Wednesday, July 3, 2019
Trump Understands Peace Is Good Politics—Do Democrats?
Jefferson Morley / Independent Media Institute
If there’s one thing Democrats agree on, it is that
President Trump’s very brief visit to the Korean Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) to
shake hands with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un is a “photo op,” not a
substantive move; a stunt, not diplomacy.
Kamala Harris said it. Elizabeth
Warren said it. Former
Obama adviser Ben Rhodes said it. So
did Max
Boot, one of the leading advocates on invading Iraq in 2003. On North
Korea, these Democrats are siding with the Washington hawks who have advocated
endless war in pursuit of “national security.”
The question is, why?
South Korea’s president Moon Jae-in who accompanied Trump
to the DMZ did not criticize the meeting. Moon, whose statecraft over the last
two years has been ignored
by Democrats and the Washington press corps, is a liberal who has
staked his presidency on coaxing a deal out of two mercurial authoritarians.
What Moon is trying to secure is nothing less than a world-historic agreement:
a formal end to the Korean war and the negotiated denuclearization of the
Korean peninsula.
You might think liberal Democrats would support Moon’s
liberal peace agenda. They don’t even seem to know about it. The “photo op” the
Democrats deride was, in Moon’s view, a “significant milestone” on the road to
peace. After the failure of the Hanoi summit in February due to the demands of
Trump’s adviser John Bolton, the chance for resolving the dangerous
six-decade-long impasse between North and South Korea seemed to be slipping
away.
By meeting with U.S. national intelligence director Dan
Coats, Moon helped keep
peace alive. Moon knew the handshake was coming before
it happened, and he welcomed it.
“Through their meeting today, the South and North Korean
leaders and the American leader made history,” Yoon Do-han, Moon’s press
secretary, said after the border meeting.
The handshake was hailed by Hankyoreh, South Korea’s leading
left-liberal newspaper, as a key step toward ending the Cold War on the Korean
peninsula:
“The convergence of these three leaders at a single place
was a historic meeting on a different level from an inter-Korean summit or a
North Korea-US summit. It can be seen as the result of Moon’s proactive and
indefatigable role as facilitator, as the South Korean president is determined
to sit in the driver’s seat on Korean Peninsula issues.”
The conservative Seoul newspaper, JoonAng Daily, also endorsed the meeting:
“Such a hurriedly arranged meeting naturally could not
bring any dramatic breakthrough in bilateral relations or the denuclearization
process. Still, the more the leaders meet, the greater the chances are for a
positive outcome in the future. Mutual trust is built through constant contact
and communication.”
No, the handshake is not an agreement. Yes, Trump’s
policies are impulsive and inconsistent. But the DMZ get-together has restored
the diplomatic track, by signaling all three leaders want some kind of deal.
The Trump administration is now reportedly considering
a freeze in North Korea’s nuclear program as a first step in a peace
agreement. Working-level talks will resume later
this month.
While hawks are already denouncing the freeze as acceptance
of North Korea as a nuclear state, it is only tacit recognition of the reality
that North Korea—like Iran—is not going to surrender its nuclear option without
securing real benefits.
Indeed, all of the arguments in favor of the Iran nuclear
deal—unanimously
supported by the Democratic candidates—apply to the Korean
negotiations. Carefully negotiated international agreements can make the world
safer. Resolving issues of both nuclear arms and human rights in one agreement
is impossible. A real deal will require significant concessions by both sides.
And, an imperfect agreement with an undemocratic regime that curbs the nuclear
danger is better than doing nothing. The fact that Trump was foolish to tear up
the Iran nuclear deal does not negate any of these realities. It confirms them.
The last two months have shown that Trump, with an eye on
his lousy
poll numbers going into the 2020 election, understands that making
peace is good politics, and making war is a recipe for rejection by American
voters.
On Venezuela, Trump lost interest in “regime change” as
soon as the Pompeo/Bolton fantasy of a quick victory evaporated. A scheme
concocted by Bolton’s NSC to bribe
Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro’s inner circle into supporting
opposition leader Juan Guaido fell apart. Guaido’s hastily
improvised April 29 call for the Venezuelans to rise up against the
government sputtered into failure. With military intervention as the only
remaining option to enforce the bully-boy demands of Pompeo and Bolton, Trump
has walked away from his own policy, reportedly muttering about how Bolton
wants to get him “into
a war.”
Trump doesn’t care if he looks foolish or inconsistent. But
what about the five
Democratic presidential candidates who effectively endorsed the
aggressive Venezuela policy that Trump has now abandoned? They look more
warlike than the president.
On Iran, Trump approved an attack on Iranian military
positions for downing an unmanned U.S. drone that would have killed 150 people.
When Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson pointed out, probably
correctly, that attacking Iran would doom Trump’s reelection prospects, the
president canceled the attack, saying correctly, that it would have been
“disproportionate.”
Now Trump has torn
up the playbook that has ruled U.S. Korea policy for decades. That
Washington playbook calls for North Korea to eliminate its nuclear arsenal
before the United States lifts sanctions or agrees to an end to the Korean war.
Such a maximalist agenda offers nothing to South Koreans living under the
threat of war, which is why President Moon and the South Korean press are
supporting Trump.
Bernie Sanders had a more measured response to the “photo
op,” which did not echo the talking points of Washington hawks.
“I don’t have a problem with him sitting down and
negotiating with our adversaries,” Sanders said on ABC’s “This Week.” “I don’t want
it to be a photo opportunity. We need real
diplomacy.”
“Real diplomacy” is what President Moon has been quietly
practicing and what Democrats should support. Whether Trump is capable of a
deal that puts the Koreas on a path to peace is, of course, open to question,
especially with Bolton at his side. The national security adviser has opposed
every effort to negotiate with North Korea over the last 30 years and has often
said “regime change” is the only solution.
Given the choice between Trump’s opportunism and Bolton’s
intransigence, Moon’s diplomacy is the best option for securing peace and
protecting U.S. interests. It’s also good politics for 2020. Trump knows that.
Do the Democrats?
The Washington Post's Botched Fact-Check of Bernie Sanders
Julia Conley / Common
Dreams
Critics of massive wealth
inequality in the United States defended a statistic frequently cited by 2020
presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders on Monday after Glenn Kessler,
author of the Washington Post‘s “Fact Checker” column, claimed the
fact that the bottom half of the country has zero or negative wealth was
“not especially meaningful.”
The statistic in question was
brought up most recently by Sanders during the Democratic primary debate last
week:
“We have three people in this
country owning more wealth than the bottom half of America,” Sanders said.
The statement, Kessler said,
is factually true—but he rejected Sanders’s suggestion that the inequality
evidenced by the fact means that a major correction to the U.S. economy is
required.
“This snappy talking point is
based on numbers that add up, but it’s also a question of comparing apples to
oranges,” Kessler wrote. “But people in the bottom half have essentially no
wealth, as debts cancel out whatever assets they might have. So the comparison
is not especially meaningful.”
Critics denounced Kessler’s
suggestion that the notion of 50 percent of the population of the world’s
richest country carrying so much debt that any wealth they own is canceled out,
could hold no meaning about the state of the nation’s economic system.
The column, wrote Sanders’s
speechwriter, David Sirota, should be filed under “things you can’t make up.”
THINGS YOU CAN'T MAKE UP:
WashPost "fact checker" @GlennKesslerWP
criticizes @BernieSanders for
saying 3 families control more wealth than the bottom 50% - Kessler says
because the bottom 50% have no wealth at all, this is "not especially
meaningful."
“Glenn Kessler’s logic
here—that it’s ‘not meaningful’ that the bottom 50 percent of earners have no
net worth because they have a bunch of debt that’s obscuring all the assets
they do have—is a completely nonsensical take,” wrote journalist Matthew Chapman.
I'm with Sirota on this one. @GlennKessler's logic here — that
it's "not meaningful" that the bottom 50% of earners have no net
worth because they have a bunch of debt that's obscuring all the assets they
*do* have — is a completely nonsensical take.
Kessler’s dismissal of the
plight of middle-income and lower-income Americans was indicative of the desire
of many to ignore “perfectly correct data” which “point out ugly truths” about
the United States, wrote Greg Greene, a blogger for Planned Parenthood Action.
Kessler somehow, in his role
as one of America’s most prominent fact checkers, keeps mistaking economic
orthodoxy for facts … https://twitter.com/juliacarriew/status/1088437682877870080?s=21 …
… and in holding to his
assumptions, Kessler insists on scolding folks — like Bernie Sanders, or AOC —
who, use perfectly correct data to point out the ugly truths hidden by his
green eyeshade. https://www.thedailybeast.com/hey-dems-take-it-from-this-ex-centrist-we-blew-it …
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)