Assessing U.S.-China Diplomatic Solution to North Korea
Note: This piece was originally published at RealClear Defense on January 16, 2018.
During the past year, The Trump Administration and the Kim Jong-Un Regime have been trading consequential barbs regarding nuclear testing and first/second strike capabilities. While rhetoric may seem that war on the Peninsula is unavoidable, there are still ways to engage the Kim Jong-un Regime while keeping the peace among Asian allies.
As recently as October, U.S. Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, stated that the U.S. was in ‘direct contact’ with North Korea and are open to the possibility of talks.[1] Until current conditions change, rigorous diplomacy can still take place. Also, U.S. Defense Secretary, Jim Mattis, has said, “No one is rushing for war.”[2] A strong majority of the U.S. Administration appears to favor a diplomatic strategy; however, they must convince President Trump to cut back on the back and forth banter.
The United States must make clear that war is the last option and not the first. Diplomatic tactics must be fully exhausted before further actions are considered. Any act of war by either side would result in a full arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, not limited to chemical, biological, and nuclear by North Korea, an “appropriate response” by the South and allies, and an estimated 1 million deceased.[3] The stakes have never been higher taking out the first two World Wars, making pre-emptive strikes a horrible miscalculation by either side.
Among South Koreans, the will to avoid conflict has always been followed up with measures of peace. However, the consequences of such a military outbreak are laid out for the world to see. South Korean President Moon Jae-in’s office said in August:
“Above all, President Moon emphasized that South Korea can never accept a war erupting again on the Korean Peninsula…He stressed that the North Korean nuclear issue must be resolved in a peaceful, diplomatic manner through close coordination between South Korea and the United States."[4]
Diplomatic measures must engage China, Japan, United States, and the larger Six-Party talks that began in 2003 and, but failed in 2009 as North Korea continued their hostile programs. Michael Fuchs, from Foreign Affairs, notes that talks between Washington and Pyongyang can parallel forward momentum that the United States had in negotiating the Iranian nuclear deal.[5] Like all international agreements and arrangements, compromise is paramount and significant concessions required by both sides.
Deterrence methods by the United States and its allies need to be coupled with open dialog so both compromise and sincerity can be on display for Kim Jong-un’s regime. If the U.S. ratchets down the rhetoric, North Korea will have a diminished case for nuclearizing the peninsula. In any scenario, China must be part of the solution and not the problem.
In September, Former Ambassador Christopher Hill told NPR’s Mary Louise Kelly that, “I think there needs to be an understanding that China has to be part of that solution.”[6] Ninety percent of North Korean trade is with China, therefore making China the most important partner allies have in denuclearizing the North.
Liu Xiaoming, China’s ambassador to the United Kingdom, stated he was “cautiously optimistic” that a diplomatic solution can be found to North Korean nuclearization.[7] As China is wary of U.S.- South Korean relations, they recognize that a non-threating North Korea is in its regional self-interest. As negotiations will require compromise, China will continue to play an integral part in mediation between the U.S. and North Korea to find an amicable solution to avoid detrimental combat that will likely change the world.
While China claims it has done “everything its power” to end the crisis, the United States must do its part and bring China closer into the fold. A bilateral strategy must be initiated by the two major powers to engage North Korea in such a way where a small level of trust is created to begin talks. Possible concessions include acknowledging North Korea as a nuclear power with the ultimate goal of ending their program. Additionally, South Korea aligning themselves more with China and trade will result in a reengagement of trust between the Peninsula and bring China to the table as part of a reinvigorated Six-Party Talks.
For the United States to bring China to the table, the Trump Administration must also acknowledge China’s place in the world. They will be a superpower going forward, no economic trends or labeling as a “currency manipulator” will reverse that trend. Strategic diplomacy aimed towards quelling China’s concerns about the U.S. is a paramount position to start with.
China and the U.S. may be distrustful at this moment in time, but one cannot ignore its power going forward. Bilateral talks must begin with an agreement between China and the U.S, as North Korean talks are intertwined with a rebalanced relationship.
Endnotes:
[1] BBC News. (16 October 2017). North Korea crisis: Tillerson says diplomacy will continue. Retrieved December 22, 2017, from [www.bbc.com/news/worl...](http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-41629233.)
[2] Stewart, P. (26 October 2017). Mattis talks diplomacy on North Korea ahead of Trump’s Asia tour. Reuters. Retrieved December 22, 2017, from [www.reuters.com/article/u...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-missiles/mattis-talks-diplomacy-on-north-korea-ahead-of-trumps-asia-tour-idUSKBN1CW04W.)
[3] Powell, B. (24 April 2017). What war with North Korea will look like. Newsweek. Retrieved December 22, 2017, from [www.newsweek.com/2017/05/0...](http://www.newsweek.com/2017/05/05/what-war-north-korea-looks-588861.html.)
[4] Harris, G. (7 August 2017). A rare round of diplomacy from North Korea’s top diplomat. New York Times. Retrieved December 22, 2017, from [www.nytimes.com/2017/08/0...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/world/asia/north-korea-asean-tillerson.html.)
[5] Fuchs, M. (21 December 2017). The North Korea deal. Foreign Affairs. Retrieved December 22, 2017, from [www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/...](https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/north-korea/2017-12-21/north-korea-deal.)
[6] NPR Morning Edition. (4 September 2017). What diplomacy can and can’t change with North Korea. Retrieved December 22, 2017, from [www.npr.org/2017/09/0...](https://www.npr.org/2017/09/04/548415546/what-diplomacy-can-and-cant-change-with-north-korea.)
[7] Jones, S. (19 November 2017). China optimistic diplomacy will solve North Korean nuclear issue. Bloomberg. Retrieved December 22, 2017, from [www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-19/china-optimistic-diplomacy-will-solve-north-korea-nuclear-issue.)
Options for U.S. Sanctions Towards Russia for Aggression in Ukraine
Note: This piece was first published on Divergent Options on April 17, 2017.
National Security Situation: U.S. economic sanctions towards Russia following its aggressive actions in Ukraine.
Date Originally Written: March 1, 2017.
Date Originally Published: April 17, 2017.
Author and / or Article Point of View: This article is written from the standpoint of the U.S. national security community regarding future plans or movement on Russian sanctions.
Background: In February 2014the Olympic winter games had just concluded in Sochi. Russia was in the midst of invading the Crimea region and portions of Eastern Ukraine. The U.S. placed targeted economic sanctions on Russia as a reaction to its invasion. While these sanctions have been detrimental to Russia’s economy, President Vladimir Putin is still holding portions of Eastern Ukraine and attempting to annex the Donbas region as Russian territory. The first round of the sanctions from the U.S. were a response to Russia’s annexation of Crimea, while a second round began as the ceasefire between Ukraine and Russia failed to take hold[1]. The future of Russian aggression towards Ukraine is undetermined at this time.
Significance: In the U.S., the Trump Administration is taking a significantly more laissez-faire approach to Russia and Russian government officials, including Putin, than President Barack Obama did. Any change in U.S. policy towards Russia will have significant impacts in Eastern Europe and on North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) members – as matters of economics, trade, and territorial occupation are concerned. A declining Russian populous and economy, being backed into a corner, can provide for dangerous consequences, especially since its military and nuclear stockpiles are quite viable.
Option #1: The U.S. continues current economic sanctions until Russia withdrawals its forces from Crimea and the Donetsk region, including other areas of Eastern Ukraine.
Risk: As the U.S. keeps economic pressure on Russia to withdraw from Ukraine’s sovereign territory, a new Cold War may develop as a stalemate between the U.S. and the Russian plays out. Russia will hold on to the territory it occupies at this point in time and continue cross border skirmishes into the Donetsk region.
Gain: If U.S. economic sanctions against Russia were to remain in place, these sanctions and NATO pressure in the form of expanded presence is put upon the Russian government to rethink its strategy in Ukraine. If these sanctions continue, the Ruble will sustain its downward trajectory and inflation will continue to rise, especially for consumer goods. Economic contraction will put pressure on the Russian government to take corrective action and rethink their position to counter public opinion. In 2015, the Russian economy contracted by 3.7%, while it shrank another 0.7% in 2016[2].
Option #2: The U.S. lifts economic sanctions against Russia to give the Russian population economic stability in a country that heavily relies on oil and gas exports as the main driver of its economy and much of its wealth.
Risk: Lifting sanctions may send a signal to the Russian administration that its behavior is warranted, acceptable, and falls in line with global norms. President Putin may feel emboldened to keep moving his forces west to annex further portions of Ukraine. Most of Eastern Ukraine could become a war zone, and humanitarian efforts would have to be implemented by the United Nations and other Non-Governmental Organizations if more grave violations of the Minsk (II) Protocol occurred. Putin’s ultimate plan might involve gaining influence in other former Soviet satellite nations. As such, a Ukraine-like effort may repeat itself elsewhere. Lifting sanctions might give Putin a green light for his next conquest.
Gain: The Russian people may take a friendlier view and role towards the U.S. and allow for more trade. President Putin may be more open to multilateral trade negotiations. A new trade agreement may become possible between Russia and the U.S., including countries that have been targeted by Russian aggression such as – Ukraine, Belarus, and the Baltic States. A restoration and expansion of the Commonwealth of Independent States Free Trade Agreement or similar agreement, would be prudent to economic activity in the region[3]. Of note is that Ukraine is in a position where it now relies on Germany and Western European nations for imports and likely cannot stand on its own.
Other Comments: None.
Recommendations: None.
Endnotes:
[1] Baer, Daniel. (24, February 2017). Don’t forget the Russian sanctions are Russia’s fault. Foreign Policy. Retrieved March 1, 2017. http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/02/24/dont-forget-the-russia-sanctions-are-russias-fault/
[2] Kottasova, Ivana. (26, February 2017). What would rolling back U.S. sanctions mean for Russia? CNN Money. Retrieved March 1, 2017 http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/16/news/economy/russia-sanctions-trump/index.html
[3] “Russia Trade Agreements”. (23, June 2016). Exports.gov. Retrieved March 1, 2017 https://www.export.gov/article?id=Russia-Trade-Agreements
Agile Methods Aren't Just for Startups
The very definition of agile is the ability to move quickly, make changes, and adapt as needed to changing circumstances. Agile is a frequented term in the development of software and startups, but these principles can also be used to improve the quality and outcomes of life. More importantly, it is the incremental improvement of processes and procedures to ensure these desired goals.
Like any good product or business plan, its best to start out with goals. These can be career, life, financial, etc. Don’t be too broad when brainstorming. Making concise steps in a to-do list, creating a mind map or decision tree are all excellent methods in putting out there what it is you want to accomplish.
The best-seller, Startup Weekend, talks about how to take a concept of a product and bring it to fruition. Iteration, adaptability, and replicability are all important when it comes to scale. A major principle of agile states that its best to fail quickly, pick up the pieces, and move on to change tactics, however, don’t take too much time as the world moves quickly and any strategy could be undermined by competition.
In one’s life goals, competition can be seen as others who want the same career, time, technological changes, or economic fundamentals. While each situation is different, the ability to adapt is paramount in making this strategy work. Do not be afraid to fail, be open minded, and most important; brainstorm ideas & changes through networking.
Iterating on changes can be achieved by crowdsourcing, beta testing, and focus groups. While this is true for business or concepts, it can still be done on an individual level. Using social networks like Linkedin, or Workplace for Facebook are great methods for putting ideas out there for subjection, and receiving quick feedback to see if the right route is being taken. If not, then pivot.
Fine tuning any strategy to achieve career or personal goals is by no means a simple task. It must take a lot of strategizing and stretching outside of comfort zones to know what will work. Achievable tasks, the ability to fail quickly, and an open mind are the most important considerations when using agile principles in everyday life.
Why I'm Taking a Year to Volunteer
Life experiences make up the structure of a person. Choosing to give time and effort takes dedication and sweat equity. Some may choose to give donations over their time. This all depends on what each individual is willing to commit and how dedicated they are to engulfing themselves into the effort.
Estimates from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that only 24.9% of Americans are engaged in volunteering within their communities, a slow downward trajectory from only five years ago. Statistics aside, volunteering is about not showing that an individual cares, but rather getting personally involved with issues that are deeply ingrained to what is believed to be contributing to societal problems.
As a person who is working on his masters in intelligence management, becoming a public servant is only a small part of what is entailed. Keeping the United States secure from foreign and domestic threats is vital to my career goals, however, this cannot be taken for granted. There are American values which need to be protected, including the right of children to learn and become the country's future.
AmeriCorps VISTA offers a unique set of organizational goals to help serve the nation and improve the standing of poverty within it. Education is power. Each child must be given an opportunity to learn, explore their own potentials, and contribute to their own way to the nation. Exploring avenues for children in poverty and low-income households to explore the sciences will the strengthen resolve of educators, parents, and communities.
The goal of academia will still continue, albeit at a slightly slower pace. It is important to concentrate on the goals of the organization that is the assignment from 2017 to 2018. The courses will always be there, other opportunities may not be. Learning and assisting at all levels of society is pivotal to understanding what exactly the mission and objectives of the intelligence community means to the average person. It reminds us who is being protected and given a chance to thrive.
Putting names and faces to children who need assistance and opportunity will always be a standpoint to take away upon entering the intelligence and national security apparatus. Allowing safe environments free from threats is vital to making the United States as strong as it can be.