| | | | An Offer Kim Couldn't Refuse | | Kim Jong Un's visit to Beijing was a diplomatic masterstroke, buying his regime time and helping sow the seeds of doubt over who would be at fault if talks with the United States break down, writes Philip Stephens in the Financial Times. It was also a reminder that the only way of avoiding disaster is to ensure America and China are on the same page – and that they make Kim an offer he can't refuse.
"Both nations want Mr Kim to give up the bomb. Mr Trump wields the military might. And Pyongyang is almost totally reliant on Beijing for supplies of energy and food. China, though, is more fearful of regime collapse — with a reunified Korea extending US influence up to the Chinese border — than it is unnerved by the nukes. For his part, Mr Kim wants above all to remain in power," Stephens writes.
"If there is a way through the tangle, and I am not sure there is, it resides in an Sino-American agreement that jointly underwrites the territorial integrity of North Korea and, awful though it is to contemplate, the security of Mr Kim's regime. This would be in effect the treaty that was never signed at the end of the Korean war. And, with the joint backing of Beijing and Washington, the offer could be made to Mr Kim in a manner such as he could not refuse." "If the president approaches the meeting with Kim believing that the latter is going to do 'what is right for his people and for humanity'…he will be unpleasantly surprised to find that North Korea's price for agreeing to denuclearization is far higher than he was expecting."
"This is why rushing into a high-level summit without doing any of the preliminary preparation and negotiation is potentially so dangerous. It sets the summit up to fail, and that plays into the hands of hard-liners that have no interest in a compromise solution."
| | The Danger of Trump's Latest "Win" | | With a new trade deal with South Korea in his back pocket, and with fears of a trade war with China easing, for now at least, President Trump might believe his hardline negotiating approach has been vindicated, The Economist writes. "Far from it."
"For one thing, no deal has yet been done with China. Other countries have politics too, even dictatorships. Despite the South Korean deal, and keen as China is to avoid a trade war—keener than Mr Trump, it seems—the danger of a transpacific escalation remains real," The Economist argues.
"Even if conflict is averted and China gives ground, however, the result will be a bad one for the world, and for America. That is partly because of Mr Trump's character. If he thinks he has won one fight, he is likelier to start another. It is also because his policy is founded on wretched economics and dangerous politics."
"Rather than join with other aggrieved countries to put legal pressure on China, Mr Trump has threatened putative allies. Rather than work within the rules-based system of trade, which America helped create and which, despite the system's imperfections, has served the country well, he bypasses it at will…If America thumbs its nose at the WTO, why shouldn't others?"
| | Libya's a Model for North Korea? Tell that to Gadhafi… | | Incoming National Security Adviser John Bolton has suggested that the US approach to Libya's WMD offers a template for handling North Korea's. That's nonsense, suggests Michael Brendan Dougherty for National Review. After all, Kim is well aware of what happened to Moammar Gadhafi.
"Consider, the 2003 Libyan negotiations that Bolton mentions involved a two-step process. The first step was Libya finishing its obligations to compensate the victims of the Lockerbie bombing. That would lead to the lifting of U.N. sanctions. To get out from under US economic sanctions, Libya would have to give up its weapons of mass destruction," Dougherty writes.
"Was this a good trade for [Gadhafi's] regime? In the short term, it seemed so; it opened up Libya to foreign investment. And Gadhafi benefited personally, being welcomed to foreign capitals and entertaining Senator John McCain.
"But in the not-so-short term, Gadhafi's very public decision to give up his weapons of mass destruction dramatically lowered the price of internal rebellion against him. It also lowered the cost of regime change initiated by Western powers such as France and the United States." | | The Truth About Britain's Diplomatic "Clout" | | Britain earned plaudits for securing the coordinated expulsion of Russian diplomats in response to an attack on a former Russian spy on British soil. But Russia is an easy target – and Britain is going to find the diplomatic going much harder in a post-Brexit world, argues Mary Dejevsky in The Independent.
"Support [for the U.K.'s response toward Russia] was hardly spontaneous or fulsome, and we don't know what inducements the UK may have offered. And, of course, it's easier if the target is generally unpopular," Dejevsky writes.
"Those who felt that it was not in their interests to join the protest did not come on board. So how would it be trying to drum up some concerted action against China? Or against the EU, or an EU member, once we have left? And was there perhaps an element, this time, of the EU trying to drive home the message that such support is conditional on membership?" - Tit-for-tat. "Russia will expel 60 US diplomats and close the US Consulate in St. Petersburg, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Thursday, in retaliation for a similar move by Washington," CNN reports.
| | China's Arch-Rival That Isn't | | Few countries seem inclined or able to counter a rising China. India doesn't count itself among those nations. But years of underinvestment in its military mean its bark is worse than its bite, suggests Mihir Sharma for Bloomberg View.
"Across dozens of world capitals, confidence is repeatedly expressed that India will seek, in the decades to come, to balance China. And in no capital is this sentiment expressed more loudly than India's own," Sharma says.
Yet, "the government isn't funding the military capability it would need to manage China's rise. India is short of cash and it is, unfortunately, starving its military."
"Don't take my word for it: Look at the numbers. The share of military spending in India's federal budget has fallen below 1.6 percent of gross domestic product -- the lowest proportion since 1962. That's a year instantly recognizable to every Indian, since it's when India's underpowered army was routed in a border conflict with China."
| | Europe's Got Your Back on Privacy | | Noticed that your favorite social media sites and online retailers have suddenly started updating their terms and personal data settings? It's no coincidence, says Russell Brandom for The Verge. Europe is getting tough over privacy – and it could transform the internet for everyone.
A new rule, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), comes into effect in May and "sets a higher bar for obtaining personal data than we've ever seen on the internet before. By default, any time a company collects personal data on an EU citizen, it will need explicit and informed consent from that person," Brandom writes.
"Second, the GDPR's penalties are severe enough to get the entire industry's attention. Maximum fines per violation are set at 4 percent of a company's global turnover (or $20 million, whichever is larger)."
"The rule could also create a divide between the European Union and the rest of the internet. So far, most companies have aimed toward a single set of privacy rules for all users, which is why so many US users are noticing new privacy features and terms of service. But in many cases, it's still easier to split off EU data, which could result in European users seeing a meaningfully different internet from the rest of the world." | | | | | | |
No comments:
Post a Comment