Success for Obama; Neo-Cons Proved Wrong Again

In an op-ed, Charles Krauthammer criticized Obama for being too compromising with other countries, and to prove that such an approach is dangerous, Krauthammer offered as evidence the inability of the U.N. Security Council to issue a rebuke of the N. Korea missile launch. (I responded to this op-ed here) Krauthammer alleged that the Council's failure to act showed that Obama's diplomatic approach to foreign policy is "fatuous" and ineffective and weak. Other right-wingers have said substantially the same.

Well, they were all wrong! Today, Obama and other world leaders, using diplomacy, convinced Russia and staunch N. Korea supporter China to sign onto a joint statement condemning N. Korea's missile launch. Cite.

There was little cooperation between Russia, China, and America on such matters during the Bush presidency, particularly during the latter years. This is probably due to the fact that Bush -- as Krauthammer and Newt Gingrich support -- simply mandated inflexible conditions and refused to compromise. Thus, it should not be a surprise that Bush received little assistance from the world with respect to his agenda.

Obama, on the other hand, has sought to strengthen our position in the world by working with other world leaders. Obama's ability to convince Russia to sign onto this joint statement is significant, as there is no doubt that Russia was not inclined to do so. Obama's ability to convince China to sign on is monumental, as China is quite pro-North Korea.

Thus, America's relationships with Russia and China are stronger, and we have used these relationships to make us safer via the Security Council. Also, it is highly unlike that Obama would have obtained these concessions from Russia and China had he utilized the fiery, inflexible approach espouses by the right-wingers.

Diplomacy can get results. Diplomacy has made us safer. This is proof.

Newt Cheney (or, Dick Gingrich)

It is being widely reported that Newt Gingrich is considering -- seriously considering -- a run for the presidency in 2012. Well, we need not wonder which political demographic Newt is aiming to capture: The Dick Cheney, hard-right, neo-con segment of America's political fringe.

Last Thursday, Newt was on Fox News discussing the North Korea missile launch situation (this was pre-launch, mind you). Transcript & video here. During the interview, Newt made the following outrageous suggestion:

VAN SUSTEREN: . . . . If you were president, what would you do about this North Korea problem?

GINGRICH: I would use whatever methods were necessary for the missile never to be launched. And I think you could do it probably with unconventional methods.

VAN SUSTEREN: So that's military. Are you saying military?

GINGRICH: If necessary. If I can't find a way to bribe somebody to blow it up, I'd find a way to have either a small team go in, or a way to deliver either a laser or another kind of device.

This is a missile that is sitting there on that launch pad, and I think you could take it out with very, very minimal risk to anybody.

This is an insane idea! If we had preemptively attacked North Korea by blowing up the missile pre-launch, then we are first aggressors. China will side with North Korea, as they are strong allies. All of a sudden, a relatively minor crisis is expanded into a much more substantial foreign policy crisis. China could threaten military retaliation (that's unlikely, but it is much more likely than is currently the case), and are tenuous partnership with China will be destroyed. Further, the efforts Obama has put forth to re-gain our moral status in the world will be destroyed, because we would have preemptively attacked a smaller country that had not made an overt threat to our safety.

This sort of thinking by Newt was also espoused by Cheney and the other neo-cons. That got us a war -- based on false pretenses -- in Iraq and a war in Afghanistan, not to mention an international reputation for being trigger-happy torturers.

Perhaps there are enough neo-cons in America to elect Newt on the basis of such radical policies, but I doubt it. Further, this sort of thought will alienate all moderates and liberals, not to mention the rest of the world.

We Should Speak in One Loud Voice, Not Several Quiet Voices

As promised, North Korea fired a long-range missile several hours ago, which flew over Japan and into the Pacific. No debris landed in Japan, and the missile failed to make orbit. Source.

At a speech in Prague this morning, Obama declared, “This provocation underscores the need for action, not just this afternoon at the Security Council but in our determination to prevent the spread of these weapons.” The President continued, “Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something.”

As I argued in this post, Obama is striking the right tone. But, I have mounting concerns that America is missing a unique opportunity by mishandling this crisis. We should use this launch to speak in one, world-wide voice against N. Korea, and we should use this unification to convince Russia to join the opposition.

The world has roundly condemned North Korea for this launch. Japan has been on full-alert and quite critical, for obvious reasons. South Korea has been outspoken on the matter, too. Britain and France and the EU presidency have all rebuked the North's actions. And, of course, America has actively spoken out against the launch. Source.

There is simply no doubt that Japan, Russia, China, and South Korea are most affected by this launch. China is a major N. Korea ally, so we should not expect China to lash out. But, where is Russia's voice of opposition? Russia is not squarely in the North's corner, yet it is seemingly silent.

Thus, the opportunity presents itself. The North's launch has galvanized the world. Instead of each country condemning the launch in separate voices, America should implement an organized effort to join all of these countries together into a single voice of opposition. The UN Security Council is one such opportunity, but it is not enough. We need to more sustained task force, and we can use this launch as the springboard. If Obama organizes a more unified front against N. Korea, we could simultaneously put world-wide pressure on Russia to condemn N. Korea. Such pressure would be useful, because it is likely that China and Russia will attempt to veto Security Council action against North Korea.

The time is now. The world has set its sights on North Korea. Instead of firing several slingshots, we should fire one cannon. And we should use the unity to convince Russia to follow suit.

What We Learned of Obama Via North Korea

As The Wall Street Journal reports, North Korea is expected to set off a long-range missile soon, perhaps today. Can we learn anything about Obama from this series of events?

Absolutely. Obama's actions, whatever they are, will indicate his approach to foreign policy disputes. Will he be a hawk? Will he be pushed around? Or will he take a moderate position?

It would have been easy for Obama to have used his bully pulpit in Europe to threaten North Korea. He could have used express threats -- "If you set this missile off, we will shoot it down" -- or more veiled threats -- "Shooting off this missile is an act of aggression against our country."

But he did neither. Instead, Mr. Obama made a firm, but tempered, announcement: "Should North Korea decide to take this action, we will work . . . to take appropriate steps to let North Korea know that it can't threaten the safety and security of other countries with impunity . . . ." As reported by the NYT, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs "said the launching would be a violation of Security Council resolutions, and [that] 'preparations' were being made if it went ahead."

This strikes the perfect tone, I think. The administration is not threatening immediate military action, which would undermine North Korea's sovereignty and threaten the six-way negotiations America seeks to re-engage. But, team-Obama has promised action and real consequences, which avoids appearing soft and asserts our power as part of the UN.

All in all, Obama has taken a tough tone without ratcheting the tension-level up more than is necessary. Of course, this is all subject to change if/when the missile launches.

LATE UPDATE: Chicago Tribune reports: "U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton this week defended Japan's [desire to shoot down falling debris], saying it 'has every right to protect and defend its territory from what is clearly a missile launch.'"

This is also good news, as it shows that the administration is talking to other countries -- more interested countries -- encouraging cooperation in handling the situation. We are not along in the world, we are not the world's police, and these actions show that Clinton, Obama, et al. understand this.