Anyone following the North Korean diplomatic situation over the last ten years or so can’t help but throw their hands up in the air. Perhaps the consistent theme in all of the agreements and compromises that have been reached over the years is that North Korea always wins. At no point does this seem more true than today.

Two months after convincing the U.S. to remove North Korea from the State Department’s list of terror sponsoring countries in exchange for written verification of its nuclear disarmament process, North Korea has reneged. In what seems to be an almost comical series of rebukes on U.S. led diplomacy, the North Korean regime has refused to provide written verification that it is in fact, actually disarming its nuclear capabilities. Anyone counting on a nuclear free Korean peninsula, I wouldn’t hold my breath.

Even worse is that the North Koreans have already begun reaping the ‘rewards’ of the fuel oil agreement reached under the six party talks with China, S. Korea, Japan and Russia. Supposedly the remainder is going to be halted upon receiving this verification, but this is basically just kicking the can farther down the road until the Obama Administration takes office in January.

What do we have to look forward to? Obama has denounced the hardline stance of the early Bush Administration and the six-party talks and instead called for bilateral negotiations, saying “more diplomatic engagement is necessary.” Perhaps Obama was referring to the good ole days of bilateral negotiations in the 1990′s under President Clinton. Leading up to the 1994 Agreed Framework, North Korea threatened to pull out of the non-proliferation treaty and develop a nuclear weapons program. This was met by negotiations that allowed the North Koreans to give up their nuclear ambitions in exchange for the equivalent energy in fuel oil and two 1,000 MW light water reactors to be primarily subsidized by the U.S., South Korea and Japan.  Unsurprisingly, the fuel oil began to flow but the attempts by North Korea to enrich uranium, disallow IAEA inspectors free access, and bait its neighbors continued.

"I will make you an offer you can't refuse. I'll even throw in a nuke. Let's Deal!"

The type of diplomacy used by the Bush Administration under Christoper Hill and Condi Rice has consistently failed to move the ball forward and it is unlikely more talking by an Obama Administration will do any better. Kim Jong-Il has consistently gotten the upper hand in his dealings with the US/West because he realizes that no matter how many North Koreans he starves or nuclear weapons he chases, the limits of diplomacy will save him.

We need a new strategy for N. Korea, one that can actually move/force them to discontinue their nuclear weapons program.  

Though the war in Iraq and the presence of thousand of US troops slowly dropped from the recently concluded presidential campaign and before then the mainstream media, the situation and future US policy toward the conflict will be crucial.  During the early part of his campaign Barack Obama stated many times that he would ‘end this war’ and laid down a 16 month timeframe where all combat troops would be out, with only a ‘residual force’ remaining.  While since he was elected Obama has taken a more cautious stance and has emphasized that though he still supports a 16 month timeframe, which is about a year ahead of the newly signed agreement between the US and Iraqi governments, he will listen to his commanders on the ground.  

U.S. Army Staff Sgt. Dustin Gillette with schoolchildren while on patrol in Iraq

This is a welcome change, but many still feel that by leaving ‘too early’ the US may be jeopardizing gains made and risk leaving behind a government not ready to control its territory.  The best argument I’ve read which advocates a more sustained US military presence in Iraq is from Stephen Biddle, Michael E. O’Hanlon, and Kenneth M. Pollack’s ‘How to Leave a Stable Iraq‘ in last month’s Foreign Affairs.  They first layout the real progress achieved in the country and assert that a continued US presence will enable a smooth transfer of power during the upcoming Provincial and National elections, both scheduled to occur in the next two years.  Here is an excerpt:

Drawdowns on this scale in Iraq cannot be rushed without serious risk. For now, a substantial U.S. presence is essential to stabilize a system of local cease-fires and maintain an environment in which gradual compromise can proceed without gambling on a single grand bargain among wary rivals in Baghdad. This is not to say that today’s troop count can or should be maintained until 2010 — modest near-term withdrawals to below the pre-surge levels will be necessary to establish a sustainable posture. The 130,000 troops and 15 brigades of the pre-2007 force may be too large to maintain into 2009 without unacceptable damage to the U.S. Army and the Marine Corps. But if the United States can maintain a substantial force in Iraq through the critical period of the next two to three years, there is now a credible basis for believing that major drawdowns after that can be enabled by success rather than mandated by failure.

This flies in the face of a majority of America’s public opinion who seem tired and fed up with the war effort, but who are not marching in the streets, with the Democratic Party’s pronouncements during the long campaign, and with many academics and experts.  Professor Marc Lynch wrote a short rebuttal to O’Hanlon, Biddle, and Pollack’s piece and elaborates further on his blog.  Lynch believes that the US needs to commit to leaving Iraq at a measured, but substantial pace, as this is the only way the Iraqi politicians and factions will be forced to make real compromises.  He argues that the US presence is only accommodating those Iraqi’s who wish to keep the status quo without further reconciliation, for instance in regards to the Sunni Awakening soldiers who are still without a place in the nation’s security or police apparatus.  Here is an excerpt:

The problem lies in the fundamentally flawed belief that providing more security is the key to achieving political compromise. Restoring basic levels of security from the low point of 2006 was indeed essential. But now, contrary to what the authors argue, improved security is making the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki less likely to make meaningful compromises, since Maliki currently sees little downside to not doing so. The Iraqi government simply does not share American assessments of the negative consequences that would result from failing to achieve reconciliation. And as long as the U.S. military protects Iraqi leaders from the consequences of their choices, they are probably correct. Ironically, their feeling of security has led them to insist that a security agreement with the United States include a commitment to withdraw combat troops by the end of 2011, likely rendering the policy Biddle, O’Hanlon, and Pollack advocate no longer viable.

I believe the ‘surge’ has had a dramatic effect on Iraqi stability and its government’s chances on providing a semblance of a normal life for most of its citizens, but O’Hanlon, Biddle, and Pollack are correct in arguing that these gains could be lost if the US is seen to be departing either too hastily or in a way that separates Iraq’s future from America’s.  The surge worked largely because Iraqi actors, mainly the Sunni’s, realized that the US wasn’t going anywhere and that for them to have a chance at power they had to start playing the game of government, not insurgency.  The surge was not just more troops on the ground, it was an American ‘double down’ on its commitment to the country’s stability and progress.  I think Obama’s latest rhetoric and actions portend to a sensible and cautious Iraqi policy, one where he listens to many voices and comes up with what will hopefully be a successful strategy for a stable Iraq and an honorable American departure, whenever that may be.

Barack Obama will become the most powerful person on the planet in a few months, thanks to a decisive win versus his opponent John McCain yesterday. The election largely went off without a hitch, (except for the fact that Al Franken nearly became a senator!) and was culminated by two fine speeches.

According to the New York Times and many other publications, the world is rejoicing. Though I must admit that I am far from convinced that the world has changed and the US has become a ‘different’ country. For the US is not that dramatically different today then it was 9 years ago and this will most likely be true 4 or 8 years from now. The impact of Obama on the view of the US in the world, US foreign policy, and the policy of other nations, specifically great powers Russia, China, EU, Iran, etc. to the United States will be seen and discussed here for days, months, and years to come.

In any case, Obama’s view and policy toward the world’s great powers will be something to see, as will his stance on the international issues of terrorism, humanitarian intervention, climate change, transnational crime, etc. Obama provided us a glimpse of his world view last night in his acceptance speech, below:

And to all those watching tonight from beyond our shores, from parliaments and palaces to those who are huddled around radios in the forgotten corners of our world – our stories are singular, but our destiny is shared, and a new dawn of American leadership is at hand. To those who would tear this world down – we will defeat you. To those who seek peace and security – we support you. And to all those who have wondered if America’s beacon still burns as bright – tonight we proved once more that the true strength of our nation comes not from our the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals: democracy, liberty, opportunity, and unyielding hope.

For that is the true genius of America – that America can change. Our union can be perfected. And what we have already achieved gives us hope for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.

And earlier in his speech, he seemed quite aware of the security challenges ahead:

I know you didn’t do this just to win an election and I know you didn’t do it for me. You did it because you understand the enormity of the task that lies ahead. For even as we celebrate tonight, we know the challenges that tomorrow will bring are the greatest of our lifetime – two wars, a planet in peril, the worst financial crisis in a century. Even as we stand here tonight, we know there are brave Americans waking up in the deserts of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan to risk their lives for us.

Let us all hope he is up to the many challenges ahead.