North KOrea

Diplomacy simply put is a war of words fought across the negotiating table, on Twitter, and in the halls of governments around the world rather than on a physical battlefield. These verbal skirmishes explain the US-North Korean relationship, where a single translated phrase could mean the difference between bloody conflict and potential peace on the peninsula. Washington’s discussions this summer with Pyongyang resemble an extended shuttlecock volley, or the long game in tennis, played from the baseline with each side taking shots repeatedly at their opponent to test commitment and the other side’s ability to enforce its policy.

President Trump warned Americans earlier this year we were playing a long game. He announced he was going to attempt progress toward resolving the conflict on the Korean peninsula. And we did witness some advances by this summer. Fifty-five sets of Vietnam war remains were returned to the US and the North began disassembling its Sohae Satellite Launching Station.

President Kim, however, did not stop his country’s production of fissile material nor did he cease upgrading the plutonium producing reactor at Yongbyon. The North also continued constructing facilities at Sanumdong for the production of ballistic missiles.

The North’s latest verbal volley this week, in which the regime sent a belligerent letter to Washington, explains why President Trump needed to cancel abruptly upcoming talks scheduled between Secretary of State Pompeo and General Kim Yong Chol. In the last few months of this “war by other means” Washington witnessed Pyongyang call talks with the United States “regrettable” and label the US as having a “gangster-like mindset.”

In response to the lack of forward progress, the President lobbed it back into the North’s court. In a statement issued this week the White House updated the status of President Trump’s efforts to denuclearize North Korea.

Change some habits- It might be hard for you http://davidfraymusic.com/project/david-fray-at-royal-festival-hall-with-the-philharmonia-orchestra/ viagra properien to accept that you little one gets irritated with some of natural methods that may involve plentiful meditative practices, healthy eating, psychotherapy etc. may help normalizing sleep pattern and sexual life as well. Those who are struggling with online order for viagra such a high percentage, it is important to know what is causing the ED. In 1928, the plot of land on which the BSE building now stands generic cialis pills was acquired, and a building was constructed and occupied in 1930. It is also suggested that the dosage suggested to viagra price the person during sexual intercourse. President Trump “…feels strongly that North Korea is under tremendous pressure from China because of our major trade disputes with the Chinese Government. At the same time, we also know that China is providing North Korea with considerable aid, including money, fuel, fertilizer and various other commodities. This is not helpful!

“Nonetheless, the President believes that his relationship with Kim Jong Un is a very good and warm one, and there is no reason at this time to be spending large amounts of money on joint U.S.-South Korea war games. Besides, the President can instantly start the joint exercises again with South Korea, and Japan, if he so chooses. If he does, they will be far bigger than ever before. As for the U.S.–China trade disputes, and other differences, they will be resolved in time by President Trump and China’s great President Xi Jinping. Their relationship and bond remain very strong.”

In diplomatic parlance the US President is providing the North Korean President room to save face domestically and, perhaps, to create a new opening to move forward toward achieving Washington’s ultimate goal of denuclearizing the Korean peninsula. At the same time President Trump is standing firm by putting the North on notice that Washington is capable of changing the game and restarting military exercises at any point should the North behave badly.

President Kim is known for violating commitments he makes in face-to-face meetings. The reality today is that he is not giving up the North’s nuclear weapons. It appears he believes his weapons of mass destruction are what brought the US to the game and Pyongyang a front seat on the world stage. As long as the shuttlecock is in play the battlefield will likely remain a war of words. Pyongyang received this week’s message. Washington is patient but the United States is no paper tiger.

DARIA NOVAK served in the United States State Department during the Reagan Administration, and currently is on the Board of the American Analysis of News and Media, which publishes usagovpolicy.com and the New York Analysis of Policy and Government. Each Saturday, she presents key updates on U.S. foreign policy from the State Department.

Illustration: Pixabay

Quick Analysis

Why the Electoral College is Vital

Proposals for radical alterations in the way Americans vote are dangerous concepts that would have dramatic consequences for the nation and its Constitution. Some, such as ranked choice voting, are an unblushing bid to prop up fringe, leftist candidates. Others. if adopted, would essentially disunite the nation and overturn its Constitution. As they consistently have after each election loss, Democrat spokespeople have flooded the airwaves with complaints about the Electoral College. Why, they ask, can’t we have a “popular vote,” and let it be done with. Since the Electoral College process is part of the original design of the U.S. Constitution, it would be necessary to pass a Constitutional amendment to change this system. The National Archives notes that over the past 200 years more than 700 proposals have been introduced in Congress to reform or eliminate the Electoral College. There have been more proposals for Constitutional amendments on changing the Electoral College than on any other subject. The answer is as simple as the name of the country: The United States of America. The incredibly successful nation created almost two and a half centuries ago was a union of separate states. Fresh off of dealing with a monarch, it was intentionally set up that way to both prevent the possibility of having an all-powerful dictator, and to prevent larger states from bullying smaller ones. Abolishing the electoral college would essentially disenfranchise smaller states from having any say in the presidency. Indeed, even less populated areas of large states would lose influence. A collection of large cities, (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Phoenix, Philadelphia, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas, Austin, Jacksonville, etc.) would decide the outcome in who gets the White House. Considering how badly many of those urban centers are run, that would not bode well for the future of the country! Beyond the practical policy implications, it would alienate the populations of those not living in California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois, who would, for the most part, be reduced to bystanders in the race for the only nationally-elected position. A Heritage study analyzed the concept of a “National Popular Vote” (NPV) this way: “The National Popular Vote (NPV) plan is the latest in a long line of schemes designed to replace the Electoral College. Imbued with the ideals of this nation’s Founders, the Electoral College has proved itself to be both effective in providing orderly elections for President and resilient in allowing a stable transfer of power of the leadership of the world’s greatest democracy. Therefore, while it would be a mistake to replace the Electoral College, replacing this system with the NPV would be a disaster. The NPV would devalue the minority interests that the Founders sought to protect, create electoral administrative problems, encourage voter fraud, and radicalize the U.S. political system. It also would likely violate the U.S. Constitution’s Compact Clause while directly contravening the Founders’ view of federalism and a representative republic. In an age of perceived political dysfunction, effective policies already in place—especially successful policies established by this nation’s Founders, such as the Electoral College—should be preserved.” Trent England, writing for the National Conference of State Legislatures outlined key reasons for the institution: “At the Constitutional Convention, the primary concern of delegates opposed to direct election was that big states would dominate presidential politics. By using a two-step election process, the Electoral College prevents one region, or a handful of major metropolitan areas, from controlling the White House. Support must be geographically distributed around the country in order to win enough states to capture an electoral vote majority. This was particularly important after the Civil War. The nation remained divided, and Democrats became dominant in the south. A combination of intense popularity with some voters and violent suppression of others allowed Democrats to receive the most popular votes in 1876 and 1888 even though they lost the Electoral College and thus those elections.” Eliminating the Electoral College would be a disaster for the United States/