Trump and Pentagon disagree on deployment of active duty troops to control protests

 (June 8)Tensions are very high between the Pentagon and the White House over Trump's threat to use active military forces to control protests after George Floyd was killed by a policeman.

The tensions

Historically, there have often been tensions between the government and the Pentagon but during Trump's term this is the second time eh tensions have been so high as to raise the prospect of high-level resignations and lasting damage to the military's reputation.

Trump has recommended dominating the streets and the use of force to control demonstrations and has even suggested that not just the National Guard be used to quell protests but also active-duty service people. He has suggested invoking the Insurrection Act that would allow him to use active-duty troops which otherwise would be illegal. However, many critics see such a move as harming the reputation of the armed forces.

Secretary of Defense Mark Esper said to reporters: "I do not support invoking the Insurrection Act".

Trump seems to feel there is no limit on his authority to use unlimited power to dominate the streets during protests including the use of active US forces against US citizens rather than against foreign enemies. Critics see such use of active-duty troops against US citizens as justified only in extreme conditions such as an actual rebellion. Trump had requested Defense Secretary Esper to send 10,000 US troops to Washington DC to potentially be used to quell protests. Esper put pressure on several state governors to send National Guard members to Washington to head off any Trump attempt to demand that active-duty forces be used.

Other military officials critical of Trump's position

Vincent K. Brooks a recently retired four-star Army general claimed that Trump's threat to use federal troops for law enforcement in any states where he deemed a governor was not acting toughly enough towards protesters and wrote in an essay for Harvard University's Beifer Center where he is a fellow: “It is a trust that the military, especially the active-duty military — ‘the regulars’ — possessing great physical power and holding many levers that could end freedom in our society and could shut down our government, would never, never apply that power for domestic political purposes.”

Former Defense Minister Jim Matthis criticized Trump's use of force to clear peaceful demonstrators so that Trump could walk to a church for a photo op. Matthis said that he never dreamed troops “would be ordered under any circumstance to violate the Constitutional rights of their fellow citizens — much less to provide a bizarre photo op for the elected commander-in-chief, with military leadership standing alongside.” In a further statement published in the Atlantic Matthis went on criticizing the president: “Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people —does not even pretend to try. Instead he tries to divide us. We are witnessing the consequences of three years of this deliberate effort. We are witnessing the consequences of three years without mature leadership.” Matthis called on Americans to unite without Trump.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Trump says it would be OK with him if there were a war with Iran

(July 23) Trump often changes positions on issues quickly. His most recent change is on Iran. He has said several times that he does not want war with Iran. However, on Monday he has said that things could go either way that there may or may not be war with Iran.

Trump's new statements

To reporters in the Oval Office Trump said: "Frankly it's getting harder for me to want to make a deal with Iran, because they behave very badly. Ill tell you it could go either way, very easily... And I'm OK either way it goes."

Trump also said that it was getting more difficult for him to want to make a deal with Iran as he claimed they were behaving very badly.

Trump stated that Iran's government is "a religious regime that is badly failing," and that has "tremendous problems economically." Many of Iran's economic problems are due to US sanctions enforced as much as possible on all countries even those that have no sanctions against Iran themselves.

Hawks within the Trump administration such as Bolton and Pompeo will no doubt be pleased at this change in attitude by Trump towards Iraq, especially his saying that he is OK with a war with Iran. This is exactly what the hawks want to hear. Earlier, Trump insisted that he did not want war with Iran.

Trump cites recent conflicts for his change of stance

Trump mentioned the downing of the two drones, a US drone by Iran and an Iranian one by Iran. Iran denies any of its drones have been downed. Trump also mentioned the Iranian claim that it had arrested 17 people connected to a CIA spy ring, a claim that Trump called a lie.

The US and Iran have been in increasing conflict ever since the Trump administration unilaterally withdrew the US from a landmark 2015 deal the P5 plus 1, in which Iran agreed to put curbs on its nuclear program in return for sanctions relief. The EU has tried to keep its part of the bargain after the US withdrew.

Currently, many companies will not trade with Iran because they may be cut off from business with the US. As a result, Iran has not had the promised sanction relief, and the country has begun to break the terms of the agreement in protest. Trump has warned Iran about breaking the agreement even though the U.S. is no longer itself part of the agreement.

Trump could also have mentioned the Iranian seizure of UK tanker Stena Imperio as changing his stance. However, the tanker was seized after the UK had the Iranian tanker the Grace 1 seized off Gibraltar. The seizure is alleged to have been at the request of the US.

John Bolton applauded the seizure: "The US national security adviser, John Bolton, who has long sought regime change in Tehran, exulted in the capture on Twitter. Add in the plentiful historical reasons for Iran to distrust the UK, and its anger that Europe has not mitigated the effects of US 'maximum pressure', and the scene was set for the Stena Impero’s seizure."

As noted in a recent Digital Journal article and also on the appended video, EU sanctions do not apply to Iran so the seizure of the Iranian vessel is arguably illegal. This is an obvious point usually studiously omitted in most mainstream media accounts of events.

The situation seems to be developing exactly as the hawks within the Trump administration desires although so far outright war between the two countries has not broken out.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Author Christine Aune claims it is time to end the Korean war

Recently Donald Trump became the first US president to ever set foot on North Korean soil and greeted Kim Jong-un the North Korean leader. The two together stepped onto South Korean soil and greeted its president Moon Jae-in.

The three then had a 50-minuted meeting in the South Korea's Freedom House. As he left the demilitarized zone (DMZ) Trump said: “We moved mountains.The meeting was a very good one, very strong... We’re not looking for speed, we’re looking to get it right.”

Christine Ahn, the founder and executive director of Women Cross DMZ, and the international coordinator of the global campaign Korea Peace Now! Women Mobilizing to End the Korean War, claimed in a recent article: "To get it right, the first step the Trump administration should take is to offer North Korea a security guarantee, whether in the form of an end of war declaration or a non-aggression pact. It may have been, after all, what convinced Kim to meet Trump at Panmunjom."

Relations have improved over last year

Just one year ago, North and South Korean soldiers faced off against each other. There were guard posts, landmines and loud speakers booming out propaganda across the DMZ. Yet today, the guard posts are removed and many of the landmines have also been removed. North Korean, South Korean and American security forces were able to stand side-by-side at Panmunjom. This is a testament to the relative success of last year's April 27 Summit in Panmunjom, where both Moon and Kim announced that there will be no more war on the Korean peninsula and that a new era had begun. This meeting was a prelude to the Singapore meeting where Trump and Kim promised that they would establish new relations that would build a lasting peace and involve the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula.

Much progress has been sabotaged by Trump hawks

Hard-line hawks in the Trump administration insist that North Korea must completely denuclearize before negotiations to improve relations can take place. It remains quite unlikely that Kim will accept such conditions as was shown at the failed summit at Hanoi.

There are different accounts of why that summit failed, as noted in the record of the summit on Wikipedia: "The 2019 North Korea–United States Hanoi Summit, commonly known as the Hanoi Summit, was a two-day summit meeting between North Korean Chairman Kim Jong-un and U.S. President Donald Trump, held at the Metropole Hotel in Hanoi, Vietnam, on February 27–28, 2019. This was the second meeting between the leaders of the DPRK and the United States, following the first meeting in June 2018 in Singapore. On February 28, 2019, the White House announced that the summit was cut short and that no agreement was reached. Trump later elaborated that it was because North Korea wanted an end to all sanctions. North Korean Foreign Minister Ri Yong-ho asserted that the country only sought a partial lifting of five United Nations sanctions placed on North Korea between 2016 and 2017."

Trump administration wanted to move to meet Kim

After Chinese President XI Jinping visited North Korea and re-affirmed the alliance of the two countries, the Trump administration wanted to ensure that they could keep talks alive with the North. The eighth Trump-Moon Summit in South Korea after the G20 summit in Osaka, Japan provided such an opportunity.

On June 27th the North Korean Central News Agency released a statement by Kwong Jong Gun of the Foreign Ministry: “Even though we are to think of holding a dialogue with the U.S., we need first to see a proper approach towards the negotiation on the part of the U.S. Negotiation should be conducted with a counterpart who has a good sense of communication, and it could also be possible only when the U.S. comes up with a proper counterproposal"

US says it is committed to a more flexible approach to talks

Days before the summit,special representative to North Korea Stephen Biegun was on the ground. He reiterated the U.S. willingness to follow a “flexible approach.” The Foreign Ministry of South Korea said that the US is prepared to hold constructive talks with the North in order to move the commitments made in the June 12 Singapore Joint Declaration between Trump and Kim forward. This will involve a parallel process towards peace and denuclearization, in a step-by-step fashion. Trump's designation of Biegun to lead the working level talks was said to meet the North Korean demand that there be a counterpart who has a good sense of communication.

Building trust will take time

There has been nearly seventy years of tensions and war between the two Koreas. It will take a step-by-step resolving of issues to build up trust and a complete resolution of all the issues. Insisting on an all or nothing deal is unlikely to work. A crucial part of any agreement must be ending the Korean War and working toward a peace agreement which are one root cause of the nuclear standoff.

An end of the war declaration would be a good first step to show North Koreans that the US is indeed ready to transform the hostile relationship but a peace agreement would be even more powerful. This is what North Koreans, South Koreans and even China have called for. The present 1953 ceasefire should be replaced by a peace agreement.

How would such a declaration affect denuclearization?

Henri Feron a scholar at the Center for International Policy said: “While North Korea is unlikely to fully trust U.S. security guarantees, it will definitely see it as a positive signal worthy of reciprocation. On the other hand, for the U.S. to refuse to provide such guarantees will be interpreted in [North Korea] as clear evidence of continued hostility.”

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Trump's Huawei ban may be planned as a negotiating tactic

US President Donald Trump met with Xi Jinping the Chinese president as the G20 Summit in Japan wrapped up today. Trump announced after the meeting that the two countries would resume trade talks and hold off implementing new tariffs indefinitely.

Was the Huawei ban just a negotiating tactic?

Trump also indicated that US companies would be allowed to resume sales to Huawei. However, he did not make it clear when or how this will happen. How can these sales resume if Huawei is a huge security threat as Trump claims? He has even used the security threat as a reason to convince other countries not to use Huawei's 5G networks.

Trump's position

In May, Trump signed an executive order allowing the US government to block sales by US companies to foreign firms considered a security risk. This was applied to Huawei. A recent article in Verge quotes Trump explaining his position: "TRUMP: Huawei is something that’s very dangerous. You look at what they’ve done from a security standpoint, from a military standpoint, it’s very dangerous. So it’s possible that Huawei even would be included in some kind of a trade deal. If we made a deal, I could imagine Huawei being possibly included in some form, some part of a trade deal."

Trump claims Huawei's technology could be used for spying in spite of Huawei's denial of this. However, Trump's position makes no sense. If Huawei is so dangerous, it will be no less dangerous after a trade deal. Trump's position makes sense only if Huawei is not as he claims a threat to US security and the ban was used as a bluff and a lever to get a better deal from China.

The Verge article concludes: "Trump’s executive order has caused immense chaos and concern, not just for Huawei but for its suppliers in America and users around the world. He owes those people an honest explanation for why this was done. So far, they haven’t gotten one." Given the way Trump operates it is unlikely that he will ever give such an explanation. No doubt he cannot in any event.

No sign of lifting the ban as yet

So far it is not clear what if any steps Trump has taken to lift the restrictions. According to the Washington Post Trump told reporters that he will be meeting with Huawei officials to ease pressure on Huawei but there has not been a formal decision to lift the ban as yet. On the other hand he told the Wall Street Journal that the two countries will leave what to do about Huawei until the end of the negotiations. This sounds as if Trump is continuing to use the ban as leverage even though it is a bluff to get China to accept a better deal for the US.

China said to make reprieve from ban a condition of further talks

However, China has reportedly made a reprieve from the Huawei ban a condition of returning to the bargaining table. Trump said last month that the US could lift restrictions if there were some forward progress in negotiations with China. Now that there seems to be some progress with talks continuing Trump may say that there will be a reprieve from a ban. However in reality he has done nothing leaving the ban as a threat and leverage in the negotiations.

Meanwhile not only China but many US companies who supply parts for Huawei are being hurt by the Trump. Trump is supposed to be known as a deal maker. Perhaps he should be known as the dirty deal maker.

Previously published in the Digital Journal