Posts Tagged Asia-Pacific
WHO WILL DONALD TRUMP HAND-OFF THE MOST DANGEROUS PROBLEM CONFRONTING THE WORLD TODAY? NORTH KOREA! WILL IT BE R. C. McMASTER, OR STEVE BANNON?
North Korea’s nuclear arms have advanced beyond the primitive state. Supreme Leader Kim Jong-Un now has real nukes, and he is in the process of improving the range and accuracy of his missiles, while continuing to miniaturize the warheads to extend the range. And then, he will be ready to build an arsenal!
China does not want to place anymore political pressure on its failed neighbor; because, that would cause millions of destitute North Koreans to stream across its border, and Beijing would then have to care for the refugees. Additionally, an invasion would also set-up a potentially disastrous confrontation with the United States.
In a webcast discussion, between Robert Litwak, Vice President at the Wilson Center, and one of the world’s foremost authorities on North Korea, and NY Times National Security Correspondent David Sanger, the topic was “Preventing North Korea’s Nuclear Break-Out.” The proximity of U. S. Forces, both in South Korea and nearby Japan, along with our allies, turns a potential confrontation with China into a powder keg.
Mr. Litwak suggested, during the discussion, that the likely options—all bad ones—are: “bomb, negotiate, or acquiesce… “ Bombing, which would usually be followed by a ground attack, would merely anger China, and would draw them into the war. Beijing certainly doesn’t want the U. S. Military just across their border, nor would we want theirs! That would leave two intolerable situations: facing an unlimited Chinese force, virtually in their backyard; or going nuclear. Either way, we would not want to see that scenario play out!
Acquiescence is also a terrible option. North Korea’s Supreme Leader, 33 year-old Kim Jong-Un runs a dynastic dictatorship and, judging by the living conditions that his people must endure, he seems to care little about them.
So, if we merely allow Mr. Kim to maintain the status quo, he will surely begin considering his next move—going even more bellicose. The North Korean “Leader” is unstable, and cannot be trusted. And don’t count on regime change; because, Kim has already eliminated the prior military leaders, and replaced them with his generals.
This leaves us with the only one acceptable option: to negotiate some sort of Iran-like Nuclear Agreement—along with, say, South Korea, Japan, China and Russia. Similar to the Iran Deal, North Korea must be required to: dismantle its nuclear program and ship, say 95% of the plutonium and centrifuges out of the country, perhaps to China, before the negotiations even begin.
There must be a slight easing of restrictions initially, mostly for humanitarian purposes, and the IAEA must be able to make unannounced inspections. The negotiating team, and perhaps others, must provide North Korea with increasingly necessary supplies. The DMZ, between North and South Korea, should be widened, from two and a-half. to 20 miles. At least, that will eliminate offensive broadcasts and sniper fire, back and forth, between the two korean armies.
The one immediate question that comes to mind is: would Donald Trump agree to an Agreement similar to the one that President Obama, and five other nations, entered into with Iran? So far, Trump has appeared to be intent on eliminating anything that Obama had accomplished. Yesterday, Secretary of State Rex Tellerson said that the U. S. might consider a pre-emptive attack on Pyongyang, rather than a retaliatory attack. That concerns me!
I believe that National Security Advisor, R. C. McMaster, and Secretary of Defense, James Mattis, might agree to the merits of a Nuclear Agreement, similar to the one with Iran. Secretary Tellerson, however, the former CEO of Exxon-Mobil, is a veritable novice when it comes to National Security. So far, Donald Trump has been more willing to hand-off the most important problems to the loyalists among his Regime Staff. Steve Bannon? OMG!
THERE SHOULD BE A TRANS-PACIFIC SECURITY AND DEFENSE ORGANIZATION, PATTERNED ON NATO, BUT MODIFIED FOR THE REGION!
During World War II, the Axis Powers—Japan and Nazi Germany—rolled-over their neighbors in Asia and Europe, respectively. At first, America did not join the War, due to its Isolationist Policies. Afterward, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was formed—including Europe and North America—with a stated goal to: “…safeguard the freedom and security of the member nations, through political and military means.”
China and Russia—the two current powers in their respective regions—have each stepped-up their aggressive behavior against their neighbors. The Asia-Pacific Region does not have an equivalent security treaty, similar to NATO. At the same time, with the splintering of the European Union, and the uncertainty over what a Trump Presidency might bring, the Atlantic Alliance needs to be re-invigorated, as it is showing signs of diminishing strength.
Neither of the two Socialist Leaders—Xi Jinping, of China, or Vladimir Putin, of Russia—are particularly friendly toward one another. But given their common political philosophy, each seems to believer in the old military strategy: Divide and Conquer! That’s why both nations are either befriending or intimidating their neighbors, one-by-one, as each pursues it particular agenda.
Let’s look at NATO first. Once the United Kingdom signaled its intention to leave the European Union last June, heads began to turn, questioning which nation(s) would be next? And although the E. U. is primarily a trade union, its potentially diminishing membership might cause some–including Russia–to question Europe’s cohesiveness.
The Southeast Asian Treaty Organization was formed in the mid-1950s; however, it lacked wide regional participation, and it accomplished very little. And so, SEATO was disbanded in 1976. There still needs to be some form of security organization, however, in the Pacific Region. And similar to NATO, Canada and the U. S. should be included.
It’s still too early to consider how a Donald Trump Administration might change the U. S. participation in the various international organizations—UN, WHO, IMF, World Bank, NATO, etc. Hopefully, America will continue to participate, and to contribute according to our level of ability. Since the Republican Party seems to favor International Trade, such as the TPP: hopefully, they will convince Donald Trump to remain in NATO, and to help establish a counterpart organization in the Pacific.
NOTE: The linked article, from “Foreign Policy”, by James Stavridis, is provided because it makes a good case for our continued support for NATO. Admiral Stavridis is the Dean of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, and had served as the NATO Supreme Allied Commander. The article is linked as follows: http://fletcher.tufts.edu/News-and-Media/2016/11/10/Dean-Stavridis-Foreign-Policy-Audit-NATO.
Last March, Donald Trump had suggested that we should bring our troops back from Japan and South Korea if those countries don’t pay more for our presence there. Then, he went on to suggest that we should help those two nations develop nuclear weapons themselves. Now, does Trump have a clue as to what he is talking about? Probably not! The NY Times article, describing his comments, is linked, as follows: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/29/world/asia/donald-trump-arms-race.html?_r=0.
Consider the following: Japan and South Korea already help fund our Military Presence in their countries, to the tune of $2 billion and $885 million, respectively; it is vital to the U. S. Defense Strategy to have our forces in close proximity to potential global hot spots, like China and Russia; and nuclear arming of two more nations in East Asia is more Cold War Thinking than pursuant to our current Nonproliferation Strategy.
The Korean Peninsula juts out of China’s eastern land area, and North Korea, the Hermit Kingdom, which already has primitive nuclear weapons, is ruled by the lunatic Kim Jong-Un. So, arming Japan and/or South Korea would merely be providing the spark that could ignite the powder keg that already exists on the Peninsula. Additionally, neither of our two allies there want nukes, and Japan doesn’t even have a Military, just a Self-Defense Force. And, why would we want to provoke China in its backyard, while causing concerns among our many Asian allies?
Last Monday evening, at the First Presidential Debate, Donald Trump even displayed more of his ignorance about National Security, when he said: “China should solve that problem for us. China should go into North Korea. China is totally powerful as it relates to North Korea.” The link, from a Washington Post article, is as follows: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/09/27/did-trump-really-just-suggest-that-china-should-invade-north-korea/?tid=hybrid_collaborative_1_na.
That brainstorm appears to have been conceived in a vacuum. Doesn’t Trump believe that past American Presidents, as well as China and other neighboring countries, have considered possible solutions before? Was Donald Trump really suggesting that two of the world’s nuclear-armed superpowers confront each other on the Korean Peninsula?
China prefers having North Korea serve as a buffer between it and a South Korea, which is backed by an American presence of some 28,000 troops. At the same time, China doesn’t want North Korea to implode; and thus, causing tens of thousands of starving Koreans to flood across its border. Perhaps, Donald Trump doesn’t understand this, because he doesn’t read—he just tweets.
Currently, the two Koreas go about their daily business, just separated by a de facto border—the Demilitarized Zone—which is just two and a half miles (four km.) wide. If China were to take over the North, the U. S. would then have to move its forces up to the DMZ, and reinforce them considerably. And, let’s not assume that Russian President Vladimir Putin wouldn’t accelerate his aggressive objectives in Europe while the U. S. is distracted in Asia.
NO, DONALD, YOU CERTAINLY ARE NOT PREPARED TO BE PRESIDENT!
Much of the political rhetoric spewed against Islamic State currently seems mostly based on the racist anti-Muslim agenda of certain politicians. The strategic planners in our Defense Department place ISIS toward the bottom of our potential National Security risks. Russia and China, by far, are at the very top of the Pentagon’s List of Risks.
Surely, terrorism will always be a risk in any peaceful country. It always has been, and always will! An advantage that we, in America, have is that our anti-terrorism activities are coordinated through one governmental entity, the FBI, as compared to 30 national defense entities across Europe. Also, the Muslim Community here is somewhat better assimilated. Again, terrorist attacks, by groups such as ISIS, are at the bottom of our Defense Department list of priorities.
The planning for Future Wars is coordinated by Deputy Secretary of Defense, Bob Work. The so-called “Third Offset Strategy”, is fully-integrated with the knowledge and cooperation of our allies. The First Offset (or Advantage) Strategy was initiated by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, in the 1950s, and it used nuclear power to compensate for the Soviet Union’s manpower advantage. At the height of the Cold War (1970s and 80s), the Second Offset Strategy emphasized: long-range, precision-guided weapons: stealth aircraft; and new intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities.
Currently, as our list of potential adversaries has increased, the Third Offset Strategy has classified our anticipated sources of danger as follows: Russia and China are the very highest priority; then Iran (an exporter of terrorism) and North Korea (only because Kim Jong-Un is unstable and has primitive nuclear weapons); and various rogue states and non-government organizations, such as ISIS, are at the bottom. Although they all pose dangers to America and our allies, it always are makes sense to prioritize risks.
Over the past fifteen years, as the U. S. military was distracted, fighting two wars, and depleting its Defense Budget, Russia and China were able to narrow the gap with our technological superiority. Both have grown their budgets substantially, increased their technology development programs, and they were able to observe both what our military did well, and notice its weaknesses. Also, their cyber-intel warriors were able to hack into our computers, and steal technology—saving themselves time and money.
The T-O Strategy will include more coordination with our NATO Allies, as well as encourage them to increase their own defense budgets to the agreed-upon two percent of their respective GDPs. In the future, research will be mostly carried-out in a combination of academic and commercial labs, rather than in government facilities. Future weapon development will be developed and funded similar to how Boeing and SpaceX have taken on the mission of re-supplying the International Space Station with the rocket systems, which they funded and developed.
Besides traditional battlefields, look for: greater use of miniature air, land and sea-based drones; continued stealth technology; ships with lower manpower requirements; advanced manufacturing, to include robotics and 3-D systems; and guided bomb and missile systems. Future wars will also make greater use of cyber-technology, not only in hacking to gain intelligence, but in jamming, providing false intelligence or even, planting viruses to incapacitate enemy systems. As in our daily lives, the advantages of digital technology can harm us when they become inoperable or malfunction.
Traditionally, the U. S. has had the unquestioned quickest and most comprehensive system of technology management, from development to useful application. That requires: a combination of government-funding, as necessary; a rational regulatory environment; and the coordination of academia and corporate management. It seems like Academia and Industry will be ready to go; but, the question is: Will Congress?
I have written many times on this blog about warfare, World War II, Veterans and the military. Additionally, several posts specifically addressed the Atom Bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima, Japan and, three days later, another was dropped on Nagasaki. Finally, Japan capitulated after that second detonation. One can only wonder how well President Harry S. Truman, and his senior advisors, slept the night before each bombing.
Japans’s wartime atrocities, back in the 1930s and 40s, are less well-known in the West than those committed by the Nazis in Europe. In Asia, however, the deaths, mutilations, and slave labor atrocities ran into the millions–both among citizens and allied forces. Many of the Letters, in Opinion pages nationwide, show a complete lack of historical perspective of the events surrounding those bombings. And, isn’t that the whole purpose of President Obama’s visit to the Peace Memorial?
Yesterday, President Barack Obama, along with the other attendees at the Tokyo G-7 Summit, accompanied Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park. There, they laid wreaths. Ironically, during that time of reflection, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe rejected any plans to reciprocate, by visiting Pearl Harbor. Unfortunately, like many of those Letter writers, Mr. Abe seems not to have learned the lesson which the Park evokes!
Sy Bukovsky’s amazing column, from the Philadelphia Daily News, correctly notes that the America and Japan today are not the same countries that they were some 71 years ago. Even more importantly, no nation has unleashed a nuclear (or atomic) bomb on another, since those fateful two explosion 71 years ago. The link is as follows: http://www.philly.com/Philly/columnists/stu_bykofsky/20160524_Byko__Apologize_for_Hiroshima__Hell__no_.html.
In 1912, Mayor Yukio Ozaki of Tokyo gave 3,000 cherry blossom trees to (assumedly, the Mayor of) Washington, D.C, as a symbol of friendship between the two countries. As the cherry blossoms have continued to blossom, as have the dogwood trees that Washington sent to Tokyo, the friendship between the two countries–however strained in time of the two World Wars–continues to this day. The aesthetic beauty has of the trees, in both countries, remains but a beautiful symbol of that lasting relationship.
The cherry blossom trees have become a primary tourist attraction in Washington, D. C, especially around the Washington Mall. Every April, the City holds the Cherry Blossom Festival. If you are ever in the D, C. area, around this time of year, make a special effort to visit the area around the Tidal Basin. You’ll never regret it!
I encourage you to view the linked advertisement from the NY Times, which was paid for by the Embassy of Japan, entitled “The Magic of Cherry Blossoms: Honoring the Friendship of Two Nations”: http://paidpost.nytimes.com/embassy-of-japan/the-gift-of-cherry-blossoms-honoring-the-friendship-of-two-nations.html?WT.mc_id=2016-March-NYTNative_ArticleMod-Japan-0318-0417&WT.mc_ev=click?action=click&module=Marginalia®ion=Marginalia&pgtype=article&version=PaidPostDriver
WHY DIDN’T SECRETARY OF STATE JOHN KERRY OFFER AN APOLOGY TO JAPAN WHEN HE RECENTLY VISITED THE HIROSHIMA PEACE MEMORIAL?
American Secretary of State John Kerry was in Japan for a meeting of foreign ministers, ahead of the G-7 Summit, also in Japan, in late May. After its invasion of Crimea, Russia is no longer included in what had been labeled the G-8. Interestingly, I’ve noticed a number of recent visits to past blog posts about Japan—primarily concerning the Atom Bombs dropped over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the fact that Japan has never apologized for its wartime atrocities, and whether or not Japan should re-arm itself into a full-fledged military force. (Just type Hiroshima into the Search box, upper right-hand corner, to read them.)
On Monday, the seven foreign ministers, plus the E. U. High Representative for Foreign Affairs, visited the Hiroshima Peace Memorial, and each laid a wreath at the solemn site. When a reporter asked one of his aids whether Mr. Kerry was going to offer an apology, he responded, citing the traditional anonymity, that the Secretary and Japanese Foreign Minister, Fumio Kishida, had agreed not to bring-up what had happened 70 years ago.
The U. S. has certainly committed many atrocities, probably in every single war that it has engaged in. Perhaps the same goes for every other nation that has gone to war. Yes, “War IS Hell!”; however, that doesn’t serve to amend for the usual majority of victims being innocent civilians. So, why didn’t Japan push Secretary Kerry to apologize for the more than 200,000 civilians who were horrifically annihilated, between Hiroshima and Nagasaki, back in 1945?
It is important to remember that Japan, as well, has denied many of its wartime actions, and even re-written history books, deleting them. Personally, I believe that Japan also does not wish to even acknowledge—let alone apologize—for its various activities, during that war. So, each nation agreed to remain silent regarding apologies.
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
“An Atrocity is Uncovered: November 1969
The My Lai Massacre”
Seymour M. Hersch/ St. Louis Post-Dispatch
The Rape of Nanking: The Forgotten Holocaust of World War II
A book by: Iris Chang
(There is a presumption that, after what she had learned in researching “Rape”, Ms. Chang took her own life in 2004.)