The speech to the South Korean Assembly was not only the best speech Pres. Trump has delivered in his entire life, but an objectively excellent speech.
It gets everything right. Every single point. It has vision, and balance, and direct messaging to the peoples of both countries, and to the leadership and the regime in North Korea.
I have nothing to criticize, and furthermore, I wish with all my heart that the vision outlined in this speech comes through exactly as written. (Do I think it will actually happen? Unfortunately not. But was this exactly the right thing to say? Absolutely).
Showing posts with label North Korea. Show all posts
Showing posts with label North Korea. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 7, 2017
Wednesday, October 11, 2017
The Known Knowns
Today there was a Congressional hearing regarding the MEK bombshell report concerning Iran's continuous nuclear proliferation work, with input from North Korea.
But did we hear anything about it? No. All we heard all day long was the latest about Harvey Weinstein, more stuff about the NFL, and Trump's latest tweets.
Priorities, priorities...
But did we hear anything about it? No. All we heard all day long was the latest about Harvey Weinstein, more stuff about the NFL, and Trump's latest tweets.
Priorities, priorities...
Let's Not Wait to Close The Barn Door Until After The Horse Gets Out
A recent report that North Korean hackers targeted US electric grid through spearphishing emails to electric power companies is yet another signal that foreign powers are increasingly viewing the cybersphere as one of the top frontiers in warfare... and our response continues to be largely reactive as we wait until they perfect their methods before taking serious accounting of our vulnerabilities.
Indeed, there may not be much evidence that any of that batch of attacks were successful, but what happens when inevitably one day one of them succeeds? Chances are, sooner or later, a careless employee will click on the link and let the hackers right in. Alternatively, having figured out that this particular line of attack is not worth pursuing, the hackers may already be finding other backdoors to entry. The typical reaction of expressing concern about the future and not much else, exhibited after this report came in, underscores that the problem of inaction in the face of persistent threat is at least as big of a problem as the actual persistent threats. Perhaps the hackers were simply not sophisticated enough to gain entry this time around. Perhaps one day, having figured out what doesn't work, they'll do better. And perhaps spearphishing emails were merely a distraction from a different line of attacks they will be pursuing in the near future.
Regardless, this is yet another reminder about the vulnerabilities of our electric grid, and the generally poor record on cybersecurity. For the record, I don't expect North Korean hackers to go and blow up a physical station. What I do expect them to do, is perhaps either share the information about US infrastructure vulnerabilities with Russia or Iran, who, no doubt, are considering all lines of attack, or perhaps even hack into their services and simply steal that information. Having dependency on your enemies' known capability is no way to account for your defense. Keeping a flexible mindset about potential for attacks, especially after numerous hints have been practically given to you on a silver platter about what appears to be of interest to a number of adversaries, constantly updating, innovating, and improving your infrastructure and cyber defense, and keeping not only your staffers, but your enemies on their toes with unpredictable responses is the way to avoid trouble that is sure to follow these first few unsuccessful attempts.
Indeed, there may not be much evidence that any of that batch of attacks were successful, but what happens when inevitably one day one of them succeeds? Chances are, sooner or later, a careless employee will click on the link and let the hackers right in. Alternatively, having figured out that this particular line of attack is not worth pursuing, the hackers may already be finding other backdoors to entry. The typical reaction of expressing concern about the future and not much else, exhibited after this report came in, underscores that the problem of inaction in the face of persistent threat is at least as big of a problem as the actual persistent threats. Perhaps the hackers were simply not sophisticated enough to gain entry this time around. Perhaps one day, having figured out what doesn't work, they'll do better. And perhaps spearphishing emails were merely a distraction from a different line of attacks they will be pursuing in the near future.
Regardless, this is yet another reminder about the vulnerabilities of our electric grid, and the generally poor record on cybersecurity. For the record, I don't expect North Korean hackers to go and blow up a physical station. What I do expect them to do, is perhaps either share the information about US infrastructure vulnerabilities with Russia or Iran, who, no doubt, are considering all lines of attack, or perhaps even hack into their services and simply steal that information. Having dependency on your enemies' known capability is no way to account for your defense. Keeping a flexible mindset about potential for attacks, especially after numerous hints have been practically given to you on a silver platter about what appears to be of interest to a number of adversaries, constantly updating, innovating, and improving your infrastructure and cyber defense, and keeping not only your staffers, but your enemies on their toes with unpredictable responses is the way to avoid trouble that is sure to follow these first few unsuccessful attempts.
Tuesday, October 10, 2017
Why We Need To Push Back on Abductions by States
One reason to enact legislation penalizing countries for arbitrary detentions and arrests of US nationals: it would give us additional leverage and put the US in a position of strength during negotiations.
The Obama Administration loses war plans and keys to the front door to North Korean hackers
In the latest in the series of embarrassing cybersecurity incidents involving the Obama administration, which had included giving Pentagon source code to Russia for examination, having NSA data stolen by Russian hackers, and much more, apparently US-South Korea war contingency plans were grabbed by North Korean hackers last year, just as Obama was condemning candidate Trump for collusion with Russia and screaming bloody murder about Russian hackers hacking voting machines.
Is there anything the Obama Administration didn't manage to lose or have stolen by one deadly adversary or another?
Has anyone checked whether the nuclear codes are still there?
Is there anything the Obama Administration didn't manage to lose or have stolen by one deadly adversary or another?
Has anyone checked whether the nuclear codes are still there?
Friday, October 6, 2017
The Limitations of Current Human Rights Legislation in the US
I will be writing on this topic a lot more in the next few days, but for now a few quick thoughts on human rights and counterterrorism laws in the US:
* The Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act is applicable only to human rights defenders, and only when their abusers are foreign nationals. If there is a US-based company or firm that is promoting or is compliant with censorship abroad, it cannot be held accountable under that particular provision in the US.
* The most recent sanctions against Iran, North Korea, and Russia (Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act), essentially designates IRGC as a terrorist organization.
The IRGC will be placed on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists following these procedures becoming law and US President Donald Trump taking the engagements necessary. The following is a list of the actions stated in this House resolution:
All assets and property in the US belonging to IRGC-linked individuals and entities will be frozen.
No American individual or entity has the right to establish financial, business, services or other affiliations with any individuals directly or indirectly associated to the IRGC.
No American individual or entity has the right to violate these sanctions through intermediaries or bypassing these procedures.
All individuals and entities having any relations with the IRGC must be sanctioned. Considering the fact that the IRGC officially enjoy a variety of connections and associations, this will effectively be paralyzing for Iran. One such example is the IRGC Khatam al-Anbiya group that is currently cooperating with more than 2,500 economic firms. All these companies will be sanctioned, rendering any relations with them illegal.
As these measures place the IRGC under secondary banking sanctions, practically no financial institution will be permitted to provide direct and/or indirect banking services to IRGC-linked individuals and entities. No foreign bank will cooperate with any Iranian entity that is in any way related to the IRGC and/or its affiliated entities.
The issue here is not so much undesirable designation as enforcement. The administration needs to consistently place any individuals associated with IRGC on sanctions list and make it into a frequent and very public embarrassment.
Likewise, there are many groups and individuals in Iran, associated with terrorism and human rights abuses who are not IRGC and are not affiliated with it. They, too, should not be overlooked. Quick research will reveal that many such low level individuals are employed in the police, serve as doctors in prison, judges, and others, who facilitate all sorts of horrible activity with no legal repercussions.
Although much of the current human rights legislation aimed at curtailing human rights abuses in Iran is aimed at protecting human rights defenders, the regime does not distinguish between human rights defenders and everyone else. Random people are swept up on trumped up charges, such as "national security" violations and under blasphemy laws. Highlighting and exposing the abuse of blasphemy laws to cover up abuse against human rights defenders should be a top priority for the US and anyone concerned with the horrific abuses in Iran.
Similarly, human rights legislation aimed at other countries, such as Venezuela and North Korea, should be reviewed and updated periodically. One recent piece of legislation aims to blacklist individuals associated with abuse of participants in the massive 2014 anti-government protests, forgetting that much has happened since then, and neither opposition activity nor human rights abuses stopped with that particular episode.
Finally, there is no US legislation penalizing either states or individuals for arbitrary detentions,serious human rights abuses, and extortionism involving the abduction of US nationals. The closest that we have is a serious of reporting requirements by the executive branch to Congress, which does nothing to pressure the culprit states such as Iran, North Korea, or Turkey that extrajudicial torture, arrests on trumped up charges, and disappearances of our citizens and permanent residents will not be tolerated. I would recommend in strongest possible terms legislation holding states and individuals involved accountable for such acts of aggression against the United States.
* The Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act is applicable only to human rights defenders, and only when their abusers are foreign nationals. If there is a US-based company or firm that is promoting or is compliant with censorship abroad, it cannot be held accountable under that particular provision in the US.
* The most recent sanctions against Iran, North Korea, and Russia (Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act), essentially designates IRGC as a terrorist organization.
The IRGC will be placed on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists following these procedures becoming law and US President Donald Trump taking the engagements necessary. The following is a list of the actions stated in this House resolution:
All assets and property in the US belonging to IRGC-linked individuals and entities will be frozen.
No American individual or entity has the right to establish financial, business, services or other affiliations with any individuals directly or indirectly associated to the IRGC.
No American individual or entity has the right to violate these sanctions through intermediaries or bypassing these procedures.
All individuals and entities having any relations with the IRGC must be sanctioned. Considering the fact that the IRGC officially enjoy a variety of connections and associations, this will effectively be paralyzing for Iran. One such example is the IRGC Khatam al-Anbiya group that is currently cooperating with more than 2,500 economic firms. All these companies will be sanctioned, rendering any relations with them illegal.
As these measures place the IRGC under secondary banking sanctions, practically no financial institution will be permitted to provide direct and/or indirect banking services to IRGC-linked individuals and entities. No foreign bank will cooperate with any Iranian entity that is in any way related to the IRGC and/or its affiliated entities.
The issue here is not so much undesirable designation as enforcement. The administration needs to consistently place any individuals associated with IRGC on sanctions list and make it into a frequent and very public embarrassment.
Likewise, there are many groups and individuals in Iran, associated with terrorism and human rights abuses who are not IRGC and are not affiliated with it. They, too, should not be overlooked. Quick research will reveal that many such low level individuals are employed in the police, serve as doctors in prison, judges, and others, who facilitate all sorts of horrible activity with no legal repercussions.
Although much of the current human rights legislation aimed at curtailing human rights abuses in Iran is aimed at protecting human rights defenders, the regime does not distinguish between human rights defenders and everyone else. Random people are swept up on trumped up charges, such as "national security" violations and under blasphemy laws. Highlighting and exposing the abuse of blasphemy laws to cover up abuse against human rights defenders should be a top priority for the US and anyone concerned with the horrific abuses in Iran.
Similarly, human rights legislation aimed at other countries, such as Venezuela and North Korea, should be reviewed and updated periodically. One recent piece of legislation aims to blacklist individuals associated with abuse of participants in the massive 2014 anti-government protests, forgetting that much has happened since then, and neither opposition activity nor human rights abuses stopped with that particular episode.
Finally, there is no US legislation penalizing either states or individuals for arbitrary detentions,serious human rights abuses, and extortionism involving the abduction of US nationals. The closest that we have is a serious of reporting requirements by the executive branch to Congress, which does nothing to pressure the culprit states such as Iran, North Korea, or Turkey that extrajudicial torture, arrests on trumped up charges, and disappearances of our citizens and permanent residents will not be tolerated. I would recommend in strongest possible terms legislation holding states and individuals involved accountable for such acts of aggression against the United States.
Sunday, October 1, 2017
Breaking Up Egypt and North Korea: Why Sissi's Illicit Trade with North Korea Makes Sense
Earlier, I expressed bewilderment when the State Department sanctioned Egypt by withholding aid due to the alleged broken promise regarding an NGO law that Egypt had reassured the US government it would not implement, but did. The pragmatic Tillerson's willingness to intervene in an ally's internal issues when other similarly situated allies, such as Turkey do much worse, with no reprimand from the White House, seemed a little excessive and unfair. I thought there had to be more to the story and that the stated reason was probably not the real one. A bit later, an update regarding Egypt and North Korea's ongoing and illegal arms trade caught my attention, and I wondered whether that's what really was going on. However, at the time, there was no comment from the White House that would link the two events, nor did the analysts so much as suggest that could be the real reason for the tensions between Sissi and Tillerson.
Now, it seems, my suspicions were unequivocally confirmed by an explicit statement from the administration acknowledging that the sanctioning of the aid was at least in part due to the incident of a ship flying under Cambodian flag, found caught delivering North Korean arms to Egypt. According to the article, Egypt claimed innocence and cooperation with the UN in destroying the weapons; however, the Egyptian intelligence only reacted when there was no other choice and did not volunteer information; furthermore, despite profuse denials, it appeared that the rogue ship was destined for Egyptian companies rather than some third parties. Reason for dealing with North Korea? North Korea is both cheaper than most other suppliers, and has been modernizing where Russia, and others have stuck to distributing old Communist arsenals.
Several questions naturally arise at this juncture:
1. Why is Egypt so desperate for cheap weapons?
2. Why does it value those cheap weapons more than it values its alliance with the United States? (Sissi had to be fully aware of the operation, as well as the priority this administration has placed on not dealing with North Korea)
3. The incident happened last year during Obama's administration. Has anything changed since then? Has the new administration made its priorities sufficiently clear at the outset? Was it wise for the new administration to punish Egypt for the sins committed under Obama?
4. What impact have the new sanctions had a) on Egypt-North Korea relations and b) on Egypt-US relations?
5. What is the next step for the administration if Egypt is found to continue trading with North Korea in violation of both old and new sanctions against the latter?
6. What should US do if it legitimately wants to woo Egypt away from bad actors? (This is a separate question from what I think the administration will actually do).
I will start off with a tentative and entirely unscientific guess that Egypt was as angered by Trump's reaction to last year's incident as Trump was by perceived deception, and will continue to do whatever it feels like doing just because it can. Does it seem rational in terms of the fact that this incident already cost Egypt badly needed aid from the US and Trump's much desired goodwill? If we were discussing a Western democracy, it would sound completely irrational, even crazy, indeed. But we are talking about a Middle Eastern dictator, and therefore, all of this makes complete sense. First of all, Sissi did not view Obama as an ally and felt no obligation to constrain his own decisionmaking by US concerns, especially since Obama himself did not seem all that particularly concerned about North Korea, and certainly not concerned enough to go after all the other countries that we now know have been involved in illegal arms trade with the Junche regime. Sissi needed weapons to fight ISIS and internal enemies, and he sure wasn't going to get all those weapons from the US, and North Korea was simply cheaper than everybody else providing such services. Trump's reaction must have been somewhat surprising to Sissi who probably thought of Trump as a more pragmatic-minded leader than Obama and was hopeful that the relations between the two countries would start off well. Trump, however, made North Korea a top foreign policy priority, and Sissi's unwillingness to see eye to eye on that matter was a red line. Allegedly, Obama was likewise angry at Sissi for alleged other North Korean weapons deals over the years, but if that is the case, none of that made it to the level of public knowledge and one may wonder why that was the case.
However, based on the available evidence, it appears that this administration's response has been reactionary. The rocket deal from last year impacted Trump's decision to delay or freeze aid to Egypt, which is understandable... but unwise. First, it just does not make sense for a new administration to build relations with an ally based off solely an incident that took place under a previous administration. Now, if it turns out that there is evidence of continued trade that has gone into this year, and that after many behind the scenes discussions about the importance of cutting it out, Egypt failed to comply, I would say Trump would be wholly justified in making that decision. If that is not the case, though, the administration is making a mistake that may take well with the president's base here in the United States, but will not move Sissi to improvements, certainly not in the immediate future, not even if Sissi needs Trump a lot more than Trump needs Sissi (which isn't the case, either). To bend to Trump's terms under such circumstances - if this freeze is indeed a reaction to one past incident rather than a result of an ongoing and failed dialogue - would mean to lose face, and as I've argued before, that's just not something Sissi can afford to do and certainly not something he would ever consider.
What should President Trump have done? Exactly what I just suggested: engaged in a quiet behind the scenes conversation with Sissi, explained that North Korea is providing dangerous assistance to Iran, and thus presents a danger to everyone, promised to cut a good deal on necessary weapons, and to increase cooperation related to fighting ISIS, and told Sissi in no uncertain terms that while the administration is willing to let Obama era bygones be bygones and start out on a fresh page, no further infringements of sanctions on North Korea would be tolerated, and that a relationship with the US would have to be predicated on a basic degree of honesty and respect. No matter how tempting and unnerving it may be, you just don't start out a new relationship with an apparent and eager ally with threats and punishments, especially when you are simultaneously letting other countries off the hook for various human rights violations and security infringements (and I'm talking Turkey - Sissi has a less than cordial relationship with Erdogan, who is housing Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, and is alleged to have supported ISIS). Acting in an apparently hypocritical manner was likely seen as a stab in the back by Sissi and did not make him warm up to any concessions. SO the issue here is not that Sissi doesn't want or need a relationship with the US, but that he perceives the decisionmaking as being done by Trump (which is not inaccurate), and predicates a strong relationship with the US on a strong relationship with Trump. If the US is not providing Sissi with what he needs to retain power, some level of support, and ability to control the security situation, then what kind of an ally is it, and why does Sissi need it, when he can have Russia, which makes no such preconditions? That is how Sissi thinking at the moment. He would prefer US to Russia, but he will prefer a loyal ally who understands what he needs over one that just makes constant demands. That's not to say that Trump was incorrect in having these expectations either, and from Trump's perspective, Sissi's actions were also most disappointing, and perhaps even seen as an act of betrayal. But we are adults here, which means, we realize that national self-interest here should trump whatever personal issues either leader has with each other at this point.
While I cannot say for certain what happened in meetings between the administration and Sissi's people before the sanctions were announced, I can tell you what's happening right now: Egypt may be more careful in trying not to get caught, because it's aware that it's under greater scrutiny now than ever before, but it will continue to try to cut deals with North Korea whenever it can until and unless something major changes: either it suffers an emergency and desperately needs US help, the international situation changes such that it becomes simply too costly and damaging to do business with North Korea, or there is a change in US leadership, and Sissi feels he can try again with a new president. He would certainly be willing to reconsider if Trump himself makes a move to put this messy business behind him, but I doubt that's going to happen in the near future. As for the US, given that it has been some time since the freeze on aid has been announced, and there have not been further developments, I think the administration is planning to maintain its stand for the time being, and unless there is a new adviser who informs Trump that the current course of action will not lead to a breakthrough, I likewise see no warming of relations with Egypt in the immediate foreseeable future for largely the same reasons. If the US catches Egypt continuing to engage in North Korea, it may try to slap on more sanctions, or engage in tough talk behind the scenes, but at this point, without a serious investment into the repair of the damaged relationship, I doubt that additional tough steps, particularly if they are public, will change Sissi's mind. He will simply look for other partners. As for Trump, if he ever wants to get back on track with Sissi and move that conversation in a much more constructive direction for both countries, all he needs to do is pick up the phone - and make an offer (or a deal, if you will) that Sissi can't refuse.
Now, it seems, my suspicions were unequivocally confirmed by an explicit statement from the administration acknowledging that the sanctioning of the aid was at least in part due to the incident of a ship flying under Cambodian flag, found caught delivering North Korean arms to Egypt. According to the article, Egypt claimed innocence and cooperation with the UN in destroying the weapons; however, the Egyptian intelligence only reacted when there was no other choice and did not volunteer information; furthermore, despite profuse denials, it appeared that the rogue ship was destined for Egyptian companies rather than some third parties. Reason for dealing with North Korea? North Korea is both cheaper than most other suppliers, and has been modernizing where Russia, and others have stuck to distributing old Communist arsenals.
Several questions naturally arise at this juncture:
1. Why is Egypt so desperate for cheap weapons?
2. Why does it value those cheap weapons more than it values its alliance with the United States? (Sissi had to be fully aware of the operation, as well as the priority this administration has placed on not dealing with North Korea)
3. The incident happened last year during Obama's administration. Has anything changed since then? Has the new administration made its priorities sufficiently clear at the outset? Was it wise for the new administration to punish Egypt for the sins committed under Obama?
4. What impact have the new sanctions had a) on Egypt-North Korea relations and b) on Egypt-US relations?
5. What is the next step for the administration if Egypt is found to continue trading with North Korea in violation of both old and new sanctions against the latter?
6. What should US do if it legitimately wants to woo Egypt away from bad actors? (This is a separate question from what I think the administration will actually do).
I will start off with a tentative and entirely unscientific guess that Egypt was as angered by Trump's reaction to last year's incident as Trump was by perceived deception, and will continue to do whatever it feels like doing just because it can. Does it seem rational in terms of the fact that this incident already cost Egypt badly needed aid from the US and Trump's much desired goodwill? If we were discussing a Western democracy, it would sound completely irrational, even crazy, indeed. But we are talking about a Middle Eastern dictator, and therefore, all of this makes complete sense. First of all, Sissi did not view Obama as an ally and felt no obligation to constrain his own decisionmaking by US concerns, especially since Obama himself did not seem all that particularly concerned about North Korea, and certainly not concerned enough to go after all the other countries that we now know have been involved in illegal arms trade with the Junche regime. Sissi needed weapons to fight ISIS and internal enemies, and he sure wasn't going to get all those weapons from the US, and North Korea was simply cheaper than everybody else providing such services. Trump's reaction must have been somewhat surprising to Sissi who probably thought of Trump as a more pragmatic-minded leader than Obama and was hopeful that the relations between the two countries would start off well. Trump, however, made North Korea a top foreign policy priority, and Sissi's unwillingness to see eye to eye on that matter was a red line. Allegedly, Obama was likewise angry at Sissi for alleged other North Korean weapons deals over the years, but if that is the case, none of that made it to the level of public knowledge and one may wonder why that was the case.
However, based on the available evidence, it appears that this administration's response has been reactionary. The rocket deal from last year impacted Trump's decision to delay or freeze aid to Egypt, which is understandable... but unwise. First, it just does not make sense for a new administration to build relations with an ally based off solely an incident that took place under a previous administration. Now, if it turns out that there is evidence of continued trade that has gone into this year, and that after many behind the scenes discussions about the importance of cutting it out, Egypt failed to comply, I would say Trump would be wholly justified in making that decision. If that is not the case, though, the administration is making a mistake that may take well with the president's base here in the United States, but will not move Sissi to improvements, certainly not in the immediate future, not even if Sissi needs Trump a lot more than Trump needs Sissi (which isn't the case, either). To bend to Trump's terms under such circumstances - if this freeze is indeed a reaction to one past incident rather than a result of an ongoing and failed dialogue - would mean to lose face, and as I've argued before, that's just not something Sissi can afford to do and certainly not something he would ever consider.
What should President Trump have done? Exactly what I just suggested: engaged in a quiet behind the scenes conversation with Sissi, explained that North Korea is providing dangerous assistance to Iran, and thus presents a danger to everyone, promised to cut a good deal on necessary weapons, and to increase cooperation related to fighting ISIS, and told Sissi in no uncertain terms that while the administration is willing to let Obama era bygones be bygones and start out on a fresh page, no further infringements of sanctions on North Korea would be tolerated, and that a relationship with the US would have to be predicated on a basic degree of honesty and respect. No matter how tempting and unnerving it may be, you just don't start out a new relationship with an apparent and eager ally with threats and punishments, especially when you are simultaneously letting other countries off the hook for various human rights violations and security infringements (and I'm talking Turkey - Sissi has a less than cordial relationship with Erdogan, who is housing Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, and is alleged to have supported ISIS). Acting in an apparently hypocritical manner was likely seen as a stab in the back by Sissi and did not make him warm up to any concessions. SO the issue here is not that Sissi doesn't want or need a relationship with the US, but that he perceives the decisionmaking as being done by Trump (which is not inaccurate), and predicates a strong relationship with the US on a strong relationship with Trump. If the US is not providing Sissi with what he needs to retain power, some level of support, and ability to control the security situation, then what kind of an ally is it, and why does Sissi need it, when he can have Russia, which makes no such preconditions? That is how Sissi thinking at the moment. He would prefer US to Russia, but he will prefer a loyal ally who understands what he needs over one that just makes constant demands. That's not to say that Trump was incorrect in having these expectations either, and from Trump's perspective, Sissi's actions were also most disappointing, and perhaps even seen as an act of betrayal. But we are adults here, which means, we realize that national self-interest here should trump whatever personal issues either leader has with each other at this point.
While I cannot say for certain what happened in meetings between the administration and Sissi's people before the sanctions were announced, I can tell you what's happening right now: Egypt may be more careful in trying not to get caught, because it's aware that it's under greater scrutiny now than ever before, but it will continue to try to cut deals with North Korea whenever it can until and unless something major changes: either it suffers an emergency and desperately needs US help, the international situation changes such that it becomes simply too costly and damaging to do business with North Korea, or there is a change in US leadership, and Sissi feels he can try again with a new president. He would certainly be willing to reconsider if Trump himself makes a move to put this messy business behind him, but I doubt that's going to happen in the near future. As for the US, given that it has been some time since the freeze on aid has been announced, and there have not been further developments, I think the administration is planning to maintain its stand for the time being, and unless there is a new adviser who informs Trump that the current course of action will not lead to a breakthrough, I likewise see no warming of relations with Egypt in the immediate foreseeable future for largely the same reasons. If the US catches Egypt continuing to engage in North Korea, it may try to slap on more sanctions, or engage in tough talk behind the scenes, but at this point, without a serious investment into the repair of the damaged relationship, I doubt that additional tough steps, particularly if they are public, will change Sissi's mind. He will simply look for other partners. As for Trump, if he ever wants to get back on track with Sissi and move that conversation in a much more constructive direction for both countries, all he needs to do is pick up the phone - and make an offer (or a deal, if you will) that Sissi can't refuse.
Wednesday, September 27, 2017
North Korea Should Be Punished For Human Rights Violations, Including Otto Warmbier's Murder
Recently, the world's attention has been on North Korea due to its incessant threats to world peace, stability, and freedom.
Largely, the reaction of the international community in the form of new UN and US-led economic sanctions, rearmament, various demonstrations of military force, threats, speeches, and angry tweets were aimed at North Korea's repeated ICBM tests, braggadocio regarding its latest nuclear developments, and escalating apocalyptic rhetoric.
Although the House recently passed a new incarnation of the North Korean Human Rights Act, aimed at providing information from the outside world to the North Koreans, its substance is mostly aimed at empowering the average citizens, rather than at punishing the regime for turning the entire country into a concentration camp, for the mass arrests of its people, and the horrendous tortures of its citizens and the unlucky foreigners captured upon visit. Recently, the United States banned travel of US citizens to North Korea, largely to avoid the likely scenarios of having to negotiate with the totalitarian regime for the release - and tragically failing, as happened most recently in the case of Otto Warmbier, a student who was arrested, sentenced to 15 years of hard labor, but who, after brutal torture, had to be evacuate and died shortly upon his return to the United States.
But again, that is a preventative measure aimed at protecting US citizens, rather than a punitive measure against the regime.
After Warmbier's death, the only US reaction was ramped up rhetoric and a symbolic overflight of military planes in a show of force, which did little to deter the immediate escalation of aggression by North Korea on other fronts. No sanctions were levied against DPRK for that abduction on trumped up charges, and for the brutality resulting in murder. Despite the existing infrastructure of the Global Magnitsky Act, signed into by President Obama in 2016, no individuals or entities associated with this abhorrent series of events, was ever singled out for international shaming, and at the very least, symbolic PNGing from the United States and personal asset freeze. It took more than just the political elites to murder Warmbier, just as it takes more than just the members of the regime giving the orders to arrest, torture, and execute North Korean citizens on a daily basis. The police officers who arrested him, the judge who sentenced him, the wardens and the guards in the prisons where Warmbier spent the last year and a half of his life, the doctors who allegedly provided him with medical care and who lied about the conditions that led to his death, and frankly, even the negotiators who refused to release Mr. Warmbier in a timely manner into US custody, should all be held accountable for their part in this heinous act, and should be denied legitimacy in the eyes of the American people and international community. Publicly and irreversibly.
And sanctions against the regime itself should be levied specifically on the basis of this act of aggression against the United States, and violation of human rights under international law. I advocate for these seemingly unenforceable steps for the following reasons:
First, the Warmbier family deserves justice. Sanctions and punishments against all involved won't bring their son back, but they will know that the US values each individual's life, and will deal swiftly with anyone who deals with its citizens in such an unconscionable manner. Mr. Warmbier's suffering and death will not be for naught.
Second, DPRK and other countries around the world, engage in hostage-taking of foreigners, will get the message - US will not stand by idly, allowing these noxious regime to continue grabbing innocent people on trumped up charges, in violation of all international norms and basic civility. And particularly, further attacks on its own citizens will no longer be tolerated
Third, other US hostages around the world will get a sure morale boost from knowing that their country values them as human beings. It's not just about the US government not looking good as a result of failed negotiations, but rather, US passport has value, and if the US government cannot immediately get them out of their predicaments, it sure will make it hurt until it is no longer profitable to engage in these unjust imprisonments.
Fourth, by levying punishment on the basis of such abductions and other human rights violations, US is insisting on the value it puts on basic norms of civilized behave and reasserts its international leadership in maintaining a secure environment.
And fifth, the worst of human rights violators are also a danger and a threat to their neighbors and other adversaries on other fronts. If human rights violations against foreigners who travel are ignored, and attacks on the national sovereignty against their countries are dismissed, these aggressor are further emboldened to attack on other fronts and by other means. Unjust detention, torture, and murder of anyone US citizens should be considered an act of war on par with a missile thrown in our general direction, and treated with equal harshness.
We, should, at all times, carry ourselves from the position of strength, both military and moral. For we are indeed superior to North Korea's monstrous regime, and while we may choose to respect its sovereignty and not intervene to change the form of government, however awful, there are lines that can never be crossed, and that red line is attacks on and murder of US citizens.
Largely, the reaction of the international community in the form of new UN and US-led economic sanctions, rearmament, various demonstrations of military force, threats, speeches, and angry tweets were aimed at North Korea's repeated ICBM tests, braggadocio regarding its latest nuclear developments, and escalating apocalyptic rhetoric.
Although the House recently passed a new incarnation of the North Korean Human Rights Act, aimed at providing information from the outside world to the North Koreans, its substance is mostly aimed at empowering the average citizens, rather than at punishing the regime for turning the entire country into a concentration camp, for the mass arrests of its people, and the horrendous tortures of its citizens and the unlucky foreigners captured upon visit. Recently, the United States banned travel of US citizens to North Korea, largely to avoid the likely scenarios of having to negotiate with the totalitarian regime for the release - and tragically failing, as happened most recently in the case of Otto Warmbier, a student who was arrested, sentenced to 15 years of hard labor, but who, after brutal torture, had to be evacuate and died shortly upon his return to the United States.
But again, that is a preventative measure aimed at protecting US citizens, rather than a punitive measure against the regime.
After Warmbier's death, the only US reaction was ramped up rhetoric and a symbolic overflight of military planes in a show of force, which did little to deter the immediate escalation of aggression by North Korea on other fronts. No sanctions were levied against DPRK for that abduction on trumped up charges, and for the brutality resulting in murder. Despite the existing infrastructure of the Global Magnitsky Act, signed into by President Obama in 2016, no individuals or entities associated with this abhorrent series of events, was ever singled out for international shaming, and at the very least, symbolic PNGing from the United States and personal asset freeze. It took more than just the political elites to murder Warmbier, just as it takes more than just the members of the regime giving the orders to arrest, torture, and execute North Korean citizens on a daily basis. The police officers who arrested him, the judge who sentenced him, the wardens and the guards in the prisons where Warmbier spent the last year and a half of his life, the doctors who allegedly provided him with medical care and who lied about the conditions that led to his death, and frankly, even the negotiators who refused to release Mr. Warmbier in a timely manner into US custody, should all be held accountable for their part in this heinous act, and should be denied legitimacy in the eyes of the American people and international community. Publicly and irreversibly.
And sanctions against the regime itself should be levied specifically on the basis of this act of aggression against the United States, and violation of human rights under international law. I advocate for these seemingly unenforceable steps for the following reasons:
First, the Warmbier family deserves justice. Sanctions and punishments against all involved won't bring their son back, but they will know that the US values each individual's life, and will deal swiftly with anyone who deals with its citizens in such an unconscionable manner. Mr. Warmbier's suffering and death will not be for naught.
Second, DPRK and other countries around the world, engage in hostage-taking of foreigners, will get the message - US will not stand by idly, allowing these noxious regime to continue grabbing innocent people on trumped up charges, in violation of all international norms and basic civility. And particularly, further attacks on its own citizens will no longer be tolerated
Third, other US hostages around the world will get a sure morale boost from knowing that their country values them as human beings. It's not just about the US government not looking good as a result of failed negotiations, but rather, US passport has value, and if the US government cannot immediately get them out of their predicaments, it sure will make it hurt until it is no longer profitable to engage in these unjust imprisonments.
Fourth, by levying punishment on the basis of such abductions and other human rights violations, US is insisting on the value it puts on basic norms of civilized behave and reasserts its international leadership in maintaining a secure environment.
And fifth, the worst of human rights violators are also a danger and a threat to their neighbors and other adversaries on other fronts. If human rights violations against foreigners who travel are ignored, and attacks on the national sovereignty against their countries are dismissed, these aggressor are further emboldened to attack on other fronts and by other means. Unjust detention, torture, and murder of anyone US citizens should be considered an act of war on par with a missile thrown in our general direction, and treated with equal harshness.
We, should, at all times, carry ourselves from the position of strength, both military and moral. For we are indeed superior to North Korea's monstrous regime, and while we may choose to respect its sovereignty and not intervene to change the form of government, however awful, there are lines that can never be crossed, and that red line is attacks on and murder of US citizens.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)