Chris Patten defined the United States and Britain/Europe as "cousins and strangers." The same could be said about the Netherlands and Belgium.
The differences grow and are highlighted now that Queen Beatrix is abdicating. She has been a formidable monarch, overcoming personal tragedies and steering the Netherlands on a path that made her country a model. The new Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam can rightly be seen as the 'finale" of a remarkable reign. Obviously this was also the result of a collective memory wherein the country has an enormous self-esteem, not unlike what also prevails in Sweden and Denmark, which are equally small countries with a macro-historical added value. On April 30th, Prince Willem-Alexander will inherit both a "state" and a history.
The situation in Belgium is very different. It provides more stories than history, having been part of larger entities or united with the Netherlands from 1815 until 1830. Since independence, the country has rested on a succession of arrangements which often highlight more the diversity than the union. The monarch has to be the arbiter and the pacifier, hence his role in the past has been considerable.
The Saxe-Coburgs are a strange, interesting lot. It is difficult to predict how they will act after they are installed (in Belgium the succession is not automatic and needs the approval of the government). Fortunately in most cases the king has happened to be the right man in the right place. It would be hazardous to predict how the current crown prince will act when he succeeds his father, King Albert II. He will have a difficult part to play after the current reign which has received high respect from all corners. Fortunately he will inherit a situation which has improved in the last years, especially since the current government under Prime Minister Elio de Rupo was installed. The financial situation is not ideal but scores in the middle. Devolution has become a habit and the Belgian way of deal making helped to overcome problems of the sort which assail countries like Spain, the United Kingdom or Italy. There is no violence between regions or other actors in the federal state. Belgium does not pretend to stand as a model, choosing pragmatism above ideology. But this also has a more negative consequence, insofar as the central authority looks weakened and suffers from a low visibility. Nevertheless one should not mistake low-key with "distraction." Belgian politics are merciless. The formidable radical Belgian politician, Bart De Wever, has become the mayor of Antwerp. In doing so he may have made a mistake in prioritizing the Aventine rather than the Capitoline.The Belgian political class is prone to offer pillows that are handed out less for comfort than for asphyxia.
Prince Philippe will inherit a very complex situation, unlike his Dutch counterpart. Belgium will always remain a country in search of identity and the king has always been the accepted ruler of last resort. Some now want to curtail the political influence of the Crown, favoring a more ceremonial role as in other comparable monarchies. I think this has to be considered with a lot of caution because the "colloque singulier" has often been more a life-jacket than an obstruction.
Belgium will remain forever a country which puts a certain chaotic "art de vivre" ahead of an "art de regime."
Herein lies the paradox: a truly messy democratic laboratory which has chosen the individual path rather than the collective systemic meter. To navigate those often centrifugal collision-prone energies requires patience, tact and some Machiavellian talent.
Saturday, April 27, 2013
Monday, April 22, 2013
THE BOSTON WRITING ON THE WALL
THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE BOSTON THREE-ACT TRAGEDY ARE BECOMING CLEARER BY THE HOUR, EVEN IF THERE REMAIN UNANSWERED QUESTIONS. THE HISTORY, THE DEED, THE END ARE BECOMING ALL TOO FAMILIAR. THE UNDERLYING STORY APPEARS TO BE MORE CREEPY WHEN THE PIECES OF THE PUZZLE ARE PUT TOGETHER.
THERE IS GRIEF AND INDIGNATION OBVIOUSLY. BOSTON SHOWED A CIVIC RESILIENCE IN COMMUNION WITH THE COUNTRY AS A WHOLE. AFTER THE EMOTIONAL TIDE, A STORY LINE IS SLOWLY COMING TO THE SURFACE, WITH POTENTIALLY FAR-REACHING SOCIO/GEO- POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES.
CONTRARY TO EUROPE, THE UNITED STATES HAS A GOOD RECORD ON IMMIGRATION AND ASSIMILATION. THE "AMERICAN DREAM" STILL MOBILIZES GENUINE APPRECIATION AND LOYALTY. THE BOSTON TRAGEDY HAS WEAKENED THOSE BELIEFS. THE SUDDEN APPEARANCE OF THE TWO TSARNAEV BROTHER MASS KILLERS IS AN INDICATION THAT ONE COULD BE IN THE UNITED STATES WITHOUT BEING THERE. PHYSICAL PRESENCE, A GREEN CARD, NATIONALITY DO NOT NECESSARILY GO HAND IN HAND WITH ADHERENCE TO THE RULE OF LAW OR THE PLURALISTIC CULTURE OF THE LAND.
BOSTON IS AN INDICATOR OF A LATENT BIPOLAR PHENOMENON WHEREIN AN INDIVIDUAL "PLAYS" THE GAME WHILE PLOTTING HAVOC. HE MIGHT LOOK LIKE FITTING IN, BUT HE IS IN REALITY A LONER, ALIENATED, BECOMING THE ULTIMATE "POSEUR." THE BOSTON TERRORISTS BECAME RADICALIZED, BETRAYING BOTH THE RELIGION THEY ADHERED TO AND THE COUNTRY THEY LIVED IN. THE MOSQUE WAS LESS A PLACE OF WORSHIP THAN A SURROGATE FOR ASYLUM AND A BREEDING GROUND FOR HATRED AND A FEELING OF DISPLACEMENT.
THE AFTERMATH MIGHT HAVE AN EVEN LARGER IMPACT THAN THE NIHILISM WHICH WAS INTENDED. SINCE 9/11 LIFE HAS BEEN ALTERED WORLDWIDE. GENERALIZATIONS RULE: CALL TO PRAYER, CHECHNYANS, DAGESTAN. AFTER THIS LONE WOLVES' JOURNEY INTO SLAUGHTER ONE CANNOT EXCLUDE THAT THE UNITED STATES WILL CONSIDER FURTHER MEASURES TO AVOID A REPEAT. THIS CAN ONLY BE DONE BY STRENGTHENING VARIOUS CONTROLS, WHICH WILL INEVITABLY INFRINGE UPON PRIVACY, AND THE FREEDOMS WE TAKE FOR GRANTED.
"OTHERNESS" MIGHT BECOME A DIRTY WORD, WHILE PROFILING WILL BE THE RULE. THE ISRAELI SOPHISTICATED METHOD COULD BECOME THE ACCEPTED NORM GIVEN THAT THE CHECKS OUTNUMBER THE BALANCES. THE UNITED STATES WILL EASILY FIND IN RUSSIA AND CHINA PARTNERS ON HIGHER ALERT. THE US CONGRESS MIGHT ALSO RECONSIDER A BI-PARTISAN PROPOSAL ON IMMIGRATION. I BET THAT GREEN CARDS WILL BE HARDER TO COME BY.
UNFORTUNATELY ALL THIS MIGHT BECOME THE "NEW NORMAL," AT A MOMENT WHEN THERE WERE HINTS OF A DEGREE OF RELAXATION (NOT ON THE BACK OF SURVEILLANCE THOUGH). HUNTINGTON'S ASSERTIONS WERE, IN THE MINDSET OF MOST, ALREADY BECOMING A SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECY. HIS VIEWS, WHICH HAVE BEEN OVERSIMPLIFIED FOR MASS CONSUMPTION BY THE WAY, RISK BECOMING EVEN MORE PERTINENT, WHEN AMPLIFIED BY URGENCY.
THE BOSTON VICTIMS WILL NOT BE HONORED BY QUICK FIXES, NEITHER SHOULD COUNTRIES GET TRAPPED IN POPULIST OVERREACTION. WE HAVE TO REMAIN BETTER THAN THE REST. LET JUSTICE BE DONE AS WE KNOW IT.
THE REMAINING PERPETRATOR DZHOKHAR TSARNAEV HAD NO MERCY WHEN HE AND HIS BROTHER TAMERLAN LEFT THEIR TOXIC BACKPACKS TO BECOME INDISCRIMINATE EXTERMINATORS. JUSTICE WILL BE JUST AND HAVE NO ROOM FOR UNWARRANTED COMPASSION. AS WITH WHAT IS STILL HAPPENING AFTER 9/11, THE WAYS OF PUNISHMENT MIGHT BE SLOW BUT THERE IS NO LONGER AN ESCAPE ROUTE TO WATERTOWN OR TO ANYWHERE ELSE .
THERE IS GRIEF AND INDIGNATION OBVIOUSLY. BOSTON SHOWED A CIVIC RESILIENCE IN COMMUNION WITH THE COUNTRY AS A WHOLE. AFTER THE EMOTIONAL TIDE, A STORY LINE IS SLOWLY COMING TO THE SURFACE, WITH POTENTIALLY FAR-REACHING SOCIO/GEO- POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES.
CONTRARY TO EUROPE, THE UNITED STATES HAS A GOOD RECORD ON IMMIGRATION AND ASSIMILATION. THE "AMERICAN DREAM" STILL MOBILIZES GENUINE APPRECIATION AND LOYALTY. THE BOSTON TRAGEDY HAS WEAKENED THOSE BELIEFS. THE SUDDEN APPEARANCE OF THE TWO TSARNAEV BROTHER MASS KILLERS IS AN INDICATION THAT ONE COULD BE IN THE UNITED STATES WITHOUT BEING THERE. PHYSICAL PRESENCE, A GREEN CARD, NATIONALITY DO NOT NECESSARILY GO HAND IN HAND WITH ADHERENCE TO THE RULE OF LAW OR THE PLURALISTIC CULTURE OF THE LAND.
BOSTON IS AN INDICATOR OF A LATENT BIPOLAR PHENOMENON WHEREIN AN INDIVIDUAL "PLAYS" THE GAME WHILE PLOTTING HAVOC. HE MIGHT LOOK LIKE FITTING IN, BUT HE IS IN REALITY A LONER, ALIENATED, BECOMING THE ULTIMATE "POSEUR." THE BOSTON TERRORISTS BECAME RADICALIZED, BETRAYING BOTH THE RELIGION THEY ADHERED TO AND THE COUNTRY THEY LIVED IN. THE MOSQUE WAS LESS A PLACE OF WORSHIP THAN A SURROGATE FOR ASYLUM AND A BREEDING GROUND FOR HATRED AND A FEELING OF DISPLACEMENT.
THE AFTERMATH MIGHT HAVE AN EVEN LARGER IMPACT THAN THE NIHILISM WHICH WAS INTENDED. SINCE 9/11 LIFE HAS BEEN ALTERED WORLDWIDE. GENERALIZATIONS RULE: CALL TO PRAYER, CHECHNYANS, DAGESTAN. AFTER THIS LONE WOLVES' JOURNEY INTO SLAUGHTER ONE CANNOT EXCLUDE THAT THE UNITED STATES WILL CONSIDER FURTHER MEASURES TO AVOID A REPEAT. THIS CAN ONLY BE DONE BY STRENGTHENING VARIOUS CONTROLS, WHICH WILL INEVITABLY INFRINGE UPON PRIVACY, AND THE FREEDOMS WE TAKE FOR GRANTED.
"OTHERNESS" MIGHT BECOME A DIRTY WORD, WHILE PROFILING WILL BE THE RULE. THE ISRAELI SOPHISTICATED METHOD COULD BECOME THE ACCEPTED NORM GIVEN THAT THE CHECKS OUTNUMBER THE BALANCES. THE UNITED STATES WILL EASILY FIND IN RUSSIA AND CHINA PARTNERS ON HIGHER ALERT. THE US CONGRESS MIGHT ALSO RECONSIDER A BI-PARTISAN PROPOSAL ON IMMIGRATION. I BET THAT GREEN CARDS WILL BE HARDER TO COME BY.
UNFORTUNATELY ALL THIS MIGHT BECOME THE "NEW NORMAL," AT A MOMENT WHEN THERE WERE HINTS OF A DEGREE OF RELAXATION (NOT ON THE BACK OF SURVEILLANCE THOUGH). HUNTINGTON'S ASSERTIONS WERE, IN THE MINDSET OF MOST, ALREADY BECOMING A SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECY. HIS VIEWS, WHICH HAVE BEEN OVERSIMPLIFIED FOR MASS CONSUMPTION BY THE WAY, RISK BECOMING EVEN MORE PERTINENT, WHEN AMPLIFIED BY URGENCY.
THE BOSTON VICTIMS WILL NOT BE HONORED BY QUICK FIXES, NEITHER SHOULD COUNTRIES GET TRAPPED IN POPULIST OVERREACTION. WE HAVE TO REMAIN BETTER THAN THE REST. LET JUSTICE BE DONE AS WE KNOW IT.
THE REMAINING PERPETRATOR DZHOKHAR TSARNAEV HAD NO MERCY WHEN HE AND HIS BROTHER TAMERLAN LEFT THEIR TOXIC BACKPACKS TO BECOME INDISCRIMINATE EXTERMINATORS. JUSTICE WILL BE JUST AND HAVE NO ROOM FOR UNWARRANTED COMPASSION. AS WITH WHAT IS STILL HAPPENING AFTER 9/11, THE WAYS OF PUNISHMENT MIGHT BE SLOW BUT THERE IS NO LONGER AN ESCAPE ROUTE TO WATERTOWN OR TO ANYWHERE ELSE .
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
PRESIDENT OBAMA'S FABIANISM
During the second Punic War the Roman General Fabius received the surname of "Cunctator" for reason of his gradual or cautious decision-making process and his reluctance to confront. The Russian General Kotouzov followed a related strategy against Napoleon during the war against Russia.
The American president is confronted with several flash points--the Middle East peace process, Syria, the Iranian and North Korean situations, inter alia--which remain unresolved, but for their continuous deterioration.
Some observers are perplexed by the American reluctance to get involved at close range. This is in stark contrast with the activism of previous administrations which were often too eager to occupy the stage with the dire consequences we know. True, John Kerry, the new Secretary of State, has lately given some signals which might indicate a bolder foreign policy. One might question nevertheless the value of endless talks with Iran, or more indirectly with North Korea, which allow those states to continue to develop their nuclear capacity under cover. It is true that diplomacy must address allies and foes alike, but there remains a difference in being open-minded for talks (under condition), and being complacent. Munich does not need to be repeated.
I do not understand the policies of the Obama administration, neither do I grasp former uncertain moves: the Quartet (remember?), the six parties talks, the UN special envoy for Syria, the endless repeat of the negotiations(?) with Iran. In those fora the Americans are often "low key" while the EU is usually on its existential irrelevant best, as Russia and China adhere to their poker face gambits.
One knows too little about the facts but be assured that symbols and gestures still count. The West is in need of American leadership, whether to adhere to, or correct if needed. The main difference today is that the United States is no longer able to get things done by itself. It needs to make variable clusters which can add credibility and added value to its intentions or suggestions. Western Europe is an ideological partner, no longer a strategic one in a mere subsidiary role. The Americans should interact more with the BRICS, who are for the time being steered by a Sino/Russian opportunistic partnership of sorts.
I doubt that one could find many countries which are happy with the wild fires consuming so many parts of the world. If the United States wants them to be "stockholders" in the policy they consider, they have to be consulted and be made part of the solution under consideration. Otherwise they risk aggravating the problem, as is the case now.
Diplomacy is the lender and guarantor of last resort. Besides, when one says that all options remain on the table, one also needs to be credible. A rhetorical stick will no longer do. Tehran and Pyongyang use talks and posture to cover up their nuclear Schadenfreude. Meanwhile Israel might have a lot to lose if the Palestinian problem gets stuck in the Arabian sands. Sometimes, as is the case in Syria, a direct intervention might boomerang. This does not equal "laissez faire,"
but should encourage diplomatic initiatives taken together with other interested parties which are equally worried but unevenly skilled in making diplomatic ouvertures or initiatives. Washington remains by far the only power which could advance such asymmetric models of resolution.
The former Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton, pursued a high-octane visibility policy but the results
were meager. Her successor looks like a man who wants to confront situations mano a mano, but President Obama does not seem to want to veer from his more Delphic persona. This is worrisome
in this rudderless world, custom-made for a statesman with the (former?) charisma of Obama. His eloquent and daring speeches in Berlin or Cairo had no offspring. The man of hope became the man of drones. He has become far too aloof, which is all the more regrettable since he finds himself surrounded by situations which cry out for his indisputable talent and intellect. He favors chamber music over the symphonic, but what is needed right now is a major, multiple diplomatic bang. In doing so he could still muster support and convince both the skeptics and undecided at home and abroad. The latter do not want to give nuclear proliferation a free ride. The forgotten Saudi peace plan could still be a starting point for further concrete steps towards a two-state solution (in Israel's interest). A solution of the Syrian drama looks impossible as long as the current power structure remains off limits. Likewise Dayton involved Milosevic before he ended up in the Hague. Even the Talibans are no longer ignored by the Americans!
In fairness it has also to be admitted that the political polarization in the United States makes it more difficult to find time and space to address the many problems of a world in tatters. Soon the President will be a "lame duck," risking to run out of time to fulfill the promises he made. This would be too bad since there has seldom been a leader who could raise the almost Messianic expectations as Obama has done. On the day of her funeral the shadow of the Iron Lady looms large over her present peers who look suddenly smaller by comparison.
The American president is confronted with several flash points--the Middle East peace process, Syria, the Iranian and North Korean situations, inter alia--which remain unresolved, but for their continuous deterioration.
Some observers are perplexed by the American reluctance to get involved at close range. This is in stark contrast with the activism of previous administrations which were often too eager to occupy the stage with the dire consequences we know. True, John Kerry, the new Secretary of State, has lately given some signals which might indicate a bolder foreign policy. One might question nevertheless the value of endless talks with Iran, or more indirectly with North Korea, which allow those states to continue to develop their nuclear capacity under cover. It is true that diplomacy must address allies and foes alike, but there remains a difference in being open-minded for talks (under condition), and being complacent. Munich does not need to be repeated.
I do not understand the policies of the Obama administration, neither do I grasp former uncertain moves: the Quartet (remember?), the six parties talks, the UN special envoy for Syria, the endless repeat of the negotiations(?) with Iran. In those fora the Americans are often "low key" while the EU is usually on its existential irrelevant best, as Russia and China adhere to their poker face gambits.
One knows too little about the facts but be assured that symbols and gestures still count. The West is in need of American leadership, whether to adhere to, or correct if needed. The main difference today is that the United States is no longer able to get things done by itself. It needs to make variable clusters which can add credibility and added value to its intentions or suggestions. Western Europe is an ideological partner, no longer a strategic one in a mere subsidiary role. The Americans should interact more with the BRICS, who are for the time being steered by a Sino/Russian opportunistic partnership of sorts.
I doubt that one could find many countries which are happy with the wild fires consuming so many parts of the world. If the United States wants them to be "stockholders" in the policy they consider, they have to be consulted and be made part of the solution under consideration. Otherwise they risk aggravating the problem, as is the case now.
Diplomacy is the lender and guarantor of last resort. Besides, when one says that all options remain on the table, one also needs to be credible. A rhetorical stick will no longer do. Tehran and Pyongyang use talks and posture to cover up their nuclear Schadenfreude. Meanwhile Israel might have a lot to lose if the Palestinian problem gets stuck in the Arabian sands. Sometimes, as is the case in Syria, a direct intervention might boomerang. This does not equal "laissez faire,"
but should encourage diplomatic initiatives taken together with other interested parties which are equally worried but unevenly skilled in making diplomatic ouvertures or initiatives. Washington remains by far the only power which could advance such asymmetric models of resolution.
The former Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton, pursued a high-octane visibility policy but the results
were meager. Her successor looks like a man who wants to confront situations mano a mano, but President Obama does not seem to want to veer from his more Delphic persona. This is worrisome
in this rudderless world, custom-made for a statesman with the (former?) charisma of Obama. His eloquent and daring speeches in Berlin or Cairo had no offspring. The man of hope became the man of drones. He has become far too aloof, which is all the more regrettable since he finds himself surrounded by situations which cry out for his indisputable talent and intellect. He favors chamber music over the symphonic, but what is needed right now is a major, multiple diplomatic bang. In doing so he could still muster support and convince both the skeptics and undecided at home and abroad. The latter do not want to give nuclear proliferation a free ride. The forgotten Saudi peace plan could still be a starting point for further concrete steps towards a two-state solution (in Israel's interest). A solution of the Syrian drama looks impossible as long as the current power structure remains off limits. Likewise Dayton involved Milosevic before he ended up in the Hague. Even the Talibans are no longer ignored by the Americans!
In fairness it has also to be admitted that the political polarization in the United States makes it more difficult to find time and space to address the many problems of a world in tatters. Soon the President will be a "lame duck," risking to run out of time to fulfill the promises he made. This would be too bad since there has seldom been a leader who could raise the almost Messianic expectations as Obama has done. On the day of her funeral the shadow of the Iron Lady looms large over her present peers who look suddenly smaller by comparison.
Monday, April 8, 2013
MARGARET THATCHER
Mrs. Thatcher has finally found her match, death.
The former British Prime Minister has been compared to many, but not to Elisabeth I with whom she shared many characteristics: opinionated, uncompromising, courageous and yes, flirtatious if convenient. She also had a lot in common with Winston Churchill who was equally gifted and at the same time flawed. We prefer to remember Normandy and to forego Gallipoli.
In Great Britain Mrs.Thatcher was a reformer, second to none. She imposed a model which defeated the trade unions (the miners were her nemesis) and opened the doors for financiers worldwide who transformed London into a sterling financial hub. In the aftermath the excesses of "Cool Britannia" followed.
She had little sympathy for the continent and felt that the UK's interests were better served through the "special relationship" with the United States.
Her downfall as a result of some "coup" in her cabinet was awesome. The men couldn't take her mettle any longer. We know what followed under John Major's tenure, the erosion of the Conservative base and the rise of the Tony Blair's illusion.
Mrs.Thatcher was always impressive but was seldom liked. Most of her ideas were bold. Some were petty.
Her greatest achievement might well have been the overall remake of the United Kingdom which became almost overnight a modern society driven by creativity and economic priorities. True, those also made room for speculative interests and corruption, which she failed to rein in. A new class made an entry in Britain, destabilizing existing social strata which became unforgiving. Margaret Thatcher was not a democrat at heart and she never pretended to be one, as Tony Blair would make us believe later on. She was conscious of her humble beginnings but choose not to let them stand in the way of her (and others') ambitions. She was a paradoxical egalitarian, who saw nothing wrong in switching from the middle class to the highbrow. She was the ultimate non fatalist.
The European meetings which she loathed so much have become what she foresaw.
She has no political heirs and the drab looks like having a comeback with a vengeance. Her shortcomings, mostly in the social realm, should not stand in the way of appreciation for a great leader who through individual willpower alone became a transformational force and inspiration. Suddenly most leaders are starting to look even smaller than what they are.
Mrs.Thatcher remains invicta but for the final act from which there is no escape.
The former British Prime Minister has been compared to many, but not to Elisabeth I with whom she shared many characteristics: opinionated, uncompromising, courageous and yes, flirtatious if convenient. She also had a lot in common with Winston Churchill who was equally gifted and at the same time flawed. We prefer to remember Normandy and to forego Gallipoli.
In Great Britain Mrs.Thatcher was a reformer, second to none. She imposed a model which defeated the trade unions (the miners were her nemesis) and opened the doors for financiers worldwide who transformed London into a sterling financial hub. In the aftermath the excesses of "Cool Britannia" followed.
She had little sympathy for the continent and felt that the UK's interests were better served through the "special relationship" with the United States.
Her downfall as a result of some "coup" in her cabinet was awesome. The men couldn't take her mettle any longer. We know what followed under John Major's tenure, the erosion of the Conservative base and the rise of the Tony Blair's illusion.
Mrs.Thatcher was always impressive but was seldom liked. Most of her ideas were bold. Some were petty.
Her greatest achievement might well have been the overall remake of the United Kingdom which became almost overnight a modern society driven by creativity and economic priorities. True, those also made room for speculative interests and corruption, which she failed to rein in. A new class made an entry in Britain, destabilizing existing social strata which became unforgiving. Margaret Thatcher was not a democrat at heart and she never pretended to be one, as Tony Blair would make us believe later on. She was conscious of her humble beginnings but choose not to let them stand in the way of her (and others') ambitions. She was a paradoxical egalitarian, who saw nothing wrong in switching from the middle class to the highbrow. She was the ultimate non fatalist.
The European meetings which she loathed so much have become what she foresaw.
She has no political heirs and the drab looks like having a comeback with a vengeance. Her shortcomings, mostly in the social realm, should not stand in the way of appreciation for a great leader who through individual willpower alone became a transformational force and inspiration. Suddenly most leaders are starting to look even smaller than what they are.
Mrs.Thatcher remains invicta but for the final act from which there is no escape.
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
THE KOREAN GAME
The news out of Pyongyang is bad. The sable rattling was to be expected. The last nuclear quantitative policy and the upstart of the mothballed Yongbyon reactor are ominous. The blocking of South Korean workers in Kaesong, if confirmed, might as well be a fatal blow.
The KIM dynasty appears to be a strange lot, from grandfather to the inexperienced but boisterous young new leader. A Chinese official told me once that the DPRK was a robot model, alien to rational argument, brainwashed to the core. He went so far as to describe North Korea as a giant asylum, impervious to pressure.
Rare contacts with President Carter, Governor Richardson, President Clinton, Secretary Albright aborted. The six-party talks in Beijing dragged on without result. Only Ambassador James Kelly came close to some form of "less misunderstanding".
The overall situation is scary because of the bluff and posture of the leader. He can afford his histrionic behavior because he has no counterparts inside or outside. Even the Chinese are torn between selfishness (not letting North Koreans destabilize the border) and dismay (wanting a denuclearized Korean Peninsula). They look sometimes as if they would prefer one bomb to thousands of refugees from North Korea fleeing into China. In doing so they play with fire, as is the case in Syria and Iran.
The mistake of the West is a theatrical one. By leaving Kim Jong -un alone with his soliloquy and his applauding audiences we offer him a witness-stand without a jury. One should play upon his Chaplinesque vanity and get him trapped in a wider audience/forum/conference. He might imagine that he is getting a seat among equals, while he is actually sitting in front of a judge. Loosing face is loosing a battle. Bilaterals are not going to work.
Time is running short. I do not believe he wants war but I am sure that war (his military machine) might manipulate him. The slightest miscalculation might lead to terrible unforeseeable consequences. Better give him a bogus show (which he wants) than leave him alone, frustrated with lethal toys in his crib.
Time is running short. I do not believe he wants war but I am sure that war (his military machine) might manipulate him. The slightest miscalculation might lead to terrible unforeseeable consequences. Better give him a bogus show (which he wants) than leave him alone, frustrated with lethal toys in his crib.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)