• Home page of novelist William S. Frankl, M.D.
  • About author William S. Frankl, M.D.
  • Books by novelist William S. Frankl, M.D.
  • Reviews of the writing of author William S. Frankl, M.D.
  • Blog of author William (Bill) S. Frankl, M.D.
  • Contact author William S. Frankl, M.D.
Title: Blog by Novelist William S. Frankl, MD

Archive for the ‘Foreign Policy’ Category

North Korean Peace Trap

Thursday, March 15th, 2018

An interesting article about a dangerous trick North Korea might try in the proposed upcoming N.Korea – USA talks in May

The Washington Examiner

Trump Must Not Fall for the North Korea Peace Treaty Trap
Michael Rubin 3/12/18
North Korea reportedly wants President Trump to sign a peace treaty formally ending the Korean War 65 years after an armistice established a ceasefire, according to a report by the South Korean newspaper Dong-A Ilbo (cited by the Daily Beast).

It’s a trap. Let’s hope Trump doesn’t fall for it. Certainly, the idea of peace on the Korean Peninsula sounds desirable. Peace is good, right? And what Western politician doesn’t want to make resolution of one of a decades-old conflict seemingly more intractable and far bloodier than the Arab-Israeli conflict to his legacy?

But, in this case, the devil is in the details. When the United States intervened in Korea to protect South Korea from communist invasion, it did so under the flag of the United Nations. Most U.S. forces actually operate as the United Nations Command, a force established at the start of the war in 1950. When Gen. William Harrison signed the Korean Armistice Agreement with a representative of the North Korean army and Chinese “volunteers” in 1953, he was actually representing the U.N. Command rather than the United States government. In the course of negotiating the armistice, U.S. diplomats and officers did not insist that North Korea recognize the South’s legitimacy; to do so might have derailed the sensitive talks.

Still, President Dwight D. Eisenhower hoped to bring American forces home. Three months after signing the armistice, American, Korean, and Chinese officials met at Panmunjom to discuss peace and withdrawal of foreign forces. The talks were even more hostile than the armistice, according to U.S. Ambassador Arthur Dean, the peace talks were anything but peaceful and hardly involved talking. “No individual ever spoke personally to anyone on the other side,” he noted. North Korean representatives read every statement only after the Chinese approved it. He described it as “negotiation without contact,” and, after four weeks, the Americans and North Koreans could not even agree on an agenda. A follow-up conference in Geneva also went nowhere.

The next few decades were tense. North Korea launched attacks across the DMZ, sent saboteurs into South Korea, and kidnapped foreigners. Against the backdrop of North Korea’s threats and its refusal even to recognize South Korea, however, the American commitment to Seoul remained firm. North Korea still talked about their desire for peace and unity, but the assumption that it would be on North Korea’s terms always underlay their rhetoric.

Diplomacy, therefore, became not a mean to a win-win compromise, but rather an asymmetric warfare strategy meant to advance North Korea’s strategic position while simultaneously undercutting South Korea’s relations with the United States. If North Korea could not meet its objective—bringing South Korea under its fold—then it had no interest in talking or peace.

This is why Kim Il-Sung’s sudden outreach to President Jimmy Carter in 1977 raised so much suspicion. Shortly after Carter’s inauguration, Kim sent a letter to the president-elect proposing to replace the armistice with a peace treaty. The North Korean foreign minister followed suit in a letter to Secretary of State Cyrus Vance. Carter expressed interest, so long as South Korea might also participate. Kim Il Sung, however, refused. He wanted dialogue, but not compromise. He demanded Carter withdraw all forces from the Korean Peninsula, something Carter considered until his advisers convinced him that such a move would be both rash and dangerous. When Carter shelved his withdrawal plan, Kim reacted bitterly, accusing the U.S. president of aiming to “deceive the world.”

It would be another 15 years before North Korea would again float the prospect of a peace treaty. In October 1993, Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y., visited North Korea. He carried a White House letter seeking new talks. He met Kim Il Sung and other senior officials, but was lukewarm in his assessment, saying the talks were “long on symbolism but short on substance.” North Korea wanted concessions before fulfilling its nuclear commitments. Assistant Secretary of State Robert Gallucci, however, was more positive. He spoke about a grand bargain floated by North Korean leaders in which the communist regime would remain inside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and allow inspections in exchange for light water reactors, diminished U.S. ties to South Korea and, of course, a formal peace.

Fortunately, however, Clinton overruled Gallucci. To abandon South Korea for the sake of peace with North Korea would, in effect, be to reverse the outcome of the Korean War. Even as Clinton continued talks with North Korea, Clinton refused to allow Pyongyang to substitute the substance of disarmament talks for the symbolism of peace. (That North Korea cheated on disarmament is another story, one I chronicle in Dancing with the Devil).

With the 1994 Agreed Framework complete, however, Clinton spent the rest of his presidency trying to entice North Korea toward peace. In 1996, Clinton proposed four-way talks with the United States, China, and the two Koreas. North Korea raised numerous objections, all of which boiled down to Pyongyang’s objection to having Seoul represented at the table. After all, in North Korea’s narrative, they are the only legitimate Korea. This is why bilateral talks are so dangerous: When the United States sits down alone with North Korea, it hands Pyongyang a victory before talks even begin.

In 1998, as Clinton and his Secretary of State Madeleine Albright tried again to spur on the peace process, talks stalled when North Korea demanded the United States first withdraw its forces from South Korea. Again, the White House recognized that whatever their political ambition, this was too dangerous a gamble.

Fast forward to the present day. North Korea wants peace, and they want to negotiate it with the United States. Trump, unlike Carter and Clinton, appears willing to engage on a personal level. As my American Enterprise Institute colleague and veteran Korea watcher Nicholas Eberstadt points out, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un’s desire to negotiate without preconditions is not what it seems: After all, removing preconditions requires the formal voiding of every previous commitment North Korea made in negotiations. But, the risk goes further. Any peace treaty would end the United Nations Command which legitimizes and formalizes the U.S. presence in South Korea. In effect, the Trump administration would be trading the security of a key U.S. ally and one of the most vibrant economies in East Asia for the promise of North Korean denuclearization, a promise North Korea has repeatedly broken.

Trump sees himself as a master negotiator and, without doubt, the president deserves credit for not yet rewarding North Korean bluster in the manner that so many of his predecessors did. But, while the United States should aspire to peace on the Korean Peninsula, it should never be done on North Korea’s terms. Indeed, any juxtaposition of North and South Korea today shows just how wise President Truman’s decision was to defend South Korea from communist aggression. Trump may see himself as master of the art of the deal, but true mastery comes with a recognition that sometimes it’s best not to negotiate a deal in the first place or, at the very least, not negotiate any new deal until an adversary implements all the terms of previous deals to which it has committed.

Peace, naively embraced, can be the shortest path to war.

Michael Rubin (@Mrubin1971) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. He is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a former Pentagon official.

Islam, Macron and the Future of France

Thursday, February 22nd, 2018

This report from France is rather troublesome. The Muslim problem in France has been progressing rapidly. The new President, Macron, at first appeared to be ready to deal vigorously with this issue, but now seems to be retreating. This problem will ultimately envelop the USA. I wonder how Trump or future Presidents will deal with this it.

Macron and Islam: “Appeasement and Dialogue”
by Yves Mamou
February 20, 2018

When French President Emanuel Macron recently said that “We are working on the structuring of Islam in France,” it was only one part of a message, to prepare Muslims and non-Muslims for the big project: transforming Islam in France into the Islam of France.

Prison guards tried to explain that every day, their lives are in danger. In late January when the strike ended, Macron said privately that the danger was not radicalized Muslim prisoners but radicalized guards, and claimed that one of the main unions for prison guards had become “infiltrated” by undercover militants from the right-wing Front National party.

When US President Donald Trump announced the transfer of the American Embassy from Tel Aviv in Jerusalem, Macron immediately tweeted, “France does not approve the US decision. France supports the two-state solution, Israel and Palestine, living in peace and security with Jerusalem as the capital of the two states. We need to focus on appeasement and dialogue.” The last sentence is a resumé of Macron’s Islam policy: appeasement and dialogue — in other words, submission.

During Emmanuel Macron’s election campaign, and even after he became president, he carefully avoided France’s two most dodgy topics: migrants and Islam. It did not take long, however, before Macron found himself caught up in both of them.

On February 11, 2018, however, Macron gave an interview to Journal du Dimanche: “We are working on the structuring of Islam in France and also on how to explain it, which is extremely important,” Macron told the French weekly newspaper. Of course, nothing significant came out of the interview; it was only one part of a message, to prepare Muslims and non-Muslims for the big project: transforming Islam in France into the Islam of France. Although its contents are still unclear, the frame is usually the same: Muslims are supposedly victims, and a reform of France is necessary to make them peaceful and happy.

One wonders if the Islam of France will be really different from what it is today.

With Islam, an unbridled anti-Semitism in France has continued to soar. On January 29, 2018, an 8-year-old Jewish boy wearing a Jewish skullcap was attacked in the suburb of Sarcelles, near Paris. For a long time, Sarcelles was a suburb where Jews and Muslims once lived peacefully side by side. That has changed. In 2014, a pro-Palestinian demonstration escalated into an anti-Jewish pogrom, complete with shops burned and civilians attacked. On January 10, 2018, also in Sarcelles , an unidentified assailant armed with a knife slashed the face of a 15-year-old Jewish girl. On January 9, in the suburb of Creteil, a kosher grocery store that had been covered with swastikas days earlier was gutted in a fire. The police said they suspected arson.

Macron reacted strongly against the anti-Jewish violence. “It’s the republic that is attacked,” he said. Like all presidents before him, he took great care not to name the Islamist attacker.

In France, small groups of Muslims and Salafists have undertaken ethnically to purify territories that they see as their own. Every time an area is shared with Jews, the violence against them builds up. Between 30,000 and 60,000 Jews have already migrated from their homes — generally in the eastern suburbs of Paris — to other, safer parts of Paris.

As for asylum seekers, in 1981, there were 20,000 asylum seekers in France. In 2017, the number of economic migrants disguised as “asylum seekers” reached a historic mark of 100,000, announced the French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (OFPRA) on January 8, 2018. That 100,000 represents an increase of 17% from the year before.

As the government seems unable to control the situation, violence is soaring. On February 1, 2018, extremely violent clashes between Afghan and African migrants broke out in several parts of the coastal city of Calais, where a growing number of migrants go to try to cross the Channel to Great Britain. Twenty-two people were injured, four of them by gunfire. Those four are still in hospital and still in critical condition. The Minister of the Interior Gérard Collomb deplored “a degree of violence never seen before” in modern France.

Macron now knows that he will have to confront the issue of Islam and migrants. Since his election, he has had access to sensitive, disorienting information. Collomb has informed him about the state of the terrorist threat and the radicalization of young Muslims, aged 15-25 (25% of the Muslim population), who say they want to establish sharia law in France. Macron, apparently, is hesitating.

In December 2017, he delayed a speech he was about to deliver on the coexistence between the secular Republic and “monotheistic religions”. Instead, Macron brought representatives of the six main religions (Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, Muslim, Jewish and Buddhist) for a “nearly two hour” meeting, assisted by Collomb and Education Minister Jean-Michel Blanquer, in the president’s Elysée Palace. Part of what was discussed has filtered out. Macron evidently reaffirmed that the “Republic is secular” but that “society does not have to be secular”. In other words, in society, all religions must feel free to express themselves. Macron also said that he will be “vigilant” against an eventual “radicalization of secularism”.

None of the clerics around the president pointed out that secularism has never killed anyone, while since 2015, Islamist terrorism has seen the murder of hundreds of citizens.

In January 2018, when a protest by prison guards erupted, the government was taken by surprise. For two weeks, television and radio airwaves were filled with testimonies about the terror that Islamist detainees were sowing throughout the whole prison system. Prison guards tried to explain that every day their lives are in danger.

In late January, when the strike ended, Macron said privately that the danger was not radicalized Muslim prisoners but radicalized guards. One of the main unions for prison guards, according to him, had become “infiltrated” by undercover militants from the right-wing Front National party. French politicians, as usual, mistake the effect for the cause. If prison guards are joining Front National, it is probably because they feel abandoned by politicians who are not doing their essential work: keeping dangerous people away from society.

Another headache for Macron are the 1,500 French jihadists who reached ISIS in Syria: what France should do about them. On December 9, 2017, French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian, disclosed that 500 French fighters who had joined the Islamic State were still in the Iraqi-Syrian area. In late December, 30 were arrested in northern Syria. Among them was Thomas Barnouin, a convert to Islam and close to Mohamed Merah, the killer of seven French citizens in 2012, and Emilie König, who recruited jihadists for ISIS. Many of these Frenchmen were requesting to be tried in France: in Iraq and Syria they would risk the death penalty.

Macron, apparently, is hesitating. In November 2017, he had declared on Channel 2 that the situation of jihadi women and children would be examined “on a case-by-case basis”. He had sad that most of them would receive a humanitarian treatment; not be brought to court, and that jihadi women would receive “medical and psychiatric treatment.” This “case by case” treatment — no court, no prison, but medical care as well as money for gradual social rehabilitation — is a solution that could in the end be worth it for all the French jihadists arrested in Iraq and Syria” the French daily Ouest-France explained.

In January 2018, the French Minister of Justice issued a public statement: “We will not let ‘death penalty sentences’ against French jihadists by Iraqis happen in Syrian courts”. Maybe these killers will next be considered victims of intolerance by the discriminatory French.

On the diplomatic level, at first glance, Macron adopted a tough stance against “Islamic terrorism”. In August 2017, in front of all of France’s ambassadors, he said, “The fight against Islamist terrorism” must be “the first” priority, to “ensure the safety of our fellow citizens”.

This martial announcement, however, targeted only ISIS, by now almost defeated. When a few Islamic states such as Turkey behaved like terrorist states, the official tone of the French president varied significantly. When Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan launched a military offensive against the Kurds in Afrin (in Syrian Kurdistan), Macron immediately distanced himself from the Kurds. He considered publicly as “potential terrorists” these Kurdish Peshmergas whom the French military had been training in Iraq to fight ISIS.

The reason for this betrayal could well be the important Turkish population in France (between half a million and 800,000) as well as the growing influence inside the French Turkish population of a Muslim Turkish party, the Parti Egalité Justice (“Equality and Justice Party,” PEJ). The PEJ is the French element of a network of political parties built by Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his Justice and Development Party (AKP), to influence each country in Europe, and to influence Europe as a whole through its Muslim population.

Recently, in Lyon, large numbers of Turkish Islamists demonstrated in front of the city hall to support Erdogan’s war against the Kurds, while pro-Kurdish demonstrators were blocked by the police.

Macron seems to ignore that each Islamist victory in the Middle East has a euphoric effect on French jihadists (Turkish and non-Turkish) and brings them out of the woodwork.

Regarding Israel and the Palestinians, Macron seems to be positioning himself along the traditional arc of French diplomacy: “appeasement” resulting from the strong Muslim population living in France. When US President Donald Trump announced the transfer of the American Embassy from Tel Aviv in Jerusalem, Macron immediately tweeted:

“France does not approve the US decision. France supports the two-state solution, Israel and Palestine, living in peace and security, with Jerusalem as the capital of the two states. We need to focus on appeasement and dialogue.”

The last sentence is a resumé of all Macron’s Islam policy: appeasement and dialogue — in other words, submission.

Like his predecessors, Macron is on his way to search for an imaginary amicable solution. Like his predecessors, he will fail — and will have been president for nothing.
Yves Mamou, author and journalist, based in France, worked for two decades as a journalist for Le Monde. He is completing a book, “Collaborators and Useful Idiots of Islamism in France,” to be published in 2018.

Rebuilding Our Military

Tuesday, February 20th, 2018

After 8 years of deliberate neglect by the Obama Administration, the new Administration in Washington is bent on restoring our military might. The following is the thoughtful review on the subject of what is needed to achieve, once more, a military that can deal appropriately with all of the global dangers that confront us.

The Heritage Foundation

How Congress Can Start Rebuilding the Military Within New Budget Framework
Feb 16th, 2018
By
Frederico Bartels (Commentary)
and
Connor Ewing (Policy Analyst for defense budgeting)

Spring 2018 member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation

The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 raised the defense budget caps for both 2018 and 2019. For the coming year, the defense budget will be $647 billion, excluding war funds.

The National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2019 will determine how these resources are to be spent and provides a chance to continue reversing the current trend of deteriorating military strength.

The signs of a declining military are made evident in The Heritage Foundation’s Index of U.S. Military Strength. The inaugural edition of The Index in 2015 graded the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and nuclear platforms as marginal, and the Air Force as strong. The military received an overall grade of marginal.

In the latest edition, the Navy, Air Force, and nuclear platforms were graded as marginal, and the Army and Marine Corps as weak. The overall grade was again marginal.

Reversing this declining trend starts with properly allocating resources.

Congress can lead this effort in the upcoming National Defense Authorization Act. It can help the Defense Department increase the lethality of U.S. military force, strengthen international partnerships, and reform the department’s business practices.

Congress should increase, in a fiscally responsible manner, the defense budget cap for fiscal year 2019 to $664 billion. The Heritage Foundation assesses $664 billion to be a sufficient level of funding for fiscal year 2019 to continue rebuilding each of the armed services as well as the nuclear triad.

This will provide necessary resources for each branch to increase procurement, research and development, and fill critical needs, both in people and equipment.

Congress should enable the Army to start solving its single most critical issue: its inability to generate and maintain appropriate numbers of combat-ready brigade combat teams.

Congress needs to work with the Navy to increase its fleet size through accelerated procurement. Consistent and appropriate levels of yearly funding are necessary to make the goal of a 355-ship Navy feasible.

The Marine Corps has been suffering with aging and inadequate quantities of equipment. The 2019 National Defense Authorization Act gives Congress an opportunity to boost the Corps’ modernization programs and speed up the acquisition of desperately needed new equipment and technology.

The Air Force has been plagued with aging platforms and a decreasing number of available pilots, as they continue to endure a high operational tempo. The 2019 bill must include the acceleration of advanced platforms and create incentive programs to retain pilots and maintainers.

The nuclear platforms are old and in need of replacement. The nuclear triad ought to be modernized with advanced delivery systems and nuclear weapons. Congress also needs to continue developing a layered missile defense system to ensure the U.S. is prepared to protect itself from ballistic missiles.

Strengthening alliances is also critical in the work of rebuilding the military. In Europe, Congress should support the European Deterrence Initiative and incentivize forward basing. Additionally, the United States needs to focus on a “NATO first” policy in Europe and discontinue support for the creation of a European Union army.

On the business-reform front, Congress can work to make the Defense Department more efficient. Even though the department did not request it, they should authorize a new round of base realignment and closures. That alone would save the Pentagon an estimated $2 billion yearly.

In addition, incentivizing the use of performance-based logistics could save $9 billion annually. Congress should also lift the moratorium on private-public competitions. These can provide more cost-effective services for the U.S. government.

It has been made clear over the past several years that the U.S. military has deteriorated in readiness, capacity, and capability. The 2019 National Defense Authorization Act needs to build on the success of 2018 and continue the process of rebuilding the military through strengthening alliances, increasing lethality, and bringing efficient business-oriented reform to the Defense Department.

It took years for the military to reach its current state of deterioration. It will take years to rebuild it.

This piece originally appeared in The Daily Signal

Israel vs Iran. War Soon?

Tuesday, February 20th, 2018

The Middle East remains a tinderbox: Syria; Yeman; Libya; Turkey vs Kurds; Isreal vs Palestinians; Isis; al Queda; and now Israel vs Iran directly. Did I miss anyone? So, read the following:

Washington Examiner
2/18/2018
Benjamin Netanyahu: Israel will attack Iran if necessary
by Joel Gehrke
Israel is prepared for a direct conflict with Iran if the threat of the regime’s terrorist proxies increases, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned.

“We will act if necessary not just against Iran’s proxies but against Iran itself,” Netanyahu said Sunday at the Munich Security Conference.

Netanyahu reinforced the point by showing the assembly of diplomats and international leaders a piece of the Iranian drone shot down after entering Israeli airspace eight days ago. Israel responded to the drone incursion with airstrikes against Iranian targets in Syria, but Syrian anti-aircraft defenses succeeded in downing an Israeli F-16.

“Israel will not allow the regime to put a noose of terror around our neck,” Netanyahu said.

Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif countered the real lesson of the recent clash is the Israeli air force is vulnerable for the first time in decades. “And so the myth of invincibility of Israel, of the Israeli military, has crumbled,” Zarif told NBC News.

Zarif also brushed off Netanyahu’s warning. “Well, if they try to exercise that threat, they will see the response,” he said.

U.S. officials have worried for years about the prospect of a conflict between Israel and Iran that plays out across Lebanon and southern Syria.

Iran has transferred more than a hundred thousand missiles to Hezbollah, its terrorist proxy in Lebanon, some of which have precision-guided technology that could strike any place in Israel.

Netanyahu, additionally, has promised to prevent Iran from amassing on Israel’s border with Syria, where Syrian President Bashar Assad has invited Iranian forces to operate as they help his regime fight a civil war.

Netanyahu’s speech was designed not just to warn Iran, but also sway the United States and Europe as President Trump weighs whether to renew economic sanctions that former President Barack Obama waived under the Iran deal.

“[The speech] was meant to address the current aggressiveness of Iran on the ground and to influence what will happen in Washington in a few months,” Netanyahu told reporters, per the Times of Israel.

N. Korea Missile over Japan. What to do?

Wednesday, August 30th, 2017

 

 

The following is a very sensible way to proceed in this terribly difficult situation. But unlikely to be followed wholly or in part.

Washington Examiner

August 30, 2017

How Trump Should Respond to North Korea’s Missile Over Japan

  By Tom Rogan

       August 29,2017

 Early Tuesday morning Japan time, North Korea fired a missile over Japan’s northern Hokkaido island. The missile launch represents a major North Korean escalation in its ongoing standoff with the United States, South Korea, and Japan.

 

This is the first time in 8 years that North Korea has fired a missile over Japanese territory, and in doing so Kim Jong Un has seized back the strategic initiative.

 

Kim’s success in that regard is reflected by Japan’s apparent failure to try and shoot down the missile. In recent weeks, the Trump administration had suggested any launch against Japanese territory would be dealt with aggressively and immediately; implying the use of anti-ballistic missile weapons or retaliation. True, Japan might say that it didn’t act here because the missile’s trajectory was indicative of a Western Pacific impact, but Kim will feel his roll of the dice has been vindicated.

 

That puts the Trump administration in a difficult position. As I noted last week, while Trump’s tough-rhetoric on North Korea has been largely successful, there was a growing likelihood that Kim would launch a missile test against South Korea or Japan. That option, now rendered, allows Kim to preach defiance while avoiding Guam or another U.S. territory.

 

Still, the specter of a ballistic missile passing over one of America’s closest allies cannot be ignored. After all, it cuts to the heart of any realistic deterrent policy.

 

So what should Trump do?

 

I think four things. First, he should work to establish a consensus with Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan on what to do if another launch takes place. Here, both leaders should state any further missiles on course to transit Japan will be shot down. North Korea must know that this activity cannot become the new norm. Absent that understanding, Kim will be emboldened to further acts of aggression.

Second, the president should direct Nikki Haley to work with the U.N. security council to pass new sanctions legislation on North Korea. This should include the sanctioning of North Korean government accounts used to support its diplomats around the world, and the North’s importation of machinery, electronics, and refined petroleum from China and Russia. While China and Russia might well veto such legislation, it would force China and Russia to take a stand against the international community. With export reliant economies, both nations would worry about the impacts of that vote. An able negotiator, Nikki Haley should call on allies like Britain and France to lobby on America’s behalf.

 

Third, Trump should order the deployment of additional forces to the U.S. Military’s Pacific Command. As I’ve explained, these deployments should be focused on air and naval striking capabilities. The intent here would not simply serve the prudent preparation for military action against North Korea’s ballistic missile program, but to remind China that the U.S. sees the end game on the horizon. North Korean nuclear-ballistic capabilities are growing in many areas, and China continues to take only mild action. Put simply, either that must change or the U.S. must strike.

 

Fourth, as soon as is feasibly possible (following his visit to Texas), Trump should visit Tokyo and make a speech in solidarity with U.S. allies in the region. Doing so wouldn’t simply calm our friends in the Asia-Pacific, it would personally stake Trump’s reputation on resolving this crisis. Knowing his ego is considerable, Trump’s arrival might deter those like China and North Korea who would accept the North’s conduct as the new norm.

 

Ultimately, Kim has changed the dimensions of the crisis by this missile launch. While a diplomatic solution is both possible and preferable, Trump must ensure everyone knows that time for a peaceful solution is running out.

 

Author’s note: An earlier version of this article suggested that the last North Korean missile to transit Japan was fired in 1998. While a missile was launched over Japan in 1998, the last such transit was in 2009.

Tom Rogan Donald Trump Japan North Korea White House Opinion Beltway Confidential


William S. Frankl, All Rights Reserved
Design by Yikes!