Week in Review Part III: Foreign Affairs

The week began with Kim Jong Un receiving the new title of First Secretary of the Workers’ Party, along with chairman of the party’s Central Military Commission and selection as a standing member of the Politburo. At the same time, North Korea was very open with the Western press the past few days, allowing them to see the launch pad for the ballistic missile/rocket that was to take the country’s first communications satellite into orbit, a rare openness. None of it, including the control center, looked the least bit impressive.

Sunday is the 100th anniversary of the birth of Kim Il Sung, founder of the nation, and the rocket launch was to take place anytime between Thursday and then in celebration, so they told us.

So on Friday, Pyongyang time, the North launched the rocket and within one to two minutes it splintered into pieces over the Yellow Sea; an incredibly embarrassing end to what was to be a glorious event for the people to celebrate and admire the regime for. Even state television was forced to admit hours later the satellite that the rocket was carrying failed to enter into orbit. “Scientists, technicians and experts are now looking into the cause of the failure.”

While the North has mastered the technology behind short-range missiles, it appears to have a long ways to go with the longer kind; meaning the United States seemingly has little to worry about on this front.

But what now? What does this say about the leadership of Kim Jong Un and his regent. Who is really in charge?

Is the North preparing a third nuclear test, as South Korea first reported this week? [The previous two tests were in 2006 and 2009.] Aside from a nuke test, which now seems a certainty in light of the missile failure, what other series of provocations does Pyongyang have in mind in an attempt to save face and show Kim is still in charge. [CNN’s Pentagon reporter Barbara Starr had a good point. I wouldn’t want to be the guy who thought it was a brilliant idea to grant the Western press such sweeping access this week.]

One thing is for sure; the February food aid deal with the United States is off, one in which the North was to stop nuclear tests, uranium enrichment and long-range missile launches in return for stale Hostess products.

As for China, they can’t be too pleased that not only did North Korea ignore their pleadings not to go ahead with the launch, but Pyongyang failed to give Beijing any advance notice.

Iran: The five permanent members of the UN Security Council – Britain, France, Russia, China and the United States – plus Germany, will be holding talks in Istanbul with Iran over their nuclear program this weekend. Expectations are low. The P5+1 is supposedly not going to make any initial demands (such demands being widely well known anyway), and instead feel out Iran on whether or not they are serious. Eventually, the U.S. and its allies would demand that Iran stop producing higher-grade enriched uranium, shut down the Fordo underground plant in Qom, and ship any existing highly-enriched uranium out of the country. This is also the least Israel expects, they being a rather interested spectator. China, meanwhile, has been urging restraint and negotiations, as well as Russia, but the patience of the U.S., France and Britain is running thin. For starters, Iran’s history would tell you that if any agreements are reached, they’ll just cheat on them. And if Iran outright rejects any demands presented this weekend or in future talks, President Obama has an election-year crisis on his hands. While he would like negotiations to go through November that just doesn’t seem conceivable.

The latest round of talks in Istanbul broke off in January 2011, when Iranian officials refused to talk about the nuclear program until sanctions were lifted.

Last Sunday, in an interview on CNN, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said:

“It’s clear that the depth of the sanctions is different from what we had in the past and it has its impact. Both the closing of the SWIFT [electronic transfer] clearing system as well as the sanctions on the oil exports and, of course, the coming negotiations. It probably will encourage them to move. But to tell you the truth, we hope for the best. But I don’t believe that this amount of sanctions and pressure will bring the Iranian leadership to the conclusion that they have to stop their nuclear military program.”

Barak made clear that any negotiations would be a failure if they did not end in Iran not only stopping enrichment to 20%, but agreeing to remove all uranium already enriched to that level to a “trusted” neighboring country.

Lastly, remember how years ago, going back to the George W. Bush administration, I said the United States should be negotiating with former president Ayatollah Rafsanjani? The still influential cleric reportedly has been criticizing President Ahmadinejad for his extremist anti-American rhetoric, though a hardline news agency “categorically denied” Rafsanjani had called on Iranian leaders to resume talks with the U.S. I’m sure he has.
Stephen Hayes / Wall Street Journal

“Anything that retards Iran’s nuclear progress is helpful. But even if the talks ‘solved’ the nuclear issue – virtually inconceivable, given the measures the Iranians have taken to preserve their program – a bigger problem would remain: the Iranian regime itself. Whatever progress is made in the context of overlapping short-term interests, it will do little to change the long-term strategic problems presented by a hostile Iran. And Iran is hostile.

“It is one of the most underreported stories of the past decade: As we went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq, Iran went to war with us. Tehran has provided weapons to insurgents directly responsible for killing hundreds of American troops in those two countries. It has funded, trained and equipped jihadists – Sunnis and Shiites alike – targeting American forces and interests in the Middle East and beyond. And all along the way it has provided safe haven and support to al Qaeda leaders and those closest to them….

“This weekend’s talks in Istanbul will ignore all of this. Instead, they will, as White House spokesman Jay Carney said, focus on ‘the international community’s concerns with Iranian behavior regarding their nuclear program.’

“Fair enough: The international community isn’t interested in holding Iran accountable for these acts of war, and in preparing for high-level talks it’s easy to separate one problem from another. But the real world doesn’t work that way.”

Syria: Syrian forces clashed with rebels near the Turkish border on Friday in a violation of the cease-fire that went into effect on Thursday. Of course the original cease-fire was to be Tuesday and that didn’t hold. Across the country, at least 160 were killed on Monday. Additionally, this week, a Lebanese cameraman was killed inside the Lebanese border as he was covering the Syrian army across the way. He waved and was met with a hail of bullets. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International documented hundreds of executions. The death toll stands at 10,000+ and a reported 200,000 have been imprisoned.

Lebanon: Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea blamed the March 8 coalition for the attempt on his life the prior week; March 8 having among its members Hizbullah and its allies of Syria, as he put it.

Egypt: A super confusing week as a court in Egypt suspended the 100-member national assembly charged with drafting a new constitution. Several lawsuits had demanded the panel be blocked because it did not reflect the diversity of Egyptian society. Liberals and secularists said Islamists dominated the group.

Meanwhile, hard-core Islamist Hazem Abu Ismail was to be ruled ineligible for the presidential ballot because his late mother was a U.S. citizen, but a court ruled in Ismail’s favor…for now…even though the evidence is clear he should not be eligible.

And Muslim Brotherhood lead candidate, Khairat el-Shater, may have his own eligibility issues concerning his past imprisonment and whether he was officially pardoned by the ruling military council. Shater said the Brotherhood reneged on its promise not to field a presidential candidate only to stop the “tyranny” of the past.

As for the decision by former Mubarak-era spy chief Omar Suleiman to run for president , Shater said, “We are talking about a nation that was subjected to destruction and plundering under Hosni Mubarak’s leadership, who based his system on tyranny and corruption, which led to backwardness, and Omar Suleiman was one of his main assistants. His nomination is an insult to all the Egyptian people and an attempt to reproduce the old regime in a modified way.”

Shater also said the United States should support the democratic transition in Egypt, while adding, “There is a state of lack of trust between the different fronts. That is a result of the U.S. administration largely supporting the tyranny of the Mubarak regime for a long time. Egypt’s relations with the U.S. must be strong and strategic based on economic cooperation and all other forms of cooperation.”

But it was also revealed this week that Shater gave an address last April 21, 2011, which was just transcribed into English, and in it he says:

“Everywhere, the Brothers are working to restore Islam in its all-encompassing conception to the lives of people. Thus the mission is clear: restoring Islam in its all-encompassing conception, subjugating people to God, instituting the religion of God, the Islamicization of life, empowering of God’s religion, establishing the renaissance of the ummah [worldwide Muslim nation] on the basis of Islam…Every aspect of life is to be Islamicized.” [Jerusalem Post]

For its part, the ruling military council said it would stay neutral and not field a candidate, though most feel Suleiman is favored by the army. The council has been careful not to put Suleiman on trial for the abuses of the old regime.

Pakistan: Parliament on Thursday unanimously approved new guidelines on relations with the United States which include a ban on transporting weapons through the country to Afghanistan. The national security committee also called for an end to drone attacks in Pakistani territory and an unconditional apology for U.S. air strikes in November that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers. Parliament is demanding those responsible for the air strikes be brought to justice.

While it wasn’t revealed if NATO convoys would be allowed, denying use for weapons shipments is a demand several political parties had including opposition Islamists. Prime Minster Gilani told parliament his government would implement the recommendations in “letter and spirit.”

A U.S. State Department spokesperson said, “We respect the seriousness with which parliament’s review of U.S.-Pakistan relations has been conducted. We look forward to discussing these policy recommendations with Pakistan.”

The ongoing closure of the supply routes through Pakistan greatly impedes the U.S. military’s withdrawal from Afghanistan. Prior to the shutdown, one-third of American war supplies moved through there. Since then, coalition forces have relied on a system of supply lines in countries such as Russia, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan.

On a different matter, Pakistani President Zardari went to India for the first visit there by a Pakistani head of state in seven years. Zardari had lunch with Indian Prime Minster Singh, though little of substance came of it.

And up to 135 people, 124 soldiers and 11 citizens, died in the avalanche that crushed a Pakistani military camp in mountainous Kashmir on Saturday.

Afghanistan: President Hamid Karzai said he is thinking of stepping down in 2013 – a year early – due to NATO’s withdrawal in 2014; Karzai knowing that it will be difficult to hold a presidential election without NATO’s presence. His second five-year term is due to expire in 2014 and the constitution forbids him from running a third time. Karzai did say a final decision on the poll will not be made for some time.

An ABC News/Washington Post poll found that 48% of Americans support President Obama’s handling of the war, 43% disapprove. But only 30% now say it has been worth fighting.

China: The Communist Party formally removed Bo Xilai and his wife was arrested on suspicion of murdering British businessman Neil Heywood. In a one-line statement, Chinese state media announced Bo had been suspended from his position on the 25-member Politburo because of “suspected serious violations of discipline.”

Bo’s wife, prominent attorney Gu Kailai, and an orderly who worked at the couple’s residence, were “transferred to judicial authorities.”

Heywood was found dead in a hotel room in Chongqing last November 15 and at the time police informed British consular officials that he had died from “excessive alcohol consumption” and his body was quickly cremated. Heywood had been a close associate of the Bo family.

But a police investigation now concludes Gu and Heywood fell out over a “conflict over economic interests.”

Meanwhile, in terms of the transfer of power at year end, speculation now has it that President Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabao, both of whom held Bo’s Maoist campaigns in Chongqing in contempt, have gained an upper hand in promoting their own supporters.

Others say there are growing calls to cut the key standing committee (of which Bo might have been a member before the purge) from nine to seven to facilitate better and quicker decisions.

The Communist Party’s official People’s Daily urged members to support the decision to remove Bo from his senior party post. According to the front page editorial, the investigation into Bo and his wife’s arrest shows the Party’s “firm determination of maintaining its own purity. Bo has seriously violated Party discipline, causing damage to the cause and the image of the Party and state.”

An editorial in the South China Morning Post (Hong Kong) concludes “Bo seems certain to go to jail.”

“That would be an ignominious end to the career of a populist of nationwide renown. But he was also a man of contradictions. His leadership of Dalian and Chongqing and his crackdown on crime and corruption made him popular with the masses. But a campaign to revive values of the Maoist era stirred painful memories of the Cultural Revolution and rankled fellow leaders of modern China….

“Mao Zedong famously said that upheaval or crisis strikes China once every seven or eight years. This one may be late or early, but if the past is any guide it will pass without serious harm to the solidarity of the leadership or the political legitimacy of the party. Rather, it will spur the leadership to unite and put aside personal differences – not only in their own interests, but because Communist Party rule is at stake. In the wake of the crisis, the emphasis is bound to be on economic and political stability. But that should not be allowed to delay reforms aimed at putting China’s meteoric growth on a sustainable path, safeguarding its achievements and spreading the benefits equitably among its people.”

France: The first round of the presidential vote is a week from Sunday, April 22, and polls still show that Socialist Party candidate Francois Hollande will defeat President Nicolas Sarkozy handily in a runoff, which will be May 6. Hollande is being hurt, however, by far-left candidate Jean-Luc Melenchon, who is attracting some of the biggest crowds so far at rallies blanketed in red communist flags. Hollande vows to focus on education, job support for French youths facing high unemployment rates, equal pay for women, respect for culture and ethnic diversity.

Melenchon, by the way, is beginning to poll ahead of far-right National Front candidate Marine Le Pen. And if you thought Hollande’s 75% top tax rate proposal on millionaires was outrageous, Melenchon is proposing to confiscate all income above $470,000 a year.
Editorial / London Times

“There is something even more disquieting than the possibility that the candidates to be France’s next president are driven by the cynicism of the hustings to make promises to tax the rich, to expand the reach of the State, to safeguard social services and to tighten the free movement of people across EU borders – all at a time when France’s public finances are as precariously balanced as a drunk on a tightrope. What is more disquieting is the possibility that the candidates may genuinely believe they can deliver what they are promising….

“France is in the grip of an election campaign stained by a hostility to the very wealth and industry that has made it the world’s fifth richest country and the second most powerful member of the eurozone, and also by a willful refusal to address its parlous financial book-keeping….

“Mr. Sarkozy, the presidential candidate of 2012, is hard to recognize as the same Mr. Sarkozy who once moaned that France was a country that had ‘never stopped discouraging initiative and punishing success.’ Today, he zealously joins his political rivals in bad-mouthing bankers. Having already increased income and corporate tax, he now aims to squeeze more tax even from those expatriate French who have fled France to escape taxes – a policy that would be comically tricky to pursue.

“Mr. Hollande, meanwhile, is recklessly promising to spend money that France has not yet even borrowed, partially balancing the books by introducing a top rate of income tax of 75%....

“Worryingly, none of these various pledges on the stump is being unduly burdened by the reality of France’s economic plight. No candidate acknowledges that public spending accounts for 56% of GDP, more than in any other eurozone country; or that unemployment is at its highest for a quarter of a century; or that public debt is 90% of GDP; or that social costs for employers are uncompetitively high compared with those of France’s neighbors; or that exports are sluggish. You need not be a diehard doom-monger to worry that the eurozone’s next crisis might be made not in Athens or Rome or Madrid, but in Paris….

“Voters are reluctant to recognize that unless the State starts to live within its means, France is hurtling towards a financial reckoning. So far neither Mr. Sarkozy nor Mr. Hollande has had the courage to serve voters this awkward truth. This threatens to make the inevitable austerity of life after May 6 all the harder to stomach.”

Nigeria: 50 were killed in an Easter Sunday suicide car bombing near a church in the city of Kaduna. Islamist militant group Boko Haram was suspected.

Zimbabwe: A story was circulating in various places that President Robert Mugabe was near death in a Singapore hospital; the 88-year-old dictator suffering from prostate cancer. While this is great news, there is supposedly a secret “gentleman’s agreement” to hand over power in Zimbabwe to his feared defense minister, Emmerson Mnangagwa, a former spy chief nicknamed “The Crocodile” and known for his ruthless style. [Sydney Morning Herald/The Daily Telegraph]