Tuesday, May 1, 2018

Xi Jinping and the Korean Spring


Not to pat myself on the back, but the latest analysis of the breakthrough on the Korean peninsula affirms what I have been saying. The key players in this negotiation are President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping.

Evidently, the Trump-hating left believes that the credit belongs to South Korean president Moon, but the truth is, the current thaw was engineered by Trump and Xi. Kim Jong-un did not have an epiphany and suddenly decide to trade his nuclear weapons for peace and prosperity. Not at all. He recently had a very public meeting with President Xi in Beijing. At that point, I have surmised the Chinese president told Kim what to do. Naturally, the players have to hide the fact that Xi is pulling the strings— in order to allow  Kim to save face—but the reality is the reality.

Anyone who thinks that China has been sidelined, is missing the point… bigly. You need but notice Trump’s highly respectful tweets about the role that Xi has played in the current events.

First, for the first time, China did not just vote for economic sanctions in the United Nations. As was reported in the Wall Street Journal, it has enforced them.

CNBC reports:

Beijing appears to have gone well beyond U.N. sanctions on its unruly neighbor, reducing its total imports from North Korea in the first two months this year by 78.5 and 86.1 percent in value — a decline that began in late 2017, according to the latest trade data from China. Its exports to the North also dropped by 33 percent to 34 percent both months.

The figures suggest that instead of being sidelined while North Korean leader Kim Jong Un made his surprising diplomatic overtures to Seoul and Washington, China's sustained game of hardball on trade with Pyongyang going back at least five months may have been the decisive factor in forcing Kim's hand.

With China enforcing sanctions, North Korea’s economy cannot survive:

Trade with China is absolutely crucial to North Korea's survival.

It accounts for the largest share of the North's dealings with the outside world and provides a lifeline to many of the necessities Pyongyang relies on to keep its nation fed and its economy from breaking down. Estimates vary, but it is believed that roughly half of all transactions in the North Korean economy are made in foreign currencies, with the Chinese yuan being the most common.

That gives Beijing tremendous leverage, though for political and national security reasons it has generally been reluctant to exert too much pressure on Pyongyang.

Alex Wolf, an economist with Aberdeen Standard Investments, offers his analysis:

— China's exports of refined petroleum have collapsed over the past five months — to an annual rate of less than 4 percent of what it exported last year. With the pace on a downward trend, he believes, total exports could actually fall further.

— North Korean steel imports from China have also collapsed in 2018, and the same goes for cars. Wolf notes that it's unclear if China is blocking such exports or North Korea simply can't afford them. But either one, he wrote in a recent report for the company, would be a clear signal the North's economy is "under a great deal of stress."

Wolf concludes that China wants to play a central, albeit behind-the-scenes role in resolving the crisis:

"While China's role over the past few months has often been overlooked or little understood, it appears a strategy could be emerging: China wants to play a central role in 'resolving' this crisis, but wants to do it on its own terms," he wrote. "It's increasingly clear that Chinese pressure is a driving force and China will play a central role in any future talks."

Georgetown economist William Brown concurs:

Georgetown University economist William Brown said he believes the North's current account deficit has risen dramatically since the strengthening last November of sanctions on North Korean exports by China, which he said are by now "certainly biting."

"Why is Kim venturing his offer now? My impression is he is feeling very strong pressure from China's virtual embargo on North Korea's exports, and what he must see as a gradual ratcheting down of needed imports, even petroleum," Brown wrote in a recent blog post. "This is an enormous economic hit of a sort the country has never had to deal with on this scale."

As mentioned in a prior post, the question remaining is: what does Xi want in return for his cooperation? I suspect that he made a deal with Trump. And I suspect that it had something to do with Taiwan. Time will tell.

The Obama Foreign Policy Record


It’s never a bad idea to look at the record. It’s certainly not a bad idea, at the current remove, to examine the Obama foreign policy record. One reason the progressive left has its knickers in a twist over Donald Trump is that it must, no matter the price, defend the indefensible Obama record.

Where, pray tell, didn’t Obama fail on foreign policy?

Over at the Powerline blog, John Hinkeraker lays out the case:

With today’s bombshell about Iran’s ongoing nuclear weapons program, the wreckage of Barack Obama’s foreign policy is coming into focus. Syria: the “red line” fiasco, with hundreds of thousands killed. North Korea: a do-nothing policy that brought America’s West Coast perilously close to coming under nuclear threat. Iran: a deal that would have been foolish even if the mullahs hadn’t cheated, $100 billion and sanctions relief now, in exchange for promises that Iran could walk away from at will. We now know that the deal was even worse than that.

Those were the biggest disasters, but not the only ones. Libya: incredibly, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton participated in the overthrow of a dictator without having a plan for what would come after. The result was a failed state, and a terrorist haven. Cuba and Venezuela: while the disastrous condition of both socialist countries is not Obama’s fault, his admiration for, and coddling of, Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez contributed to sentencing the people of those countries to another generation of poverty and oppression. China: Obama failed to stand up to China’s military expansionism, or to its aggressive trade and economic policies that cost American companies many billions of dollars. Israel: Obama deliberately downgraded relations with one of our most important allies, and shamefully meddled in an Israeli national election in hopes of electing a Prime Minister as spineless as himself.

It doesn’t look very good. Of course, we are not allowed to talk about it. And that is why we ought to raise the issue. Pretending that it was all great because the Messiah did it puts reason in a coma. Besides, it’s grossly condescending not to hold Obama to objective standards of success and failure.

Monday, April 30, 2018

Israel, and Palestinian Complaining


Leaders if American Jewish organizations literally fell off their chairs when they heard what Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman told them in New York on March 27.

If the message was news to them, this also means that they have not been paying very close attention. This new news had een reported on this blog, and on the Israeli site Debkafile, many months ago. If they had been better informed they would not have hurt themselves by falling off their chairs.

In any event, Axios reported yesterday:

In a closed-door meeting with heads of Jewish organizations in New York on March 27th, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman (MBS) gave harsh criticism of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen), according to an Israeli foreign ministry cable sent by a diplomat from the Israeli consulate in New York, as well three sources — Israeli and American — who were briefed about the meeting.

The bottom line of the crown prince's criticism: Palestinian leadership needs to finally take the proposals it gets from the U.S. or stop complaining.

According to my sources, the Saudi Crown Prince told the Jewish leaders:

"In the last several decades the Palestinian leadership has missed one opportunity after the other and rejected all the peace proposals it was given. It is about time the Palestinians take the proposals and agree to come to the negotiations table or shut up and stop complaining."

And there’s more:

MBS also made two other points on the Palestinian issue during the meeting:

1.      He made clear the Palestinian issue was not a top priority for the Saudi government or Saudi public opinion. MBS said Saudi Arabia "has much more urgent and important issues to deal with" like confronting Iran's influence in the region.
2.    Regardless of all his criticism of the Palestinian leadership, MBS also made clear that in order for Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states to normalize relations with Israel there will have to be significant progress on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

Fair enough, MBS did not repudiate the Palestinians completely, but he made clear his exasperation with them.

In the meantime American foreign policy seems to getting its bearings in the region. Secretary of State Pompeo’s visit to the region led to a Saudi attack on Houthi rebels—killing some of their leaders—and an Israeli missile strike on an Iranian base in Syria. One must conclude that the Tillerson/McMaster team was incompetent… at defending American interests in the region. This might, for all I know, be the reason why they lost their jobs.

Anyway, the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia has labelled the Palestinian Authority a bunch of whiners. Apparently, Secretary Pompeo holds a similar view. In his recent visit to the region he did not deign to treat Mahmoud Abbas and Co. as players, if I might use the term. He did not meet with them and did not even ask for a meeting. With this gesture he declared the end to the moral equivalence between Israel and the Palestinians.

If the Palestinians where not whining, the New York Times was doing their whining for them. What would they do without the New York Times?

I imagine that this story is intended as news analysis:

TEL AVIV, Israel — Secretary of State Mike Pompeo came to Israel Sunday in the midst of the worst crisis in relations between Israelis and Palestinians in years, but he did not meet a single Palestinian representative and mentioned them publicly once.

For decades, American diplomats saw themselves as brokers between the two sides, and secretaries of state typically met Palestinian representatives on regional tours like this one. When relations between the two sides deteriorated, the United States sought to bridge the divide.

No more.

No one at the State Department called Palestinian leaders to ask for a get-together with Mr. Pompeo, according to Palestinian officials. And that may be because the Americans knew the answer they would have gotten: No.

Note how the authors construct the narrative to make appear that the Palestinians have some face. They were not shunted to the side. They would never have agreed to be party to any negotiation.

The Times seems to respect the Palestinian outrage, outrage that, incidentally, has destroyed the lives of generations of Palestinians in a futile attempt to destroy Israel:

Infuriated by President Trump’s decision in December to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, paving the way for the United States to move its embassy from Tel Aviv to the contested holy city, Palestinian leaders have cut off political contacts with the Trump administration. They say the White House can no longer be considered an honest broker in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

“There’s nothing to discuss,” said Xavier Abu Eid, a senior official of the Palestine Liberation Organization’s Negotiations Affairs Department.

Of course, this is impotent rage. If, as reported here, Crown Prince Mohamed bin Salman, along with Crown Prince of the Emirates, along with the president of Egypt told the Palestinian leader to make a deal, his rage is merely a cover up for his ignominious defeat.

Of course, the Times is having none of it. By their analysis the futile and suicidal protests on the border of Israel and Gaza has:

… generated global sympathy for the Palestinian cause….

Which global sympathy would that be? Does the New York Times newsroom take itself to be the “globe?”

The world is transfixed by the events on the Korean peninsula. The Arab world, especially the Sunni Arab world, has tired of Palestinian terrorism, not only because it sees many advantages to be gained by allying itself with Israel, but also because the Palestinian authority, a laboratory for Islamist terrorism, has tarnished the reputations of Arab Muslims around the world.

Pompeo’s task was to unite the region in the struggle against Iran. He did not go there to assuage the hurt feelings of the crybaby Palestinians.

Sunday, April 29, 2018

Michelle Wolf's Misogyny


The internet is abuzz today about someone named Michelle Wolf. As you know, she headlined the White House Correspondents Dinner last night and managed to cover herself in ignominy by offering up a vulgar and ignorant attack on female members of the Trump administration.

As though to prove a point made more than a decade ago by Christopher Hitchens, Wolf was seriously unfunny. She was rude, offensive and obnoxious. There’s nothing funny about calling women professionals liars. And there is nothing funny about saying that Ivanka Trump is about as useful to a woman as an empty box of tampons.

If you fell down laughing when you heard that joke, you have been brainwashed to within a millimeter of your sanity.

Wolf also demonstrated point that intrigues me: women’s inhumanity to other women. Obviously, her madness had a method to it. Any woman who fails to toe the feminist party line will be taken out and trashed and thrashed. It was a warning shot against any woman who would think to vote for Trump. But, it also showed the misogyny at the heart of the feminist project. These are not women who like other women. These are women who only like women who belong to their cause.

The Trump administration has had a notably hostile relationship with the press. The president declared last night in Michigan that he refused to attend a dinner where empty-headed stand-up comedians would trash him and where he would be obliged to smile. Because if he didn’t smile he would be called ungracious… or something.

And yet, the press corps has been at war with the Trump administration. Opinion journalists are not the issue. Their views are clearly labeled as opinion and they more often than not live up to the label by being opinionated. The real issue is the slanting and skewing news coverage… in order to make the president look bad. No matter what happens the press wants to make Trump look bad. One cannot fail to mention that Trump, especially in his use of Twitter, often seems to be colluding with them.

In the meantime, the White House press corps could have shown some grace, some dignity and even some good humor. Donald Trump can laugh at himself. He has shown the ability to indulge self-deprecating humor. And yet, he will certainly not be impressed by the Michelle Wolf rant against women.

Many attendees noted that Wolf had pretty much ensured that President Trump will never attend such an event. And she had missed an opportunity to heal the breach that has opened up between the press and the Trump administration.

One notes the following tweets. Some of the journalists understood how bad it was for them:



That @PressSec sat and absorbed intense criticism of her physical appearance, her job performance, and so forth, instead of walking out, on national television, was impressive.

Unfortunately, I don't think we advanced the cause of journalism tonight.


Couldn’t agree more. So much important and amazing journalism this year — that should be the focus, when truth matters and is needed more than ever. It was an embarrassment in the room and surely to the audience at home. https://twitter.com/peterbakernyt/status/990437494440321024 …

Nikki Haley Ascendant


Much to no one’s surprise, the most popular politician in America today is… U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley. Considering that former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson seemed overwhelmed by his job, Haley became the de facto spokesperson for Trump administration foreign policy.

She handled herself admirably. She spoke clearly and directly. She took stands and laid down markers. She sat tall and proud, a wonderful representative of the United States.

CNN has the story:

American voters of different partisan stripes don't agree on much nowadays, but they can agree on this: most of them approve of US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley.

A broad 63% of American voters approve of her job performance vs. only 17% who say they disapprove in a new Quinnipiac University poll. Twenty percent had no opinion. Her approval spans party lines: 75% of Republicans, 63% of independents and even 55% of Democrats say they approve of how she's handling her job.

Her boss, President Trump, has a 39% approval rating. Perhaps he should ask her how she does it.

Consider Haley’s communications skills. A couple of weeks ago she went out on the Sunday talk shows to announce that the administration, through Treasury Secretary Mnuchin, would be introducing new sanctions on Russia. Clearly, she had been instructed to say this. And then, someone in the crack White House policy team, changed his mind. The sanctions did not happen. Clearly, it was a major policy failure at the highest level of government. Such confusion does not provoke confidence. You cannot make policy by following the call of your gut.

Anyway, White House sources suggested that Haley had been confused… thus hanging her out to dry. Her response was exceptional. You recall it. She said:

“With all due respect, I don't get confused.”

The White House, in the person of Larry Kudlow, was forced to back down. But, note what Haley did. She did not complain about sexism. She did not whine about the injustice of it all. She certainly did not back down. She stated her position clearly and forthrightly. She did not explicitly accuse anyone of anything. She gave them a chance to take back what they had said.

As a communications strategy, it was brilliant. For those who believe that the only correct response to being treated unfairly is to denounce someone’s sexism, the Haley reply should serve as an excellent instance of how to do it.

It is especially important for women, given that the first woman presidential candidate, that would be Hillary Clinton, has been on an extended whinathon, showing poor sportsmanship and a sour disposition. Where Hillary blames everyone but herself for her appalling performance, Haley showed how a woman can exercise leadership and command respect.

The Kanye, Candace and Donald Show


The reasons escape me, but Kanye West’s affection for President Donald Trump has been all over the news.

I have two side-thoughts on the West-Trump bromance, both of which has been largely ignored in the media.

First, when Kanye West was hospitalized for what they call ""exhaustion in late November, 2016, the president-elect reached out to him. Apparently, they knew each other and called each other friends. Trump did what any decent human being would do when a friend was in trouble. Trump reached out and invited West to visit him at his headquarters at Trump Tower on Fifth Avenue.

West and Trump met in December, 2016… to discuss matters that concerned West, especially the state of the black community in his hometown of Chicago. The Obama years were not very good to Chicago blacks.

What’s the point? Simply, that Trump made a kind gesture, a gesture of respect and recognition, to a man who was down. He didn’t wish him well in therapy. He didn't tell him to get in touch with his feelings. He met with him publicly to discuss his concerns. The gesture enhanced West's self-respect, a good thing for someone who is feeling depressed.

No one notices such gestures, but, in the course of human existence, they count for more than the grand dramatic confrontations that fill up our news shows. During the recent brouhaha West noted that Obama had never met with him.

My second thought is this: those of us who are not very tuned in to the antics of the younger set now know the name of Candace Owens. As you know, the current brouhaha started when West saw Owens in action and declared on Twitter that he liked the way she thought. He was quite right to say so. 

Owens, who has gained enormous media exposure, is an exceptionally bright young woman. Disregarding the issue of her being on one side or another of the political divide, hasn’t it crossed your mind that the African-American community needs more role models who show academic excellence? There are many reasons why a community produces children who excel academically. One of the factors must be that those who do exceptionally well in school, who demonstrate uncommon intelligence, are revered and admired within the community.

Think what you want about Owens’ opinion. She ought to be praised for her brilliant mind. West did precisely that. A community that rises up against someone who is that smart is not going to produce too many children who excel academically.

Saturday, April 28, 2018

Forever Amazon

If this is not the first time you have visited this blog, you might have noticed the new look. On the left side of the page I have added a link to Amazon. This means that you can go directly from this blog to the Amazon site. And, now that I am an Amazon Affiliates Associate, any time you use the link to go to Amazon and buy something, you are making a generous contribution to the blog. Feels like a win/win to me. Happy shopping!