TRUMP AND A NUCLEAR NORTH KOREA AND THE LARGER STRATEGIC PICTURE.

TRUMP AND A NUCLEAR NORTH KOREA AND THE LARGER STRATEGIC PICTURE:

By

Harry C. Blaney IIi

After the statements about what Trump might do to North Korea if it does not stand down on its nuclear weapon programs, there seems to be a great debate about Donald Trump’s foreign policy strategy and even if there is one. As with his missile strakes on Syrian the question is what is next and is there any strategic vision or even reflection?

As best we can discern is it remains just based on “transactional” and “intuitive” feelings. We need to remember this is the man who said he knew more than the generals and who is cutting by about 30% our diplomacy and global assistance budget.

Among the key issues we face we still do not have a clue what ends he want including dealing with China, confronting North Korean nuclear ambitions, fixing the middle East conflicts, keeping our alliances intact, and dealing with Putin’s Russia.

We do know that on climate change he has cut the budget for almost all US programs in to address this existential and disastrous reality. He would take us out of the Paris Accord the only effective instrument we have to gain global cooperation.

An editorial in the New York Times on May 17th entitled “Mr. Trump’s lose talk on Korea” noted that Trump’s approach is more likely to endanger some peaceful solution than solve peaceably the conflict with North Korea. There is real reason to question where are we going with this and to what end?

Both nuclear weapons and the idea of a “preemptive strike” and harsh threats on both sides are dangerous elements.. This is especially true when both side are led by somewhat unhinged leaders who like to demonstrate their powers and egoism. The time has come to bring us back to a more rational approach before we start a game of “chicken.”

Surely at some point the leaders of China, North Korea and America must recognize in this option for an aggressive “game” the only end is destruction of all sides This is the worst case outcome when in reality there is a “win-win” outcome if only we all can recognize the harsh reality of nuclear conflict. There should be a point where all sides can accept gains for all sides with a diplomatic solution where Kim Jong Un, president, Xi Jinping, and Donald Trump control their fears and their egos. Any leader must look closely at the risks of mistakes and stupidity by the other..

The path of a better outcome is North Korea gains a de-nuclearize North and South Korea, food to feed his people. China gains added stability and security on its borders and eliminates the danger of a war that would be a total disaster for it and removal of nuclear weapons North and South. America gets rid of a nuclear threat to allies like Japan and South Korea and not least to America. Trump gets to enlarge his ego.

MORE ON THE TRUMP SYRIAN MISSILE STRIKES AND BEYOND & WEIGHING RISKS.

MORE ON THE TRUMP SYRIAN MISSILE STRIKES AND BEYOND & WEIGHING RISKS.

By

Harry C. Blaney III

Already there have been many comments on the impact of the missiles strikes and discussions of their implication and what they may mean going forward. The simple truth is that none of us know what risks may lurk ahead not even Trump, nor Putin, nor Assad. Trump has not indicated much in the way of his real aims and less about what hand he will play. Many bet he has no plan and others have surmised strategies from the more likely to the ridiculous. The one thing I think is true is that the old Trump we have seen is NOT a new Trump of a “grand sophisticate strategist.” I doubt he has little but a fuzze and probably ill-informed idea of what he must now do and what the future risks are.

Already after the initial Trump strikes, Syrian government warplanes were back bombing the same site that was hit by the sarin chemicals. And as sited in the Washington Post (4/9/17), reportedly there were more strikes also against civilians at Khan Sheikhoun, where Tuesday 68 people had been killed. Assad planes are still active in brutal killings. Thus nothing much has changed for the people as a result.

Not least of concern is the reaction of Putin to these actions and dangers of mistakes on both sides. Our larger approach with Russia must be an integral element of our strategy.

Trump’s national security team is about the worst I have seen in 50 years. Leaving aside the fractious White House still dominated by Alt-Right ideologists, one glaring weakness is the selection of Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State without any previous knowledge or experience in foreign policy and national security areas. He is like a lost soul out of his depth. Worst he won’t talk to or listen to experienced hands at State according to reports. Part of that may be that he knows he may have to fire many of them to meet the demands of his harsh circus ring boss who has a desire to ensure that foreign affairs belongs exclusively in the White House and as a fiefdom of an incompetent family.  Thus we see the Trump inspired 30% cut in State’s budget.

Trump said his motivation for the strikes were humanitarian for saving of lives, but his proposed State and USAID budget cuts will result in millions of added deaths including women and children in poor and conflict ridden nations around the world. Is that an act of a real “humanitarian?”

The results on the policy side of this action many end with no serious negotiations and with no strategic game plan behind them. This results in no long-term thinking or seeking peaceful win-win solutions. It seems the major fault is lack of respect of the tools of deep analysis and the concern and understanding of risks as well as end-game benefits for peace by Trump. That is dangerous for America and the world.

He has now made a “big bet” with a rather limited strike in Syria. He warned the Russians ahead which meant that the Assad air force had some kind of advanced warning. The damage done to the airfield and planes were modest in the extreme. He did not destroy all their planes and they can continue the killing of innocent civilians with what seems impunity with the protection of Russian arms. Did Trump foresee that outcome or even desire it?

The questions that many of us are asking is: given the military strategists have likely already developed complex scenarios for potential contingencies, has Trump given any consideration to both their analysis or recommendations or recognized the risks they may present? Another question is he even asking what options or problems they might  have over looked. And does he have people around him with deep knowledge that can ask the right questions, note the pitfalls, weaknesses, and provide him with additional realistic options?

I hearken back to the recommendations by DOD, CIA and even State to President John Kennedy in the 1960s Cuba missile crisis to attack with nuclear weapons Cuba, when unknown to US, Russian forces there had permission to use nuclear weapons against the US should Cuba be attack. President Kennedy and his brother Robert Kennedy together ignored the “nuclear war option” and choose, rightly, the negotiation option which saved mankind from mass obliteration. Is there any sign of this kind of  depth and serous thinking among the Trump gang?

Finally, I like senator Chris Murphy’s recent analysis of our Syria actions:

“As a theoretical matter, a targeted military strike in response to a major violation of non-conventional weapons norms is justifiable. Why have rules against chemical weapons use if no one is going to pay a price for violating the rules? International norms should be upheld by the international community–not the United States acting alone–but it’s hard to argue against Trump’s action last night when viewed in isolation as a response to Assad’s barbaric attack.

The problem is military strikes never happen in isolation–the before and after are arguably even more important than the strike itself. The actions Trump took leading up to Assad’s chemical weapons attack, as well as the all-important and totally unanswered question of what comes next, highlight the administration’s immoral and hypocritical approach to violence in the region.”

We welcome your Comments. See comment section well below the post.

THE UNITED STATES MISSILE STRIKES AND IMPLICATIONS

THE UNITED STATES MISSILE STRIKES AND IMPLICATIONS

By

Harry C. Blaney III

DATE LINE: LONDON

The news in London today came as a surprise to most but Britain was given advance notice of this action. As expected Syrian government, Russia and Iran have made statements opposing these strikes. The Russians have suspended the air notification agreement. Donald trump’s own statement was not entirely a surprise and indicated that use of military action given the horrendous use of illegal chemical weapons attack this week that killed more than 80 civilians. The British government supported the action. But the Labour leader opposed the use but some of his MPs
were supportive.

We seem to have given some kind of notice to Russia from reports here.

Hillary Clinton has also indicated she supports the attacks and wanted mor to be done under Obama.

There is little doubt that this is a Trump change in strategy and policy from much of his previous statements. The question is this a one time action or is there a longer time strategy behind it. The key especially is defining and shaping the future of Assad and his supporters and how the political landscape needs to be changed. Will we se emore conflict now or a major decline with less killing?.

The problem with this action is it based on a deep and clear understanding of what the next steps might be and any fallouts and responses;. The Russian have already said they would reenforce Syrian air defenses. There is urgent need for the key actor including Russia and Iran and the US and our allies to sit down and start to look at how to sort out the future of Syria and find a peaceful solution which was attempted by the Obama administration with only frustrating results. The time is now for an agreement in the UN Security Council that will put a stop to Syrian attacks and some kind of UN backed efforts to bring an end to civilian killings and the removal in time of Assad. There may be some consensus that his removal is in the best interests of all sides.

The next move is in the hands of Russia and America but both Trump and Putin are difficult leader who think of just looking strong and winning at all costs. My hope is they both think deeply about the end consequences and the need for a peaceful solution with support of the key powers and on the ground peacekeeping forces to ensure there is not another blood bath.

We welcome your comments below!

EUROPE’S DISCONTENT AND CHALLENGES IN A HIGH RISK WORLD: AMERICA’S PROBLEM TOO!

EUROPE’S DISCONTENT AND CHALLENGES IN A HIGH RISK WORLD: AMERICA’S PROBLEM TOO!

By

Harry C. Blaney III

Dateline: BRUSSELS

This post is about the perspective of the remaining 27 members of the EU and especially the nations of the main continent as they await the withdrawal of the UK from the EU, face difficult negotiations on Brexit, and face the reality of the serge of Fascists groups and parties with elections in France and Germany looming this year. At the same time try to deal with the immigration crisis and the danger of further erosion of unity and not least the threat of Putin’s Russia and its active measures to undermine the democracy and unity of members of NATO and the EU.

All this is compounded by the indifference and even threats of the Trump administration towards the key institutions that have comprised the source of the continent’s prosperity, unity and security. Th treat by both Donald Trump and the Secretary of State Tillerson that they have to pony up the 2% of GDP to “pay America” is outrageous given that the threat is accompanied with the further implicit threat of not defending countries that do not make that mark.

From the perspective of the EU nations and the EU public servants and NATO here in Brussels the unity of the West is in considerable disarray. They are threaten by and fearful of the U.S. under an unpredictable even malicious president and a myopic Republican Congress. Both of which ignore or want to cut funding for diplomacy and foreign assistance and international institutions. These acts inevitably lead to a more dangerous world and less security for America and other nations. They see such moves as forces that move the world towards more conflict, global poverty, and disastrous climate change. They also see the pending funding cut of programs that make the world a safer place for all nations as a common threat to global stability and security.

No wonder they are worried that we are driven by and act on the isolationist concept of “America First,” the same concept that Hitler used to gain his power in the phrase “Deutschland über alles.” They are concerned about the likes of the Alt-Right and racist Stephen Bannon and Trump in American politics. Some are worried by their proclaimed ideology of raw unfetter capitalism, with policies aimed at supporting of brutal and undemocratic governments and bullying of other nations for its own personal selfish interests.

Looking to their East Europe they see an aggressive and predatory Russia under Putin. Their concern is great about efforts of Putin to impact on elections in Europe. The most glaring is that of France.

Among the leading French candidates. Le Pen, of the National Front, conservative nominee Francois Fillon and Communist-backed Jean-Luc Melenchon have a positive view of Trump and want to bring Russia into normal relations and want lifting sanctions imposed over its 2014 annexation of Crimea from Ukraine. The three have also expressed some of support for Russia intervention against anti-regime rebels in Syria’s civil war. On the other hand Macron and Socialist candidate Benoit Hamon has a more skeptical view of Putin. Two candidates back continued sanctions on Russia and have insisted that Russian-backed Syrian President Bashar al-Assad must go.

In February, the moderate center Macron aide accused Russian state media of a “smear campaign” against the 39-year-old defender of open borders and immigration, whom polls show ultimately beating Le Pen. Macron’s team also pointed a finger at Russia over a flurry of cyberattacks on his campaign website. The recent sight of a smiling Le Pen clasping hands with the Russian rankled France’s Socialist government. “It’s not up to Russia to decide who will be the next president of France,” Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault said on Friday. The outcome of the election will determine the future of Europe.

The end result is a Europe feeling alone and no longer respecting American leadership that is no longer being what it has been since the end of WW II. It is seen now as a force that not only does not support doing good and seeking peace and democracy in the world but one that is prone to acting in ways that make our world worse. That is dangerous. Some of the issues and problems of the U.S. relationship with Europe need immediate attention and major rethinking and signs of strong support for a strong and united Europe.

We welcome your comments.

MORE DIVISIONS IN EUROPE AND US NOT HELPING BUT HURTING! LATEST EVENTS.

MORE DIVISIONS IN EUROPE AND US NOT HELPING BUT HURTING!
LATEST EVENTS.

By

Harry C. Blaney III

In the days following the announcement on April 27th of the activation of clause 50 of the EU foundation law by Prime Minister Theresa May we have seen again as much mendacity as I observed earlier in the depressing debate London during the fateful referendum last June.

It is with great sadness is that these issues of what a exit from the EU will really mean and these impacts have been little discussed and addressed. This includes in Wednesday’s Commons debate and in Prime Minister May’s statements and her restricted letter to the EU where there was little recognition of these major internal and external dangers. There were and no concrete or specific ideas on how to minimize the wider destruction that this act will entail. It is not enough to say that “It is time to come together” or speak about “liberal democratic values,” while acting in ways that counteracts those values. I heard voices of narrow nationalism and myopic perspectives when Britain and the EU needs badly more enlightened leadership and courage.

Brexit is for Great Britain, for Europe and not least for America’s interest  in an Europe where for we had a collective decades old goal that Europe be “whole, free at peace and secure in unity.” Now we are face with an enormous set of threats by common myopia on both sides of the Atlantic about our larger interests and indeed on our security.

On the side of disunity is Trump, Mrs. May, Marine Le Pen, Nigel Farage, and not least Putin. These together represent a threat to a peaceful and democratic Atlantic community. We need now a sense of common interests and goals. We are headed on a trajectory towards even greater disunity that weakens the fabric of collective security in the face of multiple attacks to institutions that came out of the post WW II. I am not sure that when we see Theresa May and Donald Trump both on the same side with glee at the sight of a weakened Europe including the EU and NATO that one can sleep easily.

What is happening day by day and I expect week by week, month by month the reality of how truly difficult will be the reality of the final break. Just the effort to pass legislation which will for the transition period put all the EU rules and legislation into the employees framework of a UK Parliament legislation is an almost impossible task. And on top of that Scotland’s government has requested a vote to exit Great Britain and wants an early vote before the final Brexit date, and Northern Ireland is quite upset over the danger of Brexit creating some barriers on the North Ireland-Republic of Ireland border. Also already some businesses have indicated that the exit will create major problems for their industries including staffing of a number in business sectors where EU nationals make up 20%-45% of their base employees.

On the EU side more and more the EU governments do not want Britain to have the same or better terms by leaving than they have as a full members.

In discussions here in Britain and especially among the people that want to get out of the EU there is no acknowledgment of the larger strategic risks. Their response is simply they want freedom to run their own country, and keep the “foreign” immigrants out and preserve their “way of life.”

The EU is still taking a somewhat hard line on the coming negotiations and want the terms of leading first to be addressed and then what the relationship would look like after that. Hard months ahead for both sides. But British leaders are still taking unrealistically too much of a better life after Brexit.
Finally, the downward trajectory towards even greater disunity weakens the fabric of collective security in the face of multiple attacks to institutions that came out of the post WW II that have kept the peace in Europe and beyond – institutions that hold “the center” together.”

In the meantime newspapers and other media here in London are reporting on the Trump-Russia collusion issues and the wonder at what former NSC head Lt. Gen. Flynn with say before congressional panels and indeed asking what Donald Trump is hiding.

We welcome your comments!

BREXIT, ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR WESTERN UNITY: UNITED EUROPE AT HIGH RISK

BREXIT AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR WESTERN UNITY:

UNITED EUROPE AT A TIME OF HIGH RISK

By

Harry C. Blaney III, Dateline: London

The year 2017 will likely turn out as a watershed of European unity but filled with potential disruptions and divisions which may create a fundamental shift in European politics, economy and security. The risks are in large, part self created and could have been avoidable. But they were also due to extraordinary poor UK political management, myopia and narrow nationalism. These are perspectives that kill the fundamental idea of the EU and a cooperative sharing community – namely the key idea of one for all and all for one.

On Wednesday Britain takes formally the foolish step of evoking Article 50 of the EU Treaty for withdrawal from membership. A step it did not have to take but a step driven by the worst of motivations. It will result in many dangerous outcomes even beyond the economic one, or concern over immigration, that has been so much talked about among many actors in this debate on leaving the EU.

The argument is that now Britain can be free to seek more business on a global scale and all will profit from the EU exit! The phrase used here in London by the right-wing Tory “leavers” is “Global Britain.” This slogan has about as much meaning or truth as Trump’s “Make American Great Again.”

The racist and far right nationalists like the UK Independent Party and not least dishonestly by Tory Prime Minister Teresa May along with her flaky new Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson who helped lead the campaign for leaving. They all touted a great new prosperity and national freedom after they leave the EU.

Of course this was a nonsense. If one were to do a fundamental analysis Britain already was making “maximum” efforts to extend its business reach, and to think of markets out side the EU. That to think it could do better in net world trade with less market access than it has in the EU, was a myth perpetrated by the right-wing racist Tories and the UKIP. The judgement here was that outside the EU, Britain would have a better chance to make global profits than it is trying to do inside the EU. In fact, it would have to negotiate individually with each and every nation and without the advantage of the massive economic power of the EU market and already advantageous agreements they have with these nations.

On Tuesday, as part of a tour around the country to try to defend the exit, Prime Minister Theresa May said, in words without content: “historic opportunity to get out into the world,” as if Britain never tried to reach the rest of the world. Each day her statements have less and less content.

With the signature now on the Article 50 document by Mrs. May, the clock will start ticking towards leaving but there is no clue on what any “deal” on leaving will really look like. The only outcome will not be what Britain wants and there are to be no free lunch.

Newspapers here are reporting from EU members that their prime goal is to preserve European unity and not to give any incentive for others to leave and gain advantages equal to membership without any cost or commitment to common unity. EU leaders, German and French politicians have made it clear that a “free” access is not on offer. But also say that they do not seek a confrontation or will try to “punish” Britain. But the EU position, as much as we know, is not in the ballpark of what Mrs. May has so far set forth as her aim. Thus we may see very hard negotiations over the next two years with little hope Britain will come out totally whole given what has been promised by the “leave” campaign or Tory government.

The truth is that EU holds the cards not the UK in the coming negotiations. But this has not been explained to the British voters.

The more fundamental issue is the impact of this Brexit on the already fragility of Western European unity and security. We are seeing the growing growth of far right and Fascist parties with key elections in France and Germany and possibly other nations. Add to this the threat of Scotland holding a referendum on leaving again and their stance on staying in the EU. The Scottish assembly has just voted to have a referendum on independence but this must have the approval of PM Theresa May, which will not be given. But this act will only contribute to the sense of resentment by many Scots and reinforce their desire to remain in the EU.

Add the breakdown of the North Ireland Government coalition of “shared government.” that has just taken place which has been exacerbated by the Brexit with deep difficult implications for the North-South border and cooperation for both sides and for social peace.

The total cost of the Brexit is for Great Britain, for Europe and not least for America’s interest in a Europe that is “whole, free at peace and secure in unity”  is enormous. It is under severe threat by the idiocy and myopia and frankly immorality of leaders on both sides of the Atlantic. On the side of disunity and “deconstruction” is Trump, Mrs. May, Marine Le Pen, Nigel Farage, and not least Putin. These together represent a threat to a peaceful and decent world community and for a sense of common interests and goals.

More from Europe on the implications of this act shortly, and especially a look at the perspective of the 27 nations that will be left in the EU. Also an examination of the Putin-Trump cooperation issue and its implications.

We welcome your comments!

THE RUSSIAN-TRUMP CONNECTION: GETTING TO THE TRUTH AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR THE WEST

THE RUSSIAN-TRUMP CONNECTION: GETTING TO THE TRUTH AND ITS IMPLICATIONS

By Harry C. Blaney III

DATELINE :LONDON

The perspective from London: the news that both the Director of the FBI James Comey and the head of the National Security Agency Admiral Mike Rogers have confirmed two key points has given some light here on America’s own disarray: the most important revelation is that of Comey in affirming that an investigation of the connection between the Trump team and Russia is taking place. The other statement by the NSA head, at the congressional committee, is that they could not find any evidence that Obama or his administration called for a wiretap on Trump Tower and affirmed that such a request would be illegal by Obama or any president. This severely undercut the Trump White House assertion that such wiretapping was ordered. They are looking at whether there was any collusion between Trump’s team and Russia to influence the election.

Russian Interference in the 2016 election is the other key issue and the need to look more at this seem on the agenda and will have still public profile until more if revealed and this is also a finding which Trump fears.

Here in London this Russian connection story was given wide coverage especially on BBC News and in the quality newspapers. The question was also raised here whether the Trump unproved accusations that the UK GCHQ, the counterpart of the American NSA, had spied on the Trump camp. This only added to the unease about American leadership. The GCHQ stated that any idea of their spying was nonsense. In fact, at the US House Intelligence hearings on these issues, the NSA head confirmed that such an order was expressly counter to the so-call “5 eyes” of nations with special access to and sharing of intelligence information, and was contrary to its firm rules and no such order was ever given.

With all of that, the White House totally denied any reality of collusion with Russia and stood on their untenable positions, with no indication of any apology or refutation of the now totally denied chargers.

With the affirmation of the FBI Trump-Russian connection inquiry, the possibility of some connection between the Trump people and Russian, before the election and before taking office grows more worrisome. It is clear that something odd was at work in that Trump’s staff. The Trump associates did approach the Russians before the election and that the former NSC head Flynn felt he had to lie to the American Vice president about his talk to the Russian Ambassador. Also US intelligence did report that at least 3 or possibly more members of the Trump team also had contacts with Russians. There were also hints that some of these Russians were from Russian intelligence agencies.

Another disheartening news for Europe is that Secretary of State will not be coming to the forthcoming NATO Council meeting of Foreign Ministers and news reports confirm that he supports the drastic cutting of the State Department and USAID budget which will cost million of vulnerable lives. This only adds to the unease here in Europe and brightens Putin’s efforts to divide the West.

One other element is that UK Prime Minister May has set Wednesday March 27th as the date she will invoke Article 50 to leave the EU. This plays into also Putin’s goals and it seems, that the British right-wing is in its ascendancy and the Labour Party here is in even more disarray than earlier which is saying a great deal given its critical internal turmoil. There seems, as noted before, a rush of the lemmings over the clef.

Finally, the combination of Trump fighting with our allies and pushing, it seems, for their disunity, along with the UK Prime Minister May also on board with the Brexit plunge into even greater isolationism and nationalism, add also lurking economic crisis upon actual breakup. One then must mix in the ascendancy in Europe of the Alt-Right-neo-Fascist parties and groups, despite the Dutch vote, along with the factor of Putin’s Russia playing a not so secret effort to weaken and divide Europe and undermine democracy, result: we have a very dangerous landscape.

All this exacerbated by a very foolish, uninformed, and clearly malevolent man. Not a very good picture for those that prize peace, democracy and security. The costs here are too great to imagine.

More in the coming days from Europe and it’s “discontents” and America’s role in all this.

We welcome your comments! See box below.