Nikki Haley on Red Lines

John Bolton's Blunt Diplomacy

John Bolton, who served as one of President George W. Bush's ambassador to the United Nations, has been named as President Donald Trump's new National Security Adviser to replace General H.R. McMaster. There had been chatter in the District of Calamity that McMaster was on the outs this week, but this personnel change followed a leak of details of President Trump's telephone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin. 



  Bolton has been known as a no-nonsense diplomat who strongly believes in US national interests.  Bolton is seen as a being hawkish towards nuclear threats from Iran and North Korea  This would seem to align with the desired approach in the Trump Administration. 

Denouncing the Nerve of Russia Poisoning

Trump Administration UN Ambassador Nikki Haley denounced the assassination attempt on  a Russian double agent living in England at the UN Security Council.  Sergei Skripal and his daughter were found slumped over in Salsibury city center on March 4th and they remain in critical condition.  Haley noted that this episode was a defining moment and "The credibility of this [Security] Council will not survive if we fail to hold Russia accountable." 


 The March 4th attack in Salsibury used Novichok ("Newcomer" in Russian), a military grade nerve agent which was manufactured in secret in the Soviet Union during the 1970s and 1980s.  A-230, one of the chemicals in Novichok, is five to eight times more lethal than VX gas. This toxic assassination attempt on foreign soil exposed dozens of citizens and 200 first responders to deadly chemicals.  Still, Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin deflects from responsibility for the attack. 



British Prime Minister Teresa May opined: "Either this was a direct action by the Russian State against our country or the Russian government lost control of a potentially catastrophically damaging nerve agent and allowed it to get in the hands of others."   The British Government expelled 23 Russian diplomats and suspended high level contacts.  In addition, there is talk that the UK may organize an official boycott of the Sochi World Cup competition this June.  Putin is mulling over retaliatory actions against the UK. 

Although the British have not invoked the "All For One, One For All" Article V Clause of NATO, there has been a rare joint statement between President Donald Trump, French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and British Prime Minister Teresa May which concluded that there was no plausible alternative explanation explanation to Russian responsibility to the Salsibury attack and Russia's non response to the British legitimate request for an explanation further underlines the responsibility.  The communique noted that the use of chemical weapons is a breach of international law and an assault on UK sovereignty.


During one of the 2012 Presidential debates, President Barack Obama mocked Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) for thinking that Russia was the premiere world threat and joked "The 1980s are now calling to get their their foreign policy back." The Salisbury chemical attack impeaches Obama's caustic quip.  Sadly, the mainstream media today is more focused on over-exposing Stormy Daniels strip tease of her truth of a Trump affair a dozen years ago than covering a serious international incident which actually involves Vladimir Putin. 

Update 03/26/2018  The Trump Administration expelled 60 Russian diplomats, including 12 from the United Nations.

Nikki Haley on Trump De-certifying the Iran Nuke Deal

Appraising the Impact of Tillerson at Foggy Bottom

Over the weekend, Trump Administration Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was accused of saying that the President, his boss, was a "f***ing moron". This exasperated expletive was alleged uttered after President Trump's rousing remarks before the 2017 Boy Scouts Jamboree. When these comments came to public light, Tillerson held a news conference which denied that Vice President Pence needed to convince him to stay at Foggy Bottom because he never considered resigning.  It is notable, however, that Tillerson did not back away from the original insulting allegation. This has led pundits to ponder how long Tillerson will remain as Secretary of State.

In the Politico Magazine, Rich Lowry wondered if anyone would notice whether anyone would notice if Tillerson left his position at Foggy Bottom.  In the Trump Administration, foreign policy leads seem more driven from the Oval Office (or perhaps Twitter postings) than from Cabinet officials. Secretary of State Tillerson has voiced policy positions, particularly on Climate Change and Qatar, which seem at odds with President Trump.  Moreover, @POTUS Trump has posted Twitter thoughts which undermine Tillerson attempts to achieve diplomatic solutions with North Korea.

During his nomination hearings, Tillerson was vilified for his role at Exxon and connections to Big Oil. But through these petrochemical connections, Tillerson was said to have cultivated good relations with the Russian Federation.  It does not seem that Tillerson has neither been effective in lessening tensions with Moscow nor distancing the Trump Administration from accusations of Russian collusion.

One of Tillerson's virtues was that he had more of a business background than a political resume, thus his organizational skills might be different at Foggy Bottom.  Perhaps this may be true on paper, but Secretary of State Tillerson seemed reluctant to clean house at the State Department. In April 2017, well after his confirmation, Tillerson indicated that he was in no rush to fill nearly 200 State Department posts.  In August 2017, Tillerson announced that there would be fewer promotions at State. These may have been an attempt at pruning an overstaffed State Department, but it also gave the opportunity for Obama Administration holdovers to exert undue influence in Foggy Bottom.

One of the major motivations for many loyal Trump voters is to "Clean the Swamp". In other words, to divest power from progressive elites who have burrowed their way into the bureaucracy.  This is especially true in the State Department. But this is impossible to achieve if the chief acts like a short termer.  In late July 2017, Tillerson confided with friends that he did not expect to last a year on the job.  Notwithstanding his recent denial of resigning over the moron kerfuffle, Tillerson is not taking the broad measures to clean house. The Iran Deal is an example in which the State Department has been enthusiastic in promoting and preserving, yet it is in conflict with Mr. Trump's campaign promises as well as inklings from the West Wing.  A cabinet official who is deemed a short termer will have little sway with the bureaucracy in aligning with the President's foreign policy predilections.

Secretaries of State can take different tacks to their job.  Henry Kissinger, who was Secretary of State under Presidents Nixon and Ford, took a leading role in formulating the realpolitik and detente foreign policies.  George Schultz, President Reagan's long serving Secretary of State, did not seek the limelight and was able to earn the loyalty of State Department officers by staffing for professionalism rather than political concerns.  Hillary Clinton, President Obama's First Secretary of State, did her bosses bidding by racking up frequent flier miles in visiting diplomatic outposts rather than take the lead on foreign policy.

Aside from trying to shrink the size of the State Department by attrition and to stop relying on special envoys, it is unclear how Secretary of State Tillerson is making a difference at his job.  Moreover, the friction between Tillerson and Trump on personal and policy fronts, makes his position tenuous.





At a time in which Americans have been distracted by ephemeral issues like the NFL Taking the Knee during the National Anthem and dealing with disasters, such as hurricanes and the Las Vegas shooting, there are serious foreign policy concerns brewing.  North Korea continues to be belligerent.  The world will no longer buy the peace through bribes for worthless promises of non-aggression or denuclearization.  While the United Nations has applied additional sanctions, this does not seem to be achieving the objective of de-escalation of tension or DPRK regime change.





Considering a prospective conflict with North Korea, it would be unwise to have Secretary Tillerson leave his Secretary of State post at this time.  However, presuming this situation with the Kim Jung Un regime comes to a head in the near future, it would be prudent to have a Secretary of State who is more in tune with the Commander-in-Chief's expectations for Foggy Bottom and who more accurately reflects (at least in public) the President's foreign policy positions. 

Trump: "The problem in Venezuela is...that socialism has been faithfully implemented"

President Trump on the "Rocket Man" Kim Jong Un

Ambassador John Bolton on Trump's United Nations Speech

Solipcism, Strategery or Stupidity? : Steve Bannon on the North Korea Threat

After several weeks of increasing tension over the prospect of resumed hostilities between the United States and North Korea, Kim Jong Un's regime backed down when their erstwhile ally China indicated it would participate in the severe new UN sanctions which included coal.  Chinese pressure on Pyongyang was a triumph for President Donald Trump's puglistic posturing.  Nevertheless, Trump White House chief strategist Steve Bannon, gave an unfiltered interview which undercut this foreign policy achievement.

Bannon's wide ranging interview with the liberal American Prospect magazine admitted that America did not have good military options if hostilities broke out with the DPRK, because of North Korea's array of conventional missiles pointed at Seoul, which is only 35 miles away from the Demilitarized Zone. This may be true but it is an admission against interest from a high ranking Trump Administration official.  

This policy position at odds with public statements coming from the Trump Administration. Such a statement could well be misconstrued by Kim Jong Un as a signal that the US might not back the "fire and fury" rhetoric and stoke further provocations from Pyongyang.  If Bannon's brief reflects the Trump White House perspective, it validates DPRK dominance with conventional missiles and encourages further ICBM and nuclear pursuits.

Gen. Douglas Mac Arthur

One of the factors which sparked the Korean War (1950-53) was that South Korea was easy pickings.  The United States withdrew most of its post World War II peacekeeping forces from the Korean peninsula in June 1949, leaving only a small advisory group.  Compounding this perception of weakness South of the 38th parallel occurred in March 1949 when US Pacific Commander General Douglas Mac Arthur's articulated the American defense perimeter in the Far East.  Mac Arthur's sphere of US interests in the Far East  did not include China nor Korea. This weltanschauung was echoed by Truman Secretary of State Dean Acheson during a National Press Club speech in January 1950.  These subtle signals on US intentions towards Korea gave the green light for the Soviet backed North Korean Communist regime of Kim Il-Sung to launch an invasion of South Korea on June 25, 1950.

Current North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un (the grandson of Kim Il-Sung) seemingly backed away from nuclear brinksmanship when the Trump Administration talked tough, had overwhelming conventional and strategic forced arrayed against the DPRK and it mustered together a convincing coalition, including China, against Pyongyang's provocations. Bannon's blurting out that the US did not have good military options because of the targeting of Seoul could well be seen as a green light for more aggressive actions by the DPRK.

One wonders why Steve Bannon would make this woeful quotation. Was it a solipicism, strategery or stupidity.  From a conventional military perspective, Bannon's analysis is correct. Hostilities with North Korea could result in catastrophic casualties in Seoul  That is why war would be a last resort.  No one needs a philosopher king's right hand to perceive that.



Why did Bannon give such a wide ranging interview with a liberal magazine like American Prospect?  There are rumblings that he thought things were "off-the-record".  Really? In a media environment which spends 92% of nightly news air time reporting anti-Trump news, will an insider interview be cast more sympathetically?  How did that work for "The Mooch", a.k.a. short time Trump Communication Chief Anthony Scaramucci. Before joining the Trump Train, Bannon took over Breitbart News and proudly made it into a polemic platform.  He should know better about today's media environment.




Maybe it was strategery (sic)?  Bannon has been quoted as saying that he did not expect to last more than eight months in the Trump White House. This interview might have been an attempt to make it a self fulfilling prophecy.  It is dubious that an anti-establishment populist like Bannon would intentionally sabotage himself just to be right, he may have seen writing on the wall, and this interview could allow him to leave on his own terms and advance his ideological cause.

What might be overlooked from Bannon's American Prospect interview was an attempt to undercut  the National Security Council Chair Gary Cohen's approach to work with the People's Republic of  China.  The North Korean's backed down after China stepped in and voiced a willingness to apply severe sanctions against the DPRK.  The Chinese might not be willing to remove a thorn from America's political side if there is a trade war.  

In 2013, Bannon revealed that he was a Leninist who wanted to destroy the political landscape which took down the political establishment and the press to reset it towards American economic nationalism  It seems Bannon's preferred method is a trade war rather than a shooting war with a proto-nuclear nation like North Korea.

h/t: American Prospect

Trump Warns North Korea that Further Bellicose Bluster Will Be Met with Fury and Fire

North Korea prides itself on being the shrimp which rules the whale through Juche (political independence) and bellicose bluster backed by a large standing army along with an aggressive nuclear program.

Juche is somewhat illusory as Pyongyang is dependent on trade with China and uses its weapons programs (both nuclear and missile programs) as a means to threaten and profit. Despite there just being an armistice which ended the Korean War in 1953, there has been a trend since the 1994 Clinton-Kim "Agreed Framework" of non-nuclear proliferation to diplomatically buy peace with Pyongyang,  all the while while the Kim regimes continued nuclear testing, ballistic missile tests and close contacts with Iran, Syria and potentially non-state terror groups.

After President Trump's United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley achieved an unanimous 15-0 Security Council vote (including the Russian Federation and the Peoples' Republic of China) for sweeping e economic sanctions against the Hermit Kingdom, North Korea warned that there would be a thousand fold revenge upon the United States. Moreover, there have been reports in the West that North Korea has advanced in miniaturizing nuclear warheads that could hit the continental United States.

In this explosive environment, President Donald Trump warned: "North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States. They will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen." 





Some might consider this returning bluster for bluster.  But the United States has three aircraft carriers in the region.  Moreover, Spirit B-2 aircraft (which can carry nuclear bombs) have overflown the Korean Peninsula. Furthermore, considering how many former Marines are in key positions in the Trump Administration (Sec Def Gen. James Mattis, Joint Chiefs Chair Joe Dunford, NSC Advisor Gen. H.R. McMaster and  Chief of Staff John Kelly) and the deference which President Trump gives to the military, there is little doubt that he will act if they determine that North Korea is an existential threat to the United States.  

Ambassador John Bolton on North Korean Diplomacy

Nikki Haley on North Korean Provocations

Ambassador Nikki Haley on UN Security Council Priorities

UN Ambassador Nikki Haley on Syrian Strike

UN Ambassador Nikki Haley on North Korea

The Din of Disdain for Obama's Chief "Diplomatch" John Kerry

In the waning days of the Obama Administration, international affairs are sullying the lame duck President's legacy.  In a United Nations Security Council vote held before Christmas, the United States failed to block a resolution condemning Israel for settlements in disputed territories. 

This was a shift in American policy, which had previously threatened to veto such condemnations of our democratic ally in the Middle East.  It is widely speculated that American diplomats orchestrated the UN Security Council Vote vote, which the US subsequently abstained to not have diplomatic fingerprints on the rebuke of the Jewish State.

After Christmas, President Obama's Secretary of State doubled down on critics of America's ally in Israel with a 73 minute repetitive harangue of a speech which chided Israel about settlements 42 times and occupation 14 times, while the haughty foreign minister only mentioned Iran and Hezbollah one time, and Hamas (which is part of the Palestinian governing leadership) four times. Perhaps Kerry thinks that America's foreign policy will now pass "the global test". 





Reaction to the Obama Administration's outgoing admonitions of Israel have been swift and bipartisan. The Washington Times characterized incoming Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY)  as tearing into John Kerry's Israeli speech as it emboldened extremists. House Foreign Affairs Ranking Member Rep. Elliot Engel (D-NY 16th) vowed to work with Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) on Congress withholding UN funds until the anti- Israel vote is reversed   Senator Cruz had some bitter analysis over the Obama Administration's anti-Israel tact.

Even President Elect Donald Trump entered the fray, opining on social media that things would   change come January 20th.

Recently, a progressive interlocutor opined that President Obama has been Israel's best friend ever.  I thought that was a dubious assertion.  But Secretary of State Kerry's penchant for acting like a Diplomatch (sic) really impeaches that opinion. 

Even after all of the tumult after the 2016 election, it is surprising that what is bringing Democrats and Republicans together is the foreign policy pyrotechnics of the outgoing Obama Administration.