of World War Two saw the start of the "Cold War" which lasted until the fall of the Soviet Union. During the 80 odd year period of the existence of the Soviet Union, we were never able to become "friends" with Russia. The closest we came was toward the tail end of the Soviet Union when Gorbachev instituted glastnost and perestroika, trying to normalize relations with other countries. When Soviet Union collapsed we had an opportunity to improve our relationship with Russia, but the country was in such chaos that we kept our hands off, so to speak. During Boris Yeltsin's eight year tenure as the President of the Russian Federation, we could have made some gains, but except for very small advances, nothing much was achieved. Bill Clinton, it appeared, was not very interested in improving relations with Russia, or he simply did not know how to approach Yeltsin. When GW Bush took over, Putin had stepped into the presidency for his first go around. At first Bush and Putin seemed to get along, but like all presidents, Bush was very strongly influenced by his cabinet advisors who for the most part disliked and at that point, had little respect for Russia. This was reflected in Bush's dealings with Russia. At one point Putin extended a friendly hand offering petroleum and other resources when we first went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Unfortunately, Bush turned a cold shoulder at the advice of his cabinet. This started the downturn of our relations with Russia and Putin.
Russia in general and Putin in particular, both have a complex when it comes to the U.S. Russians feel that the U.S. thinks of Russia as being inferior to U.S. in all respects. It may very well be that we are superior to Russia in military power, economic wealth, and high technology. But nobody likes to be thought of as second class, and most certainly does not want to be reminded. It seems that some of our leaders are prone to make statements and act in such a way that it does send that signal to Russia. A recent statement by one of our prominent leaders that, "Russia is not our friend," is enough not just to ruin any possibility of friendly dialogue but more than likely made some anti U.S. Russians! We have to keep in mind that some countries or cultures are highly sensitive to language or behavior that they perceive to be offensive or downgrading their status. Our politicians, as a rule, just don't seem to give a damn. Russians are not the only ones that we seem to be constantly offending.
Obama administration has not been very successful at improving relations with Russia. If anything, it has gotten much worse. I won't go into details, but suffice it to say that perhaps only Netanyahu of Israel has had worst experience dealing with Obama administration than Putin. So, if by some chance there will be the much needed mending of relations between U.S. and Russia with Trump's approach, it can't be any worst than it is now! We have become the biggest trading partners of our enemy of the 1950s and 60s....PRC. The sky hasn't fallen and we seem to get along despite the fact that they are a communist nation! We have made peace with Vietnam where we fought a bloody war and have left some very bad memories. Recently we made peace with Cuba, another communist country that was our sworn enemy. Surely it wouldn't hurt to try to better our relations with Russia, the only country with a nuclear arsenal that is bigger than ours!
I have no doubt that concessions will be made in the political arena if we are to improve our relations with Russia, "normalize" them! Trump will no doubt be accused of committing treason, or at the very least an egregious act, when trade-offs take place with Russia to improve relations. But unfortunately that is the nature of politics. We dumped Taiwan to improve our relations with PRC and we betrayed our own Cuban-American community in Little Havana when we made up with Castro. There is no free lunch, unfortunately. I just hope whatever deals we strike are not going to be the ones that take us to the cleaners, as it seems to have taken place in the recent past. Whatever the case may be, unless we want to start another "cold war," we need to do something about improving our relations with Russia.
Wednesday, December 14, 2016
Presidents and Their Advisors
I have harped on this subject in previous blogs, that Presidents sometimes are blamed for things that really were not their doing.....sort of. The President, like all good CEOs, Generals, and Head Football Coaches, have to rely heavily on their advisors for them to make proper decisions. The football coaches have assistant coaches and coordinators that give them advice, the generals have colonels and majors to give them advice, or information that allow them to make the right decisions. The CEO of a large corporation is no different, that is why a good football coach has to be like a CEO and vice versa!
Dwight D. Eisenhower was perhaps less appreciated President that we have had in the modern era. He was, in the opinion some historians, a lot better than the news media generally gave him credit. Some of his detractors portrayed him as a "do-nothing" sort of a President who spent most of his time on the golf course and let his cabinet and staff run the country. Well.....he did, sort of. That is because he was an excellent leader, a CEO who knew how to lead by allowing his able staff to do the work! Ike's talent to manage a difficult group of people, people with different agendas and giant egos, was recognized early on in the war and that is why he was appointed as the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe. He was successful, perhaps more so than he is given credit, in keeping all of those generals and admirals from squabbling and concentrate on winning the war.
Ike carried over this skill to civilian life and as President when he was elected in 1953. He ended the war in Korea, without giving up the store! No, he was not able to attain complete victory. But he recognized immediately that there was no possibility to accomplish that goal without risking a Third World War, and he knew that was not an option. So he ended the war the best way that he could, without betraying our ally, South Korea. He also refused to involve us in Indochina (Vietnam) when the French were fighting there. He agreed to provide air transport for supplies and French paratroops, but refused to send bombers as French requested. After the French lost and the country was divided, Ike allowed "advisors" to be sent to South Vietnam, but only a very small contingent. Other than a very small commitment of Army Special Forces, which he knew he could pull out any time without problems, there was no U.S. commitment. At that time, most in America did not even know that we had troops in Indochina!
Despite dire warnings from some about the so-called "domino theory" of communist take-over of the world, Ike refused to commit U.S. troops in Vietnam. He firmly believed that a ground war with U.S. commitment such as the one that took place in Korea would end badly. As long as he was the President, there would be no U.S. commitment of large scale troops in any war in Asia. Ike was adamant about his belief in staying out of a war in Asia. On several occasions, going back as far as his time as Supreme Allied Commander in Europe during World War Two, Ike was heard to say that what he feared most was the influence and control of government by the military industrial complex, the large business interests that profit from making war material. During his time as President he was heard again to repeat this sentiment, and of course, he was constantly approached and badgered by the military industrial complex to make political decisions that would favor their cause, i.e., involve U.S. in wars!
Being a politician that he was (a good General or an Admiral has to be a politician as well!) since his days as a General, Ike had to have some in his administration who were from the military industrial complex. But, they did not carry quite the clout that they would have liked and he did not allow them to sway his decision making. Ike had experience dealing with them since his time as a General. Guess what happened after Ike left the office? The much revered ("lionized" by some) JFK surrounded himself with military industrial complex interest individuals. I know JFK is considered almost a holy figure in some quarters, but, he was a human being with human failings as everyone knows, and unfortunately he listened to some of the whisperings of the military industrial complex interest groups. Our involvement in Southeast Asia escalated rapidly and would have ended up where it did even if JFK had not been assassinated in 1963. JFK had approved a coupe against the South Vietnamese President and it was carried out in the same month that JFK died! The reason? So that we could have more control over how the war was carried out! Everyone knows about the disastrous "Bay of Pigs Invasion" and subsequent several attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro, all approved by JFK! So, JFK was not above ordering assassinations and overthrowing of governments that he didn't like!
LBJ basically carried on what was handed to him. He was surrounded by "bean counters" and efficiency experts from the military industrial complex who thought they could run the war like they ran a large corporation. Crucial decisions involving the execution of the war were carried out by these "experts," some of whom had never been in a war or set foot in a battle field! It was the beginning of what was then called a "push button war," an outdated term that was considered "modern" in the 1960s! Technology is wonderful and can be a great advantage. But technology alone cannot win wars as those "experts" in the 1960s and 70s believed. So then Nixon came to power, became our next President rising from the ashes, like a bad phoenix! Remember, how poorly Nixon compared to JFK and how badly he lost! To top that off, he lost his bid for the gubernatorial seat in California. Nixon couldn't even become a governor in his home state, yet, he was able to win the Presidency of the United States! Go figure.
Nixon tried to take a page out of Ike's playbook. He immediately launched his plan to end the war in Vietnam and make peace with China. He did accomplish both goals, but unlike Ike who ended the war in Korea honorably, maintaining steadfast support of South Korea. Nixon's Vietnamization called for essentially abandonment of our allies, the South Vietnam, which we did shamefully! But that wasn't all, in order to make peace with China, he betrayed the Republic of China in Taiwan! So yes, he ended the war in Vietnam and made peace with China, but at what cost? Nixon may have very well considered those two acts as his greatest accomplishments, but others would argue that perhaps those two acts were some of the more shameful acts committed by our government! Be that as it may, that is now history, having taken place some 40 years ago! But that legacy still lingers on, and Nixon's departure from his office was inglorious and predictably appropriate! It was like a K-drama, where karma plays a very important role and all bad things come to a bad end!
We are now facing a new administration that will soon take office. Already, some of the cabinet appointments have not only raised eyebrows but some howls from the liberal section. It never ceases to amaze me how we don't seem to learn from the past. The military industrial complex appears to be alive and well, perhaps even having made substantial gains. The problem with the previous administration, according to its critics, is that it just didn't do much. There were very few changes if any, and when it came to our foreign policy, we seemed to have crawled into a rabbit hole and stayed put for eight years, only occasionally peeking out to see if the sky hadn't fallen yet. Are we finally going to be out of that rabbit hole? Or are we going to be out of the hole just in time to see the sky come crashing down, as some predict? Some of those cabinet post choices are indeed curious, to say the least. But then, they still have to be confirmed by congress, and there seems to be opposition brewing across party lines to some selections. Whatever the case may be, it certainly will be interesting to see how things develop after inauguration.
Dwight D. Eisenhower was perhaps less appreciated President that we have had in the modern era. He was, in the opinion some historians, a lot better than the news media generally gave him credit. Some of his detractors portrayed him as a "do-nothing" sort of a President who spent most of his time on the golf course and let his cabinet and staff run the country. Well.....he did, sort of. That is because he was an excellent leader, a CEO who knew how to lead by allowing his able staff to do the work! Ike's talent to manage a difficult group of people, people with different agendas and giant egos, was recognized early on in the war and that is why he was appointed as the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe. He was successful, perhaps more so than he is given credit, in keeping all of those generals and admirals from squabbling and concentrate on winning the war.
Ike carried over this skill to civilian life and as President when he was elected in 1953. He ended the war in Korea, without giving up the store! No, he was not able to attain complete victory. But he recognized immediately that there was no possibility to accomplish that goal without risking a Third World War, and he knew that was not an option. So he ended the war the best way that he could, without betraying our ally, South Korea. He also refused to involve us in Indochina (Vietnam) when the French were fighting there. He agreed to provide air transport for supplies and French paratroops, but refused to send bombers as French requested. After the French lost and the country was divided, Ike allowed "advisors" to be sent to South Vietnam, but only a very small contingent. Other than a very small commitment of Army Special Forces, which he knew he could pull out any time without problems, there was no U.S. commitment. At that time, most in America did not even know that we had troops in Indochina!
Despite dire warnings from some about the so-called "domino theory" of communist take-over of the world, Ike refused to commit U.S. troops in Vietnam. He firmly believed that a ground war with U.S. commitment such as the one that took place in Korea would end badly. As long as he was the President, there would be no U.S. commitment of large scale troops in any war in Asia. Ike was adamant about his belief in staying out of a war in Asia. On several occasions, going back as far as his time as Supreme Allied Commander in Europe during World War Two, Ike was heard to say that what he feared most was the influence and control of government by the military industrial complex, the large business interests that profit from making war material. During his time as President he was heard again to repeat this sentiment, and of course, he was constantly approached and badgered by the military industrial complex to make political decisions that would favor their cause, i.e., involve U.S. in wars!
Being a politician that he was (a good General or an Admiral has to be a politician as well!) since his days as a General, Ike had to have some in his administration who were from the military industrial complex. But, they did not carry quite the clout that they would have liked and he did not allow them to sway his decision making. Ike had experience dealing with them since his time as a General. Guess what happened after Ike left the office? The much revered ("lionized" by some) JFK surrounded himself with military industrial complex interest individuals. I know JFK is considered almost a holy figure in some quarters, but, he was a human being with human failings as everyone knows, and unfortunately he listened to some of the whisperings of the military industrial complex interest groups. Our involvement in Southeast Asia escalated rapidly and would have ended up where it did even if JFK had not been assassinated in 1963. JFK had approved a coupe against the South Vietnamese President and it was carried out in the same month that JFK died! The reason? So that we could have more control over how the war was carried out! Everyone knows about the disastrous "Bay of Pigs Invasion" and subsequent several attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro, all approved by JFK! So, JFK was not above ordering assassinations and overthrowing of governments that he didn't like!
LBJ basically carried on what was handed to him. He was surrounded by "bean counters" and efficiency experts from the military industrial complex who thought they could run the war like they ran a large corporation. Crucial decisions involving the execution of the war were carried out by these "experts," some of whom had never been in a war or set foot in a battle field! It was the beginning of what was then called a "push button war," an outdated term that was considered "modern" in the 1960s! Technology is wonderful and can be a great advantage. But technology alone cannot win wars as those "experts" in the 1960s and 70s believed. So then Nixon came to power, became our next President rising from the ashes, like a bad phoenix! Remember, how poorly Nixon compared to JFK and how badly he lost! To top that off, he lost his bid for the gubernatorial seat in California. Nixon couldn't even become a governor in his home state, yet, he was able to win the Presidency of the United States! Go figure.
Nixon tried to take a page out of Ike's playbook. He immediately launched his plan to end the war in Vietnam and make peace with China. He did accomplish both goals, but unlike Ike who ended the war in Korea honorably, maintaining steadfast support of South Korea. Nixon's Vietnamization called for essentially abandonment of our allies, the South Vietnam, which we did shamefully! But that wasn't all, in order to make peace with China, he betrayed the Republic of China in Taiwan! So yes, he ended the war in Vietnam and made peace with China, but at what cost? Nixon may have very well considered those two acts as his greatest accomplishments, but others would argue that perhaps those two acts were some of the more shameful acts committed by our government! Be that as it may, that is now history, having taken place some 40 years ago! But that legacy still lingers on, and Nixon's departure from his office was inglorious and predictably appropriate! It was like a K-drama, where karma plays a very important role and all bad things come to a bad end!
We are now facing a new administration that will soon take office. Already, some of the cabinet appointments have not only raised eyebrows but some howls from the liberal section. It never ceases to amaze me how we don't seem to learn from the past. The military industrial complex appears to be alive and well, perhaps even having made substantial gains. The problem with the previous administration, according to its critics, is that it just didn't do much. There were very few changes if any, and when it came to our foreign policy, we seemed to have crawled into a rabbit hole and stayed put for eight years, only occasionally peeking out to see if the sky hadn't fallen yet. Are we finally going to be out of that rabbit hole? Or are we going to be out of the hole just in time to see the sky come crashing down, as some predict? Some of those cabinet post choices are indeed curious, to say the least. But then, they still have to be confirmed by congress, and there seems to be opposition brewing across party lines to some selections. Whatever the case may be, it certainly will be interesting to see how things develop after inauguration.
Friday, December 9, 2016
The North Korean Threat
Yesterday, in somewhat surprising announcement, Pentagon officials said that North Korea has developed the capability to launch a nuclear strike against the U.S. interests and the U.S. West Coast! This means that North Korea not only has the capability to strike our bases in East Asia (Japan, South Korea, as well as Guam), but it can strike Hawaii and the West Coast (Washington, Oregon, and California). This is truly a disturbing, and frightening, development. It is all the more surprising because as recently as one month ago, all of U.S. official announcements stated that North Korea lacked the capability to carry out a strike against U.S., they lacked the ability to deliver the nuclear payload, although they had the nuclear weapons! Our experts predicted that it would be at least 2020 before North Korea would have the capability. But now it seems, having conducted over 30 missile tests during 2016, they have the capability to reach our West Coast, four years ahead of our timetable! Oops, our "experts" were wrong again.
Concurrently with Pentagon's statement about North Korea's capability, Japan's Minister of Defense Shigeru Ishiba, uncharacteristically, stated that Japan would consider carrying out a pre-emptive strikes should their intelligence indicate that a North Korean attack was eminent. This was a very uncharacteristic remark in a sense because Japan has never made mention before of taking any sort of aggressive action, an offensive role (for self-defense, of course). An offensive military strike is absolutely forbidden according to the Japanese constitution. However, Prime Minister Abe has been working on trying to change some of the language of the Japanese constitution, for which he has been soundly criticized and labeled as a "hawk," even a "fascist" by the liberals not only in Japan, but abroad as well.
Abe has been trying to strengthen Japanese military and has increased the military spending considerably. This was done at our urging, I might add. Japan, however, does not have the capability to carry out a pre-emptive strike against North Korea. They do not have the missiles to do the job. Perhaps there is something in the pipeline coming from the U.S.? Japan has voiced concern over the "shield" that we are providing. They are not very confident that the THAAD system that we are putting in place is adequate to do the job. North Korea has stated that they have the ability to defeat the THAAD system using electronic, i.e., computer technology. It may be just hot air, but then, we also said that it was hot air when Kim Jong Un announced he could strike our interests and territory!
It will be very interesting to see how the new administration will handle this situation. North Korea has to be taken seriously. They are not "the mouse that roared" anymore. Actually they never were mice, they were more like vicious rats before. But now they are much larger and more dangerous because despite all of the "pooh-pooh-ing" that was done in the past about their capabilities, it is obvious that they do indeed have nuclear weapons and are capable of reaching our shores! What a scary thought!
Unfortunately, the past administrations of both parties have done nothing to ease this situation. It should have been nipped at the bud when the North Koreans first started their nuclear program. But I guess we were too busy with other things and North Korea was just never high on the priority list. I hope that this past negligence isn't going to come to roost, so to speak, and become a catastrophe. The joke or the cartoon of a madman with access to nuclear weapons is no longer a joke. Kim Jong Un has the weapons of mass destruction and he will use them because, he is crazy!
Let's see what happens in the Trump administration. Is it going to be business as usual as it has been for several decades regardless of campaign promises and political party lines. Is Trump going to mismanage this North Korean situation and cause a disaster? His predecessors really can't be accused of mismanaging, because they didn't manage the situation, period! Let's see what he does. Is he going to just sit back and let North Korea dictate our moves, is he going to blow the whole thing up, or is he by some miracle going to manage to resolve the issue once and for all? There is no magic bullet, no easy solution. I guess we will just have to wait.
Concurrently with Pentagon's statement about North Korea's capability, Japan's Minister of Defense Shigeru Ishiba, uncharacteristically, stated that Japan would consider carrying out a pre-emptive strikes should their intelligence indicate that a North Korean attack was eminent. This was a very uncharacteristic remark in a sense because Japan has never made mention before of taking any sort of aggressive action, an offensive role (for self-defense, of course). An offensive military strike is absolutely forbidden according to the Japanese constitution. However, Prime Minister Abe has been working on trying to change some of the language of the Japanese constitution, for which he has been soundly criticized and labeled as a "hawk," even a "fascist" by the liberals not only in Japan, but abroad as well.
Abe has been trying to strengthen Japanese military and has increased the military spending considerably. This was done at our urging, I might add. Japan, however, does not have the capability to carry out a pre-emptive strike against North Korea. They do not have the missiles to do the job. Perhaps there is something in the pipeline coming from the U.S.? Japan has voiced concern over the "shield" that we are providing. They are not very confident that the THAAD system that we are putting in place is adequate to do the job. North Korea has stated that they have the ability to defeat the THAAD system using electronic, i.e., computer technology. It may be just hot air, but then, we also said that it was hot air when Kim Jong Un announced he could strike our interests and territory!
It will be very interesting to see how the new administration will handle this situation. North Korea has to be taken seriously. They are not "the mouse that roared" anymore. Actually they never were mice, they were more like vicious rats before. But now they are much larger and more dangerous because despite all of the "pooh-pooh-ing" that was done in the past about their capabilities, it is obvious that they do indeed have nuclear weapons and are capable of reaching our shores! What a scary thought!
Unfortunately, the past administrations of both parties have done nothing to ease this situation. It should have been nipped at the bud when the North Koreans first started their nuclear program. But I guess we were too busy with other things and North Korea was just never high on the priority list. I hope that this past negligence isn't going to come to roost, so to speak, and become a catastrophe. The joke or the cartoon of a madman with access to nuclear weapons is no longer a joke. Kim Jong Un has the weapons of mass destruction and he will use them because, he is crazy!
Let's see what happens in the Trump administration. Is it going to be business as usual as it has been for several decades regardless of campaign promises and political party lines. Is Trump going to mismanage this North Korean situation and cause a disaster? His predecessors really can't be accused of mismanaging, because they didn't manage the situation, period! Let's see what he does. Is he going to just sit back and let North Korea dictate our moves, is he going to blow the whole thing up, or is he by some miracle going to manage to resolve the issue once and for all? There is no magic bullet, no easy solution. I guess we will just have to wait.
Sunday, December 4, 2016
Trump's Conversations with World Leaders
Yesterday, the news media was abuzz with accounts of President-elect Donald Trump's alleged conversations with Taiwan's President Tsai Ing Wen and Pakistan's Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. According to news articles, the implication was that Trump didn't know what he was doing and was bumbling ahead in international affairs, creating diplomatic chaos. The conversation with the Taiwanese President seems to have created a bigger controversy than the one with the Pakistani PM, mainly because India had not filed a protest while China immediately filed a protest claiming that Trump had broken some sort of a sacred agreement in talking to the Taiwanese President. China, incidentally, files an official protest if our ships sail too close to their shores without "official" permission! I don't put much stock into their "protests," official or not! I hate to say this, but it seems to be in China's DNA to file a protest at the slightest "provocation" as they see it, whether justified or not.
For those who may be a bit fuzzy on the history of our relationship with Taiwan, let me refresh it. When Chang Kai Sheik fled to Taiwan in 1949 and established the Republic of China government there, we recognized it immediately as the legitimate government of China while we ignored mainland China which became the communist state of People's Republic of China. We, essentially ignored the existence of a country that was the size of the United States with billions in population. However, in 1972 Richard Nixon paid a surprise visit to Beijing and made "peace" with PRC, who until that point had been our deadly enemy. We had fought a bloody war against the Chinese Communists in Korea for three years and fought for a decade in Vietnam where our enemy the North Vietnamese, were supported by the Chinese.
After Nixon's historic visit to China, we developed a sort of a two China policy. Neither the mainland China nor Taiwan were happy about it. Both insisted that we should have a one China policy. Then in 1979 we abruptly broke our diplomatic ties with Republic of China in Taiwan and established formal diplomatic ties with mainland China. Prior to this, we had promised Taiwan (Republic of China) that we would stand by their side to the bitter end, never abandon them. Of course we made the same promise to the Republic of South Vietnam that we abandoned without ceremony in 1975. So the fact that we dumped Republic of China in 1979, our long-time ally (dating back to pre-World War Two) that we supported for almost a half a century, didn't really surprise some. But there were others that were very much disturbed by this, in fact ashamed of our government's lack of loyalty.
Since 1979, Taiwan has been a non-entity as far as our government was concerned. Never mind that our trade with that island nation amounted to billions and helped to grow our own economy. They were a step child, no, an illegitimate child when it came to official recognition and relations. We don't have an embassy or any kind of a diplomatic mission in Taiwan. Instead, we have the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) which functions like an embassy but staffed with "unofficial" personnel with no official status! Taiwan in turn has no embassy or consulate in the U.S., instead it has a commercial or trade office. Yet, Taiwan was able to build itself into an economic powerhouse in Asia and is one of the Asian "tigers" in the region for their economic wealth and power. Taiwan has also built itself into a military power in the region. It may not have an army as large as mainland China's millions, but it is modern and well equipped. This they managed to do despite the fact that we cut off all military ties with Taiwan after 1979. It is an extremely important country in that region
both economically and politically in keeping China in check.
Not surprisingly, Taiwan's closest ally in the region is South Korea. The two countries share commercial as well as military exchange of all sorts and travel between the two countries is very free. Japan is still building its military defensive capability. It will take a while since Japan has refrained from building its military for so many years. So, South Korea and Taiwan are the only two deterrents in Northeast Asia against China's ambitions in the region. China would never risk a war against Russia, but they have been known to make incursions into smaller neighbors by proxy or directly as they have in Tibet in the late 1950s and in Vietnam in 1979-80.
If truth be known, neither South Korea nor Taiwan is capable of stopping China on its own. However, the two combined, with support from the U.S., could really pose a major problem for China, and China knows it. Interestingly, currently the biggest trading partner for both South Korea and Taiwan is China!
Since 1979, whenever a new U.S. president was elected, the president of Taiwan placed a congratulatory call. Apparently the normal practice of the newly elected U.S. president was to not take the call and have the secretary or whoever, thank the caller politely and hang up. It seems that Trump decided to take the call and chatted with President Tsai of Taiwan. Incidentally, President Tsai Ing Wen, the first woman president of Taiwan, is a graduate of Cornell University and holds a doctorate of law from Cornell Law School. So, she is U.S. educated, and frankly, no reason why Trump should not have chatted with her. Trump detractors have jumped on this claiming that he has started a diplomatic maelstrom, that he did this because of his personal business interests, etc., etc. I don't believe Trump talked to Tsai for the benefit of his business interests, nor did he do it out of ignorance and lack of understanding of international relations, as some claim. I think he simply wants to take our foreign policy in a different direction, and it doesn't mean that he wants to break with China, it simply means that he wants to change our way of doing business in the region.
Trump also talked at length with the Prime Minister of Pakistan Nawaz Sharif. Pakistan is a country that is vitally important to us in our fight against Islamic Terror groups like Al Qaeda. Neither George W. Bush nor Barak Obama have had much success dealing with Pakistan. Frankly, our relationship with that country has been dismal. I think Trump's attempt to patch things with Pakistan is a good thing, considering that most think that Trump is anti Muslim.
No doubt Trump's detractors (haters) will continue to harp on how he has started to destroy our relations with China and India (India being Pakistan's enemy!) so on and so forth. I am neither a Trump hater nor supporter, but I really think that folks are overreacting. Besides, I think what he did so far was long over due. We have treated Taiwan very badly in the past, and if his telephone conversation with President Tsai is going to salve some of the old wounds, then that's good. If it miffed the Communist Party members in Beijing, so be it. I'll guarantee you that China will not break relations with us over this or cause any other problems, we are just too important to them, financially! As for his conversation with Sharif of Pakistan, well, if India gets angry, like China, so be it. India needs us much more than we need them. Of course we need their cheap labor, telephone answering services, etc., although I find it very frustrating talking to someone in Bombay over my problems with a phone line or TV reception!
Yes, Trump's actions have stirred up some controversy. But it isn't as if he declared war on someone, at least not yet!
For those who may be a bit fuzzy on the history of our relationship with Taiwan, let me refresh it. When Chang Kai Sheik fled to Taiwan in 1949 and established the Republic of China government there, we recognized it immediately as the legitimate government of China while we ignored mainland China which became the communist state of People's Republic of China. We, essentially ignored the existence of a country that was the size of the United States with billions in population. However, in 1972 Richard Nixon paid a surprise visit to Beijing and made "peace" with PRC, who until that point had been our deadly enemy. We had fought a bloody war against the Chinese Communists in Korea for three years and fought for a decade in Vietnam where our enemy the North Vietnamese, were supported by the Chinese.
After Nixon's historic visit to China, we developed a sort of a two China policy. Neither the mainland China nor Taiwan were happy about it. Both insisted that we should have a one China policy. Then in 1979 we abruptly broke our diplomatic ties with Republic of China in Taiwan and established formal diplomatic ties with mainland China. Prior to this, we had promised Taiwan (Republic of China) that we would stand by their side to the bitter end, never abandon them. Of course we made the same promise to the Republic of South Vietnam that we abandoned without ceremony in 1975. So the fact that we dumped Republic of China in 1979, our long-time ally (dating back to pre-World War Two) that we supported for almost a half a century, didn't really surprise some. But there were others that were very much disturbed by this, in fact ashamed of our government's lack of loyalty.
Since 1979, Taiwan has been a non-entity as far as our government was concerned. Never mind that our trade with that island nation amounted to billions and helped to grow our own economy. They were a step child, no, an illegitimate child when it came to official recognition and relations. We don't have an embassy or any kind of a diplomatic mission in Taiwan. Instead, we have the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) which functions like an embassy but staffed with "unofficial" personnel with no official status! Taiwan in turn has no embassy or consulate in the U.S., instead it has a commercial or trade office. Yet, Taiwan was able to build itself into an economic powerhouse in Asia and is one of the Asian "tigers" in the region for their economic wealth and power. Taiwan has also built itself into a military power in the region. It may not have an army as large as mainland China's millions, but it is modern and well equipped. This they managed to do despite the fact that we cut off all military ties with Taiwan after 1979. It is an extremely important country in that region
both economically and politically in keeping China in check.
Not surprisingly, Taiwan's closest ally in the region is South Korea. The two countries share commercial as well as military exchange of all sorts and travel between the two countries is very free. Japan is still building its military defensive capability. It will take a while since Japan has refrained from building its military for so many years. So, South Korea and Taiwan are the only two deterrents in Northeast Asia against China's ambitions in the region. China would never risk a war against Russia, but they have been known to make incursions into smaller neighbors by proxy or directly as they have in Tibet in the late 1950s and in Vietnam in 1979-80.
If truth be known, neither South Korea nor Taiwan is capable of stopping China on its own. However, the two combined, with support from the U.S., could really pose a major problem for China, and China knows it. Interestingly, currently the biggest trading partner for both South Korea and Taiwan is China!
Since 1979, whenever a new U.S. president was elected, the president of Taiwan placed a congratulatory call. Apparently the normal practice of the newly elected U.S. president was to not take the call and have the secretary or whoever, thank the caller politely and hang up. It seems that Trump decided to take the call and chatted with President Tsai of Taiwan. Incidentally, President Tsai Ing Wen, the first woman president of Taiwan, is a graduate of Cornell University and holds a doctorate of law from Cornell Law School. So, she is U.S. educated, and frankly, no reason why Trump should not have chatted with her. Trump detractors have jumped on this claiming that he has started a diplomatic maelstrom, that he did this because of his personal business interests, etc., etc. I don't believe Trump talked to Tsai for the benefit of his business interests, nor did he do it out of ignorance and lack of understanding of international relations, as some claim. I think he simply wants to take our foreign policy in a different direction, and it doesn't mean that he wants to break with China, it simply means that he wants to change our way of doing business in the region.
Trump also talked at length with the Prime Minister of Pakistan Nawaz Sharif. Pakistan is a country that is vitally important to us in our fight against Islamic Terror groups like Al Qaeda. Neither George W. Bush nor Barak Obama have had much success dealing with Pakistan. Frankly, our relationship with that country has been dismal. I think Trump's attempt to patch things with Pakistan is a good thing, considering that most think that Trump is anti Muslim.
No doubt Trump's detractors (haters) will continue to harp on how he has started to destroy our relations with China and India (India being Pakistan's enemy!) so on and so forth. I am neither a Trump hater nor supporter, but I really think that folks are overreacting. Besides, I think what he did so far was long over due. We have treated Taiwan very badly in the past, and if his telephone conversation with President Tsai is going to salve some of the old wounds, then that's good. If it miffed the Communist Party members in Beijing, so be it. I'll guarantee you that China will not break relations with us over this or cause any other problems, we are just too important to them, financially! As for his conversation with Sharif of Pakistan, well, if India gets angry, like China, so be it. India needs us much more than we need them. Of course we need their cheap labor, telephone answering services, etc., although I find it very frustrating talking to someone in Bombay over my problems with a phone line or TV reception!
Yes, Trump's actions have stirred up some controversy. But it isn't as if he declared war on someone, at least not yet!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)